Gpedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Gpedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|People|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to People.
Further information
For further information see Gpedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

People

Anupam Mittal

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

Gpedia is not WP:NOTCV. In past, multiple attempts has been made to move this entity into the main article namespace. High possibility of WP:COI/WP:UPE. It's time for WP:SALT. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @K.e.coffman: for an assessment (not for vote) as he had once nominated this entity for an AfD in 2017. -Hatchens (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment: my assessment remains the same: "An advertorially toned BLP on an unremarkable businessperson. Significant RS coverage not found. Article cited to online directories, passing metions, WP:SPIP or other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created and edited by a number of blocked socks; sample: Gpedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jiteshdugar."
In this case, the article was created by Special:Contributions/Patroong with few other contributions outside the topic. So UPE is likely. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Gurvinder Singh Chhabra (Vicky)

Gurvinder Singh Chhabra (Vicky) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Notability for politician is in question. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Recently deleted for the same reason as PROD tagged by Curbon7. DMySon (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

C.W. Jick Myers

C.W. Jick Myers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Survived PROD, so we're here. The source is the only non wiki mirror I can find, and the position it confirms provides no inherent notability. Star Mississippi 15:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment. He ran for the state legislature in 1958. After that, he is in the news quite a bit from 1969-1975 related mostly to state government positions where is is often quoted (this includes more that just energy czar) or mentioned. Not seeing much in-depth. Last mention is in 1975 where he announced he was quiting that position to seek a job in Washington. MB 18:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete He never held a postion at the level to make him pass our very broad notability guidelines for public officials, and the occasional quote in news coverage is not enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Robert Alonso

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and both WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. The article was created by a single purpose account (Nonitamater), and despite recent changes, it is still heavily reliant on self-published sources, including Alonso's webpage (https://robertalonsopresenta.com) and YouTube.

He appears to be most notable for being the owner of the Daktari Ranch in Venezuela, which already has an article on its own Daktari Ranch affair; any notable content not included already there can be merged, and this article should be deleted per WP:ONEEVENT. Despite writing some books, his works don't appear to have independent coverage or received any award, and after running in a municipality election, he himself admits having received only three votes.

After the Early life section, the article proceeds to include a huge COATRACK of the 2004 and 2014 protests in Venezuela, the aforementioned Daktari Ranch affair and the presidential crisis. Besides that, the only mentions regarding Alonso are only statements and positions.

The only sources that I can find about him are mostly passing mentions. The rest of the reliable sources in the article are about the coatrack events previously mentioned.

It should also be mentioned that one of the images uploaded in Commons by the editor is titled "1993 Caballo apoloosa que murió en Daktari y tuvimos que descuartizarlo para sacarlo 3.jpg" (1993 apoloosa horse that died in Daktari and we had to quarter it to get it out 3.jpg), which suggests that it can have a close connection with the subject and a potential conflict of interest, something of which they have already been warned about in their talk page. See also: Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Daktari Ranch

NoonIcarus (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment After filing this AfD I noticed that this biography had already been deleted in 2011 after a PROD expired (Roberto Alonso) for the following reason: "This person is simply a political dissident who was the subject of a single article in a local alternative newsweekly, and thus he fails to meet the basic criteria set forth in WP:Notability (people)". Theses issues remain to this day. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Taking a cursory look, it doesn't appear the subject is notable enough. Tame (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Guido Henkel

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

Lots of red flags for a WP:SELFPROMO article. Littered with puffed up accomplishments and suspiciously specific and unsourced biographic details---an editor named "Guidoman" pops in often to announce new developments in Mr. Henkel's life. In terms of sourcing, it's a mix of self-published/primary sources, secondary sources confirming the existence of products he's worked on with only minimal (if any) mentions of him, and unverifiable dead links. I do not think they amount to significant coverage. The relevant guideline is WP:CREATIVE. Out of the four possible criteria, he could only possibly qualify under #3, "played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work". He has a lot of credits over a long career, that's not in doubt, but I don't see any sources that establish him as a central figure in the creation of those works. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hm. WP:AUTHOR => "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 an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
In the works list that Axem Titanium left I see eight notable games he worked on, at least three more are notable but don't have an article in en:WP yet (but in de:WP, with good sources), and with just one Google search I found sources for two of the games Axem Titanium deleted from the list.
What's this AfD about? Quality issues? That's the way to deal with quality issues? Weird. Kind regards, Grueslayer 11:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I am not contesting that the subject is credited on notable games. I am asserting that his contributions do not constitute the "major role" that WP:CREATIVE requires. One can have a minor role in creating as many games as you like but so long as those roles are minor, they do not confer notability. To the extent that sources refer to him in the context of game development, it is not in his capacity as a creative. Obviously, this AFD is about deleting an article on (what I believe is) a non-notable subject, otherwise I would have used one of many alternatives to deletion. Your insinuation otherwise is frankly uncalled for. Axem Titanium (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I beg you pardon? That actually made me curious and I gave the games list a quick look (Mobygames only...) to see if he played a minor role somewhere. That is indeed the case, for Jagged Alliance he "only" did the music, and The Oath should be deleted from the list (only credited for the manual). But otherwise? Producer or designer. What could be more major? Kind regards, Grueslayer 12:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, one of many designers or programmers who worked on these games. Usually the director or lead designer is the one we label the "major role". Video game producer is not principally a creative role---it's more like a product manager who manages and allocates resources on a project. Axem Titanium (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I find it appalling that such obviously biased comments as "it is not in his capacity", "puffed up accomplishments", "suspiciously specific" and "pops in often to announce new developments in Mr. Henkel's life" were used in this supposedly-neutral discussion about the deletion of a Gpedia article. I do not doubt that user Guidoman is the subject himself (causing a COI), but one should remain neutral and polite in discussing any person or article. Merely because one edits one's own Gpedia article does not make the topic of an article less important. Putting someone down (in such a condescending manner as noted above) is not a way to intelligently and neutrally review an article. The article could certainly use a re-write and better sourcing, but I see no puffery anywhere. I simply see a lot of facts put into sentences. There is no flaunting or bragging of any irrational or embellished accomplishments (the word "puffery" is far too often used on Gpedia to degrade a topic in review). I believe that if this article is to reviewed, it should be on the basis of lack of proper sourcing. There are better ways to deal with articles lacking proper sourcing than deleting them.
Things of Note:
  • There are 98 results matched for the exact term "Guido Henkel" on the Internet Archive's printed text archive (mostly video game magazines), spanning from 1988 to 2021. Upon quick glance, one article from Computer Gaming World precisely states "Guido Henkel, designer of the Realms of Arkania series", while another in Next Generation lists him as the director of Planescape: Torment (contradicting Axem Titanium's comment about "not being in his capacity" and not holding "principally creative roles"). These archival entries should all be reviewed and taken into consideration as proper sources before the article can be determined for deletion.
  • First of all, half the hits in this search are false positives to a 19th century Count "Guido Henkel von Donnersmarck", so those are obviously not relevant. Our Guido is a designer of Realms of Arkania, more accurately one of several programmers on various entries in the series. The Next Generation result is actually from an advertisement that parodies a movie poster. It's not actually reporting from the magazine. In fact, no one is credited as director for Planescape Torment and Guido is credited as one of two producers. Chris Avellone, as writer and lead designer, is widely considered by reliable sources to be the main creative force behind Planescape. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Henkel is mentioned several times over the years in articles of notable newspaper. It appears that he was interviewed (though not in length) or quoted a number of times with regards to his website DVDreviews.com between 1999 and 2002. Have a quick look on Newspapers.com.
  • I don't have a subscription to Newspapers.com so I can't actually see the results here. If you do, please share. Importantly, it would need to be significant coverage of DVDreviews.com itself that establishes notability of the website, not merely reprinting reviews from the website. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Looking up "Guido Henkel" (in quotes) in Google and Google News also reveals a large number of interviews and feature articles published on both notable and reliable online sources. I do not think that "non-notable" applies given these results.
  • Google News turns up 28 results. I can't speak to the non-English ones but the remainder are previews of a Kickstarter game that never came out and a few articles that amount to trivia about how he's actually the guy on the cover of Planescape. I don't see these qualifying under WP:CREATIVE#3. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There are also reliable sources that confirm that he was a guest speaker at major conventions like Game Developers Conference and Fangoria's Weekend of Horrors. It is not within the aim of these conferences to invite non-notable guest speakers, as their goal is to attract the largest possible audience. These simply need better sourcing.
  • I verified the former but I actually can't verify the latter at all. Regardless, "convention speaker" is not in any notability guideline that I'm aware of. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
--OrangeZestAir (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know where you got the impression that AFD is a place for neutrality. Editors obviously come here arguing for a position either for or against deletion. WP:NPOV is a policy that applies to article content, not discussions. COI editing does not automatically make the subject less important but it does mean that any claim to notability made in the offending text must be scrutinized to a greater degree than it otherwise would with the presumption that it has been puffed up. I responded to your bullet points above in-line. Also, buddy, did you log into the wrong account? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


Keep. Artist is prolific at the very least in the video game industry since the 1980s. As pointed out above, the subject has been featured and interviewed in many reliable and notable sources. Here are my own findings. All signs point to a keep.

  • 5-page interview with Atari Magazin (1988) about his company and the development of Hellowoon and Ooze Link
  • 2-page interview with Aktueller Software Markt Magazine (1988) about his work in the game design industry Link
  • interview with Power Play Magazine (1991) about his work at Attic Link
  • 2-page feature in Aktueller Software Markt Magazine (1992) about him and his company Attic Link
  • 3-page interview in PC Joker Magazine (1992) about his development of video games and his company Attic Link
  • 2-page feature article in Power Play Magazine (1992) about him and the video games he developed Link
  • feature article in PC Games (1993) covering his career and company Attic Link
  • 2-page feature in Aktueller Software Markt Magazine (1994) about him and his video game developing company Attic Link
  • 2-page feature in Amiga Joker Magazine (1995) about him and his company Attic Link
  • 7-page interview with Power Play Magazine (1996) covering his contributions as a video game designer and developer, his company Attic and his musical career Link
  • feature article in PC Player (1998) Link
  • 2-page interview with GameWeek Magazine (1999) Link
  • 3-page interview with Joystick Magazine (1999) covering his many contributions to the gaming world since the 1980s Link
  • interview with PC Player (1999) Link
  • 2-page feature in PC Joker Magazine (1999) covering his contribution to the development of Planscape: Torment Link
  • interview with PC Games (1999) Link
  • a feature with Chicago Tribune (1999) about his new company DVDReview.com and Easter eggs on DVDs (Henkel's name is mentioned 14 times). Link
  • interview with IGN (2001) about several of his companies and video game development Link
  • listed in the official Game Developers Conference pamphlet/event program as a guest speaker (2004) Link
  • interview with Atari Legend (2006) covering his many contributions in early video game designs and the companies he was part of Link
  • 3-page interview with PC Games (2007) Link
  • 5-page interview with DSA-Game (2007) about his work in the video game industry Link
  • interivew with Die Nordland Trilogie (2007) about his early days in the video game industry Link
  • interview with Geeks of Doom (2011) that discusses many of his author and video game contributions Link
  • interview with RPG Codex (2012) focusing on his contributions to Reals of Arkania Link
  • interview with The Nerd Cave (2013) covering Realms of Arkania: Blade of Destiny and Neverwinter Nights and more Link
  • interview with Rock Paper Shotgun (2013) covering his contributions to Realms Of Arkania, Planescape: Torment and Deathfire: Ruins Of Nethermore Link
  • interview with SlimGamer (2013) covering his development of Deatfhire: Ruins of Nethermore Link
  • 2-part interview with Ink-Wrapped (2014) covering his contributions as an author Link Link
  • interview with Licht Spielplatz (2014) about his development of Spirit of Adventure and more Link
  • interview with Videospiel Geschichten (2017) covering his work at Attic and Thalion Link
  • interview with Elektro Spieler (2019) covering a vast number of topics including his contributions in the video game industry Link
  • a feature article on Gamers Global (2019) about some of his contribution to the video game industry Link

--Fallingintospring (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Ze'ev Smason

Ze'ev Smason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Doesn't seem to pass WP:BISHOPS or be notable outside of a child molestation case by a volunteer at the congregation. BriefEdits (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Chan-hon Goh

Chan-hon Goh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

This article may contain unreferenced sources and many peacock terms which promote a subject. Vitaium (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Oh, come on. Goh is a retired prima ballerina who passes WP:ANYBIO several times over. She's not in the DCB but she is in The Canadian Encyclopedia, which is referenced several times in this article. She has an Order of Canada. She was the first Chinese principal dancer in the National Ballet of Canada. She might even pass WP:NAUTHOR. -- asilvering (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Goh is a well-known figure in ballet, as a former principal dancer of National Ballet of Canada, meaning one of the highest ranking dancers in the largest ballet company in Canada, and the fact that she’s the first Chinese dancer to do so make her even more notable. But I agree that the article is in poor shape and I’m willing to work on it at some point in the future. Corachow (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment May be notable, but this version is tagged as a copyvio. Needs to be rewritten. Oaktree b (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    Most of its high rating is because of the list of awards. Otherwise, four sentences are affected: [1]. -- asilvering (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete the article contains too much content that is both promotional and unsourced. A WP:TNT deletion is needed. The revision history shows this was mostly a resume for over a decade, before being rewritten from scratch by an IP yesterday. I don't see either version being worth keeping. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • KEEP clearly notable as a former principal dancer of National Ballet of Canada. There are problems with the article. The problems do not mean the article subject is not notable.VocalIndia (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure which way to !vote. The subject is clearly notable, but WP:TNT might be needed, on the other hand, WP:DINC... I'm leaning towards keep though. Might need stubifying (is that a word?) -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Keep The article is fixable. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep The subject is in two reference books (Cengage Contemporary Authors & Canadian Encyclopedia), which both also have bibliographies to other sources so meets WP:BASIC. I cleaned up the article a bit to remove some of the promotional & copyrighted content. Jumpytoo Talk 21:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Nate Ruegger

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

No indication of nobility, no decent sources found in WP:BEFORE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Solomon Kinuthia

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

A county politician surely fails WP:NPOLITICIAN

See also Gpedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kiambu1 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Iftikhar Zafar

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

Does not pass GNG nor WP:NMODEL. A. C. SantacruzPlease ping me! 13:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Temurkaev Nariman

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

Already moved back once to Draft space. If I did that again it wold be move warring. Fails WP:BIO FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

NIve

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

Lacks notability, no RS, previously rejected in AFC, Fails WP:SINGER

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:NIve_(singer) Marcdenis51 (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Benyamin Rezaei Khaligh

Benyamin Rezaei Khaligh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Not an A7 due to claims of book authorship and I have no native access to whatever there is in the given sources, so I'll bring this here. It's probably worth pointing out that the second paragraph in the "Early life" section is almost exactly what you get when putting the first paragraph of this article into Google Translate. The rest should be obvious by the time the text goes from third to first person. AngryHarpytalk 08:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Carter Bassett Harrison (1811–1839)

Carter Bassett Harrison (1811–1839) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Only source is an EL to the unreliable Find a Grave, although searching is rendered basically impossible because Carter Bassett Harrison was his highly-notable uncle. Aside from being the son of president William Henry Harrison, there isn't really much notable about this fellow. I'm not finding much in the RS aside from some brief mentions in books about his father. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here; he can't get notability just because an uncle, his father, and a nephew were all notable politicians. At most, he warrants a couple sentences in his father's article. Hog Farm Talk 06:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Don Harris (Ex-Councilor)

Don Harris (Ex-Councilor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

He also made prominent participation in New Mexico Family Law. Sumneeb (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Shreyas Pardiwalla

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:NPOV. Lack WP:SIGCOV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thomas W. Bifwoli

Thomas W. Bifwoli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

A non notable civil servant. Does not meet WP:GNG. Does not have coverage in reliable sources and the article is only made up of primary sources Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 16:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Cameron Herrin

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

Fails WP:PERP. Generic. It is essentially WP:BLP1E and fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 03:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It all stems from the one event. Without that event, none of it would happened, which is the very definition of WP:BLP1E. The citations above have to remind their reader who the person; it is the description of transitory. scope_creepTalk 14:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Scope creep: Can you say more about how WP:BLP1E applies? There are three criteria there: single event, low profile, and not well documented. I am seeing 4 years of regular media coverage from multiple sources, a social media celebrity whose face and name are published continuously, and discussions about this person's lifestyle outside of the event. Why you find that BLP1E is a fit here? Bluerasberry (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is a clear case of WP:PERP. And since the event itself had no long-lasting effects, renaming the article is inappropriate as well. And as scope_creep as already pointed out, this is also a case of WP:BIOIE.Onel5969 TT me 16:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Onel5969: There have been multiple long lasting community changes at Bayshore Boulevard where the collision occurred, and now the event is a matter of local history. Sources [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] These are all about the community; I think that other changes include the social discussions about subject of the biography also. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hridaya Caitanya Dasa

Hridaya Caitanya Dasa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

All ISKCON members are not notable. Lack of major work or post held. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Promotional bio based on self published or dependent (ISKCON) sources. Last Afd in 2011 had only WP:ITSNOTABLE comments. No notability asserted. Venkat TL (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Arnold van den Bergh (notary)

Arnold van den Bergh (notary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:1E. Obscure notary who in a recent book was accused of possibly being the betrayer of Anne Frank. That accusation is disputed (as noted in the article) and subject has no notability other than that disputed allegation. Should be deleted or merged into Anne Frank. If his guilt was not disputed and was well-established, there would be justification for a separate article on this person. But it is disputed and is not well-established or accepted by scholars at this point in time. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: "Obscure" is not really the right word here… please try to keep any proposal WP:NPOV and contribute personal viewpoints as part of the discussion. —Sladen (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hazel Hutcheon

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

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS due to not medalling, fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage, either in the article or identifiable through a search. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete for lack of notability and citation. This is a stub with only one source...that the human being exists. -Markeer 03:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - The 1976 Olympics would have been covered in paper newspapers and magazines at the time, which are unlikely to be searchable online via google. I have no access to a public library at this time (and particularly not a british one) where I could do a proper search. Could someone check in my stead? Fieari (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Reply are you suggesting that because the 1976 Olympics itself is notable, then therefore this one participant is? Or are you suggesting that editors should research news coverage from the time to find out if this individual is notable in said coverage? Because if it's the latter...then this is a Delete until that research bears fruit, not a reason to keep this article in hope such research happens. -Markeer 04:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Yes, the latter. I would prefer not to delete potentially notable things without verifying that they lack notability. The only issue for me is that I currently physically lack access to the place where I could check if this person is notable or not. If a library search shows that no contemporary articles were written about her, then yes, of course delete, I am in no way suggesting inheritability of notability. If you pushed me for a !vote though... I don't think it's harmful to wait until it can be checked. I see no reason to prefer deletion over keeping in unknown situations. If we know someone to be non-notable, delete. If we know someone to be notable, keep. But if we don't know either way, as in this case... I'd rather commit error to keep than error to delete. Fieari (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@Fieari: If "we don't know either way", that means that we've been unable to establish notability. The article currently consists of a sparse 15 words ("Hazel Hutcheon ... is a British alpine skier. She competed in two events at the 1976 Winter Olympics."). If SIGCOV is later discovered, the article can be re-created and nothing of any real substance has been lost. Cbl62 (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm more coming from the perspective that overcoming systemic WP:BIAS is valuable for the encyclopedia. Articles that require offline sources... that is to say, smaller yet still notable events/people prior to the 90s... are systemically biased against on wikipedia, because it takes more work to correct. A stub can encourage research. Lack of a stub can fall into a memory hole to be forgotten forever. Fieari (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
A red link can also encourage research, and I believe I read a study that suggested that it was more effective at doing so than a stub. Regardless, WP:MUSTBESOURCES applies, and any !vote solely on that basis should be discounted. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Newspapers.com does include some English newspapers, and all I find are passing mentions during the Olympics. See, e.g., here ("Hazel Hutcheon was eliminated in the first round ...") and here ("Hazel Hutcheon, 16 in August, is the youngest of a notably young group, and indeed the youngest on the team."). This does not rise to the level of depth required by WP:SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, that's good enough for me. Removing bold from my tentative keep from before, changing to Delete. Fieari (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The first source consists of two mentions of her in the captions of photos, and a mention that she held a Women's Ski title - it doesn't constitute significant coverage. The second also doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, with the only reference to her being the line "Similarly Hazel Hutcheon of Dundee was the fastest British Girl." BilledMammal (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to List of British alpine skiers, or delete. Not finding any significant coverage; British Newspaper Archive reveals nothing more than what has been found by others already – all mentions of her are merely name-drops or passing mentions in routine sports reporting of the day. There is no valid ATD here since no suitable merge/redirect target (e.g. List of British alpine skiers) exists; she is only name-dropped in existing articles (which were obviously not the only events she ever competed in, and probably not what she's most known for – presumably that would be her British title) and significant information, in this case regarding her British combined title, cannot be added without it being undue – an appropriate list would resolve this. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
That list now exists. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
!vote amended. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough here to satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete non-medaling Olympians are not considered default notable and the sources we have in the article and that have been identified in this discussion are no where near meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sources are inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC).
  • Delete. As fun as it was to go digging to find information on her, the resources available online do not support keeping this article. Seems a shame as I suspect there are hard copies of stories about her that we simply cannot access. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. National champion in her event. Sources look okay to me. Deb (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @Deb: Consensus has long established that GNG has to be met when the (often very weak) presumption of notability offered by NSPORTS is challenged. As such, please can you clarify exactly what significant coverage you are seeing in these sources that would meet GNG? Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
      • @Wjemather:Are you disputing that she was national champion? Deb (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
        • @Deb: No (btw, it was me who added that information to the article), I am disputing that there is significant coverage in the sources. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
          • @Wjemather: She fulfils the criteria for an assumption of notability as defined in Gpedia:Notability_(sports)#Athletics/track_&_field_and_long-distance_running. Deb (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
            • @Deb: Aside from being a skier, not a track and field athlete... such a claim would be sufficient if you were disputing a speedy or proposed deletion but at AFD, any NSPORTS-based presumption (not assumption) of notability must be validated by demonstrating that significant coverage exists and GNG is met. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
              • @Wjemather: Sorry about those typos, but, regardless of the sport, your statement is incorrect. I'm not sure where your zeal for deleting national sporting champions comes from, but that's my position. The claim is sufficient because it is backed by reliable sources. There don't need to be hordes of articles and books. Deb (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Gregory McDermott

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

As a non-medalling Olympian, he fails WP:NOLYMPICS, and also fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in the article and none could be identified in a WP:BEFORE search. BilledMammal (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • The Horse Magazine entry is not significant coverage, and while the Equestrian Life entry might be, it is only a single example when we require WP:THREE, and the fact that it focuses on McDermott's son, rather than McDermott, suggests that might not constitute significant coverage of McDermott. BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:THREE is an essay. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I think there is sufficient here to support GNG and allow some depth to be added to much more than a stub, including at least one detailed bio. Aoziwe (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That's a Google Search. Could you provide specific examples? BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Yep. It is a trimmed search to make it easy for people to find specifically relevant sources. There is this bio at third top (on my results), for example. There is sufficient in the results to provide some depth as to the subject's history and career over a number of decades. See WP:NEXIST Aoziwe (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete a few short mentions in extremely niche publications is not enough to show notability. We decided that non-medaling Olympians are not notable. I am just not convinced that niche equstrian pulications are enough. Maybe the 2nd soruce, but the first source is also too short to count as passing the in depth coverage of GNG, so even if we accept niche equestrian publications as enough, we only have at best one GNG meeting source, and GNG requires multiple sources that are in depth and meet all its other prongs, so the one truly in-depth source is not enough to pass GNG so we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Since yesterday, the article has been expanded by the excellent work by Hack. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep The expanded article now passes the GNG bar. The coverage from The Canbera Times and the two-part profile in The Horse Magazine have the kind of depth that is needed. And thanks to User:Hack for the improvements. Cbl62 (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep No outstanding issues. Deb (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Doug Novak

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

Questionable notability per WP:NBIO/WP:GNG/WP:NBASKET with respect to depth of coverage and secondary sourcing. Poorly-sourced; strongest secondary sources supporting the subject may generally conflict with the principle of WP:AUD. Headphase (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment I know there's no such thing as an auto-keep, but this nomination makes no sense. He's coaching at the Division I level and has a history of success on lower levels, and games played under an interim title count just as much as they would if he gets hired permanently. Nate (chatter) 18:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The league and team might be notable but notability is not inherited. Inclusion for athletes and coaches on Gpedia is not merit based, rather it is based on them being covered significantly by indepth articles. The nomination questions his notability due to lack of coverage and as such makes sense since there doesn't seem to be alot of significant articles written on Novak. While Rikster2 has found three indepth sources, two of them are by the same author and all three are from a timespan of three weeks and brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability per WP:SUSTAINED. Alvaldi (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • As Alvaldi mentioned, notability is not inherited; the suitability of a subject earning a standalone article is not founded on that subject's future prospects. That is why existing coverage is important; until such a time as a subject's independent notability is clearly established by significant & targeted coverage, it may make more sense to merge the information into a larger article (in this case, the team's article). Headphase (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Sigh 😒...then why did you nominate it for deletion?! If you think it works as a redirect, try to do so yourself and if it doesn't stick, then bring it to AfD. I'm getting real sick of these quixotic deletion nominations where deletion will not be the end result, the nom still takes it right to AfD, and redirects and PRODs aren't ever considered. And if he gets a permanent contract and/or wins the title, this nom is going to look silly and downright embarrassing in retrospect; I guarantee you if the subject was an interim FBS football coach in September or men's basketball coach in early December, you'd be TROUTed and speedy closed, because an interim college head coach is still a head coach. Nate (chatter) 21:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Gpedia is not a crystal ball. Whether Novak gets a permanent contract or wins a championship in the future is irrelevant to this AfD. He either has the significant coverage to pass GNG today or he doesn't and thus is not notable enough to warrant an article. Alvaldi (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok, round 2: 1 and 2. BTW, GNG only requires “multiple” significant sources. Rikster2 (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - SEC women's head coach meets GNG and has sources. Not sure why this was even nominated. Jhn31 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Of the three articles that have been found, two are from the same author/newspaper and as such count as single source for the purposes of establishing notability. All three are from a timespan of three weeks, i.e. a brief bursts of news coverage related to his hiring. There is no inherited notability gained for coaching a certain team or in a certain league and !votes that state that the subject should be kept due to that contradict policy. NSPORTS specifically states that athletes and coaches have to pass WP:GNG with significant coverage over a sufficiently significant period of time. I tried looking for other sources, including on newspapers.com, but did not find anything of substance. Two articles in a span of three weeks are not enough in my opinion. I'm willing to reconsider if more sources are found. Alvaldi (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Have you done any independent research yourself for sources? I dug those out in 5 minutes from a Google search. If you are going to repeatedly insert yourself into this debate then I think you also need to give looking for sources an honest go before proclaiming someone doesn’t meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Rikster2: As I mentioned in my above comment, I did look for sources. To clarify, I tried a few Google searches with some variations (name + different schools etc.) and went through a few pages. I also did a search Newspapers.com where I also tried few variations and different time periods. The best I found were the same sources your search turned up. I am more than willing to change my !vote if others have better luck in finding significant sources from perhaps earlier in his career. Alvaldi (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I added a couple more references above. Including a lengthy interview from the Minneapolis Star when he was at Bethel. The GNG requirement isn't 30 sources it is "multiple sources." I have now cited 4 different (if you combine the 2 Clarion Ledger as one source). Rikster2 (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Good work on the sources. GNG isn't a massive hurdle to overcome, three good sources are usually enough. He now has multiple significant sources from over at least 4 year period. I will change my !vote to Keep. I also added the sources to the article. Alvaldi (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - All bar one of the previous Mississippi State Bulldogs women's basketball head coaches have pages for them (see template on page). Plus there seem to be a number of articles about him which are easily found on the internet. Perhaps worth adding additional information about win/loss whilst assistant at earlier places and more on what he did at Bethel. Gusfriend (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:GNG as the subject of articles like this. NemesisAT (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly meets GNG at this point. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Snow keep – I question the objectors' WP:BEFORE diligence. It took me less than 10 minutes to find a number of third party, significant, reliable sources, only to then see a couple editors above already linked them in support of keeping this article. SportsGuy789 (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Lsw2472 (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

A. Aneesh

A. Aneesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

This is a quite promotional article is about a professor. Most major additions have been from a series of single purpose accounts. The article makes several claims of notability - however they are all unsourced. In fact, of the cited sources, the only independent ones do not mention Aneesh. I have looked and I haven't found any decent sourcing. The article mentions a grant from the McArthur Foundation, but please note that it is not one of the selective MacArthur Fellowships AKA 'Genius grants' that might qualify for WP:NPROF #2. It is asserted that 'his work is taught in many universities around the world' but no evidence for this is cited. H-index is 11, nothing special. The article has carried a notability tag for 11 years, so it is time to deal with this one. I believe that this article meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NPROF and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Gavin Wimsatt

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

Fails WP:NCOLLATH. Only played for mere minutes. scope_creepTalk 21:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

These are all effectively the same news, making it routine in nature. scope_creepTalk 15:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
See also "Humble Hero" (part 1/part 2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete The most recent references are part of a local high school season preview. Its possible that this is simply a case of WP:TOOSOON. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete The level of coverage is just not enough to show notability. Not every mention of a high school athlete should be considered adding toward passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This one is a close call IMO. WP:TOOSOON definitely comes to mind since he has only appeared as a backup in four games, completing a total of nine passes. See here. But the coverage is pretty deep (this, this, and the "Humble Hero" piece as examples). In the end, it's hard to conclude that this doesn't constitute GNG-level SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure how much "Rutgers Wire" contributes to GNG as it's a team-specific blog and the "Humble Hero" is part of the area high school football preview for Owensboro, Kentucky in the local newspaper . Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I hear you, and I'm a "weak keep". My assessment was as follows: The first one is published by USA Today, grouped under its Rutgers coverage, but USA Today is a reliable, independent source. The second is in-depth coverage from NJ.com which according to our Gpedia article is a media source providing content to several major newspapers. The third piece is local, yes, but it has good depth, and there's no bar on relying on local coverage (though I tend to discount it a bit based on just how "local" it is and how much "depth" there is). Cbl62 (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Samara Barend

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

This individual was a political candidate back in 2004, and received the usual coverage that all political candidates receive. She does not seem to have received any significant coverage before or since then, meaning she fails WP:BLP1E. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

As to the campaign, in addition to the coverage during the campaign, the Barend/Kuhl campaign was covered years after the 2004 campaign in two places: David Mark's 2007 book Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning,[5] and Tanya Melich's article in Heidi Hartmann's 2014 2005 edited book Gendering Politics and Policy.[6] DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I am changing to keep. The coverage of her 2004 campaign extends three years (David Mark's book) and ten years (The Melich article) after the campaign which is past standard campaign coverage. In addition she is recognized for her work in the period since the campaign. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
As I noted below, I now have access to more sources, and they have allowed me to add sources to the article. The additions show there is WP:SUSTAINED coverage of Barend, her work on the Interstate 86 is one example (with coverage in 1996, 1999 ,2000, and 2007) and the 2004 election is also sustained with coverage in 2005, 2006, and 2007. (Above I also corrected the year of the Melich article, that was my error). DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ O'Neal, Lydia (2017-05-30). "Foreign Firms Stand To Benefit From Trump Budget, Infrastructure Plans". International Business Times. Retrieved 2022-01-23. "It's definitely a new market environment," said Barend, whose group was the driving force behind legislative efforts to expand use of public-private partnerships. The Trump-backed plan to lift the cap on PABs [private activity bonds], she said, "was a nod to" her group's proposals.
  2. ^ "Samara Barend" (PDF). Women Builders Council. 2009. Retrieved January 23, 2022.
  3. ^ "Rising stars: Samara Barend" (PDF). The Bond Buyer. 2017. p. 26.
  4. ^ "City & State New York 02122018 by City & State - Issuu". issuu.com. February 12, 2018. p. 26. Retrieved 2022-01-23.
  5. ^ Mark, David (2007). Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 172–173. ISBN 978-0-7425-4501-4.
  6. ^ Melich, Tanya (2005-10-13). "From the Trenches: Attacking First-Time Women Candidates for Congress". Journal of Women, Politics & Policy. 27 (1–2): 85–107. doi:10.1300/J501v27n01_06. ISSN 1554-477X.
  • Comment per WP:IBTIMES, There is consensus that the International Business Times is generally unreliable. Beccaynr (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Good catch, I took out the quote from the page. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Johnpacklambert - I respectfully disagree. Barend's campaign received five pages of coverage in the Hartmann 2005 book and two pages in David Mark's book. This makes the campaign itself a little unusual, which, combined with the coverage of her work on the I86 corridor, provides significant coverage of her work. Also, I have just received access to The Gpedia Library (which is fantastic) and am in the process of adding more coverage of her work outside the 2004 campaign DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Walid Al Jassim

Walid Al Jassim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

References based off of single event, BLP1E. scope_creepTalk 23:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

John Bechdel

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

Just a random band member. Not enough to demonstrate notability FMSky (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Bechdel has a 30 plus year career in notable bands and has worked with notable artists worldwide. He is also credited on albums and singles that have charted and were nominated for Grammy awards. John Bechdel has approved and authorized his bio and discography personally on his wiki page. He is very much alive and a touring/working musician. I am editing on his behalf. Rage4order (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I have posted a WP:COI notice on your talk page. Please read it carefully and follow the instructions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Mild Delete He's been associated with the music industry for 30 years, but the article has no reliable sources about him/his accomplishments. This one's going to take a bit of digging to make it past the notability bar. I find one interview in the Orlando Sentinel in GNews and several in what appear to be metal band specialized publications. No desire to dig for them, but they might just exist. As it sits now, the article isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Gabriel Hall

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

Individual is only arguably notable for the murder. My best understanding is that Gpedia does not document every murder, and it does not seem as though this murder was notable outside of the short-term news cycle. Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe:
  • Keep - The reason why I decided this was a notable incident was because of Gpedia:Notability_(events)#Geographical_scope which states: "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." This was because of media interest in the case from the Philippines, Hall's home country. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment: regarding Whisper's quote, Gabriel Hall does not seem to have had significant impact in the Philippines. I'd say no impact whatsoever, given that he resided, was charged and convicted in another country. Is there even any WP:IMPACT in the US? Geschichte (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure, hence just the "comment". Geschichte (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
      • @Geschichte: I'm unsure myself; I saw Whisper say this much, but I never saw any clarification. As far as impact in the US, I don't recall seeing anything that may indicate relevance in the US. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep, for the reasons of editor who want to keep this article. Person is quite infamous as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is notable and had some media coverage throughout the years and the case is pretty notable so I say keep. Article has reliable sources and has correct info. HelpingWorld (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Administrator Comment I have relisted this, because while we are at a numerical keep, the article is notable article has reliable sources person is quite infamous are not in alignment with the notability guidelines and suggest futher !votes take policy into account. Star Mississippi 23:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was just passing through (to fix a delsort above) but after reading the article, this is a WP:BLP1E with only local sources... I'm not seeing how the WP:PERP or crime is "unusual" or what Phillipines-based coverage it has. The GMA articles are sourced from the Filipino Reporter (a now-usurped spam domain) leaving only the Freeman article as evidence of wider notability. Am I missing something? czar 00:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete On the one hand, it seems incredible to me that a murder and death-penalty case that involves such a hot-button issue as international adoption should not be notable. On the other hand, the article's sources show only two or maybe three sources that meet the usual notability requirements. The arguments for "keep" above do not, unfortunately, contradict this evaluation. The gripping hand therefore points to the lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage as demonstrated by searches decisively favoring a lack of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Was his brother on the Bachlorette? There's write up in the Hollywood Reporter about someone with his name. Oaktree b (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Christine Lee (solicitor)

Christine Lee (solicitor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

per WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, this person is not notable outside of a single event, and does not have lasting/persistent notability. WP:BLPCRIME also applies. Gpedia is not a newspaper or an indiscriminate collection of information. Our focus on her as a person fails certain privacy standards as well, as she is not a politician or celebrity. She is extremely likely to remain a low-profile individual. Therefore, it is almost impossible to maintain a NPOV on her life, given that her coverage will be UNDUE and focused on smaller news reports. — Shibbolethink ( ) 14:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete but don't redirect to Barry Gardiner as he wasn't the only parliamentarian involved. I am the creator of this article and it appears I made a mistake doing so per WP:BLP1E. LondonIP (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Gary S. Usrey

Gary S. Usrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO no WP:INDEPTH coverage. One interview is not enough Shrike (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Robert Mellors

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

The only reference in this article is to the award of an OBE to this person. I have added a publication but cannot find any additional reliable coverage to include. Tacyarg (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Anil Kishore Yadav

Anil Kishore Yadav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable police officer. scope_creepTalk 14:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Greg Dulcie

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

Exclusively-voice actors don't get much publicity as a rule. Dulcie is not the exception, so WP:GNG is not satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete when the first reference in an article is literally a link to the subject's resume it is not looking good for notability, and things do not really improve from there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please don't list real people at the "list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep while I don't deny that this is a poor article, I believe this person might meet WP:NACTOR #1. They appear to have significant roles as Smoker in One Piece, Kohji Takao in Neon Genesis Evangelion, Toshizo Hijikata in Golden Kamuy, and Doppo Orochi in Baki the Grappler. Link20XX (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes the subject specific guideline for voice actors, as Link20xx has stated. Dream Focus 14:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Basically no sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure the "no sources" part is correct. The roles above do establish notability under the SNG, and if you want sources for those, I have some (secondary sources even) [9] [10] [11] [12]. Link20XX (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I think we need to stop applying actor criteria #1 to voice actors directly. Either that or we need to come up with a better more restricted understanding of "significant" in roles. There was a time when voice actors in some productions were not even credited. If people are not credited assuming they get notability from the role makes no sense. The rule was written on the assumption that the nature of the performance makes the person doing the performance in a significant way recognized for doing so. This happens in live action, it happens much less so in voice acting. Even less so when the voice acting is not connected with the original production but a new language production of the work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    Reviews of anime usually review the voices of the characters. These aren't simply dubs like in olden times, they actually put far more work into selection voice actors these days since if it doesn't sound right, if the emotions aren't there in the voices, then people won't watch it. https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=53345 list all the roles of the person, with bold for the main characters. Dream Focus 14:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    Anime Dub VAs are already significantly under-covered by secondary sources due to a combination of reasons I can only speculate on - but that already disadvantages them significantly over their animation/non-dub peers, and ofc - live action actors. This is a bad article which needs attention, amidst a sea of bad articles which need attention. I know for me, I've kept articles I've wrote to near-indisputably lead/main roles (when qualifying them for NACTOR, before writing them at all) - so I self-enforce a stricter interpretation already - but opening up that discussion would both be complicated, and as mentioned above, writing quality articles about them as things currently are, is difficult enough. As Dream Focus points out, times change - anime (and their dub VAs) have only grown more popular, but most importantly: have gained more significance for their work. Canadianerk (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Ravindra Telang

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

Gpedia is not a Linkedin; WP:NOTCV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting the page author's comment on the article's talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Tasnim Mir

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

WP:TOOSOON case. The entity is yet not ready for main article. Hence calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 07:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between; already participated in Olympics, being qualified for Olympics and may qualify for Olympics. And she is yet to participate in any top BWF Super Series or BWF Grand Prix. As of now, the entity clearly fails Notability Sports - Badmintion. -Hatchens (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON, and the medals were not in a national championship, only an age-category championship. Geschichte (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep meets criteria number one of WP:NBAD as she is the participant at the World Women's team Championships (Uber Cup) in 2021. zoglophie 10:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Dhananjay Singh Masoom

Dhananjay Singh Masoom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Notability is not justified by available references. Fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete agree with nom - of the first three references the first is a passing mentions and the other two his name doesn not appear at all. Fails WP:GNG. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting page author's comment on the article's talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Nanthida Rakwong

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

As raised on the talk page, and despite the author's response there and User:Sj accepting it at AfC, none of the references cited in the article, nor any that I could identify, are third-party sources with in-depth coverage of the subject. The Times video is entirely presented by the subject, the few news pieces that mention her by name are only in passing, and the rest are about the organisation's activities and don't directly concern the subject. While her work may be admirable (depending on one's political views), the WP:GNG does not appear to be met. Paul_012 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC) – 02:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notability is established by multiple third-party sources with significant in-depth coverage. One of the key references mentioned already is an in-depth video interview of the subject by The Times [13], which is one of the UK's (and the world's) oldest and largest newspapers that goes through very strict media and journalistic editing criteria. The videos on The Times youtube channel are about leading figures in UK and world politics, current affairs and entertainment, and the subject, Nanthida Rakwong, has been assigned an entire feature video. It is also evident from watching the video that it is produced, presented and distributed by The Times on their official youtube channel. Another third-party source with in-depth coverage, in the references already, is a feature interview of the subject and a co-worker by The News Lens [14], which also describes the work in detail. Other news sources that name the subject do so with significant weight, including the interview section from Apple Daily, which the source reproduced both in video and in text [15]. As a note of clarification, the subject's work is notable and relevant in the fields of international human rights and justice, not only politics. It is also important to be aware that the major media outlets within Thailand are state- and military-controlled, thus go through heavy censorship when it comes to the topics of human rights and the monarchy. Additional context about this within Gpedia can be found here Lèse-majesté in Thailand and here Censorship in Thailand. Recently, the body that regulates the Thai media "advised" journalists not to cover anything regarding criticism of the monarchy (incl. the demands to repel the lese majeste laws). All this makes it very hard for even the most notable critics of the monarchy to be more than "mentioned only in passing" in Thai sources. Please consider this as a reason to give more weight to the international references that do go in-depth. ThaiFactChecker (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    • While The Times is generally a reliable source and it featuring a video of her does indicate some degree of media interest, the video only features her speaking for herself, so it cannot be considered independent of the subject, a requirement of the GNG. The same likely applies for the other sources used in the article, though I don't read Chinese so I can't say for certain regarding sources in the language. Censorship or not, Gpedia's guidelines depend on the existence of reliable sources, so if it is indeed an issue it might be an unfortunate situation, but making an exception based on such claims wouldn't be in line with Gpedia policy. In any case, local sources are not a requirement, and international sources would be fine on their own if they report on the subject in an independent manner. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
      • The Times videos are produced and edited by The Times. According to GNG Gpedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline, Independent of the subject "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it" - this is clearly not produced by the subject. Moreover, The Times follows the press editors code of practice [16]; report subjects are thoroughly cross-examined by the journalist, as is evident here. The other articles, such as the Chinese ones, have an author or editor named, which also makes them independent of the subject. Gpedia does have advice for censorship contexts such as Venezuela Gpedia:WikiProject_Venezuela/Reliable_and_unreliable_sources, where state sources are unreliable, and therefore alternative sources are recommended. Similar considerations could be made for Thailand which is in the same category as Venezuela for press freedom (bad) according to Reporters Without Borders [17] - in particular for content related to the most censored topics such as republicanism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaiFactChecker (talkcontribs) 00:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I guess that's one possible interpretation of the guideline, but I don't think I've seen it regarded as accepted argument at AfD discussions. I'm open to it if others share the position. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
          • The main point here is right from the wording of the guideline itself, i.e. that independent of the subject means "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it", and this is work produced by The Times, not the subject. -- ThaiFactChecker (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment There is enough detail to make an argument for N. I don't think the [admirability] of the subject's work is relevant, but the relative difficulty of finding national sources in censored contexts is. Perhaps: a notability banner to encourage adding more evidence + detail (e.g.: who were the candidates mentioned? what came of the lawsuits + recent work / studies?), and a more detailed discussion on the talk page over a few months, would be a better place and tempo for this discussion than AfD. – SJ + 17:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    • It's not censored context issue. Her fellow (like Arnon Nampa) got high news coverage with over 100k hits [18] and those are quality hits with national newspaper, leading news sites. She is just not notable among her peers. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Arnon Nampa and the subject are not "fellows"/"peers": Arnon Nampa is pro-monarchy and wants to reform it, not abolish it - that is very different from Nanthida Rakwong who calls for abolishing the Thai monarchy and changing it into a republic (sources in article). Reform and abolition are treated differently in Thailand, although since a ruling in November 2021, Thai law was changed to consider reform as treason, too [19]. A more recent warning from Thailand's media regulator was that "the act of reporting in and of itself could be interpreted as an attempt to overthrow the country’s constitutional monarchy." [20]. Thailand's severe media censorship is very well documented both on the respective Gpedia article and more recent analysis such as Reporters without Borders [21] and Freedom House [22]. In addition to previous points from User Sj and myself, search engine statistics should be avoided according to Gpedia's invalid criteria for notability Gpedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria and the quality of Thai national news is questionable considering such extreme censorship. To the contrary, The Times itself is one of the top circulating newspapers in the UK and the world, with a monthly reach of almost 16 million [23], and The News Lens a monthly reach of almost 14 million in the Chinese-speaking world [24]. -- ThaiFactChecker (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Agree with User Sj on encouraging to add more detail and seeking more references over a few months rather than rushing straight into AfD. -- ThaiFactChecker (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete the article reads like a resume. The creator has provided WP:THREE sources above, but I find none of them convincing. She is acting as a spokesperson in the video piece with the Times; perhaps she is doing so on behalf of a notable group but that video does not suggest to me that she is personally notable. The second one is only a trivial mention of her, and the third one does not even mention her last name. The coverage does not meet GNG. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • This is not a resume; it would be unusual for a resume to contain criticism and lawsuits against a subject... The Times video piece is about the subject as an individual and her experience. Which part of the video makes you think that she acts as a spokesperson? The second one (The News Lens) covers her work in-depth in more than half of the article. How is that only a trivial mention? As for the the Apple Daily article + video, the subject is mentioned several times and also featured in the video. The content about the subject carries significant weight in the wider content. Although not very relevant, in Thai naming convention, the first name is the most important part, while the surname was introduced only very recently. Please also check the above notes regarding censorship in Thailand. ThaiFactChecker (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I agree that current coverage does not suffice. There are arguments for why other parts of the bio might be hard to source, including national political work and being the head of her own firm, but they need independent sources indicating significance, which seem scarce in English. TFC: perhaps I was hasty in accepting; better perhaps to return this to draft status while you work on it. – SJ + 03:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • commeent need more trusted citation
  • Keep. Restatement with new detail due to relisting. Notability according to GNG is established by reliable sources independent of the subject, including The Times (one of the oldest and largest newspapers in the world that adheres to the press editors code of practice [25] and is included in Gpedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). More than half of The News Lens piece is about the subject's work, and Apple Daily covers her significantly in text and video. Comments arguing against the notability of the subject appear not to look at the sources in detail (e.g. production of the subject? subject being a spokesperson? there is no evidence for this), nor take into account the context of the topic (Censorship in Thailand, Lèse-majesté in Thailand). Republican content is censored in Thailand, a country which is in the same category for press freedom as Venezuela according to Reporters Without Borders [26]. Gpedia's advice there includes taking into account alternative sources as state sources are unreliable Gpedia:WikiProject_Venezuela/Reliable_and_unreliable_sources. The article being discussed uses both high standard international press and other independent sources. ThaiFactChecker (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Note: Struck repeated bold "keep". Please don't make more than one !vote. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Mark A. Sammut

Mark A. Sammut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Article was already listed for PROD, see this [27].

The approved consensus is that the subject edited the current article extensively and unproved to be notable. See discussion on Gpedia talk:WikiProject Malta Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 14:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Joey Hawthorne

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

PRODded with the following rationale "Unable to identify sourcing to meet GNG. His book might be notable, but he's only one of several co-authors" . However @Salvidrim!:, who is some kind of (wonderful) history ninja found a 2005 AfD. Different enough that it's not a G4, but the same concerns remain so we're here. Thanks all Star Mississippi 14:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete for all the same reasons as the 2005 AfD. The book is probably notable, but Hawthorne isn't. casualdejekyll (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Each of the refs here is merely a name check. However, I admit that I do not know where significant news would appear for poker players, so if anyone can reveal such sources this could become a keeper. Lamona (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sreejith Guruvayur

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

A makeup artist with no evidence of notability and fails WP:GNG. Also the article does not have a single reliable source. Onmyway22 talk 16:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onmyway22 talk 20:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete Does not pass WP:GNG- this article has one source which when you open says,'Page not found'. insignificant coverage and literally lacks reference to other secondary sources, which puts its notability in question.

Bill O'Hanlon

Bill O'Hanlon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Not demonstrably notable as the subject of any reliable, secondary sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - Zero evidence of notability. Article was PRODed in 2013, but no improvement since. Article has a history of poorly sourced puffery. Sundayclose (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Source Search: Starting with google news... not a lot here.
    • [28] - Alaska Public Media interview about counseling with him as subject matter expert. Possibly notable?
    • [29] - "Honorable Mention" in a songwriting lyric contest (not notable).
    • [30] Mentioned as an exemplar of "clinicians with well-honed active-empathic listening skills and a razor-sharp solution-oriented psychotherapy approach", but only a mention, nothing in depth. Possibly notable?
    • https://www.g**dtherapy.org/blog/warning-signs-of-bad-therapy/ (blacklisted) A user comment here states that Hanlon has been on the Oprah Winfrey show. (Not using this as a source, but as a jumping off point to suggest looking for the Oprah episode...)
Now for google scholar... well, it looks like he's written a number of books that come up here. "Solution-oriented therapy for chronic and severe mental illness", "Shifting contexts: The generation of effective psychotherapy", "Even from a broken web: Brief, respectful solution-oriented therapy for sexual abuse and trauma" just to start naming a few, but the list seems to go on extensively. It also appears that Hanlon is well cited by other authors.
I went into this search thinking I was going to !vote delete, but now I'm leaning keep. Fieari (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment: "Solution-oriented X" is a classic example of an over-used corporate marketing buzz phrase. For me, on the contrary, this points me in the direction of what coverage there is being based on relentless self-promotion (which aligns with what @Sundayclose noted about poorly sourced puffery). The third example is definitely trivial. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Contrary to his claim, he didn't develop solution-oriented therapy. It had already been developed and widely used. He just tweaked it a little, gave his version a name, and then wrote a book that really had nothing new in it. More self-promotional puffery. Therapists like that are a dime a dozen; they have little, if any, scientific research to back up their ideas. They write pop psychology books, and publishers are more than happy to make a few dollars selling them. And they manage to get on talk shows, or even host little viewed shows. Being on Oprah by itself doesn't make someone notable. One thing this guy is really good at: promoting himself. But that doesn't make him notable. Sundayclose (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The truthfulness of his claims is less interesting to me than the fact that he seems to be fairly well cited by other academic authors. Liars can be notable, after all, and self promotion can lead to being noticed, which can make them notable, even if maybe they shouldn't be. Fieari (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I see a lot of primary material, not a lot of secondary. This is the best item I've found, but unfortunately the "implications" are behind the paywall, so hard to assess for WP:ACADEMIC impact. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Who are these "academic authors" who cite him? University professors and researchers? His name shows up twice on psycnet.apa.org. Both are reviews of one of his books. One review is negative. The other one is mixed. No citations in peer-reviewed journal articles. Hardly a compelling case for academic scholarship. Sundayclose (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep, two scholarly reviews of his books (even if negative) seem like significant coverage to me. Rusalkii (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Rusalkii: Which are the two you are referring to? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I meant the two Sundayclose mentioned, I haven't actually looked at them myself. If I misinterpreted them then I strike my keep. Rusalkii (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sundayclose @Rusalkii: Looking at the various psycnet.apa.org mentions, it appears all are book reviews, i.e.: none are papers citing Bill O'Hanlon on the basis of research done. It would appear that in terms of WP:ACADEMIC, his contributions would appear either negligible or lacking noteworthiness. I suppose the only outstanding question is whether the reviews qualify him as a writer, but most of his books seem to simply get just the single, almost obligatory review from an industry publisher. Evidence of widespread review and commentary appears to be lacking, so I'm not convinced WP:AUTHOR applies either. There appears to be no single standout or seminal work upon which laurels can be rested. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

He's a writer, a pop psychology writer. There is no evidence of any academic scholarship on his part or of citations to him in peer-reviewed journals. I've written a book, and it was published and sold. But it was based more on my experiences working in mental health, not true academic scholarship (even though I'm well-trained in that), and that doesn't qualify me as a notable writer, scholar, or mental health practitioner. Like O'Hanlon, my book got a few reviews, but nothing of much substance. Getting a review or two for a pop psychology book does not rise to the level of notability. I would be embarrassed if someone tried to create a Gpedia article for me because I am not notable by Gpedia's standards and there would be suspicion of self-promotion. The only difference between O'Hanlon and hundreds of other people like me is that he has devoted much of his life to self-promotion. His bio fails general, academic, and creative professional biography guidelines. Sundayclose (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete based in large part on Sundayclose's well written assessment of the situation here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Erick Simpson (MSP)

Erick Simpson (MSP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Businessman/author does not seem to meet WP:ANYBIO- lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep, a notable individual with some significant contributions to MSP and a founder of notable institute. There is a lot of significant coverage in MSP publications and has been recognized for his contributions. Some sources I found: [31], [32], [33]. Modafferi (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Alois and Josephine Kreiner

Alois and Josephine Kreiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

PRODded on the grounds that I was unable to find coverage of their work, and Spinningspark challenged the PROD so we're here for discussion. I looked at the sourcing available and present in the German article, but it's extremely limited in terms of reliable sourcing. The books, which are no doubt reliable, are passing mentions, but the web sites which are longer form have questionable editorial oversight, with the obvious exception of Yad Vashem. Their being declared Righteous by Yad Vashem doesn't appear significant either. Happy to be proven wrong as I think all of those who rescued others during the Holocaust should be remembered, but I'm not sure notability is here on this one. Star Mississippi 15:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Draftify the article is in an unacceptable state so should not be in the mainspace right now; however, if there are editors dedicated to improving it, there should be a draft for them. – DarkGlow • 18:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I do not think that hiding Jews from the Nazi holocaust necessarily makes a person notable, without anything else. It was certainly bold and praiseworthy, but not necessarily notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yoriko Angeline

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

non-notable actress. fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR Behind the moors (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment nothing more than paid coverage. Published in same paper, by the same author, date 1 june, 2 june. We can't consider this independent, multiple, in-depth coverage. Behind the moors (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per Behind the moors well argued reasons as to why the coverage we have meets essentially none of the prongs of GNG, let alone all the prongs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Connirae Andreas (2nd nomination)

Jan Gyllenbok

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadıköylü (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The article on Swedish Gpedia seems to be about a different person. Their books are about business inspiration, word use, and presentation, nothing to do with Historical Metrology. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree. This seems to be a mixup of two different people with the same name. I've had some contact over the years with the person described in the Swedish article and I don't think that he has anything at all to do with metrology. /FredrikT (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  • weak Keep. Judging from worldcat, he's the major international authority on the subject--his main work is over 100 libraries, and there's nothing at all comparable besides reprints of older books. This is not a field where we can expect even the greatest expert to be frequently cited. So he is clearly the most influential scholar in the subject. It does raise the question of how far we should narrow "the subject" down in the humanities, The alternative would be to redirect to Historical metrology, where both he and hiswork are already mentioned. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Leaning keep per excellent points by DGG. I would generally think that a person who is overwhelmingly the single most prominent published authority on a field that is itself notable would themselves by notable. BD2412 T 03:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, yes, DGG is right. The book is published by a very reputable mainstream publisher (Springer), and it's available in multiple formats at a very reasonable price for its size, which is another rough and informal measure of its status. Historical metrology looks at first sight like a geeky little backwater, but it underpins all those historical questions where we need to know how big something was, how much of something someone had; it's actually a hugely important bit of infrastructure for historical studies. So we owe it to our readers to make them aware of the people who have been important in building this foundation. Not the strongest of keeps, but a very reasonable one (with no ill-feeling to the nominator, these things are worth discussing). Elemimele (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Did some quick searches - oddly, there is NO RS establishing his notability, but as per DGG (thank you!), he does appear to be an expert in his field, as established by his large 3 volume encyclopedia (widely referenced and held in libraries). Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Anastasia Michaelsdotter

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

I'm not sure if this person passes WP:GNG, so I thought I'd bring it to discussion.

I can't find many reliable sources that mention her (Anastasia Michaelsdotter or Stasia Michael) that aren't just interviews or quotes from her, and all of the sources in the article seem like passing mentions or non-independent. The lead also mentions she was featured in a documentary, but if the majority of sources are anything to go by, it could just mean she was mentioned in it.

The original version of the article has 2 sources that may be reliable and/or significant, but they are written around the same time (early 2015), so I'm not sure if that indicates lasting notability (or if it's enough).[34][35]

Her article has also been deleted on the Swedish Gpedia 4 times for "relevance" (not sure if that's similar to English Gpedia's notability standard), and this English article was created a month after the first deletion. - Whisperjanes (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - despite an apparently successful career, she seems to lack notability. Her deletion from the Swedish Gpedia, though it has no bearing here, is still telling, in my opinion. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Valsa Nair Singh

Valsa Nair Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

Gpedia should never be used as a resume hosting site a.k.a. WP:NOTCV. This is a promotional page of the entity WP:PROMO with over citations WP:CITEKILL. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD; ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)