Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

Mahmoud Agha Bouayed

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

The subject may be considered notable for the role, but the article is still insufficient to demonstrate notability through significant coverage in reliable sources. The article has four references: I cannot access the first; the third is about the National Library of Algeria; and the last reports his death. Only L'Expression discusses his life and career. I therefore decided that the article was not yet ready and moved it to draftspace so that it could be improved with additional citations. However, the creator repeatedly moved it back to mainspace without passing through AfC, which has now led to this AfD. Htanaungg (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Algeria. Htanaungg (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment: For the first source, did you try going to the archived url that is included in the citation on French language Wikipedia? I am able to access it. Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 08:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Rehtee Begum

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. EaglesFan37 (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Mythology, COVID-19, and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete: The only coverage is about her being administered the Covid vaccine as a 124 year old but there's no official verification regarding her age. That's it, there's nothing else. Zero WP:SIGCOV and not even close to meeting WP:GNG. BhikhariInformer (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Nasiruddin Patwary

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Delete - Became viral on social media during his election campaign for political rivalry with a heavyweight candidate. But in terms of WP:SIGCOV, he is not enough notable. Rht bd (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Bilal Katamba

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

I can only find passing mentions (tho sources seem to be legit), mostly in routine news coverage of military appointments and statements. I'm not sure it meets BLP notability requirements. Btw, his preduccesor also doesn't have an article. Maybe the content should be merged into broader articles about the UPDF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_People%27s_Defence_Force). ScottyNolan (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete Basically a spokesperson for the Ugandan military, with a rank of major. Fails WP:GNG. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Killing of the Kadyvrian brothers

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

Sadly, we are not a memorial per WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. I can find no WP:SIGCOV of the individuals killed, so seems like a clear cut WP:BLP1E. Of the sources cited, the only reliable source (BBC) mentions them in a list article grouped with other individuals killed, not a standalone article. The other sources are advocacy tied to NGOS (Kurdpa, Hengaw) which aren't inherently unreliable but do not establish WP:GNG. This could be a case of WP:BIAS, but there is no corresponding article in Farsi. Wisenerd (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Iran. Wisenerd (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to 2026 Iran massacres, lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Kacou Philippe

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

I have been waffling on this for some time. The subject of this article frankly doesn't seem all that notable. Barring notability concerns, I have issues with the general neutrality of the article that I don't think could be overcome without stripping out the majority of the article. Insanityclown1 (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Insanityclown1 (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep: there's some issues with this article but nothing that would necessitate WP:TNT, and there appears to be WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this individual in a few different sources. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 05:24, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ivory Coast-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Enough significant coverage in RS over time to meet GNG and ANYBIO. The neutrality tag on the article is not supported by any discussion on the talkpage and short of that should be removed. RipplingRiver (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

David Farley (businessman)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Australia. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (Youshouldtalk) 03:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a political candidate. LibStar (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:NPOL. WWGB (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. No significant coverage has been provided in the citations outside of the standard ballot information. RipplingRiver (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

List of converts to Sikhism from Hinduism

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

Fails WP:NLIST and WP:LISTPURP previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of converts to Catholicism from Islam Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of converts to Hinduism from Islam Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of converts to Islam from Hinduism Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of converts to Sikhism from Christianity Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of converts to Hinduism from Christianity Of course, I do not mean to engage in the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, being mostly descriptive rather than prescriptive, follow community consensus. This consensus was based on WP:OVERCAT, which violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 01:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Lists. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 01:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete per precedents mentioned by nom. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Other similar lists should be removed too. SenshiSun (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete like the ones mentioned by OP. Wareon (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Arthur Xhignesse

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

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

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

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

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

Erfan Azimi

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

Sources are just passing mention, fails WP:SIGCOV. One of them is a promotional piece, fails WP:RS. Overall the subject does not seem to be notable enough to warrant her own article. Article is also promotional and created and edited by SPAs. Rht bd (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Science, Technology, Computing, and Internet. Rht bd (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete: i check the References they are not relatable to the subject they do not prove the notability or the subject Mehru13 (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I disagee with deleting. Looks like a solid profile. Joshmcd65 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2026 (UTC) — Joshmcd65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sarwar Kamal Azizi

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

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

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

Vincent McGee

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

Lacks reliable significant independent coverage. Cited sources are passing mentions and executive profiles which are closely associated with the person. Rht bd (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC) Rht bd (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politics. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Keep – The subject meets WP:GNG (General Notability Guidelines) and WP:POLITICIAN (applicable to historical activists). McGee was the petitioner in a landmark Supreme Court case (McGee v. United States, 402 U.S. 479) regarding conscientious objection. Furthermore, his leadership as Executive Director of the Aaron Diamond Foundation (responsible for founding the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center) and his role as Chair of the Board of Amnesty International USA provide significant, documented impact in the fields of philanthropy and human rights. I have added several reliable third-party sources (NYPL archives, Supreme Court records) to the article to reflect this. Neweditorargos (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Neweditorargos (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:08, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete as llm-generated. This is further solidified by the comment of the author above. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Eric Jagwara

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

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

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

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

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

Raissa Butkowski

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and Australia. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (Youshouldtalk) 11:06, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Tiv (illustrator)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Anime and manga, and Korea. Koeunchae04 (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

An Sun-jin

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

This article should be deleted due to lack of notability and insufficient sourcing. I conducted a WP:BEFORE search and found only statistical database entries (e.g., J.League and K League records), with no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The subject fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people), as there is no evidence of notable achievements or substantial media coverage. The article is also extremely minimal and consists only of basic statistics, which does not establish encyclopedic significance. NGUYENKIMCHI210 (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and South Korea. NGUYENKIMCHI210 (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment Please don't use AI to create AfDs. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:48, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Mkrtich Mazmanian

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prinstone Ben

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Christianity. GrinningIodize (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Diocese of South Kerala of the Church of South India as an WP:ATD. He was appointed in March, so more coverage is likely to appear, but so far, we don't have enough. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep: per WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES; bishops in Anglican Communion churches like the CSI are generally found to be notable. Additional biographical material available here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep as per the New Indian Express piece and the above source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Imomali Turdiev

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

Delete per "WP:VICTIM" and "WP:CRIME" Kqol • talk 16:30, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Russia. Kqol • talk 16:30, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:31, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete - The individual himself doesn't seem worthy of note however the incident seems to be but does not have an article. I recommend creating an article for said event and then merging the information similar to how we do it for the Assassination of Charlie Kirk. AML KING (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Ilya Polezhaev Kqol • talk 21:08, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge with Killing of Ilya Polezhaev. Both articles are up for deletion but a combined article may meet WP:NCRIME. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Merge I agree with Cameron on this one. I do think that this article, if merged with Killing of Ilya Polezhaev, could meet WP:CRIME especially given the fact that Polezhaev was, according to some sources I found, a right-wing activist of some sort. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Celina Sharma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dharampal Singh (murderer)

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

WP:BLP1E. i could not find sustained coverage of the person or the event. ltbdl (love) 13:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and India. ltbdl (love) 13:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:40, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Evident case of WP:IE. Plenty of murderers out there, but that doesn't mean we'll go on having an article for each one of them. BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Pedro Carmona (Mexican politician)

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

A combination of WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. First must be clarified that "mayor of the district (colonia) of Felipe Carrillo Puerto in the municipality of Santa Lucía del Camino" is incorrect even when the source states this, neighborhoods don't have legal mayors; they might have some sort of neighborhood representation before the mayor (i.e. municipal president of Santa Lucía del Camino), but they are not mayors.

The story of the killing stops right simply stating he was a suspect, but does not indicate whether he killed or not Brad Will; even his biography never names Carmona, and even if it did, there is no indication on why he needs a Wikipedia page. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 00:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Mexico. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 00:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete - In addition to the rationale above, this subject lacks significant coverage. He is mentioned in passing in a larger case but there is no indication the case could merit an article either. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 00:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete Sourcing and notability too weak for a WP:BLP. Sources don't seem to be easy to find in search engines. Sourcing standards have become a lot stricter since 2006. Boud (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Fauzia Nasreen

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO. Diplomats are not inherently notable, there is no in depth coverage of this person. There are a few interviews and mentions as usual. Mkrosman (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, and Pakistan. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 22:00, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep the first female diplomat appointed to the Pakistani foreign service through the regular examination. --Jahaza (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep Diplomats are not notable. However this is "an ambassador" which as wikidata notes is not a job, but an award. Even ambassadors are not de facto notable according to the consensus (sadly), but they are close... and this is an ambassador who has been chosen to be one of the leading ones based on a global choice. Oh and she was the first female Pakistani diplomat. No "in depth coverage"?? I wonder where the photo came from? Have a look. This isn't "a diplomat", she is notable. Victuallers (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep per Jahaza and Victuallers. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep Sources adequate for notability.--Ipigott (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep She's a first for Pakistan and so notable in that regard. Animaliak (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Syed Abrar Hussain (diplomat)

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

Fails WP:BIO. Diplomats are not inherently notable, there is no in depth coverage of this person. Mkrosman (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 21:59, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Afghanistan, Nepal, and Kuwait. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Muhammad Naeem Khan (diplomat)

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

Mian Gul Akbar Zeb

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 21:59, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Royalty and nobility. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Micah Kim

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

There is only coverage of this subject regarding his death. The death in itself is not unusual, but his father is a Catholic influencer. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Since all coverage focuses on the subject's death and does not have a lasting footprint (only immediately preceding and after the event), I believe this fails the notability criteria for events as something that was widely reported but does not have "enduring significance". -- Recon rabbit 19:29, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, United States of America, and Texas. -- Recon rabbit 19:29, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete - Covered by a lot of news media, but this is unfortunately a routine death from the flu and doesn't have any implications that would merit an article (i.e. something that transcends this event that would merit this as notable, such as a law passed or whatever). The best source I could that provides commentary about the event was this one here, which covers the social media responses and the family's stance around vaccination, but still not good enough to keep this article. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 19:36, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Well, fair point. It's Wikipedia to say. :( Big T-Dawg Inajd0101 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete While horrifically sad, and known throughout the online Catholic community, this is unfortunately a WP:BLP1E problem with no chance of WP:LASTING coverage. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
I understand. And I agree it is sad, but follow the procedure on Wikipedia. Big T-Dawg Inajd0101 (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL entirely captures this one. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 04:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Pashmina Roshan

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

Fails in WP:GNG as well as WP:NACTOR. Fails in GNG because sources are either interviews or because she is Hrithik Roshan's cousin, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails in NACTOR too because only one role is significant. BhikhariInformer (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, India, and Maharashtra. BhikhariInformer (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
If she has only one significant role, then redirect to Ishq Vishk Rebound#Cast. Alternative to deletion. ~2026-20237-63 (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete - Does not meet WP:NACTRESS. Sources are mostly WP:NEWSORGINDIA and their use at determining WP:GNG should be evaluated. Retro music11 (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
sources include https://elle.in/cover/pashmina-roshan-is-just-getting-started-11125175 https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/features/pashmina-roshan-sparks-speculation-new-look-new-film-way/ and all reviews of the film such as https://www.thequint.com/entertainment/movie-reviews/ishq-vishk-rebound-full-movie-review-pashmina-roshan-film-jibraan-khan-rohit-saraf-lead-role-naila-grrwal-gen-z-love-triangle-tropes https://in.mashable.com/entertainment/77589/ishq-vishk-rebound-review-rohit-saraf-pashmina-roshan-starrer-is-neither-a-good-romance-nor-comedy so that alternatives to deletion should not be ignored imv; seeWp:IGNORINGATD--~2026-20237-63 (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete I echo what the DELETE voters above have said. Subject is not notable. Goodboyjj (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NACTRESS. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 05:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Shannon K

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

Subject does not meet WP:NACTRESS and WP:NMUSICIAN. Her acting credits are trivial roles in non-notable films/short-films and do not contribute to WP:GNG. Sources are mostly promotional/ announcements and interviews. Billboard.com is an announcement about her music release, IndiaToday is an interview and Deccan Herald is an article about the subject's father with a trivial mention about the subject, none of which indicate subject's notability. Retro music11 (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Film, Music, Theatre, Entertainment, Asia, and India. Retro music11 (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom JLN2026 (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete. The "Official website" link is a redirect to her instagram. That's a pretty good indication of what's going on here. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep more notable as a singer with song videos on Youtube of 40 million and 30 million views indicates we might be misjudging her here. Coverage in Billboard and Rolling Stone is better than run of the mill imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply - Article mentions more credits as an actress than as a musician. Undeniably, the subject is both an actress and a musician/singer, who based on Wikipedia's policies fails WP:NACTRESS with non-notable roles. Similarly, fails WP:NMUSICIAN with her 2 YouTube songs that you've mentioned. YouTube views do not determine notability. I fail to understand, who's misjudging her?

Does she pass WP:NACTRESS and WP:NMUSICIAN in your judgement?

Announcement on Billboard.com is not coverage. And with a single article on RollingStoneIndia, there's no indication of subject's notability and still no pass on WP:ACTRESS or MUSICIAN. Retro music11 (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Passes none of the criterons of WP:NMUSICIAN. All movies are non-notable, so fails in WP:NACTOR too. And the remaining coverage is interviews or PR wired articles, with many just because she is the daughter of Kumar Sanu, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep per Atlantic306, and the coverage mentioned.--~2026-20237-63 (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Note to the closing administrator - The above user account ~2026-20237-63 has been newly created to possibly aid the keep discussion. Retro music11 (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
what? Oh, stop this nonsense and focus on content! ~2026-20237-63 (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
what content do you want us to focus on? Retro music11 (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete I am not seeing the WP:NMUSICIAN nor WP:NACTRESS pass. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 05:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Samrat Sarkar

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

WP:PROMO article by a sock. Failing GNG & WP:MUSICBIO. Zuck28 (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and India. Zuck28 (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Trumpetrep (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom JLN2026 (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Amber Wadham

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

This article should be deleted due to lack of notability and insufficient sourcing. A WP:BEFORE search found only limited coverage, with most sources being promotional, trivial mentions, or user-generated, and lacking significant independent secondary sources. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people), as her recognition is mainly based on Twitch activity and short-lived viral content, which does not demonstrate lasting significance. Sources such as brand-sponsored content (e.g., Red Bull) and entertainment articles are not sufficiently independent or in-depth. Additionally, the article may also fail Wikipedia:Verifiability due to weak sourcing, and its partially promotional tone raises concerns under the Neutral Point of View policy. NGUYENKIMCHI210 (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Australia. NGUYENKIMCHI210 (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bridget (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep: The article now cites three good sources on her variety livestreams, mainly her gimmick of trolling back trolls: this piece from The Advertiser, this one from the public broadcaster ABC News, and this one from the website Polygon. I don't see how being "entertainment articles" necessarily makes them "not sufficiently independent or in-depth". The first two sources are well-established, reputable Australian media outlets; see WP:VGRS for Polygon's reliability. Bridget (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep per above, meets GNG. Also, the argument by the nominator should be dismissed as AI-generated. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Procedural keep based on AI-generated nomination. But also meets WP:GNG per other comments. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep – There is some independent coverage from sources such as ABC News and Polygon, which suggests the subject has received attention beyond primary platforms. However, the depth of coverage appears limited and largely tied to a short period of viral exposure, which may not fully satisfy long-term notability requirements.

Thony-Ferro (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Josino Levino Ferreira

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

Brazilian Supercentenarian. Was not oldest living person or oldest living man in either the world or Brazil. Article consists of "He was born, he got married, he had relatives, he died." Fails WP:GNG. EaglesFan37 (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Brazil. EaglesFan37 (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete Citations are all from longevity fan-sites, no indication he passes GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:45, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Jay Mac

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

I edited this page as part of a "suggested edit". Despite editing it and removing a lot of information that I couldn't verify, I believe that it fails to pass required notability. All I can find in my research is one local newspaper article with significant information. I believe the article should be deleted. Liverbird12 (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Liverbird12 (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per nom. Nothing of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:MUSICBIO as well. JLN2026 (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- Under which speedy deletion criterion do you believe this qualifies? The nom didn't call for speedy deletion. If you don't know the difference between deletion and speedy deletion, please familiarize yourself with the terms before participating in AfD discussions. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete: I carried out WP:BEFORE on this one in March and couldn't find significant coverage; tagged with notability at that point, and support deletion. Tacyarg (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV. FiddleheadLady (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete - Poor sources. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Subject doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Retro music11 (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
This was a brilliant candidate for speedy deletion as purely promotional when the likely COI creator put it up. Right now, after pruning, it's a candidate for A7 but that's kind of shady. Delete--this is not a notable person by our standards for coverage, nor does he seem to pass any of the other criteria as an artist. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete: As lacking SIGCOV and likely not passing GNG/NBIO. netstars22 (talk) 05:04, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete WP:NSINGER as non-notable singer. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:47, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo

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

Guy seems to have no academic qualifications whatsoever, google scholar returns nothing. His only notability is being a commentator on news channels which really is not enough for WP:GNG given he is almost always mentioned in passing. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:55, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete He seems to have some credibility, working with various major news networks and co-editing a few books, but nothing of WP:SIGCOV I could find. Mostly just word of mouth from his own website. JLN2026 (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NAUTHOR, he co-edited one book, which is reviewed and is notable, and authored another one, for which I cannot find reviews. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC per his poor Scholar identity. --SatnaamIN (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Magdalena Grant

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

Likely to be a WP:NEWLLM translation of this page on es.wiki as shown by the importing of references without curation shown by the claims that the references were "Retrieved 26 July 2013" on a page created on en.wiki in 2026 JMWt (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Chile. JMWt (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment. NEWLLM explicitly permits machine translation. Are there any other reasons to delete? pburka (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes, translations are only allowed if a human has reviewed carefully and the above shows clearly this has not happened JMWt (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Other than the dates, do you have evidence that it wasn't reviewed? I don't think there's any requirement to update those. I'm not even sure it's required to review the sources. pburka (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes there is a requirement to verify all references especially if one is copying and pasting them from outside of en.wiki. The alternative is that any old pap can be posted here and we accept fundamental degradation of the encyclopaedia. It is not unreasonable to say that anyone starting a page needs to check that the references they add actually say the things claimed and if they have nonsense referencing code the chances are that they have just been pasted in without checking. JMWt (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Can you point to a guideline requiring this? pburka (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
WP:LLMTRANSLATE point 3 JMWt (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Interesting. Firstly, I think that failing to change the (already optional) access-date fields is flimsy evidence of lack of review. Secondly, this appears to be a new translation requirement that piggybacked on the new LLM policy. It means that we apparently trust editors of other wikis less than English editors, as the same requirement doesn't apply to copying or merging within English Wikipedia. It also seems to effectively ban translations where sources are offline or in a third language which the translator doesn't understand. pburka (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Good to know your thoughts but they're not really relevant to AfD. My opinion is that all imports of translated pages need to have each and every reference checked. And it is not flimsy evidence - the automatic citation tools change the date if the URL is offered. The only way that the wrong date would be introduced is where the code is imported from another source. JMWt (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep. No fault in the article has been identified. The nominator simply asserts a procedural error, claiming that the creator failed to follow an obscure detail of a brand new policy. Even if we assume this could justify deletion, there's—at best—only circumstantial evidence of the error. There is, of course, no guideline instructing editors to update ref access-dates whenever a citation is verified, which is the crux of the deletion rationale. pburka (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Furthermore, the policy the creator is accused of violating was only established on March 20. The nominated article was created on March 3. It's not at all clear that this policy can be applied retroactively! pburka (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
I am unaware of this policy change. Moondragon21 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Further to the above, 3 of the links on the page are dead, so it appears dead-links were imported into en.wiki. As a result I do not think it is possible to reduce this page to a one line stub with RS referencing, and even if it was I am now not convinced that the sources exist to show this person meets the notability standards for inclusion on en.wiki. JMWt (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
I only see one dead link. The others are all live or available through archived copies. These are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. pburka (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep - I have expanded and added more sources to the article. Moondragon21 (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Antonia Pilars de Pilar

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO; can't find any WP:SIGCOV. Unsourced since creation in 2010. Only coverage I've found in sources that seem reliable(ish): brief statement in footnote #47 of this book and brief statement in a biography of her husband (archived copy of site linked in "External links"). Everyone in the category for this family has unclear evidence of notability: Category:Barons Pilars de Pilar. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Ladislaus Pilars de Pilar as WP:ATD. Nomination would be even better if it stated where nominator searched (so that others can look elsewhere rather than duplicating) but WP:BEFORE links are highly appreciated. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Ladislaus Pilars de Pilar. Coeusin (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

In support of redirecting to Ladislaus Pilars de Pilar as well. Could we also maybe move that information to Wikidata and remove these pages? As you say, neither of these pages seem to be meeting notability guidelines. (also hi @Dreamyshade! You made me curious about the unreferenced articles drive) E mln e (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Syeda Zameerunnissa Begum

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

I was clearing up this article for non reliable sources... and this ended up removing almost all sources. See WP:RS. I did WP:Before to add better reliable sources but could not find one. I did not have access to the book so could not evaluate that citation. Please let me know if someone finds any citations that would make this article notable. Right now, based on my search for sources I could not find any and this article does not satisfy WP:GNG Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh, India, and West Bengal. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Hi! There are multiple offline sources that could verify her existence including the books that she has authored. I hope that should work? I'll be adding them shortly. Bengaliculture (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
@BengalicultureHi, her books will not help as its a primary source. Yes, if you can find offline sources that are secondary in nature and offers indepth coverage of her achievements or life, then yes.. it will work. However, since I am in the US, I won't be able to verify the sources. Maybe other editors here can, so please do include them here so that we would be able to establish notability Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

also you have to understand that just because a person exist and is part of history... does not make her notable. Please read up on WP:NBIO for details on what qualifies Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Sure. I created the page only to ensure that she is not forgotten. It was quite rare for Indian women to write during that time, and her stories went on to inspire her nieces and nephews, Shaista Suhrawardy and Khujista Akhtar Banu. Despite this, she remains largely unremembered today.

If she does not meet the notability criteria, I completely understand, and you may proceed with deleting the page. Bengaliculture (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 21:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete: I could not find any source either, so it does not pass WP:NBIO, of course. The version on as.wikipedia.org doesn't have any RS either. — Raihanur (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment: FYI, you can access The World of Muslim Women in Colonial Bengal through Brill via the Wikipedia Library. The book discusses the Bamabodhini Patrika journal, which is mentioned in the lead, but I can't find any references to "Zameerunnissa", "Zamirunessa", or "Bismillah" in the text. pburka (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
@PburkaHey thanks!! This is actually amazing... didn't know that we are allowed access to such resources through wikipedia. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Hi!

May I know the reason why you nominated this article for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengaliculture (talk • contribs) 10:12, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Bengaliculture, thanks for taking out time to work on this article. Unfortunately I do not think this meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I will encourage you to look at WP:GNG and WP:RS. If you need help editing, we are always here to help. Feel free to reach out to either me or anyone else. You can checkout WP:Treehouse to seek help as well.

I have explained my reasoning for this nomination above. To be precise, none of the sources you cited actually mention her. Some of the other sources are predatory journals. To know what and why we don't use predatory journals in wikipedia, please check out the essay WP:FOOLSGOLD Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep: If you don't have access to the sources, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The subject is a historically notable figure with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
To which sources are you specifically referring? pburka (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Zuck28: The book the nominator was not initially able to access is, as Pburka noted above, freely available in the WP:TWL's Brill collection. It contains no mention of Zameerunnissa, as you can readily verify for yourself. Unless you can identify independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage, please consider striking your recommendation. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete Searches in English and Bengali of the usual Google types, as well as Brill, Cambridge, JSTOR, Project Muse, and Taylor & Francis, found no relevant results for her various names. Books written by her cannot establish her notability. Bengaliculture's desire to rescue an author from obscurity is noble, but is not what Wikipedia is for. We wait until reliable, independent, secondary sources have taken notice of a topic, then we summarize what they say. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Per worldbruce. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 19:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Killing of Ilya Polezhaev

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

WP:NOTNEWS – all but one source date to within five days of the event. The exception is , which has just one short paragraph and no secondary analysis. Toadspike [Talk] 21:12, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Politics, and Russia. Toadspike [Talk] 21:12, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Appears to be an unfortunate but uneventful killing. ← Metallurgist (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. just a routine crime with short-term coverage. Kqol • talk 16:33, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Merge with Imomali Turdiev, which is also up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imomali Turdiev. A combined article about this 2026 Elektrostal stabbing may meet WP:NCRIME even though individual articles about the WP:VICTIM and WP:PERPETRATOR do not meet other criteria. WP:BLP1E advises to cover the event, not the people. The event is ongoing and it is too soon to say if there will be a lasting effect, so WP:DRAFTIFY is also an option. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOTNEWS fully applies. Delete it. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 13:13, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Nick Radosavljevic

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

English/American soccer player with a single appearance in the USL. No WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS that would lend notabilty per the WP:GNG or WP:NATHLETE guidelines. De-PROD'd due to article being recreated following a PROD in 2017. nf utvol (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, England, and Missouri. nf utvol (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:30, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:32, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Per Nom Mehru13 (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete non-notable footballer failing WP:BASICSPORT. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 13:31, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Nezar Kadhem

AfDs for this article:

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

Most sources in this article cover the app rather than the person himself, which does not establish personal notability per WP:BIO. فيصل (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bahrain. فيصل (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete - the only substantial coverage of the person appears to be Entrepreneur of the Week in Arabian Business . I can't find other news sources that are not primarily about the app Eat App. Lijil (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom, the coverage is about the company. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Yousef Alhorr

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

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

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

Alessia Merzlova

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

Disputed drafification; WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. WP:ADMASQ for a WP:ROTM 'international fashion model'. Fancruft. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:42, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France, Germany, Australia, and United States of America. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete: "she made an impression onlookers with her flawless style and natural elegance", is not what we need to show notability. Gnews is photospreads or name drops. This could likely be speedy deleted for PROMO. I don't see any RS showing coverage, beyond a person doing their job. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete: There is no independent coverage of the subject. References are entirely interviews or profiles of her as a model. -- Recon rabbit 19:30, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete WP:PROMO and non-notable model. Vanishingly skinny notability. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 13:38, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete as sources not WP:RS. Article is a promotional read with nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. StarShineNeutral (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Arham Islam

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

Falls under WP:TOOSOON? Has represented Bangladesh and Australia at the youth levels. Delete/draftify before senior debut. X (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, Bangladesh, and Australia. X (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:30, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 12:32, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Drafify is a reasonable WP:ATD for otherwise WP:TOOSOON footballer. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 13:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Katie Craig (artist)

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

Katie Craig does not meet WP:GNG. All the sources used fail WP:RS, some are interviews, but most are related to her commercial galleries and PR. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Arts, and Visual arts. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Note that this has been tagged as a potential WP:NBIO failure since May 2025 (after having been created that March). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete: No coverage in the Getty ULAN, and I don't see RS talking about the artist. I don't see notability; simple confirmation of exhibited works isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment there is some coverage about her artwork, "Illuminated Mural". Veldsenk (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment I found this additional coverage^[1] and noticed she was referred to as a "graffiti artist", this Detroit "Illuminated Mural" was completed in 2009, and removed c. 2016 after it was damaged by construction. Unclear if this is the same person, or another artist with the same name. The Wikipedia article doesn't mention Detroit. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I suspect its a different person named Katherine Craig (born 1983), based on this profile page.^[2]

References

[1]
"Blinded by the arts". Detroit Metro Times. June 16, 2010. "At the end of the day, [Craig] is a graffiti artist."
[2]
"Katherine Craig - Detroit". Infinite Mile Detroit.

Delete - {WP:BEFORE not showing any RS for this artist. No RS in current article sourcing, see table below. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The references in the article are mostly primary or promotional, and the Detroit Metro Times mention here is not actually used as a source. ~2026-20962-73 (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table prepared by User:WomenArtistUpdates
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.domino.com/content/at-home-with-minted-artist-katie-keyworth/	Meet KATIE KEYWORTH the creative force behind Katie Craig Art, and Minted + domino’s featured monthly artist!		very short interview	✘ No
https://alyssarosenheckblog.com/blog/alyssa-rosenhecks-the-new-southern-artist-spotlight-katie-craig-keyworth-dallas-tx			interview on blog	✘ No
https://www.lizlidgett.com/katie-craig			Liz Lidgett Gallery and Design sales site	✘ No
https://canvasrebel.com/meet-katie-craig/			interview	✘ No
https://thestripe.com/meet-katie-craig/	Artist Q&A: Katie Craig.		interview	✘ No
https://www.charlestongalleryassociation.com/events/2021/11/18/miller-gallery-2x2		fails verification		✘ No
https://www.artsy.net/show/liz-lidgett-gallery-and-design-mood-boards?sort=partner_show_position	Artsy		Artsy sales site	✘ No
https://www.artsy.net/show/liz-lidgett-gallery-and-design-color-block?sort=partner_show_position	Artsy		Artsy sales site	✘ No
https://www.artsy.net/show/liz-lidgett-gallery-and-design-five?sort=partner_show_position	Artsy		Artsy sales site	✘ No
https://www.artsy.net/show/liz-lidgett-gallery-and-design-spiritus-mundi?sort=partner_show_position	Artsy		Artsy sales site	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete no comment on talent, but for notability, that is lacking here and fails WP:NARTIST per source assess table above. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 13:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete as source assessment table shows that this subject fails WP:GNG. There’s no WP:RS without which notability cannot be established. StarShineNeutral (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Dan Harden

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

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

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

The article fails to meet the General Notability Guideline due to the absence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. A detailed review of all cited references shows that none provide the level of independent, in-depth coverage required.

Fastcompany COI- He is a writer at Fastcompany (https://www.fastcompany.com/1351087/what-i-learned-restroom-t%C3%AAte-%C3%A0-t%C3%AAte-george-nelson).

Wall Street Journal (WSJ)- Written by a freelance contributor, not staff, focuses on his residence/lifestyle, not professional impact and lacks depth and relevance to encyclopedic notability.

Associated Press (AP News)- Mentions Harden only briefly within a broader topic. Does not provide substantive biographical detail, passing mentions are insufficient.

Good Design (good-design.org)- Organizational profile / award listing, likely affiliated or primary source and provides routine biographical information only.

Global Design News- Interview-based content, involves direct subject participation, reducing independence and lacks analytical or third-party depth. Rudshoyes (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rudshoyes (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:45, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Visual arts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Nomination is clearly written by an LLM. See WP:AILIST. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 11:57, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

LLM content being used in AfD is discouraged and routinely ignored, per policy. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep - the sources on the page might not be the strongest but I think he is likely notable based on other RS available. Also the whole LLM thing. JMWt (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep per JMWt. Meets WP:GNG - WSJ article and Wiley article are focused on him and meets WP:SIGCOV criteria. He also meets WP:BASIC as there is partial coverage about him in Metropolis , SVBJ , Fast Company , House Beautiful ProQuest 220654047, Design Week ProQuest 215592656, CBC News ProQuest 190485091, Los Angeles , and Associated Press . He is also covered in MIT Press books , and Rockport book . Mkuiet (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2026 (UTC)— Mkuiet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - The nomination runs afoul of WP policy and may be closed procedurally, but the article uses fluffy sources. The main source is a promotional biography on https://good-design.org/ambassadors/dan-harden/ (cited 12 times). I can't find a current example of the status of "Fast Company" churnalism articles of which there are 3 cited here. Assessment table below. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table prepared by User:WomenArtistUpdates
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/luxury-homes/camel-by-the-sea-home-7ea2da2c		~ WSJ but Real Estate Luxury Homes article	~ Maybe
https://www.fastcompany.com/1346431/introducing-guest-blogger-dan-harden-recession-creativity-starts-how-you-run-your-business	Fast Company	Bio/intro for guest blogger. Not neutral	✘ No
https://globaldesignnews.com/dan-harden-founder-ceo-and-principal-designer-of-whipsaw-a-remarkable-journey-in-the-world-of-design/	Global Design News	interview	✘ No
https://good-design.org/ambassadors/dan-harden/		primary source	✘ No
https://www.fastcompany.com/1351087/what-i-learned-restroom-t%C3%AAte-%C3%A0-t%C3%AAte-george-nelson	Fast Company	Harden is the author of this interview of George Nelson. Not neutral	✘ No
https://www.fastcompany.com/3029507/dan-harden	Fast Company	contributor bio fluff. Not neutral	✘ No
https://www.fastcompany.com/90923604/this-wing-shaped-instrument-is-a-redesigned-baby-grand-piano		article about something he designed - redesigned piano	✔ Yes
https://apnews.com/article/industrial-design-household-items-c218c3825501f08d7be661120362c702		interview about water bottle design	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

keep- as per the subjects achievements and awards, better sources can be added to support the claims in the article.Lorraine Crane (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG ~2026-20962-73 (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Josh Gruenbaum

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

Had considered creating this article months ago, but I was prevented by a lack of sourcing. There are very few usable references on the article and none show WP:SIGCOV. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:07, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:07, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment The article's primary author has added some additional sourcing that appears pretty significant, though I'll leave the question of whether it's sufficient for WP:GNG up to others. Discourses on Livvy (talk · contribs) 00:13, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I just performed a source assessment that goes over the citations. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:31, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Based on the source analysis linked above, there isn't enough coverage to show notability. My search doesn't bring up anything different. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Ho Chi Minh. Star Mississippi 02:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Nguyễn Sinh Khiêm

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

The only 'claim to fame' is that he was Ho Chi Minh's brother, but doesn't appear to be notable in his own right PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 09:22, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 09:22, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete- do see the Other language in the Wiki , seems more detailed but article title is a broader scope which is Ho Chi Minh Family, the sources there from spot checks though much more than here. Seems at most just passing mentions of our AFD subject here. A cursory search at random uncovered some more SIGCOV about the subject like 33, 35 especially the former. But even with these not seeing anything particular that would make him notable.Lorraine Crane (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to Ho Chi Minh as an WP:ATD. Even if he is notable, there is no point in having a two-sentence stub without any clear claim to independent notability. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Redirect per Kelob2678. ScalarFactor (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Andrés Torrón

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

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

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

Uruguayan rock

Almendra (Almendra album)

Ruben Melogno

América Invertida (album)

Jaime Roos

Hugo Fattoruso

Alfredo Zitarrosa

Rubén Rada
~2026-21266-23 (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

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

James B. Thornton

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

There are no sources giving WP:SIGCOV on the page, and I have found no others online. As is, does not pass WP:GNG Boynamedsue (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Peru, and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 17:03, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to List of ambassadors of the United States to Peru as an alternative to deletion. Unable to find enough independent significant coverage, with the only reliable source that covers him in any depth being non-independent (an entry on the US State Department Historian's page). Per WP:POLOUTCOMES ambassadors are not automatically presumed notable. nf utvol (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:42, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Paul Barua

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep: Meets GNG

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

List of converts to Judaism from paganism

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

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

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

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

List of converts to Buddhism from Christianity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per nom and the mentioned precedents. Zalaraz (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete I have to agree here with the nom that this fails WP:NLIST as a list and that until coverage of these as a list changes, then there is no ATD but to "D" the article. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 01:15, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Sorry for the last minute intervention. I agree that this doesn't meet NLIST, as I haven't seen a source discussing converts specifically from Christianity to Buddhism as a group. However, I just noticed that we have List of converts to Buddhism#From Christianity, which is blank and points to this page. May I instead suggest a merge to List of converts to Buddhism#From Christianity? @EasternShah, @Zalaraz, @Iljhgtn. Toadspike [Talk] 16:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
I am open to a redirect as WP:ATD. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Flint Lane

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

Fails GEN, lacks SIGCOV TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Tennis, and United States of America. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
I humbly disagree . Mr Lane founded a company that went public on the NASDAQ (citation SEC filing) founded the first professional table tennis league that debuted on ESPN ( citation ESPN News Room) Serves on several charities ( citation Princeton Press weekly newspaper) He also struck a deal with CBS Sports for national coverage of table tennis https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/29/major-league-table-tennis-signs-first-media-deal-with-cbs-sports-.html As a fan of table tennis I think Mr Lane meets the Notability requirement of Wikipedia Mel496 (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Most coverage I find is about the Table Tennis league, mentioning this person in passing, such as . Founding a company isn't notable, the rest reads as PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
This person founded the first professional table tennis league, a universal table tennis rating system, a tv network, got the league on CBS Sports and ESPN OCHO plays his accomplishments in business. I’m humbly disagree with your assessment Mel496 (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Well, there are no sources strictly about him. Funding rounds are not notable and having a company go public isn't notable per CORP. I'm not sure what's left. Oaktree b (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/29/major-league-table-tennis-signs-first-media-deal-with-cbs-sports-.html

most articles talk about Mr Lane and MLTT. He also appears in multiple buisness interviews online and on YouTube Mel496 (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

KEEP While some coverage may appear routine, the totality of the independent, high-quality sources—ranging from Forbes to Sports Business Journal—clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Furthermore, Lane’s role in leading a multi-billion dollar fintech exit and founding a professional sports league demonstrates a level of influence that exceeds the bar for a standard corporate executive. Mel496 (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Leyes (singer)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding international coverage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kiran Verma

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

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

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

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

The main editor of this article seems to be the person himself as per the creator's own user profile. most sources read like paid advertorials. no substantial coverage could be seen beyond that. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 20:03, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

* Delete – Agree with nominator. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The majority of sources appear to be advertorial or promotional in nature, lacking significant independent coverage. This does not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements.FactStructure (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2026 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG 5536B 06:07, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom, Self promo. Zuck28 (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

*Keep per this by The Hindu, this by The Hindu, this by The Indian Express. --SatnaamIN (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

This appears to be trivial routine WP:BLP1E coverage. Also noting how the wording of these articles are so similar, to me it reads like advertorials and we definitely might be in WP:NEWSORGINDIA territory. also the article reads WP:Peacock and serves no purpose rather than a WP:Promo Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
The Hindu and The Indian Express are not that kind of media you are accusing of. SatnaamIN (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
nobody is questioning the general reputation of The Hindu or The Indian Express as newspapers. Even reliable sources can publish content that functions as promotional or event-driven coverage, and being a reputable outlet doesn't automatically make every article it publishes sufficient for establishing Wikipedia notability.

Thing is WP:NEWSORGINDIA doesn't claim these papers are unreliable in general. what it is is that it flags a well-documented pattern where Indian news organizations publish near-identical, lightly rewritten press-release material, particularly for business figures, startups, and regional notables. The fact that the wording across your cited sources is strikingly similar is exactly the indicator the policy warns about. Even if every source you cite is impeccably reliable, if they all cover the same single event or narrow topic, they demonstrate coverage of an event, not sustained encyclopedic notability of the subject. See WP:BLP1E Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete per WP:PROMO Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete: fails WP:GNG Mehru13 (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Thomas Borwick

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

Non-notable SEO strategist. Coverage is about his notable parents or his agency's involvment with Cambridge Analytica. Fails WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Technology, Internet, and United Kingdom. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 01:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:49, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Merge into applicable articles. While this person doesn't appear have a huge amount of media coverage, some of the information in the Wikipedia article appears to be well sourced, and I wouldn't want that information to be missing completely from Wikipedia for readers who may be looking for information regarding Cambridge Analytica, UK elections, etc. ↠Pine (✉) 19:10, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge what to where exactly?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:17, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Not seeing WP:THREE. Too many of the sources are primary or not RS, or don't provide significant coverage of him. Tacyarg (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete Notability is not inherited, and he doesn't fulfil WP:GNG on his own. I can't see anything worth merging here - the sourced material is trivial. Unless one were to add the sources to articles about conservatives running Facebook ads in support of opponents to split the anti-conservative vote, or something like that. Not sure whether there are suitable articles for that. Lijil (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete per above. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 14:20, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Barry Schwartz (technologist)

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable SEO consultant. There are a few brief quotes and interviews but hardly anything significant (WP:SIGCOV) to meet WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Technology, Internet, United States of America, and New York. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 01:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete as a quick search revealed nothing that could satisfy WP:NBIO. Nighfidelity (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: The subject has tweeted complaining about this AfD discussion . Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Also on LinkedIn . Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete While this person seems to have had an accomplished career as a SEO journalist, I'm just not seeing any serious biographical coverage in reliable sources that makes me think that they pass WP:NJOURNALIST. All coverage of them is WP:ROUTINE, and most of it sources currently in the article are self-published blogs and the like. Wikipedia does not exist to serve as a resume for people who lack serious biographical coverage in reliable sources, no matter how well known they may be in their niche. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Looking at one of the previous AfDs, I've found one article in Spanish in El Pais , which appears to be an interview. I don't disagree that Schwartz is a well-known figure in the SEO industry, but we need genuine biographical coverage in reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep – The subject meets WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR/WP:JOURNALIST through overwhelming, high-quality, independent secondary coverage spanning over two decades.

The subject is not merely a "prolific blogger," but a primary historical record-keeper and expert cited by the world's most reputable news organizations.

Mainstream Media Record: Schwartz is frequently cited as a subject matter expert by The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and TIME, covering critical shifts in search technology and digital culture (e.g., Apple vs. Google feud, Google ranking changes).
International Reach: His expertise is referenced globally, with coverage in the BBC, Reuters, and IBTimes UK.
Scholarly & Industry Documentation: Beyond daily reporting, he is documented as an "SEO Pioneer" and has appeared in official Google-produced educational content (e.g., SEO Mythbusting), demonstrating his foundational role in the industry.
Cultural Impact: His work extends into digital religious practices, as profiled by the New York Times (Digital Haggadah) and CBS Sunday Morning.

Selected Independent Reliable Sources:

Wall Street Journal: Janofsky, Adam (August 10, 2021). "Google Search Ramps Up Penalties for Slow, Annoying Websites". The Wall Street Journal.
New York Times: Chen, Brian X. (September 24, 2012). "Apple's Feud With Google Is Now Felt on the iPhone". The New York Times.
Washington Post: Haltiwanger, John (March 10, 2017). "An unconfirmed change in how Google ranks web pages is freaking some people out". The Washington Post.
The Verge (Depth Profile): Newton, Casey (November 1, 2023). "Did SEO experts ruin the internet or did Google?". The Verge.
TIME: "Can Microsoft's Bing, or Anyone, Seriously Challenge Google?". Time.
Forbes (Recognition): Rampton, John (December 15, 2014). "15 SEO Gurus That You Should Know for 2015". Forbes.
BBC (International): "El futuro es móvil y social". BBC News Mundo.

This list represents only a fraction of the independent coverage available. Deletion would ignore a massive body of evidence of global expert status.

Kowabundant (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment Did you use an LLM to generate this response? It has a lot of AI signs - bulleted lists with bold and no sources, and links to articles that definitely do not provide WP:SIGCOV. For instance the New York Times article you linked has only the following about Schwartz: “Local is a huge thing for Google in terms of advertising dollars, and search is very tied to that,” said Barry Schwartz, an editor at Search Engine Land, an industry blog. “Knowing where you are, when you search for coffee, it can bring up local coffee shops and ads that are much more relevant for the user.” That is not WP:SIGCOV of Schwartz himself. Lijil (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

This is the Barry Schwartz of this article. I respect whatever decision you all make but I just wanted to request you look at the previous article for deletions for this page and consider those. I do not sell SEO services, for the past 20+ years I've been documenting how Google and search has changed. I am literally quoted every day by large and small publications. Google has interviewed me on its own channels and videos. I've given a Google Talk at the Google NYC office. I stopped tracking all the mentions I have across media a long time ago, but I have some old ones if you want me to post them? Again, I just wanted to put that out there. - Barry Schwartz — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-19837-40 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for commenting. WP-policies like WP:N and WP:BLP has in general gotten stricter over the years, so what editors are looking for may have changed a little. And since this is WP, nothing will happen in articles about that unless someone thinks they see a need and decides to do something. So here we are.

Anyway, what editors want to see now (for keeping the article) is a few WP:GNG-sources, basically articles/paragraphs about you in independent WP:RS. Interviews with you or your comments on stuff don't have much weight, though your writing could very well be good sources in other WP-articles like Google.

The best I see in the current article is , and it's not very in-depth. (not in the article) may also help a little, at least it's about an app you made. doesn't help at all. WP:PAYWALLed stuff is fine, it's just harder to work with. Ping to @Jmabel who commented in the 2011 afd and is still around. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: thanks for the ping. I don't have much to add to what I said then. From what I can tell he was, and remains, a very notable figure by the standards of a field that Wikipedia barely covers: Category:Search engine optimization consultants remains, as it was then, a tiny category. As with several other things in this world, there is a general lack of secondary literature about this field, which makes it tough for anyone in the field to reach Wikipedia's general notability standards and, as far as I know, we've never devised a more specific notability standard for the field, as we have for many other fields.

@~2026-19837-40: Barry, I fully get that you don't keep a current clipping file, but surely you know whether some "reliable source" has written articles that are about you rather than merely quoting you. If you can produce that, it's probably what we'd need to be able to keep the article. If not, no slight to your expertise, just to whether you merit an article in an encyclopedia. And it is remarkable that at this late date there is apparently no scholarly or popular book about the SEO industry and the study of search engines, as against just "How to" books. You'd think that after 30 or so years of an industry and field of study, someone would write a book about it. I suspect that when such a book finally exists, there will be somewhere between one and three dozen people who do not currently qualify for Wikipedia articles who will qualify in one fell swoop. - Jmabel | Talk 17:58, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Here are some random ones, not sure if they qualify:

Mention on Google's official YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6EyrLkCDzk

Also, a full interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLbMXmSWUbc

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/22/danny-sullivan-on-being-google-new-search-liaison.html

https://techcrunch.com/2008/04/20/who-are-the-top-tech-bloggers/

https://blog.duda.co/cracking-google-an-interview-with-barry-schwartz

https://www.theverge.com/features/23931789/seo-search-engine-optimization-experts-google-results

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

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/12/15/baverman-entrepreneurs-and-startups-google-glass/3642973/

https://therecipeforseosuccess.com/getting-to-grips-with-google-interview-with-barry-schwartz/ ~2026-19837-40 (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment For some reason people are commenting on the talkpage, the closer may want to look at that too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Any reason not to simply move those to this page? (Please ping me if responding) - Jmabel | Talk 18:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

At least one of the keeps looks AI-generated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. I see nothing WP:GNG-helpful in it. Rule of thumb for new arrivals: AI sucks at understanding WP policies and guidelines, and using it for that annoys the Wikipedians. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The opinion by Kowabundant appears LLM-generated and should therefore not be taken into account. But the sources provided by ~2026 should be looked at by experienced contributors. Note that any comments on the AfD or article talk page will likely not be taken into account when closing this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:16, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to meet GNG from all the links provided here. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 14:26, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Hussain Elius

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

No significance other than being the former CEO of a startup. Sources are interviews and self published websites. Which do not contribute towards notability. A sentence in the article of Pathao would be enough. Rht bd (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Organizations, Technology, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Merge with Pathao#History: per nom. — Raihanur (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep ~ “Notable person. I am adding references (sources).”
সাফা (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes it should be deleted. This seems like an attempt at self promotion. Note that this person has had his article removed once before. Yasirbinbaqui (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC) — Yasirbinbaqui (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Redirect to Pathao#History, the sources are interviews and listicles. There is this article from prothomalo.com, but it is probably covered by WP:NEWSORGINDIA, due to content like, Hussain M. Elias. “Pathao” is a shining example of the change that can be caused by exceptional thinking and relentless work behind it. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SatnaamIN (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge with Pathao: per WP:SINGLEEVENT. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge or redirect to Pathao. As the nomination and most !votes note only interviews/self-pub sources, a single-event CEO role (fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:SINGLEEVENT, and WP:NOTINHERITED). Merge preserves any encyclopedic info per WP:ATD.Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Merge or redirect with Pathao as it fails under WP:GNG. However Deleting such articles would reduce the encyclopedic info, and it is better preserved. However it is to be noted that the sources are not under WP:NEWSORGINDIA as discussed by User: Kelob2678, the mentioned sources are Bangladeshi. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Kayode Akinsola

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

No evidence that this subject passes WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NPOL or WP:GNG and a cursory search does not reveal useful sources. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Law, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I highly doubt that the subject does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. Dead astrologer (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. His h-index is only 8. A total citation is only 173. Nohow he meets WP:NACADEMIC. --SatnaamIN (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete. This article obviously does not meet notability requirements. Articlenit (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Akintoye Akindele

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

Per WP:SOAP, this significantly fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. A cursory search didn't reveal anything useful or encyclopaedic. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SatnaamIN (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:SOAP, as nomination acknowledges. No substantive keep arguments. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete : Cross checked user:Vanderwaalforces claim. The article fails under WP:GNG.Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Mahmoud Mohamed Aboud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ali Sharifi Zarchi

AfDs for this article:

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

Was already deleted before, for failing WP:NPROF, I believe it still applies. Legendbird (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Legendbird (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Although his credentials as a professor are not notable in and of themselves, his arrest and other dissident activities have received wide enough coverage for notability as a regular WP:BIO. Ibn Yagdhan (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Nearly all of the references are in Persian. Surely to be considered notable for the English Wikipedia we need some evidence in English? Athel cb (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
No, we have no requirement that our sources be in English. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom JLN2026 (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

*Delete. h-index is 23 and citations since 2020 is very poor. Not sufficient to pass WP:NPROF. --SatnaamIN (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep. I don't think it's right to assess notability from the academic POV. Media coverage (and the article here) centers around his relationship to protests in Iran and the Iranian government, not his academics. I added a Financial Times article, Al Jazeera article, and BBC article that mentioned him recently. ~2026-19219-90 (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep Notable. Syced (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:NPROF. Coverage in reliable sources is limited to a few paragraphs dedicated to a recent seizure of his assets, so he fails WP:GNG. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Regarding the comment about coverage only touching on the recent seizures, I don't think that's true? Just looking at what's already included in the Wikipedia article, he has appeared in the news for several events over the past few years. When he was fired in 2023 as part of a purge (covered in an Al Jazeera and Iran International) and reinstated in 2024 (covered in Iran International). More recently, when he chose not to return to Iran (covered in ITV; this one is perhaps less reliable, I'm not very familiar with it). And the coverage this March about the seizure of his assets (covered in BBC, Al Jazeera, and Financial Times). ~2026-19219-90 (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Regarding dismissal, I checked Al Jazeera and the BBC and considered them too brief to be relevant. But the coverage from Iran International and from RFI is reasonable. itv.com, however, doesn't look reliable enough. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Theja Rio

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

The subject does not fulfil the criteria for WP:CREATIVE. The movie did not win the Special Jury Award, rather a special mention. In that case, the movie could (debatably) have a page rather than the director himself. Astra Travasso (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Astra Travasso (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nagaland and India. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:52, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete I agree, the movie could/should have a page, but the director himself isn't notable enough yet. Legendbird (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep: Meets WP:DIRECTOR. Directed 5 films, and two out of them are notable ones. Good to go! BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
WP:DIRECTOR is a presumption, not a pass, and it still requires that sourcing exists to back it up. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep He has two notable movies, so meets WP:DIRECTOR. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Not really sure whether the movies are notable. Kelob2678 (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep per WP:DIRECTOR of two award winning notable movies. Sufficient to survive at AfD. --SatnaamIN (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete - The films are shorts, not feature films. The "awards" are not notable awards but actually "selections" from film festivals. There is no inherent notability for directors and the sources do not show how the subject meets general notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
WP:DIRECTOR is an SNG that allows a subject to have a page even if there is no GNG-passing coverage. The films are indeed shorts, but since they have pages, I presume they are notable. If this is not the case, then this page indeed should be redirected or deleted. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the guideline. Can you point out where it says that director is inherently notable and they can have a page despite not having significant coverage? It actually says likely to be notable, but sourcing requirements are still in place. It also says "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" which you may have missed. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Nothing guarantees the subject is included if enough editors vote for deletion. That WP:DIRECTOR is a reason to keep is backed by practice and common sense. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

That is more of an WP:ATA. Your first sentence indicates that it should be decided on a vote count instead of consensus. Your second is WP:IAR because you like it.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

AfD debates are decided based on a head count, which you should know, please read Wikipedia:Of course it's voting. SNGs are policy-based path to notability and have nothing to do with IAR. Arguing that SNG-passing subjects must also pass GNG effectively means that SNGs are irrelevant, which is absurd and against common sense and practice. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I read the essay you provided which is not a reason to ignore all rules in favor of something you like. Policy-based pathway for sure, but if it is here at AfD and no one can point out the significant coverage, then it isn't notable. Also be mindful of using terms such as "absurd." Also, please do not state my contention for me. I did not say the person needed to meet GNG. I said they are not inherently notable under DIRECTOR just because they directed two (non-notable) films. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I've never brought up IAR in this discussion. WP:SIGCOV is a subsection of WP:GNG, I am not sure how one can argue for the former, but not for the latter. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Noting you bring up a similar argument about vote count as someone in another AfD, stating that AfD debates are decided on them. I would recommend WP:CLOSEAFD and understand that "consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments". --CNMall41 (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep. A special mention at Clemont-Ferrand is not a small feat for an Indian film director. ~2026-18973-71 (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

That may be true in the real world, but Wikipedia notability isn't about whether an achievement is impressive. It's about whether reliable, independent sources have covered the person in depth. A special mention is also not a win, and Clermont-Ferrand's prestige doesn't automatically transfer notability to every participant. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete: ATD of Redirect not objected per Kelob2678. A "presumption" is a reason to look closer. WP:DIRECTOR (WP:CREATIVE) is not a pass to source works (films or movies) to an article that does not provide significant and independent coverage in reliable sources about an individual. It is also not a pass to allow barely notable individuals to have an article. Special mention of a work or creating two notable works is not acceptable "biographical information". I could find no such sources (13 tabs of searches) to provide more than what would still present a resume. It may be too soon. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

•Keep. Has received two significant awards for two different short films: see WP:ANYBIO or WP:DIRECTOR. Director "whose award-winning short films have already made waves on the festival circuit, including at Clermont-Ferrand, IndieLisboa and Mumbai" says Variety (magazine) (https://variety.com/2025/film/news/shetland-douglas-henshall-nagaland-1236361775/) Indian coverage of the awards and interviews can help expand the page, e.g. https://morungexpress.com/naga-filmmaker-theja-rio-wins-royal-stag-large-barrel-short-film-award , https://easternmirrornagaland.com/a-great-story-doesnt-need-a-big-budget-to-come-to-life-film-director-theja-rio or https://indigenousweb.com/interviews/interview-theja-rio-ade/ among many other things --~2026-18344-21 (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

The Variety article is about a different project (a Shetland spinoff filming in Nagaland) and only mentions Rio in passing. That's not significant coverage of Rio as a biographical subject, it's a brief namedrop in someone else's story.

The Morung Express and Eastern Mirror are regional Nagaland outlets. They cover local figures routinely and the pieces read more like promotional interviews than independent journalism. Interview-based sources are also not independent since the subject controls the narrative.

The IndigenousWeb interview is the same problem. An interview is not third-party coverage about the subject.

None of these sources provide the kind of in-depth, independent, reliable biographical coverage that WP:GNG or even WP:SIGCOV requires. They show Rio exists and has done work, but that's a resume, not notability. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

No, you are very wrong, the Variety article is absolutely not about a Shetland spinoff! It’s about Rio’s upcoming feature, called Angh (like his short). Please read it. Stating that Rio is just mentioned in passing is inaccurate! other sources about that production include....https://www.radiotimes.com/movies/shetland-douglas-henshall-angh-newsupdate/

https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/film-and-tv/douglas-henshall-cast-period-drama-angh-5077052

https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a64411593/shetland-douglas-henshall-angh-india-period-drama-film/

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/lifestyle/tv/bbc-shetland-star-lands-feature-31381171 ~2026-20237-63 (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete The "awards" are mostly festival selections or a special mention rather than major wins. WP:DIRECTOR creates a presumption of notability, not a guarantee, and I couldn't find substantial independent coverage about Rio as a person. The available sources are brief mentions and festival listings. The keep votes lean on WP:DIRECTOR as if it's automatic, but at AfD you still need to show the sources exist. Rio may become notable, but the sourcing isn't there yet. I could not find much on Google either Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Jibran Dar

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

Run-of-the-mill unelected politician failing WP:NPOL. Article was created evading a salting. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 04:38, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep – The subject has received coverage in independent reliable sources, including regional newspapers such as Rising Kashmir, Greater Kashmir, and National publications which have reported on his political activities (e.g., involvement with Aam Aadmi Party and related developments). This constitutes significant coverage beyond trivial mentions, meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines for politicians. The article is being improved with additional citations. Editkashmir (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete The sources lack sigcov, the best coverage is this piece in which he accuses the TV show of being rigged. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Additional independent reliable sources are being added to address SIGCOV concerns. Regional publications cited are considered reliable per WP:RS, especially for Jammu & Kashmir–specific coverage. Requesting re-evaluation after improvements. Editkashmir (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Link sources you think demonstrate GNG here. Below you mentioned refs 11-13, they are all about the same incident that I mentioned in my comment. This is not enough. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Delete – Fails in GNG. Getting covered in various RS doesn't warrant standalone notability. There should be independent secondary SIGCOV from WP:VRS, which is lacking for this subject. Please ping if WP:THREE sources are found. BhikhariInformer (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
The three India Today and ABP News articles (already cited as refs 11–13) provide independent secondary SIGCOV of the 2017 MTV Roadies Rising sexual harassment scandal and expulsion, meeting WP:GNG via WP:BLP1E (entertaining/scandalous event with national attention). Editkashmir (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
All three of them are about one particular incident, which is not enough to warrant standalone notability per GNG. And that ain't enough for a WP:1E consideration. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Keep – The subject satisfies the WP:GNG through a combination of independent, reliable sources that together provide more than trivial coverage. These include national media (e.g., The Indian Express) and multiple established regional publications such as Greater Kashmir and Rising Kashmir, which discuss the subject’s activities in different contexts.

The coverage is not limited to routine listings or directory-style entries; it spans his media presence (including participation in a nationally broadcast television program), subsequent public controversy covered by independent media, and later political developments, including party affiliation, suspension, and candidature in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. This demonstrates a pattern of coverage across time rather than isolated mentions.

Per WP:RS, reputable regional newspapers are considered reliable sources, particularly for region-specific figures such as those from Jammu & Kashmir, where national-level coverage may be comparatively limited. When such sources provide substantive discussion, they contribute toward establishing significant coverage.

While some cited sources are profile-based, they are supplemented by independent reporting and event-based coverage, which collectively meet the threshold of significant coverage required under WP:GNG. The article is being actively improved with additional sourcing.

Given the presence of multiple independent sources, coverage across different contexts, and ongoing improvements, deletion would be premature. Retention with further improvement is the appropriate outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seditswiki (talk • contribs) 10:27, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep – There are multiple independent sources covering him, including Indian Express and regional newspapers like Greater Kashmir and Rising Kashmir. These sources discuss his media presence and political activities, not just routine listings. While some sources are profile-based, there is still coverage across different contexts over time. ~2026-17994-26 (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Fails to meet WP:NPOL. RangersRus (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Alberto Cicerone

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

The article has a large number of sources displaying trivial mentions. There are a couple of more substantial mentions in the local press of Avezzano, a small town in Abruzzo. However, I do not believe that a local newspaper in a town of 40,000 people can give coverage that satisfies WP:GNG. If this view is not shared, happy to withdraw. Boynamedsue (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep, but improve. Improve, don't remove. If Italian wikipedia has enough sources to keep, we can surely beef up this article. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_CiceronePluribussin' (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I've checked those sources as well, that article wouldn't meet WP:GNG in my view. Like I said, if we can get an agreement that local newspapers confer notability, it's fine, but I don't think that is the practice.Boynamedsue (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Architecture, and Italy. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 04:38, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:46, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep - I agree the Italian article has a good amount of sources and can be pretty easily fixed with some translating of sourcing. Looks to me that the English article was poorly brought over from the Italian one or done at a point when the Italian one was less expansive. AML KING (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Miloš Rakonjac

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

Very under-sourced biography with whole paragraphs lacking citations. Sources do not indicate notability, just mention appointment to role and two are his employer, the Montegnegrin government. The citation for his role as a bodyguard at the US Embassy doesn't seem to support that fact, as far as I can tell using Google Translate. Orange sticker (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Montenegro. Orange sticker (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

Logs: 2026-03 ✗ deleted ← 2026-03 ✗ deleted

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to try reach the minimum participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:NPOL, not enough sources for WP:GNG. Nothing in the biography indicates notability, and a large part of it is unsourced. The page is also promotional. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Comments

Related Articles