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.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|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.
Purge page cache watch

People

Rakesh Shah (Nepali filmmaker)


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

Attached references are PR, and Non RS, fails to satisfy GNG. Nomadwikiholic1 (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Reading the all listed sources,it looks sufficient to list. There are multiple independent sources covering the subject. ~2026-41537-25 (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Austinecruise


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

WP:BEFORE search returned nothing significant. The Tribune article with an unlinked author byline, raises concerns of paid advertising. Fails GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

K-The Beats


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

A non-notable musician who fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Majority of the article's references were recently published between June and July 2026, and none of them shows the subject being discussed in-depth. It appears like the newspapers were paid to publish similar info about the subject to give the impression that he is notable. I must also point out that the none of the festivals and events that the subject performed at appear to be notable.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 01:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Pasinddu Sumanathilaka


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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent, reliable sources. no notable tournament wins or championships cited. Lone Wolf howl 19:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Kofi Ofori-Mensah


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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are entirely self-published (SSRN/OSF/Zenodo preprints, subject's own org and ORCID pages) and promotional (university student blog, interview). No independent, reliable coverage establishes notability. Reads as self-promotional. Lone Wolf howl 18:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Rabin Phuyal


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

Fails WP:GNG. Subject won one local amateur golf tournament (routine coverage only) and runs a small business (sourced only to its own website). No significant independent coverage found. Lone Wolf howl 18:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

SomethingAboutChickens


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

Fails WP:GNG. All citations are primary: IMDb (unreliable per WP:IMDB), YouTube (unreliable per WP:RSPYT), and Wikipedia itself (circular, never a valid source). Lone Wolf howl 14:33, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment: Additional sources found when searching Google News for "Darrell Moten" and "SomethingAboutChickens": Business Insider (2022), Cinema Blend/Yahoo (2026), NBC (2026). The coverage from AGT is obviously new and may not be long-term. From my search, I'm not sure there's enough about him pre-AGT. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, the NBC article, at least, would not be independent sourcing in this case, as NBC is the network that broadcasts AGT–and in any event isn't even from NBC News, but from "NBC Insider" on nbc.com, which exists solely to promote programming aired on NBC or other NBCUniversal platforms. (No opinion or comment on anything else.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:39, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Kearsten Lance Foltyn


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

Fails WP:GNG. No reliable independent sources. citations are Famous Birthdays (unreliable), a primary college roster page, and a fan wiki (WP:UGC). Lone Wolf howl 14:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Princess Olga of Hanover

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

See previous AFD. Doesn't seem to have been significantly improved (but I can't see the old article...) so should be deleted for the same reasons: fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: for clarity, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Olga of Hanover (b. 1958) was for someone else with this title (as the disambiguation shows, that one was born in 1958; the current subject died that year). At one point, a previous iteration of this article (after the first deletion in 2020, a 2024 recreation was quickly G4'd) was actually called Princess Olga of Hanover (1884–1958) instead in deference to the other one (which, to add to the confusion, was the original article at this title, before the existence of articles for both necessitated disambiguation in 2008). No opinion on any of this. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Aadhya Anand


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

This actress and model appears to fail WP:NACTOR. Sourcing are from IMDb, Netflix and other junk sites. Santa Saana (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Tom Cotter (environmentalist)


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

Nothing that shows significant coverage, few passing mentions. Fails WP:GOLDENRULE Accesscrawl (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

S. George


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

fails WP:GNG, few passing mentions. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:04, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Samuel Inimbom Samuel


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

Zero indication of notability. Possibly the least notable BLP I have ever seen. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Shamar Marco


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

This "social media personality" and singer does not meet WP:SINGER and WP:GNG. Sources are from Instagram, Tiktok and unreliable sites. Santa Saana (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Yelo (street dancer)


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

This street dancer, actress and influencer does not pass any notability criteria applicable to them. Article sourcing is quite poor with trivial mentions and WP:BEFORE conducted using different search terms to smoke out reliable sources failed woefully. Santa Saana (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep. It satisfies WP:BASIC and Wikipedia:GNG (or so I think). Atakes Ris (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep - squeaks by GNG from IMoney, Oriental Sunday, and Headline Daily. Jishara (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - WP:A7. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:08, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't think it should be speedily deleted under WP:A7 for the following reasons:
  1. Yelo is a member of Manner Culture.
  2. Yelo was the choreographer for a musical show "Maybe Funny"
  3. Yelo has appeared as a guest for multiple TV shows (all of which are added correspondingly according to the zh-yue wikipeida article on her, see Yelo)
  4. Yelo has starred in a music video by Hacken Lee
The above statements are "reasonably plausible to be true" and I believe that they "reasonably suggest that the subject may be notable" under WP:CCOS and therefore "indicate[s] why its subject is important or significant." Atakes Ris (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Choi, Suen-foon 蔡璿驩 (2018-11-16). "【微辣攻港】大學生Yelo兼職拍片 望成微辣才女" [[Manner Takeover of Hong Kong] University student Yelo works part-time filming, hoping to become a Manner talent]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-02-18. Retrieved 2026-07-26.

      The article notes: "打扮新潮，看起來冷酷的Yelo（黃曉晴），今年22歲，是澳門大學傳播系大四學生。自高三（即中六）起認識六毫子並加入微辣，兼職拍片。Yelo本身喜歡表演，表演欲十分強，鋼琴8級的她，現時除了上學、拍片外，亦有學爵士鋼琴和跳街舞， ...

      From Google Translate: "Yelo (Wong Hiu-ching), a 22-year-old senior majoring in Communication at the University of Macau, is a trendy and seemingly cool woman. She joined Sixtycent's group in her final year of high school (Form Six) and works part-time as a videographer. Yelo loves performing and has a strong desire to perform. A Grade 8 pianist, she currently studies jazz piano and street dance in addition to her studies and video work."

      • "【澳門傳奇】25歲微辣CEO六毫子 搞笑原創年收數千萬" [[Macau Legend] 25-Year-Old "Manner" CEO Sixtycents: Generating Tens of Millions in Annual Revenue with Original Comedy Content]. etnet 財經生活網 (in Chinese). 2018-11-22. Archived from the original on 2026-07-26. Retrieved 2026-07-26.

        This is a longer version of Choi 2018. The article notes: "打扮新潮，看起來冷酷的Yelo（黃曉晴），今年22歲，是澳門大學傳播系大四學生。自高三（即中六）起認識六毫子並加入微辣，兼職拍片。Yelo本身喜歡表演，表演欲十分強，鋼琴8級的她，現時除了上學、拍片外，亦有學爵士鋼琴和跳街舞，「我想喺微辣定位為才藝和好表演的人，有時亦會跟住微辣導演一齊Rap。」與豪Dee一樣，最初之所以加入微辣，是因為學長「雞Wing」的介紹，更進行過面試，面試後卻音訊全無，直至中秋節前一晚，Yelo突然接到微辣的電話，問她還有無興趣拍片，「當時都無話正唔正式請，In完覺得有適合嘅片，就會搵你。」一通電話，令Yelo和微辣合作至今。平日要上學和工作，更要兼顧興趣，時間分配絕不容易，Yelo現時每星期平均番3日學，拍片則佔一至兩日時間，視乎不同劇本和場景而定。快則拍一、兩個鐘完成，最長亦試過拍足一日才收工。"

        From Google Translate: "Yelo, 22 years old, is a senior in the Department of Communication at the University of Macau. Since the third year of high school (i.e. sixth grade), I have known Six Millions and joined Micro Spicy, making videos part-time. Yelo likes to perform and has a strong desire to perform. She is a piano grade 8. In addition to going to school and filming, she also learns jazz piano and street dance "Chicken Wing" introduction, more conducted an interview, after the interview but no audio, until the night before the Mid-Autumn Festival, Yelo suddenly received a call from Wei Spicy, asking her if she was still interested in making a video. To go to school and work on weekdays, more to balance interests, time allocation is not easy, Yelo currently goes to school an average of 3 days a week, filming occupies one to two days, depending on different scripts and scenes. The quickest shot was completed in one or two hours, and the longest I tried to shoot for a full day before finishing work."

    2. "黃曉晴首推自導自演短片" [Yelo's First Self-Directed and Self-Acted Short Film]. Macao Daily News (in Chinese). 2022-07-03. Archived from the original on 2024-08-26. Retrieved 2026-07-26.

      The article notes: "微辣藝人黃曉晴(Yelo)早前推出了首次自編自導自演的短片《看不見的約會 Blind Dating》，獲得廣泛好評。... 今次Yelo的作品是以“射屏”（原指男性在網絡上分享自己意淫別人照片的行為）現象作主題，她坦言一直都不理解這類人的行為，所以想借作品來反映這種不良現象，自己亦希望可以從創作的過程之中找到答案。"

      From Google Translate: "Manner actress Yelo Wong recently released her directorial debut short film, *Blind Dating*, which she wrote, directed, and starred in, to widespread acclaim. Yelo's film explores the phenomenon of "screen-sharing" (referring to men sharing photos of themselves fantasizing about others online). She admitted she has never understood this behavior and wanted to use her work to reflect on this negative phenomenon, hoping to find answers through the creative process."

    3. Che, Dim-sum 車點心 (2019-01-07). "擁有超強表演欲　Yelo夢想成為電影演員" [Driven by a Passion for Performance: Yelo Dreams of Becoming a Film Actress]. Macao Daily News (in Chinese). p. D3.

      The article notes: "黃曉晴(Yelo)是早期加入「微辣」的女藝人，演出過的短片亦深受網友喜愛，不論是野蠻女友、Rapper或反叛女兒等角色都難不到她，是個動靜皆宜的演員。個性爽朗外向的Yelo坦言因為熱愛表演，所以加入「微辣」。她說：“我一直都認為自己是個十分有表演欲的人，因為我從小已經彈琴，高中開始跳街舞，在學校一直是個表演活躍分子，中學時期亦試過自己去導演一套音樂劇。之後知道‘微辣’招演員，而我又認識雞Wing，便叫他帶我去面試。” ... 除了拍片，Yelo也有演過舞台劇，... 今年即將大學畢業的Yelo開始籌備畢業作品"

      From Google Translate: "Wong Hiu-ching (Yelo) was one of the early female artists to join "Manner" (Wei La). The short videos she has starred in are highly popular among netizens; whether playing a bossy girlfriend, a rapper, or a rebellious daughter, she handles every role with ease, proving herself to be a versatile actress comfortable with both high-energy and subdued performances. Outgoing and cheerful by nature, Yelo admits she joined "Manner" because of her love for performing. She says, "I’ve always felt I have a strong desire to perform. I’ve played the piano since childhood and started street dancing in high school, where I was always active in the performing arts scene; I even directed a musical during my secondary school years. Later, when I heard 'Manner' was recruiting actors, I asked my acquaintance 'Chicken Wing' to take me to the audition." ... Beyond short videos, Yelo has also acted in stage plays... Now approaching university graduation, she has begun preparing her graduation project."

    4. Che, Dim-sum 車點心 (2018-12-08). "黃曉晴模仿大賽攞獎" [Wong Hiu-ching (Yelo) Wins Award in Impersonation Contest]. Macao Daily News (in Chinese). p. D3.

      The article notes: "「微辣」藝人黃曉晴(Yelo)目前還是大學生，平常除了忙於拍片，也會參與學校的活動。日前Yelo與同學晉級由澳門大學社會科學學院學生會主辦的「第八屆Youtobe你是誰模仿大賽-兒戲」決賽。"

      From Google Translate: ""Manner" (Wei La) artist Wong Hiu-ching (Yelo) is currently a university student; aside from her busy video production schedule, she also participates in campus activities. Recently, Yelo and her classmates advanced to the finals of the "8th 'Who Are You?' YouTube Impersonation Contest—Child's Play," organised by the Student Association of the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Macau."

    5. "黃曉晴追逐跳舞夢" [Wong Hiu-ching Pursues Her Dance Dream]. Macao Daily News (in Chinese). 2017-08-14. p. D3.

      The article notes: "本澳製作公司「微辣」前晚間在臉書貼出一段短片，內容是講述藝人黃曉晴(Yelo)參加Locking舞比賽一些花絮。該短片Po出僅大半天，已有十多萬點擊率。短片中展示Yelo從賽前辛勤練舞，不斷進步，到比賽當天終於以「舞」示人，向大家交出努力多時的成果；亦可看到Yelo踏上舞台，向家人展現自己追逐夢想的決心。"

      From Google Translate: "Local production company "Manner" posted a short video on Facebook the night before last, featuring behind-the-scenes footage of performer Wong Hiu-ching (Yelo) participating in a Locking dance competition. Within just over half a day of its release, the video had already garnered over 100,000 views. The video documents Yelo’s journey—from her diligent pre-competition practice and steady improvement to the big day itself, where she finally showcased her dance skills and the fruits of her hard work. It also captures the moment she stepped onto the stage, demonstrating to her family her determination to pursue her dream."

    6. Che, Dim-sum 車點心 (2020-06-20). "陳建德Yelo首演父女檔" [Chan Kin-tak and Yelo Team Up as Father and Daughter]. Macao Daily News (in Chinese). p. C3.

      The article notes: "「微辣」最近推出新短片《負·女》，內容講述一對父女因一次爭執，造成無法修補的裂痕。雖然短片氣氛較沉重，有別於"微辣"過往的搞笑風格，但出色劇本加上演員的精湛演出，同樣令短片獲得網友一致讚好。「微辣」今次特別邀請本地導演陳建德與Yelo合演父女，兩人的對罵戲更成為片中一大亮點。... 陳建德表示一直都很欣賞"女兒"Yelo，覺得她很有當演員的潛質，經過今次合作，更覺自己遇到高手。"

      From Google Translate: ""Manner" (Wei La) recently released a new short film titled *Burdened Daughter* (Fu·Nu), which tells the story of a father and daughter whose relationship suffers an irreparable rift following an argument. Although the film’s tone is somber—marking a departure from Manner's usual comedic style—its excellent script and the actors' superb performances have garnered unanimous praise from netizens. For this project, Manner invited local director Chan Kin-tak and Yelo to play the father-daughter duo; a heated shouting match between the two serves as a major highlight of the film. ... Chan Kin-tak noted that he had long admired Yelo—his on-screen "daughter"—recognizing her potential as an actress; after this collaboration, he felt he had truly worked with a top-tier talent."

    7. "李克勤攞到五台冠軍男歌手好開心" [Hacken Lee is very happy to win the title of male singer on Channel 5]. Va Kio Daily (in Chinese). 2020-10-25. Archived from the original on 2026-07-26. Retrieved 2026-07-26.

      The article notes: "MV方面，克勤這次不會於MV中演出，但他特別找來人氣網絡平台「微辣」合作，由豪Dee、佩男及Yelo分別擔任MV男女主角。"

      From Google Translate: "In the MV, Ke Qin will not perform in the MV this time, but he has specially invited the popular network platform "Micro Spicy" to collaborate, with Hao Dee, Pei Nan and Yelo as the male and female protagonists of the MV respectively."

    8. "新歌與年青網紅合作 李克勤笑認係「老人家」" [Hacken Lee smiles as "old man" to collaborate with young celebrity]. Bastille Post (in Chinese). 2020-10-17. Archived from the original on 2026-07-26. Retrieved 2026-07-26.

      The article notes: "克勤未有在該曲MV現身，而是與網絡平台「微辣」合作，由豪Dee、佩男及Yelo等網紅擔任MV主角。現年52歲的克勤在社交網站留言笑道：「今次《為食熊貓》MV是跟微辣合作，幾位年青人說不用我這位老人家出現，哈哈！」"

      From Google Translate: "Hacken Lee did not appear in the song's MV, but collaborated with the network platform "Micro Spicy", with Hao Dee, Pei Nan and Yelo and other celebrities as the main characters of the MV. The 52-year-old Hacken Lee laughed in a comment on social media: "This time the MV for "Food Panda" is a collaboration with Micro Spicy. Several young people said they don't need my old man to appear, haha!""

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yelo, also known as Wong Hiu-ching (traditional Chinese: 黃曉晴; simplified Chinese: 黄晓晴), to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

June Rochelle


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

June Rochelle doesn't appear to meet any of the notability tests in WP:MUSICBIO. She has produced two albums according to AllMusic, neither of which have charted, been reviewed, or won any awards (the page currently says Changing Places "garnered a Grammy ballot", whatever that means). Rochelle's last album was released in 2008.

There is one profile of her in Cross Rhythms cited on the page; I couldn't find any further articles about her apart from this ChristianMusic.com piece, which has unclear reliability and is mostly an interview. According to her website, she seems to have pivoted to running AI workshops.

This article was also created by her producer, Robert Tatum Jr (User:Jrtatum), and edited by Rochelle herself (User:Junerochelle). Iiii I I I (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia:CONFLICT does not require an article to be deleted just for that reason. An article is deleted if the subject is non-notable. The subject might in fact be notable and any text that is self-serving or promotional can be deleted by other editors. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
I have a significant media footprint. Check junerochellemedia.com Updatesource (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Zuher al-Tbaiti


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

WP:BLP1E. Minor Al-Qaida operative important in the context of the 2002 Strait of Gibraltar terror plot. Coverage is in the context of his alleged involvement in the plot. Longhornsg (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge based on WP:N and WP:BLP1E. This information can be easily condensed into the 2002 Strait of Gibraltar terror plot. Entychologist (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Merge, not especially in depth coverage and nothing outside of this context. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Abdul Baset Majumder


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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. 0ximjub43r (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per @Aneirinn. Khalitate (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Kerala Fashion League


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

I don't think it's Notable need community opnion Shauryal (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep - I see this from New Indian Express, this from Deccan Chronicle, and a few less sigcov ones I think this squeaks it thru.Jishara (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete - You need to read this WP:NEWSORGINDIA no author sources only churnalism ~2026-41472-22 (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Note: Page was nominated for deletion by a sock. Johnj1995 (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Karl von Ergert


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

Old article since 2011 with no references or suitable notability. The corresponding article from the German wiki has no references to support. Majash2020 (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Austria. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete no coverage in Gscholar, all I could find was in what seems to be a newspaper. Still not enough. Not much for sourcing in other language wikis either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Josh Karp


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

This article only cites primary sources, this means that it does not meet the general notability guideline. Additionally, few secondary sources appear via a quick Google search per WP:BEFORE. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep - he seems to pass WP:NAUTHOR: one of his books is "Orson Welles's Last Movie", which was reviewed by The New York Times, New City Film, RogerEbert.com, and The Hollywood Reporter.
A second, A Futile and Stupid Gesture, was turned into a movie that meets notability. Therefore, he passes NAUTHOR criteria 3 from creating multiple pieces that were either the subject of multiple independent reviews or the primary subject of an independent notable work. Jishara (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Kevin Hamilton (diplomat)


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

Uncited for over 15 years. Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: zero valid secondary sources to prove notability. I tried doing a BEFORE, but came up empty everywhere --TitCrisse (t•c) 12:50, 24 July 2026 (UTC).
  • Keep: Ambassadors are notable. Obviously. Altitude Multitude (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
    Which notability guideline are you basing this on? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
    Meets wp:people obviously. Ambassador to multiple countries so definitely not wp:oneevent. Altitude Multitude (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
    I can't find anything on WP:PEOPLE that says ambassadors are inherently notable, in fact I can't see any mention of ambassadors at all. Which section of that guideline are you using? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:46, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
    Articles need sources. JoeyDirigo (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
    Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 100s have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
    There is a Wikipedia guideline that says the circumstances of one article should not be used to judge another article, for lack of a better way of putting it. So why have these guidelines if we are just going to keep bypassing them? Altitude Multitude (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
    you have failed to present an argument for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Michael Richard Bell


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

Declined prod. Marked for notability concerns since 2013. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is basically an unsourced BLP. I haven't even checked for sources, this just isn't the article we should have. Ping me if anyone saves it. MediaKyle (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. To be fair, this was created at a different time in Wikipedia's policy evolution — once upon a time, diplomats were considered "inherently" notable so long as it was possible to verify that they existed, regardless of whether they could actually pass WP:GNG on their sourceability or not. That's long since been deprecated, however, and now a diplomat requires GNG-worthy reliable source coverage and doesn't get an article at all anymore if he can't be shown to have that. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: no valid secondary sources to prove GNG --TitCrisse (t•c) 11:58, 26 July 2026 (UTC).

John Ezeobi


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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Sources are interviews, tribute placements, and routine event coverage in Nigerian outlets. WP:BEFORE finds nothing better. Kqol • talk 18:59, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Nigerian outlets aren't automatically non-reliable. Vanguard News is considered a WP:RS and although its title sounds interview-like, per WP:Interview even if it uses quotes quite a bit, as long as it's not in an interview format (which this one isn't) it's considered not an interview and therefore secondary - so that's one Reliable, Independent Secondary source with significant coverage (an article entirely about Ezeobi). The Sun Nigeria is also considered a WP:RS, so this article on his plans for development in Anambra State is a reliable source - it's also significant coverage of him, and it's an independent outlet. It's not an interview nor is it self published so it is secondary. Thirdly, there's this second article from The Sun Nigeria here, again a WP:RS, that's entirely a profile (not an interview) of him from an independent outlet. These three are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Jishara (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
@Jishara: where did you see that these sources are "considered a WP:RS"? The 3rd source uses pretty clearly promotional language and is not independent: the first sentence is "Popular industrialist and manufacturer, Engr. John Ezeobi, was recognised and honoured as Industrialist of the Year by The Sun Publishing Limited. The award, presented at an evening of glamour and celebration on January 31, 2026..." The publication's publisher presented that award. Best, Bridget (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
Hi! I use an extension called CiteUnseen that collates all the different Reliable Sources lists, and it has helped me identify both Vanguard News and The Sun Nigeria (Vanguard is marginally reliable per the Project Nigeria guide and generally reliable per the New Page Patroller's guide, The Sun is generally reliable per both the Project Nigeria guide to Reliable Nigerian Sources and also the same patroller's guide.) As for independence, the fact that they're giving him an award isn't relevant: per Wikipedia:Independent sources, "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic...Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic." Them giving him an award doesn't create a financial or legal relationship and therefore doesn't make them nonindependent. Jishara (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
The Sun published an article on the award they gave to a businessman. This is a pretty clear-cut situation. As mentioned at Wikipedia:Independent sources#Examples: "Any statement made directly by the company, about the company, is non-independent of the company. If you are citing a source directly from the company, you are citing a non-independent source." Bridget (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
Yes, but the source isn't being used for its content on The Sun (except for the non-controversial fact that they did, in fact, give that award). In this context, it's being used for its statement on Ezeobi (the article's on him, not on the award), and it has no legal or financial relationship with Ezeobi as far as I can tell. (if you find any legal or financial relationship, let me know so I can update my vote). Jishara (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
@Jishara: CiteUnseen pulls from project lists that editors maintain themselves, not from community consensus. As far as I can see there has never been an RSN discussion or RfC on thesun.ng. In January 2025 Fram called the WikiProject Nigeria list overly optimistic and suggested reconsidering The Sun in particular, but nobody opened an RfC. What we do have at RSP is WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA, which says Nigerian coverage needs caution when we assess notability, especially in biographies. Kqol • talk 20:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
That's true, but NEWSORGNIGERIA means caution, not removal. In addition, checking them they don't appear to carry the promotional quality that's being concerned (The Sun's two, for example, are one about Ezeobi as they give him an award and one about a meeting with a state's governor, including statements by the governor on broader economic affairs, neither of which are typical for promotional pages as these promotional pages don't tend to carry statements from political officials or come with an award). Therefore, my vote remains unchanged. Jishara (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

X-Dynasty

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

There's absolutely no WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO pass. Let me first talk about how nothing came up from a cursory search, absolutely nothing other than social media posts and very unrelated links. Pinging @Spartaz: to please protect this discussion per the previous one. Here's my source analysis, it goes without saying:

More information Source, Independent? ...
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
HTTP 404, but I imagine it is as promotional as the others, and a basic regurgitation. HTTP 404 HTTP 404 ? Unknown
No Absolutely not, “I didn’t plan to become a creator,” he says. “I just wanted to feel alive again. And now, I want to be that reminder for someone else.” No Nope. Where's the byline? It is high time we started knowing that every "FEATURED" from This Day is most likely paid for. Yes I'd give it that for the fact that WP:SIGCOV is met ✘ No
No This piece from Vanguard screams thrash, allow me to be blunt, “NUMB is not about being empty,” he said during one session. No Nope. Apart from the missing byline, does As his influence expands, NUMB appears set to remain central to both his content and the community forming around him. not remind you of something? I mean the pattern. No Welp, this is mostly about NUMB, so I can't give SIGCOV of X-Dynasty to it. ✘ No
I find it a waste of time to assess this source. No Why should I rely on this publication that lacks editorial oversight? FGS, if there was an editorial oversight, this particular piece would have been purged from their publication, or not even accepted in the first place. SMH. Yes Again, I'd give it to it. ✘ 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}}.
Close

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Earl Krugel


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

Merge into 2001 Jewish Defense League plot in California. WP:BLP1E. RS cover Krugel only in the context of his involement in the plot. Longhornsg (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose/keep, there's lots and lots of coverage about him in the context of his involvement the JDL decades before the crime (stretching back to the 1970s). I'd oppose redirecting it to this case, he is not notable for only one event. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
Its impossible to tell whether those results are even for the same person just based on a search query. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
They're all about him working with the Jewish Defense League. By this logic we can't determine that there weren't multiple Earl Krugers involved in the same bombing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
This is an index of a search term and are most likely reprints of the same nationally syndicated content related to the case. Provide the actual articles. Longhornsg (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
It's the search term indexed in reverse so you can see that there are numerous news articles that discuss him in reference to the Jewish Defense League prior to 2001 bombing happening . This was not even the only bombing he committed . I would not call that BLP1E. He also received equal amounts of significant coverage for being a murder victim; we can't do "BLP1E" if he's received significant coverage for two events, so even discounting the 1970-1990s coverage; it is not true that RS cover him only in relation to the plot. Also, he's not a BLP, so BLP1E does not even apply. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Travis Shook


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

Violates BLP clause, no source provided at all in the article, and both this article and the article about the wife seems to center around their record label promotion ABehjat (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have inlined the Scott Yanow biography and an album review by Thomas Conrad. Other reviews exist, for example Peter Watrous in the NY Times (27 May 1993, paywalled). AllyD (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as well as the AllMusic bio and Jazz Times review added to the article and the above-mentioned NYT review there are three AllMusic reviews here, here, and here for a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Veronica Nunn


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

Violates BLP, GNG, and NOTPROMOT ABehjat (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Khalitate (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
    This user added seven low-quality AFD replies in twelve minutes. Geschichte (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Leaning Keep with a notability pass per WP:MUSICBIO#1. Evidence of secondary non-trivial coverage: , , , . ResonantDistortion 17:42, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources identified above including a sizeable AllMusic staff-written bio, and reviews in Jazz Times and AllAbout Jazz that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Zoomer Historian


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

Poorly written article about a non-notable (banned) YouTuber, relying mainly on sources which are generally regarded as pointed in their content.

Violations (possible) of WP:BLP, WP:GNG, WP:NPOV Adrez (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep - NPOV violation may be present. But GNG and BLP is hard to claim - I did a basic search and I can see that he received press attention from conservative and liberal media channels. I think including the template More citations needed would be more suitable.
ABehjat (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. It meets GNG. There are BLP violations, but those can be fixed. Khalitate (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep - As others have said, the article meets GNG. G13 vs G14 (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Alex Clare-Young


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

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I have exchanged emails with the article subject and they would like the article deleted. Notability is borderline at best, most of the sources are either BLP1E or primary. There aren't enough secondary sources to build a balanced biography, which leads to significant undue weight being given to a single event. Additionally, the lack of secondary sourcing and WP:SUSTAINED coverage leads to large portions of the article being out of date or incorrect. As the subject has requested deletion and the notability is borderline I ask that we err on the side of BLP and delete the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete. It makes me sad to see an article on a subject like this go, but considering the state of transgender rights in the United Kingdom and the lack of sources for balancing it out, I can understand why they would not want something like this up. Delete per nom, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Dubious wp:GNG. If Alex Clare-Young is that concerned about the article, that would get me off the fence; delete it. Adakiko (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Courtesy Delete at subject request. M kuhner (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
    Delete. I agree with the others. AndyGordon (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - a couple of sources are reliable, but most of the citations are to works by the subject, but not about the subject. In such cases, where a living person is not clearly notable, and they request deletion, I go along with it. Bearian (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Ricky A. LeBlanc


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

Fails WP:NBIO. Lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. I have added a new citation which is recent (July 14) Inc. magazine article in which LeBlanc is quoted by name as an expert source on the multistate Block Inc./Cash App settlement. I agree the existing references leaned too heavily on law firm-adjacent sites and need improvement, but that warrants cleanup, not deletion. I think additional sources likely exist to continue improving the article's sourcing — CarlesFort (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC) — CarlesFort (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.
The Inc magazine source you added does not contain significant coverage of this lawyer. And an online search of him does not produce any reliable sources that could be used for notability. I am not seeing any additional sources. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have continued improving the article's sourcing by adding citations and further documenting LeBlanc's professional credentials and recognition. I think additional sources likely exist and can continue the task of strengthen the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamemi91 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC) — Mamemi91 (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.
  • Delete. Non-notable lawyer. The sources are all either trivial passing mentions, directory entries, blog posts, press releases and/or non-independent business sources. The WP:PAID overtones (both in terms of the article's creation and, frankly, some of the AfD contributions here) are very very difficult to overlook. And the idea that being one of several people quoted in a single Inc.com article is indicative of notability is a complete mis-read of WP:SIGCOV. Almost to the point of being risible. Guliolopez (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment. The profile which created the title and several contributors to the title (and this AfD) have since been blocked. Guliolopez (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - we are not LinkedIn. The first two sources are directories: virtually 100% of licensed lawyers (including me) are in Avvo, while Martindale lists all full-time practitioners. The other sources are press releases, interviews, and self-published sources. Thus he fails WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Graham Williams (promoter)


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

I propose merging to Fun Fun Fun Fest because Williams himself does not qualify as notable, neither under WP:CREATIVE nor WP:ENTERTAINER. chickenpox4dinner (talk · contribs · email) 16:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Mengu Suokhrie


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

The subject of the page does not fulfil WP:SINGER or WP: It also does not have coverage to fulfil WP:SIGCOV. Their one significant movie was almost a decade ago which did not garner her any significant award or media coverage outside Nagaland. Thereby, it does not fulfil WP:NACTOR. Astra Travasso (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Jeffrey Kaplan (philosopher)


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

Doubtful he passes WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep - It helps here to take a good look at the subject's background and awards and references. — Maile (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
    @Maile66 I did. He does not pass any notability guideline. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep - I'd like further clarification. Are you 'doubtful' that the subject passes Wikipedia:GNG or are you certain (as implied in your answer to @Maile66)? Because if you are doubtful, I'd recommend we follow the presumed notability that is demonstrated by the significant coverage on the subject (articles by the Times of Israel, Big Think, The Mirror, PBS aswell as UNCG's and Williams College's own news websites and other sources. Furthermore, I believe Wikipedia:ACADEMIC criterium number 7 is fully demonstrated in the article, given all the subject's work and the recognition thereof in making higher philosophy education available universally. Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
@Victor Zaak Saraiva The Mirror is not a reliable source, see WP:DAILYMIRROR. Big Think article is from his friend without any critical distance (it begins "ONE OF MY BEST friends since we were five years old, Dr. Jeff Kaplan, gave the convocation speech at Williams College earlier this month."), so is not WP:INDEPENDENT. It also does not contain any meaningful content besides writing that his friend gave a speech, so falls under the WP:SIGCOV threshold of no original research being required to extract the content. The college news websites from his employer are not WP:INDEPENDENT of him. Non-independent sources can be used to help flesh out an article but do not help notability.
The Times of Israel piece is not from the Times of Israel, but is a North Carolina local news outlet reprinted by them that is "local guy wins award", WP:ROUTINE. This is still probably the best source. Even if this counted, it would not be enough by itself.
If there are sources not presented here, that could help. The sources here currently do not contribute to notability whatsoever. Everything else is a passing mention, non-reliable, or non-independent.
There are not multiple sources here that are all three of 1) significant coverage 2) reliable coverage 3) independent coverage, which is what is needed to pass the GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
According to WP:DAILYMIRROR, "The Daily Mirror, also known just as the Mirror, is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism. There is no consensus on whether its reliability is comparable to that of British tabloids such as the Daily Mail and The Sun.". Thus I can't agree that it is not a reliable source. The Times of Israel news piece is not a "local guy wins award" piece. Maybe you judged the article by its title. It provides a bio from the subject, including his academic background and his previous work (it even mentions his family and private personal info) beyond the award itself. WP:ROUTINE mentions "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs" as examples, so again I can't see where you are coming from. Can you further elaborate why the Williams College and UNCG's news are not independent? I can provide other sources for the same facts from official news from the State of North Carolina if that's better. Furthermore, I don't agree that what is needed to pass the GNG is all three of the criteria you mentioned, as per the basic criteria itself: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
It's certainly not generally reliable; perhaps could be usable for content but it cannot count for notability. Also, the piece is an interview with Kaplan, so it isn't independent either.
A bio from the subject is not independent of the subject.
Because they have a direct working relationship with the subject of the article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
What bio are you refering to? If you mean the bio written in the Times of Israel article, it does not come from the subject itself if that's what my poor choice of words led you to understand. I should have said it has a bio about the subject, but not from him (my mistake). Williams College does not have a direct working relationship with Dr. Kaplan, so maybe you mean UNCG's news sites are not independent. I can see where you are coming from. However, you must notice that Independence does not mean the absence of any relationship towards the subject but rather editorial independence. Wikipedia:Independent sources. In this sense, the multiple sources from UNCG are independent since they are written by public servants who have no direct relation to the subject itself. Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Also, the piece is absolutely not an interview. It covers marginalia, a study technique proposed by Kaplan in his lectures and videos. Maybe check Wikipedia:Interview: "Quoting someone doesn't turn an article into an interview" Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
If you're talking about this source, this is not sigcov. There is barely anything about him.
UNCG is his employer. Sources by his employer are not independent.
The article is recapping what he says and direct quotes from him. It is also from a tabloid. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Absolutely no indication that this 2018 PhD meets NPROF -- no senior-level awards, so no C2, and C7 actually has to be demonstrated not just asserted -- or GNG (multiple pieces of IRS SIGCOV not identified). JoelleJay (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
What would be a satisfactory demonstration of C7 capable of persuading you? Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Just a question (sorry if the answer to this is easily available somewhere): does the publicly visible prominence of his YouTube channel (659,000 subscribers & 37M views) count as an indication that he meets WP:NACADEMIC C7? Almost no professors have YouTube channels that big. DoltonR1 (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
This and the fact that he also participates in a prison education programme. One of the awards he received (awarded to 1 in 12500 eligible North Carolina employees, mind you North Carolina is a state larger and more populous with larger Universities than many European Countries whose professors are featured in the English wikipedia)was in fact granted because of his multidisciplinary work to make education publicly accessible Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Subject does not meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. The article has only one piece of sig cov IRS (the New Jersey Jewish News and Jewish Standard piece, which are in fact the same article). Mme Maigret (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
We've been through this before the AfC approval. If you ignore the express, the mirror, PBS, oshr, and Williams Today maybe you're right Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
Of course we must ignore The Express (unreliable), The Daily Mirror (not acceptable for BLPs), OSHR (not independent of its awardees), and Williams (not independent of its alumni). JoelleJay (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
Please elaborate on OSHR and Williams. The OSHR has absolutely no direct relation to the subject, neither has it provided any award to the subject. What do you mean Williams College is not independent of its alumni? I beg you to find a single researcher's wikipedia article that does not use official University news and publications as a source for information relating to the subject (even more so when the source is used to back up a claim directly related to University related activities). In fact, most researchers and professors have the University where they teach as sources to several paragraphs on their articles. In fact, I looked through some on you page and most of them have barely any sources that aren't independent by the standard you are trying to apply here. However, I do not say this as a criticism of those articles. In fact, I believe this standar is a complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Independent sources, as nowhere there or at any other place in wikipedia we are led to believe that a Public University the size of UNCG or Williams College wouldn't have editorial independence or that they would have a conflict of interest (even more critically when we talk about Williams College). Please be mindful that these are juridical persons, meaning that "Williams" is an abstraction for the set of people regulated by the norms relating to the institution (their employees, their directors, etc.). The published sources used in this article are written by real, natural persons who have no relation to the subject at all, namely other state employees who have nothing to gain or lose, but who are legally bound to write truthful facts related to the University. Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
A government page announcing the winners of a government award is obviously not independent (and it doesn't provide SIGCOV whatsoever anyway). Nor is Williams independent of its alumni. What they say about the subject cannot be divorced from their own self-interests: their published attention is not organic and disinterested, it arose strictly from their relationships to the subject; and, as the nature of their coverage necessarily includes coverage of themselves, they are inherently biased because of a conflict of interest. You even allude to this with The published sources used in this article are written by real, natural persons ... who are legally bound to write truthful facts related to the University: the university, having a vested interest in promoting itself and maintaining its own reputation, would have absolutely no reason to write about the subject if he wasn't an alumnus or if his story wasn't positive. Because non-independence has been established by the institutional relationships, it is irrelevant which juridical person is the author of the coverage (the inverse would also be true, e.g. an article written by a relative of the subject but published in an independent publication would also be non-independent).
Non-independent sources are allowed to be used in articles, they just don't count toward GNG. Since the subject does not meet NPROF criteria, he has to meet GNG, for which multiple independent reliable sources providing significant secondary coverage are required. JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
That's an interesting formulation. However, it is wrong and, more importantly, is not present in any guideline, just your particular interpretation. Should we keep debating it pointlessly? Also, it's interesting that you cut the part of my quote where what you propose is clearly rebutted Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
I am citing the overwhelming consensus interpretation across thousands of AfDs, as well as the obvious reading of what a conflict of interest is. An awarding body is not disinterested in its awardees: the coverage it provides of them is, necessarily, attention to and coverage of itself and thus there is an inherent vested interest. The same goes for a college's relationship with its students/alumni, and in this case there is the additional conflict of interest arising from the contractual obligations between a college and invited speaker.
The part of your quote I elided was irrelevant: as I explained, either one of the publisher or human author being affiliated with the subject is sufficient to eliminate independence. JoelleJay (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
So I must understand that the entire State of North Carolina, the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and the North Carolina State Human Resources (OSHR) have a conflict of interest under Wikipedia:Independent sources? This appears to me to be an interpretation that does not rest on any official policy. As per WP:IIS, "Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea". Remember that you could only formulate a loose relationship between the writer of the source and the subject (they both belong to the same institution and that people within an institution would always write positively about themselves and others, which is not true). If you check the articles for Williams College, the Today, the UNCG, the State of North Carolina and many other governmental offices and agencies, they are even used as independent sources for the purposes of their own articles. I understand that this is because they are obliged by law to not treat anyone, not even their own official administrators in positions of power (this isn't at all the case) with any sort of privilege or preference. This is what I alluded to in my earlier response that you seemed to not quote and not address. I believe that it is perhaps possible to exist a conflict of interest, but it cannot be presumed a priori through a loose connection that is not present in any guideline and that would be illegal by the very legal system that those institutions obey (and, of course, considering that many secondary sources already present in the article consistently make reference to) Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
You seem to be interpreting the referenced reasoning underpinning our independence guidance (i.e. (some of) the justifications for requiring independence) as if they are falsifiable aspects of a given COI relationship of which rebuttals can thus mitigate or (dis)prove non-independence. This isn't the case; non-independence is established by the existence of a relationship regardless of whether it provably introduces bias into coverage (or provably does not). One of the other (again, non-rebuttable) reasons for this definition of non-independence is that the subject's receiving attention in the first place from a COI source is not representative of attention from the world at large. But again, these hypothetical outcomes/characteristics of COI coverage are used as explanations for why we have the guidance, not prerequisites for establishing non-independence.
WP:INDY says Independent sources have editorial independence ... and no conflicts of interest (i.e., there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic. ... These conflicts of interest make Wikipedia editors suspect that sources from these people will give more importance to advancing their own interests (personal, financial, legal, etc.) in the topic than to advancing knowledge about the topic.. Note that both editorial independence and lack of COI are required; that the language is specifically "there is no potential for [gain]" and "Wikipedia editors suspect [self-interest]" rather than "there is no [gain]" and "Wikipedia editors know there is [self-interest]"; that the "source" includes "the author, the publisher, etc.", not just "the juridical person who directly wrote the coverage"; and that the types of COI relationships are intentionally not exhaustively listed out (because editors should be able to recognize analogies).
I don't know why you quoted the "even-handedness" sentence, it has nothing to do with determining whether a source is independent. JoelleJay (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
I never interpreted your reasoning in the way that you described. What I tried to elaborate is that there is no relationship between the subject and certain entities who have written about it. Nowhere in wikipedia policy or guidelines is there any statement that suggests that a University has a relationship that is dependent with its alumni, or that a state agency has a dependent relationship with any public servant in that state. That is a formulation you made apparently under thin air but happens to be wrong.
It helps here to remember that under WP's policies, certain state officials are automatically notable. The source par excellence to demonstrate that an individual is a state official is the state itself. However, it seems senseless to argue COI here.
If you can demonstrate (not simply state without clear reasons) that the OSHR, the Williams College, the State of North Carolina and even the UNCG has potential for financial or political gain from the existence of the publication, I'm happy to recognize I'm wrong here.

I don't know why you quoted the "even-handedness" sentence, it has nothing to do with determining whether a source is independent

Sorry, I'll try to explain it better:
Identifying Independent Sources
...Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea...
You seemed to forget this when you made a loose connection between the subject and the Today, as if this was enough to establish that any source related to the Williams College isn't an independent source:

the university, having a vested interest in promoting itself and maintaining its own reputation, would have absolutely no reason to write about the subject if he wasn't an alumnus or if his story wasn't positive

Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment -' as per WP:ANYBIO, it has been duly demonstrated in the article with several independent, secondary, verifiable sources that the subject meets the first criterium: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor", the award in question being the 'North Carolina Governor's Award for Excellence. It is the highest honor a state employee may receive, and only one out of 12500 eligible people receive it. The work for which the subject received this award (making higher education universally accessible) is also covered by the same independent, secondary, verifiable sources. Thus I believe it has been demonstrated that beyond the controversial topics such as WP:NPROF and WP:GNG we can reach consensus that the subject is likely notable under WP:ANYBIO Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
This is nowhere near the degree of significance expected for ANYBIO-qualifying awards, which should be so prestigious that we can expect virtually every recipient to be notable through GNG. If the North Carolina GAE passes ANYBIO then every awardee should have enough sustained IRS SIGCOV for their own article. JoelleJay (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
According to...? Like I stated with multiple sources, it's the highest honor in its scope (a state with over 10 million inhabitants, 9th largest in the US) . I believe you must make a stronger case for your position Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
If receiving an award is sufficient to meet notability, then you should be able to defend the position that every recipient is clearly notable. How else would automatic awards-based notability work...? JoelleJay (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
I'm not defending any position, I'm just pointing to already established wikipedia policy. WP:ANYBIO states that receiving a well-known and significant award or honor is already more than enough to establish that the subject is likely notable. Then add to that the policy stated in WP:BLPDEL that the minimum criterium is a "at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article", this motion for deletion seems premature. Notice that wikipedia policy does not state that the notability of a subject is determined by what is written in the article, but rather whether the subject itself is notable, independent of what has or hasn't been added to the article. I noticed that in this entire discussion no outside research has been made by anyone proposing deletion, even though I made a brief search myself and found citations by BBC's The Forum and UCL's Faculty of Laws (Wikipedia:ARTN, Wikipedia:DILIGENCE). I noticed that many important references have been edited out, and that there are still many other publicly available about the subject, so even if the notability issues pointed out are correct, there are other more efficient ways to solve the situation before deletion. In regards to your argument, I'll try to reelaborate it in the best possible formulation possible in order to try to attack it: First you claimed the Award I referenced isn't in the degree of significance expected for ANYBIO, because it should be so prestigious that any recipient should be automatically notable. Well, as per WP:ANYBIO, the criterium is a tool used to determine likelyhood of the subject being notable, meaning that if it passes the subject it is likely notable (not automatically). So not only is the premise false, but the argument itself is unsound. Your second formulation seems to be a misunderstanding of my comment. Yes, if receiving an award is sufficient to meet notability, then it would be correct to posit that I must be able to demonstrate notability towards every recipient. However, notice that I never stated that, only that the subject is likely notable under WP:ANYBIO (which I believe is what @Maile66 meant). More important than that, it may well be the case that every recipient of this particular has enough notability to be in the english wikipedia. Sure, it certainly is no Oscar or Nobel Prize, but it more than meets the aforementioned criterium under official policy and there even appears to be an article about the prize and its winners Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
ANYBIO criteria are weaker predictors of notability than GNG/BASIC; notice that the latter uses "presumed notable" while the former uses "likely to be notable".
The criterion for meeting ANYBIO #3 (an entry in a national biographical dictionary) should make apparent the level of prestige expected for an award to satisfy ANYBIO #1. Per WP:WHYN, notability is actually established by the existence of multiple sources of IRS SIGCOV; therefore, for an award to satisfy ANYBIO #1, the actual notability rates among its recipients must be high enough that it can reliably predict notability for any given recipient. When notable national/international awards like Commander of the British Empire, Rhodes Scholarship, Member of the Order of Canada12, and an Olympic gold medal are not enough for automatic presumption of notability, how could a non-notable state employee award possibly qualify?
BLPDEL is specifically about summary deletion to counter BLPVIO, it has absolutely no bearing on AfDs based on notability (as explicitly noted in the policy). JoelleJay (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
It seems you are confusing the meaning of the words under policy. GNG/BASIC means that once the subject falls under that specific guideline, it is presumed notable. To presume something is very different to predict something. ANYBIO on the other hand states that once the subject falls under it, it is likely (not automatically) notable.

When notable national/international awards ... are not enough for automatic presumption of notability, how could a non-notable state employee award possibly qualify?

I never suggested this particular award is enough for automatic presumption, only that it qualifies for likely notability under ANYBIO. In fact ANYBIO does not state that any award is enough for automatic notability, although other policies and notability guidelines may use certain awards this way.

notability is actually established by the existence of multiple sources of IRS SIGCOV; therefore, for an award to satisfy ANYBIO #1, the actual notability rates among its recipients must be high enough that it can reliably predict notability for any given recipient.

Again, we are falling to speedy conclusions that do not follow from our (true in this case) premises. Let's once again check the wording for ANYBIO C1: "well-known and significant award or honor". The award in this case is not a significant honor, it is the highest one (in the State of North Carolina). Also, it is notable enough to have its own wikipedia page, so I don't understant why you called it "non-notable" Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. As a longtime viewer and fan of JK's YT channel, this vote is particularly painful. But producing great content on the one hand and qualifying the criterion for notability here are ultimately two different things. And, ultimately, I do not see a convincing case for WP:NPROF here. We do not consider holding an associate professorship as noteworthy enough to merit notability alone. And JK's publication of just 9 papers is around an average output for someone in his academic position, with little evidence that any of those papers proved to be highly-significant or highly-cited in his relevant fields. I.e., he has a very small h-index of just 5. Moreover, none of the awards he has received — from "Outstanding Graduate Student Instructor Award" to "Dean's Award for the Promotion of Diversity and Inclusiveness" to a "Governor's Award for Excellence" — can be considered particularly extraordinary for an academic. And he wasn't the only one who got the governor's award, as there were in fact six others which the article neglected to mention. Jay-Wiki (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
    I can see where you are coming from. From what I can gather, not even the keep proponents have posited that the subject's notability is more easily demonstrated via WP:NPROF. However, I must ask why that would be reason enough to recommend deletion altogether. I believe there notability has been demonstrated via WP:GNG and it appears no one disputes the likelyhood of the subject's notability under WP:ANYBIO C1. Victor Zaak Saraiva (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Michael Barry (U.S. official)


Michael Barry (U.S. official) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:NBIO. Appointment as a Senior Director on the U.S. National Security Council -- where he served for less than a year -- is not inherently notable. Coverage is primarily about Barry's appointment, rather than SIGCOV of Barry himself, his own actions, or achievements in the role. Any discussion of Barry is incidental to the news of his selection and, in some cases, framed through comparisons with his predecessor in the context of First Trump Administration staffing decisions. This does not constitute the sustained, in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG. Coverage because of his appointment is textbook WP:BLP1E. Longhornsg (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Khalitate (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Did a preliminary search of his name and cannot find anything beyond the appointment from news sources.
ABehjat (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete US official who served for less than a year and hasn't done or worked abywhere else of note. Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Christina Angela Ntulo


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

I propose draftifying because I do not see a clear WP:NBIO/WP:BASIC or WP:GNG pass. The subject is verifiable and has held NGO/mental-health roles, but the sourcing is mostly organizational profiles, affiliated/primary pages, press-release republications, conference material, and routine mentions, with little significant independent coverage of Ntulo herself. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 19:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Subhi Taha


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

The article does not meet WP:GNG, relying on primary or self-published sources. The subject lacks the necessary in-depth, independent, secondary media coverage for inclusion. Sakiv (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Khalitate (talk) 08:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
Unclear how this topic does not meet GNG given the sourcing:
Also unclear which of the RS above are meant to be primary or self-published sources, some of which are from peer-reviewed academic journals. إيان (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Based on my review, these all appear to be brief, single-sentence references to Taha, none of which rise to the level of SIGCOV. Khalitate (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep, seconding إيان above. I also don't see how these are "primary or self-published sources" for the most part. Taha is also mentioned in a few paragraphs here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210226100620/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/arts/immigrant-blankets-arab.html - I believe this individual satisfies basic GNG Handsome Ellis (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep, some sources brought up do cement notability. This has a paragraph of SIGCOV, the "Cairo studies" journal has SIGCOV. The other journals that I cannot access may also have SIGCOV, so I'll vote keep here. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Vikram Shri


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

Non-notable actor, references are not by-lined by journalists. Fails WP:V. Also does not have satisfy GNG as per the references. Nomadwikiholic1 (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep - I have completely overhauled the page to remove the promotional tone and ensure it adheres to a strictly neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). The subject clearly meets WP:NACTOR (Notability for actors) as he has held sustained, credited lead roles in major network television series (such as playing the lead in Aaha Kalyanam, which ran for over 500 episodes on Star Vijay, and Anbe Sivam on Zee Tamil). The article is now backed by multiple independent, secondary sources from major publications like The Times of India. I kindly ask reviewers to evaluate the current, revised state of the article. Rajwikirak (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
    Notability is not met as reference are not by-lined by journalists. Also need multiple secondary independent reliable sources to prove notability. But unfortunately there are only Times of India news, and that too no by-lined by journalists. Hence failing WP:GNG, WP:V. Nomadwikiholic1 (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom, GNG requires multiple independent sources, which are clearly lacking here.THE JIK (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:45, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Rajani Kanta Patir


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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Two-sentence stub about a retired IAS officer; the sole substantive claim (chief secretary of Arunachal Pradesh) has carried a [citation needed] tag, and the only sources are his own autobiography (Dawn in the East, 1999) and a passing death notice, neither of which is independent significant coverage. Civil servants have no presumed notability under WP:NPOL, which covers elected officials and judges only, and chief secretaries are not exempt. WP:BEFORE searches return no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, only mirrors and directory-style listings. An autobiography cannot establish notability per WP:IS. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: the nominator has since been blocked indefinitely due to disruptive editing not related to this AfD. No opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

JohnBosco Onunkwo


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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Classic WP:UPE and WP:PROMO pattern. Kqol • talk 20:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep several of the sources indicate GNG is met. Pulse and Vanguardwith sigcov. I agree a lot of the sources are not good but that is not for AfD. Also if the claims in the article are true then he is certainly the type of person that I would expect there to be sources to support notability. Billionaire, founder of 800,000 person political movement.
Czarking0 (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
Which of the Pulse and Vanguard sources offer SIGCOV? So far the ones I've opened have reported exclusively on what Onunkwo has said, rather than providing secondary coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Reads like WP:PROMO and the sources present nothing solidly secondary. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep The subject passes WP:GNG. See his coverage as a notable billionaire in these national newspapers (The Guardian, Vanguard, Daily Trust, Premium Times, BusinessDay). The claim of WP:UPE is also unsupported by these references. I created this page before the advent of LLMs, so the tag is clearly false. RRB Royalrumblebee 15:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKEStar Mississippi 02:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
    • That's absolutely false. You created the article in 2024. ChatGPT released in 2022. Morwen (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
Delete. I looked through 16 of the sources, including all from Vanguard and Pulse, and not a single one contains secondary coverage of Onunkwo, they all just uncritically report what he said. JoelleJay (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hazel Renee


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

Fails WP:NACTOR. No significant roles in mutliple notable films, TV shows, or productions. Other coverage is in relation to relationship with basketball player Draymond Green. WP:NOTINHERITED. Longhornsg (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - The nominator is correct that Hazel Renee tends to only be mentioned in media sources that are really about her husband. Here is some fairly informative coverage in a reliable source: , but that article still says practically nothing about her own acting career. On her own she has some minor appearances and is listed as present in some casts, but none of that is significant enough to bestow her own notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Keep - she has a full profile in People, one in The Sun, and one in Heavy. WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't apply when the person has SigCov. Therefore, I vote Keep. Jishara (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Headlines of the links you shared:
  • "Who Is Draymond Green's Wife? All About Hazel Renee"
  • "Who is Draymond Green’s wife Hazel Renee?"
  • "Hazel Renee Joiner, Draymond Green's Wife: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know."
This is textbook WP:NOTINHERITED. Longhornsg (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Rick Devens


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

Should be redirected back for now to list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants, despite appearing on Big Brother 28 (American season). Barely or not notable as a news anchor before Survivor. Even his Survivor appearances may not suffice for notability.

Furthermore, his Big Brother gameplay may have been crystal-balled or something like that, even when the season is ongoing. Even furthermore, I couldn't find an independent reliable source covering his academic career post-Survivor.

Please tell me whether I was wrong about any of the sources I assessed in this page: Wikipedia:Source assessment/Rick Devens. (And don't get me started on the failed LLM-generated Draft:Rick Devens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) George Ho (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. I don't get this nomination. He's received tons of coverage for two Survivor appearances and now for Big Brother. It's well beyond BLPEl1E (that's three events), passes GNG by a country mile, and we don't need dedicated coverage of his work, but I did find this: . Fences&Windows 23:55, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
    That source you linked mentions Devens, but I'm hesitant to consider this a "significant coverage" that I've sought for. Indeed, it's more about a Bernie Sanders photo covering Devens's face than Devens himself, and the news article is more routine, IMO. Also, have you read the Wikipedia:Source assessment/Rick Devens yet? George Ho (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
    To summarize, under GNG, I have found four "maybe" sources and two "yes" ones but many other "no" ones. Even appearing in both Survivor and Big Brother, both primary sources (and he himself is also a primary source), just may not suffice. Anything wrong yet with my assessments on the sources? George Ho (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
The best I found are .
I think your source analysis is a death by a thousand cuts and applies strict standards that I think go beyond those in PAGs. Saying that a profile isn't independent because the journalist interviewed the subject flies in the face of journalism norms. A profile partly based on an interview is OK, it's straightforward Q&As that don't count for notability. Saying a news sources that's part of a network is not independent ignores editorial independence. CBS journalists aren't client journalists, unlike tabloids. Saying someone having covered a topic before makes them non-independent isn't right - journalists have 'beats'. Saying a source only covers his Survivor appearance and not his life and work is a false standard: sources don't need to cover multiple aspects of someone to provide SIGCOV. Source analysis is fine; using impossibly high standards to fail sources and effectively ignore real outside attention isn't. Fences&Windows 10:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
Then why don't you contribute to the Source assessment and then correct my so-called death by a thousand cuts? I'd like to see you please reassess the sources that you think would pass (your standards of) GNG. George Ho (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
I just contributed by critiquing your approach to source analysis, and not for the first time iirc. I'm done here. Fences&Windows 11:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect to list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants because sourcing on page itself is quite poor. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
    @Agnieszka653: Uhh... Would WP:ARTN contradict your argument? It says that article quality isn't sufficient indicator of notability, doesn't it? Any other reasons? George Ho (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
    I searched his name a few entertainment weekly writeups--nothing written primarily about him without the references to survivor as well that I think would constitute a solid secondary source displaying notability for a biography page. A redirect versus a merge though means that if he magically becomes more notable the redirect can be removed and he can have his own page again. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants – Devens does not seem as well known to non-Survivor/Big Brother fans. Publicwalrus (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to proposed target. Seems to be a WP:RECENTISM issue. The individual themselves has not been proven notable outside of these two reality shows he has participated in, one of which remains ongoing. No real encyclopedic value to justify a whole article on the subject at this time. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 03:05, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Ryan Call (politician)


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

Coverage of this politician/lawyer seems trivial. Does not meet WP:NPOL, WP:NPERSON. Ighs (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Colorado. Ighs (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
    @Ighs It actually explicitly meets both of those. Can you explain where you're drawing the notion from that it doesn't? It also satisifies secondary source requirements and breadth of coverage. The only backing you've provided for your claim is that it seems trivial, which isn't really an argument at all.
    Best,
    CSGinger14 (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
    I will say (as someone who decidedly isn't one) that I think this is part of the reason why conservatives believe this site is biased against them. They have just as much history behind their movement as liberals and leftists do, and it's equally important that we explore it.
    CSGinger14 (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
    On WP:NPOL, Call has never held office, or been a member of a legislative body at that level. Coverage is mostly trivial (hired, elected, re-elected, election ongoing), but you could make the case for embezzlement articles meeting notability. In general (excluding that), coverage is trivial or not independent of the subject. Ighs (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
    ​ It seems like half the time Wikipedia editors expect every article subject to be an A-list celebrity; people necessarily exist in their context. He was the statewide chair of one of only two major parties in the United States. NPOL doesn't actually explicitly say "government" office, it just says statewide office. Nonetheless, one line down from the one you referenced would indicate that he's a [major] local political [figure] who ha[s] received significant press coverage. Were you hoping for an expose on the layout of his garden? You only need 2 sources to establish notability. Even without mak[ing] the case for embezzlement meeting notability, that's still been well and over satisfied.
    CSGinger14 (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
    • Coverage is mostly trivial (hired, elected ,re-elected, election ongoing) − Challenged by R Street, CBA-CLE, US News
    • coverage is...not independent of the subject - You misunderstand what that actually means, per WP:GNG: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. Four of 15 sources are/were affiliated with Call in some manner or another. None of them, though, were used to establish notability.
    • Call does, however, satisfy the earlier rule on "significant coverage" − that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
CSGinger14 (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:37, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

No comment offered on the accuracy of this delsort, but the article was tagged by Ighs as such in Diff/1363786942, so clearly someone suspects this to be the case. ‑‑gurkubondinn 13:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep: Coverage seems substantial, as far as I can see, meeting WP:NPOL's "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". Additionally, the embezzlement and other issues appear to support further. --Engineerchange (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Delete - This article is a resume of a failed political candidate and embezzler. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (electoral candidates), there is little biographical detail and little he accomplished aside from a failed campaign and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL career. I wouldn't want to set a precedent by keeping this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

My impetus, my muse! I've missed our chats. @Magnolia677 what's your estimate of how many state or national committees you'd have to chair before you're no longer considered WP:RUNOFTHEMILL?
LYL,
CSGinger14 (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep On balance, I think the subject clears GNG. There are stories about his election as Colorado Republican chair and his disbarrment. I am not sure (politician) is the right title, however. --Enos733 (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

​I'd initially had it as 'party chair', but it was moved soon after.
CSGinger14 (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep, Individual who is the subject of the article in question received significant coverage relating to disbarment in 2021 stemming from embezzlement. (AP, CBS, etc.) Individiaul also got some not significant coverage relating to an alleged illegal vote in 2011. In 2013, Individual got significant coverage from KUNC about their election to state party leadership. Also there is significant coverage from other sources online, such as this one.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

​Hey would you mind posting those sources in a Refideas box
({Refideas|[Url here (space in between) any name you wanna give it, at least a character here]})
over on talk? Would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance, CSGinger14 (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trending towards keep, but relisting to be sure - there is no real discussion about the depth and the quality of available sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
To be clear we've got 29 sources on this article now and at least 20 of them are from reliable regional or national sources discussing him directly in relation to his embezzlement case or the state GOP. I can't think of any reason why this wouldn't be considered a Keep, even if we need to strip it down to solely to a consideration of WP:GNG, which if I'm not mistaken only calls for significant sustained coverage by 2-3 reliable national or regional sources, which we have well and truly surpassed by this point, and I still have at least a dozen sources I haven't worked into the text yet. Also just so we're clear I in no way used AI to write this other than google search finding synonyms for words, so even if it's listed as such don't let that be a factor in your decision.
Best,
CSGinger14 (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Like guys what is this, this has kind of gotten absurd. I'd get it if we were looking at a barely developed article with like 5 sources that only focused on his embezzlement case or minor events in the state party; I've written almost 2,000 words people, the train has left the station. Unless this is a training exercise in analyzing base principles to the point of nonsense I cannot see any reason we still need to be here. Once we've finished up, anyway, I'd figure someone on the Delete side must be able to complete its review, having looked over and considered all of the available sources to make their determination in this discussion.
Cheers,
CSGinger14 (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Using POL to show notability is rather generous, appears to have held various office positions. Getting kicked out over the theft of funds isn't quite meeting criminal notability either, appears to have a rather routine career otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
    @Oaktree b, Does it not satisfy WP:GNG?
    CSGinger14 (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
    We don't have notability, this is a person doing their job. Oaktree b (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
    Every politician is just doing their job. Notability has nothing to do with whether we personally find something interesting or intriguing but whether reliable sources took note of the subject and bothered to write about it. Katzrockso (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
    This isn't a politician, it's an office worker that stole from their employer. Neither is notable. We have GNG, but this isn't a notable individual, is my point. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
    The coverage passes the GNG. Do you disagree there are more than two reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject? Did you read any of the sources? Katzrockso (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep (I found this AFD from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)), clear GNG pass with significant coverage spanning a decade from 2011 to 2021. I especially like this longform profile from 2014. Other sources like provide coverage of his role in the party. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
    Fox isn't a reliable source, that is more about the revolt than this person. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
    Per the note at WP:FOXNEWS: Local Fox affiliates are considered distinct from Fox News, and are covered by WP:NEWSORG. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
    ​That's not what WP:SIGCOV means. See my comment above.
    CSGinger14 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
    I just realized these two sources are authored by the same person, but there is still a lot of other coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per @Oaktree b's analysis. High number of sources =/= notable, particularly when it comes to a BLP. Also, to note, an RfC on the issue of whether NPOL covers sub-national party official was snow closed with consensus against (permalink). voorts (talk/contributions) 22:25, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
    @Voorts @Oaktree b @Magnolia677 Can you explain what these sources actually lack? Are you guessing you need 40 sources to establish notability, or do you think more are needed? Do they all need to be book length coverage of the individual, or is it ok if it's only a small database worth of referable material? Also, do they need to be God? Genuinely what more could you people possibly demand. If you think there should be no new articles on the website you can just say that instead of dancing around the issue for the sake of posterity.
    Also, @Voorts I'd caution you against viewing this as a global consensus, or previous decisions as reflecting the real median view of the community. It's equally likely that the deletionist / exclusionist crowd is simply louder than the rest; I know for a fact they're more active on every discussion board, because inclusionists are the typically ones busy writing the actual content being scrutinized[Rev. I have literally seen it with my own eyes. I know from having literally reviewed the individual user data by hand that many of the most active exclusionists' activity on the website is massively lopsided towards site discussion over actual content additions. Personally, I'm critical of that, personally, but I'm not presenting it as an objective negative. I thank User:Voorts for their contributions, but point to the fact that they are most certainly the exception over the rule, and don't think being honest about that fact is something that we need to be so critical of.]

I don't challenge consensus once its been firmly established, but importantly their wasn't a great deal of diversity in viewpoint, nor a great deal of words, expressed by the many individuals in favor of Oppose on that discussion. My point being, I don't think that you or they engaged in good faith in the discussion, or bothered to take the time to actually analyze and consider the opposing viewpoint, really it was just all of you patting each other on the back for minds that think alike. Cheer your consensus if you wish, I don't think it was an honest or accurate one.

  • CSGinger14 (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
    You responded in the affirmative when I asked if you wanted an RfC. I started one at VPP. Within 24 hours, there was not a single !vote in favor. You did not !vote, although I know you were aware of the RfC because you "thanked" my edit starting it. After over 24 hours, an independent admin closed the discussion per WP:SNOW with notice that they would do so. A SNOW close at VPP rejecting a proposed change to a guideline is about as close as you can get to a global consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
    TLDR: Voorts this part is broadly directed, not specific to you:
    Read it or don't, I'm not gonna apologize for a long post since pretty much every piece of it is new argumentation or a response to a point raised in the in-between period. If that's something that can't be managed because you have other things to do on the website, maybe you don't actually need to do those things. The whole point of engaging with this initiative at all is to do so in good faith and to produce the most positive results possible, not to just pass by and make your opinion known and realized in as many settings as possible. Desperation to recognize WP:The deadline is now to the point of blunder or oversight is an equally indictable violation of WP:ADVOCACY. If you feel it beneath you to devote additional time to this, in the same manner as you might consign someone else to as consequence of the massive, sometimes inescapable delay of WP:ONUS, then you really shouldn't be the one performing that work to begin with, you clearly don't understand its weight or import; I firmly believe that in such cases you're doing more harm than good.
More information Response to Voorts ...
Close
Best,
CSGinger14 (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
I've already discussed this, but... In my mind, it comes down to showing what this person did to be worthy of an article. They were the head functionary for a political entity. Never voted into office, they were hired. They stole money from the entity. The theft might be notable, the person alone isn't. I've stated my point, please stop badgering the discussion over it. Let the process play out. If this gets deleted, or if it stays, we move on either way. I've had some article deletions I didn't agree with, but this isn't Oaktreepedia. I contribute what I can and we work together no matter what happens. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
​Continuing the discussion isn't badgering, its unfair of you to make no real acknowledgement of my positions apart from acknowledging that you don't need to then claim it to be badgering when I repeat it as a relevant point of consideration. I think that argument itself goes against the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS, which encourages you to actually engage with the arguments other editors present, instead of just holding fast to your initial position.
I'm not asking as a rhetorical question, I genuinely want to know what you believe qualifies something for WP:Notability. You state that its not important in consideration of broader consensus, but you are an active and influential part of determining that consensus, you can't deny that. Everyone is. It's pretty explicitly clear at WP:BUREAUCRACY that you should not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. I am not casting WP:ASPERSIONS, I am directly stating my belief that the style of reasoning that you're using here to support Oppose is antithetical to the exact same set of principles that you advocate adherence to.
CSGinger14 (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
I have nothing further to say about this. Oaktree b (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
@CSGinger14: Please take a moment to read WP:BLUDGEON. --Magnolia677 (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Notability is not determine by how significant Oaktree b (or any individual editor) finds a person, but whether it is covered (i.e. with WP:Significant coverage) by reliable sources. You could find a subject completely mundane and unimportant (as I find just about every single article on obscure chemical compounds), but if reliable sources cover the topic, then the subject is notable. Katzrockso (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Katzrockso, Helpful Raccoon. The RfC outcome does not override a GNG pass. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 15:42, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. NPOL is an inclusionary guideline (as are almost all of our notability guidelines). Failing one notability guideline is never a reason to delete absent the subject fails every single notability guideline. "Fails NPOL" means nothing if the subject passes the GNG (as the guideline itself has noted). The RFC, as REAL_MOUSE_IRL, is simply not relevant here. The sources provided by RightCowLeftCoast and Helpful Raccoon substantiate a pass of the GNG.Katzrockso (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
    The RFC is relevant because CSGinger14 was claiming notability under NPOL. That eliminates one basis for notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 06:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
    I agree that that argument is incorrect, however one bad argument for one 'side' of a discussion doesn't suddenly make the rest of the arguments worse/incorrect. Katzrockso (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
    Nobody is claiming that it is. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:08, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Above I believe it was Oaktree who claimed that there were sources that were not independent. There are also sources are independent but that fail verification: I found many statements that cannot be found in the cited sources, and cannot claim that I found them all. For instance: The second paragraph under "Views, roles and positions" is all about Call's response to the Hispanic community, but of the two cited refs, one (KUNC) is very short and does not mention any of this, and the other, USnews, says only this: Once led by nativists like Tancredo, the state party is now being shepherded by people like chairman Ryan Call, a fluent Spanish-speaker with ties to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and an eye for ways to engage a constituency he admits GOP national leaders have left behind. That's it, and yet there is a whole paragraph that goes into detail that is not in the sources cited. The last sentence of the first paragraph under "Personal life" says something that is not in any of the sources. The entire second paragraph also makes claims that are not found in any legitimate sources. Of the sources that SHOULD NOT be used are: - the National lawyers ass'n - the Colorado Republican Party - Open Secrets (cannot validate his employment, that info comes from him) - his bio at Colorado GOP headquarters (not independent, probably written or approved by him). When all of the un-sourced info and anything linked to non-reliable sources is done, what seems to remain is the story of his embezzlement. It's not nearly a significant enough crime to meet NCRIME. I am chagrined that so much of this article is unverifiable, but because it is unverifiable it definitely violates BLP. I am also chagrined because an article like this that does not follow Wikipedia policies on sourcing creates a lot of work for others. Lamona (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Julia Vickerman


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

All coverage of her is about her involvement in Twelve Forever. All sources that are not about that show do not have enough WP:SIGCOV, such as . Her work in other projects (directing/writting a few cartoon episodes here or there, etc.) is too marginal to help her notability. The music video for Bubblegum Dog she co-directed is not notable by itself, the sources do no provide any independent analysis of it, only statements by Vickerman and her coworker; the song appears to be notable, but that can only help the notability of the musicians who made it (WP:BAND), not the co-directors of a music video it got.

This article was sensibly a redirect to Twelve Forever for four years, but now the redirect was undone and the page immediately became a magnet for people who want to WP:RGW by using unreliable sources to boost iffy rumors . V. S. Video (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, you make a good point about the article. I don't usually say that in AfD discussions, so this is a bit rare. I was going to say "weak keep" but I'm going to vote to redirect the Julia Vickerman article to Twelve Forever, as that is her biggest project to date. It sounds like you are favoring a redirect. And if a redirect is done, I would say that any relevant articles and content should be added to Twelve Forever, so as to update that article.
Otherwise, you are entirely right about some people trying to add "unreliable sources to boost iffy rumors" as I've been trying to address that on the talk page. People already have tried to add those kind of sources to Twelve Forever page for years and as such I've been dealing with that for a while as evidenced by the talk page with recent comments this year particularly by the user who created the Vickerman article and the archive page, covering 2020-2024. There was even a discussion years ago on the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard back in 2021 as well.
I'm not sure Vickerman is known for much more than Twelve Forever (a search on Google News I did for "Julia Vickerman" pulled up 13 sources, most of which are reliable, and are almost exclusively about Twelve Forever, to give an example). Even so, I do think a redirect is the way to go at this point, if only to benefit users who may be looking up about Twelve Forever on here. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Update: Julia Vickerman tag on Animation Magazine lists five articles. Only two of those describe her in any depth: "A Deeper Reboot" (quoted twice, mentioned once) and "Netflix Orders ‘Twelve Forever’ Series from ‘Powerpuff,’ ‘Clarence’ Vet" (quoted twice, mentioned three other times). Both are already cited in the Vickerman article. A search on Google Scholar for "julia vickerman" only pulls up three results: a page in the book "Batman: the Animated Series" (By Joe Sutliff Sanders) where she is quoted as talking about an episode in that series, a page in a Spanish-language thesis (cannot find the page) and another source listed on Google Scholar as "[CITATION] As Meninas Superpoderosas [Seriado]." I also searched on Wikipedia Library and only found three results: the "How The Bravest Knight is turning the tide for LGBTQ kids programming" article in EW (already in the article), the "A Deeper Reboot" article in Animation Magazine (already in the article), and an article in People entitled "Ricki Lake Posts Photos of New Rescue Pup Following Death of Beloved Dog Mama: 'She Is Perfect'" which barely mentions her at all.In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, she has worked on many projects and television shows, so her notability doesn't focus on one show that she both created and was fired from. Merging is often deletion by another name, and Vickerman seems too notable to merge into just one of her accomplishments. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
Has she "created or played a major role in co-creating" any of those other shows? WP:NARTIST would require that. V. S. Video (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
How is Vickerman notable? She is really only known for Twelve Forever and a little for Powerpuff Girls reboot/revival (see my above comment about that). In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect and turn article contents into draft: This page looks unfinished to me, plus there were allegations against her that were one of the reasons why she got fired from her own show. That is something the article should take note of in order to make it more notable. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
    Part of the problem is that the allegations are not reliably sourced and are on a bunch of questionable sites. I've tried to find reliable sources for the allegations for years and have basically given up in trying at this point. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
    Very understandable and relatable. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment I won't vote here since I wrote the page. However, I want to point out that people putting in poorly sourced material about allegations or trying to "right great wrongs" is not a reason in itself to redirect or remove her page. That's just a matter of keeping the page up to normal content guidelines. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
    • I am not sure why there were not much sources about the allegations when its clear that is what people know about her for nowadays. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
    Oh, I agree that "people putting in poorly sourced material about allegations or trying to "right great wrongs" is not a reason in itself to redirect or remove her page" is not a reason in and of itself, but if we just look at the existing sources themselves, they are NOT adequate. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Ebony Mystique

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

As Melanierosey mentioned here, the subject seems to have coverage only in Nigerian news media outlets. Most of these are unbylined, routine pieces or interviews. None of them are independent and the awards do not seem to carry any significant weight either. Fails GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:09, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment. Note that Melanierosey is a block-evading sock who nominated the page earlier today claiming that the subject had paid them to create it and that the client is now in "bridge" (presumably breach of contract). There's definitely some shady activity happening behind the curtains. pburka (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
    Otherwise generally reliable Nigerian news media publish undisclosed advertorials, see WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. Some people take this to mean that all Nigerians news media is unreliable, but that's not the case and not the purpose of NEWSORGNIGERIA. WP:SYO helps explain the situation, and gives points on what to look out for in promotional material. One sign that it's a paid for promotional article is if the subject has no connections to Nigeria, and after quite some checking I can't find anything to show that Ebony Mystique has any connection to Nigeria. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Please don’t delete my article. The news article was done by other management not the guy who claimed to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-39687-04 (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:15, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A little more discussion would help, as would !votes with rationale beyond "per nom." Please see WP:ATA.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:20, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. No-one has disputed that this page and the Nigerian sources are the result of paid editing (although there seems to be a dispute over who was paid). Discrediting the WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA sources, there's nothing left to establish WP:BASIC notability. pburka (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - The sources come from some of the most notable Nigerian media houses. I find it puzzling that, on one hand, Wikipedia runs adverts encouraging Nigerians to create Wikipedia articles, while on the other hand, articles sourced from Nigerian media are treated so dismissively. Altitude Multitude (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
    The issue is that Nigerian media run undisclosed advertorials, including the highest quality news media in the country. This absolutely doesn't mean that Nigerian media should be discounted out of hand, but it should be scrutinised. See WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA and WP:SYO for details. Nigeria is also in no way the only country were this is common practice. It's becoming common for people in the US to buy publicity in effected countries, even though they have no connection to those countries and the subject of the article has no connection to Nigeria. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Lasse Lund


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

Appears to be notable for WP:SINGLEEVENT with no signs that there will be sustained coverage. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 10:21, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article appears to meet WP:GNG through significant coverage in independent secondary sources, especially the Yle investigation, the Vice interview/profile, and coverage in Indian outlets. I do not think this is a case where WP:BIO1E requires deletion, since the coverage is directly about Lund and the consular/child welfare questions around his case. Hayden Soloviev (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 11:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some more input addressing 1E and sustained coverage would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

People proposed deletions

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

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI