Note: this page is purely an aggregation page of transclusions and not in the same formatas other Deletion Sorting pages. "Generic biographies" should be added toWikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People, which is transcluded directly below.
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related toPeople. It is one of manydeletion lists coordinated byWikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Note: In most cases there is another, more specific category than this one.
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page atWP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page atWP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in theedit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding{{subst:delsort|Deletion sorting|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a fewscripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed bya 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'sdeletion policy andWP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
We have interviews, biography listings, trivial mentions, podcasts, self-published blogs, a few more interviews and routine coverage generated from his controversial tweets between October 17-19, 2025. The only substantial coverage is from an article on Entrepreneur.com, which appears to be an undisclosed paid piece, as there are no other articles from the bylined journalist and nothing on Alistair Barr’s LinkedIn profile indicates any association with Entrepreneur.com. Subject lacks reliable sources that areindependent to justify a standalone article and should therefore be merged or redirected toAnthropic as anATD-R.Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk)06:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"AI policy expert" is indeed not ideal. Do you have an alternative to suggest? Maybe just "AI policy", although it's more of a topic than a professional role.Alenoach (talk)01:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think the Entrepreneur.com article is undisclosed sponsored content. It was originally publishedon Business Insider ("This article originally appeared on Business Insider"), where Alistair Barr works. The Business Insider source is just less convenient because it is paywalled. Barr is a former editor of Clark, but Business Insider would indicate if the article were sponsored. Secondary, independent, reliable sources centered on Jack Clark include the article fromThe Wall Street Journal the one fromAP News, andthis one from Axios. I only listed here those from prominent newspapers.
The only part that could fit in the article on Anthropic is the last paragraph, with the content related to David Sacks, the rest is too specific to Clark. A merge would result in deleting most of the article, so I believe it's more of a keep or delete decision.Alenoach (talk)02:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What Clark told Axios, AP News or WSJ aboutAnthropic is irrelevant when trying to establish Jack Clark’s own notability, because notability isn’tinherited. The Business Insider article clearly states that Alistair Barr and Jack Clark worked together in the past, which raises concerns about its independence as well. Also noting that most of the sources cited in the article and this AfD are related to Anthropic, so you’re not actually losing out on much content if the consensus to merge is reached.Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk)09:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 'inheritance' of notability if Anthropic is a major player (which it is) and Clark was a significant founder.
Keep I find the nomination unconvincing and clutching at straws, having already decided the outcome. Clark is one of the major voices in UK AI direction (and notably contrasting to most of the US techbro viewpoints). We should have this article, the cleardemonstration of that is a job for editors to do some encyclopedic journalism here, not deletion.Andy Dingley (talk)10:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a classic case of "inherited" notability, actually. If he's only known for co-founding one company, then he's only really known forone event. Do the other things actually havesignificant coverage? "Clark maintains a newsletter" and "Clark gave a briefing" sound like run-of-the-mill activities for the chattering class.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)21:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have seriously considered whether to make this AfD nomination. Despite Taylor being an unarguably large YouTuber in the ASMR community, the sources used in this article establish such little notability that I am surprised the article has lasted this long. Refs 1, 5-14 and 16 are not reliable, as they are all from social media websites. WhilstWP:RSPUSE allows for some to be used if it is from the person the article is about, this article uses these excessively. The 4 sources that are not from social media do little to establish notability outside oftrivial mentions. We've seenDraft:CaseOh recently rejected outright with arguablymore sources than Taylor has. Unfortunately, Taylor Darling is simply not notable enough for a standalone article anymore.11WB (talk)06:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although there is SIGCOV in RS, most of the sources I found in a BEFORE are just passing mentions. Also, the sourcing is pretty poor, mostly considering of primary sources like Twitter and YouTube.paintdvdtalk to me00:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails nbio. Reliable sources don't discuss this lawyer in any depth, they only provide his commentary about other people. The article itself reflects this fact, most of it is just a bunch of "he said x", "he criticized y", "he represented z", there is very little to say about him. It would be better to have an article about the events he was involved in, if they are notable. This article was deleted twice.V. S. Video (talk)23:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if the individual is not considered notable despite his noble status and relation to the King; the Wasikadars of Awadh is a 'source' but I accept that it might not be profound enoughNoodles09 (talk)20:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the sources listed are primary versus secondary including Instagram, YouTube, and Bernstein's own podcast. The Good Housekeeping Article is a listicle of podcasts and at least one of the Pink News articles is a list. Page lacks requirements for Biography of a living person and also that ofWP:Artist. Hey Alma is not a reliable secondary source and when you search for their name mostly TikTok and Instagram links pop up. There are more stringent requirements forWP:BLP pages and we must use higher quality secondary sources to reflect that standard.Agnieszka653 (talk)19:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The MTV and Teen Vogue sources are reliable, secondary sources that are intellectually independent of one another and independent of the source, and they include significant coverage, so the subject meetsWP:BASIC criteria for notability. That means he can be considered notable without meetingWP:ARTIST. The article should be reworked to rely less on primary sources, but it should not be deleted for reasons of notability.MidnightAlarm (talk)12:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think thatWP:ARTIST is mostly a red herring here. I think "artist" was just a convenient term to add to the title for disambiguation purposes. Bernstein is primarily known as a podcaster and activist now and so the general notability criteria are the relevant ones. In addition to the sources noted above the article inPaper (magazine) is solid evidence of notability, even if it is mostly an interview. --DanielRigal (talk)14:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that sourcing could be improved, but that shouldn't be too hard as Matt's public profile has definitely become more prominent since this article was initially written.Geelong 1985 (talk)07:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In addition to Matt Lunker's points, find sources AFD isn't coming up with anything particularly notable, mostly user-generated sources. That isn't to say that there isn't something out there somewhere. At best, it could be kicked back to drafts.Snowman304|talk13:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After aWP:BEFORE check, I couldn't find anything that goes beyond brief mentions of his name or institutional affiliation, which would not satisfyWP:BIO. While a few sources list or mention some of his academic works, none provide the kind of substantial, independent discussion thatWP:NACADEMIC expects. Ifevery professor with a few published papers were automatically considered notable, we'd have thousands of similar pages, but the guideline draws the line higher, focusing on those whose work has received wider recognition or demonstrated significant impact in their field. In this case, there just isn't enough evidence to support that level of notability.ZyphorianNexusTalk20:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's true that biographical info on the subject is scarce (I did the some research as the nominator has), but the Google Scholarh-index of 50, (in a relatively low-citation field) convinced me to create the page (30 papers with 3-digit citations:WP:NACADEMIC #1 and #4). It is nonetheless expandable via citing literature and educational background.Xpander (talk)20:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprising at all, seeing as the current version is almost word-for-word identical to the version deleted earlier this month from the same editor, albeit with just enough added sourcing to evade G4.Owen×☎18:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I really wish we could give highly experienced and trusted non-admins like you,Wikishovel, the user right to see deleted pages and revisions. Until then, feel free to ping me if you need deleted content checked.Owen×☎18:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see the previous article; I could have sworn it was a bit more meaningful than the current one. Everything for which Boam and his ilk stand makes me want to vomit, but I have to admit that he's more wikipedia-notable than an average councillor, because of the media attention his antics, in-fighting and chaos leave in their wake. Unfortunately I think there should be an article about him (basically what I said last time). Nevertheless, the decision last time was delete, and community decisions shouldn't be subverted, so I'm not !voting.Elemimele (talk)21:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Subject is a notable elected official with significant coverage in reliable sources including The Guardian, BBC and ITV News. Meets WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Article will be improved with additional citations and neutral wording.— Precedingunsigned comment added byDanielAdams75 (talk •contribs)— DanielAdams75 (talk •contribs) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep – The subject is a notable elected official with significant coverage in national reliable sources, including BBC News, ITV News, The Guardian, and Professional Social Work Magazine. This easily satisfies WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN, as the individual has received substantial, independent, and non-trivial coverage. I am improving the article with additional citations and neutral wording in line with WP:NPOV.— Precedingunsigned comment added byDanielAdams75 (talk •contribs)
Please note that we only get to make a recommendation once at deletion discussions. We can comment, or strike and change our recommendation, but it's not a ballot.Wikishovel (talk)13:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — This is a slightly unusual case of WP:NPOL for local politicians: the councillor's party are in the news a lot here lately, and anything mildly controversial about one of their members gets amplified to hell and back. The Kent local council leader told her colleagues to "fucking suck it up" on a leaked council Zoom meeting last week, and it made the front page of theGuardian. I'm convinced by the arguments of User:DimensionalFusion, User:Bearian, User:DUDUZ02 and User:Zalaraz on the AFD of two weeks ago. And apologies for my opaquely dry sarcasm above, but the cynical gaming ofWP:CSD#G4 and the edit history of the article "creator" aren't helping the case for notability: if you thought the first AFD was somehow unfair or against policy, you should have taken it toWP:Deletion review. Both two weeks ago and now, this is a WP:BLP1E at best over the ice cream incident.Wikishovel (talk)03:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've only just noticed that his birth date is unsourced, and the entire "Early life and career" section is sourced with fake/AI-generated references. Some of the references in other sections also had incorrect titles: these were either changed at source at some point, AI-generated, or simply bowdlerised to make him look a bit less guilty of ice cream-related naughtiness. Article creator has also not yet responded at their user talk to a COI warning on 19 September, and a paid editing confirmation request posted yesterday. I've tagged the article for COI.Wikishovel (talk)09:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There may be tens of thousands of Guinness record holders, but they do not belong to the same category nor to the same place. Many notable figures have a wiki based on a single award. This artist has many other works which are centrally recognised and have gained praise. His works and achievements make Odisha proud.Soumya6722 (talk)06:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to agree with the nom, that simply being a Guinness world record holder does not confer notability. The citations (probably based on a press release) consist of human interest trivia of the "hey look at this cool weird thing" variety and are not serious journalism; rather they are closer tochurnalism or filler. Therefore fails GNG and definitely failsWP:NARTIST as there are no indications this artist has been a part of notable exhibitions, nor has their work been written about in serious art magazines, academic journals or art history books; nor is their work represented in the permanent collections of several notable art museums or national galleries. His tiny carved spoon is an interesting and smile-worthy curiosity, however, it certainly is not a notable artwork, nor is he a notable artist.Netherzone (talk)16:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The critique incorrectly applies institutional criteria (WP:NARTIST) to an inherently ephemeral, public art form rooted in cultural traditions like chalk art .
For artists in this category, notability is established by community impact and widespread media documentation (GNG), not gallery inclusion. The volume of national/regional press—even if framed as human-interest—demonstrates significant public attention, and the verified world record offers objective proof of skill that transcends the institutional art market.Soumya6722 (talk)17:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — one-time Guinness record holder, nothing more. Hans India barely discusses anything outside the record. Classic BLP1E fail.EmilyR34 (talk)04:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FailsWP:GNG andWP:ARTIST. While some new references have been added, there is still insufficient independent, secondary coverage establishing notability. Most of the cited material is primary, institutional, or family-sourced. The main editor has stated that he is the subject’s son [[4]], creating a conflict of interest under WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Article remains largely dependent on non-independent references, and fails to meet the threshold for inclusion pending reliable secondary sources.Acrom12 (talk)18:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (and question for article creator) - The formatting looks like it was written by AI, and all of the citations are not verifiable except one.Alukotron, did you use artificial intelligence (AI) or a large language model (LLM) to help create the article?Netherzone (talk)19:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did ask the AI to help me with formatting, since Wikipedia does not provide clear instructions, and I hope that I did not go against the rules of Wikipedia by doing so. However, the text - that is the content of the article about Waclaw Kolacz - has been carefully selected and crafted by me, and is all based on documents and letters that are in my possession, but it used to belong to KOLACZ. As I live in the United States and have limited access to other publications, I still managed diligently to create this brief encyclopedic entry about the memory of my father. There is really no conflict of interest only because of my blood relation to the subject. If you would read a chapter that I included in my book "My American Experience" about my father (Waclaw Kolacz) you would definitely see that I talk about my father from the very objective standpoint using more than a mere criticism in regard to his life and activities. I am open to suggestions, and I beg of all of you involved in this discussion to not render a negative verdict to delete this article. Help me to preserve the memory of this guy who went through enough while being alive. It's time he really rests in peace having the memory of him preserved. I am the only surviving individual who cares about the WACLAW KOLACZ remembrance. Considering that almost all of his linocuts (the negatives and the prints) were destroyed and vast number of his oil paintings also shared the same fate (they were all stored in the basement that during the 90's got flooded and the water damage was so severe that everything after being immersed in the water for a long period of time was deemed damaged beyond repair or reconstruction and was disposed (incinerated) at least this small memory token about him can live on.Alukotron (talk)22:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alukotron, I understand you have a personal connection to the subject and that your intention is to preserve his memory. The issue isn’t about good faith, but about meeting Wikipedia’s sourcing and notability rules. Articles need to be based onindependent, published, reliable sources rather than family documents or personal knowledge.
Even with the new citations, most are still primary or family-based, so the coverage doesn’t yet show independent notability underWP:GNG orWP:ARTIST. Because you’re related to the subject, this does fall underWP:COI, which just means edits should rely on outside, verifiable sources to keep things neutral. If more third-party coverage turns up later (newspaper pieces, exhibition reviews, academic mentions, etc.), the article could always be recreated with stronger sourcing.Acrom12 (talk)23:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, Zdzislaw Morawski's book is not independent source? The documents with ID numbers of his WWII awards is not reliable? The printed Cataloque of the Festival Sztuk Pieknych that took place in Warsaw's ZACHETA National Gallery in 1966 is not a good source? A book that referenced clearly Kolacz's donation of the Copernicus portrait to the XXXIII Liceum in Warsaw is not a good source? If that is not good what is? Alukotron (talk)23:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to anything more that I could add since in 2015 ALL documentations and my entire library was destroyed by my landlord. I am helpless here... it looks like the memory of my dad - will be erased and forgottenAlukotron (talk)23:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont want to give up that easily... While I understand the importance of secondary sources, I would like to point out that the 1966 Zachęta exhibition catalog is an official publication of a national institution and therefore qualifies as a verifiable, independent record of Kołacz’s participation. The same applies to the “Księga Pamiątkowa XXXIII L.O. im. M. Kopernika w Warszawie” (2003), which documents his artistic donation — both are independently published, printed works. I am continuing to seek additional coverage in archived Polish newspapers and art periodicals. My intent is to build this article according to Wikipedia’s sourcing policies, not to promote a family member.Alukotron (talk)23:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, if consensus is to delete, I kindly request userfication of the article to my user space for further development. Thank You kindlyAlukotron (talk)23:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one citation has a link, can you provide other links, as this is how others can verify the content.
- Is it possible for you to provide links to any of the other citations, and give us more information about the publications where the documents were sourced from (other than you)?
- What do these mean... PRL, RP?
- Can you search to see if there is a Dictionary of Biography of Polish people or another reference book in Polish that has an entry for your father?
- Did he have a one person show at the Warszawa: Zachęta Narodowa Galeria Sztuki, and if so, do you know if the museum (or any other museum) acquired any of his work for their collection?
- What is the document from President Lech Wałęsa (or was it an award)?
Please give us as much information as possible about the sources listed in the article. Unfortunately, the article from your father to you, or the book you wrote about him areprimary sources, so they don't count towards notability. Per Wikipedia notability criteria, artists do not have inherent notability just because they make art work, there needs to be multiple, fully independent, verifiable reliable sources to establish notability.Netherzone (talk)04:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only one citation has a link? hmm
I thought I provided
PRL means Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa (Peoples Polish Republic)
RP means Rzeczpospolita Polska (Republic of Poland)
Yes, there is a SLOWNIK POLSKICH ARTYSTOW PLASTYKOW (The Dictionary of Polish Artists) published by ZPAP 1973 in Warsaw, where under MALARSTWO SZTALUGOWE (Easel Painting) there is an entry WACLAW KOLACZ.
in Zacheta he only participated in a group exhibit in 1966.
I think there is a way to find secondary sources via contacting organisations. Do not delete this page yet, I will try to find sources.Zxilef (talk)01:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this... I wish I knew how to do that. You see, Waclaw Kolacz creativity and participation in public life was not only during the Communist era but also during the time when there was no internet. Everything then was documented by physical Newspapers and magazines, catalogues and other non-digitalized means. Most of those documents were not well cared for by the communist establishment, especially that artists were being considered as dissidents and enemies of the system. I have been living in the US since 1990 and was able to bring a small number of documents, catalogues pertaining to his activity only to lose everything in 2015. Great loss! Alukotron (talk)14:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and suggestion - There is a list of online newspaper archives for Poland here:Wikipedia:List_of_online_newspaper_archives#Poland; I would suggest searching these resources. Also, can you find a link to the entry in The Dictionary of Polish Artists? What is helpful is if you can find the actual website link (meaning the URL) not just the name of these various sources. A key aspect of WP is verifiabilityWP:V, so that would really help if you can do online searches to find the actual website address where the information on him is contained, as often publications and official government sites and museums and such have archived information available or a link to a searchable database. Polish language websites, and Polish language newspapers are fine, but please do provide a clickable link if at all possible.Netherzone (talk)15:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have searched high and low for significant coverage in verifiable reliable sources in both English and Polish, but all I'm finding are primary sources or unverifiable sources, or sources listed in the article which don't mention him. The catalog from the group show where he exhibited a print is not an independent source, and all it is does is verify that he had a work in the show. I've also looked into the WP library, and found nothing except a mention of his son (who is the article creator) who had a show in New Jersey to honor his father. None of this is enough to establish notability for an encyclopedia entry perWP:GNG norWP:NARTIST. If at least three solid, fully independent sources are brought to the table that provideWP:SIGCOV I may consider changing my !vote. The article was created by the son as a family memorial page. A word of advice, if the article is deleted consider setting up a memorial page on social media sites.Netherzone (talk)19:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oruserfy. A very poor article. Much of the content is unreferenced. Much of what is referenced is to unverifiable family archives (or documents in them). No cited source suggestsWP:GNG is met - this is 99%WP:OR. PossibleWP:COI gives us another dimension of this problem.WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Since the author says they'll try to improve this, it can be moved to their userspace, and they can try to develop it there. But the author is well advised to read up on Wikipedia policies. "all based on documents and letters that are in my possession" - sigh. This is not acceptable, perWP:OR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here09:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I am also concerned regarding the sources mentioned, such as "SLOWNIK POLSKICH ARTYSTOW PLASTYKOW" from 1973, by ZPAP. Setting aside the authors repeated error in not usingdiacritics and strange overcapitalization (the correct Polish title would be "Słownik polskich artystów plastyków", I cannot verify that such a book ever existed ([5]). In 1972, a book called "Słownik artystów plastyków" was published by ZPAP (there also seems to be a book with a similar title, a not-yet-published working project of some Polish scholars, that will however focus on Polish writers working abroad). So this source (and possibly the entire, very poory referenced article) is either AI hallucination or shoddy research; neither is acceptable.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here09:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PPS. GBooks query gives a few mentions in passing[6]. And yes, it is very true that many Polish sources remain undigitized and as such are not in GBooks. But it is the article's creator responsibility to locate them. I work with librarians and volunteers to locate such sources (in Poland), sometimes it takes us much time to locate and digitize microfilms, etc. If the author wants to reserch and document their father's life - a commendable goal - they need to carry out research, and publish the resultsnot on Wikipedia, but in another avenue (such as a reliable dictionary of biograpies, magazine or journal, etc.). Only once such sources exist can a Wikipedia article be created. (To the author: the fact that anyone can edit and publish in Wikipedia does not mean that Wikipedia accepts all submissions; per cited policies - GNG, OR, NOTAMEMORIAL, etc.).Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here09:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Original rationale: "Commons upload history (of Emilydaniel, the primary but not initial author) suggests undisclosed paid editing. Sources in this article may not meet Wikipedia's requirements, especially considering that entries on this author have already been deleted on Simple and Wikidata, the latter of which has a comically low and spam-prone notability criteria."The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk)17:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for authors (WP:AUTHOR andWP:GNG). Jeanne Bender’s work has received significant independent coverage in multiple reliable publications, including *Language Magazine*, *Norway Today*, *Woman’s World*, and *Forbes México*. Several of her books have also been professionally reviewed by *Kirkus Reviews*, a respected source for literary critique.
Her recognition by the New Zealand Literacy Association and her involvement with Reading Is Fundamental further demonstrate her notability and contribution to children’s literacy and education.
The article has been written in a neutral, verifiable, and well-sourced manner, and I welcome further improvements from other editors to ensure it continues to meet Wikipedia’s standards.Emilydaniel (talk)00:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The three book reviews cited ([7][8][9]) are all from the Kirkus Indie program, which means that they arepaid reviews and are not usable for establishing notability. The piece inLanguage Magazine has no byline and appears to be a promotional spot, and the piece inNorway Today is an interview. The piece inWoman's World is labelled as "contributor content" and is blatantly promotional. While the site claims thatall contributor content is reviewed by the Woman's World editorial staff, I would regard this as a similar case toWP:FORBESCON. Nothing here qualifies towardsWP:NAUTHOR orWP:GNG.MCE89 (talk)06:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.WP:DINC - the current state of the article doesn't determine whether the subject is notable. As perWP:DEL-CONTENT, "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page." The article needs to be rewritten, sure, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted.Katzrockso (talk)22:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the article needs more citations, the subject has significant coverage. If necessary, the unsourced paragraphs can be deleted prior to closing.Bearian (talk)18:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate a little more as to how it meets our notability standards? Is there reallyWP:SIGCOV? The very short stub essentially says "We know very little about him, including his name and identity. We can confirm he composed between 1 and 7 compositions." Is this really enough to support a stand-alone article? I'm struggling a bit to see the encyclopedic value of a short stub so devoid of substance.Sergecross73msg me13:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally apply exactly the same standards to medieval and earlier figures as to contemporary ones. The article probably contains everything that is known about him, which obviously is very little indeed. He was considered important enough to be included in the standard reference work, which in itself is probably enough for notability. There are thousands of comparable examples.Johnbod (talk)13:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that its not likely to come across a 2025New York Timess feature on a subject like this, but I'm also not convinced that mere mentions like that are enough to establish notability in the Wikipedia sense. Are you alluding to some guideline I'm unfamiliar with or something?Sergecross73msg me13:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His own entry in the standard encyclopedia on the subject is not a "mere mention"; it's just that next to nothing is known, so the biographies there and here can't be any longer.Johnbod (talk)18:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I'll reword my stance accordingly: I don't believe an entry in a standard encyclopedia is enough to establish any sort of notability standards, particularly when said entry is devoid of any real substance because nothing is known.Sergecross73msg me19:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think notability is substantiated here. I checked GScholar just now and the mentions for Borlet are essentially all the same as the mentions forTrebor (composer) because they're believed to be the same person. Therefore at the very least I think a merge with Trebor is in order, but given that even the sources I can find for that article are essentially "some compositions exist which are attributed to someone called Trebor" I don't think we have notability in a Wikipedia sense here at all, so I think deleting both Borlet and Trebor (which I've also made an AfD for) makes sense.Athanelar (talk)15:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is where I'm leaning too. I could technically see creating a redirect to Trebor, which pretty much already covers the (very little) verifiable information about Borlet, but the argument for Trebor's notability is pretty weak too. There's definitely not enough here for 2 standalone articles, though at least Trebor has verifiable information in it...Sergecross73msg me16:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against a merge, but you popular culture types need to understand that notability is not affected by whether there is information online or not.Johnbod (talk)18:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV necessitates that the sources in question address the subject 'directly and in detail.'
The first source is about how these Medieval French sources have been preserved, and the latter literally says its aim is only to transcribe the unpublished chansons of the Chantilly manuscript.
To my eyes, the only relevance of these sources to Borlet/Trebor are that he is passingly mentioned within them as composer of some of these pieces, which is pretty plainly trivial coverage. The third source you've linked is a French-language source which I'm not equipped to assess.
They analyse his work -stylistically-; some dwell on his possible identification with other musicians -various authors support more or less assertively and with different arguments the Trebor hypothesis. These are no passing mentions, nor trivial coverage, and plenty of other sources exist. But as creator of one of the most notable virelai of the time, he could, one could argue, meet the specific notability guidelines anyway -likeWikipedia:CREATIVE; it may remain a short article -but it is not that short-;- if everyone agrees a redirect and merge to Trebor is better, it might be an acceptable solution too, but things are clearer this way -and fairer- imv; outright deletion would be absolutely inappropriate, I think; coverage on him in various other languages abounds, fwiw- and please also check the information inhttps://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/MMDB/composer/COM065.HTMe.ux20:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge toTrebor (composer). I came to this discussion via Trebor, who I strongly believe is notable:see my comments at that AfD. I think Eva's point onWP:NCOMPOSER carries some merit given the inclusion inGrove, so I'm somewhat opposed to outright deletion. However, from my literature review, Borlet clearly receivesmuch less coverage than his doppelganger. There is also a lot of overlap – they may be the same person after all, and as such the vast majority of potential sources with more substantial coverage speak about Borlet in relation to Trebor. I do note the fairly imposing further reading section but, of the Chantilly scholars that speak of Borlet,Plumley,Brown,Goméz, andReaney all treat him this way, whileEarp and Apel (1 and2) only give scarce passing mentions. So I end up here offering a middle ground with a merge: not on notability grounds or as anATD, but perWP:OVERLAP.UpTheOctave! • 8va?22:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"On Trebor/Robert/Trebol/Borlet, see especially Maria del Carmen Gomez Muntané, La Música en la casa real catalano-aragonesa durante los años 1336-1432, vol. 1 : "Historia y Documentos" (Barcelona, 1977), pp. 99-101.[10] The Chantilly manuscript attributes only a single realistic virelai to Borlet ("He tres doulz roussignol"), whereas Trebor is assigned six ballades and no virelais.
Since stylistic differences between genres are at least as great as stylistic differences between individual composers, it would be virtually impossible to make a convincing argument that the composer of "He tres doulx roussignol" was or was not the same as the composer of the six ballades on stylistic grounds alone. No music is known to be attributed either to Robert or to Trebol."
I disagree. As noted above, I took both the Brown and Goméz sources into consideration when drafting my !vote. The justification for my arguement isnot identity, as you infer. Most scholarship on Borlet is related to the possibility they were the same person: this shows they are "related subjects that have a large overlap" (WP:OVERLAP), which is enough reason for a merge on its own. Also, you are misreading the sources. Brown claimsit would be virtually impossible to make a convincing argument that [Borlet] was orwas not the same as [Trebor](emphasis added). His phrasing leaves open both the possibility that they are connected or are not, which your conclusion incorrectly parses. Thanks,UpTheOctave! • 8va?00:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We don't need hard confirmation on this to warrant a merge or mention there, just that reliable sources cover them together, which they clearly do. The complexity of the situation can be covered in the prose. It'd be pretty easy to cover at the forefront of the article too, considering the lack of content. Even the sloppiest of merges wouldn't escalate the resulting article out of stub status...Sergecross73msg me00:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is justclearly a case of consulting Google over subject-matter expertise. Any merging that might arise can and should be handled separately from this discussion on the talk page, based on scholarly consensus.Chubbles (talk)05:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect toTrebor (composer) - basically I agree with UpTheOctave!'s analysis of the sources, and think that readers will be best served by a single article that covers the composer(s) and the scholarship surrounding whether they are the same person or not. Cheers,SunloungerFrog (talk)08:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E. Coverage and notability is entirely related to theAchille Lauro hijacking. In fact, much of this article is about the hijacking, not Klinghoffer as a person. The opera with his name in the title is also about the hijacking and his connection to it. Selectively merge what is accretive.Longhornsg (talk)03:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. AfD is not the proper avenue for discussing merging an article; the article's talk page is. The relevant policy isWP:VICTIM which states "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person."Katzrockso (talk)03:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your original nomination states "Selectively merge what is accretive", which seems like a proposal to merge to me. Either way, both policies support a merge, neither support content deletion.
WP:VICTIM states "if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person", that is: available encyclopedic material about the person should be incorporated into the existing article that covers the hijacking.
WP:BLP1E is not met here, given that the third prong "event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented" is not satisfied. The event is significant (as it is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page and sparked the "Sigonella Crisis") and the individual's role in the event is substantial and well-documented - as explained by the current content of the article. SeeWikipedia:What BLP1E is not.
I also believe this subject is independently notable of the crime itself, as the opera is not "one event", but a separate event that takes inspiration from the hijacking. An article like this[11] contributes to independent notability.
Strong keep This hijacking and Klinghoffer are very notable. I started to work on the articles related to the hijacking a few weeks ago and meant to get back to them. His notability is well established independent of the hijacking, given that it was a distinct act beyond the hijacking: the Palestinian resistance fighters killed him and threw him into the sea. Also, the hijacking article is fairly large as is.Metallurgist (talk)05:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the hijacking is notable. The article already covers almost everything on Klinghoffer's page. Is he notable outside the hijacking?Longhornsg (talk)09:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The availability of sources that cover the subject’s life and background, including details about his death on the Achille Lauro. It is sufficient to establish verifiable notability underWP:BIO.Morekar (talk)05:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue Bobby is notable due to his position at the time this scandal broke and for his involvement in it. A two-pronged notability, not to mention that he is a successful and (formerly) well-respected campaign manager in NY GOP circles. This page should stay, as Walker was the highest ranking member of the New York Young Republicans when the scandal broke, and frankly, was an avid participant in the group chat itself. This page is almost as important as thePeter Giunta page itself. Not to mention the page ofStephen Douglass. Stephen and Mr. Walker were the only two political officeholders involved in these vile messages. Therefore, the importance of this page staying is paramount.— Precedingunsigned comment added byKittyHawk2014 (talk •contribs)01:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you meanSamuel Douglass (politician) (not Stephen). He was separately notable as a Vermont state senator. Giunta is more borderline IMO, but he has more substantial coverage predating the YR scandal from a longer political career, which is why I didn't also nominate it for AfD. Walker is not an officeholder, except insofar as he held chair/vice chair positions at the NYSYR, which does not automatically confer notability.GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk)01:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/selectively merge toYoung Republican group chat leaks per nomination. While BLP1E is somewhat applicable, the guideline clarifies that we should avoid having an article on a living person if the relevant "event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented" (seeWikipedia:What BLP1E is not). I don't think either of those qualifications hold true, so I think a better argument isWP:PAGEDECIDE which establishes that the subject of the article is obviously best understood within the broader context of the group chat leaks.Katzrockso (talk)02:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Create a permanent stub Pursuant to Wikipedia's PermStub page, Bobby falls under the following criteria: All or most aspects of the subject are already covered in other articles.
There is not much to say about the subject.
The article is about a subject that was briefly notable, but no longer receives any coverage.
The subject is about or is notable for a single event, after which there will never likely be any future coverage.
Bobby is young and was a central figure in this scandal, second to Giunta. His name was covered around the globe. And, he is young, so he has a future where this page could be expanded.— Precedingunsigned comment added byKittyHawk2014 (talk •contribs)21:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)—Duplicate !vote:KittyHawk2014 (talk •contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
I have looked at the sources currently in this BLP about a mountaineer, and don't seeWP:THREE good sources to demonstrate thatWP:GNG is met. I have a source assessment table which I will add below, but, in summary, most of the sources depend on Memon's social media. I have carried outWP:BEFORE and not found RS to add. I may be missing coverage in other languages. I acknowledge also that the draft was accepted through AFC and that an uninvolved editor on the article's Talk page says that the subject is notable.Tacyarg (talk)17:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you are mistaken on the independence requirement for the GNG. It is not that the information presented in the article has to be gathered in some arbitrary way, but that the work is not "produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". Because none of these articles were written by the subject of the article or anyone closely related to him, they are all independent of the subject. The point of the independence criterion is to exclude "advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website". See alsoWP:IISKatzrockso (talk)19:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Katzrockso. I take your point that of course ultimately the information will come from the subject or someone close to him in some way - but in these cases the content of some of the news articles is literally Instagram or Twitter posts.Tacyarg (talk)19:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using{{source assess table}}.
Keep per the source analysis provided by Tacyarg. First off, the nominator mis-representsWP:THREE, anWP:ESSAY, as being a requirement of GNG. The 2023Express Tribune reference is a clear GNG pass. Further, the 2025Express Tribune, theHym News, and the 2024Dawn article are borderline/okay. Those three references provide an additional 12 sentences of coverage of the subject. PerWP:NBIO,If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.FrankAnchor19:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no 700 confirmed kills attributed to this individual, nor are there any reliable sources confirming this claim. This is similar toJuba (sniper) appearing inList of snipers — he claimed 700 kills, but in fact had “only” 63, but unlike Abdorrasul Zarrin, Juba had multiple reliable sources coverage. As such, this article does not meetWP:GNG.In addition, the OP is globally locked.IdanST (talk)15:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected spokespersons for political parties aren't automatically notable underWP:NPOL, but this is based principally on sources in which she's being the spokesperson rather than sources in which her work in the role is being reported upon analytically.Bearcat (talk)17:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a distracting clutter of references which don't do much to establish notability, butThis shows how prominent she is. We certainly shouldn't delete without canvassing Bengali sources. WP hassystematic bias against Bangladesh: it's a country twice the size of the UK, but according to Humaniki has around 1/25th of the number of biographies.Dsp13 (talk)11:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to delete this page because there is enough information with references. but one thing I suggest is to change person name to Samantha Sharmin as it is the correct spelling please move this page. ThanksMarxsafe (talk)13:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for deletion as this article is from as @Timtrent put it "from the wild west days" of wikipedia, it only cites a single unverifiable source, which does not meet Wikipedia's reliability or verifiability standards. And the subject appears to lack sufficient notability based on the available sources. Thus it does not meet the criteria for inclusion.Codonified (talk)11:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Kind of the nom to mention me. I was unable to find additional sourcing. This s nt eligible f0rWP:NPROF so we must rely uponWP:BIO, and I am not persuaded that this is a pass. Back when this was created WP was interested in quantity rather than quality, and the hope was that quality woudl come later. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸12:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and what usually happens is that such low quality articles with no sources are either not notable or hoax that made it into english wikipedia and then spread to wikipedias of other languages by bots mass creating these articles by translating them from the english wikipedia.Codonified (talk)12:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a hoax, as the Authority Control links clearly demonstrate. But we do not have evidence ofWP:NPROF: there is another economist with the same name who is well-cited but the best citation count I could find for this one was 13 citations for "LR algorithm with Laguerre shift for symmetric tridiagonal matrices", far from enough. And one published obituary is not enough sourcing forWP:GNG, even if it can be located and verified. —David Eppstein (talk)00:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Using our google translate option to read the linked Slovenian article makes it easier to track down sources. His biographical entry ishere The other Egon is his son. He seems to be primarily known for his role in developing computer science In Slovenia and writing textbooks. There isseminar series named after him. Absent a major award it is hard to document the contributions of educators and educational program developers rather than researchers. Their impact is put into practice rather than generating citations. His publications arehere. If someone can find reviews of his textbooks in the Slovenian literature that would help.StarryGrandma (talk)04:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look. There appears to be at least one review of a book inObzornik[13], but the link to the actual review text is broken. There are mentions of him through the years: in addition to the obit, there is an "Egon is 60" note[14], and some later footnote type mentions[15][16][17]. (Search for "Egon"; Google translate is usually not too bad on Slovene.) Most coverage is going to be 20+ years old, which is eons in internet time; in particular, I don't think the online archives ofDelo go back that far. According to the history of the Slovenian Society of Mathematicians, Physicists and Astronomers that is the first article of[18], he was the president of the society for 2 years, which could be a (weak) claim forWP:NPROF C6.Russ Woodroofe (talk)22:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the obit, we have a biographical entry in theSlovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts biographical lexicon found byStarryGrandma. I think this is a pass ofWP:ANYBIO, although I take it to be weak in a small country. It is supported by the biographical entry in the Computer History museum. There is also a case for NPROF C6, as president of a national academic society; supported by the obit and 60th birthday pieces inObzorbnik. The obit + biographical entries + history of DMFA pieces should give enough to build a solid start-class biography. The combination of two weakish keep cases brings me to a solid keep.Russ Woodroofe (talk)14:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This fails theWP:GNG and the specific guideline forWP:BIO from what is see here. The subject is a Zambian comedian and radio presenter with only routine coverage in minor or entertainment-oriented outlets such as 247 Malawi News, Malawi24, and Zedscoop which are not reliable. The article consists largely of promotional material and an unsourced biography section, which i belive violates theWP:BLP. There is no evidence of national or international recognition beyond routine mentions or award announcements cause the current sourcing I think fails to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. In addition, this article was previously discussed and deleted atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Dumbo in September 2021, where consensus found the subject failed notability and sourcing standards. The present recreation repeats the same deficiencies and adds no new significant, independent, or reliable coverage. —Icem4k (talk)11:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does not passWP:GNG. All extraordinary claims are from primary sources, and removing that, the only thing of note is the softwareonline lawsuit which is not notable in itself and puts us solidly inWP:PERP territory.themoon@talk:~$08:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage at PC Gamer[20], The Register[21], ZDNet[22], Regina Leader Post[23], Vintage Computing Federation[24], Windows Central[25], University of Regina Degrees Magazine[26], NeoWin[27], ClearMeasure[28], and the Lex Fridman Podcast[29]. Plus he has a million subscribers and 77 million views on YouTube. Simply being the Creator of Task Manager for Windows, Space Cadet Pinball for Windows NT, Zip file support for Windows and HyperCache for the Amiga would be enough to make him notable. Also the nomination is misleading.WP:PERP does not apply to someone simply because they settled a lawsuit out of court. --Guy Macon (talk)21:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 1 and 2 are rehashes of youtube videos of his. refs 3 and 4 is a rehash of a reddit post of his. ref 5 has dubious independance, 6 is rehash of a video, again. 7 passes, 8 is sourced from his tweets, 9 and 10 are interviews.
That makes for 1 source, 2 if we count charitably, that establish notability. My rationale for nomination is simply that if you remove things that are only verifiable from primary sources, all that's left is the lawsuit.
Put it simply, I'm doubting that he did everything he's claiming he did, because he has a financial incentive to tell embellished stories and to flash his old microsoft employee badge on youtube. I'm doubting he actually created task manager and zip support, he verifiably did not create but simply ported space cadet, and Hypercache is not notable itself, let aloneWP:NINI concerns.
The article (and the subject) in general makes wild claims. "As intern I wrote a bunch of major features" does not pass the smell test. Finally, as someone who works in software, I find it hard to believe microsoft would take someone normally tasked to work on disk-related code and give them the task of porting a pinball game, writing zip file support or anti-piracy code. That's simply not how that works.themoon@talk:~$08:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suspicion (no actual evidence outside ofWP:DUCK) that Themoonisacheese is somehow associated with the Dave Plummer Troll who has been vandalizing the page for years.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36] They both appear to have a strong personal animosity towards Plummer and should be topic banned from editing in that area. Besides the obvious (claiming that PC Gamer, The Register and ZDNet are not RS because reasons, claiming that RSs are lying about Plummer's accomplishments), pretty much nobody on earth other than the Dave Plummer Troll cares about a [already well documented in the article] decades old case where a software company ran by Plummer made some super dubious marketing claims, got busted for it, and settled out of court with a promise never to do anything like that again. The final confirmation will be seeing once again the oft-repeated lie that a press release from a prosecutor is the same as a verdict from a court, while a similar press release from the defense attorney on the other side should be ignored. --Guy Macon (talk)16:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well that's a strong accusation but you can ask for a checkuser if you'd like; I assure you i'm, at worst, a deletionist. I have nothing about the subject personally, I remember seeing a few of his videos and going "huh, neat". I don't really care about the lawsuit stuff and frankly i don't fully understand it. What i understand is this: The subject of the article's claimed notability can't be based on that lawsuit per WP:PERP, so the rest of the claims must hold up to scrutiny for the article not be deleted; yet they don't.
The PC gamerdoes rehash a youtube video. It's composed of a small intro about space cadet, then 5 paragraphs that paraphrase or quote the youtube video, and a closing paragraph about nostalgia for old windows. this is nowhere near a secondary source.
The Register articledoes rehash a youtube video. The entire contents paraphrase a youtube video, and frankly it reads like a bad AI summary. It offers no commentary or reporting of any kind besides "here's what Dave Plummer has said in a video". It is not a secondary source.
The ZDNet articledoes rehash a reddit post, specifically[37]. It also rehashes the university of regina talk available on the subject's channel. it also offetrs no commentary or reporting of any kind besides "here's what dave plummer has said in his talk and on reddit". the same goes for every source linked by you, perhaps except 7 which I have independence concerns about but willing to accept and 5 which is likely a copy written by the subject but sure, whatever.
This does not sufficiently establish notability. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the claim that the subject meets GNG has currently very few pieces of evidence that aren't directly provided by the subject.themoon@talk:~$17:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I retract my suspicions. The Dave Plummer Troll is fixated on the lawsuit. You clearly are not. My apologies. Sorry about that.
When a mainstream RS source reports information from a non-RS YouTube video, that makes the information in the YouTube video notable, not the other way around. Reliability, as opposed to notability, is more complicated. In many cases the only reliability added is the reliability of the claim that the YouTube video contains the information, not the reliability of the information itself. --Guy Macon (talk)19:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
alright, i guess my exact reason for deletion are more nuanced that straight up GNG in the usual sense, but hopefully it is clear that there is still a notability problem due to the reliability of the information:
If all the info on the subject is from the subject itself, relayed through churnalism because headlines where you say "you wont BELIEVE what went on at microsoft" get clicks, then not only is that information about what went on at microsoft not reliable, but it also can't possibly establish notability for the person making the claim, unless we were discussing a person notable for making unsourced claims about microsoft (which, arguably we are but the article far from reflects that).
In my view, the article should be deleted because for it to be truthful to our standards of reliability, it would have to be rewritten to pretty much all be "Plummer claims to have[...] and claims the company culture at microsoft[...]", at which point i hope it becomes evident that if the claims cannot be sourced, the subject is not norable enough for inclusion. Perhaps you disagree with this view, but i'd like to see policy-based arguments backing your point in that case.themoon@talk:~$21:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with all of the 'less than keep' comments above. There are few people as capable of self promotion as Plummer is. Constantly so. Overall I'd just about go with aKeep, if only for a quieter life. But I'd like to see sourcing thatwasn't just taking him at his word and repeating it. We've got him if we want to hear (again) how he wrote Task Manager.Andy Dingley (talk)21:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no evidence that this person meetsWP:BASIC. The best source I can find is fromMichigan State University. Others are less helpful in a notability context.This obituary comes from a small publication where Krysa had a weekly column, so I don't think it's independent. There's also alocal news Q&A, which is effectively a primary source. There are other scattered mentions of Krysa out there, but none focus on the man himself (nor can I find sources that support much of what's in the article right now).Ed[talk][OMT]00:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - his last church, St. Casimir Roman Catholic Church, is probably notable, but not him. Parish priests are rarely considered notable without significant coverage.Bearian (talk)23:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is very clearly AI generated, and before being AI generated, was already a stub. It has likely also been solely updated due to COI reasons. I couldn't really find much coverage on this person either. If not deleted, this article seriously needs a full rewrite.–LuniZunie ツ(talk)23:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TNT or delete I haven't had time to look for sources myself and this isn't a field with which I'm familiar at all, but the most recent set of edits are clearly LLM (lots of evidence) and COI (admitted some coordination, denied that that makes it any shade of a COI situation), as well as somewhat promotionally written and somewhat unsourced, so at a minimum it needs to be taken back so some historical revision. But the article history has been plagued by other COI and lack of sourcing for many years, so it needs either a complete rewrite after someone finds actual sources and can make a claim of notability, or else kill it outright.DMacks (talk)23:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. Thank you for your comments. I'm trying to figure out what to do, but I could also use some help. I can certainly revise and rewrite the entire article, but obviously I'll need some time. There's no conflict of interest between me and the author; as I've already mentioned, I contacted the author to ask if I could expand an existing page. My interest is purely academic, as I studied the author's plays at the University of Salerno, as is done at several other Italian universities. As for the use of AI, I think it all depends on my knowledge of English, which isn't excellent, so I occasionally get help from a web translator.Valydibi (talk)10:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I spot-checked four of the refs added by Valydibi recently, and all four failed verification of the statements, including one that I checked after they said they re-checked them. I am left with casting aWP:CIR (or at bestWP:LLMCIR) over their entire work, andstrongly oppose keeping its current form as a BLP disaster.DMacks (talk)21:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did some quick clean-up. The "Publications" section does not seem of encyclopedic importance, as it merely breaks down where his already-listed plays were published. I would delete it. Also, the EL section needs a lot of culling, although there may be some useful refs hidden in it. I have no opinion on whether this person is notable or not. Someone needs to analyze the refs. --Ssilvers (talk)16:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. Rather than consider deleting the Publications section, which confirms the international reach of the author's playwright's work, could you please tell me how to improve it, what to add? Thank you!Valydibi (talk)07:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, you could make it clear which ones have been produced -- as opposed to merely published -- and at what theatres? Full productions are of much greater importance than readings. If any of them had long runs, state how many performances (together with citations that state the facts being asserted). Same for the plays of other writers that he directed. If notable (bluelinked) people had starring roles in any of these plays, that might help (especially if many of the leading roles were played by blue-linked people. --Ssilvers (talk)18:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He appears to be a very well known artist in Italy and many of the sources are in Italian but I thhink he's notable enough in his home country to warrant keeping the page in English.Agnieszka653 (talk)18:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Than you! To understand the importance of this author, we need to distinguish between theater and entertainment. This author has devoted himself much more to writing than to business, because he has always defended the literary dignity of writing, an aspect that is too often overlooked. For this reason, he defends the existence of theater on the page as well, as a reading and a re-creation of an intimately personal theater. Furthermore, in Italy, the theatrical world is complex and diverse. There are the large permanent theaters, tied to politics and money, whose programs are repetitive and insensitive to change. Beyond these, there exists a much more vibrant theatrical world, far removed from power, which welcomes new drama and deeper reflections on the relationship between theater and reality. This author belongs to this second world and is always highly critical of certain cultural policy choices made by large theaters and the government. His radical choices in writing have brought his work to universities, and several students have written theses on his plays. I don't know what else to add. I'm working hard to build this page, but I'm a little discouraged right now. My apologies for my poor English.Valydibi (talk)05:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or TNT per DMacks' spot-check noted above.I saw that the source given for the subject's main claim to fame, a playwriting prize mentioned in the Lead, did not even Verify that he won the prize. Other citations proposed last night (which I deleted), did not appear to be independent and violatedWP:EL. I think the article should be deleted, and, if this person is notable, someone should start again using independent, sources. --Ssilvers (talk)16:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A better cite was added. However, most of the sources given in this article are primary sources, which (assuming they even do that) verify only that something happened. It needs secondary sources that explain the importance of the event, production or work. --Ssilvers (talk)20:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Tino Caspanello—I would suggest Agatino (Tino) Caspanello or Tino (Agatino) Caspanello, because Tino is the name the author is known by—is one of the most famous Italian playwrights, with his written and performed works also being distributed abroad. This is a very important aspect, because in Italy it is very difficult to establish relationships with theaters, theater companies, and publishing houses in other countries. I checked the sources cited, and they are all valid. I checked the website of the Academy of Fine Arts of Perugia, which does not have digital archives, but maintains the paper documents of its students in the office. Anyone can write and learn about the author's studies, but I don't believe it's possible to post paper documents on the page. I understand the concern about the presence of institutional websites, but it's important to understand the relationship between Italian newspapers and theater: for many years, newspapers have no longer been interested in theater; they no longer publish theater news and reviews, unless they refer to famous television personalities. Material available online is often lost because archives are not built to preserve information. How, then, can we attest to an author's career? Online magazines, such as Sipario.it and Dramma.it, Altrevelocità.it, and Teatroecritica.it, remain the only ones that still pay close attention to Italian theatre, and their websites attest to the veracity of information about the author.Tessy43 (talk)06:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
perWP:NAME, the correct title is Tino Caspanello, if that is how he is generally known. His full name is Agatino Caspanello -- the nickname is not needed in the full/birth name because it is "a common hypocorism of one of their names" -- that is, Tino is a common and obvious nickname for Agatino. SeeMOS:NICKNAME. --Ssilvers (talk)18:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link to the highly respected theater criticism and news site Ateatro.it, which reports the author's news of the 2003 Riccione Prize.
Keep I found other very interesting links that confirm the author's work in Italy and abroad. I repeat, I don't agree with deleting the page about him. After all, the purpose of an encyclopedia is precisely to welcome not only those who already have a clear reputation or greater visibility (this aspect is sometimes often linked to press offices, politics, etc., especially in the theater field), but also those who contribute to changing our perspective on the world, to perceiving a metaphysics in our daily actions, even in those that seem small and banal, because metaphysics, especially in the arts, is the most vital aspect for deeper knowledge. This aspect is recognized in the author's writing, and not only in his country. What is the encyclopedic interest? The quantity of his work? The quality of his work? The coherent project of a writing that transcends regional and national boundaries and is received from East to West with great interest and enthusiasm? Here are the links:
Thanks! I checked the links, and they're all working. Interesting links are those on the website of the Piccolo Teatro in Milan, where Mari opened the Tramedautore festival in 2018; the website of the national newspaper La Repubblica; and the Italieaparis website, which reports on a study day on the author at the Italian Cultural Institute in Paris, in collaboration with the Paris-Sorbonne. Also very interesting is the article in the Openedition magazine on the myths and the crossing of the Mediterranean Sea. I'll try to publish them, along with the related news.Valydibi (talk)10:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article cites multiple indipendent and reliable sources, including theatrical reviews and international publications. The author is a recognized Italian playwright and theater director, whose theatrical writing has been awarded and also translated and published in several countries (France, USA, Belgium, Kosovo, Turkey). The topic clearly meets WP Artist and WP Author notability criteria.
Delete- despite the numerous citations included , spot checks already shows lack of SIGCOV about the subject. Additional searches not helping the subjects notability either.Lorraine Crane (talk)03:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject meets thegeneral notability guideline, supported by multiple independent, reliable, and in-depth sources providingsignificant coverage of his professional work and media presence. Several major outlets have published original reporting about Kevin Sands and his influence in cosmetic dentistry, not merely passing mentions. 19:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Was already nominated for deletion, with success, in 2009. The article was later recreated. Besides his own claims about himself made in the year of his death, there appear to be no primary sources about 1) Blagoje Jovović's record in the Second World War 2) Him assassinating Pavelić. All the sources in this article take his word for face value. On the Croatian Wikipedia page, there are Montenegrin historians cited who point this out.
The person who shot Pavelić fled the scene, and all of a sudden, over four decades later in 1999, Mr. Jovović shows up and claims it was him who did it. In the troubled conflictual atmosphere of the 90s, Serbian media were, perhaps, eager to welcome another Gavrilo Princip. If anyone can show primary sources about his record or him assassinating Pavelić it would be welcome, otherwise this article should be removed because of lack of primary sources andWP:DUEWEIGHT.Shoshin000 (talk)10:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you removed the references to various low-quality tabloid portals so there's no illusion of verifiability.
As there's been some coverage of this story in mainstream national sources likeRadio Television of Serbia, even if everything is fabricated, the name is now a plausible search term at least. Maybe this can be a redirect toAssassination of Ante Pavelić? As it happens, a new user started that article in September. Maybe the two can be combined into a reasonable article? --Joy (talk)10:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning tokeep. Demanding primary sources take precedence over secondary ones is contrary to guidelines. It's not up to wikipedia editors to do original research, scouring for primary documents to confirm what secondary sources say.. deletion would only make sense if the person was not notable or if it was generally agreed upon that the story is false. There are many reliably published academic works on WWII/Yugoslavia that if not outright name Jovovic as the assassin, at least treat it as a possibility:[43][44][45][46][47][48][49] --2605:8D80:13B7:4114:F002:47BB:568:EF49 (talk)17:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: : still too early to tell be certain if subject will be Notable based on current citations and additional online searches . not opposed to draftify, as the subject has potentially plenty of time to gain SIGCOV over time.Lorraine Crane (talk)15:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as long as his name is mentioned in that other article. Having a redirect is, if anything, much less bad than naming him there. If it is removed and stays removed, then delete.PARAKANYAA (talk)02:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should not be deleted, feels like someone is trying to cover up this disgusting persons depraved crime. He is clearly a notable person and below it says both this page and his own page "should be deleted". Why cover up notable people's sex crimes against minors??2601:1C2:4486:3A0:B11A:FE0B:447:C3C (talk)08:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect Baffled why this was created when there was already an article on the person, unnecessary duplication. No opinion yet on an AFD for that page.Reywas92Talk03:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable staff officer outside ofWP:BLP1E for removal over his social media posts. If he were notable, there would be coverage outside this context, but there is not.Longhornsg (talk)01:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails to meet the notability guidelines for biographies. There are no significant independent and reliable secondary sources that provide in-depth coverage of the individual.Morekar (talk)11:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Elia made over 200 appearances in the Swiss top tier (https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/angelo-elia/2/) and five appearances for the Switzerland national team (https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/angelo-elia/4/). To me, that would definitely suggest notability. I've searched an archive of Swiss newspapers and it has dozens of articles with passing mentions – match reports, transfer reports, etc.La minute d'Angelo is a longer article.Nun ein Topspieler teases an article on page 13 that is likelyWP:SIGCOV: "For a long time, Angelo Elia was hailed as an eternal talent. Now, at Servette, he has made his breakthrough. You can find his Toto tip on page 13.". Unfortunately, page 13 is not viewable. It looks like we need the help of someone more familiar with Swiss offline sources.Robby.is.on (talk)09:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I don't understand. The sources I put talk about the king in different section, like the Cheitharol Kumbaba and the Khuman Kangleiron, and History of the People of Manipur and History of Manipur. Yes I can fix the subjective wordings but with due respect, saying that the sources are just about the dynasty, are you sure that you checked all of the sources? The Cheitharol Kumbaba is the royal chronicle of the kings of Manipur. The title literally says it. Its more of about each king of Manipur, not just the dynasty. And the Khuman Kangleiron? I only used that source just for the reign year of the Khuman King. The History of the People of Manipur talks about the origins and migrations of each ethnic groups of Manipur and is essentially focused on the Meiteis and each Meitei clan's royalties. The History of Manipur by Wahengbam Ibohal is also the same with the third book.
Now, the first two sources (not any four of the above), I used them just for the reign year of the Meitei King. I don't know why I am explaining but I just want to make sure that the sources are not "just" about the dynasty.
Also, just wanted to include: Other new pages reviewers did not have any problems with reviewing mine and other articles with sources like those. I am not speaking with anger but I just want to resolve this quickly peacefully. :)VictorNingthemcha (talk)03:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Victor Ningthemcha. Your response istoo long; that said, I appreciate your efforts to fix the article. I agree that the article will be a lot better if the subjective wording is fixed. As for the sources, that's my mistake - I didn't look at the refs closely enough. I think this article can be kept, just fix the wording a little bit.Seanwk :)(Talk |Contribs)23:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Ningthemcha Since these are all from books that I can't access, can you clarify if any of these books cover Thawānthābā in detail; like how many paragraphs of content does each book have on the topic? It's not necessary that the book, chapter or even page be about him, so long as there is sufficient detail.Katzrockso (talk)09:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katzrockso I think you can access the Internet Archive ones. But for one of the Google Books, A History of Manipuri Literature, I gathered like 42 lines from it. I cannot see the paragraph numbers as I cannot see the pages fully. However, I mainly got the texts from page 29-36.VictorNingthemcha (talk)09:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just used "Thawānthābā" for the title because of how it is pronounced. With per respect, you need to put the name "Thawanthaba" to search in the other books.VictorNingthemcha (talk)09:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't see there was an archive.org one. That one providesWP:SIGCOV, but I'm not sure if it's a reliable source. I did see some other reliable sources that provide enough significant coverage ([51]), so I am going to !vote tokeep. I'm afraid I am out of my depth here for evaluating Indian historical sources, though.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. The other !votes provide no deletion rationale underWP:DEL-REASON. Biographies of those who have receivedWP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources are completely standard on Wikipedia. There is ampleWP:SIGCOV from numerous media reports already linked in the article - this article in particular ([52]) is extremely detailed, moreso than many of the articles we have for people. She was also profiled in a book on the factory she worked at Red Path published in 1976. As noted in a recent AfD by Bearian, "It's not our responsibility to parse out why significant coverage exists, or what drives editorial decisions. In fact, that's one of the unfair and untrue assumptions about Wikipedia." That the significant coverage she received does not meet individual users' personal interests has no bearing on whether she is notable.
Collecting biographical information on people covered in the media for all sorts of unique reasons has a long history on Wikipedia - there are articles on the tallest trees in the world (Hyperion (tree),Menara (tree)), the oldest trees (Olive tree of Vouves), the tallest people (Väinö Myllyrinne), the shortest people, etc. These are topics that become notable in virtue of their coverage in secondary sources, and secondary sources cover them become of what is perceived to be interesting or noteworthy. We don't have to agree with the media to understand that these articles meet the criterion of theWP:GNG.Katzrockso (talk)23:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all tallest trees have an article. Not all oldest trees have an article. And not every tallest/shortest person alive or dead, has an article.MattSucci (talk)07:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely - you are correct that not every single tall/old tree or tall/short person has an article, but the ones that receive significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources do! And that's the relevant criterion that unifies whether or not these individual people/trees/etc (see also tortoisesAdwaita!) have articles.Katzrockso (talk)08:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you concede the topic is notable (asWP:PAGEDECIDE is about notable topics - as the very first sentence of the guideline describes), then the question is about how to present the information in a Wikipedia article.WP:NOPAGE provides no rationale for deletion, but rather a rationale for redirection or merging. Where would you propose we merge this information?Katzrockso (talk)00:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can understand the deletion of some supercentenarian articles, but Gadyuchkina is clearly notable. She is the oldest Russian ever (meaning that this isn’t passing notability, it will last), and she’s reported on in multiple large Russian media outlets (passingWP:SIGCOV). I’ve also added two extra secondary sources for even more notability. The nominator is infamous for hating the creation and existence of longevity related articles, so I think this is a case ofWP:IDONTLIKEIT.PrezDough (talk)23:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what, she's a non-notable person who happens to be the oldest in an arbitrarily defined geographical area. When she's dead, what will be the rationale, sheused to be the oldest person in an arbitrarily defined geographical area? Lots of people have children and grandchildren, that doesn't make them notable, and as is well established living to an arbitrary age doesn't either.The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)00:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the part that said “oldest ever”. She is the oldest ever validated Russian person, a very significant title which, even years after her passing, will still be remembered, both in Russia and around the world. Also, you know what does make someone notable? Having sources in a plethora of national and local news sources. And “Arbitrarily geographical area”? I didn’t know that a country that has established itself in a large area in the world for hundreds of years is arbitrary.PrezDough (talk)00:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Being the oldest Russian women ever is notable enough for an article. Reaching her age is when an article could be considered already, but being the oldest Russian makes her meet the criteria for an article.User:Sneakysasquatchfan(talk)00:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator! As with all of the unnecessary supercentenarian pages that have been created and then deleted, she is nothing other than "notable" for having breathed for an arbitrarily longer amount of time than other elderly people. And, per Blade of the Northern Lights, this particular one has breathed a few years longer in a certain geographical region. Bio is nothing other than the typically mundane place of birth, unnecessary names of parents, mother died early, worked 12-hour shifts, wow!, married, had children, some died, husband died, reads books, and the highlight of the page: "she has a hearing aid". Seriously!? Everything encyclopedic you could possibly need to know about her, namely: DOB & DOD, is contained inList of supercentenarians by continentMattSucci (talk)06:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If possible, I like to evaluate each article on its merits, looking for significant coverage, and assuming good faith for translations of sources. That's true, even if I might have biases. That being said, this article passes notability. Lastly, if there is any contention about specific guidelines, then I look to see if there are other precedents or common outcomes regarding sources (say,WP:PROF orWP:RS). In this case, I recall recent examples of otherwise non-notable individuals who have received significant coverage for achieving something similarly mundane:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Raffa andWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inah Canabarro Lucas. It's not our job to second-guess journalists or researchers who decide to publish ahuman interest story,qualitative study, orlived experience.Bearian (talk)10:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I had a conversation at Wikimedia NA about this phenomenon with an editor originally from Africa, who expressed exasperation with sourcing sports BLPs from Africa. In certain cultures, sports and human interest stories almost always end every news broadcast or newspaper: after thehard news comes thesoft news. "Tell me the bad news first, then the good news will make it better," goes the joke. This is the culture in Russia and the United States, but might not be true elsewhere. It's not our purpose to parse whether that's appropriate culturally. We are a mirror. The previously mentioned conversation I had at WNA was afortuitous happenstance that only occurred because of a notorious incident. That's human interest.Bearian (talk)11:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if a subject isnotable, that means that wecan have an article. It doesnot mean that wemust have an article. If there's nothing interesting to tell, a subject may be better merged into an appropriate list. --Randykitty (talk)11:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toList of the oldest people by country. This isWP:BLP1E, specifically living long enough. I searched for AfDs that contained phrase "the result was keep" and "supercentenarian" in them and got53 entries. Among them, only 20 articles have not been redirected or deleted as of now. In contrast, for "delete" result there were103 pages, for redirect27 and for merge20. The consensus is usually to delete such article even though local/national press usually provides enough coverage for such people.Kelob2678 (talk)13:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete –WP:NOPAGE says that we should present this information otherwise. This person's entire notability stems from being old, and apart from incredibly minor and mind-numbing details about her life, the information is best presented as a list entry, which gives the only details of this person's life that anyone actually cares about: her date of birth, her date of death (when she dies), her age, and her country. Anything further is cruft. This person is already in three lists which give these details. First delete, then redirect to one of those pages so as to stop sockpuppets from restoring the old text.🐔ChicdatBawk to me!13:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the significant coverage in multiple Russian sources over a period of ~10 years. I know there can be an aversion for sources that are more human interest stories (sometimes called "fancruft", "puff pieces", etc) but the details in these sources appear more than routine or trivial but rather tell of a subject who lived from the time of the czars, through wars and famine, living at least 45 years past the life expectancy of the average person in her region. However, if there's a consensus that allsupercentenarians who aren't notable for something other than living to 110 or older should be redirected to a list supercentenarians I'd open to considering that down the road.Nnev66 (talk)01:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objection to the encyclopedic content that is present in the article being retained in some fashion somewhere. The issue is that there is no plain reading ofWP:NOPAGE (the only sound argument presented so far) that supports content deletion rather than content preservation.Katzrockso (talk)08:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What encyclopedic content would that be exactly? Maybe "Gadyuchkina married Sergey Petrovich Gadyuchkin, a naval officer, and at first, they lived with his sister's family in a single room." or "She lived with her son Oleg, but moved in with her granddaughter Olga in 2021." perhaps "In January 2022, she visited the Yasnye Zori sanitorium in Yaroslavl." or possibly, as I have already mentioned, and the highlight of the page: "In June 2023, her hearing was tested by hearing center "Rainbow of Sounds" and she was fitted with a hearing aid." Apart from her DOB, current age and future DOD, there is nothing "encyclopedic" here. Wikipedia isn't a supercentenarian fansite!MattSucci (talk)08:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical information is widely considered to be encyclopedic content, as a biography is included on nearly every single Wikipedia article on a person. That you do not find her lifeWP:INTERESTING has no relevance on whether or not the content is encyclopedic. For what it's worth, reliable sources take interest in the lives of supercentenariansin virtue of their longevity - news articles regularly include biographical information because people speculate on why/how a centenarian lived longer, what historical events they endured/witnessed, while researchers study their lives because they can provide insights into why centenarians live longer (see[53] for one example from 1979!). The point is that this individual has received significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources.Katzrockso (talk)20:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that I do not like it, but not in the sense ofWP:IDLI. Her bio IS truly "mind-numbingly mundane". The fact that she is the oldest living and oldest ever Russian, is reasonably interesting to know, but an entry in a list is more than sufficient to convey those two encyclopedic facts. And as for "all the other" supercentenarian AfDs, well, consensus as to whether they had adequate encyclopedic value to merit a standalone page has been decided by fairly well attended discussions, and not the fact that the articles were simply disliked. Also, make of it what you will, and I'm definitely not claiming that it is significant, but the nine editors for delete/redirect have a combined edit count of 690,000+, whereas the eight who are for keeping, including two IP addresses with 9 edits between them and the article's creator, have a total of just over 125,000.MattSucci (talk)19:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning weak keep. Katzrockso and I have been working on a protracted dispute that has still led to some constructive article improvements, but Katzrockso has opined that this guy should be stricken from the article and Wikipedia now apparently. I deprodded because I thought this had at least a 50% chance of surviving an AFD under GNG. This is evidently a fringe author, has published in fringe publications, and he seems to have some association with hereditarian/race realists/scientific racists/racist scientists/whatever you want to call them, or is one, but being a bad person or an unsavory personality isn't a reason to prod. We have lots of articles on notable white supremacists. He definitely doesn't meet NACADEMIC or NAUTHOR, but under GNG, I am leaning weak keep. There is the Guardian source already in the article, which gives him a couple paragraphs that I'd probably consider more than just a passing mention:The other co-author, Curtis S Dunkel, is a psychologist who was affiliated with Western Illinois University (WIU) on the paper but is billed as an independent researcher on recent publications and on the ResearchGate website. The Guardian contacted WIU for clarification. A spokesperson said: “Curtis Dunkel is no longer an employee at WIU”, adding: “I cannot comment on the reason for his departure.” Dunkel, along with Kirkegaard and Woodley, spoke at the London Conference on Intelligence (LCI) in 2016, according to leaked conference schedules. Dunkel’s paper was entitled Sex Differences in Brain Size Do Translate into Difference in General Intelligence, and the abstract suggests that Dunkel claimed that women were less intelligent than men by an equivalent of 4 IQ points on average. Here is coverage of him in Psypost, which I think is an RS right?, and which seems to be fairly significant coverage as it focuses on him and his study:[54] He is cited for debunking purposes by the Chad and Brym 2020 article[55], and by the Panofsky article (already in the article). Those cites are pretty cursory, but taken as a whole, he appears to have a footprint. I also got a bunch of hits in Google Books, about 2 pages, unless there is another Curtis Dunkel, citing a book "Possible Selves Theory, Research and Applications" and some for "Terrorism: An Identity Theory Perspective."[56] ResearchGate, which may not be correct or reliable but as a rough indicator, claims he is cited 2814 times and has 126 publications. Another small cite in a cognitive development book, "Children′s Thinking"[57]. The Panofsky thing is covered in a book[58] which devotes most of the preview page to Dunkel that I can see. Another small cite in "Confronting the “Weaponization” of Genetics by Racists Online and Elsewhere"[59]. My standard for keep is not dependent on how much I disagree with or find distasteful the person, and I have argued to keep less notable individuals, so I have a tough time coming down on the delete side here.Andre🚐07:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly notable fringe researchers likeEmil Kirkegaard have had their articles deleted/redirected multiple times despite mentions in exposes of race science. Having a small number of citations or even one example of routine coverage of a specific adademic paper in PsyPost doesn't constituteWP:SIGCOV. I don't think that the passing mentions of Dunkel in The Guardian article constituteWP:SIGCOV, since they don't have any analysis of him but consist of small factoids about his academic career.
I agree this is borderline notability, because his prior work on identity in relation to social psychology is much more significant than his recent work on fringe theories, but without a good analysis of the actual prominence of his work within that literature, I believe there is no real justification for notability.Katzrockso (talk)22:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of independent sourcing. We have a similar problem atRussell T. Warne. Some of these far-right "race" pseudoscience people are not notable for Wikipedia articles. There simply isn't enough goodWP:FRIND sourcing on them to establish an article.Veg Historian (talk)21:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the company he founded (Enlight Software) may passWP:GNG, this person doesn't seem to passWP:N. The coverage from reliable secondary sources is either interviews (primary sources/coverage is about the games/Enlight and not about the person) or press releases. There is no in-depth discussion/SIGCOV about this person's life.OceanHok (talk)17:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Enlight Software is well known in the business simulation game community. I believe that you are not a business simulation fan, so it is understandable why you don’t think Enlight Software is notable
Correct me if I am wrong -- I believe Wikipedia requires articles to demonstrate notability within their specific fields, rather than general notability to the broader public. Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:NOTE) emphasize that subjects must be notable within their own field or context (in this case, business simulation game community), not necessarily to the general public at large. This is a core principle to allow coverage of specialized topics, from niche software developers to cultural institutions, as long as there's significant reliable, independent secondary coverage.
For example, does the following article look notable to you?
If all articles that are not notable to the general public should be deleted, then I believe a significant portion of articles in Wikipedia should be deleted.Fact2Hound (talk)21:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SeeWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is quite probable that a large portion of Wikipedia articles are non-notable if we stopped all editing today and only went through assessing the notability of articles, but there isn't going to be some sort of mass deletion as that would easily throw the baby out with the bathwater. Anyway, this discussion is not about the studio, butWP:FAME is not a viable argument either.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)01:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to your saying that "I also do not think Enlight Software is notable either", which should be classified as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also.
Don't you think that it is strange that with so many old biography articles needing to be deleted, the on-going AfD list includes none of the old ones:
I wasn't aware of this until I just checked out the list. For Wikipedia's transparency, I think at least this deserves some observations.Fact2Hound (talk)15:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Wikipedia's general notability guideline (GNG) and specific notability criteria for people (WP:BIO) do not explicitly require in-depth discussion or significant coverage (SIGCOV) specifically about a person's life to warrant a standalone article. Instead, notability for individuals is established through significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources that address the person directly and in detail (beyond trivial mentions), which can focus on their achievements, contributions, works, or roles in events rather than a comprehensive biographical overview. For creative professionals like video game designers, this could include coverage of their role in creating or co-creating significant works that have themselves received independent reviews from notable sources or critical attention.
The article includes references to the following reviews of Chan's games from GameSpot and IGN:
@OceanHok According to your standard, many persons in thehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_designers list have the same issue. I believe fewer than half of the persons in the list have in-depth discussion/SIGCOV about their person's lives or are very famous. Should we delete all of their wikipages that do not pass this highly demanding threshold? If you think so, I will go ahead and create "articles for deletion" for them and see how the community reacts to the deletion proposals, so that we don't hold a double standard.
The links you provided are SIGCOV for his games and NOT for himself. We need RS about the person, not RS about the studios/games. While it is true that some of the other articles probably won't survive AfD, mass nominating them for deletion is aWP:POINTY behaviour.OceanHok (talk)03:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you said is not true. The links I originally added are not only about his games but also include this one about himself:
Comment sources are mainly interviews, user has no edits(or minimum) outside of this article , Sections of the article (mainly "Capitalism series") looks AI generated. Not !voting only because i had reverted user's edit to redirect (which i felt was perfectly fine) assuming good faith and hadthis encounter with the user in his talk page and left decisions to experienced editors . please ping me if i am eligible to vote .Khagendra (talk)03:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Per Wikipedia's policy, the concensus is actually not affected by the numbers of positive and negative votes .
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
Yoon, Suh-kyung (2002-09-26). "Gaming -- Game Boy: A Hong Kong game developer proves that learning is half the fun".Far Eastern Economic Review. Vol. 165, no. 38. p. 40.Factivafeer000020020919dy9q0000r.ProQuest2869126904.The article notes: "Trevor Chan spends most of his days flipping through recipe books and finding out how much fresh produce like artichokes and steak would cost in Paris. He also has a map of properties in Paris and calculates their rental fees. But 29-year-old Chan knows nothing about cooking and has no plans to open a restaurant -- at least not a real one. He's a game developer and he's working on his latest creation, a simulation game called Restaurant Empire. ... In another game, Virtual U, which Chan developed with funding from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation in New York, gamers must manage a university. But none of these games come close to the success of Chan's first creation, Capitalism, which he designed when he was just 19. The business-simulation game has sold more than 150,000 copies around the world. Building on its success, Chan launched a sequel, Capitalism II, earlier this year. "He's the most successful game developer in Greater China," says Gino Yu, head of the Multi-Media Innovation Centre at Hong Kong's Polytechnic University. "Almost every other computer game made in the region is a "me too" game that was modelled after something made before in the U.S. or Japan. Trevor's games are unique. He's one of the few Asian developers who can get their games distributed in the U.S. and Europe." One reason Chan succeeded in the global games business is that simulation games are easier and cheaper to create than shoot-em-up, graphics-heavy strategy games. ... Ironically, Chan never went to university and doesn't know how to do many of the things his games teach others to do. The unlikely entrepreneur learned how to build a business when he was developing Capitalism. ... Today, as founder of a profitable company with a staff of 27, that research has paid off."
Davis, Chris (2004-05-04)."Writing your own rules in the business of computer games".South China Morning Post.Factivascmp000020030505dz540005w.ProQuest265647330. Retrieved2025-10-18.The article notes: "By combining his love for computer games and business, Trevor Chan Ming-yuk created his own entrepreneurial vision as founder and chief executive officer of Enlight Software Limited. ... It wasn't long before he had created a game based on building a business empire. In 1995, he launched "Capitalist", a simulated stock market game that allows players to experience running their own multi-billion dollar business. Leading US publisher Interactive Magic distributed Capitalist, which has been hailed as one of the best economic games. Harvard and Stanford University incorporated the award-winning game into their business management courses shortly after its release. ... It took more than three years to develop and launch Capitalist, during which time he was working seven days a week as a consultant providing computer-generated business solutions to trading companies. He spent his evenings and weekends writing computer code and reading business manuals. The phenomenal success of Capitalist spurred the creation of other business games, such as Virtual U, which simulates operating a university, Seven Kingdoms, Capitalist ll, Hotel Great and the latest offering, Restaurant Empire."
Saltzman, Marc, ed. (2000).Game Design: Secrets of the Sages. Indianapolis:Macmillan Publishing. pp. 395–396.ISBN1-56686-987-0. Retrieved2025-10-18 – viaInternet Archive.The book notes: "Trevor Chan founded Enlight Software in 1993. Under his leadership, the company has received numerous accolades from the industry and become one of the world's leading developers of strategy and simulation games. ... Trevor's first game,Capitalism, published by Interactive Magic in 1995, has won industry awards and been widely regarded as the best business-simulation game ever created. "Capitalism is the most realistic, detailed business sim on the market today, and one of the best economic games of all time," saysPC Gamer. ... Trevor then went on to produceCapitalism Plus, the eagerly anticipated follow-up to the original. Together with the original, over 150,000 copies of the Capitalism series have been sold worldwide. ... Trevor Chan is now directing his teams at Enlight to produceCapitalism II andVirtual U.Capitalism II will take the award-winning business-simulation game to the next level with breathtaking graphics and increased realism."
Krich, John (2004-05-20)."Virtual Feasts: Restaurant Computer Game Turns Chefs Into Action Heroes".The Wall Street Journal.ProQuest315568313. Archived fromthe original on 2021-01-23. Retrieved2025-10-18.The article notes: "The game, developed by Hong Kong programming whiz-kid Trevor Chan, comes in the wake of "The Sims," a massively popular series of games that allow players to create characters, make decisions for them and control their environments -- from casinos to cruise ships and nightclubs. ... Mr. Chan may be right when he claims his creation "shows the emotional attachment needed to succeed at a restaurant." Surprisingly, however, he wasn't moved to invent Restaurant Empire by a love of gourmet dining, but because "a lot of simulation games can measure management results or tell a story, but this game does both." Mr. Chan founded game-development company Enlight Inc. in 1993, when he was 20. His first release was the 1995 "Capitalism," a management game that became a cult favorite at Harvard and Stanford business schools. In 2002 came "Hotel Giant," a hospitality-industry mock-up. Restaurant Empire, released last year, has sold 150,000 copies."
Feldman, Curt (2000-04-28)."Trevor Chan: On the Record".GameSpot. Archived fromthe original on 2025-10-18. Retrieved2025-10-18.The article notes: "Trevor Chan, the game designer behind Intaractive Magic's Seven Kingdoms, doesn't make it to Atlanta very often. Chan is based in Hong Kong, In fact, as GameSpot News pursued Chan in the weeks preceding E3, all efforts to connect failed - and failed again. Actually, IMagic staffers started to worry a little that Chan had decided to leave the business of computer game development behind. Our worries were quickly routed when Chan walked into the E3News booth on the show floor and introduced himself. He was, to be expected, quickly engulfed by a small sea of curious GameSpot reporters and editors. ... Seven Kingdoms' sequel, Seven Kingdoms II, is currently in development at Chan's Hong Kong-based design company Enlight Software."
"Seven Kingdoms 2".GameStar (in German). October 1999. p. 138. Retrieved2025-10-18 – viaInternet Archive.The article notes: "Trevor Chan, Spieleent-wickler aus Hongkong, verfügt über ein ganz besonderes Talent: Er tüftelt gern komplexe Spiel-ideen aus, die er dann in armselige Grafik verpackt und mit einer umständlichen Steuerung versieht. Damit hat er es schon zweimal geschafft, sehr interessante Spiele zu Kultobjekten für ein Häuflein Hardcore-Profis zu machen. Besonders schade war es um Seven Kingdoms, einen originellen Mix aus Echtzeit-Strategie und Civiliza-tion-Elementen. Der Nachfolger präsentiert sich mit hübscher Grafik und entrümpelter Steuerung. Damit ist es auch für Normalspieler interessant, in das stimmungsvolle Szenario abzutauchen und als König eines Menschen- oder Mon-sterreiches die Weltherrschaft an sich zu reißen."From Google Translate: "Trevor Chan, a game developer from Hong Kong, has a very special talent: He enjoys devising complex game ideas, which he then packages with poor graphics and cumbersome controls. This has enabled him to twice turn very interesting games into cult classics for a handful of hardcore pros. It was a particular shame with Seven Kingdoms, an original mix of real-time strategy and Civilization elements. The sequel presents itself with attractive graphics and streamlined controls. This makes it interesting for even casual gamers to immerse themselves in the atmospheric setting and seize world domination as the king of a human or monster kingdom."
Less significant coverage:
Huang, Shih-yuan 黃士原 (2003-08-13). "奇蹟餐廳 挑戰經營 玩家上麻布 76折買遊戲" [Miracle Restaurant: Management Challenge. Players Go on Linen to Get the Game at 24% Off].Star News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 18.The article notes: "製作「金錢帝國」經典策略遊戲系的華裔設計師Trevor Chan，繼「模擬飯店」後再創結合模擬經營與角色扮演的遊戲「奇蹟餐廳」，遊戲最大特色將著眼在經營模擬的細度及廣度，並忠實呈現出建造與營運一家餐廳可能面臨的所有挑戰，這款遊戲預計在16日上市。"From Google Translate: "Trevor Chan, the Chinese-American designer behind the classic strategy game "Money Empire," has created "Miracle Restaurant," a follow-up to "Restaurant Simulator," a game that combines business simulation and role-playing. The game's defining feature is its focus on the intricacies and breadth of business simulation, faithfully capturing all the challenges of building and operating a restaurant. The game is expected to release on the 16th."
Huang, Shih-yuan 黃士原 (2004-05-21). "聖女傳 戰鬥感逼真 玩家扮貞德 講求殺得好" [Legend of the Saint: Intense Combat Experience. Play as Joan of Arc and Master the Art of Killing].United Daily News (in Chinese). p. B1.The article notes: "繼「金錢帝國」、「模擬飯店」、「奇蹟餐廳」等遊戲後，光譜資訊將再為玩家代理由名製作人Trevor Chan領導ENLIGHTSOFTWARE所製作的「萬夫莫敵－聖女傳」，遊戲結合了角色扮演、即時戰略，以及第3人稱動作冒險等遊戲元素，遊戲預計在5月底推出。"From Google Translate: "Following games like "Empire of Money," "Hotel Simulator," and "Miracle Restaurant," Spectrum Information will represent players with "Invincible - The Legend of the Saints," developed by renowned producer Trevor Chan and ENLIGHTSOFTWARE. The game combines role-playing, real-time strategy, and third-person action-adventure elements and is expected to launch at the end of May."
Thank you for your comment, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. I appreciate the heads-up on policy, but I believe there may be a misunderstanding here. To clarify:
1) I am not a WP:SPA, as I've made contributions to a variety of articles across Wikipedia unrelated to this topic. My editing history is available on my user page for review.
2) I also have no direct link to the subject of this AfD. My interest stems from general knowledge of the topic and a desire to contribute to Wikipedia.Fact2Hound (talk)13:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note, Whpq, and for bringing this to my attention. I was completely unaware of such a canvassing guideline. There are so many rules in Wikipedia that are not common by real-world standards. I actually found it very weird that sending a friendly message to you notifying about the 2nd AfD would violate the rule, as I didn't persuade you to vote to keep or delete. Having said that a rule is a rule, I'll make sure to review WP:CANVASS and apply it carefully going forward.
I certainly didn't intend to violate it or sway the discussion in any direction. That said, would it be possible to modify or replace the message I posted on your talk page to bring it into line with Wikipedia's standards? I'd be happy to do so if that would help resolve this.Fact2Hound (talk)13:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What would be the nominator's preferred AFD outcome?Enlight Software is an obvious merge target, but I am not sure if it isn't better to merge Enlight into Trevor Chan? This article is better sourced at least.IgelRM (talk)18:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He might become notable in the future (he won't), but not right now. He doesn't even have a million subs on YouTube. Should we make a page for every toxic influencer whenever they start hanging out with famous rappers? Or washed up ones like Iggy Azalea.Strawberries1 (talk)23:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He just barely passes WP:GNG, if at all. He still fails SIGCOV and CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Coverage existing doesn't mean he needs an article. The fact this article is literally four sentences long probably goes to show that he's not notable, too.Strawberries1 (talk)01:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also,If the only notable thing they did was hang out with a couple more popular people, like what Strawberries1 said, He isn't that notable at all. Starry~~(Starlet147)17:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only heard of him being a jerk to a fellow streamer and they don't stream what they claim any longer (they are now anIRL streamer), nor would streaming with now imprisoned figures clinch N/GNG (nor would you want to have that in the lede?).Nathannah •📮16:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this isnot a majority vote, but instead adiscussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia haspolicies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, andconsensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember toassume good faith on the part of others and tosign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
I propose Bhante Vimalaramsi's article should bedeleted. The reasons arefundamentally unaltered from the 2012 AfD, which decided to remove the page on grounds of lack of notability and independent sources.
Many sources could not be properly verified at the time of this writing, while some either do not qualify as independent, are not trustworthy secondary sources or cannot have their editorial integrity checked.
1. Sources that do, but only partially, are thePluralism Project from Harvard University. It's cited at first as depicting the subject ("Vimalaramsi") on a biographical tone. However, upon closer examination his namecould not be found in the referenced article. The second link to the pluralism project was found broken andinaccessible, compromising the article's integrity.
2. Other sources are significantly biased. Kraft - for example - is a self-published author that does not meet the criteria for notoriety as a secondary source. Kraft was a student of Bhante, and while that alone may not be able to confirm the presence of bias, Wikipediaexcludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. David Johnson has published a book through anunknown publisher whose editorial integrity cannot be verified, as well as Vimalaramsi; the article is littered with his (Vimalaramsi's) ownself-published work that violates theGeneral Notability Guideline for sources that are "Independent of the Subject".
3. There are violations of Wikipedia'sNeutral Point of View Policy, as well asunsupported claims of literary fame. I will present one of such examples below.
"In 1995 Bhante began to study the Sutta texts more thoroughly and he practiced meditation according to the Suttas."(Said who?). After a three-month self-retreat in a cave in Thailand, he wrote a book on the Mindfulness of Breathing called "The Ānāpānasati Sutta: A Practical Guide to Mindfulness of Breathing and Tranquil Wisdom Meditation". Today it is estimated that more than a million copies of this book are circulated worldwide in 12 languages."
Very well; however, the link to Daily Mirror LK is inaccessible. This source would be theonly one supporting a significantclaim to fame that cannot be found anywhere else. Bear in mind Daily Mirror LK isnot the same paper as the British tabloidDaily Mirror.
4. Some sources may be misleading, effectively resorting to trickery.
Some sources may quote inaccessible or nonexistent phrases. Marvel Logan/Vimalaramsi could not be located in the Institute of Buddhist Studies, nor in Harvard's Pluralism Project or Daily Mirror LK. I have marked the phrase below as possibly resorting to such trickery:
"I really got it! Whenever you try to focus your attention only on breathing and exclude other things—sound, delusive ideas etc., you will get stuffiness and tension in your body and mind, even if you are not aware of it."; this quotationcould not be located in the Institute of Buddhist Studies. The subject (Vimalaramsi) could not be found as well. And even if he has been mentioned,that fact alone does not guarantee notoriety.
The article is too compromised to be kept separate. The few trustworthy sources that could be found are inaccessible or don't mention this person at all upon closer examination. The article should be deleted for its multiple violations of Wikipedia's editorial guidelines.— Precedingunsigned comment added byDeathnotekll2 (talk •contribs)21:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have updated the proposal so my stance is clear. I originally recommended two possible courses of action, however since then other users have voted for merge. Leaving both on the text is unnecessary and may cause confusion on where I stand.Deathnotekll2 (talk)00:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FailsWP:GNG. All cited sources are connected to Vimalaramsi in some way. Looked for reliable, secondary, independent sources but could not find any. Could only find more primary and connected sources, social media, forum/Reddit posts, etc. Theprevious AfD resulted in delete and it appears that no new reputable sources have been published since then.Woodroar (talk)23:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to Pluralism Project from Harvard University is there. What you said is not accurate. Also the Link for Daily Mirror LK is there.https://www.dailymirror.lk/news-features/Dhamma-Teaching-for-Daily-Life/131-140058https://pluralism.org/news/american-monk-named-first-us-representative-world-buddhist-supreme-conferenceI would say you are being too critical. This does not deserve to be deleted. If any links are broken it can be googled and correct link could be added.Dhammagavesi1 (talk)11:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a press release, to the letter. Woodroar has recovered the two articles I couldn't find. Journalism is defined as an objective, third-party reporting process that collects, researches, verifies, and presents information to the public. A press release is, opposing that, a subjective, promotional document created by an organization to generate favorable media coverage and create public awareness for a company, event, or product. I have added this comment so the difference is clear to participants who aren't aware of what these terms mean.Deathnotekll2 (talk)20:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Path to Nibbana has attained a huge following and the teachings there have been verified by Meditators who practice it. Notably Matthew Immergut a coauthor of Mind Illumninated is an avid follower of TWIM. There are many research papers available about Bhante Vimalaramsi's studentshttps://www.dhammasukha.org/twimarticlesandresearch
Be aware that all of the sources you have listed above are from dhammasukha.org, a website directly affiliated with Vimalaramsi. Furthermore, the "many research papers available about Bhante Vimalaramsi's students" listed on dhammasukha's page are deceptive. Psyche.co tricks the reader into believing Delson Armstrong was a participant of a paper published onProgress in Brain Research, and yethis name cannot be located in Ruben E. Laukkonen'sCessation of Consciousness in Meditation (Harvard University, Southern Cross, 2023). Next, the page relies on two more articles from Scientific American, of whichonly one is accessible, to offer an apparent credible claim to its legitimacy. And yet none of the alleged sources acknowledge TWIM, Vimalaramsi, Armstrong or anyone whatsoever from the aforementioned organization, anywhere. The page hosted on dhammasukha.org uses general scientific articles published on meditation in an attempt to support its specific method of practice when that support doesn't exist.Deathnotekll2 (talk)20:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I searched for his name that couldn't find any solid secondary sources to bolster the page with however it does appear that he was well known in certain circles of the Buddist community--I am wondering if there is another page his info can be merged with.Agnieszka653 (talk)20:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if we can determine which is the best target for the merge. Please ping me if consensus can be determined for that, otherwise, sadly I think a delete is our other course of action.Iljhgtn (talk)23:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Comment: surprisingly long Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Oreocooke (talk)04:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The profile appears to be a standard example of a UN official performing routine professional duties. While the individual may hold a responsible position within the organization, there is currently limited evidence of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Under Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for biographies, significant coverage in such sources is required to establish encyclopedic notability.Comparable cases (e.g., the recent deletion discussion on Eric Fault) have found that holding a position within an intergovernmental organization, without substantial independent coverage, does not in itself confer notability— Precedingunsigned comment added byHitiste2023 (talk •contribs)09:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion page was created without the{{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the article itself at this time.@Hitiste2023: For future nominations, pleasefully follow the instructions atWP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngalltalk15:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're asking my opinion in particular, but on the whole I think we should probablykeep this article, since the subject appears to have been covered in a variety of sources that are probably sufficient to satisfyWP:BASIC.Dionysodorus (talk)20:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was curious, because in all your interventions you often have completely different opinions, and I wonder how we can ensure consistency and fairness with all these divergences. In this case, for example, various sources now seem to be the main criterion for you. OK.Hitiste2023 (talk)04:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep-, though some of the citations are passing mentions, given the subjects awards, after some spot checks on the current citations, I am seeing some of the sources being more towards SIGCOV likehere. But a few more additions would help lean towards a more solid keep. Tried looking though google news and a brief search already shows the subjects potential notability likethis one.Lorraine Crane (talk)12:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much aWP:ROTM model. Social media personalities are ten a penny, too. Forbes 30 Under 30 is a list designed to sell copies of Forbes and has no significance for notability.WP:NOTINHERITED from her relationships. Publication of a journal does not confer notability, nor does being a cover picture for a magazine. FailsWP:BIO. Is a fan piece,WP:ADMASQ 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸10:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: she meets the requirements for notability with coverage about her as a celebrity, through various aspects of her life and career, in sources such asCorreio da Manhã (Portugal),SAPO (website) [pt],Flash! [pt] ,Caras (magazine), and so on. The coverage is sustained, it is significant and independent. One can find it less interesting than discussing German philosophy or politics but then, no one is forcing anyone to read it. As for "social media personalities" being "ten a penny", maybe, but that's totally irrelevant; and the essay about "run-of-the-mill" coverage is a highly debatable one and I don't think it is relevant here either.e.ux13:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the references are at the Discogs/Facebook level, much of the text is LLM-written, and the main editor has a declared COI, but he may be notable. Is this worth keeping?Jimfbleak -talk to me?12:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Armando de Sequeira Romeu appears to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for musicians. He was a Cuban-American composer and bandleader documented in multiple independent sources, including university archives and music foundations. He composed for the Orquesta Cubana de Música Moderna, Chucho Valdés and Paquito D’Rivera, and worked in Tropicana for many years as composer and drummer. The composer is clearly a notable figure in the history of Cuban jazz and popular music.— Precedingunsigned comment added byAlanGaryFreed (talk •contribs) 11:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKEToadspike[Talk]21:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources mentioning this musician beyond a couple of passing mentions. Someone more adept with Spanish language or Cuban sources may be able to find something but the names Armando de Sequeira Romeu and Armando Sequeira (which I think may have be another name he was known under) don't give any hits in the Spanish language stuff I looked in. There appears to be a different Cuban musician/composer calledArmando Romeu Jr./Armando Romeu González (1911-2002) who may have some notability and the current article seems to confuse them (eg Romeu Jr recorded with Nat King Cole).Vladimir.copic (talk)04:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to kindly clarify that I was still in the process of developing and help sourcing the article when the deletion discussion began. I am new to editing and was still learning how to format references and properly cite institutional sources. The article is not yet complete.
Armando de Sequeira Romeu (1937–2023) was a different musician from his uncle, Armando Romeu Jr. (1911–2002). Armando de Sequeira Romeu was a composer, bandleader, and drummer for the Tropicana Orchestra during the Cuban modern-jazz era, while his uncle, Armando Romeu Jr., was a saxophonist, arranger, composer, and conductor for the Tropicana Orchestra for 25 years. In 1956, he directed the orchestra of the world-famous Tropicana Cabaret and conducted the music forNat En Español with Nat King Cole at the Tropicana.
Several independent and institutional sources confirm Armando de Sequeira Romeu’s authorship and recordings:
**Fundación Gladys Palmera (Spain)** — documents that Paquito D’Rivera’s first professional recording was the themeInvitación a una locura, composed by Armandito Sequeira Romeu.
**Díaz-Ayala Latin Pop Music Collection (Florida International University)** — lists Orquesta Cubana de Música Moderna – EGREM EP-6040 (Invitación a una locura) and Areito LDA-3308 (Te vas a casar – Sequeira, Armando) under his authorship.
**Orquesta Aragón – Areito/EGREM (Release 3608085)** — includes his compositionUn Final Inesperado with the printed credit “A. Sequeira.”
**Deezer (France)** — features Armando de Sequeira Romeu’s original composition as credited composer and performer.View composition
These sources establish Armando de Sequeira Romeu as an independent composer within the Romeu dynasty and an early figure of modern jazz in Cuba, distinct from his uncle’s legacy. I appreciate your consideration and understanding.
Keep — Armando de Sequeira Romeu meetsWP:MUSICBIO notability standards. He was a Cuban-American composer, arranger, and bandleader documented by independent media including *El Nuevo Herald*, *CiberCuba*, *CubitaNOW*, and *TopHoy*. His work is archived at the FIU Latin Pop Music Collection and recognized by the Gladys Palmera Music Foundation (Spain). He collaborated with Paquito D’Rivera, Chucho Valdés, and Bobby Carcassés, composed for the Orquesta Cubana de Música Moderna and Aragón, and worked with the Tropicana Latin-Jazz Orchestra under his uncle’s direction, Armando Romeu Jr. (not De Sequeira Romeu). His career is verifiable and forms part of Cuba’s documented jazz history.
For reference, *El Nuevo Herald* covered Armando de Sequeira Romeu in two independent features: Lena Hansen, “Jeannette Romeu se presenta en Steinway,” 11 June 2004 (p. 2C); and Arturo Arias-Polo, “Los Romeu, concierto de jazz en La Playa,” 29 January 2009 (Revista Aplausos
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Keep — As a new editor still learning how Wikipedia works, my solemn intention is to help preserve verified information about Cuba’s rich musical heritage. The following summary highlights the independent institutional sources that confirm Armando de Sequeira Romeu’s notability for his historical and cultural importance as a legendary musician within the illustrious Romeu musical family.
Armando de Sequeira Romeu (1937–2023) was a Cuban-born composer, arranger, bandleader, and multi-instrumentalist — nephew ofArmando Romeu Jr. and great-nephew ofAntonio María Romeu. His career embodies the bridge between classical tradition and modern Cuban jazz, marking him as a distinguished voice of the century-old Romeu musical dynasty.
A Musical Dynasty of Over 100 YearsTheRomeu family has been described as"más que una familia… una tradición en la cultura cubana" —"more than a family… a tradition in Cuban culture." Their multi-generational contribution has defined Cuban musical identity across classical, popular, and jazz forms. Members of the dynasty shaped Havana’s golden age of music at the world-famousTropicana Cabaret, whereArmando Romeu Jr. directed the orchestra for over two decades alongside leading performers such asDelia Bravo, one of Cuba’s pioneering female jazz singers.[1][2][3]
Nat King Cole at Tropicana (Havana, 1958)During the 1958 Havana sessions forCole Español (Capitol Records),Armando de Sequeira Romeu performed as drummer, while his uncleArmando Romeu Jr. — founder and longtime musical director of theTropicana Orchestra — conducted the ensemble. Armando Romeu Jr. continued leading the orchestra for over twenty-five years, transforming it into a symbol of Cuban modernism and one of the most dynamic cultural and musical exchanges between Cuba and the United States.
De Sequeira's sister, in her later interviews,Zenaida Romeu — founder ofCamerata Romeu, who has performed for King Charles III, Queen Camilla, and Queen Letizia of Spain, and collaborated withMichel Legrand — recalled that Nat King Cole once turned to her uncle Romeu Jr. during the recording and asked who the drummer was. When told it was his nephew, Cole smiled and said, “He’s a diamond.”
Although documentation of the complete session personnel remains incomplete, ongoing research continues to honor these musicians, whose artistry defined a golden era of collaboration between Cuba and the United States.
“Pero Tú Vendrás” — Official Areíto Recording and Modern Reissue with Chucho ValdésOn the original Areíto LPPiano y Ritmo (LPA 1038, 1964), Armando de Sequeira Romeu is credited as composer of the opening track “Pero Tú Vendrás,” performed byChucho Valdés. The album’s printed credit reads: “PERO TÚ VENDRÁS / Bossa-Jazz / A. Sequeira – ‘CHUCHO’ VALDÉS,” confirming his authorship on this early Cuban jazz fusion. Produced by Areíto (CUBARTIMPEX) in Havana, it remains one of the first documented collaborations between De Sequeira Romeu and Valdés. The same recording was later reissued on Valdés’s albumJazz Nocturno (Descarga! Records), preserving the piece as part of Cuba’s early modern-jazz canon. See:Discogs – Piano y Ritmo •Discogs – Jazz Nocturno
“Te vas a casar” — Orquesta Cubana de Música ModernaHis compositionTe vas a casar (“You Are Going to Get Married”) is listed in the Díaz-Ayala Latin Pop Music Collection (FIU, Sección 05 R), credited to theOrquesta Cubana de Música Moderna (Areíto LDA-3308). The piece is also featured on Deezer (France), confirming De Sequeira Romeu as the credited composer and performer. See:View on Deezer
“Un Final Inesperado” — Orquesta AragónAnother significant work,Un Final Inesperado, was recorded byOrquesta Aragón and archived under Areíto/EGREM, with the composer credited as “A. Sequeira.” This composition is also available via Deezer (France), confirming its international preservation. See:View album
Irakere — The Vanguard of Afro-Cuban JazzIn 1972, Armando de Sequeira Romeu collaborated withChucho Valdés in the early formation of the ensemble that evolved intoIrakere, serving as musical director for the pre-Irakere group of musicians. His mentorship helped shape the generation that would redefine Afro-Cuban jazz. According to theBerklee College of Music, Valdés “cofounded Irakere, known for its explosive mixture of jazz, rock, classical, and traditional Cuban music, alongside music director Armando de Sequeira Romeu.” See:Berklee College of Music •FamousFix – Cuban Conductors (Music)
SummaryIndependent institutional sources — including theGladys Palmera Foundation (Spain),EcuRed (Cuba),FIU Díaz-Ayala Latin Pop Collection (U.S.),Areíto/EGREM (Cuba),Berklee College of Music, and Deezer (France) — establish Armando de Sequeira Romeu as a distinct and historically verifiable composer, arranger, and music director born into the renowned Romeu musical dynasty.
In conclusion, Armando de Sequeira Romeu's career unites tradition and innovation, preserving more than a century of Cuban danzón, classical, and jazz — a living heritage that continues through his own generation. His lifetime of creative mastery and authorship makes him an essential link in the Romeu musical dynasty.
Given this extensive body of work, documentation, and cultural recognition, deletion would be an unnecessarily radical action against a musician whose contributions helped place Cuban jazz and Latin modernism on the world stage.
Keeping this article ensures that Cuba’s musical history and cultural legacy remain represented, preserved, and accessible to future generations.
Thank you very much for your consideration. —GalaxyGirlMusic (talk) 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I tried to decide between a No consensus closure or a relisting as this discussion is difficult to follow with all of the struck comments. I still believe it might be best to close this and start off again, especially as there was so little legitimate participation. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!23:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ::@Timtrent:, It was not intentional. It was a mistake while copying and pasting the template fromTalk: Dejzi, and this page was reviewed by you. Apologies for this. But showing this page as reviewed, was not my intention. I was just adding templates of Project Biography and Project Fashion.Lord Johnson24 (talk)12:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - most of the sources are terrible, but the Cosmopolitan and Harper's are reliable, so she just barely makes it. If kept, copy editing is needed.Bearian (talk)03:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article seems to be relatively unnotable, with the only mentions outside of this article being a short biography from an art organization he was a part ofhere, part of a table listing members of his organizationhere, and a passing mention in a short article about his organizationhere. Apart from those three, I couldn't find any sources about him, and two of those arn't really what I'd call in depth covragePyrrhic victor (talk)14:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has a brief biographical entry inGlendinning, Miles; MacInnes, Ranald; McKechnie, Aonghus (2019). "Ower, Charles, senior (1813-76)".History of Scottish Architecture.Edinburgh University Press. p. 587.ISBN9781474468503. His son also has an entry on the same page. He appears to have been the elected head of the Dundee Institute of Architects as he as listed as the presiding officer inthis coverage. Earlier he served in the position of secretarysee here.Here is coverage of his work building up library resources in architecture as part of the Free Library Committee. There is also coverage of him inWalker, David Maxwell (1977).Architects & Architecture in Dundee, 1770-1914.Abertay Historical Society. pp. 24–32. There is a biographical entry on his son inWho's Who in Architecture, 1914. There are several mentions in architecture publications to the father to a lesser extant like these:[60],[61],[62], etc.This source covers the son's election as a fellow of theSociety of Antiquaries of Scotland which might mean he passesWP:NACADEMIC criteria 3. Google books has promising snippet views of articles inThe Inland Architect and News Record. The son has an inDirectory of British Architects, 1834-1914: Vol. 2 (L-Z) - Page 300. I didn't take the time to search newspapers.com but I would imagine some coverage could be found there as well. The sources I have presented i think collectively passWP:GNG. Note that having father and son on the same page makes since given it was the same firm they both worked for in a family business. Best.4meter4 (talk)15:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's hard to judge notability when we have one article which is about two different people. They need to be either split or change it to be talking about their firm or something likeOwer family.Yeshivish613 (talk)18:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Both father and son were known by the same name so I don't see the need; particularly since it was a family business. Anything else wouldn't reflect the published literature and wouldn't be a likely search term.4meter4 (talk)02:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existence of these two as architects is not in doubt, however, it does seem to me that their notability is doubtful so its a delete from me. The current references do not establish notability sufficiently and there does not appear to be significant coverage. If additional references can support notability, at least for a few of their buildings/projects, then maybe notability could be establishedColdupnorth (talk)08:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe there is a comment above already that mentions this but it's really odd that this page is about two different people and therefore it makes it hard to judge notability.Agnieszka653 (talk)21:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very few, if any, reliable sources that could be used to prove notability or significance. I considered creating this article when Serralta was nominated, but I abandoned it because there were very few sources that would prove notability.elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)22:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete- finding some additional sources like51 and52, but seems to be mostly about his placement to the position only and not much else, so agreeing with noms point mostly.Lorraine Crane (talk)18:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - I note that the past incumbents of the same office have articles, indicating notability. I've placed criminal justice students at the Marshall's Office, so I'm hesitant to !vote for fear of being called out for a conflict of interest.Bearian (talk)23:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft deletion is not an option. Let's get some more participants to review this article and its sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!22:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All sourcing is about purported sex and financial crimes of which the subject has not been convicted.WP:BLPCRIME... and even if he was convicted, he does not passWP:NCRIMINAL. All sourcing is from his recent charge and one local routine news piece about him getting married (he lived in NY, so "local couple weds" is local routine news, even if from the NYT)PARAKANYAA (talk)22:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The duplicate link was meant to be this[66]. His 80s trading notoriety with merrill lynch did not involve criminal accusations or prosecution so of course he wasn't convicted then.Morbidthoughts (talk)20:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am misreading it, but doesn't this policy say a person normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is another article that can incorporate the encyclopedic material - i.e. suggesting a merge. There is no other existing Wikipedia article that could house the encyclopedic material as it stands. @PARAKANYAA
@Katzrockso NCRIMINAL says "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or
The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." It also specifies we should usually only have an article on a criminal BLP if they have been convicted. My bigger issue is he hasn't been convicted of anything and is covered only for his alleged crimes.PARAKANYAA (talk)22:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you are right on that. I think the question is over the second point. There was sustained coverage of this crime over a long period of time - there are news articles from 2017 to 2025 that specifically identify Howard Rubin as the alleged culprit;[67][68][69][70]. I have a hard time understanding this coverage as anything other than "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role."
Some of the media coverage I already read specifically mentions his infamy for the Merrill Lynch[71]. I found extensive coverage of him in the New York Times regarding this incident as well, as @NatGertler points out.Katzrockso (talk)22:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Katzrockso This fails "unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event". There are a lot of sex crime cases, and I wouldn't say that "persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage" given that all appears to me to be just the case breaking and the immediate developments. Any time there is a development in a case it gets a blurb in the news but that is not "persisting beyond contemporaneous news coverage".
But the bigger issue here is that he has never been convicted of any crime, so we can't even include any of it. He is only covered for things that we cannot say he did! The NYT coverage is the same, as the Merill Lynch losses are related to alleged crimes on his part.PARAKANYAA (talk)23:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA The Deadspin article I linked is specifically when there is no immediate development in the case - it asks the question "Whatever Happened To The Other Wall Street Millionaire Accused Of Sexual Assault" in the title.
As explained below, there was no crime in the 1980s/1990s reporting - a SEC recordkeeping violation is not a crime. Is there any prior discussion on Wikipedia whether BLPCRIME covers civil offenses? This actually seems like a major oversight in the wording of BLPCRIME if it is intended to include civil and administrative violations as well.Katzrockso (talk)23:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deadspin's article does not give me hope on its reliability, given it is owned by the same people as Gawker, and the only mention in a reliability discussions do not show great confidence[72]. Especially for a topic like sexual assault... but that aside, I always assumed it did, e.g. when we were writing about OJ Simpson's civil case while he was still alive I belief we had to operate by BLPCRIME rules. I do agree this is not very clear.PARAKANYAA (talk)23:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have linked the article here without considering its reliability prior to this. Most commenters on the RS Noticeboard expressed that the reliability of G/O Media-owned sources declined after 2021 and that like usual, reliability should be considered in context. The source here is based on information that was reported in prior reliable sources.
Moreover, it seems puzzling to me to say that the sustained coverage here can be dismissed by saying it is a "development" that qualifies as "contemporaneous media coverage". The media reports on things when there is new things to report -
The allegations in the OJ Simpson civil case are the same allegations of fact as in the criminal case. There is no comparable allegation of criminal conduct to parallel the allegations of administrative misconduct.Katzrockso (talk)00:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UnderWP:BLPCRIME as it currently stands (I've never tracked any changes on that), it should protected Rubin much more than Simpson. OJ was undeniably a "public figure", in that he had given plenty of interviews, starred as himself on advertisements, and so forth. As far as I've seen so far, Rubin qualifies asWP:LOWPROFILE -- I don't see any interviews or personally-sought publicity for him. --Nat Gertler (talk)01:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I don't think Rubin is a notable person. Perhaps if a conviction is secured a page can be restablished, but the article significantly over-exaggerates his importance regarding financial work and Wall Street ...Aesurias (talk)01:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While the article currently lacks sourcing, newspapers.com search finds a lot of coverage of the bad trades at Marrill Lynch on April 30, 1987, and a few days after. Often it'sthis Boston Globe piece, which is talking about a broker but only names him several paragraphs in. Not finding earlier coverage of him (doing separate searches of his name with "Merrill Lynch". Namein 1989 for SEC hearing, in 1990 forhis settling without admission of guilt, and some follow up as Merrill dealt with the larger matter andRubin received pay they'd been withholding. After that (and only looking through to 2000), I'm finding only passing mentions in articles on similar cases or lists of financial disasters. Searching for his name and "Salomon" to find pre-Merrill mentions brings up nothing of use. (I should note, however, that neither the Wall Street Journal nor the New York Times are in the newspapers.com database.) So... there are sources to be had even if they are not currently in use in the article; I will refrain judgment for now on whether they are enough to conquer notability concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk)15:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Rubin's financial crimes seems to (rightfully) overshadow his background I think a new page should be created focusing solely on his financial indiscretions rather than being about him as a person specifically.Agnieszka653 (talk)19:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that would be a hard title to claim, as what he was charged with was not (at least it seems from a simple description) a financial crime (a la, say, embezzlement or tax avoision), buta record-keeping violation. If there were to be an article that would cover this, it would likely survive not by being about "crime" per se, but about Merrill's big loss, with Rubin's perceived involvement being an aspect of that. --Nat Gertler (talk)22:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are exactly correct in that the coverage from the 1990s is not about a crime, but about his perceived role in the losses that Merrill Lynch incurred. There is a lot of coverage from the New York Times on this;[73][74][75][76], as well as the coverage that you have linked to. It's even mentioned in the original article on him that he was mentioned as a key player in the bookLiar's Poker (I downloaded the book - "Rubin" the surname is used 66 times).
I think even if we struck the entire section about the allegations of him with regards to sex offenses, there is still plenty of significant coverage to create an article. Consequently I am !voting toKeep this article.Katzrockso (talk)23:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rubin seems to be the recipient of passing coverage and coverage which if we were to make the whole article about it, would be a clear BLP violation. I think this could be deleted unlessWP:SIGCOV can be provided, but then the article still would need a rewrite, but I don't think we will get there as I think it will be deleted.Iljhgtn (talk)00:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm surprised to hear about the sex trafficking charges but I knew about Howard Rubin from his Wall Street career and how it was portrayed in popular media and I do not make it a habit of following financial news. I mean, he was notorious in the past. I have no new sources to add to this discussion, unfortunately, I'm just surprised to see this article even nominated, much less getting so much support for Deletion.LizRead!Talk!00:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All coverage linked here is of his (alleged) misconduct, which is not enough to base a BLP on. Until we have evidence that he meets the GNG entirely independently of these legal issues, the article should be deleted. The comment above mine amounts to "but he's famous" and does not address theBLPCRIME issue.Toadspike[Talk]08:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, how does BLPCrime apply to someone accused of civil misconduct? If there is an internal dispute in a company that garners significant coverage, is Wikipedia not supposed to cover it? He garnered notoriety because of a controversy within the company where he supposedly caused significant loss to the company. I don't see this as significantly different than people who gain notoriety for other contentious actions. Moreover, despite there being coverage about him alleged misconduct (which again is not a criminal charge and no such allegations of criminal wrongdoing have been made with regards to his financial activities), he received significant coverage in media for his role in Wall Street. I mentioned the book Liar's Poker above, which is most definitely significant coverage above and beyond any of the financial misconduct allegations, but he was also covered in "Rouge Traders". This is why the media coverage on him with respect to his most recent allegations almost unanimously refers to him with terms like "known on Wall Street" to the point that he is very commonly mentioned in popular history books about Wall Street or the Financial Crisis. Most of the earlier coverage surrounding Rubin relates to allegations by his firm against him, none of which rose to criminal activity - his firing, his trades, etc.
For three examples of coverage that cover Rubin in significant ways that are not exhausted by his financial or sexual misconduct;
1. His marriage announcement[77] (this is not routine, as someone who has researched family history in New York City, marriages are not commonly announced in the New York Times, its contribution to SIGCOV is marginal, but it all adds up perWP:BASIC)
2. His career at Salomon Brothers was covered in Liar's Poker. Here is one example of a quote from the book
A young Salomon Brothers trader named Howie Rubin began to calculate the probability of homeowners' prepaying their mortgages. He discovered that the probability varied according to where they lived, the length of time their loans had been outstanding, and the sizes of their loans. He used historical data collected by Lew Ranieri's research department. The researchers were meant to be used like scientific advisers at an arms talk. More often, however, they were treated like the water boys on the football team. But the best traders knew how to use the researchers well. The American homeowner became, to Rubin and the research department, a sort of laboratory rat.
3. His career at Bear, Stearns & Co.[78] (thismentions the allegations of financial misconduct, but this is limited to 3 sentences, and the other ~23 are about his background and career at Bear, Stearns & Co.) [some other passing mentions of his career there[79])Katzrockso (talk)09:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nat, good point - appreciate your comment. I didn't think about that when looking at it.
I still think there we have multiple sources demonstrating significant coverage of the subject that don't focus on his alleged indiscretions and I think that the Merrill Lynch coverage is fair game too, so there is more than enough for the subject to be notable underWP:BASIC.Katzrockso (talk)23:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I find interesting is that the Merrill situation, which may deserve its own article (and there might be at least a case for a BLP1E deletion if there was one), isn't even mentioned atMerrill (company). --Nat Gertler (talk)23:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article seems to have a vastly underdeveloped history of the firm before 2007 - only random events and factoids are included, bar some information about the founding of the company.Katzrockso (talk)12:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bass player that does not seem to be notable outside of membership ofSade. Prod declined due to many incoming links from Sade related articles. I think theBass Player source is strong, but I cannot find additional sourcing that contributes notability to push the subject pastWP:GNG.Mbdfar (talk)22:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I partially stubified this article, and it has so many incoming links. He's had a notable career both before and after being part of Sade's band. The article needs a lot of work, but it's not a reason to delete.Bearian (talk)01:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found four of which that are outside of the umbrella of Sade. Three where the subject has been simply placed on a list, typically unsourced, and one trivial mention in prose.Mbdfar (talk)21:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The artist meets borderline notability in my opinion per significant coverage in several sources. Article needs removing excessive material, yes, but this is not a reason for deletion.Silvymaro (talk)10:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete He has worked with Sade among other notable acts and was apparently an integral part of creating her sound, so I want to keep the article but I can't find enough reliable secondary sources in searches to add to the page.Agnieszka653 (talk)16:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toSade (band). I can find nosignificant and reliable media coverage of his early band Pride, his childhood inspirations are non-noatble, and his other band Sweetback is a Sade side project that has some coverage but not enough to separate it from the main band. Therefore he has not achieved his own independent notability outside of Sade, nor does he need to because he has had a robust career with them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS)13:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a case ofWP:BLP1E weighing on borderline notability. The sources cited in the article aren't great, but other sources exist that cover the subject in a significant way. However, most of these sources talk about his background in the context of his daughter's conviction. Because he is otherwise relatively low profile (defined as getting little attention otherwise in secondary sources, not on how high a job he holds), and without those sources there is no way he would be notable, we should avoid having an article about him here.Cornerstone1949 (talk)23:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To me, this seems like a pretty obvious case ofWP:NPOSSIBLE andWP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article has a lot of problems, most notably a lack of citations, and inline citation criteria for BLP are not remotely met, but given the number of sources available from a simple google search, the subject seems to meet notability guidelines exceptionally easily for a AFD nomination. Without any rationale for deletion at all, there is no way I could support a deletion here, and this may well be a speedy keep based on rationale 1 of the guideline. The subject is a controversial figure, and I think there is every possibility that this was the reason for the nomination. Whether that is the case or not, I can't possibly see how this does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Perhaps the IP could specify?Cornerstone1949 (talk)22:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this, it helps a lot in understanding why this page was nominated. Looking at the history, there is likely COI editing, but of course that doesn't change the individual's notability. To me this is looking like misunderstanding of the grounds for deletion on the part of the IP since the article has issues, but that is not grounds for deletion. The IP (or anyone else) is welcome to improve on these issues, and if the subject is inappropriately editing the article, we have ways to remedy that. For what it's worth, a lot of the editing by the subject is pretty benign, and I can appreciate that he very clearly discloses his identity in his username. Of course this doesn't follow policy, but I think the IP really went straight to the nuclear option here. I will leave a message on the subject's talk page, but I think no further action is really necessary.Cornerstone1949 (talk)00:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After aWP:BEFORE check, I couldn't find anything that goes beyond brief mentions of his name or institutional affiliation, which would not satisfyWP:BIO. While a few sources list or mention some of his academic works, none provide the kind of substantial, independent discussion thatWP:NACADEMIC expects. Ifevery professor with a few published papers were automatically considered notable, we'd have thousands of similar pages, but the guideline draws the line higher, focusing on those whose work has received wider recognition or demonstrated significant impact in their field. In this case, there just isn't enough evidence to support that level of notability.ZyphorianNexusTalk20:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's true that biographical info on the subject is scarce (I did the some research as the nominator has), but the Google Scholarh-index of 50, (in a relatively low-citation field) convinced me to create the page (30 papers with 3-digit citations:WP:NACADEMIC #1 and #4). It is nonetheless expandable via citing literature and educational background.Xpander (talk)20:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bio of this person previously existed and was deleted back in 2021 perthis AfD discussion. (The original title omitted the middle initial, so I'm not sure if this technically counts as a second nomination.) Looking over the sources, I'm not seeing any additionalreliable,independent,significant coverage that would satisfyWP:GNG, nor any indication that this person satisfies the criteria ofWP:PROF. The one reliable, independent source I’ve found discussing this person which has been published since the 2021 AfD isAshley Smart, "In Genetics, a Tense Coexistence of Mainstream and Fringe Views"Undark (2025), but it only mentions the subject three times in passing, so I don’t think it counts asWP:SIGCOV. The creator of this recent version of the article has included two sources masquerading as independent coverage (this andthis), but they are clearly labeled as press releases and potentially paid content, so are disqualified asWP:PROMO. Noting too, if we’re looking beyond GNG to the criteria of NACADEMIC, that this person appears to no longer hold a university affiliation. Without secondary sources giving us reason to think otherwise –– e.g. by speaking explicitly to the significance of this person’s contributions to scholarship –– this isprima facie evidence that they are not a notable academic. I’ve discussed these matters with the article’s creatorhere.Generalrelative (talk)14:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Here's where it becomes relevant that the book in question argues for decidedly fringe positions onrace and intelligence, and is thus supported by other pro-fringe advocates. That's not just my opinion; seethis RfC. All three of these reviews are coming from within the walled garden on racial hereditarian fringe to which Warne belongs. We should rather be looking forWP:FRIND sources to establish notability.
TheCritic source was discussed in the last AfD and at RSN. It doesn't seem to bereliable enough to confer notability, givenNoah Carl's reputation.
The review inIntelligence does not satisfyindependent because Warne was serving on the editorial board of that journal at the time, and in any cse we don't generally consider it reliable for claims related to race and intelligence.
In short, neither of these reviews count as fringe-independent for our purposes, and points which are not supported by fringe-independent sourcesshould not be given any space in articles.
I did see theAcademic Questions review as well but then saw it is a publication of the rather deceptively namedNational Association of Scholars whichadvocates against multiculturalism, diversity policies, and against courses focused on race and gender issues, and was an advisor toProject 2025. It may be reliable for some things, though it's certainly aWP:BIASED source. The review's author Richard P. Phelps has published books advocating for some similar positions to Warne, though he does not overtly endorse Warne's position on race. I will leave it to others to determine whether this source should be considered reliable and independent enough to contribute to notability.
Comment: In continuation of my previous analysis on mytalk page, his book In the Know was reviewed by:
Intelligence - Reviewed byDavid Z. Hambrick. While Warne seems to have been on the editorial board at the time. But that's irrelevant. Editors have carte blanche over what books are reviewed in scholarly journals and who is selected as a reviewer. Editorial board members aren't involved in those things.The CriticAcademic QuestionsIn the Know has also spawned research on Warne's list of myths by independent researchers that has was published in the scholarly journal Personality and Individual DifferencesContrary to what Generalrelative states, In the Know does not promulgate fringe theories. None of the reviews of the book mention that it contains fringe theories. Also, the book was published by Cambridge University Press, and academic publishers like Cambridge always subject their books to peer review.Warne has been cited as an authority on IQ and intelligence in the following media outlets:Trinidad ExpressBinah - 27 June 2022 issuePsychology Today (twice)New ScientistBritish Psychological Society Research Digest wrotetwo stories about Warne's work on intelligence that was published in APA journals. (At the time one of these articles was published, the study it discusses was not peer-reviewed. It waslater published in Psychological Bulletin.)He has also been the topic of articles by other media outlets for his other work in psychology and education.U.S. News and World Report andPBS News quoted him because of his work on Advanced Placement classes (see also thesetwostories from local media outlets).Education Week published a story on one of his Advanced Placement studies. Retraction Watch has published three stories1,2,3 about his research integrity work. He also had articles inMarketWatch (twice) andForbes about anon-psychology study he published in a scholarly business journal.This is over 20 independent media outlets, many of them nationally or internationally renown, that have written stories about Warne's work or quoted him as an authority on education or psychology because of his scholarly work. This total does not include offhand mentions of him (such as inThe Chronicle of Higher Education) or local media outlets near Utah Valley University, where he worked.— Precedingunsigned comment added byBruce2023 (talk •contribs)21:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just specify that the major fringe claim inIn the Know is what Warne describes as "Myth" #28:Racial/Ethnic Group IQ Differences Are Completely Environmental in Origin. The author argues that evidence exists indicating that racial and ethnic group difference in average IQ test performance are at least partially genetic in origin. This view has been unequivocally determined to be fringe, per Wikipedia's definition, here:Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 103#RfC on racial hereditarianism. The reviews don't mention that this view is fringe because the calls are coming from within the walled garden. For years we've been dealing with persistent disruption –– including promotion, trolling, and socking –– from proponents of this fringe view, which is why we need to be vigilant about subtle and even unintentional ways in whichWP:PROFRINGE may enter into article space. I'll leave it to others to address the rest of the above comment (e.g. what we mean when we say a source isindependent) if they choose.Generalrelative (talk)21:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought maybe a google search on "Reasoning and Intelligence Online Test (RIOT)" might find some sources. Not a lot of luck. I did find[80] but it was just a press release. --Guy Macon (talk)03:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable per independent sourcing. If he was notable there would be multiple academic reviews for his book in scholarly journals or newspapers. No independent academic wants to review this guys work because he is associated with the far-rightHuman Diversity Foundation who funded one of his papers. It should also be noted that Warne has co-authored a book withseveral white supremacists includingJordan Lasker who self identifies as a neo-Nazi and another co-author who is a holocaust denier. This book was published by a predatory publisherCambridge Scholars Publishing so that should tell you enough about Warne's research. Whilst some far-right "race" researchers are obviously notable and would pass Wikipedia criteria, Warne isn't. Bottom line is that independent sourcing is lacking to establish a neutral article. Also see a similar problem atCurtis Dunkel.Veg Historian (talk)20:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a biased approach to judge something. We can debate on notability instead of their personal views. In this case, all neo-nazi pages should be removed.Bruce2023 (talk)21:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cambridge Scholars isn't predatory, but it doesn't have a great reputation. But let's be clear that Warne, whatever any of our views about his any of his views, has published two books with Cambridge University Press, which is very highly regarded.Josh Milburn (talk)21:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cambridge University Press is highly regarded but this does not establish notability for Warne because there are no valid reviews published in academic journals covering his book. As far as I am aware there is only a single book review published in a journal for Warne and this was written by a friend of his David Z. Hambrick in a journal that has a sadly damaged its reputation by publishing pseudoscience (Intelligence (journal). This was not an independent review because Warne was serving on the editorial board of the journal at the time. I have written 100s of Wikipedia articles and I always cite book reviews for all sorts of academics but none exist here. This means there is a lack of independent sourcing to establish a good article. Do you not find it suspicious that no academic wants to write a book review for this guy? It tells us he is not notable. If he is notable why is no academic out there reviewing his work? The walled garden suggestion above is very valid here.Veg Historian (talk)23:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case there's any misunderstanding about my comment. NPROF/NAUTHOR/GNG are not about the nature of his work, but the lack of secondary sources about him or his work. The nature and content of his work really isn't important. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°22:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment Looks like some comments are just to add a delete with no solid reasoning. Well, here is my further analysis and answer based on the discussion above. The chapter in question, “Racial/Ethnic Group IQ Differences Are Completely Environmental in Origin”, is 1 of 35 chapters. But, just to check whether his book was propagating fringe theories, I bought the e-book version and read that chapter, and I compared the reasons given inthe discussion about why that is a fringe theory. Warne's chapter is in line with theFAQ page that came out of that discussion:
Warne agrees with the FAQ's viewpoint on the nature of racial/ethnic groups. For example, Warne rejects race essentialism and agrees with the FAQ that no single trait or group of genes defines a person's "race" (p. 248-249). He also acknowledges the social nature of these categories (p. 250) and the history of human groups' genetic mixing (p. 249).
He also states multiple times in the chapter (p. 250-251, 252, 262) that within-group heritability cannot be extrapolated to between-group heritability, a view that the FAQ endorses.
Warne agrees that the molecular genetics does not exist to show a causal relationship between group membership and intelligence (p. 256-257).
Warne also agrees that the evidence that proponents of a link between race and IQ is often equivocal (p. 258), and he points out the weaknesses of every line of evidence that the race-and-IQ people use to support their theories.
Generally, Warne's ideas in the chapter are more in line with the FAQ than not. After reading the chapter, I felt like there were hints of evidence that race and IQ might have some sort of link but that strong claims about genes influencing racial group differences in intelligence was not there.The idea that the book and Warne's work only exists in a "walled garden" is not true. According to Cambridge University Press,all books that they published arepeer reviewed. CUP is clearly not a fringe outlet existing in a "walled garden." Also, Warne seems to have published asimilar piece in The American Journal of Psychology, which is major psychology journal. Finally, the journal Personality and Individual Differences published the peer-reviewed article on Warne's "myths" (including the relationship between race and IQ) after their retraction of an article byJ. Philippe Rushton on race and behavioral differences and their expressions of concern onHans Eysenck's work. Warne's views on this delicate topic clearly are passing peer review outside of the "walled garden."This controversial topic seems to be a small part of his work anyway. Most of his research is on test development, test validity, giftedness, Advanced Placement, and intelligence theory. It looks like most of Warne's work isn't problematic at all.Bruce2023 (talk)21:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because someone has published with Cambridge University Press does not mean they passWP:N at Wikipedia. I have an upcoming book coming out. If Cambridge University Press published my book would that automatically qualify me for a Wikipedia article? Obviously not! Just because Cambridge University Press is peer reviewed does not establishWP:NPROF. We needWP:SIGCOV. As other users have explained there is a lack of independent sourcing here. I would change my mind if you could show me several peer-reviewed reviews of his book. But of course these do not exist. If we did have decent reviews this deletion discussion would not be taking place.Veg Historian (talk)23:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for deletion as this article is from as @Timtrent put it "from the wild west days" of wikipedia, it only cites a single unverifiable source, which does not meet Wikipedia's reliability or verifiability standards. And the subject appears to lack sufficient notability based on the available sources. Thus it does not meet the criteria for inclusion.Codonified (talk)11:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Kind of the nom to mention me. I was unable to find additional sourcing. This s nt eligible f0rWP:NPROF so we must rely uponWP:BIO, and I am not persuaded that this is a pass. Back when this was created WP was interested in quantity rather than quality, and the hope was that quality woudl come later. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸12:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and what usually happens is that such low quality articles with no sources are either not notable or hoax that made it into english wikipedia and then spread to wikipedias of other languages by bots mass creating these articles by translating them from the english wikipedia.Codonified (talk)12:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a hoax, as the Authority Control links clearly demonstrate. But we do not have evidence ofWP:NPROF: there is another economist with the same name who is well-cited but the best citation count I could find for this one was 13 citations for "LR algorithm with Laguerre shift for symmetric tridiagonal matrices", far from enough. And one published obituary is not enough sourcing forWP:GNG, even if it can be located and verified. —David Eppstein (talk)00:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Using our google translate option to read the linked Slovenian article makes it easier to track down sources. His biographical entry ishere The other Egon is his son. He seems to be primarily known for his role in developing computer science In Slovenia and writing textbooks. There isseminar series named after him. Absent a major award it is hard to document the contributions of educators and educational program developers rather than researchers. Their impact is put into practice rather than generating citations. His publications arehere. If someone can find reviews of his textbooks in the Slovenian literature that would help.StarryGrandma (talk)04:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look. There appears to be at least one review of a book inObzornik[81], but the link to the actual review text is broken. There are mentions of him through the years: in addition to the obit, there is an "Egon is 60" note[82], and some later footnote type mentions[83][84][85]. (Search for "Egon"; Google translate is usually not too bad on Slovene.) Most coverage is going to be 20+ years old, which is eons in internet time; in particular, I don't think the online archives ofDelo go back that far. According to the history of the Slovenian Society of Mathematicians, Physicists and Astronomers that is the first article of[86], he was the president of the society for 2 years, which could be a (weak) claim forWP:NPROF C6.Russ Woodroofe (talk)22:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the obit, we have a biographical entry in theSlovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts biographical lexicon found byStarryGrandma. I think this is a pass ofWP:ANYBIO, although I take it to be weak in a small country. It is supported by the biographical entry in the Computer History museum. There is also a case for NPROF C6, as president of a national academic society; supported by the obit and 60th birthday pieces inObzorbnik. The obit + biographical entries + history of DMFA pieces should give enough to build a solid start-class biography. The combination of two weakish keep cases brings me to a solid keep.Russ Woodroofe (talk)14:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional bio for non notabledoctor. Lacks coverage to independent reliable sources. Refbombed to PR from his employer. Appears as one of many authors on some cited publications but nothing that stands out. Prod removed without any real clue to as why.duffbeerforme (talk)13:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - went thru the citations via spot checks, the trend seems to show more emphasis to the AIIMS and their works in surgeries which the subject seems affiliated with, and not the actual focus of these. Additional searching pretty much shows similar hits.Lorraine Crane (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC) from the lack of SIGCOV sources.Lorraine Crane (talk)01:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
FailsWP:GNG. The sources that were placed in the article are not independent. Most of them are his own work. Not adequate for passing GNG, may be considered as promotional content.KadıMessage18:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Upon review, the article does meetWP:GNG andWP:PROF standards for inclusion.
While some citations are Caliskan’s own scholarly publications, the article also contains multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources that demonstrate significant coverage of his work:
Sarah Quinn, review ofMarket Threads inAmerican Journal of Sociology (2011).
William Davies, review ofMarket Threads inJournal of Cultural Economy (2013).
Discussions of his research inTheory, Culture & Society (2018).
Coverage of his recent bookData Money (Columbia University Press, 2023) by an academic press of recognized standing.
These are all independent, peer-reviewed, and secondary analyses of his published work, precisely the type of sourcing that establishes notability under Wikipedia’s academic notability guideline (WP:PROF #1 and #2).
Caliskan is also a Professor at Parsons School of Design, The New School, with a long record of publication through leading academic presses (Princeton UP and Columbia UP). Together, these facts demonstrate enduring scholarly recognition and satisfy the general notability guideline.
The article could benefit from improved citation formatting. Deletion would remove a verifiable, reliably sourced biography of a notable academic.Silaesny (talk)19:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Koray Çalışkan wrote columns for the Radikal newspaper in Turkey, and his columns were pretty influential. Here is an example where his column is discussed in secondary sources:[88] The newspaper is no longer active and the archives are gone, but I believe he is more notable as a political commentator in Turkey than an academic, so the article needs to be updated to reflect this.TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk)20:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have revised the sources to reflect his recent research, which has had a significant impact on economic sociology. I addressed the concerns of the user Kadi by adding three articles:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Leaning weak keep. Katzrockso and I have been working on a protracted dispute that has still led to some constructive article improvements, but Katzrockso has opined that this guy should be stricken from the article and Wikipedia now apparently. I deprodded because I thought this had at least a 50% chance of surviving an AFD under GNG. This is evidently a fringe author, has published in fringe publications, and he seems to have some association with hereditarian/race realists/scientific racists/racist scientists/whatever you want to call them, or is one, but being a bad person or an unsavory personality isn't a reason to prod. We have lots of articles on notable white supremacists. He definitely doesn't meet NACADEMIC or NAUTHOR, but under GNG, I am leaning weak keep. There is the Guardian source already in the article, which gives him a couple paragraphs that I'd probably consider more than just a passing mention:The other co-author, Curtis S Dunkel, is a psychologist who was affiliated with Western Illinois University (WIU) on the paper but is billed as an independent researcher on recent publications and on the ResearchGate website. The Guardian contacted WIU for clarification. A spokesperson said: “Curtis Dunkel is no longer an employee at WIU”, adding: “I cannot comment on the reason for his departure.” Dunkel, along with Kirkegaard and Woodley, spoke at the London Conference on Intelligence (LCI) in 2016, according to leaked conference schedules. Dunkel’s paper was entitled Sex Differences in Brain Size Do Translate into Difference in General Intelligence, and the abstract suggests that Dunkel claimed that women were less intelligent than men by an equivalent of 4 IQ points on average. Here is coverage of him in Psypost, which I think is an RS right?, and which seems to be fairly significant coverage as it focuses on him and his study:[89] He is cited for debunking purposes by the Chad and Brym 2020 article[90], and by the Panofsky article (already in the article). Those cites are pretty cursory, but taken as a whole, he appears to have a footprint. I also got a bunch of hits in Google Books, about 2 pages, unless there is another Curtis Dunkel, citing a book "Possible Selves Theory, Research and Applications" and some for "Terrorism: An Identity Theory Perspective."[91] ResearchGate, which may not be correct or reliable but as a rough indicator, claims he is cited 2814 times and has 126 publications. Another small cite in a cognitive development book, "Children′s Thinking"[92]. The Panofsky thing is covered in a book[93] which devotes most of the preview page to Dunkel that I can see. Another small cite in "Confronting the “Weaponization” of Genetics by Racists Online and Elsewhere"[94]. My standard for keep is not dependent on how much I disagree with or find distasteful the person, and I have argued to keep less notable individuals, so I have a tough time coming down on the delete side here.Andre🚐07:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly notable fringe researchers likeEmil Kirkegaard have had their articles deleted/redirected multiple times despite mentions in exposes of race science. Having a small number of citations or even one example of routine coverage of a specific adademic paper in PsyPost doesn't constituteWP:SIGCOV. I don't think that the passing mentions of Dunkel in The Guardian article constituteWP:SIGCOV, since they don't have any analysis of him but consist of small factoids about his academic career.
I agree this is borderline notability, because his prior work on identity in relation to social psychology is much more significant than his recent work on fringe theories, but without a good analysis of the actual prominence of his work within that literature, I believe there is no real justification for notability.Katzrockso (talk)22:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of independent sourcing. We have a similar problem atRussell T. Warne. Some of these far-right "race" pseudoscience people are not notable for Wikipedia articles. There simply isn't enough goodWP:FRIND sourcing on them to establish an article.Veg Historian (talk)21:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The claim that his work is in the collection of the Gorman Museum is easily verified[95]. I could not verify the claim that his work is also in the collection of the Bishop Museum and that seems questionable as the museum's most relevant focus is on cultural artifacts not modern artworks. He was part of a group show at the Waikato Museum[96] but appears not to be represented in its collection. If we can verify that the Bishop museum has an artwork by him in their permanent collection then I think it would make for a weak keep ofWP:ARTIST but one such museum is not enough for me. —David Eppstein (talk)04:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added without a source by an ip editor[97]. Can't find any RS connecting him to the museum and based on what the museum's focus and collections are his inclusion seems unlikely, especially as a permanent exhibit.Traumnovelle (talk)07:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't quickly find a citation (and might not be enough as it is) but the Bishop museum does collect art by living artists of Polynesian ancestry. (one of the things I find frustrating is how much they like to mix ancient and this year together in the same case). --Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)01:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I located about Stephens Jr. do not appear to be independent of the subject, except for a PBS News interview.[98] If these are the only sources available about Stephens Jr. then I do not believe he meetsWP:SIGCOV and failsWP:GNG.Raskuly (talk)22:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - PerWP:PROF#C6 (president = Highest-level official). A time may come to make an argument for not including presidents of smaller community colleges etc. in this precedent, but someone who was elected to the presidency of two different college/systems including one with 4-6 campuses is not a good test case and would probably be above the bar even if it were raised. --Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)20:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for sure perMichael Scott Asato Cuthbert. That easy logic test should be baked into that stanrdard based onthis AFD if it's not. Like, you can maybe argue the CEO or COO of Fortune 500 isn't notable just for the role, but if you end up that for multiple 500s? Same thing here.
It's also an easy, trivial and logical extension of how we look atWP:BASIC and thatWP:GNG can be trivially met with severalWP:SIGCOV grade pieces. 2 beefy SIGCOV or 3+ moderate to ok SIGCOV--anyone who says such a thing isn't notable is just straight wrong. But, we have plenty of notable things and people built up on a legacy (or multi-year, multi-decade, etc.) span of long-term achivement and historical coverage, even if no one single piece is good SIGCOV. It's a lot less likely, but it happens. And is valid. So this here, running two college systems, that feels like the easy extension of that here. Good eye, Michael. —Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)23:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think that even a moderate sized community college system yields a pass ofWP:NPROF C6, and I'm seeing little else. Watching in case significant coverage is uncovered.Russ Woodroofe (talk)23:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- president of a college with over 4,000 students. Whilearguendo a campus director or president of a small college (say fewer than 900 students) would not be notable, this person would be.Bearian (talk)00:18, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails to meetWP:V,WP:PROF andWP:GNG. There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The only cited source is a dead link with no archival backup. Without verifiable secondary sources to establish notability, the article does not meet Wikipedia’s inclusion criteria and should be deleted.Morekar (talk)06:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage of any kind found... An associate professor would likely not pass PROF and I don't see any reviews of the books listed. Just nothing for notability.Oaktree b (talk)13:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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
The sources found by David Eppstein.
Fan, Cheng-hsiang 范正祥 (2017-11-09)."中共心理戰強大 易思安:台美應深化合作" [CCP's Psychological Warfare Is Powerful. Ian Easton: Taiwan and the U.S. Should Deepen Cooperation] (in Chinese).Central News Agency. Archived fromthe original on 2025-10-18. Retrieved2025-10-18.The article notes: "美國智庫2049計劃協會研究員易思安（Ian Easton）今天表示，中共在國際社會對台海議題的心理戰非常強大，台海議題不只是中共對台灣造成壓力，也對整個國際環境有壓力。... 研究台海軍事問題的易思安近期出版新書「中國的侵略威脅：台灣的防禦與美國的亞洲戰略」（The Chinese Invasion Threat: Taiwan's Defense and American Strategy in Asia）引發議論。他今天現身台北，評析中國大陸解放軍發展、武力犯台可能。"From Google Translate: "Ian Easton, a researcher at the American think tank Project 2049, stated today that the Chinese Communist Party's psychological warfare on the international community regarding the Taiwan Strait issue is extremely powerful. This issue not only puts pressure on Taiwan but also on the entire international environment. ... Easton, who studies Taiwan Strait military issues, recently published a new book, "The Chinese Invasion Threat: Taiwan's Defense and American Strategy in Asia," which has sparked controversy. He appeared in Taipei today to analyze the development of the Chinese People's Liberation Army and the possibility of a military invasion of Taiwan."
Lin, Ting-yao 林庭瑤 (2017-11-17)."美學者：對付中共 美台關係應正常化" [U.S. Scholar: To Counter the CCP, U.S.-Taiwan Relations Should Be Normalized].United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived fromthe original on 2025-10-18. Retrieved2025-10-18.The article notes: "美國智庫「二○四九計劃室」研究員易思安（Ian Easton）在新書「中國侵略威脅」（The Chinese Invasion Threat）中提及，中共已擬定「二○二○年攻台秘密計畫」，引發各界議論。易思安昨在十九大國際研討會報告中建議，提高台灣在亞太的戰略地位以及台美外交關係「正常化」，將是對付中共軍事威脅的最有效方法。"From Google Translate: "Ian Easton, a researcher at the US think tank "2049 Project," mentioned in his new book, "The Chinese Invasion Threat," that the Chinese Communist Party has formulated a "secret plan to attack Taiwan in 2020," sparking widespread discussion. In his report at the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) International Symposium yesterday, Easton suggested that enhancing Taiwan's strategic position in the Asia-Pacific and "normalizing" diplomatic relations between Taiwan and the US would be the most effective ways to counter the CCP's military threat."
Fan, Dongning 樊冬宁 (2022-06-18)."专访《最后的斗争：中共全球战略大揭秘》作者易思安：中共正全面"无声入侵"美国" [Exclusive Interview with "The Final Struggle: Inside China's Global Strategy" Author Ian Easton. The CCP Is Carrying Out a Full-Scale 'Silent Invasion' of the U.S.] (in Chinese).Voice of America. Archived fromthe original on 2025-10-18. Retrieved2025-10-18.The article notes: "华盛顿智库“2049计划”研究所资深主任易思安（Ian Easton）继2017年推出反响热烈的《中共攻台大解密》一书后，最近再推新书《最后的斗争：中共全球战略大揭秘》(The Final Struggle: Inside China’s Global Strategy)，他在书中以各种具体实例说明他在研究过程中对“中共全球战略”的惊人发现。以下是专访完整内容。主持人：首先请您谈谈是什么启发您写这本书，又为何定名为《最后的斗争》？您上一本书《中共攻台大解密》着重分析中国的攻台计划、台湾的防御以及美国的亚洲战略。但这本新书的重点转移到中共的全球战略。这两本书之间有何区别与关联？"From Google Translate: "Following his acclaimed 2017 book, "The Final Struggle: Inside China's Global Strategy," Ian Easton, senior director of the Washington-based think tank Project 2049 Institute, recently released a new book, "The Final Struggle: Inside China's Global Strategy." In the book, he uses concrete examples to illustrate his surprising discoveries about the CCP's global strategy during his research. Below is the full interview. Host: First, could you please tell us what inspired you to write this book and why you chose the title "The Final Struggle"? Your previous book, "The Final Struggle: Inside China's Global Strategy," focused on analyzing China's plans to invade Taiwan, Taiwan's defense, and the United States' Asia strategy. However, this new book shifts its focus to the CCP's global strategy. What are the differences and connections between these two books?"
Lu, I-Hsuan 呂伊萱 (2023-06-14)."中共視吞併台灣為必然 易思安：台灣選出親中總統仍會被施壓" [CCP Sees Annexation of Taiwan as Inevitable. Ian Easton: Even a Pro-Beijing President in Taiwan Would Still Face Pressure].Liberty Times (in Chinese). Archived fromthe original on 2025-10-18. Retrieved2025-10-18.The article notes: "易思安6月出版中文版新書《爭霸大業》（The Final Struggle : Inside China’s Global Strategy），不同於其2018年時出版的《中共攻台大解密》聚焦於解放軍攻台計畫，《爭霸大業》以中國官方文件、習近平思想文書為本，剖繪出中共極權意圖建立的「新世界秩序」，範圍全面，包括意識形態、經貿物流、國際治理、網路發展、大數據與AI人工智慧的運用。"From Google Translate: "In June, Ismail Isaacs published a new Chinese book, The Final Struggle: Inside China’s Global Strategy. Unlike his 2018 book, The Final Struggle: Inside China’s Global Strategy, which focused on the PLA’s plan to attack Taiwan, The Final Struggle is based on official Chinese documents and Xi Jinping Thought documents, outlining the “new world order” that the CCP’s totalitarian regime intends to establish. It covers a comprehensive range of issues, including ideology, trade and logistics, international governance, Internet development, and the use of big data and AI."
Associate prof who has made a good start, but an h-factor of 31 in a high citation field isWP:TOOSOON, particularly as almost all his awards (e.g. Sloan, Career, ONR) are starter grants. I do not see a rationale to treat a MIT academic any different from elsewhere, so we should not open the flood gates. He can wait until he reaches the same bar we would apply to others.Ldm1954 (talk)21:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Doherty Chair in Ocean Utilization is an associate-level named chair so it doesn't count forWP:PROF#C5, but I think the citation counts (2 quad-digit and 16 more triple-digit) are enough even in a high-citation field forWP:PROF#C1. Weak because that's the only criterion I see a pass of; the awards are early-career grants, best paper awards, and the like, which don't pass #C2. —David Eppstein (talk)01:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Miller's GS profile is badly curated with publications #1, #2, and #6 by other people with similar names. And for topics such as this with consistently high citation counts, the h-index is the wrong statistic to use: it is more about seniority (having the time to have published enough papers in that high citation range) than it is about research impact. The peaks are more important. —David Eppstein (talk)03:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Keep -- per Eppstein's citation count research (h-index alone isn't the only factor when certain individual citation numbers are so high). And while any individual early career award isn't enough, when there is an ocean of them they add up to conferring general notability (on this ocean researcher). --Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)20:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that MIT is one of the few universities that has two levels of associate professor: pre- and post- tenure; Adib is post tenure which makes a significant difference in my assessment. (Oh, and a semi-COI to declare: I was a professor at MIT until recently, though I never crossed paths with Adib). --Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)20:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a comment, I don't think MIT is that unusual, Northwestern also has untenured & tenured assoc prof. Full prof is a step up and normally is tenured, although I know someone who was hired as an untenured prof with a promise of a rapid tenure decision.Ldm1954 (talk)03:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting primarily because the Keeps are Weak Keeps so allowing this discussion to continue on for a few more days. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!23:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This seems to be a case ofWP:TOOSOON he seems to be making lots of inroads in the field of computer science and has an impressive publishing record for someone so young but not enough solid coverage or secondary sources yet for the page.Agnieszka653 (talk)20:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mariz Ricketts' Tagalog page is undersourced, and so is this English one. BEFORE shows no SIGCOV, there's more for husband Ronnie but (altogether now) notabililty is not inherited. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. Was PRODed and then refunded. This time, habibi, there should be no refunds.Alexandermcnabb (talk)15:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
British television and film actor, fails WP:GNG. Minor roles only, no WP:SIGCOV presented in article or, indeed, found in search. Roles such as '2nd policeman' and 'special branch man' do not get us past WP:NACTOR.Alexandermcnabb (talk)14:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. This page has been twice deleted by process. This morning I responded to a valid G4 tag by deleting this newly written pagespace. The page creator asked me to restore and I've done so, but I'd like the community to have some say whether this subject meets ANYBIO or NACTOR in the present day.BusterD (talk)15:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject should meet NACTOR that says "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, notable television shows, stage performances, or other notable productions"
Keep since the figure won five Primetime Emmy Awards and was nominated for nine more. It meetsWP:ANYBIO #1 andWP:CREATIVE #3. A quickWP:BEFORE showsAnimation Magazine coveragehere andhere. The article could list the credits and the accolades more clearly (rather than having the overlong enumerative sentence).Erik (talk | contrib)16:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MeetsWP:ANYBIO #1, "the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times", being a winner of fivePrimetime Emmy Awards with nine other nominations. She produced numerous notable television programs in her career. PerErik's sources coverage, the subject meetsWP:GNG. There's also thissource following her departure ofAdult Swim.MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk)19:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toMuvhango as was already decided in the first AfD in 2017, in which her name was spelled correctly; or possiblyDelete as a misspelling that is an unlikely search term.Muhvango appears to be her most noteworthy media appearance, and while she has a few more credits in the years since the last AfD, they are still largely unreported in reliable media. She mostly appears in unreliable trivia sites and services that reprint her own press releases. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS)14:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any coverage under the incorrect spelling of 'Sammuels' - Google search of "Buhle Sammuels" only yields Wikipedia. The correct spellingBuhle Samuels can continue as a redirect. I suspect that the 'Sammuels' spelling was an attempt to evade detection or to get around the previous AfD consensus. FailsWP:GNG andWP:BIO under "Buhle Sammuels" in any case.Spiderone(Talk to Spider)17:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Minor roles and nothing else. P. S. The sameSahara Samay trailer source was used on theKuku Mathur Ki Jhand Ho Gayi article listed her 3rd but she is only credited 8th[100]. The creator of this article is proof for that edit (see latest edit):[101].
As seen in the last link provided, its clear that a significant contributor to the article is either Pallavi herself, or someone editing under her name.Aesurias (talk)08:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This actor does not yet meet notability criteria underWP:ENT. There are not enough reliable sources available establishing notability and the roles in the films listed don't appear to be significant. My search for additional sources was unsuccessfulSe7enNationArmy2024 (talk)22:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He is listed in the cast section of two films -Eagle andMirai. Significant roles in two notable films and hence, passesWP:NACTOR. But, there isn't a single reliable source in existence which even mentions him, leave aside SIGCOV. So, he fails in the basicWP:V,WP:GOLDENRULE and hence, in GNG. Would have given preference to NACTOR, but the sourcing is completely off. In this scenario, draftification also doesn't appear to be fruitful since him becoming notable isWP:TOOSOON andWP:CRYSTAL as of now.BhikhariInformer (talk)04:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I kind of doubt the picture used in the article is a legitimate CC own work, given that it was apparently also used on aPlayboy cover per a simple Google search? Unless the uploader is the Playboy photographer, but even then, wouldn't the magazine own the rights? Not sure what the procedure for investigating this on Commons is, so leaving this comment for now.🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs)05:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wasianpower, I think you are right about the copyvio of the image, there was no VRT evidence, from the photographer themself or the magazine. I did notice that other images of the same person were deleted by the same uploader. No comment on the notability of the subject.Netherzone (talk)18:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I thinkWP:NACTOR is satisfied here by his filmography; you erroneously referencedWP:NCREATIVE which is different.
I think there are issues with the article's references, but probably nothing that can't be fixed through editing; draftification at worst.Athanelar (talk)15:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Athanelar: Well, there is an always an issue with regards to notability with just being a contestant inStar Vijay shows. This will just result in tons of passing media mentions from mostlyThe Times of India and nothing else. A search in English and Tamil yields nothing significant[104][105]. Everything that people need to know about him for now is in[106]. SeeWP:TIMESOFINDIA.
Both winning and being the first runner up is seen as significant per[107]. The rest isn't. I don't seeWP:NACTOR being covered unless he acts in more television shows (being in a soap opera with a named character always seems significantly more notable) and/or films. All he has is being an actor in a film, a contestant in 3 reality shows and being a dubbing artist in one film.DareshMohan (talk)19:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NACTOR states that notability is substantiated if the subject has had 'significant roles in multiple notable television shows'
I would say that being a contestant on three separate reality shows (each notable enough for an individual wiki article of their own, evidently) counts as multiple and therefore satisfies NACTOR. Granted, his movie roles as dubbing and as a character who don't even show up in the plot summary probably aren't 'significant' for NACTOR purposes, but when combined with the reality show appearances i think NACTOR is met.
c.f.Farida Khalifa who I found with a cursory search whose only notability is also a handful of reality TV appearances. (although maybe you could argue this is just another NACTOR fail; we probably need more consensus than just the two of us here)Athanelar (talk)20:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is very clearly AI generated, and before being AI generated, was already a stub. It has likely also been solely updated due to COI reasons. I couldn't really find much coverage on this person either. If not deleted, this article seriously needs a full rewrite.–LuniZunie ツ(talk)23:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TNT or delete I haven't had time to look for sources myself and this isn't a field with which I'm familiar at all, but the most recent set of edits are clearly LLM (lots of evidence) and COI (admitted some coordination, denied that that makes it any shade of a COI situation), as well as somewhat promotionally written and somewhat unsourced, so at a minimum it needs to be taken back so some historical revision. But the article history has been plagued by other COI and lack of sourcing for many years, so it needs either a complete rewrite after someone finds actual sources and can make a claim of notability, or else kill it outright.DMacks (talk)23:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. Thank you for your comments. I'm trying to figure out what to do, but I could also use some help. I can certainly revise and rewrite the entire article, but obviously I'll need some time. There's no conflict of interest between me and the author; as I've already mentioned, I contacted the author to ask if I could expand an existing page. My interest is purely academic, as I studied the author's plays at the University of Salerno, as is done at several other Italian universities. As for the use of AI, I think it all depends on my knowledge of English, which isn't excellent, so I occasionally get help from a web translator.Valydibi (talk)10:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I spot-checked four of the refs added by Valydibi recently, and all four failed verification of the statements, including one that I checked after they said they re-checked them. I am left with casting aWP:CIR (or at bestWP:LLMCIR) over their entire work, andstrongly oppose keeping its current form as a BLP disaster.DMacks (talk)21:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did some quick clean-up. The "Publications" section does not seem of encyclopedic importance, as it merely breaks down where his already-listed plays were published. I would delete it. Also, the EL section needs a lot of culling, although there may be some useful refs hidden in it. I have no opinion on whether this person is notable or not. Someone needs to analyze the refs. --Ssilvers (talk)16:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. Rather than consider deleting the Publications section, which confirms the international reach of the author's playwright's work, could you please tell me how to improve it, what to add? Thank you!Valydibi (talk)07:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, you could make it clear which ones have been produced -- as opposed to merely published -- and at what theatres? Full productions are of much greater importance than readings. If any of them had long runs, state how many performances (together with citations that state the facts being asserted). Same for the plays of other writers that he directed. If notable (bluelinked) people had starring roles in any of these plays, that might help (especially if many of the leading roles were played by blue-linked people. --Ssilvers (talk)18:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He appears to be a very well known artist in Italy and many of the sources are in Italian but I thhink he's notable enough in his home country to warrant keeping the page in English.Agnieszka653 (talk)18:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Than you! To understand the importance of this author, we need to distinguish between theater and entertainment. This author has devoted himself much more to writing than to business, because he has always defended the literary dignity of writing, an aspect that is too often overlooked. For this reason, he defends the existence of theater on the page as well, as a reading and a re-creation of an intimately personal theater. Furthermore, in Italy, the theatrical world is complex and diverse. There are the large permanent theaters, tied to politics and money, whose programs are repetitive and insensitive to change. Beyond these, there exists a much more vibrant theatrical world, far removed from power, which welcomes new drama and deeper reflections on the relationship between theater and reality. This author belongs to this second world and is always highly critical of certain cultural policy choices made by large theaters and the government. His radical choices in writing have brought his work to universities, and several students have written theses on his plays. I don't know what else to add. I'm working hard to build this page, but I'm a little discouraged right now. My apologies for my poor English.Valydibi (talk)05:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or TNT per DMacks' spot-check noted above.I saw that the source given for the subject's main claim to fame, a playwriting prize mentioned in the Lead, did not even Verify that he won the prize. Other citations proposed last night (which I deleted), did not appear to be independent and violatedWP:EL. I think the article should be deleted, and, if this person is notable, someone should start again using independent, sources. --Ssilvers (talk)16:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A better cite was added. However, most of the sources given in this article are primary sources, which (assuming they even do that) verify only that something happened. It needs secondary sources that explain the importance of the event, production or work. --Ssilvers (talk)20:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Tino Caspanello—I would suggest Agatino (Tino) Caspanello or Tino (Agatino) Caspanello, because Tino is the name the author is known by—is one of the most famous Italian playwrights, with his written and performed works also being distributed abroad. This is a very important aspect, because in Italy it is very difficult to establish relationships with theaters, theater companies, and publishing houses in other countries. I checked the sources cited, and they are all valid. I checked the website of the Academy of Fine Arts of Perugia, which does not have digital archives, but maintains the paper documents of its students in the office. Anyone can write and learn about the author's studies, but I don't believe it's possible to post paper documents on the page. I understand the concern about the presence of institutional websites, but it's important to understand the relationship between Italian newspapers and theater: for many years, newspapers have no longer been interested in theater; they no longer publish theater news and reviews, unless they refer to famous television personalities. Material available online is often lost because archives are not built to preserve information. How, then, can we attest to an author's career? Online magazines, such as Sipario.it and Dramma.it, Altrevelocità.it, and Teatroecritica.it, remain the only ones that still pay close attention to Italian theatre, and their websites attest to the veracity of information about the author.Tessy43 (talk)06:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
perWP:NAME, the correct title is Tino Caspanello, if that is how he is generally known. His full name is Agatino Caspanello -- the nickname is not needed in the full/birth name because it is "a common hypocorism of one of their names" -- that is, Tino is a common and obvious nickname for Agatino. SeeMOS:NICKNAME. --Ssilvers (talk)18:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link to the highly respected theater criticism and news site Ateatro.it, which reports the author's news of the 2003 Riccione Prize.
Keep I found other very interesting links that confirm the author's work in Italy and abroad. I repeat, I don't agree with deleting the page about him. After all, the purpose of an encyclopedia is precisely to welcome not only those who already have a clear reputation or greater visibility (this aspect is sometimes often linked to press offices, politics, etc., especially in the theater field), but also those who contribute to changing our perspective on the world, to perceiving a metaphysics in our daily actions, even in those that seem small and banal, because metaphysics, especially in the arts, is the most vital aspect for deeper knowledge. This aspect is recognized in the author's writing, and not only in his country. What is the encyclopedic interest? The quantity of his work? The quality of his work? The coherent project of a writing that transcends regional and national boundaries and is received from East to West with great interest and enthusiasm? Here are the links:
Thanks! I checked the links, and they're all working. Interesting links are those on the website of the Piccolo Teatro in Milan, where Mari opened the Tramedautore festival in 2018; the website of the national newspaper La Repubblica; and the Italieaparis website, which reports on a study day on the author at the Italian Cultural Institute in Paris, in collaboration with the Paris-Sorbonne. Also very interesting is the article in the Openedition magazine on the myths and the crossing of the Mediterranean Sea. I'll try to publish them, along with the related news.Valydibi (talk)10:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article cites multiple indipendent and reliable sources, including theatrical reviews and international publications. The author is a recognized Italian playwright and theater director, whose theatrical writing has been awarded and also translated and published in several countries (France, USA, Belgium, Kosovo, Turkey). The topic clearly meets WP Artist and WP Author notability criteria.
The subject does not meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) or the specific guideline for biographies (WP:BIO). There are no significant independent reliable sources providing coverage of the subject. The article lacks verifiable information about early life, career notability, awards, or recognition. Most available mentions are primary or trivial, failingWP:V andWP:BLP sourcing standards.Morekar (talk)14:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article was recentlydeleted at AfD on October 6, but was quickly recreated. As I wrote then, she was a contestant on one season of one reality television show, where she was runner-up. Besides that, she's had a handful of fairly small-scale modeling appearances. Does not appear to meetWP:ENTERTAINER, and the fairly insubstantial coverage makes me skeptical she passes theWP:GNG. The sourcing in this new draft is arguably weaker than the deleted one.GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk)15:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Olandria has since won the People's Choice Award from EBONY Power 100, she's been listed as a luminary by Cosmopolitan, and she has been recognized by Vogue and Vanity Fair. Additionally, a runway debut for a luxury fashion brand is simply not a "small-scale" appearance. Moreover, the sourcing claim is simply false. The sourcing has greatly improved, including a plethora of coverage from established magazines and news organizations, such as CNN, New York Times, Variety, and USA TODAY. All this certainly makes Carthen meet the entertainer and notability guidelines. There are articles on Wikipedia for people with less recognition and less coverage.Daring Dolphin (talk)16:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is the case from the previously deleted article as well, with the exception that Carthen had only been nominated for the EBONY award at that time. Being included in a magazine's top 100 list (or I guess named as a "special honoree" but not included in the list?) does not tip the scales to notability. Regarding "there are articles on Wikipedia for people with less recognition and less coverage": yes, but we are discussingthis article at the moment. SeeWP:OTHERSTUFF.GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk)22:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason for her not to have a Wikipedia page. I literally just went on Wikipedia to try to figure out if she is 27 and she went to college for four years (18-21/22) and in college she was recruited to be a elevator sales person which she said in yesterdays podcast she did for 3 years (22-25)what did she do in the other 2 or 3 years… yes, she was found on reality TV. But she has tapped into something so much bigger and that should be acknowledged.2600:4040:5F05:9600:1081:ECA6:6B0:56DB (talk)12:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This notion that nothing has changed since the previously deleted article is false. The previously deleted article (from September) did not adequately showcase her career since her appearance on the reality show, and the previous article had rather weak sources. There have been notable changes since then, which must be acknowledged as to why this article should not be deleted:
- She made her runway debut in Sergio Hudson - a luxury fashion brand.
- She won the EBONY Power 100 People's Choice Award, an award in which her fellow nominees included well-known actors, a politician, a musician, and an athlete, solidifying Carthen's notability as she won the award over them. And the magazine recognized her as such.
- The new sources in this article,which were not in the previously deleted article, validate Carthen's notability and solidify her entertainer status. If being recognized byCNN,The New York Times,Vogue,Vanity Fair, andCosmopolitan don't speak to her notability, I simply don't know what does.
In summary, a lot has changed since the previous deletion (both in Carthen's life and in this article). These changes nullify any nomination for a deletion.Daring Dolphin (talk)02:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PROD was declined - this article was created 15 years ago (and is still here) based on Williams having 3 credited appearances in a TV series - however, I can't see any evidence he's had any major roles in film or TV. However busy he's been as a stunt man or bit part actor, he doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Time for the article to go, in my opinion.Sionk (talk)10:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Williams has performed in notable productions, however none of his roles led to coverage in independent, reliable sources. His roles were typically unnamed background characters or one-offs. He has a fairly large amount of work as a stunt actor and coordinator, but none of that turned into coverage. This is honestly kind of par for the course with stunt actors/coordinators - their work is dangerous, difficult, and can easy help make or break a production, but because they're not front and center, they usually go unnoticed. It's a definite shame, but there's really nothing Wikipedia can do about this. We can only cover if the coverage is there and it's just not.ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)22:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: : still too early to tell be certain if subject will be Notable based on current citations and additional online searches . not opposed to draftify, as the subject has potentially plenty of time to gain SIGCOV over time.Lorraine Crane (talk)15:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the duo meetWP:NAUTHOR criteria 3: major role in creating a well-known body of work: screenwriters (authors) for 5 significant movies with a turnover of 100s of millions of pounds in total is going to be notable. I'd consider a merge to one of the Predator movies, but they have enough other work that I think that separate coverage is reasonable. I agree that current biographical sourcing is weak and sparse. There is plenty of coverage of each of their major works.Klbrain (talk)10:33, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Klbrain: I did see that, but I'm not convinced it's enough. The additional NBIO criteria is clear that it's only an indicator of notability—the additional criteria says "meeting one or more doesnot guarantee that a subject should be included," and NAUTHOR says its criteria mean someone is only "likely" to be notable. In this case, there is almost no material out there that's actually about the duo, vs. mentioning them in passing, and there is almost no information about their lives that can flesh out a biographical article. Situations like this are why the wording in NBIO isn't absolute. (Try a search for 'Jim John Thomas screenwriter -Disney', the latter to remove the lawsuit.)Ed[talk][OMT]14:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly passesWP:CREATIVE; even the most cursory gbooks search results indicate coverage in reliable sources with more or less details about the importance of their contributions to extremely notable films.e.ux18:08, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's odd that this article about 2 filmmakers doesn't contain a Filmography or any professional listing of their work which is standard for professionals who work in film or TV. Besides having production credit do any of these sources actually say anything about these two people, their lives, their inspiration, their work? I'm not sure that just having a credit of working on a film is sufficient to establishing notability.LizRead!Talk!05:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I have added a filmography ( Done, although it was not exactly difficult to infer their list of works from the article) but the articledid contain mentions of the writers'inspiration (not sure that is necessary to make them notable but the "inspiration" forPredator was present on the page by the time it was relisted) and their work; as do the sources. Reception of their work -generally negative, except regardingPredator- makes them notable. They were both born inNeedles, California and probably still live in California but sources reporting that are not great. --e.ux11:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eva UX: I really appreciate the work you've done here; as a result, we're able to much more fairly assess the topic. Unfortunately, I'm not sure it satisfies my (and I thinkLiz's) core concern—that the works they have written are notable, but the people themselves are not. Even as rewritten, this article does not have a single sentence about Jim and John's lives because as far as I can see, no source has ever reported on them. For example, there is no source that supports Needles being their hometown.In the end, sources only support exactly one sentence that does not involve the words they put into Hollywood script pages (the inspiration forPredator). Hence my OP concern aboutWP:SIGCOV.Ed[talk][OMT]14:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there is no source that supports Needles being their hometown: and that's why it's not even mentioned in the article and I only mention it here. [For the record: my original comment was posted after the relist and under the relist comment and AfD changed template, and later moved, but not by myself].e.ux19:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Paid for spam for non notableperson. Lacks coverage to independent reliable sources. Current sources are not good enough. 1, Interview, lacks independence. 2, "Platform statement: The views expressed in this article only represent the author himself. Sohu.com is an information publishing platform, and Sohu only provides information storage space services." 3, "Notice: The content above (including the pictures and videos if any) is uploaded and posted by a user of NetEase Hao, which is a social media platform and only provides information storage services." A search found nothing better. (What is she even meant to be notable for?)duffbeerforme (talk)13:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sohu & NetEase have a mix of both UGC and reprints from news-type organizations. The author of the Sohu article isWP:GLOBALTIMES, which is deprecated & I've removed from article & the associated content. The third source seems to be a marketing company so would not be a RS.JumpytooTalk17:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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
"《瓦舍之素舞遥》播出过半 优质国风中剧传递宋韵文化" ["Women Wrestling" Reaches Midpoint of Broadcast: High-Quality Chinese Costume Drama Showcases Song Dynasty Culture].Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese). 2022-05-05. Archived fromthe original on 2025-10-17. Retrieved2025-10-17.
The article notes: "李海鹰在2010年创立天海传媒之后，专注营销行业十数年，在剧综营销、品牌营销领域，斩获无数，成为了《赘婿》、《都挺好》、《隐秘的角落》、《我的前半生》、《白鹿原》、《那年花开月正圆》、《芈月传》《创造营2021》、《心动的信号》、《令人心动的offer》等近年诸多爆款剧综的“幕后推手”。即使在娱乐营销领域诸多光环加身，李海鹰始终保持要不断突破自己的心。两年多时间里不断尝试短视频和微短剧制作，2021年又开始尝试中剧制作，《瓦舍之素舞遥》正是她在中剧赛道上向市场递交的第一份答卷，第一季上线之际，《瓦舍》系列第二季也在开发中，..."
From Google Translate: "After founding Tianhai Media in 2010, Li Haiying has dedicated over a decade to the marketing industry, achieving numerous successes in drama and variety show marketing and brand marketing. She has been the driving force behind many recent hits, including "The Son-in-Law," "All Is Well," "The Hidden Corner," "The First Half of My Life," "White Deer Plain," "Nothing Gold Can Stay," "The Legend of Miyue," "Creation Camp 2021," "Signal of Love," and "A Heart-Stirring Offer." Despite garnering numerous accolades in the entertainment marketing field, Li Haiying remains committed to continuously pushing boundaries. For over two years, she has been experimenting with short videos and micro-dramas, and in 2021, she began working on Chinese dramas. "Washing House: The Dance of the Plains" is her first attempt at Chinese drama production. With the release of the first season, the second season of the "Washing House" series is also in development. ..."
The article notes: "她有着近20年传媒营销领域的丰富工作经验，是行业中的佼佼者；她一路过关斩将，从众多精英人才中脱颖而出，一举拿下了“改变中国娱乐营销历史的特别贡献人物大奖”“成长力品牌人物” “年度影响力领军人物”等多项荣誉；她顺应时代趋势，紧跟市场发展动态，带领公司成为中国娱乐传媒领域的知名运营商，她就是北京天海传承文化传媒有限公司（简称“天海传媒”）董事长——李海鹰。... 李海鹰对于传媒营销的理解，渗透在企业核心业务的方方面面，例如在影视运营方面，李海鹰带领团队与正午阳光、柠萌影业、腾讯视频等国内顶尖片方及播放平台的深度合作，打造出多部口碑与收视率双丰收的爆款影视综艺剧集，如《隐秘的角落》《十日游戏》《繁花》《知否知否应是绿肥红瘦》《都挺好》《长安十二时辰》，《演员请就位》，为内容娱乐运营行业的创新发展树立了新的标杆。"
From Google Translate: "With nearly 20 years of extensive experience in media marketing, she is a leader in the industry. She has consistently distinguished herself from a field of elite talent, winning numerous honors, including the "Special Contribution Award for Changing the History of Chinese Entertainment Marketing," "Growth Brand Figure," and "Influential Leader of the Year." She adapts to current trends and closely monitors market developments, leading her company to become a renowned operator in China's entertainment media sector. She is Li Haiying, Chairman of Beijing Tianhai Chuancheng Culture Media Co., Ltd. ("Tianhai Media"). ... Li Haiying's understanding of media marketing permeates every aspect of the company's core business. For example, in the field of film and television operations, Li Haiying led his team to deepen cooperation with top domestic film producers and broadcasting platforms such as Noon Sunshine, Lemon Studios, and Tencent Video, creating many popular film and television variety shows with both good reputation and high ratings, such as "The Hidden Corner", "Ten Day Game", "Flower", "The Story of Minglan", "All Is Well", "The Longest Day in Chang'an", and "Actors Please Take Your Place", setting a new benchmark for the innovative development of the content and entertainment operations industry."
"台偶剧的成功回归，告诉我们营销和婚姻一样" [The Comeback of Taiwanese Idol Dramas Reminds Us: Marketing Is a Lot Like Marriage].Guangming Daily (in Chinese). 2018-09-14. Archived fromthe original on 2025-10-17. Retrieved2025-10-17.
The article notes: "在新媒体端也是表现不俗，微博话题累积量达7.7亿，剧中不少关于婚恋的现实话题被大众热议。而这些话题的选择和提炼则来源于该剧背后的营销人——伯乐天海创始人兼CEO李海鹰。 ... 不仅是台偶剧《动物系恋人啊》，品质大剧《白鹿原》、古装大剧《芈月传》《那年花开月正圆》、话题大剧《我的前半生》《北京女子图鉴》等各类型国剧在营销层面的成功，也印证了李海鹰和她的团队伯乐天海正在通过紧锣密鼓的成长来提升业务水平，用行动来证明营销人四大能力的重要性，也注定将在营销这条道路上携手走的更远。"
From Google Translate: "The series also performed well on new media platforms, with a cumulative Weibo reach of 770 million. Many of the show's realistic themes about love and marriage sparked heated public discussion. The selection and refinement of these topics were the work of the show's marketing mastermind, Li Haiying, founder and CEO of Bole Tianhai. ... The success of not only the Taiwanese idol drama "Animal Lovers", but also the quality drama "White Deer Plain", the costume drama "The Legend of Miyue" and "Nothing Gold Can Stay", the topical drama "The First Half of My Life" and "Beijing Women's Guide" and other types of Chinese dramas in terms of marketing, also proves that Li Haiying and her team Bole Tianhai are improving their business level through intensive growth, using actions to prove the importance of the four major abilities of marketers, and are destined to go further together on the road of marketing."
Wei, Xinyue 魏昕悦 (2018-06-08)."看得见的女子图鉴，看不见的推手江湖" [A Visible Catalogue of Women, an Invisible Arena of Power Players].Jiemian News (in Chinese). Archived fromthe original on 2025-10-17. Retrieved2025-10-17.
The article notes: "在电视剧营销行业，由于甲方强势地位，临时替换乙方、尾款延期的纠纷屡见不鲜。李海鹰也正因为某一个甲方拖延应付款，不得用法律手段维护利益。她告诉小饭桌记者，在签订一个电视剧营销项目合同时，作为乙方的营销公司会根据甲方的营销需求，作出一份报价明细，并对这份报价进行细致沟通，双方无异议时，才会签订合作合同。"
From Google Translate: "In the TV drama marketing industry, disputes involving the temporary replacement of the second party and delayed final payments are common due to the dominant position of the first party. Li Haiying, for example, was unable to pursue legal action to protect her rights because of a delay in payment by the first party. She told the Xiaofanzhuo reporter that when signing a TV drama marketing contract, the second party's marketing company will prepare a detailed quotation based on the first party's marketing needs and carefully discuss the quotation. Only when both parties agree on the agreement will the contract be signed."
Comment from the Google translations the sources found by Cunard all look like paid pieces or industry churnalism, so I remain unconvinced about the subject’s notability.Mccapra (talk)17:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, hard to really tell from translations though. "are improving their business level through intensive growth, using actions to prove the importance of the four major abilities of marketers, and are destined to go further together on the road of marketing." LLM?duffbeerforme (talk)10:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was recreated after previously being deleted atAFD1 & AFD2 and I either cannot verify the sources as they are dead, or they are not RS or they are actually by PR companies….
So the first one is dead as you note. The second states it is presented by ascend agency and the third has no byline and it's not clearly an rs. This clearly does not prove ammunition to claim inherent notability.SpartazHumbug!23:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created the article when I wroteThe Harrowing (Inside No. 9) because she had received a bit of press attention, and it seems that this has continued (e.g., around her personal lifehere andhere and her acting ventureshere. I accept that theMEN isn't top of the list of reputable newspapers and that the coverage is mostly arising because of her mother, but it still strikes me as enough. Others may disagree.Josh Milburn (talk)21:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the roles played to date are not significant enough to meetWP:NACTRESS, and it's my understanding from AfD discussions I've been part of that to meetWP:GNG all references can't be from the same publication, especially not from the same publication and author. So while there is some significant coverage if all theManchester Evening News sources are rolled up, I didn't see much else in Proquest or Google to meet the multiple sources with significant coverage requirement. I'm not sure how I'd !vote if all sources are allowed from the same publication.Nnev66 (talk)14:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
—Duplicate !vote:KittyHawk2014 (talk •contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
Based on press release.
Discussed at RSN, no consensus
Request withdrawn I would like towithdraw this AfD per below. waiting for someone to close it.Seanwk :)(Talk |Contribs)23:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: surprisingly long
Done, although it was not exactly difficult to infer their list of works from the article) but the articledid contain mentions of the writers'inspiration (not sure that is necessary to make them notable but the "inspiration" forPredator was present on the page by the time it was relisted) and their work; as do the sources. Reception of their work -generally negative, except regardingPredator- makes them notable. They were both born inNeedles, California and probably still live in California but sources reporting that are not great. --e.ux11:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion, seefull discussion. Result was:delete