Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Businesspeople

WP:DSBOSS

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as 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|Businesspeople|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

This list is included in more general lists of business-related deletions and people for deletion.

Businesspeople[edit]

Jeff Ifrah[edit]

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

This resume is an advert. Besides that, I cannot find any significant coverage about the subject, rather than by the subject. Adjunct professor doesn't count for NPROF, and nor does citations in general media rather than scholarly works for the bibliometric criteria. I cannot identify any other additional criteria that Ifrah may pass. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, and New York. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is promotional biography. Sources in articles are name-checks, brief quotes from article subject, interviews, and firm profiles. Google Scholar appears to have nothing of substance and his articles are not widely cited. Agree he doesn't meet NPROF or GNG, and hard to see another guideline that would apply. Oblivy (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyazzat Tanysbay[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO / WP:JOURNALIST BoraVoro (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Journalism, and Kazakhstan. Skynxnex (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Pingray (CIO)[edit]

Previous AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hugo Pingray

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

Recreation of Hugo Pingray, with the same promotional/notability issues as in February. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Finance, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artha Woods[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and also no sources to establish WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Women, Georgia (U.S. state), and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found some coverage for her [1] [2]. She seems notable and I'm sure there's more sources for her in Newspapers.com. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The obituaries [3] [4] and this article [5] are significant reliable secondary sources for WP:GNG. Flurrious (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Adah[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. These sources are lacking in WP:SIGCOV, and some are unreliable and clearly not independent of the subject. Full of promotional fluff and stuff like that. Fails WP:BASIC too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional non notable article. The sources does look WP:ROUTINE, and this is usually problems we have with businessmen and philanthropist. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Africa. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice J. Buah[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Council of State members are not inherently notable and there’s not enough source to establish GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Ghana. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamite Obinna[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. GSS ^💬 15:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. GSS ^💬 15:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and nothing else to talk about here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hannaford[edit]

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

despite being flagged for improvement for nearly a decade now, the article still has major issues. much of the article seems to be either original research, or things Matt has been only involved with tangentially (like stars his coworkers at the company represented). this could be improved if the article met WP:BIO, but even that seems doubtful. Free Realist 9 (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Sportspeople. Free Realist 9 (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Adeyemi[edit]

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

An article about a business person that doesn't present WP:SIGCOV. The sources rather based on the company which doesn't still meet WP:ORGCRIT. Lacks minimum sourcing, and here isn't the case of clean up, it is not MILL either but haven't attain notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any notability-qualifying coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamales Lardi[edit]

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

Questionable notability and clearly WP:PROMO Amigao (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Women, Technology, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are more than 50 sources in the article which satisfies the significant coverage criteria of Wikipedia. The article should therefore be kept. Dlarrpi (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Fishback[edit]

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

WP:BIO, provided reason why he was notable (head of macro) is not substantiated by sources and was publicly disputed by previous employer. Fails WP:GNG, only secondary source is a few quotes in Fox News, all of the others are blogs/podcasts/primary sources Reflord (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree. Not notable and does not merit an article. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a few more WP:RS to boost notability. Hence WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are met. All the sources used prove the subject met the demands of WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Here are the 3 new sources added as extra:
^[1]

^[2]

^[3]

References

^ Jack Raines,"Schrödinger's head of macro". sherwood.news. Retrieved 21 May 2024.
^ "SGreenlight Capital's clash with an ex-employee has captivated the hedge-fund world". fnlondon.com. Retrieved 21 May 2024.
^ Bradley Saacks,"David Einhorn was once the young thorn in the side of executives. Now he's dealing with his own". businessinsider.com. 17 May 2024. Retrieved 21 May 2024.

Ali Hajizade[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Delete: Article is well written, however, feels like PROD--Correspondentman (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Correspondentman: What does "feels like PROD" mean? Also, this article has already survived one deletion nomination – it's a good idea to summarize the previous consensus and give at least a brief argument against it. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlwoodwa It seems that most of the users in the previous discussion are from Azerbaijan. A link to a website is like an advertisement. Correspondentman (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, because AFD is made by sock of the banned user. User:Correspondentman is banned in Azerbaijani Wikipedia as a sock of User:Elshad Iman (Elşad İman). Here is the discussion. He (User:Elshadiman) is banned on English Wikipedia too for sockpuppetry. On top of that he continues to use the same sock accounts in English Wikipedia that he used in azwiki: User:Redaksiya, User:90AA123 and User:Correspondentman, which has only 36 edits, all in AFD. Sock accounts cannot create AFDs, and this article was nominated and kept. — Toghrul R (t) 06:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comment, you mixed something up Correspondentman (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Bam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Another case of a politician who got involved in the upcoming election and withdrew or defected to another party and stuff like that. Sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, some are unreliable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician and entrepreneur is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Again another article created solely for the general election which fails of WP:BLP1E. It also fails WP:NPOL, as he was never elected as an MLA or MP, nor does he meet WP:GNG because the sources are not significant. These sources cannot establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 12:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bamidele Onalaja[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Not enough sources to establish GNG here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I found the source below

[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. I'm of the opinion that some articles doesn't need to go through AFD instead a notability tag should be placed for it to be improved on if the editor placing it , isn't ready to find source.Otbest (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now let me help you take a look at the sources you provided here.

[13] — This source fails WP:INDEPENDENT for having statements on quote like "I am", "We have", etc. N
[14] — This source fails WP:SIGCOV as it only passes mentions of the subject. N
[15] — This pieces was clearly disclaimed by the reliable Punch as a Sponsored Content, which makes it fail WP:INDEPENDENT. N
[16] — This reliable piece does not provide WP:SIGCOV on Onalaja in its entirety. N
[17] — This unreliable piece (what's a news story without a byline?) is WP:ROUTINE coverage. N
[18] — This does not provide WP:SIGCOV either, plus, it's WP:ROUTINE coverage. N
[19] — Only this piece I consider both reliable, independent of the subject and covers the subject to an extent. Y

I hope this helps your understanding of how sources are handled individually. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

@Vanderwaalforces: Thank you for your valuable contributions, which will positively impact the article in the long run. I believe the article should be kept, and a notability tag can be placed to encourage further improvements.

Based on my opinion on the comments you made on the sources

[20] — This source fails WP:INDEPENDENT for having statements on quote like "I am", "We have", etc. N

Response: The source "60 Leading Real Estate CEOs of 2022 in Nigeria (Part B)" from The Guardian does contain quotes and statements directly from the CEOs, which might seem promotional. Nonetheless, it is crucial to recognize that such features often include direct quotes to provide insights directly from the subject being discussed. This does not inherently disqualify the source as non-independent.

[21] — This source fails WP:SIGCOV as it only passes mentions of the subject. N

Response: I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the source fails WP:SIGCOV due to only passing mentions of the subject. The article from This Day Live provides significant coverage of the controversy surrounding Onalaja's alleged unauthorized representation as the Chair of the Lagos Chapter. It details the reactions and statements from REDAN, offering context and specifics about the situation, which go beyond mere passing mentions. This level of detail and the focus of the article on this issue align with the criteria for significant coverage under WP:SIGCOV.

[22] — This pieces was clearly disclaimed by the reliable Punch as a Sponsored Content, which makes it fail WP:INDEPENDENT. N

Response: Reliability of the Source: Punch is a well-established and reputable news organization. The fact that they disclosed the sponsorship openly is a sign of their commitment to transparency. This transparency can help readers critically evaluate the content, but it does not automatically discredit the information presented.

Also the reliability of the information, one should look at the facts presented in the article itself and cross-reference them with other independent sources. If the claims about RevolutionPlus CEO Onalaja making Forbes Africa's Undiscovered Series list can be corroborated by other independent and credible sources, then the article’s content remains valid despite its sponsored nature.

[23] — This reliable piece does not provide WP:SIGCOV on Onalaja in its entirety. N

Response: This should be considered as providing significant coverage under WP:SIGCOV, as it thoroughly examines an important aspect of Onalaja's public and professional life.

[24] — This unreliable piece (what's a news story without a byline?) is WP:ROUTINE coverage. N

Response: While it's understandable to be cautious about sources lacking a byline, it's important to consider the broader context before deeming the piece unreliable. The absence of a byline doesn't automatically discredit the content; many reputable outlets occasionally publish articles without bylines for various reasons, such as protecting the identity of the journalist or because the piece was a collaborative effort.

[25] — This does not provide WP:SIGCOV either, plus, it's WP:ROUTINE coverage. N

Response: The source on the Onalajas’ induction into the Arch Klump Society represents a notable achievement within the philanthropic and service community, and the coverage in Independent.ng reflects the significance of their contributions both locally and globally.

Thank you again for your contribution

Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coreyfranklin533 With your “Response”s it is clear that you do not understand how GNG works yet. Also, you explanations to do in how you got the image as your “Own work”, kindly do explain. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~

@Vanderwaalforces I appreciate your feedback, and I'm here to clarify any misunderstandings. Regarding my responses on how GNG work, I'm committed to continually improving and learning more about it.

Regarding the "Own work" label on my image, I recognize that there could be some confusion. Transparency is key. As a new contriubor who is open to learning, I want to assure you that I strictly follow ethical standards. When I mark an image as "Own work," it means I made it myself.

Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coreyfranklin533 Okay, it is now clear that this is actuslly an article about yourself. You are strongly discouraged to write an article about yourself on English Wikipedia, see WP:AUTOBIO. It is an example of conflict of interest and violates Wikipedia’s policy on conflict of interest and in extension, will most likely violate the neutral point of view policy.

Also, please stop adding “Keep” to every of your replies, you’ve !voted three times now which is not supposed to be so. Please, strike any two of them. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VanderwaalforcesThis article is clearly not about myself and it does not in anyway violates Wikipedia’s policy on conflict of interest. Like I have said, I am open to suggestions from the community to improve the article's neutrality and quality, and this can be done without nominating the article for deletion.

Thanks.

Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I drop the stick here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep -~~ The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which will attain higher grades as it develops over time. Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean an article can't fail an AFD. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a PR based on other PR profiles. Mccapra (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra The article doesn't showcase any public relations (PR) infleunce. Also, the sources mentioned are indeed credible and well-recognized .

Kindly expantiate what you mean by PR based in the narrative.

Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Coreyfranklin533: I feel the way you are going instead of dialogue, you might end up making this article I feel has potential be deleted. Portrait your point and allow admin or the closing editor to decide but to me I feel he is notable under WP:BASIC Otbest (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Otbest

Thank you for pointing that out. Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO as pointed out by the nominator. None of the businesses he founded are notable; the accolades he has received are also not notable. Three of the article's nine sources are about the subject receiving some sort of honorary reward. This article is pretty much WP:PROMO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Versace1608 @Vanderwaalforces

The businesses he founded are indeed notable. They have made significant impacts in their respective industries and have been covered by reputable sources. The success and influence of these businesses contribute to his overall notability.

The subject has received accolades from Forbes Africa, which is a highly reputable and notable source.

I am open to corrections and welcome any suggestions for improvement to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards.

Thank you

Coreyfranklin533 (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @Vanderwaalforces' thorough source analysis. The page author's persistent sealioning comments (like "The fact that they disclosed the sponsorship openly is a sign of their commitment to transparency," LOL) illustrate a deep lack of understanding of policy. Meanwhile, as Vanderwaalforces notes, if the author is truly the photographer/copyright holder of the photo uploaded to Commons, then this page has a major WP:COI problem on top of its non-notability, and if the photo is not the author's own work, the photo needs to be deleted pronto. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nashaba Victor[edit]

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

I'm not seeing coverage that is WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. The company that he works for VINAStech is also up for deletion. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some content might be work merging to the article on the local senatus for the Legion of Mary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question is of one of the people that are key to the Senatus of Uganda. He is one of the officers. I think the content doesn't require merging NBV2010 (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see no evidence of any coverage meeting the basic biographical criteria, any additional criteria, or any other criteria for establishing suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the company he works for may not be a ground for deletion of the Nashaba article because his popularity is more beyond that company, VINAStech NBV2010 (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Nassolo[edit]

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

An orphan article. A search for sources yielded just 1 hit in google news. Being the founder of "Miss Lira Beauty Pageant" is not really a claim for notability. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, random run of the mill nightclub owner who happened to do some work for some small scale beauty pageant. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Beck (music manager)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass notability test. Reads like a resume. No secondary sources. Risedemise (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pomotional. Creator User:Cate andersona Possible sock. — Maile (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yep. It's just a resume without any secondary sources. Can't find any either after a quick Google search. TheWikiToby (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, Management, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Welk[edit]

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

Non-notable person. While the sources provided all seem to be on the up-and-up, the overwhelming majority of them either are to websites that are now up for sale, return 404 errors, or flat-out can't be connected to. The sources that do properly function are all useless for notability - two are hits in catalogues for a book he wrote and the third is a non-sequitur. A search for sources brings up two Der Spiegel pieces about diplomatic document fraud and nothing else accessible or reliable. I will note that there is a BLP/N thread about this article (which is how I found it) but my putting it up for AfD is due to the sourcing woes and not because of the thread. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Edeh[edit]

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

Delete, article standing largely on non-existent and primary sources. Of the eight sources in the article, two are primary sources from the awards received by the subject while three sources (number 6- TheCable, 7-Sahara Reporters, and 8- Premium Times) are about an unrelated Tony Edeh (The Chairman, Eha-Amufu and Fulani Communities Peace and Reconciliation Committee) according to the sources 6, 7, and 8, reviewed. Supposing the Tony Edeh mentioned in those three articles are the subject of this article, he still falls below notability guidelines because he received only passing mentions. The only source that tends to count towards notability is the one from the Guardian (Nigeria) but that is not enough to establish minimum notability. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Has a long way to go in passing WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Draftify - per WP:BASIC Found this [26],

[27], [28].Otbest (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable business executive and wonder how this remained in this encyclopedia for this long. It does not come close to notability. Piscili (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bart Appiah[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage appears limited to breathless PR pieces, which use phrasing such as This masterclass is the brainchild of Prince Anthony Bart-Appiah a Royal [29]. Searching online, I was able to find one more substantial source of questionable value: [30]. Normally wedding announcements are considered routine press and do not contribute to notability, but this article offers an unusual amount of biographical depth. Still, it suffers from the same promotional tone, likely lack of independence, and questionable framing of a marriage to an elected politician in a republic (Panama) as if it were a political union of significant import. Overall, I think we fall short of the amount of credible, independent coverage needed to justify an article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Royalty and nobility, and Ghana. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing on Scholar, nothing on GBooks, nothing on JSTOR. I've removed claims that he initiated the Ghanaian government initiatives The Year of Return and Beyond the Return, as the cited source does not mention those and actually says only that he gave an online master-class on "Black Stories Matter" – which appears to be his only claim to fame. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gbenga Adigun[edit]

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

Delete, the subject clearly fails minimum notability requirement. Article having a bunch of sponsored press releases masked as independent coverage of the subject. The first references from the Sun (Nigeria) is a clear sponsored post and that is evident in the headline and the body of the article presents a clear indication of PR puffery. The Second source from PM News clearly mirrors Wikipedia structure. The handler possibly used that to prove notability and game the system, and maybe a deeper check of the editor who created the page will reveal something. There are about three different articles from Daily Times (Nigeria), while one mirrors Wikipedia style and structure, the tone is clearly PR puffery, the other two articles from same source are on obscure awards. The reference number 8 from the sun is the subject’s own writeup. Source number 12 from Independent is a single mention of the subject. Almost all other sources bear resemblance of PR puffery LocomotiveEngine (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very comprehensive nomination statement to which I have nothing to add. Mccapra (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. PRs/advertorials masquerading as independent coverage of the subject, even though these publications are reliable. I don't want to bother on source assessment on this. It is crystal clear by reading the pieces from these coverages. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He comfortable meet at least the minimum standards which is WP: BASIC. With the nominator assessment, Qualify individual might end up been deleted... On google he has major hits. See below

[31], [32], [33], [34], [35], Here he was listed by a notable Daily Times (Nigeria) newspapers among top 3 real estate developers [36] and several awards to prove his notability by major newspapers in Nigeria. And for WP:GNG same apply see [37], [38], [39],As a Fellow Institute of Consulting (FIC) and Fellow Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (FCIPD) he comfortably pass WP:NACADEMIC #3 [40].Calyx2s (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I tend to be on the side of keep, as I find a lot of editors nowadays rush to nominate AfDs. Unless, it is absolutely not possible, one should aim to keep the articles. This article has more than two reliable citations from reputed newspapers. I beg to disagree with a senior editor. The CEO Forum seems to be reliable as a reputed UN organisation attended the meet and collaborated with them. I feel the article meets the WP: GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Thanks! Davidindia (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is not based on policy issues raised in this AFD because you have not pointed out a single source that informed your decision on this. Your statement itself says it all that you do not understand the issue of unreliable sources raised. It is very clear that the issue is about the PR articles not the news platforms where they are published. Please, take a moment to study what RS is all about before commenting in AFD as it is not about number of votes but the merit of policy arguments. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Calyx2s, All these sources listed are "PRs/advertorials masquerading as independent coverage of the subject, even though these publications are reliable" as stated by @Vanderwaalforces. These are same sources present in the article when it was nominated and nothing has changed since then. The first source you listed above is just a passing mention and everyday, people are invited to speak on certain issues in the media and that does not count for notability. The number 2 is nothing but a PR statement from either the subject of the article or award organisation itself. The number 3 is a statement or press release but assuming that is a reliable source, is about their business organisation that only give a passing mention to the subject of this article. Your sources numbers 4 and 5 are about an event his association organised which he moderated, several people spoke at the event and he received passing mention in one or two paragraphs. It appears that you deliberately repeated sources in the article and in this AFD to create impression of notability because you listed some sources twice and those sources would not be analysed twice. The Number 7 you listed above is 100% PR puffery and it is a clear indication that you do not have a proper understanding of what reliable source is all about. The number 8 counts towards notability but unfortunately it is not enough. Your number 9 is a complete PR packaging. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am skeptical by the nominator reasons, checking the date and year of publications by the publishing house, it has months and years intervals and most if not all have byline to show it independent from the subject. He meets at least the minimum standards which is WP: BASIC And the above reference by Calyx shows he is notable too as been a fellow of a highly recognized institute pass WP:NACADEMIC. 5, 6, 8 sources are ok to pass Notability they are significant, independent, Reliable (SIR). And on Source one by the Sun [41] highlighted by the nominator, I went deeper to check if he actually had the TVC News appearance the answer is yes, type TOPIC: AN INSIGHT ON HOW LOW AND MIDDLE CLASS CAN OWN SAFE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSES IN NIGERIA on YouTube you will see it on the TV Media YouTube channel. Shows the publication is verifiable .Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, article is saturated with advertorial/PR material, therefore it fails WP:GNG. Off all sources reviewed, none is a reliable source to support notability. Though the sources are from reliable secondary media sources widely cited in this encyclopedia, the press articles used in creating this page are all PR efforts. The creator of this page is likely to be working for a PR Firm. They currently have two of their articles in WP:AFD and the two of them use same media sources, the writing are similar and the authors are mostly same. It is not a coincidence that should be overlooked. Their promotional articles in AFD are Gbenga Adigun and JOM Charity Award. See these two different sources and their bylines from The Sun (Nigeria) cited in both pages [42] and [43] written by same person (John Mike). See these two sources in both pages from Daily Times (Nigeria) and take note of their bylines even though they are covering different beats [44] and [45] written by same person ( Ihesiulo Grace). Now see these two different sources from Leadership cited in both pages [46] and [47] written by same person (Christopher Odey). Also see these two different sources from the PM News cited in both pages [48] and [49] written by same person (Taiwo Okanlawon). It is safe to say that this editor and those commenting Keep are working for same PR firm or at best are sockpuppets. Closing admin, please, take note of these editors commenting keep, they are most likely to be working together. Piscili (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:My account was created 9 months ago and some of these publications were existing long before I join Wikipedia. Check my contribution on Wikipedia has been from a neutral perspective and not working for any PR agency. I feel you and the nominator might be using this account to discredit the article because I could see the desperation to discredit it. Because he went ahead to report to the admin. And also nominated this article and the award so he won't be able to scale through with WP:ANYBIO

Piscili , face the issues instead of trying to discredit a credible publishing house. And your 3 votes was strictly on the 3 article the nominator nominated, that an eyebrows that you both are working together if not same editor and it your first time voting at AFD. Because him/she (nominator) asking on Administrator board if he can remove sources on the article really tells the desperation. How can you remove a newspaper sources that are reliable per WP:NGRS? The article has potential of passing WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and certainly with WP:NACADEMIC as a fellow of a highly prestigious institute of learning. Calyx2s (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator sought to know at WP:ANI if there is any policy that supports removing PR spam sources from an article before nominating it for AFD or if PR spam articles such as yours could be removed after the nomination, and the nominator was instructed that the sources should not be removed while in AFD so other editors could assess them. I saw the ANI, and decided to check their AFD nominations and found the three they recently nominated. I commented on all three because those articles have to go. Are you also the creator of the third spam article? My comments were based on my own little experience. Please respond to the issue of the questionable sources. In your other promotional article (JOM Charity Award), Riposte97 commented "that having looked though the sources, each seem to be substantially written by the same person". I am not the only editor who has spotted these PR spams. But why are you taking it personal? At this point, I urge you to declare your interests in the two WP:Spams. A good faith editor would be quiet and learn from the analysis of the sources but your continuous defense of the spams is what I can't understand. I am not here to fight but to contribute out of my own little understanding. If the community decides to keep your spam articles I have nothing to lose. Warm regards. Piscili (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your word and interpreting for the nominator The nominator sought to know at WP:ANI if there is any policy that supports removing PR spam sources you both are probably working together. Read his comment over there, he knows the implications now you are defending him instead of you to face the issues.

I know you will curve your decision for coming to AFD based on his report on WP:ANI. It seems you are not ready for policy discussion, instead calling a newspaper publications spam, check the edit of the award history when an editor touches the contents I never try to reverse it because I have no conflict or whatsoever. I drop the stick here Calyx2s (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Chambers[edit]

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

This article has a lot of citations, but it's not as impressive as it first seems. Of the 36 pages cited: 3 are routine campaign coverage from local outlets, 1 is a Decision Desk HQ election results page, 9 are press releases or other pages on the Indiana Economic Development Corporation's website, 2 don't even mention Chambers, 2 are paywalled, 6 are campaign website citations, 5 take the format of "Brad Chambers announces ____ plan" and seem to be based off the aforementioned campaign website pages, and 2 are duplicates of other sources. The remaining few are more in-depth articles about his gubernatorial campaign or his appointment as state commerce secretary from Indiana-based publications (not anything he did in office, just his appointment). Nothing stands out about his candidacy that would warrant a standalone Wikipedia article; he was never a frontrunner and didn't really do anything noteworthy. And he certainly doesn't have any other argument for passing GNG, either via his (appointed) position as state commerce secretary or otherwise. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Indiana. Kpg jhp jm 07:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: State secretary of commerce is a notable position; we have enough for at least a basic article, maybe needs a rewrite, but the individual would meet political notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: On what basis are you arguing this? If it was a statewide elected office, you would be correct, but a statewide appointed official is not considered automatically notable. There are thousands of unelected positions in state government, they aren't all notable. Can you link me some other state secretaries of commerce who have Wikipedia pages? Or anyone else who's held an appointed position in Indiana state government that got a Wikipedia page solely on that basis? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not a ministerial position in the state government? Here in Ontario, the Minister of Commerce would get their own article. Elected or not, if it's a cabinet-level position, we've always held them to meet NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: In Indiana, the secretary of commerce and president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp. is part of the governor's cabinet. [50] AHoosierPolitico (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that still passed NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it not a member of the state's legislature? It would fall under here [51] Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Please try to familiarize yourself more with US politics before participating in discussions like these. No, the state secretary of commerce is not part of the state legislature, nor is it a particularly high-profile position. Again: if you're so confident that this position satisfies NPOL, you should be able to link some people who served as Indiana Secretary of Commerce (or any other equivalent appointed position in a US state's cabinet) who got a Wikipedia page on that basis alone. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk)

Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES and Oaktree b. Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, etc.) in countries where executive and/or legislative power is devolved to bodies at that level. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johnson (Alaska politician) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Baxter Jr. for precedent of state cabinet secretaries kept. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what I explained above? I participated in both votes that you've linked, one had good coverage, the other doesn't. He's a member of the sub-national gov't. US Politics is pretty much like Canada, we have the parliamentary system, the US doesn't. Both work basically the same. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the vast majority of coverage is about his failed gubernatorial run, not about his appointment to a position which doesn't necessarily pass WP:NPOL (there is very little coverage of him in his cabinet position.) So I don't think the position merits the NPOL assumption when it clearly does not receive significant press coverage apart from his appointment. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Crawford[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was first deleted in 2019 and despite being a WP:REFBOMB this new incarnation shows no additional evidence of notability under GNG or NBIO. Coverage is in school publications; WP:TRADES publications like local business journals and magazines (and without feature-length coverage that would permit the use of trade pubs to establish notability); self-published sources; or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in longer lists of people. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Military, Louisiana, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obinna Sunday Ejianya[edit]

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

Note that this same article existed at the title Godswill Obinna Ejianya, which was moved back to draftspace by the creator within minutes of my initiating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godswill Obinna Ejianya and then blanked, but was created at this new title almost simultaneously with all of that. So it isn't eligible for immediate speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, but the actual issues here haven't changed at all: it's still a semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a businessperson, still not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for businesspeople.
As always, businesspeople are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but of the six footnotes here, two of them (actually one, reduplicated as two distinct footnotes for no obvious reason) are just "covering" him in the context of turning 50, which is not a notability claim in and of itself, and the other four are all covering him in the context of receiving a local "man of the year" award that isn't highly prominent enough to be a notability-making award. And even more interestingly, those four sources are all virtually identical in wording despite seemingly coming from four different media outlets, meaning that it's really either a wire service article or a self-published press release from the subject. But four media outlets reprinting the same article adds up to one GNG point, not four — we're counting the number of distinct articles, not the number of newspapers that reprint the same article — which means he hasn't actually been shown to pass GNG.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier published article; Godswill Obinna Ejianya was deleted because there seemed to be a name disparity issue. All cited media outlets has articles on the persona which I believe makes it notable. I have no idea why four different media outlets will publish same word to word articles about a person. Sayvhior (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, can't find a reason why this passes the minimum WP:BASIC. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG since I gave no weight to the sources which rather based on his works. An entrepreneur is usually not notable except has done something significant in a field of business. Apart from that's there are few sources which didn't count to WP:SIGCOV. I am weighing delete for now. Or if there is need for WP:ATD, redirect to List of Nigerian entrepreneurs. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, asides being an entrepreneur and according to one of the sources cited and I quote, “ Obinna Sunday Ejianya was nominated for the award for the kind of innovation he brought to bear on investigative journalism and his amazing reportage in the year 2022, especially in some Issues that concern Anambra State” if this isn’t a significant one, please guide on WP:ATD redirect to List of Nigerian entrepreneurs Thanks. Sayvhior (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Peters (media executive)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:JOURNALIST. Run of the mill coverage of this executive who used to run Euronews, but not much in terms of in-depth of independent from the subject (interviews, press releases) which would indicate this is a notable individual under our guidelines. Pilaz (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and France. Pilaz (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waqar Zaka[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this subject, a VJ-turned-television host and a cryptocurrency enthusiast, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SNG. I found only https://www.dawn.com/news/448557/chit-chat-meet-waqar-zaka this interview and nothing much. Lkomdis (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: OP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Lkomdis (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEP: I'm curious how someone who someone hasn't been active on WP suddenly pops ups after four years of silence to nominate this BLP for deletion and throwing around accusations that I'm a paid editor and causing a stir about my editing behavior too. BTW, this BLP isn't promotional like they're saying over at WP:COIN. Feels like some undercover agents got activated once I started calling out Pakistani UPEs. I feel like this should be WP:SK because I'm not buying the editor's intentions. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. You acted like you owned the page, which makes me think that you and Aanuarif have an unreported financial interest in promoting Waqar Zaka, Editors do not own articles and stop attacking other editors based on your assupusons, it will not save the article, as you defended in second nomation here There is ongoing discussion on COIN about this, Regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. So let it be reviewed by the community.

And the nature of your edits look you may have conflicts of interest, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Lkomdis (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something to think about if I had a COI and was getting paid by Zaka as you claim, why would I remove all the PROMO stuff about him? Instead, I'm adding STUFF that might not make him happy. Anyone can check the page history to see if I'm the one who added the PROMO or the one who deleted it. And BTW, since you mentioned @Aanuarif, if you had bothered to check their tp, you wouldn't be saying what you're saying. Absolutely baffling. - how in the world does Zaka think he could pay me to scrub his PROMO from his own BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Aanuarif (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you stop editing after being caught slipping in WP:PROMO and WP:OR into the BLP? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Aanuarif (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, Discussion on COIN about this still open, so don't don't conclude the result of this nomination or COIN by yourself, let the community review the whole case, as you are in a list of ongoing COIN discussion and a potential candidate of COI, I will suggest, please don't make any further edit to Waqar Zaka, as you recently did. Lkomdis (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Music, Television, Cryptocurrency, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Saqib as the user responsible for 50+% of the article text, do you want to comment on the specific issue of notability? It does seem there's not much there other than interviews which are typically disregarded (or nearly so) in notability discussions. In terms of independent content I'm looking at the Samaa article about a trading contest, and the article about him being arrested for cannabis, but not much else.
Personally I think it will in most cases be uncivil to make COI/UPI/Sock allegations at talk pages (and none are made here). It seems very appropriate to make them at the COI noticeboard. Similarly, there's an instance of seeking guidance from an administrator about your editing, which seems to be good faith even if it might feel like an attack. The last diff ostensibly has nothing to do with @Lkomdis. If you are suggesting this meets speedy keep because it's brought for improper purposes, that could border on uncivil as well. Oblivy (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject absolutely fits the bill as a Creative professional. How so? Well, he was the force behind some seriously popular Pakistani TV shows like Champions with Waqar Zaka, XPOSED, Living on the Edge (Sabse Himmat Wala Kon?), King of Street Magic, Desi Kudiyan, The Cricket Challenge and Video On Trial - just to name a few. Even though these shows might not have their own WP articles but they have definitely received coverage from various RS. HERALD's states Zaka started his television career in the early 2000s and gained recognition as the host and director of Pakistan’s first adventure/dare game show, Living On The Edge. Other shows he is recognised for, and sometimes ridiculed, include XPOSED, Desi Kuriyan and Video On Trial. And this HERALD's piece states Its host and director was Waqar Zaka who has carved a name for himself in the genre. HERALD was a highly reputable and esteemed Pakistani publication. I'm confident others would concur + He's recently co-produced a film called Babylicious and lately, he has jumped into the cryptocurrency and is getting loads of press. Sure, some of it might be paid to make him look like a crypto genius. On one occasion, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa appointed him as an expert (when he's not) in its advisory committee but it does suggest he's getting attention in this field too. Recently, he was accused of involvement in crypto fraud as well. So if you're not seeing much press coverage on him, you might wanna check out DAWN, The Express Tribune, Daily Times, The News The Nation and so on - all those are legit RS and they've got plenty to say about him - both positive and negative. Additionally, there is abundant coverage of the subject in Urdu language sources but I feel it's not appropriate to consider them here as we're on English WP and thus should prioritize English language sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. It would seem odd if brief career summaries in newspaper articles, like the Herald article, demonstrated he is an important figure for WP:CREATIVE. The rest of the mentions in the Herald article are based on an interview. And press coverage about crypto or legal troubles doesn't go anywhere towards satisfying creative professionals (although it might show WP:GNG if he's assessed under another standard).
I haven't been through all the search results you pasted in but it seems like quite a bit is either self-promoting (something you acknowledge is a risk here) or based on legal troubles. Could you provide the three sources you think best demonstrate notability? I just don't know enough to vote but I've got an open mind. Oblivy (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to clarify that those Herald stories weren't provided to establish WP:GNG. They were just there to show Zaka was the brains behind those TV shows and the shows themselves got press coverage from RS so as per WP:CREATIVE, he's in the clear. Take Champions for example. It got so popular - even if for all the wrong reasons- that it got banned by Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority. And for Living on the Edge, he says India straight-up copied it for MTV Roadies. According to the Express Tribune (the local partner of The New York Times), this show had a solid eight-season run and was a major cash cow for the channel. According to the same Express Tribune, Zala has a cult following thanks to his TV shows. And then there's his film production Babylicious, which got a bunch of reviews as well. Meanwhile, If you check the links I provided previously, you'll see he's been in the press way more than our average Pakistani actor. Sure, some of it might be paid, but there's plenty of legit coverage too. I could pull out the top three examples if you want, but honestly, we don't even need to argue about WP:GNG. WP:CREATIVE's got our back here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to trawl through your searches to figure out what you think is going to help this article pass ~~GNG~~ notability. So far I've seen a bunch of "this guy is a legend and we interviewed him" articles but based on that I'm not inclined to vote up or down. Oblivy (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you're clearly missing my point. Who asked you to review based on WP:GNG? Also, I didn't provide any search results in my above comment. I suggest you read my comment again timestamped 09:46. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think merely being the presenter of a TV show counts as "creating or playing a major role in co-creating" a significant work. Otherwise we'd consider every actor starring in a TV show to be a "co-creator" and we wouldn't need NACTOR. And being one of several producers of a film isn't really sufficient either -- it's made pretty clear in the linked source that the major creative force was the director. I think you will need to establish GNG to have case for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, Like I said above, Waqar hosted those TV shows, so I reckon he fits WP:CREATIVE, which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work.. Anyway, I think I've made my points. I really don't have a strong opinion about this or any other BLP and I'm not looking to be defensive. If the community disagrees with my opinion, I'm cool with that too. Let's keep it moving. There's a ton of work to tackle. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A show host is not the same as a show creator: we do not automatically consider star actors to be "creators" of the works they appear in, that status is reserved for the writers/directors. The "role" in that guideline is not referring to an acting role. JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, So, like I mentioned earlier, he was the guy behind a bunch of reality TV shows which were very popular, doing everything from producing to directing. Take "Living on the Edge" for example, that youth reality show that was a big deal in Pakistan—he was the executive producer there per this RS. Plus, per the same DAWN piece, he wore many hats at The Musik, directing and producing. He was the director of BOL Champions season 1 per this and also co-produced Babylicious - while this states Waqar Zaka is the pioneer of the reality show called Desi Kuryian So yeah, he ticks off a bunch of the criteria for being NCREATIVE, including being a NDirector and NProducer. While BBC calls him a "social media sensations" in Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - meets WP: Notability (person). The subject is a controversial and popular social media personality and politician. Sameeerrr (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Keep: Subject obviously notable with significant reliable sourcing. Haruka Amaranth 13:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to inadequate independent sources in the article, and nothing new of note offered at this AfD. Subject certainly seems to have been a part of significant cultural pieces but the creation or major role required for WP:CREATIVE hasn't been demonstrated. Non-creative endeavors, like the criminal history and cryptocurrency activities aren't sufficient to pass notability under GNG or other standards. Oblivy (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oblivy, What do you mean by "inadequate independent sources"? I can't find any reference that isn't independent of the subject. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this is the 3rd AFD on this article and I'd like to see a clearer consensus based on policy and the quality of sources (specific comments are more helpful than generalizations).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source Assessment Analysis

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://jp.reuters.com/article/crypto-currency-pakistan/pakistan-moves-to-bring-cryptocurrency-boom-out-of-the-dark-idUSL4N2MY2QY/		according to WP:RSP, Reuters is a news agency. There is consensus that Reuters is generally reliable, Probably organic source	~	~ Partial
https://www.bbc.com/urdu/pakistan-56991694	in Urdu language	BBC is renowned to be reliable		✔ Yes
https://web.archive.org/web/20190412131604/https://dailytimes.com.pk/375662/waqar-zaka-to-launch-cryptocurrency-to-help-pakistan-pay-off-its-debts/	?	? probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1104219	?	? probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://www.dawn.com/news/448557/chit-chat-meet-waqar-zaka	?	? mere interview		✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/507331/i-am-giving-pakistanis-a-platform-to-vent-their-frustrations-waqar-zaka/	?	? probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/879155/i-am-the-reason-why-some-people-now-rule-the-entertainment-industry-waqar-zaka/	?	? probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2020/04/10/waqar-zakas-show-champions-remain-suspended-ihc-rules/	?	?	Not opening, dead link	✘ No
https://propakistani.pk/lens/#google_vignette	advert site			✘ No
https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1125800	?	? probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20200413074930/https://www.samaa.tv/entertainment/2020/04/lewd-headphone-show-designed-to-help-audience-insists-waqar-zaka/	~	? archived, Probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1030194-heres-what-weve-gathered-from-the-four-corners-of-the-world		Probably paid promotion	~	✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2448056/waqar-zaka-tried-to-sabotage-my-position-as-a-morning-show-host-nida-yasir	?	? Probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://dailytimes.com.pk/1148194/waqar-zaka-claps-back-at-nida-yasirs-allegations/	?	? Probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/529514/waqar-zaka-hopes-to-go-from-cobra-to-constituency/	?	? Probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/837229/waqar-zaka-says-line-pe-ajao/	?	? Probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://ecp.gov.pk/Documents/Downloads/General%20Election%202013/Detailed%20Gazzette/Notification%20-%20National%20Assembly.pdf		Non existent pdf		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20181128123043/https://www.aaj.tv/2013/04/main-banoonga-minister-waqar-zaka-strives-to-contest-elections/	Not opening.. Dead link	Not opening.. Dead link	?	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20190419213558/https://www.samaa.tv/lifeandstyle/2019/04/we-may-never-see-waqar-zaka-on-tv-again/	?	? archived	?	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20190530064649/http://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/493945-Waqar-Zaka-seeks-apology-nation-destroying-young-minds/		archived site	~	✘ No
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/396309-arrese		Probably paid press	~	✘ No
https://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/467143-Waqar-Zaka-arrested-over-possessing-sheesha-denies-consuming-alcohol	?	Link not opening	~	✘ No
https://www.samaa.tv/20873698-solo-champion-waqar-zaka-wins-solo-trader-round-of-bitcoin-world-cup	?	?	~ Probably paid promotion	? Unknown
https://www.samaa.tv/20873569-bitcoin-world-cup-waqar-zaka-eyes-victory-ranks-3-among-2-500-traders	?	? Probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://www.brecorder.com/	?	Probably paid promotion	~	✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1727704	?	? Probably Paid press	~	? Unknown
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1027586-fia-s-final-charge-sheet-accuses-waqar-zaka-of-luring-public-into-illegal-cryptocurrency-trade		Probably paid press	~	✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1731030	?	? Probably paid press	~	? Unknown
https://www.dawn.com/news/1735220	?	? Probably paid press	~	? Unknown
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}}.

Comment of the Source analysis': I took out time to carry out source assement for all the 29 sources used. From the above, I found that only two WP:RS (Reuters and BBC Urdu) featured the subject partially. The rest of the sources used were mostly unknown and unreliable. They don't qualify as WP:RS. They all contain Paid press which either promote the subject overly or discredit the subject. I therefore conclude that WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are not met by any means. Cheers everyone! Maltuguom (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Maltuguom, I've to disagree with your assessment because you've labeled even those news stories that were critical of Waqar Zaka as "paid.". I'm just curious about why SPAs (like you and Lkomdis (talk · contribs) are showing a lot of interest in this AfD and who seem to only want this BLP deleted. I hope the closing admin will take into account that this isn't solely about WP:GNG but also about WP:NCREATIVE criteria and also probably think about taking SPA comments into account, especially since you haven't been in an AfD since 2020. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib,My dear, what I did is an unbiased source assessment in line with Wikipedia policy. I am not supporting any side. The source assessment is very clear and unbiased. Take a look at it critically and at my comment. It's left for the admin to decide. I didn't vote "delete" nor "Keep". It's just a clear unbiased assesment based on wikipedia policy of WP:GNG. Most of the sources fail WP:RS. This is very clear! Likely paid promotions both for and against the subject. Why can't we see those articles on reliable WP:RS??.

Mind you! I have participated in AFD n few occassions in the past. I stopped because of the un-encouraging attitidue of editors like you. Why do you add me to an SPI simply because I did what is right and unbiased? I am not in any way linked to that SPI. My account is not a sleeper. I edit when I am free. I came on this to access the sources in line with the wikipedia policy.

Why are you bent on attacking every single vote or comment? It's uncalled for my dear. Let's have a rethink. Allow the admin to take a decision in line with wikipedia policy and guidelines. Cheers.Maltuguom (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maltuguom, You got it wrong in your assessment. Those DAWN news stories aren't unreliable or paid for. In fact, they're critical of the subject. And BBC Urdu didn't just partially feature the subject; they gave it significant coverage, contrary to what you claimed. Anyway, like I said, the BLP should be evaluated based on WP:NCREATIVE because the subject has played major roles in numerous TV shows and a film. And yeah, I filed an SPI because I think there might be some puppetry going on here. It is indeed fishy that an account that hasn't been active in AfD since 2020 suddenly pops up out of nowhere to throw in their 2cents on this AfD, especially when this AfD was originally initiated by a blocked sleeper account. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, the source analysis is clear on BBC and Reuters. Those are the only two WP:RS. BBC featured the subject significantly. Check the table well. The subject and his cronies used DOWN and other unreliable sources to churn out paid promotions. His enemies also used same to launch attacks on him. I saw all of that by reading through each of the sources. A few of the sources are dead links. Why can't both parties used BBC, Deadline, and other WP:RS. TAside from the BBC, there are no other organic sources cited. Also nothing stops me from participating in several AFD's all through this period just to cover up as most guys do. I won't that. It's not needed. I simply being honest and unbiased. Cheers.Maltuguom (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're labelling all Pakistani sources, even the big ones like DAWN and Express Tribune, as unreliable. It's kinda funny, because those are like, the most respected ones in Pakistan. Do you have any proof they're paid? And even if they are, like, who cares? As long as our BLP isn't turning into a PROMO, we're good to go. And even if some links are dead, we can always hit up the Wayback Machine to bring them back to life. And lastly, we're not here to judge based on GNG, but NCREATIVE, and this dude totally fits the bill. Whether the coverage is paid or not doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with @JoelleJay that a showing that the person was the creator or played a major role in the creation of significant works is needed. That needs to be shown with reliable sources. @Saqib can you point to sources where those two elements - significance of the work, and major role in creation -- are asserted by an independent source? I asked before but you demurred.

GNG is indicated because of WP:BASIC, unless you only want to rely on NCREATIVE (in which case, see my previous paragraph).

With respect to your comments to @Maltuguom, if sources are paid-for they aren't independent and don't count towards WP:BASIC. I see no reason we would accept non-independent sources for WP:NCREATIVE especially considering that WP:RS requires independence (Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). While I disagree with much of the above source analysis, simply hand-waving away lack of independence doesn't mean "we're good to go." As an experienced editor currently participating in a lot of deletion discussions, I assume you know this, so I'm not sure what's motivating the above comment. Oblivy (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


TV shows/films	Roles	Reference
Living on the Edge Pakistan's most popular TV reality show	Director	^[1]^[1]^[2]^[3]
XPOSED	Creator and host	^[4]^[5]
King of Street Magic	Creator and host	^[5]
Desi Kudiyan	Creator and host	^[4]^[5]
The Cricket Challenge	Creator and host	^[5]
BOL Champions season 1	Executive producer	^[6]
Babylicious	Executive producer	^[5]^[6]
The Musik	Director and producer	^[1]^[7]

So, I've put together a table listing some of the TV shows directed, produced, created, and hosted by the subject. These are just a few examples, not an exhaustive list and I've made sure to cite independent, RS to back up the information. Now, some of these shows have WP articles already, indicating their noteworthiness, while others, like Living on the Edge don't yet have articles. However, just because they don't have articles doesn't mean they aren't significant works. For instance, "Living on the Edge" was Pakistan's most popular reality show per DAWN as well the Express Tribune, and substantial financial success, as reported by The Nation.

Love him or hate him, Waqar clearly meets the NDIRECTOR and/or NPRODUCER. Serena Menon of the Hindustan Times even refers to him as a Pakistani pop sensation, and highlighting Waqar's hosting skills being compared to those of India's Raghu Ram so, if Raghu Ram qualifies for a WP BLP, why not Waqar? And for what it's worth, Zaka is also recognized as a "social media sensations in Pakistan" by BBC. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c "Chit chat Meet Waqar Zaka". DAWN.COM. 7 March 2009. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
^ "Qandeel Baloch: Unmasking Patriarchy in Death". The Wire. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
^ "What being 'bold' means for women". Herald Magazine. 9 November 2017. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
^ ^a ^b "The Wire: The Wire News India, Latest News,News from India, Politics, External Affairs, Science, Economics, Gender and Culture". thewire.in. 13 January 2018. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e "Waqar Zaka bore brunt of being critic of PTI policies". www.24newshd.tv. 26 June 2023. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
^ ^a ^b Shan, Muhammad Ali (29 June 2023). "Waqar Zaka Steps Into Film Production: "Babylicious" Reviving Pure Romance In Pakistani Films". BOL News. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
^ Salman, Peerzada (29 June 2023). "Premiere for Babylicious held". DAWN.COM. Retrieved 19 May 2024.

Delete He was the host of some non notable shows in the past. Shows are lacking notability not because they dont have wikipidea page but because there is insufficient coverage on google. The available coverage about him is also limited, often focusing on crypto currency activites. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you're thinking this vote is payback just because I nominated some pages for deletion that were made by UPEs. Because seriously, how can you just brush off those reliable sources that clearly say he was the creator, director or producer of those shows I mentioned in the table and that there's not enough coverage about Zaka's shows. Seriously? Every single one of his shows is all over legit sources. Like, come on! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this statement from The Wire says it all "Zaka started his television career in the early 2000s and gained recognition as the host and director of Pakistan’s first adventure/dare game show, Living On The Edge. Other shows he is recognised for, and sometimes ridiculed, include XPOSED, Desi Kuriyan and Video On Trial."

I'll be honest, I don't have any sense of how important Living on the Edge is. The rest of it seems clearly to fail on "significant". Note that #1 is an interview which should get low or no weight.

@Saqib considering WP:AGF do you perhaps want to strike your comment about payback? Oblivy (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not backing down from what I said. It's super obvious if one check out Libraa2019 involvement in AfDs and why they voted to delete here. It's like a total retaliation vote.This editor is all over creating and editing bios of not-so-famous actors, but they voted to delete this BLP just because I said keep. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite numerous warnings, you are contineously harrasing me by calling me UPE/sock on multiple platforms without any single evidence, i will report you to admin for this. Retaliation is what you are doing and i am unable to understand what is your motive behind insulting me everytime. Being a Pakistani editor with interest in Entertainment, i have all the rights to participate in Pakistani related article's AFD and share my opinion. As far as my creations are concerned, they have already kept in AfD because community is thinking they are notable [52]. You are not an admin to decide whether the BLP is notable or not. All you can do is respect others opinion which is not that much hard, dont you think? Libraa2019 (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libraa2019, Could you please share here diffs if I recently accused you of being a UPE or even a sock? This SPI was filed by someone else, not me. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You endorsed that SPI by connecting me with another user without any solid evidence [53], even wrote on Wikimedia Commons "the user is socking on English WP" [54], you accused me of socking on commons without any evidence. You initiated AFD's by calling me UPE [55] [56], all of my creations are nominated by you with similar statements & i am unable to understand your behaviour as many editors have told you that my picking of sources is correct and they recognized my efforts [57], [58], [59], [60] [61] but you objected all of them and you want yourself to be proven correct everytime. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, close to the borderline of WP:GNG, fails WP:NCREATIVE per the sources available and before search results. I agree with the source analysis to a high extent but I have a little bit of doubt as to how all the national media platforms listed are not reliable. What I found was that those specific articles from some of the sources are unreliable because some appear as PR or paid for articles. The BBC and Reuters articles are reliable but not enough to establish clear cut notability. The publisher of this [62] may be reliable but the specific article cited here is unreliable because it is an interview and the headline itself says it all “Chit Chat Meet Waqar Zaka”. This [63] is a mere passing mention of the subject. This [64] and this [65] appear organic but I suspect a PR material pretending to be an organic press article. These two sources are published in two different newspapers but their completely same from byline to headline and the body of the article. My suspicion is particularly heighted for the fact that most news outlets named The Wire are always news agencies distributing PR materials. The date of publication of the article in Herald shows Updated 10 November 2018 while at the bottom it say the article was first published in June 2017 Issue. Then it was published in The Wire on 13 January 2018. This may be a PR campaign. This [66] seems to be a paid press announcing the release of the film, it was an objective review of the film it would have been clear where this source stands. This [67] is a clear sponsored post instructing people interested in his show to download an app of the sponsors of the program. These [68] [69] sources only gave passing mentions are simply in the article populate it. Several links seem dead and can’t be accessed for an assessment. For the trial, it does not seem to be a serious trial because the before search did not turn up strong media coverage expect of a person possibly being tried by the state. Using a few sources about the trial may mean that subjects who are charged for all kind of offences and received two or media coverage may want to use that for their qualification for a Wikipedia page. Piscili (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Piscili, I repeat this shouldn't be judged on GNG but on the NDIRECTOR / NPRODUCER. And by the way, I'm still wondering why there's a bunch of SPAs throwing in their delete votes on this AfD. You've only been in three AfDs since you joined WP. What drew you to this one? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Did you make 100 AFD votes at once when you started voting (commenting) in AFD? I have only three or four AFD comments but slowly it will build up to a great number. And I take my time to analyse sources I do not want to be commenting Delete per nom.. Why attacking me for my comment? In the past couple of weeks I was active in Recent Changes Patrol and now I am expanding to other parts of this collaborative work. But even IP address can comment in AFD why can't I comment too? Why is AFD so toxic? Piscili (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Piscili, I'm not the only one with suspicions about you. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, I have made my comments and only closing admins will decide the merit of my comment. I should be able to freely comment in any AFD I chose to but what you are doing now is intimidation for whatever reason best known to you. I am here to help uphold the editorial guidelines not to please any one. If you disagree with my critical analysis of sources so be it. Only admins are the judges here if they decide otherwise in this AFD I am fine with it. That will be a learning curve for me. Piscili (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The most recent source assessment does a good job of highlighting the PROMO issues I have with the sources. Even if we consider his being director of a couple shows as sufficient for NCREATIVE--which I don't--that is still only a presumption of notability, while per N (WHYN) establishing notability requires multiple pieces of SIGCOV in IRS even for subjects that pass SNGs. JoelleJay (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Capstick-Dale[edit]

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

Being the 316th wealthiest person does not guarantee notability. Subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Only two sources from the Evening Standard may establish notability, but one is an interview. All others are brief statements, mentions, a listing, and unreliable content. Toadette^Edit! 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, France, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unique Kings Obi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG or any related SNG. Sources are either passing mention, primary or not independent of the subject. The only sources that give SIGCOV are obviously promotional paid puffs and connected to the subject. The Vanguard piece [70], and the Independent pieces [71], [72] are examples. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is a notable figure in Nigeria and has enough sources to prove this. The passing mentions for were added to as an evidence to a sentence. The references about the African Creators Summit were also added to evidence the information that he is the founder of the summit Mevoelo (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Bari (professional)[edit]

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

Resume BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, are mainly promo bios and name mentions in routine mill news, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 15:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halo @Timothy.

I'm trying to revise again to ensure that the language tone I'm using meets WP:SIRS. I make sure that the media referenced is registered by government institutions. You can check the names of the media here . If you think there's anything inappropriate, please let me know which parts need revision so I can learn and become more enthusiastic about contributing to Wikipedia. All the references I use are addressing the subject directly and deeply about Abdul Bari profile (not just ordinary news) regarding his education and career.

The writing style commonly used by Indonesian media when profiling someone often revolves around key moments. For instance, when they assume a certain position, celebrate a birthday, or receive an award. In Indonesia, these are referred to as non-trivial news.

Thanks Deniirawan82 (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in english 'Professional' is usually qualified by an occupation or skill... if he is a business person, the word professional would not normally be used. JarrahTree 14:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough notability for a standalone article. Being a director of a state-owned enterprise does not confer automatic notability as it didn't satisfy WP:NPOL. His other achievements also didn't pass the notability threshold. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, WP:BLP, and WP:NOTRESUME. I can't believe someone paid for this horrid mess. Let's start with the title. It implies that he is a male hustler. It's so vague as to leave the reader to assume the worst, and at best, there is no allegation of notability. It goes downhill from there. In 2024 everyone knows we are not a LinkedIn. Nor are we a free web host for every minor semi-government bureaucrat. This can not be fixed via ordinary editing, so TNT applies. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on checking, The article does not meet WP:GNG, as no significant covarage of the subject from multiple independent sources are found. GrabUp - Talk 16:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Davis[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. Co-founder of Rolex. Article is basically just tidbits of Rolex history with mentions of him. Half of the small amount of material in the article is Rolex history that doesn't even mention him. The same with sources; there are no sources on him much less GNG sources. I did a search with the same results. Rolex history with just mentions of him in that context. Article was prodded by others in October and de-prodded by creator. During NPP work I did a merge/redirect into Rolex (there was no real material to merge) and creator reversed that. I don't think that the creator understands wp:notability; I left a note on their talk page explaining that it's about coverage. North8000 (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This book: [73] might have something, but I don't have access to it. The two sources cited in the article don't seem to be RS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rolex. No notability independent of the company. Nothing in Internet Archive or newspapers.com beyond the basic fact of having founded the company with Wilsdorf. Jfire (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This reddit thread https://www.reddit.com/r/rolex/comments/gsj84t/why_is_there_so_little_information_on_rolex/ highlights the issue here. I think he's notable, there's just deliberately a lack of information on him. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wikipedia:Notable is mostly about having material to build an article from. North8000 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can a consensus be reached for redirecting to Rolex as Jfire proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhuja Rajaraman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Ok look, there's been a bunch of back and forth on this article, including the previous nomination being overturned from keep to no consensus. I've done some digging on the subject, and here's my conclusions:

1. This individual has not won a Guinness World Record. This appears to be a miscited claim from them saying they had submitted a world record attempt for "fastest created movie" for creating a 3 minute animated movie in 10 hours. This attempt was not recorded by the Guinness Book of World Records. In the previous nomination, it was commented by several keep voters that the 3rd source in this article is from a reliable source. Given that they have printed this very simply false claim in the second sentence, I propose it be disregarded.

2. From what I can see, this individual's appointment was by her father's friend (described as her mentor) and carried pretty limited scope of responsibilities. This article seems to explain it best - https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/bs-people-sindhuja-rajamaran-111032400058_1.html

3. WP:NEWSORGINDIA was not mentioned in the previous nomination, but I would like to comment that I think it makes this specific claim of notability extra dubious.

No ill will here, she seems like a smart woman making a good way in the world, but this marketing stunt is her *only* source of notability. It seems like it will be very difficult to write an encyclopaedic article about her because the only sources covering her are local puff pieces about how great she is. BrigadierG (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We literally just closed this less than 3 weeks ago. Let it rest for a bit. There is nothing that's changed in a month. Any "untruths" lets call them (as mentioned above), can be removed from the article by edit, not be deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion closed as no consensus which doesn't hold prejudice to renomination. Given that the most recent coverage for this individual is from 7 years ago or so, I don't think much is going to change about their notability status. At best, waiting stirs the voter pool a bit. BrigadierG (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, Comics and animation, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. Oh wow, the youngest person to .... Please. It's very easy when you're a nepo baby. Bearian (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Soft deletion is not an option as it was JUST at a previous AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Last nomination was one month ago. Bring it to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you think the closer made a mistake. And significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Christian75 (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might have missed the note on Last nomination --> Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 6. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 22:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 6 explicitly allowed the renom. Suggest a focus on content and not process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For my part I'm not seeing anything recent or meeting RS about this subject, and I'm not satisfied with the applied or presented sources meeting WP:BLP. Reading the DRV leads me to believe there is not much community support for keeping (as the side comments in this process might lead one to believe). BusterD (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the previous AfD found coverage spanning a period from 2011 to 2019. 8 years is too long of an "event" to invoke WP:BLP1E and the nature of the "event" in this case is not well defined. The fact that there has not been significant coverage since 2019 is not a reason to delete per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Jack Raines,"Schrödinger's head of macro". sherwood.news. Retrieved 21 May 2024.

[2] "SGreenlight Capital's clash with an ex-employee has captivated the hedge-fund world". fnlondon.com. Retrieved 21 May 2024.

[3] Bradley Saacks,"David Einhorn was once the young thorn in the side of executives. Now he's dealing with his own". businessinsider.com. 17 May 2024. Retrieved 21 May 2024.

[dawn/7mar09-4] "Chit chat Meet Waqar Zaka". DAWN.COM. 7 March 2009. Retrieved 19 May 2024.

[5] "Qandeel Baloch: Unmasking Patriarchy in Death". The Wire. Retrieved 19 May 2024.

[6] "What being 'bold' means for women". Herald Magazine. 9 November 2017. Retrieved 19 May 2024.

[thewire/13jan18-7] "The Wire: The Wire News India, Latest News,News from India, Politics, External Affairs, Science, Economics, Gender and Culture". thewire.in. 13 January 2018. Retrieved 19 May 2024.

[24newshd/26june2023-8] "Waqar Zaka bore brunt of being critic of PTI policies". www.24newshd.tv. 26 June 2023. Retrieved 19 May 2024.

[bol/29june23-9] Shan, Muhammad Ali (29 June 2023). "Waqar Zaka Steps Into Film Production: "Babylicious" Reviving Pure Romance In Pakistani Films". BOL News. Retrieved 19 May 2024.

[10] Salman, Peerzada (29 June 2023). "Premiere for Babylicious held". DAWN.COM. Retrieved 19 May 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]