Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)

Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Ŋun su:UBX/Purge/detailedThis Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

Tɛmplet:Red

Additional notes:

This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to Tɛmplet:Nospam for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:

1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.

2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.

3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.

Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.

To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Yaɣili Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests kani

Ŋun su:MiszaBot/config

Eric Johnson (Texas politician)

The bots at AIV recently caught this heavy editing of the article on the mayor of Dallas. All have come from IPs ... some from a range in the Philadelphia area, the most recent from the static Dallas one linked above. In the last series have been some large removals of sourced content as "inaccurate". It also seems a lot more positive, fluffy content has been added. Per Ad Orientem's comment at AIV, this needs a look from someone familiar with, or willing to get familiar with, the situation to distinguish the good edits from the bad. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I concur with the above comment. The page history, in particular some of the recent editing, raises some yellow flags in my mind. (courtesy ping @Daniel Case) -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The reason for these edits has now become clear: Today Johnson announced he is formally switching to the Republican Party. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Singaporean politicians and people

This user has been editing various Singaporean politician and people's articles, usually adding promotional or resume-like prose, particularly on K. Shanmugam. It may suggest a COI or paid relationship with these subjects. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 02:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted the political career in K. Shanmugam to before these edits. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 10:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I have reviewed all the pages they edited and removed the text I found promotional. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 00:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Emil Lee

Please see the editor's user talk page, particularly their not making direct and straightforward replies to questions about undeclared paid editing 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't seem interested in following rules on disclosing. If they come back, the editor should be blocked. I've put the draft on watch. scope_creep^Talk 20:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Defold

Tɛmplet:Pagelinks

I accepted this draft at Articles for Creation. Off-wiki coordination on the developer's web site was then pointed out to me by User:Ferret. See https://forum.defold.com/t/help-needed-to-create-defold-wikipedia-article/66645/17 . I have reverted my acceptance of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

To fully document: The founder of the project, Tɛmplet:Noping, created the article originally, which was deleted in 2014ish by PROD. Masem created a redirect around 2016. A member of the team, Tɛmplet:Noping, tried to recreate it in 2020 and was reverted and warned of COI. Following this, Britzl posted as a representative of the team on their forums, offering free games to editors who would create the article for them. This resulted in a draft by Tɛmplet:Noping, which was declined and G13'd. 17 days ago, Britzl again bumped their forum post, encouraging multiple forum members to create another draft, with other official team members encouraging it. This draft was sorely lacked reliable secondary coverage, but was plastered with misleading primary sourcing. That version is now currently back in draft space. -- ferret (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I just went through and removed the ad content and sourced as much as I could. Would you give it a second take? HolmKønøman (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

User:HolmKønøman - Probably not. "Once burned, twice shy." Some of the reviewers are wary of being taken advantage of again. If there was ad content in that had to be removed, then that indicates that you were sneaking ad content into Wikipedia. We don't "owe" you a timely re-review, and if you have to wait three or four months, that is your own fault. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I fully respect that, and I have no expectation of a speedy review for a niche draft article with a foggy history (I was more looking for feedback to whether I was doing sourcing right because I haven't done it before), but I'd also appreciate if you would AGF with me as I in fact have never interacted with the Defold draft article before, never submitted it for review, and was not responsible for any of the content on the page. All I did was remove problematic content from a Draft page, not the first time I've done it and probably won't be the last. Accusing me of "sneaking ad content into wikipedia", or attributing the state of the article as "mine own fault" without even so much as checking my history seems very argumentative. I am proud of my contributions to WP and while I certainly haven't been around the block as long as you have this isn't my first day. Contributing WP and doing vandalism patrol have been hobbies of mine that I engage in from the back row of the classroom since I joined. At the end of the day I'm here for the same reason as you, to maintain an encyclopedia. Thank you. HolmKønøman (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@HolmKønøman:, I am curious how you came across the draft. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It's been on my watchlist for years, you can check for yourself. I never tried to create or edit it before now, though.

HolmKønøman (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Casey Donovan

User who has edited articles without disclosing conflict on interest, potential to have used other IP addresses and user names too. Happily888 (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Academic spamming: Bartholomew Hulley

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=insource%3A%22French+Comics+in+English%22 A PhD thesis titled French Comics in English by Bartholomew Hulley has been getting cite spammed by various IPs and Phdacademicgenius such as in Special:Diff/1161075974 and Special:Diff/1161082869. Graywalls (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I've removed all instances of Bartholomew Hulley's French Comics in English which were inserted by those two mentioned in this report. Graywalls (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Required disclosure for paid admin advising

There is a proposal at the village pump to add a new COI disclosure requirement. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Required disclosure for admin paid advising. – Joe (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Clif Payne

The standard autobiographical COI issues--addition of unsourced, anecdotal content, name dropping, etc. I reverted once and left a COI notice, to no avail. This is an interesting promise of intent [1]. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Scarlett Harlett

Huge additions of unreferenced text in their own article. Adding themselves to another article, George Green's School, with a reference that doesn't even mention George Green's School.[2] COI warning on talk page but apparently ignored. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Progress: user in question is communicating at User talk:ThaddeusSholto. —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Richard A. Cohen

Truedad21 has existed as a single-purpose account for editing the BLP Richard A. Cohen, a proponent of conversion therapy, since March 2019. Of their 140 edits, 100% are either edits to the BLP itself, its talk page, or disputes with other editors regarding Mr. Cohen. Many of these edits have been reverted as promotional in nature or otherwise undue. In March 2019 Truedad21 also uploaded two images of Cohen, listing each one as his "Own Work".

After refusing to answer questions about a potential COI with Cohen first raised in 2020, he has recently stated definitively that he has no direct connection with the subject [3] and (after some additional prodding) that he had selected "Own Work" when uploading the images in error [4]. Curiously, these image are labeled as having been created on 19 February 2019, about a month before Truedad21's account was created, yet later he claimed that these images were obtained from the source (PATH) by request. The photo exists on a number of bookcovers and websites independently of me.[5] Were the photos made widely available between February and March 2019, just as Truedad21 decided to create his account?

There have been some accompanying intemperate remarks from Truedad21, though they are not egregious: suggesting that others are trying to "cancel" him [6] and accusing me specifically of acting in bad faith because of an ideological distaste for Cohen's work [7]. Of course I do agree with mainstream psychology that conversion therapy is fringe, but my main concern here is that this editor's behavior really does not seem like that of an uninvolved person. I'd be curious to hear what others on this noticeboard think.

The second account I've listed here, Lukehhuneycutt, is an odd duck. It's made only one edit, a post at Talk:Richard A. Cohen supporting Truedad21's point of view [8]. The account was created four days before its first (and only) edit, which is often considered a red flag for sockpuppetry.

You can read the relevant article talk page discussions here and here. Discussions of Truedad21 and COI can be found at user talk pages here (and following) and here.

Please note that I do not consider any of this dispositive that Truedad21 is lying about not having a COI with Cohen, but I do think that it warrants more eyes on the situation –– and that perhaps CU may be warranted to check against sockpuppetry with Lukehhuneycutt. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I concur that Truedad21 is likely lying about their connecton with Mr. Cohen, and probably does indeed have some kind of COI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Mad River Brewing Company

Someone here might want to take a look at the recent history of Mad River Brewing Company and contributions of User:Madriverbrews. At the very least, the username fails WP:CORPNAME. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Reported on Usernames for administrator attention. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Éric Mickeler

Promotional biography of a commercial auctioneer, written by a SPA. Could use some heavy trimming. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

IP has deprodded with the nonsensical reasoning that he "probably passes WP:PROF", despite having never published a scientific paper. As such I have nominated it for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Éric Mickeler. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Crowdfunded vehicle article slash brochure

People of the noticeboard might want to take a look at Aptera (solar electric vehicle). I just removed a section on options that was sourced to company brochures. There are other dubious WP:PROMO-ish things going on, especially section Configurations, also cited to the crowdfunding website or the brochures and/or press releases. The article's creator, Fotoguru received a PROMO warning on their talkpage. Their response to my inquiry about a conflict referenced an investment but I'm not going to dig into it; people reading this are welcome to take whatever action is appropriate next. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I started but got pulled away. Looks like it can be almost stubified once the unreliable, primary, or non-independent sources are removed. Too much cited to the company website or WeFunder. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Added another article, almost exactly half of the references are the corp site also. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Its mostly all references to the website, the ceo, or ask a question at company events type, WP:PRIMARY references. There is not going to be much left. Stubbed is the best bet. scope_creep^Talk 08:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Aptera (solar electric vehicle) was a mess. I had to research the company history to determine which vehicle was actually produced. After doing a slight update on Aptera Motors, I merged the solar vehicle there as I cannot see having a WP:CFORK for something already covered on that page. The Aptera 2 Series is the original vehicle that failed prior to the company going into liquidation (prior to the recent re-launch). Going to tag the company and the Aptera 2 page for cleanup. I think Aptera (solar electric vehicle) would be a good AfD candidate if un-merged. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

FYI. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Cortex Command

Tɛmplet:Pagelinks

There has been significant edit warring in the aforementioned page (pretty much all of the recent history is that), which I personally believe to be related to self promotion.

For context, there was a recent community schism. One half of the schism is not and has not attempted to link to itself in the wikipedia page, however the other group controls a page that has been linked for some time. I believe that consistently re-adding the link to this page constitutes self-promotion, and that most likely when it was originally added in this edit it was also self promotion then. I cannot prove this as both the original addition of the link and all following edits to re-add it were made by IP addresses, but I believe the high degree of engagement in consistently re-adding the reference in an otherwise relatively inactive article circumstantially implies this to be the case.

There was an attempt to discuss this in the talk section however the edit war has continued without much engagement there from either side. It was suggested by User:Deepfriedokra that a COI be declared and that involved parties stop personally editing the page. I have personally stopped editing the page aside from recently reverting a change made by another person in my community.

I did attempt to find and notify the involved parties, however the only individual who has an actual account was the aforementioned fellow from my own community.

Thanks for any review.

--98.97.138.195 (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I will note that several of Cortex Command's developers have been directly involved with the CCCP. For example

Weegee and Cavecricket42 have directly contributed (as seen here they are listed on both the CCCP and original Cortex Command credits https://github.com/cortex-command-community/Cortex-Command-Community-Project-Source/blob/development/Resources/Credits.h).

Furthermore the project is linked as a pinned post by a developer on the Steam forums (https://steamcommunity.com/app/209670/discussions/0/3160957541890851455/)

As such, in my perspective the CCCP project is directly related to Cortex Command and it's developers in a way that mods are not. The existence of a project that's directly linked to both the original developers and is involved with the development process of Cortex Command itself feels like a significant piece of information, and does not strike me as self-promotional. Causeless1 (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll note however that I'm directly involved with the project. I didn't add the reference to the project initially though, and have no idea who did. I initially discovered the project via the wiki reference. Causeless1 (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The aforementioned original developers have not been engaged with the project for some time and their contributions are present in both forks. 98.97.138.195 (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

If there is no reliable, secondary source mentioning the follow up project(s), the Wikipedia article shouldn't have mention either. MrOllie (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2020/01/cortex-command-has-a-community-project-that-aims-to-keep-the-game-alive/

Is this a reasonable source? 2A00:23C6:BC86:D501:3117:A5CB:EA5D:5A9 (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Gamingonlinux.com appears on the video game wikiproject's list of unreliable sources, so I'd say no. MrOllie (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Peso Pluma

User is repeatedly removing the image on the page and/or adding copyrighted images claiming the artist's team does not want the image on the pages. They have continued making these edits after being notified of a potential COI and is claiming to speak for the artist. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked them 24 hours for violating 3RR. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Bradypetersen

Tɛmplet:User3

Only edits have been to add content to the Stacy Spikes biography, some of it promotional in tone (writing in Wikipedia's voice with no source that MoviePass is a vital hub whose events offer a unique opportunity for filmmakers and audiences, headed by a person whose work there prompted a reevaluation of the way audiences engage with movies in theaters), some of it publicity photos and scans of book covers, some of it copyvio text from promotional material. No response to multiple talk page messages asking about a possible COI, and they've failed to take on board a uw-advert2 warning asking them to write objectively. Belbury (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Pirateer

Deeply WP:UNDUE edits, poorly sourced and self-interested. User appears primarily to be using these articles to settle personal scores. The only question is how much to revert. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked them: they continued their non-neutral spree after being asked to disclose. If they ever decide to respond, they can explain what they were doing. The bigger question for me, right now, is whether all their edits on both articles should be revdeleted for BLP violations. I cannot decide on that right now: it's been a long day and there's still a football game to play. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. Zacha's been dead since 1998, so even though there's a lot of bile directed at him, it's not WP:BLP related. However, the lengthy spiel at Pirateer goes off about ex-wives who may still be alive, so I'm inclined to think all of that may fall afoul of BLP guidelines and merit rev/deletion. Good luck on the gridiron tonight. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- And board members. And lawyers. Pretty much anyone who done him wrong. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

1928 Institute

JumpingJimmySingh is blocked from editing India League due to a conflict of interest (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 182#India League. Their editing continues to consist of attempts to establish that 1928 Institute is a continuation of the India League, and they probably should have been blocked from the latter at the same time as the other block. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Alan Jackson (businessman)

This editor has exhibited WP:OWN behaviour over these two articles for some time, including moving them into article space after they were rejected at WP:AFC. The editor's previous responses to questions about COI (with other articles) have been somewhat evasive and stretched credulity as evidenced here. They have now ignored a specific request about a COI here and continued editing. There have also been some discussions on Commons that Timtrent may be able to speak to.
I want to abide by WP:OUTING (and please let me know if independent editors think this is crossing that line), but it is not difficult to find from the sources provided that the two subjects are connected in that they have children who married one another and thus they share grandchildren. Much of the content, and some of the photos, that the editor has added, are not publicly available and strongly suggest a family connection. Melcous (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Tɛmplet:Question @Melcous: Does this mean that you consider this to be a small WP:Walled garden? The discussion should include the short lived article Esme Adelia Jackson, deleted by editor request, and Draft:List of honorary fellows of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, a declined AFC submission with relevance to Jim May.

I have been discussing on Commons matters of copyright and licencing, not having researched into this level of detail. I do believe we should consider c:User talk:Carey3146 in this discussion, even though I believe it shows a simple determination to upload pictures there without choosing to be aware of the laws surrounding copyright.

My own concern has been of an editor remarkably impervious to advice, with articles on people who are likely to pass WP:BIO, but whose referencing is of such "unusual quality" and text is so cluttered as to obscure notability, coupled with an unusually strong determination to preserve every detail by that editor. Indeed, I have become so concerned that I have asked elsewhere for other eyes on my discussions and actions in case I am incorrect. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Timtrent, I think that both subjects are probably notable, so not so much a walled garden, but this has all the hallmarks of COI editing, including some comments the editor has made on Commons about where the photos are coming from, and I think they should be required to use the talk page rather than edit the articles directly, and to give space for non-conflicted editors to clean up the trivia and memorial-type content. Melcous (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Melcous Your thoughts make sense; I believe the editor started with goodwill and enthusiasm, and probably believes they have retained both of those things. If self restraint is not something they are willing to use (history suggests limited use) then mandatory restraint may be the sole choice remaining, 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Some evidence of potential COI might be inferred from their comment at C:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dr James May in the late 1980s.jpg where the ownership of a printed out copy, then digitised, suggests the relationship with May needs further scrutiny. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Timtrent this edit made after the discussion had started here suggests both that the editor is aware of the COI issue despite not responding, and I believe makes clear exactly what the connections are. @Carey3146: you should disclose your conflicts of interest and stop editing these articles directly, using the talk pages to propose edits instead. Failure to do so, or indeed to engage in this discussion, could see you blocked from editing. Melcous (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Melcous It is hard to continue to maintain an assumption of good faith. They are evasive, they dissemble, and they bluster. To me that edit is crystal clear.

I often marvel how wise I have been not to take on janitorial responsibilities here, lest I make a unilateral blocking decision in such circumstances. I am torn between seeing massive COI and seeing NOTHERE. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
In defence of my recent actions, I have been too busy to contribute to another conversation until now. However, your searching of my personal sandbox I find slightly disturbing. Nevertheless, I will remove any confusion hereafter about my alleged conflict of interest.

I have a conflict of interest, for the Wikipedia pages of Carey, Alan Jackson and Jim May and nothing more as I have made no articles other than of these two men. As some have already explored my sandbox, that will only reinforce what I have said. I respect and submit officially to the understanding that I will no longer be able to edit any of these three articles and that I will only have access to the discussion pages, not the articles themselves. As such, I respect any action undertaken by Wikipedia to remove the risk of my editing on these three articles from now on.

Despite acknowledging my many faults, what I have done in my 9 months on Wikipedia have had the full intention of advancing Wikipedia, not hindering it. Now, I recognise that my methods have been improper and my referencing is one thing that I can and have improved on. Yet, some individuals insistence that all that I have done has been incredibly damaging is ignoring what I have done in full. In conclusion, I am unreservedly sorry for my mistakes and I hope that despite this, both articles that I have created, will remain, not based on my actions but by their individual merit and notability which has thus proven to be worth keeping.

I came to Wikipedia hopeful and encouraged to provide more facts to articles, and I now leave defeated and shocked in both how I have behaved and how others have subsequently treated me in my short period on Wikipedia. Carey3146 (talk) 05:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I will leave it to uninvolved editors to decide how to respond to this procedurally, but just to note @Carey3146: that there is nothing "disturbing" and your sandbox wasn't searched - all contributions made to wikipedia are public, and the fact that your first edit after this discussion was initiated was to delete that page rather than to respond here is what alerted me to it. You were asked back in January if you had a conflict of interest with Carey and you repeatedly denied it. You also specifically said "Will do" when asked to disclose any other conflicts you had. I'm sorry you are feeling defeated, but you should not be shocked as you were warned explicitly and all this could have been avoided had you taken that advice (and wikipedia's policies) seriously back then. Melcous (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It does seem like Jim May passes NPROF criteria though. If good sourcing can't be found, the article can be trimmed down to as short as 2-3 sentences whether or not the creator likes it. Graywalls (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Pahimi yaɣili