|
- Lauren Zander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
ROTM self-help coach who has authored some guest posts or has been mentioned in guest post - nothing in secondary references. Fails WP:GNG. Teltle (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Simon T. Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable speaker. Zero in-depth secondary source about him. A few mentions in promotional guest posts or invitations of his events. Tagged since 2015 but has been continously attracting COI/UPE editors. Fails WP:GNG. Teltle (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Jemiah Jefferson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject appears to fail both WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. JFHJr (㊟) 22:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Drmies offered this one a speedy nearly 13 years ago, which was contested by the creator. No apparent notability has emerged since that time. JFHJr (㊟) 23:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. JFHJr (㊟) 22:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Colorado, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree that the article does not satisfy either WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. The references provided are insufficient to indicate notability, and a search for the subject in the news yields no results. In terms of reviews, there is: a review on a personal blog from 2021 and a forum post from 2007 and that is all. Manyyassin (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Kirk Lynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. JFHJr (㊟) 22:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Myrlin Hermes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. I can't think of any other applicable grounds for notability for this subject. JFHJr (㊟) 21:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. JFHJr (㊟) 21:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, India, England, California, Hawaii, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've added several refs and details to the article (while removing unsourced content). There is no significant coverage of Hermes. Her first book won a Lambda Literary Award for Bisexual Literature in 2011, but even if that's considered an important enough award for WP:ANYBIO #1, I consider that the absence of any coverage of her outweighs that. I found a few reviews of her first book in major newspapers, so an article on Careful What You Wish For could be justified. (But I'll note that the Washington Post reviewer generously concluded, "Myrlin Hermes is 23 years old, an age at which having published a book at all is a substantial accomplishment. There's plenty of time for her to turn into a real writer."[9]) Schazjmd (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Laurien Gardner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Neither a redirect to Hoyt nor to Ginjer Buchanan, where neither the imprint nor this three book series appears to merit mention makes sense, so bringing this here. The books don't appear to have merited note as a series,and there's no indication this use of a pen name was. Star Mississippi 19:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Antoine Sallis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Borderline promo piece on a businessperson that doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. According to WP:RSPS, we should not accept Forbes contributor pieces nor articles on Medium as evidence of notability, as they are essentially self-published and/or have very little editorial oversight. The other sources are also quite suspect and either look like blogs or are written in a very promotional way, which indicates some sort of conflict of interest. My own searches found nothing better. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - WP:G11. "President of Rapid Credit Boosters. Sallis is a philanthropist, motivational speaker [...]" give me a break. BrigadierG (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Antoine Sallis meets the notability criteria as demonstrated by several reliable sources. He was featured in Black Enterprise and Rolling Out, which provide significant coverage of his career and achievements:
- Black Enterprise: [Antoine Sallis, the Credit Genius, teaches others how to maximize the full power of credit](https://www.blackenterprise.com/antoine-sallis-the-credit-genius-teaches-others-how-to-maximize-the-full-power-of-credit/)
- Rolling Out: [Antoine Sallis, the Credit Genius, talks about his unique leadership style](https://rollingout.com/2022/04/30/antoine-sallis-the-credit-genius-talks-about-his-unique-leadership-style/ )
Additionally, he is a published author with books that have ISBNs and are listed in reliable databases such as Google Books:
- Google Books: [The Great American Credit Secret](https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Great_American_Credit_Secret.html?id=pSH_zwEACAAJ)
These sources clearly establish his notability and warrant the retention of this article.
- Troy Stetina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I nominated this before but it was closed as no consensus since there were no other participates. Same reasoning as before applies: fails WP:MUSICBIO and quite promotional. Can’t find any in-depth sources on the subject. The cited Washington Post article [10] is about the subject’s father, Wayne Stetina. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Roger Blonder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced, appears to fail WP:GNG based on a quick Google (web/news/books) search. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I would have speedied this for promotion, reads like something off a business profile on linkedin. I find no sources about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Poetry. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Slender PR fluff. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. No sources, no verifiable content, no significant accomplishments even described. Close to A7 speedy or BLPPROD. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Until recently this page contained a list of films, including a few films which won awards at various festivals. However, the list was not supported by citations. A new editor came along a few days ago and removed the list; I presume that this was done because of the lack of citations. My own preference would have been to first carry out a significant hunt for citations for those awards before deleting them all. I do agree that without documentation of the impact of this filmmaker's work it's hard to argue that the page should exist. Qflib (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article has many sources, enough for Wikipedia:GNG, even searching for him unloads possible sources.
- TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Romy Tiongco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Philippines, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think the two programmes on the BBC all about him and the first of these and its report his on him were what led me to start this page and think him notable enough - perhaps via general notability rather than as a politician per se. A political activist, NGO worker and then politician (Msrasnw (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment - maybe you should find more sources, only 2 out of the 7 sources work.
- TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are 2 "working" sources, that should be enough for WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the sources is a video source which does not work anymore, is one source okay? TheNuggeteer (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Our "policy" on this is WP:LINKROT, and it being dead should not be taken against the article, more so if the reference is more than a decade old.
- So no, your premise of this article having just one source doesn't hold. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I did a WP:BEFORE search outside of the sources in the article and can't find anything which suggests to me that the article passes WP:GNG. The non-working links do not necessarily suggest there was secondary coverage of him, either - the magazine just has a wordpress site and the BBC radio bit is an interview, which are not secondary. SportingFlyer T·C 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Saeed Reza Khoshshans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Refund requested after soft deletion so here we are again. Two editors in support of deletion and no support for keep in the first AfD so hopefully we can get a bigger consensus here. As before, the subject does not qualify under WP:GNG, as the sources (both in article and in BEFORE search) appear to be affiliated with the author, press releases, or trivial mentions. (One source might qualify, but we need multiple.) The subject also does not meet the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NWRITER. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Zack Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'd originally PROD'ed this, that was removed. Bringing it to AfD as I still don't think the sources support notability. I was and am unable to find sourcing about this individual, only things they've written. Unsure if this would pass academic notability or notability for business people. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This scholar of international affairs has a good GS record that passes WP:Prof#C1 and has published notable books. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep: I am satisfied with the publications which sums up WP:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't find anything independent about him. In terms of publications, if you do a scholar search on "Zack Cooper" you get high hits but it is someone else - someone who writes about hospitals. If you add "Japan" to the search you get cites in the single to very low double digits. There's the same confusion in WorldCat books, but this Zack Cooper's books are found again in the single digits. (In VIAF he's "Cooper, Zack ‡c (Researcher in security studies)". With the 2 keep !votes above I wonder if this name confusion wasn't noticed. Lamona (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Click on the scholar link above which differentiates between the two Zack Coopers. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Justice Waits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I believe this article about a book fails general notability and book notability. Of the cited sources, The first is simply a Google Books page nad the second only has a trivial mention of the book on the 6th page. The third article[11] is a promotional article written by the author of the book, which according to WP:BKCRIT doesn't count for notability. Searching the internet for more coverage has turned up nothing but more trivial mentions. GranCavallo (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is kind of weird because the book's existence (and other coverage) shows that the topic that the book covers (the "UC sweetheart murders") are notable. But we don't have an article on that. If we did this should probably be redirected to it as this looks to be the most comprehensive source. The book recounts the events, but yeah there doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage on the book itself (though admittedly, I did not look too hard).
- So as a really weird AtD if this fails NBOOK we could turn this into a stub on the murder case and have a mention of the book in an aftermath section. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to sources presented below, keep, but IMO the murders may be independently notable anyway PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cunard's sources; the San Francisco Chronicle and Sacramento Bee articles demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard N. Holzapfel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Based on Talk:Richard N. Holzapfel#WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, it appears that the subject of the article is requesting deletion of the article. It doesn't appear from the current article text that he qualifies as a public figure so WP:BIODELETE could apply. FyzixFighter (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FyzixFighter (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Latter Day Saints, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Honor Request to Delete -- I think that the article could survive AfD, but the subject is not such a sufficient public figure to preserve against stated wishes. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject has had public roles over the course of his life and written “over 45 books”. Doesn’t seem like a request for deletion should be honored here. Thriley (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merely writing books doesn't make an author notable. There has to be some indication that the books were significant or influential. XOR'easter (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unless better sources can be found. All the sources are from the LDS's own websites which are too close to the subject. "Over 45 books" isn't even sourced nor are any of the books listed. — Iadmc♫talk 20:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per apparent WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and lack of notability. All non-primary sources available appear to be affiliated church publications; not seeing any secondary and independent sourcing. The number of books written is not germane to the criteria for notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, doesn’t meet WP:GNG standards, and few WP:RS citations. Easy delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Patricia Sauthoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article contains no notability claim under WP:NACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG. Melmann 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Negligible impact yet on scholarly community. A misguided creation of this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. An assistant professor with one book. I did not find any reviews of it. For this sort of field we are going to need multiple reviews of multiple books for WP:AUTHOR notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Hong Kong, Bihar, Canada, Colorado, and New Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- per WP:TOOSOON -- on the right track, but Xxanthippe and David Eppstein assessed the current notability properly. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pam Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no evidence of notability..
The AfD held in 2009 was about a different Pam Evans, the article was turned into a redirect and then simply edited into a new page for a different Pam Evans in 2012. This would seem to have bypassed our normal new page patrols, which would, I think have draftified this. She is an author, but I can't find any articles about her which are independent from her publisher.--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or convert back into a redirect to Peace Mala?). Agree no evidence of notability; can't find any independent sources showing that she would meet WP:GNG, nor any suggestion that WP:NAUTHOR could be met. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the redirect is possibly a good option. As an aside, I'm a little surprised there are only two Pam Evanses in the world who get near to having a page...--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Muhammad Abdul Malek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a single source used in this article is reliable which can establish notability of the person. - AlbeitPK (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nike Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems like not meeting GNG/ANYBIO. BoraVoro (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Aisha Muhammed-Oyebode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The person does not meet the GNG/ANYBIO criteria. The sources are poor, and general notability is not demonstrated BoraVoro (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Likely passes AUTHOR with book reviews here [12] and [13]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: She's also discussed in this book chapter [14]. Another review of her book here: [15] Oaktree b (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Education, and Nigeria. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep: This is a straight pass of WP:NAUTHOR. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: How are richly cited Nigerian sources poor? The article is opposite the rationale from the nominator. It meets the least minimal consideration for any article and are supported by reliable sources. For the general notability guidelines, we shouldn't be discussion the later because it has been done many times. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think she qualifies as an author—her only book is a collection of interviews. Other reliable sources cover her but do not demonstrate why she is important as a businesswoman or civic leader. I don't see how this person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field or similar. --BoraVoro (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NAUTHOR, the book has also eared on reviews and multiple Nigerian sources. see some in [16], [17], and [18]. There is also WP:GNG where all the contents are supported by reliable sources. To crown it all, these are type of deletion discussion that yield nothing than keep for the past years. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 13:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fouzia Bhatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am unable to find sig,/in-depth coverage on the subject in RS. The BLP appears to be PROMO and contains WP:OR. The fact that 85% of the content was added by two SPAs John maxel & Mehermehemehr suggesting a potential COI. Courtesy thanks to @Crosji: for flagging this BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Vicky Theodoropoulou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've looked, others have looked, nobody has found any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A good portion of the edits over the nearly sixteen years the article has been here have been from a series of single-purpose accounts that have no editied any other articles. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Greece. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete I can find zero independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:NWRITER and WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Literature, and Greece. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eastmain: could you maybe try just a little bit to be sure you know what you are doing? You've certainly been around long enough to not be adding things like the "about us" page from a private event company and claiming it is is a reference in a BLP. Several other alleged references are retail book outlets, also not in any way an independent reliable source. And you've added this AFD to two delsort lists that I already added it it to when nominating. This is just sloppy, unthoughtful refbombing and tagging, please do better. Thanks. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete On top of everything else written above, she's editing her own article?! MaskedSinger (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark Trueblood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCIENTIST. His singular discovery is not a notable event, just noteworthy (in the list where it appears). There's just not enough in unrelated third-party reliable sources about him to make an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 04:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject fails WP:GNG because only insubstantial coverage is indicated in articles that are all topically about her spouse, or published by her own school. She fails WP:GNG today and is unlikely to garner more substantial coverage in the future due to her being so dead. JFHJr (㊟) 05:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, Poetry, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have added in reviews of two of her publications. She wrote under the name Elizabeth Young, which makes searching for discussions of her work a challenge. I suspect there is more coverage of her work, but it requires sifting through articles about similar people. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I find reviews for multiple books. I also added back some of the text that had been removed prior to the AFD nomination. While this text needs citations (and is now marked as such), it is useful to know in order to find the sources needed. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Scott Fox (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be overly promotional and shows no sign of meeting WP:GNG due to lack of RS. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 03:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Vortex - We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion. Great timing as I have been meaning to hopefully update it. The info is old and not entirely accurate as it was written by fans of my books years ago. Can u share any guidance on how we can improve its "notability" to meet Wikipedia standards? Also what is "RS"? You're probably a volunteer so thanks for all the work you do for the Wikipedia community. Scott Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Scott. Please read this link WP:GNG for the general standards to meet "notability". On Wikipedia, RS stands for "reliable sources". For authors, this commonly includes reviews of your books. None of the sources cited on the article are WP:RS because they are just raw interviews of you, only mention you briefly (see WP:GNG for more info) or are written by Forbes contributors (see this link WP:FORBES for info on deciding what Forbes articles count as RS).
- Also, yes, like many editors on Wikipedia, I am a volunteer and edit as a hobby :) — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mention: @Nelsonave21 — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, I'm concerned about you saying "We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion." Just a head's up — if you got an email about this, please be aware that scammers have targeted people whose articles have been deleted or flagged for deletion before (WP:SCAM), offering to restore it or something similar. Most, if not all, of these offers are fradulent. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 09:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Vortex: thank you for this detailed reply. This is super helpful. We will work on it. What is the best way to submit or update? Is there a timeline? Thanks again, including for the accurate warning about the (likely scammy) deletion email we received. Nelsonave21 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nelsonave21: Please see WP:AFD, particularly this line:
If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search [for] reliable sources so that the article meets notability guidelines. AfD discussion like this one are kept open for at least seven days before a decision is made (multiple editors have to give their opinions first before a decision about the consensus can be made, so this discussion will probably go on for longer).
In your case, editing the article yourself would be COI editing, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. However, you can find examples of reliable sources about you or your books and post it here, on this AfD, to prove the article meets WP:GNG. This would prevent deletion. Again, most RS for authors takes the form of book reviews in newspapers, magazines, or periodicals.
If this AfD is closed with consensus to delete the article, the article can be recreated if and only if it satisfies WP:GNG. In this case, I recommend the AfC process, which involves writing a draft article and submitting it for review. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've not reviewed the article yet, but while it is normal for an AFD discussion to be closed within a week or a month, don't worry too much about that, you can usually get an admin to restore the contents as a draft or by email if you'd like to work on it. "Deletion" is not generally irreversible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The USA Today won't open, the rest are non-RS per Cite Highlighter. Unfortunately, I don't see book reviews, nor much of anything for this person. No notability found, does not pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Oaktree, Alpha3031, Vortex3427 and other editors - thanks very much for the followup on this.
- We have gathered 100+ links referring to my work supporting startup entrepreneurs over the years, including dozens of book reviews, speaking appearances, and podcasts. We will narrow those down to the more significant ones.
- What's the best way to share those links? I know you are volunteers and don't want to burden you, so how can we help best? (Happy to draft a rewrite of the current page for your review but not sure that's allowed.)
- Also, many of the bigger name book reviews were from my first book back in 2006-8. It was a pioneering work in the development of Web 2.0 entrepreneurship. We have jpgs and some PDFs of those articles from outlets like the Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, Toronto Globe & Mail, Orange County Register etc. but unfortunately the old URLs are mostly 404 by now. How best to share those?
- Similarly - my books have been translated into many languages around the world. That seems to show they are "notable" also in other languages. We found links to some of those (Turkish, Polish, Vietnamese) but other editions (like Russian and Japanese) are not discoverable via English search engines. We do have screen shots of the cover art, though. Can we share those, too?
- Thanks for your help learning how Wikipedia works. I have donated repeatedly in the past but never gotten into the nuts & bolts of it like this.
- Scott
- p.s. I'm currently working on 2 new books to help startup founders, esp under-represented female, minority, and non-US entrepreneurs. Thank you all for your time. Hopefully we can keep my page alive so its available during those book launches next year. Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Tan Yinglan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Factors do not appear to have meaningfully changed since the prior discussion. He's an active businessperson, and Insignia Ventures Partners may be notable but he does not appear so as an author. Star Mississippi 01:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Matt Hunt (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Heavily embellished promotional bio created by an SPA, with no actual in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources. Except for nigeriasportsnews.com, which appears to be a puff piece, none of the sources refbombed in the article are actually about the subject—only tangential mentions from issues he has been involved in. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and Thailand. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging Jamiebuba, who recently accepted the draft at AfC. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Environment, Internet, California, Florida, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: He is notable as a journalist. Several coverage from BBC and also a host of a show on BBC as well. Subject is a main personality on a notable international station. Be icaverraverra]] talk 02:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide a valid, policy-based reason when commenting at AfDs. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] - Delete, his cause/work may be notable but notability isn't inherited. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yuri Lushchai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While it's not a G4, it does not appear that the issues raised that led to the prior version being deleted have been resolved. Lushchai was a wonderful person and active Wikipedian but does not appear notable as an author. WP:NOTAMEMORIAL unfortunately applies. Star Mississippi 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I want just to note that I wasn't the one who moved the article to main space. Though I personally think that he is notable, I would be OK with submitting article later with more sources, which are listed on Russian Wikipedia forum and on Wikinews. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But there is significant coverage of the person. And lack of English language sources is never an argument for deletion.
- I would also like to note thst I am XFD closer on ruwiki, and User:Андрей Романенко who moved the article is long-serving administrator on ruwiki. So we might now something about notability rules, right? BilboBeggins (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. Different languages have different rules as far as notability. No one is saying he isn't notable on RU wiki, and non English sources are 100% welcome but may not meet the bar needed for notability as required here. Star Mississippi 13:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There is his biography in the source listed.
- There are also plenty of Russian language sources in his death, but they are not neutral and I would rather not include them in the article. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: NOTMEMORIAL. Simply being a Wikipedian is rarely notable, the rest are stories of his passing. Nothing for notability. His life before death was very much non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- His notability is also due to him being a poet and scientist. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. To my mind, the key source for this case is the op-ed at Radio Liberty arguing at some length for the special status of Lushchai as a cultural figure. This was not the reason behind keeping the article about this person in ru.wiki, there the closing admin opted for other criteria. Possibly other available sources don't provide so direct and clear reasoning for Lushchai's notability. However, other memorial articles (like this, for instance) also provide significant coverage of his life and are independent of the aforementioned op-ed. All in all I see this person as notable according to WP:BASIC. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 16:45, 30 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! 02:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Andrei Romanenko above. — Maile (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is significant coverage in reliable sources. The article has enough prose, there is biography, death and legacy section. It could have been nominated for RD had it been in the same state back then. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bronwyn Labrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:AUTHOR. No inherent notability in the roles she held. LibStar (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, History, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep just barely. The Stuff profile and Wanganui Chronicle article establish some notability. I'm not sure if WP:AUTHOR is the only criteria that applies here, as she has been a curator and researcher at multiple museums and universities, most notably Te Papa which is the New Zealand national museum. To me, this establishes notability as an academic. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- How does she meet WP:NACADEMIC? LibStar (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Likely passes AUTHOR as "Ockham New Zealand Book Awards finalist in 2016" per [21] and some book reviews here [22] and [23]. Appears to be a published academic author as well. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: She also edited this rather comprehensive volume on clothing in NZ [24] Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bronwyn Holloway-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete due to lack of secondary sourcing. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because the sources do not establish notability as per WP:ARTIST. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article needs some work but the subject is definitely notable. TheSwamphen (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how the subject meets notability criteria. LibStar (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I went through all of the sources, and don't see how this could meet WP:ARTIST at this time. Elspea756 (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Independent sigcov from 2018 in RNZ, Stuff. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per coverage mentioned by Hameltion. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in line with WP:ARTIST bullets #3, #4, and even #2:
- "Ghosts in the form of gifts" is the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (ref1, ref2)
- "Pioneer City" has won significant critical attention by winning the National Contemporary Art Award (ref1, ref2)
- She is known for her 3D-printing techniques, using the medium to reproduce lost items ("Ghosts in the form of gifts")
- CaptainAngus (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Policies and WP's and MOS aside, how can "we" not keep the page of someone who created the title "Ghosts in the form of gifts". Randy Kryn (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Cleanup needed, new refs indicate that greater notability can be established. Right now, it's borderline from what I can ascertain. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As well as being an artist and author, Holloway-Smith has also been raising awareness of our 20th century public art as co-director of Public Art Heritage Aotearoa New Zealand supported by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. I've edited the article to make this aspect of Holloway-Smith's work more visible. In my view, the work across a number of fields is enough to keep. Arnhemcr (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Craig_Considine_(academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am unconvinced that the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines for academics. The article subject is a teaching professor with limited research output. Their research has not made a significant impact in their scholarly field (they seem to publish introductions for popular presses, published reviews of their other work is critical). They have not recieved a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national/internationl level. They are not an elected member of a highly selective/prestigious society. The subject does not hold a distinguished professor position or appointment at a major institution, nor have they been named chair or equivalent. The subject has not held a highest-level administrative appointment. The person appears not to have made a signifcant impact outside of academia in their academic capacity, where they are quoted in publications it is usually promotional material for one of their porjects. The subject has not been editor/EiC of a major/well-established academic journal. Other contextual clues indicate that this page exists purely as a promotional platform for the subject. There is very little activity on this page other than IP editors vandalizing the page to introduce promotional content, and then other editors removing or clarifying these edits. The creator of this page has since been banned for their promotional activities. I mean to disrespect to the subject of this article, but I struggle to see how they meet the criteria or need for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your platform and visibility as a junior academic, but I would suggest that this is much better accomplished through a personal website and social media channels. Having a cursory glance at the department the article subject belongs to, there are many far more senior scholars among his colleagues who are not similarly represented on this site. After spending significant time trying to improve this page, I doubt that with the available material it will rise to the level of inclusion. I welcome other editors' feedback and perspectives if I have been too harsh in my judgement. Boredintheevening (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- (correcting typo: line read "I mean no disrespect", not "I mean to disrespect") Boredintheevening (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Christianity, Islam, Ireland, England, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep but trim. A lecturer position at a US university is unpromising for WP:PROF notability, and his Google Scholar profile has only one publication with significant citations [25], so that leaves WP:AUTHOR as the only plausible remaining possibility. The article (in the version I checked) lists reviews in the Wall Street Journal and an academic journal, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, for his book People of the Book (references 11 and 12) and in Anthropology Today for his film Journey into America (reference 23). It lists a few other reviews but I am not as convinced of their reliability. My searches turned up only one more, a review in Diaspora Studies for his book Islam, race and pluralism in the Pakistani Diaspora [26]. I think that's borderline, but on the positive side of borderline. On the other hand, the article was horribly puffed up with uninteresting childhood anecdotes, unsourced claims, and the like, even after User:Boredintheevening had trimmed a lot of it. I trimmed more, but there appears to be plenty of unreliably-sourced material remaining in the "Documentary and Books" that should be cut back even more heavily. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for contributing to this discussion and for editing out some of the puff from the article. I want to defer to your experience, but reading WP:AUTHOR - the subject certainly doesn't meet bullet points 1, 2 and 4. For bullet point 3, I acknowledge there are a handful of reviews (fewer when amateur sources and promotional material is excluded) but it seems like not a huge amount to hang the existence of the article on. I'm trying to resist being overly zealous, but the whole thing strikes me as a subject that's been very committed to self promotion (especially re:COI edits on the article) and hasn't really received much recognition or attention from professional bodies and peers. Boredintheevening (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm kinda in the same boat as the nominator. In that, while I'm less familiar with WP:NACADEMIC, it doesn't seem to me that the related criteria are met. While the existence of reviews in the Wall Street Journal and Middle East Monitor are possibly contributory, I'm not sure (on their own) they reach the thresholds expected by criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Personally I cannot advocate for a keep. And am left on the fence. (I would note that the bulk of the promotion added to previous versions of this article didn't appear to come from the article's creator. But from an apparent COI/SPA account which added the bulk of the largely uncited puff in Aug 2021.)
- Keep. Satisfies criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC as "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." (See The Independent, New Indian Express, IBTimes, and Gulf News.) I think it could also plausibly justify WP:GNG with the WP:SIGCOV in the Houston Chronicle, Needham Times, and the discussion of his broader work in the WSJ review. Meanwhile, People of the Book would qualify as a notable WP:NBOOK on the basis of its reviews in two reliable source outlets. (Middle East Monitor is not such an outlet.) That said, this article is still overloaded with primary sources, unreliable sources, affiliated sources and needs substantial work to improve it -- but deletion is not cleanup. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I want to thank @Boredintheevening for your work improving the article in the face of a wave of disruptive COI edits. The article was very problematic before you turned your attention to it, and while it still needs work it's in much better shape. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the coverage in reliable sources identified in this discussion shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Michel Pontremoli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:BASIC C F A 💬 02:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment could you elaborate on why none of the sources meet BASIC in your opinion? FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 29 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! 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] - Keep the biography in Educational Institutions Pamphlets (which is actually a 1950 L'Ecole National D'Administration book) plus short mentions in La Rabia De La Expresion, Le conseil d'état et le régime de Vichy", and the State Council plaque should be sufficient for WP:NBASIC. There are other short mentions, perhaps some longer ones, on GScholar. Oblivy (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Abhirup Dhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non of the sources besides https://www.firstpost.com/art-and-culture/abhirup-dhar-probes-the-paranormal-in-new-book-ghost-hunter-gaurav-tiwari-9969841.html show notability. We need atleast 3 such sources to justify inclusion. Sohom (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and West Bengal. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Fails WP:BIO, the sources provided are not sufficient to establish notability. Pinakpani (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I found this title notable because this is an author with published books, those books are notable being bestselling around the country and also the author is being praised by noteworthy personalities in India. It also has enough good references on trusted websites.Samm985 (talk) 07:53, 30 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! 22:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not much to establish NACTOR. What of redirecting to List of Indian writers. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- courtesy ping to @Sohom Datta, @Pinakpani, @Samm985. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, why? List of Indian writers is only for notable writers, redirecting a non-notable individual writer to a directory of notable writers that doesn't mention the subject is counterintuitive. Sohom (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Nothing came up on Google except Times of India, Times of India, FirstPost, which are not sufficient to pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO RolandSimon (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The author seems to be notable with sufficient number of references. The author has number of books published and is worthy enough to be on Wikipedia ~~
- Weak keep - there is a retrospective review in a newspaper of record. Bearian (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The profile featured in prime news portals, research shows that he is a horror writer and authored horror books. This personality who has prime news articles should be on wikipedia though we can suggest for some more references and to improve its quality. Stlodsid (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to sign your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Riksundar Banerjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Failing all criteria of WP:NBIO, publishing articles and non notable books not fulfils WP:GNG Pinakpani (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The subject fails to meet WP:GNG as there is no in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources. However, the subject's book titled "The Book of India Ghosts" may meet WP:AUTHOR criterion number 3, which requires multiple reviews of books to establish notability. There are two reviews available for that particular book, one from The Hindu and one from The Hindu BusinessLine. Both reviews are from different publications and authors. GrabUp - Talk 18:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The author's work has not made a significant monument, or won significant critical attention. One of his book "The book of India Ghosts", got a review from hindu.com but this cannot be considered the criteria needed to pass WP:AUTHOR because the work needs to be widely cited by peers or successors. RangersRus (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @RangersRus: WP:AUTHOR’s third criterion states: “The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.” There are two reviews from The Hindu and The Hindu BusinessLine from different authors. I think this is sufficient to meet the third criteria, as multiple reviews from independent sources are available. There are other criteria, but if a subject meets any of them, then it can be presumed to be notable. GrabUp - Talk 15:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: This talks about the author [27]; on the balance, just enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter Shapiro (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Journalist falls short of WP:NBIO and WP:GNG tests; no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of him separate from his own writing and coverage of his books. (His book "Turn the Beat Around" would likely pass WP:NBOOK if an article were created on it, but Shapiro's notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from it.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Music. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning towards keep on the subject of this article. I disagree with the nominators assessment here - particularly as the applicable guideline is WP:AUTHOR, where independent coverage of the author's work is sufficient to evidence notability; WP:INHERITED does not apply. I have found and added several independent citations to the article, including a number of RS book reviews and RS articles stating the importance of the works of Shapiro. As such I !vote to keep this article per WP:AUTHOR#3: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Article could really use expansion however. Per WP:NOPAGE I also recommend a single central article on the author and his works, rather than multiple articles on the books themselves.
- I recommend Modulations: A History of Electronic Music is redirected to Shapiro if the result of this AfD is to keep. ResonantDistortion 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate you adding reviews links to the article. I disagree with you on the eligibility for WP:AUTHOR #3. While the author has created a couple of independently notable works, none of the reviews or sources describe the significance of his body of work; they are about individual works. While I agree that Modulations and Turn the Beat Around are notable, I don't think there are any sources to describe them as "significant" nor do any sources discuss them in the context of Shapiro's body of work. Considering that the only available sources are reviews of individual works, the notability should go to the works themselves. Furthermore, the reviews provide virtually no WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, which would leave this article a WP:PERMASTUB without verifiable biographical information. The absence of significant coverage points toward delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But there is enough coverage to write a non-stub article on Shapiro that is focused on his works. Frankly I find the sourcing on Modulations: A History of Electronic Music to be limited - it struggles to meet notability guidelines and it should be merged and redirected to the parent article Modulations: Cinema for the Ear, as a section in that page. As for WP:AUTHOR#3 - I am struggling to follow the above logic as the guidelines clearly do not require secondary coverage of the works as a body; a single book suffices. In this case we have at minimum one fully notable work and several more works with RS secondary coverage over a WP:SUSTAINED period, and the best place to manage this would be the single article on the author. To support this with an example, His 2005 book, The Rough Guide to Hip-Hop, has reliable sources both recommending it and stating it is important; but this is likely not enough for a standalone article, so the author article is the next best place. (Note - given the age of some of the books - we can very likely presume that offline coverage exists beyond a standard search engine). ResonantDistortion 16:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's what I question on criterion 3: is his work "significant and well-known"? I agree the one book meets the standard of "notable," but "significant and well-known" is different, if undefined. I find it difficult to understand how someone's work could be significant and well-known and the author of them remain sufficiently unknown that there are no reliable sources to validate even birth date or country of origin. (Sources disagree about whether Shapiro is American or British.) I'd be OK with a redirect of this page to an article for Turn the Beat Around if one were to be created, but without anything significant coverage I'm defaulting to WP:COMMONSENSE for a situation in which we can't really construct a biography. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we are going to disagree on this one. Given there are a number of reliable sources dedicated to the subjects' other books, but are not sufficiently SIGCOV in and of themselves to create several separate articles for each, the best option (per my version of WP:COMMONSENSE!) would be the other way round: Turn the Beat Around: The Secret History of Disco should redirect to Peter Shapiro (journalist) so we have a single page for all his works. ResonantDistortion 02:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - With the addition of new sources, I don't see any particular concern with notability. Shankargb (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. To elucidate why I think the (many) book reviews of Shapiro's work don't constitute WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, here's what the sigcov policy states: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Right now, the article as it stands is just a few sentences, hardly any about Shapiro himself and about his work, and the sourcing doesn't really permit anything further to be written. As noted above, we don't even have the most basic information about his life. Thus my argument that the books are notable but that the author is not. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on whether WP:AUTHOR is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep : I've also found this [28], but it also appears on the article author's (Howard Blas') website. I suppose it's a RS Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Comment: and this in Variety [29] Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand this article refers to a different Peter Shapiro (concert promoter) - who also writes books on the music business. Which makes source finding doubly tricky! ResonantDistortion 05:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I find no coverage for this individual, sources I'd identified are for a different person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oaktree b - in the article are cited 14 secondary refs covering the books written by the subject of this article. This includes seven full page reviews of one of his works, multiple other reviews of his other works and further WP:RS stating the importance and recommending these other works. I personally do not see how WP:NAUTHOR is not met, and there's easily enough coverage to, at minimum, build a start class article based upon the works this individual has created (it took me about 5 minutes to expand the article by ~400%). ResonantDistortion 06:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- With the biographical information identified and added by ResonantDistortion (thanks!) I now think we have enough basic information, paired with the criteria of WP:NAUTHOR, to keep, so I withdraw my nomination and change my !vote to keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
FA
A
GA
