|
- Ahsan Khalil (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 draftified this PROMO BLP because I don’t think it meets the NAUTHOR or even GNG. However, the creator of this BLP, who’s also a newbie and might have a COI, reverted my changes. So, I feel like my only option now is to nominate this BLP for deletion which relies on unreliable sources. Previously, it was created by our v. prolific sock master Nauman335 and deleted via AFD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Akshay Chandra Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't see anything except clones of this article on other websites. I have no idea how this has lasted so long without going to AFD before. The article says "was", but it would appear it should say "is", which means it falls under WP:BLP, and for that, clearly fails for inclusion under the stricter rules for biographies of living persons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Shit, it’s a completely unsourced and blatant promotional article. Thanks for finding and nominating it. It was created back in 2012, and still, no one has been able to find or report it, lol. The article completely fails WP:GNG, WP:BLP, and WP:AUTHOR, with no sources found after searching. I think a speedy deletion under WP:G11 can be attempted before nominating it here. GrabUp - Talk 13:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Some person uploads a biography, looks like it was taken straight from a word processor and pasted here verbatim... I don't find any sourcing about a writer, there's a recent golfer with a similar name. doesn't appear to be this person. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- B. R. Nagesh (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)
Lack of references and don't think this is notable. Gauravs 51 (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Aurora Threats (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:NCREATIVE based on sources cited. Created by either a paid or COI account on behalf of the subject (self-admitted at WP:Help desk) that has now been blocked. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Who created it doesn't really matter here, of course, though it doesn't help. I'm a very, very weak keep on this one and hope that editors will find the sources to improve it--I looked but it's thin. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, California, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there are quite a few sources for this person but from my quick overview it's not really helping their case for notability. I'll try to dig a little deeper and see if I can find something. They did publish a book which got me excited but it was self-published and the first review I found was from a newswire. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, a search finds the usual fluff on social media but per Dr vulpes nothing much that would establish notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Her sole claim to notability so far is her film Supercilious, which was nominated for a notable award. The only coverage I can find of her in reliable sources is passing mentions of her name in connection with that film's nomination, and tame interviews (like the Sheen Magazine source cited), neither of which really pull her over the line for WP:NCREATIVE. My cleanup of the unsourced puffery was a bit of a battle with the paid creator, and though I did manage to find her inclusion in a list in Success magazine, as that WP article notes, it's not the magazine it was since its change of ownership in 2007. If other editors can find some decent coverage of her, I'll change to a "keep". Wikishovel (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Onimim Jacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject biography has no source to proof the statement are true. The reference from 2 to 5 are all dead links. Subject fails WP:GNG except the ref one source is to be considered which is the only source that still doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Gabriel (……?) 00:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, Law, and United States of America. Gabriel (……?) 00:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Nigeria, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The first two sources are Wordpress blogs, the other three are dead links. A search online found no significant coverage, just some passing mentions. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Quick google search reveals no WP:SIGCOV. The article is badly sourced Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk? | contribs) 07:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: archive versions of sources have been found (what happened to WP:BEFORE?). She was Commissioner for Agriculture for Rivers State, which appears to be the equivalent of a Ministerial position (from Rivers State Ministry of Agriculture). PamD 08:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside being a commissioner 95% of the biography statement can’t be verified. Wikipedia is not a platform for original research. You can check on WP:NOR. You are free to clear all statements with no source and we see what is left. Gabriel (……?) 11:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Gabriel, A commissioner in a state cabinet in Nigeria is inherently notable because they clearly pass WP:NPOL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay cool. Would have love to withdraw the nomination but I’m afraid an admin might revert the edit due to the above reason for the delete vote. I have seen where that happened before so what do you think? Gabriel (……?) 16:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Subject passes the criteria for politicians as the commissioner for agriculture for Rivers State. Commissioners are members of the state cabinet. Please, read this explanatory note. Best, Reading Beans 15:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I also want to add that deletion is not cleanup. If an article on a notable subject can be improved through normal editing, do not put it through a deletion discussion. Best, Reading Beans 15:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Shalini Govil-Pai (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 individual. Refbombed primary sourced spam that screams of UPE. Lacks independent coverage about her. Awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Anjum Lucknowi (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)
Cut-and-paste move of declined AfC draft Draft:Anjum Lucknowi to a WP:GAMENAMEd title evading a salting. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Allen Mendenhall (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 individual. Refbombed primary sourced spam that screams of UPE. Lacks independent coverage about him. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Swamini Brahmaprajnananda Saraswati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of this BLP does not meet WP:NBIO, WP:NAUTHOR, nor the WP:GNG. The article was drafted by someone who has a suspect COI but the author has been banned for sockpuppetry, notably for removing maintenance tags. An IP user on my talk page has acknowledged that there isn't even very much published information on the subject. Combined with my BEFORE, I'm not seeing anything that meets our notability requirements for this article that appears to be masquerading as an advertisement. Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dejan Crnomarković (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)
Rejected draft. The included sources are of poor quality, and I couldn't find any others on Google. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Marie Margaret Keesing (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)
Does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. Reasons given for notability are co-authoring books with husband. I understand it is difficult to know who is responsible for the written work in these circumstances, but I think co-authoring books that do not have their own article is a difficult justification for an article- I would suggest a merge with her Husband's article maybe (her husband is clearly notable as president of a learned body). I feel very bad about doing this, however, as obviously I do not want to underplay women's accomplishments in scientific fields. Spiralwidget (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: She's mentioned quite a bit in Gscholar [11] for example, but I suspect it was due to the era in which she lived and gender bias that "minimized" her contributions for lack of a better term. The 50s and 60s was still early for female scientists to be taken as equals to males. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This paper from 2015 seems to give her a proper discussion [12]. I think she's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I sympathise with the proposer's dilemma. Although in Wikipedia terms "president of a learned body" gives us an easy basis for declaring someone notable, the lasting impact of this couple, and the real reason they're notable, is the anthropology they did, and their written output, not the husband's post. We cannot tease apart who contributed how much. Given that we don't know their relative contributions, deciding to put her contribution in an article with his name just feels too old-fashioned and patriarchal, as well as very arbitrary. Also, from a practical perspective, if we were to merge, her life prior to her marriage wouldn't fit well in her husband's article, giving too much weight to things that aren't directly about him; we'd have to consider moving the new merged article to "Felix Maxwell Keeling and Marie Margaret Keeling" or something like that, but then we'd need redirects anyway, so what's the point? "Keep" has the benefit of being a simple outcome to an inseparable duo. Elemimele (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Social science, England, New Zealand, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As the co-author of Elite Communication in Samoa and Taming Philippine Headhunters, both of which seem to be significant books (I'm seeing lots of published scholarly reviews online, despite the fact they were published a long time pre-internet), she surely meets WP:AUTHOR. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You should have followed your initial hunch: "I feel very bad about doing this". Back then, it was absolutely normal that a woman would publish together with her husband. Even if she was the major contributor, it would go out with the appearance that it was mainly the man's work. We should not be perpetuating this custom and either way, it's clear that they were both notable for their work in anthropology, even if it appears that he is the major author. Schwede66 18:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- per Schwede66 and Josh Milburn and other arguments. Additionally the Pan-Pacific Women's Association was a redlink in the article due to a typo but is a significant organization. Major evidence comes from the article Oaktree found, "Applied Anthropology and Interwar Internationalism: Felix and Marie Keesing and the (White) Future of the ʻNativeʼ Pan-Pacific" -- when researchers are being the subject of others' academic articles, it's a very strong sign of WP:PROF passing. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete or merge: weak delete because I agree with the points made above about women in science being overshadowed by men. However, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as much as I would like to. I think the alternative of an article merge would be good, but would require a rewrite of both articles to create a "joint" article for the couple. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Khatuna Lagazidze (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)
BLP of a political scientist of doubtful notability. The only source that might get it over the line is the biographical dictionary of Georgia, but that looks more like an online Who’s Who rather than a DNB. Mccapra (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yury Antsiferov (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:NAUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Sources in the article are not great in establishing notability and BEFORE does not prove otherwise. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the author of the article, so my voice doesn't count here, but since I was mentioned in the comments, I would like to share my thoughts. Firstly, Antsiferov is mentioned in several articles (for example, in relation to the State Duma elections and the case involving the Kremlin's attempt to sue him), both of which are quite high-profile and have been covered by many reputable media outlets. Secondly, he is the author of well-known textbooks in Russia, which are used by students at elite Russian universities (MGIMO, MSU). Madrugador88 (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Madrugador88 Oh your voice does count please, that's not how it works. The relationship to the State Duma elections and the case involving the Kremlin's attempt to sue him did not provide sufficient coverage to pass GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In order for the textbooks to help towards Wikipedia:AUTHOR, they would need to be the subject of multiple independently published book reviews. For them to lead us to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), we'd need to see that they are being used by a large number of colleges and universities, with evidence for that (for example, if the publisher has put up a list of textbook adoptions). Qflib (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mong-Lan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article looks like an autobiography, with all references from her website. Not sure if this person meets WP:GNG. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Poetry, and Vietnam. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Bands and musicians, Dance, Arizona, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - at first glance she appears notable, but I will look deeper into the sources, as well as potential sources in a BEFORE search within the next few days before iVoting. It appears there are several SPA's who have worked on the article, however, that may or may not mean it's an autobio, which while strongly frowned upon, is not forbidden - if the person is notable. It may have influenced the neutrality of the article, so if it turns out that they meet notability criteria and the article is kept, it may need to be cleaned up. Netherzone (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this was my "last article before bed" AfD so I don't want to go down the complete rabbit hole it would take to make a definitive statement, but just from being adjacent to the poetry and translation world for a few years, the Pushcart prize is a big deal. It's not at the MacArthur/Oscar/Pulitzer level of presumed notability/speedy keep, but it's not a run-of-a-mill everyone pretty good has one at all. There are parts of the bio that probably don't help notability (the musical compositions have no publishers that would contribute to GNG or a music note), but the poetry looks more like it does -- Best American Poetry and the Pushcart anthology are quite heavy hitters. (If for some reason I don't get time to return to this, my gut is Keep). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: She has received more than three independent book reviews of more than one book, so I would argue she meets NAUTHOR. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep'[, met GNG before the nomination and with the added sources and work on the page since the nomination, good to go (stay). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY. Thank User:Significa liberdade for cleaning up and adding sources for this article. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Jonathan Maxwell (businessman) (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:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Sources are not great in terms of coverage. A cursory search does not prove otherwise. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UTC)
- Vedprakash Dongaonkar (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:NPROF, WP:WRITER or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- James Wise (businessman) (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:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Sources are not great in terms of coverage. The wedding coverage fails WP:SIGCOV. Every other source (like this, this, or this) from the article critically fails WP:SIGCOV. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The coverage is too slight to establish notability. JSFarman (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UTC)
- Jonny Griffiths (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)
Mathematician who self-publishes by the looks of it. Fails WP:SIGCOV. UPE. Fails WP:BIO. Its likely him. scope_creepTalk 14:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Lilia Tarawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP1E only notable in regards to Gloriavale. Most of the stuff not in regards to Gloriavale are from promotional pieces and Tarawa herself. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Most of the sources are neither reliable nor independent. They are full of primary sources written by the subject or from unreliable blogs. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's enough here to show GNG. She's written a book that Martin van Beynen has called "bestselling". It created a lot of publicity, for example, John Campbell interviewed her for 10 min on Radio New Zealand. She gets keynote speaking slots and, whilst that's nothing unusual, it is unusual when Stuff reports on that. She's been invited to give a talk at TEDxChristchurch and it takes quite something to get invited to TEDx. The pieces by Kurt Bayer (NZHerald; based in Christchurch), Eleanor Black (Stuff), and Now to Love (which belongs to Are Media) go into plenty enough depth to fulfil the criteria of three independent reliable sources. And all those sources are in the article already. All up, that's an easy keep. Schwede66 04:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The Waikato Times piece is a promotional piece for the business awards. The Now to Love piece is just her interview with Women's Daily. The other Stuff piece is also a promotional piece.
- This is the same for most of the refs, they're either promo pieces or interviews about Gloriavale. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep plenty of media coverage from reliable outlets here to establish GNG. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a lot of media coverage but it is promotional/non-independent.
- Refs 1-4 are Tarawa herself, they shouldn't be used in the article except in limited aboutself uses, let alone go to notability.
- Ref 5, supplied piece from the festival she appeared at.
- Ref 6, women's day interview
- Ref 7 is about Cooper's conviction and just drops a promotion for her book in it... which is odd. Bit of coverage here but not much and it is still in relation to Gloriavale.
- Ref 8 same coverage but more blatantly promotional this time
- Refs 9 and 10 have the exact same wording as refs 7 and 8 which makes me believe this is some promotional thing sent out to papers, that or they just simply copied the Herald, either way the refs adds nothing to notability.
- Ref 11 is a promotional piece.
- Ref 12 is a promotional interview
- Ref 13 is an interview
- Ref 14 is another interview that involves promoting the book
- Refs 15-16 are reprints of Herald refs mentioned earlier
- Ref 17 uses same wording as the other promotional pieces
- Ref 18 is a promotional interview
- Ref 19 is a promotional interview from women's day and the same ref as 6.
- Ref 20 isn't promotional or an interview but very brief coverage (3 lines) as part of her grandfather's death
- Ref 21 is an interview
- Ref 22 is from Tarawa herself
- Ref 23 is a promotional piece for the Matamata business awards
- Ref 24 is a broken url but it is a very brief interview
- Refs 25-27 are interviews
- Ref 28 is promotional
- Ref 29 opinion piece and it provides little coverage anyhow
- Ref 30 is brief coverage of the book
- Ref 31 is dead but appears to be a blog from an unreliable source
- Ref 32 is about someone else's death
- Ref 33 is the exact same as ref 32.
- Ref 34 is the same as 9, 9 is presumably a reprint of it. Contains the exact same sentences used in the other promotional pieces
- Ref 35 is about Gloriavale but suddenly just drops in the same promotional content about Tarawa's book seen before.
- Ref 36 is a radio interview, not even an RS.
- Ref 37 is a podcast interview.
- Ref 38 is a promotional piece for some event she was invited to
- Ref 39 is another piece on Gloriavale that just suddenly includes the same promotional content as else where, it is really odd and I cannot see a reason for it other than being sponsored/paid for it
- So yes, there is a lot of media coverage, but little of it is independent, most of it is from the same source, and plenty of it is promotional. The fact that two identical articles are used as a reference right after each other just looks like COI/Paid editing with refbombing so it looks notable. The user who wrote most of this article is now blocked for copyvios but from looking at his contributions I think he may have been a paid editor. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ram Krishna Bantawa (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)
Very promotional article that doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ravieshwar Singh (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:GNG. It's just the blatant non adherence to the reviewer's comment/decline reason by the page creator/submitter. If we are considering the sources, they are mostly WP:SELFPUB. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Businesspeople, Entertainment, Fashion, and United States of America. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Law, India, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable, self-published sourcing, and editor has not taken into account advice. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - editor corrected TV Guide link, author published through reputable sources (not blogs), many citations to his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B837:8C03:E011:E929:8629:EFF (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable. If it is kept then "Rgs21" should clarify if they have any link to Ravi Guru Singh, the nickname of the article subject. Ttwaring (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - substantively this page has more citations and support than many other notability pages. Rgs21 may be on vacation or unavailable and the page should not hinge on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.114.12 (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - almost entirely self-published sources. A lawyer or writer is famous for writing; they are not notable for that. One can make yourself famous; to become notable requires other people writing about you. See WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I reviewed, the people writing about the subject include Marc Bain at the Business of Fashion (extensively), Divya Bhandari at the Hindu (extensively -- on the digital fashion and the future for India) -- articles are behind paywalls. To a lesser extent, the subject is written about and cited in other law.com articles on decentralized autonomous organizations, by the author Robert Schwinger, a prominent partner at Norton Rose Fulbright, an elite law firm. The Business of Fashion and the Hindu, are credible, reputable and independent sources. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.85.105.72 (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - maybe this is raising WP:ASPERSIONs, but why would a bunch of random IP addresses be commenting on an AFD of a minor digital fashion lawyer? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PANICVOTE if this is what I think it is. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling out ducks is not casting aspersions.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Then point out the others. You have failed to do so as of yet. Also, with only 65 edits and not editing Wikipedia in over a year, I am curious what brought you to this specific AfD discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - Regardless of whether the voting above is in fact WP:PANIC or not, the article for Ravieshwar Singh is well sourced, with about two dozen citations. Vogue (magazine), Elle (magazine), TV Guide Magazine, the Huffington Post, and other high-traffic, top-tier online magazines are all cited. Definitely not a notability fail since this meets WP:SIGCOV. Nyangaman4 (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- passing refs and interviews cannot establish notability Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article is well-sourced and he has extensive coverage in reputable outlets like Vogue and Elle, demonstrating clear notability per WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Licatatom (talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The subject is recognized in high-profile publications, has substantial coverage that compiles with Wikipedia's notability criteria. Toopus (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Klaus Schnellenkamp (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)
Request for deletion of the Wikipedia article about Klaus Schnellenkamp due to lack of relevance according to the WP guidelines. These state that public reporting on the person in question must be independent of time or over a long period of time. However, there was only selective reporting, and this was done around 15 years ago. Hence the deletion request!KSW72 (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)KSWKSW72 (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Diane Hamilton (behavioral specialist) (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)
Entirely promo Amigao (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Behavioural science, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Self-promotional autobiography. I blocked the creator for promotional username and promotional edits. Cullen328 (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Quite so, thank you Cullen328. Axad12 (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone above. The article is a promotional bio of a non-notable subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a different person than Diane Hamilton, a business professor at Rowan University and the author of some reasonably well-cited works that otherwise look like they might fit the subject of this AfD ("A decision model for integration across the business curriculum in the 21st century", "Factors affecting student performance and satisfaction", and "Adding contextual specificity to the technology acceptance model"). The better-cited Diane Hamilton from Rowan was educated at Rowan, Drexel, and Temple [13] which doesn't match the education part of the nominated article. I also found several reviews of folklore music by our non-disambiguated Diane Hamilton. As for the Diane Hamilton whose article we are discussing, her books appear to be essentially self-published and I found no reviews. We do not have the citation record or other criteria needed for WP:PROF, none of the sources in the article are sufficiently reliable and independent to contribute to WP:GNG, and as discussed above the article is heavily promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Tendai Ruben Mbofana (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:SIGCOV. Refs are WP:SPS and paid PR. No indication of significance. Fails WP:BIO scope_creepTalk 19:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Roberto G. Carbone (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)
Article about a person that doesn't meet WP:GNG. The first source is a database result as well as unverifiable. The second sources was like that too. The third one, embt.org, is solely a tribute to another man called "Alberto", and has nothing to do with this article. Source 5 is undoubtedly unreliable, and source 6 is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE (because it's written by him, I would call it a WP:SELFPUB. ORCID isn't needful especially when citing as a biographical information. I don't know much about it, but it does appear like a user generated site. I was thinking how we can structure a person's research as academics always write many publications. On this aspect, there are many primary sources; books written by him, and thy are from source 9 to 11. Primary sources may be useful and good, but at the same time doesn't tell us how notable was that research. WA it reviewed by critics, did it appear on TV sites, e.t.c.
The subject's co-authored work, and his first book according to the article, doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK. This is applicable to the third (there was no mention of the second book). A Fellow of the American College of CHEST Physicians isn't notable per WP:NACADEMIC as the membership including non elected paid position is shown here. Same as the American Heart Association. Additionally, a letter of recommendation on someone doesn't show his notable that person is, and it isn't an award per WP:ANYBIO. This was accepted via AFC by me, for the sale of this AFD. The creator is likely a COI editor who has moved this page twice, and it has been draftified twice too. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ORCID's mean nothing with regards to notability. I have one, you can register for one, for free. We were encouraged at one point to register for one with our Wikipedia credentials... Not sure how useful it is, but it doesn't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Based on the changes I have reported and the previous scientific material collected, I completely disagree with your opinion that the Roberto G. Carbone page is not worthy of being published on Wikipedia English.
- By reading your criticisms and opinions, you are asked to evaluate the page according to the scientific criteria already adopted with other biographical pages of more or less famous scientists that I have taken as a comparison to evaluate the validity of the page and the sources cited by me.
- Please remember that there are many sources from English scientific societies that cannot be considered unreliable. I would also like to point out that many of the secondary sources cannot be cited as they do not exist on the web but only physically in paper format (for example scientific magazines, local newspapers, independent information). I therefore ask you to let me know how I can possibly insert this additional data.
- It is recommended to use international scientific criteria to evaluate the quality and scientific impact of the research carried out by Dr. Roberto G. Carbone with those who have the appropriate scientific requirements.
- Last revision:
- The English Wikipedia version is much more accurate than the Italian one. In detail, in the introduction I have added more accurate information regarding the scientific studies and the collaboration of Roberto G. Carbone's closest colleagues.
- I added in the "Research" section the close collaboration with the Nobel Prize winner Prof. Renato Dulbecco in the physiology of lung cancer.
- I added a quote with the photograph of the current president of the Royal Society Medicine who recommended that I write as a courtesy that Roberto G. Carbone is honored to be a member of the Royal Society Medicine.
- Finally I added the appointment of Roberto G. Carbone to the editorial board of the scientific journal The Lancet by the Editor. Rolando8891 (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A Nobel laureate is going to be notable, but collaborating with a Nobel laureate doesn't automatically make one notable too. XOR'easter (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul Boross (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:CREATIVE with only minor roles in various TV and music. I can't find any sources getting close to discussing him. This is just the latest iteration in attempts to promote him as a speaker going back to 2014 (I've already removed that). SmartSE (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Brad Farmer (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 has been a lot of IP nonsense in the history of this article, so while I agree with the IP's PROD, I think this merits an AFD. Farmer has been cited, but since OA isn't sufficient I don't see WP:BIO level coverage Star Mississippi 21:06, 22 September 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, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. While this looks like an NC on its face, the nomination is as problematic as some of the !votes and NFitz' is based in policy which edges this toward keep. Star Mississippi 18:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sam Forster (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 is a vanity article for a little-known freelance writer. His only claim to fame is drawing widespread mockery and condemnation for his book about wearing blackface across the United States. Much more notable Canadian journalists do not have Wikipedia pages, and the achievements listed are negligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrashPandaMan (talk • contribs)
Keep - The critique overlooks the broader context of Sam Forster's contributions to the public discourse. While it's true that not every writer or journalist gains widespread recognition overnight, dismissing someone's work solely based on their level of fame or controversial moments is short-sighted. Forster’s book, which has indeed sparked debate, addresses sensitive and complex issues, and the ensuing reactions—both positive and negative—demonstrate that his work has provoked meaningful conversations.
It's essential to recognize that public figures who challenge societal norms often face harsh criticism, but that doesn't diminish the value of their contributions. Many notable figures throughout history were initially met with ridicule before their work was acknowledged as significant. Forster's willingness to tackle uncomfortable topics is an important part of his role as a writer. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a platform that reflects public interest, and Forster's coverage there simply mirrors the fact that his work, controversial or not, has sparked significant public attention.
Additionally, comparing Forster to other Canadian journalists based on fame is a false equivalence. The presence or absence of a Wikipedia page is not a measure of a person’s accomplishments, nor does it negate the relevance of their work. It's important to focus on the substance of what a writer has contributed to discussions, rather than focusing on how well-known they are or how their work has been received in certain circles.
---
This approach emphasizes the importance of intellectual discourse, the value of confronting complex societal issues, and challenges the assumptions about fame equating to worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daves598 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Editor is now blocked. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The keep vote above by the blocked editor was entirely AI generated (according to gptzero.me), and on that basis should surely be entirely disregarded. Axad12 (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need some experienced editors to weigh in here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There is no legitimate argument for deleting this article. Sam Forster is clearly a notable figure who has been featured in many prominent media outlets. The fact that some people have criticized his work is not a reason to delete his page. Violetpennington (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Abdullah Hashem (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)
BLP of the founder of a religious sect. The sect itself appears to be notable but it does not seem that the leader himself is. I think a redirect to Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light would probably be best. Mccapra (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google searches easily turn up hundreds of high-profile mentions. There are articles from Amnesty International, the UN, and various governments, and dozens of major newspapers that all mention him. Easily meets WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV criteria. For sects with that many media mentions, their founders and leaders would usually also be notable enough. There is also plenty of information about Hashem that would fit well into a standalone article. DjembeDrums (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ok which three of these do you think provide the best in-depth coverage? Mccapra (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Article only cited one source almost which shows they still need to meet WP:GNG to stand alone
Tesleemah (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If merge, merge where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Judith Mok (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)
Tagged for sourcing issues since 2006. Not clear the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Finding sources was really easy for this person, they have multiple books with multiple reviews, and numerous interviews. I removed a lot of the material that I couldn't find sources for other than her website and CV. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- After rereading that I wanted to clarify that I'm not being snippy with @4meter4 I'm just so used to having to do deep dives into archives at AfD that this was a welcome change of pace. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a likely GNG failure. BLP written by the subject of the BLP. While the article has been improved over the years, the goals of our encyclopedia were so alien for the creator to not provide her date of birth. User:Dr_vulpes says there are multiple reviews. I did not see true reviews. Happy to be pointed to such, if in existence! I see articles about her books, in which she tells about these. Also interviews and passing mentions. The author is accessible - kudos to her - but it does not assist the independence of the sources. gidonb (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Her date of birth isn't available but her year of birth can be found in multiple databases. I've also added another review of her book. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you add the year of birth to the article and provide links to the real reviews here? gidonb (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Jason Emer (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)
1. It was moved from draft space to article space before it was reviewed and made live by the creator of the page
2. It was moved to draft space by other editors due to promotional tone, it seemed as it was written by someone closely connected to the subject
3. It was proposed for deletion and the final decision was to keep. However, the keep voters: 1 was a new account created just for this debate only (seems like it and it was an open IP, one was an editor banned for sock-puppetry)
4. There is someone constantly removing a section that is a bit negative about the subject
All this makes me believe that this page is being managed by someone closely connected to the subject. Additionally, i don't believe the subject is notable and most of the references are PRs and he is constantly self-promoting on the internet.
WikiProCreate (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 17. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 14:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Appears to be a celebrity plastic surgeon [18], [19], [20]. I'm not sure any of these show notability. Discussion in AfD last time was also questioning the Academic notability, noting that 1000 citations was rather low for his field. I don't see that much has changed since the last AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: He's been investigated by a few regulatory bodies [21], which doesn't affect notability. This information has been added/removed, suggesting this page is being actively curated by editors, likely for promo purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, California, Illinois, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Siue Moffat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of a cookbook author and filmmaker, not reliably sourced as having a strong claim to passing notability criteria for either occupation. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in media independent of themselves -- but the only notability claim on offer here is that her work exists, and the article is referenced to one (deadlinked but recoverable) short blurb that isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's all she's got for GNG-worthy coverage, and one primary source that isn't support for notability at all.
The article, further, has been tagged for needing more sources since 2011 without ever having better sources added, and a WP:BEFORE search came up dry as all I found in ProQuest was the blurb and a small handful of glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of events.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see three reviews for "Lickin' the Beaters 2: Vegan Chocolate and Candy" via Proquest, but not much else. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes a lot of reviews/mentions are before the internet existed as we know it. Broken Pencil reviewed all the zines, even some not listed on the wiki page. I've just found a Fascinating Folks from Broken Pencil (hopefully I'm doing this correctly, first time in one of these discussions... Maulydaft (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I "vote" Not to Delete. To the article I added an example of the HeartaCk column (magazine defunct), an inclusion of Fascinating Folks in Broken Pencil, an interview with Boardwalk Chocolates with T.O.F.U Magazine. Bitch Magazine also highlighted Fascinating Folks in an article but Bitch is also defunct. Maulydaft (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Found and added another radio interview on CFBU, Animal Voices, and website; Bitch Magazine article; others have found numerous other reviews of writings that weren't even on the list previously. Maulydaft (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
FA
A
GA
