Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:07, 11 January 2024

WP:DSAUTHOR

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Authors|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Authors. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

For the general policy on the inclusion of individual people in Wikipedia, see WP:BIO.

Authors

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 delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bader bin Saud bin Mohammed Al Saud

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

A resume and advert page. Except for [1], no other independent source can be found. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, and Saudi Arabia. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a resumé-type article about a subject of no clear notability created by an SPA. Mccapra (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a resume and has no sources to support its claims. That is problamatic for a BLP. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. DrKay (talk) 09:29, 20 January 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolph Ware

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

Subject appears to fall WP:NACADEMIC. Article is being targeted because of contraversial statements the subject made, but I'm unaware of anything else that notable about them. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and California. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Eight published reviews of two books would normally be enough for a keep from me per WP:AUTHOR, but it's weak because one of the two (the one with fewer reviews) is a multi-editor edited volume. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per David Eppstein Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, Africa, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In agreement with David Eppstein and Johnbod. This scrapes over the line. Edwardx (talk) 10:40, 15 January 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 09:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruzbeh Mammad

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

Fails WP:GNG. Surə ^🗯 19:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 03:54, 21 January 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.

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 delete‎. Everybody but one IP, whose reams of text I disregard per WP:BLUDGEON, agreees that the subject is not notable. Sandstein 14:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Evans

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

Prodded by Escape Orbit as "Self published author, fails notability. Article reads like an autobiography focused on linking to Amazon and Barns and Noble self-published books". Prod removed without explanation here, but like EO I can find no evidence of notability. I don't think any of the sources in the article currently contribute to GNG: they're either by Evans, do not discuss her in depth, or "rumors/gossip". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history, the like links were added when the inclusion of the description of the book was contested and were put in place to allow the reader to view them from their origin.

I'm really surprised at the hate Michele is receiving. She is not just an author so deleting based on self publishing assertions fall flat.

Must I provide example after example of articles on wikipedia that have less documentation?

It is my position you are targeting Michele because of her situation with Sharpe. Which by the way, article after article could be sourced providing these indepth sources which are claimed to be missing.

This article reads as it does because no discussion on Michele is allowed and anything thing not sterile is swiftly deleted. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing more than WP:SOURCESEXIST, with a bunch of unsupported and completely false theorising about my motives on top. If "article after article ... providing these indepth sources" exists, then provide them. I have looked and I cannot find them, so until some evidence that they actually exist is provided I can only assume that they do not. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't find articles on Michele Evans and Shannon Sharpe?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michele-bundy-accuses-shannon-sharpe-of-sex-assault-cbs-analyst-steps-aside/

https://www.tmz.com/2010/09/17/shannon-sharpe-accuser-michele-bundy-nfl-denver-broncos-relationship-dating-2002/

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/tarnished-twenty/michele-bundy-files-restraining-order-against-shannon-sharpe/

https://www.westword.com/news/shannon-sharpe-takes-leave-from-cbs-due-to-restraining-order-see-documents-here-5861925

https://www.tvguide.com/news/shannon-sharpe-sexual-assault-1023089/

https://www.nydailynews.com/2010/09/15/shannon-sharpe-takes-leave-of-absence-from-cbs-after-michele-bundy-alleges-sex-assault/

https://nypost.com/2019/09/22/antonio-brown-glued-to-twitter-after-being-sacked-by-patriots/

https://www.denverpost.com/2010/09/14/sharpe-to-take-leave-of-absence-from-cbs/

These are just a few. Assuming is not cool my friend. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Post is not reliable, TMZ is questionably reliable, and none of these sources are in depth coverage of Evans which contribute to establishing her notability. If the only reason Evans ever recieved any mention in reliable sources was that she filed for a restraining order against Shannon Sharpe back in 2010, then at best maybe this could be a redirect to Shannon Sharpe#Personal life, except this was clearly so irrelevant that it isn't even mentioned in that article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WOW!!!! So we are going to just gloss over the fact she was published in the NEW YORK TIMES????? Make her life about Shannon? The only reason these links were included was to dispute claims articles don't exist. To downplay her success is shameful. Do you know how hard it is to get your work published in the New York Times? Have you done it? Why not?

Redirect to SHANNON????? I am dumbfounded that was even typed! She is a software engineer who you have probably used her brain cells given she developed the video player for espn.com and march madness, not to mention tiger woods website, which has a citation. Right click on that cited archive page and view source to confirm she was one of the engineers on his website!

She has authored 4 published books. Made Movies. Written screenplays. Was a sports reporter. Is an advocate for social justice reform, testifying at the city council etc.

And you want to make her life about Shannon??? Redirect? OMG!! I would like to nominate you as a hostile contributor. How do I do that? 69.117.93.145 (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first you would sign in using something more than an IP address so we can properly set the thing up, then you can make a complain about their conduct if you must. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't have to "provide example after example of articles on wikipedia that have less documentation" - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GoingBatty (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty Thank you! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have found articles with less sourcing, you are welcome to nominate them for deletion as well. Thank you for bringing them to our attention in that case. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN RAJU Can't help but notice you added all these. discussion groups but left off Domestic Violence deletion discussion inclusion. Was that because it doesn't exist or because you included only ones you felt were relevant? Please add the Domestic Violence deletion discussion if it exists! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Domestic violence. GoingBatty (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. None of the above sources are SIGCOV in my opinion. ~~In the article, this NY Times article might be but it is locked beyond a paywall.~~ The rest of the sources there are not SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a second look I see the NY Times article is an opinion piece written by her. Alvaldi (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added Santa Clara University link to enhance 69.117.93.145 (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Santa Clara University source is not a WP:SIGCOV about Evans. Alvaldi (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Including for reference because comments made in discussion DO NOT align with Wikipedia standards: Please refer to bolded text.

Notability requires verifiable evidence

Shortcuts

The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.

No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires multible sources of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. None have been presented here. Alvaldi (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for the love of all that is holly. Added 15 reliable sources to the article that are independent of the subject. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if the new 15 are not enough. I'll get more but feel adding more is redundant. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition is what is generally called a WP:REFBOMB. These are all just coverage of the same 2010 case that briefly mention the subject. There is no significant coverage of Evans/Bundy in those sources. Alvaldi (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content is where your position fails. It is in no way a refbomb according to the very definition. To say articles about bundy/evans getting a restraining order against sharpe are just brief mentions is untrue at best. The whole articles are about her. Unless of course, you are reading with biased colored glasses. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing about her in those sources is that she got a temporary restraining order on another individual in 2010 which was rescinded a few days later. The fact that the individual that was accused is notable does not make Evans/Bundy notable per WP:INVALIDBIO (in short, having a connection to a notable person does not make someone notable). And even if they had significant coverage of the person, they still would fail WP:SUSTAINED as brief bursts of news coverage over a period of a few days is not enough to demonstrate notability. Alvaldi (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped adding sources because it had become redundant. The talk continues still to this day and is why Sharpe has finally been brought to court. Again it must be stressed, Evans has her own notability outside of Sharpe. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She likely does, but there are few to no extensive sources used in the writing of this article, is the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to be acknowledged. Urge you to vote keep. Perhaps call Denver Weekly and ask for copies of 2001 NBA & NFL seasons. Sources have to exist, not be on the internet. Leads have been provided, follow them. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

Evans' book on Rikers Island, in which she is an established expert by being incarcerated there, and who had her work about the subject, previously published by the reliable, independent publication, New York Times, is tantamount to this discussion. Please try to read the fine print of what you are making claims about! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS/SPS 69.117.93.145 (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, self-published and autobiographical sources can be reliable. Nobody is disputing that. The question is whether Evans is notable, and notability requires independent sources. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times is an independent source. I can't believe I even have to type that! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times piece is written by Michele Evans. It's clearly not an independent source Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her notability seems to be based on a few things;

Author. Self published only, so unlikely to be notable
Software Engineer. Not notable. Creating Tiger Woods' website is not sufficient, and source cited does not support this claim.
Sports Reporter. Possibly, but entirely unsourced and almost purposely vague.
A single op-ed in The New York Times written by her.
An appearance before New York City Council, about the same matter
Her relationship with her husband and former boyfriend. Notability is not inherited, and it's not Wikipedia's job to air the trials of otherwise private individuals not in the public eye. (Whether they are ok with that or not.)
Her descent from "notable historical figures" - as above, notability is not inherited
Her film-making. Potentially her strongest claim, but the sources are either just a listings of herself in IMDB and one of her films in a user generated website. These are not sufficient. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To refute your points:

"Author. Self published only, so unlikely to be notable"??? Please refer to WP:RS/SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

Evans' book on Rikers Island, in which she is an established expert by being incarcerated there, and who had her work about the subject, previously published by the reliable, independent publication, New York Times, is tantamount to this discussion.

"Creating Tiger Woods' website is not sufficient, and source cited does not support this claim." View the source of https://web.archive.org/web/20070609230258/http://www.tigerwoods.com/noflash.sps you can do this by right-clicking on the page. Michele is listed as being a Sr. Software Engineer on Tigers Website.

A "single op-ed" in the Times? Let's be honest, have you accomplished that? Downplaying her accomplishment is tacky.

"An appearance before New York City Council, about the same matter". Please read the sources for which you are speaking. Evans advocated for Women being able to have their babies under one year old with them as the law permits. The times article is about covid.

"Her relationship with her husband and former boyfriend. Notability is not inherited, and it's not Wikipedia's job to air the trials of otherwise private individuals not in the public eye." You are suggesting she should gain notability from these men? Her notability is all her own. Why would you suggest there is notability to be gained from her husband? What did he do that makes him notable in your eyes and not her? And not that it matters but sharpe is in the public eye.

"Her descent from "notable historical figures" - as above, notability is not inherited" Why would one think she derives notability from them? It's in a section labeled personal life. It is about her. Her story, which includes them and they are notable here on Wikipedia which makes the addition of thier information relevant.

"Her film-making. Potentially her strongest claim, but the sources are either just a listings of herself in IMDB and one of her films in a user generated website." Wrong, her films are viewable as streams and are valid proof as a filmmaker. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are having difficulty understanding the differences between reliability of sources and notability. The discussion here is about her notability in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. All I mentioned above is what someone (perhaps yourself) saw fit to include in her article. If you do not think something adds to her notability, then good, we are in agreement. Nor do I. You also need to understand the distinction between being judged notable for the purposes of a Wikipedia article, and any kind of judgement on her worth, opinions, claims, life or causes. Not having a Wikipedia article does not cast any aspersions on her. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. You are having difficulty understanding WP:NPOSSIBLE "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" 69.117.93.145 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again we are agreed. The sources currently on the article are not adequate in demonstrating notability. So I urge you to find the existence of suitable sources, and the matter will be resolved. Others have tried and failed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try contacting Denver Weekly and ask for copies of 2001 NBA & NFL seasons. Sources have to exist, not be on the internet. Leads have been provided, follow them. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Escape Orbit summarises things easily enough, fails notability guidelines at the present time. Kathleen's bike (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an articleBold 69.117.93.145 (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in RS found about her. Writing an opinion piece in the NYT is fine, but it's a primary source, and she's only had ONE published. She isn't exactly a prolific columnist in the Times with several dozen articles to her name. Source 35 is a RS, but it talks about two different people and mentions this person in passing. I'm not seeing notability as there is little to no extensive coverage about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article 69.117.93.145 (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and we have no reliable sources, none exist. Thank you for confirming that. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get no reliable sources exist out of that? Nobody confirmed anything. Don't put words in my mouth to suit your agenda kind sir... 69.117.93.145 (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm repeating what I stated above, again. Do as you must. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NPOSSIBLE Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.93.145 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And just where are those sources that have significant coverage of the subject? I merely ask because none have been presented here in the AfD, none are in the article itself and nobody has been able to find any. Alvaldi (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cited new source in article https://filmfreeway.com/MicheleEvans 69.117.93.145 (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOSSIBLE Again just because you are not aware does not mean they don't exist! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a site for filmmakers to submit their projects. Again it is written by Evans and therefore is not independent. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok you complained about no evidence for her being a reporter. I gave you video evidence enough to prove she was a known personality whether you like it or not. Let's be clear. Evans's memoir is a separate piece of work from her being a sports reporter. What's your position? Was she a sports reporter or not? 69.117.93.145 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about whether or not she was a sports reporter, and nor do I care. Evans having been a sports reporter is only relevant to this discussion if there are independent reliable sources discussing Evans as a sports reporter, which might contribute to demonstrating her notability, which I have not found and you have not provided. My position is that Evans' memoir is obviously not independent of Evans, and therefore doesn't count towards her notability. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the response below. There are independent reliable sources. They do not have to be accessible via the Internet. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dodge the question all you want. She was a sports reporter. Your words: Evans as a sports reporter, which might contribute to demonstrating her notability.

Context matters. Clearly, Michele Evans was a sports reporter and any one who says differently is not being truthful or unbiased. That video evidence would hold up in court my friend, under the tightest of scrutinies, let alone for Wikipedia!!!! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please do not selectively quote me to mean something completely different to what I said. I did not say that Evans having been a sports reporter might contribute to demonstrating her notability, I said that if there are sources about Evans as a sports reporter, that might contribute to demonstrating notability. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a source

Shortcut WP:SOURCEDEF

A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage. A source can be reliable or unreliable for the material it is meant to support. Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited.

Definition of published

"WP:PUBLISHED" redirects here. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Published (WP:PUBLISH).

Shortcut WP:PUBLISHED

Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form. The term is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.

Context Matters Shortcuts. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. WP:RSCONTEXT

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

Let me repeat: It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.

WP:NPOSSIBLE Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article.

Lets use this one example. https://filmfreeway.com/MicheleEvans

It is a source
It was made available to the public in some form
It was published
The media was recorded, broadcast, distributed and archived
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article
It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.
Source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article

With these things in mind, https://filmfreeway.com/MicheleEvans is reliable for the statement on the wikipedia article that says Michele Evans was a sports reporter. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it doesn't help establish notability for the article, as we need more than a "she works here" post. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contact Denver Weekly and ask for copies of 2001 NBA & NFL seasons. Sources have to exist, not be on the internet. Leads have been provided, follow them. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is history of people attempting to erase Evans life to suit their agenda. The continuation of this theme by deleting her family is interesting. The misogyny displayed here, whether intentional or not is a bit much and I wouldn't be surprised if this thread makes its way into her memoir. Her meticulously documented family doesn't go away BTW! The pen is mightier than the sword. Anybody can delete. Regardless of what is decided here, Evans' list of accomplishments will continue to grow, which begs the question, Do you really want to be on the wrong side of history? 69.117.93.145 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued the IP a formal warning for the preceding comment (AGF, BLUDGEON, failure to make any policy- or guideline-based point, etc). DMacks (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully - Addressing the deletions of my contributions to the article which were prevelant throughout the day, which can be seen in the article history, constitutes a point. This is not Bludgeon as I had not made a comment for over 23 hours prior to me addressing the ongoing deletion of cited facts. Thank you! 69.117.93.145 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've heard your point, multiple times. Thank you. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 15 January 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Genoa

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

He doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Pennsylvania. Owen× ☎ 19:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any independent, reliable coverage on this author, only databases of his books. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 21:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in independent reliable sources. His novel Foop! is much closer to meeting the GNG with at least a couple of reviews that might be usable but it's borderline. The author, on the other hand, has no usable coverage and is a very clear delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:31, 15 January 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 02:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Hoffman (author)

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

Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Arguments at 2007 AfD for keeping it were poor. Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link to the previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Hoffman, Author Geschichte (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn’t find anything worth adding to the page (reliable sources, or any other meaningful reference). 185.104.138.35 (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It currently doesn't meet WP:GNG and I can't see that there's anything better out there. Thebookstamper (talk) 14:27, 17 January 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.

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 delete‎. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaclyn Johnston

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBASIC. In hopes of meeting WP:NAUTHOR, I searched multiple sites for book reviews (Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, and Library Journal) but didn't find anything. I also Googled her and her books, and although I could find some sources, none are reliable and independent, and provide significant coverage. Most sources, including those cited on the page, are interviews (see also 1 and 2). Ping me if you can find something. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, and United States of America. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for book reviews in my searches, as the nom suggests, only links to buy the book, or Goodreads sites.Otherwise, there are no mentions of this individual that could be used for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spirituality and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete half the references are plain non-WP:INDEPENDENT. Others are not WP:SIGCOV. TLA (talk) 04:33, 15 January 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.

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 delete‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Newman (lawyer)

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

Has a book from 2020 with a bit of coverage, but not convinced that's sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR. Has some accomplishments listed at https://nycdivorcelawyer.com/about/ but I'm not convinced those are sufficient for WP:GNG. A bit more notable than a WP:MILL lawyer though. Plus nothing I can see to warrant a pass of WP:NPROF. Kj cheetham (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Law. Kj cheetham (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found one review of her book [[2]] but no much else. Let'srun (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact the woman is professionally described and extensively cited and quoted as a subject matter expert by the Washington Post on its article “Is the Upper East Side “wife bonus” a real thing?” probably counts for something. But that by itself is probably not enough… until you find out that Simon and Schuster printed her book. So, the subject is not only a subject matter expert by the Bezos Post, but a published author by a premier US editorial. Shouldn’t we go by the sources, here? XavierItzm (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The Washington Post article is good, but need multiple sources like that to meet WP:GNG. But how does getting a book published count? For WP:NAUTHOR, I don't think it's sufficiently notable by itself to meet #3 (and if it was I'd suggest an article on the book rather than the author). Multiple independent reviews are a more typical way to meet that guideline, but I don't think it's the case here at the moment. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  There are multiple sources that quote her as an expert, e.g. NYT (Oct 10 2023) (one graf); Guardian (Dec 1 2022) (two grafs); CNBC Make It (Sep 8 2023) (five grafs); Business Insider (Dec 12, 2023) (seven-ish grafs). Beccaynr (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Good finds! I'm getting less convinced this article should be deleted, but not sure they count as significant enough for GNG? (Also, what is a graf?) -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  A graf is shorthand for 'paragraph' with a nod at the news-style version - I referred to BI as 'seven-ish' because some of the grafs are one line. From my view, significant coverage from a combination of sources can help us write a fair and balanced article, and while I agree helpful sources are emerging, I am also not sure we have enough to develop encyclopedic content without more independent/reliable/secondary coverage of her career and/or writing. Beccaynr (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Ah, makes sense! My current feeling is might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for now, the available sources do not seem sufficient to help us write a fair and balanced article that is not advertising. There is limited secondary coverage available about her career and legal practice; she has been quoted as a subject matter expert in several high-quality sources (WaPo, NYT, Guardian), and some of lower-quality (CNBC Make It, Business Insider), but has not been the focus of the coverage. Her book does not appear to be notable according to the WP:NBOOK guideline and one notable book is typically not enough for WP:AUTHOR notability. The available sources seem to indicate it is WP:TOOSOON to support notability at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the page created by a sock farm, previously blocked. I already reported to a check user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Callanecc. --89.151.38.106 (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be considered on its own merits, just like I address the anon 89.151.38.106 on his own merits.XavierItzm (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject does not meet the criteria for inclusion in her own right. With more sources, it is possible that the book could meet the criteria, but even that would not meet the criteria now. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON? PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 08:52, 29 January 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Flores (author)

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

Quite borderline, but doesn't seem to go over WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Games, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 6 January 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, 13 January 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.

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. Star Mississippi 17:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Neme

AfDs for this article:

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

The last AfD, many years ago, was no cnosensus - hopefully we can now get a consensus. I don't see that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG at all. Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 6 January 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)} 17:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm thinking she is notable per WP:NAUTHOR. Here are formal book reviews for her 2009 work, in addition to general media attention into the work: New Scientist, E–The Environmental Magazine, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, and The Oregonian. Kirkus Reviews reviewed 2 picture books she wrote: [3][4]. There is also this article from The Burlington Free Press on her 2009 book that might be good to add, but I haven't had the time to look at it yet—please mind the gruesome photograph though. Best, Bridget (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Vermont. Bridget (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep sourcing is not great but she does seem like a notable figure. Llajwa (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG based on reviews of work posted above by Bridget. An entertainer with reviews of their work at this level would certainly be viewed as meeting GNG. // Timothy :: talk 05:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found a review of Animal Investigators in Publishers Weekly, and at the Wikipedia Library, a Jan 2015 review from NSTA Recommends (National Science Teachers Association) for Orangutan Houdini; a March 2010 Animal Investigators review from Choice via ProQuest 225690255; a March 2014 review of Animal Investigators from Connect via ProQuest 1522744253; the 2009 Burlington Free Press report on Neme and Animal Investigators (ProQuest 439866714) looks helpful (no photo in this version), and ProQuest also has some further coverage/reviews of Animal Investigators (e.g. NPR interview, local news). WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR notability appears supported by significant independent, reliable, and secondary coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 17:18, 2 February 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Fussner

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

Having written one book, whilst it has some reviews, isn't sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR I don't think. Seems like WP:TOOSOON. If more reviews of the book are found, perhaps the book itself warrants an article?? Kj cheetham (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 6 January 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.

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 delete‎. Happy to draftify on editor request at any point in the future. Daniel (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe McLaughlin (sportswriter)

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

He exists and has had some coverage, but not the significance that would meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The available online sources don't meet WP:BIO, with the best being a brief obituary. The others are a notice of winning a minor AP award, quotations, and passing mentions. There's potential that offline or paywalled sources could put it over the line. I don't have access to McMurray, Bill: Texas High School Football, Icarus Press, 1985., or the obituary in his home paper: "Former chronicle staffer McLaughlin dies: [3 STAR edition]". (1997, Nov 26). Houston Chronicle. (ProQuest has only an excerpt.) If anyone has access to those two sources it could settle things more definitively. Jfire (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. If there is a potential for offline sources to support notability, a move to draft will provide time for editors to recruit such sources. BD2412 T 15:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notability tag was added in 2010. Editors have had fourteen years to recruit such sources. Draftifying seems unlikely to help. Jfire (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the only one interested in maintaining the article is his daughter, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 02:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfire: If the article is left unedited in draftspace for six months, then it will automatically be deleted per G13. However, at least there will be an opportunity for improvement and resubmission for mainspace publication. BD2412 T 21:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A brief obituary outside his home area just isn't enough, and an obituary in the newspaper he used to work for is clearly not independent so not worth finding in full. I'm skeptical there is anything in this HS football book(?) either.

JoelleJay (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't seem to be notability established here. Draftification just feels like delaying the inevitable deletion, unless an editor indicates interest in improving it, which I don't see here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:06, 20 January 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.

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 merge‎ to Hbomberguy. Any merged content still needs to meet WP:BLP requirements. RL0919 (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Somerton

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

Telos Pictures:

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

Article created after Somerton was accused by a YouTuber of plagiarism as a redirect to said YouTuber. After that, the full article has turned into a non neutral description of an irrelevant controversy. WikiDasher (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WikiDasher (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Internet, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The plagiarism controversy is clearly the primary reason for Somerton's current notability. We have good RS coverage of the plagiarism controversy and clearly that needs some coverage in Wikipedia. So this all hinges on WP:BLP1E. The question is how should we cover it? I think there are three options:

If this can pass BLP1E then obviously we keep the article, maybe reducing the secondary controversy about the "apology" video to a couple of sentences. (I didn't think it was too overblown until I went looking at how we cover Colleen Ballinger's far more infamous apology video and was surprised to see that we barely mention it.)
If Somerton fails personal notability but the controversy does not then we should recast this as an article about the controversy. That would mean renaming and expanding the article to include the other YouTubers involved and to focus more on the general issues of lazy content mills and pseudo-academic YouTubers not doing their citations properly (or at all). (It would be ironic if we ended up renaming this article "Plagiarism and YouTube" ;-) )
Merge this back to Hbomberguy in a reduced form.

I have yet to decide which I support, except that outright deletion is definitely not an option here. There is too much RS coverage for this to go away completely.

Maybe the next step is to try to determine exactly how notable Somerton is outside of this controversy with a view to answering the BLP1E question. My impression was that he was a fairly big fish in the Canadian and LGBT YouTube scenes and that his film production company, Telos Pictures, had attracted some attention before it folded. In retrospect, I realise that this may not actually be the case. Maybe he was just really good at bigging himself up and I fell for it? I think this could go either way.--DanielRigal (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the plagiarism controversy is only relevant if the content he created were relevant. After googling his name, I don't feel he was very important in the LGBT community. WikiDasher (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I, however, agree with you in that the content itself should not be deleted. I would think moving it to Hbomberguy would be the ideal solution. WikiDasher (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or refactor. The article is 100 percent about a plagiarism controversy that sank an online influencer's career, with zero biographical depth even as an essayist. Selective merge back to Hbomberguy. However, I am not against refactoring it into a more general article about plagiarism on YouTube as suggested above. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor. In terms of Somerton's notability, its mostly his self-destruction. However, reliable sources also comment on his spreading of misinfo and the Telos film company scandal.

There are other queer YouTubers who are claiming other harassment from him; the ace couple on YouTube have suggested his coverage of the asexual community was horrific, and Jessie Gender has apparently been targeted by him during some scandal involving him targeting the Nebula streaming service. these are all youtube videos, which cannot be cited on wikipedia? homo momo (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as the person who originally made this article, im a bit biased. I've been hoping these other scandals get more coverage, but as it seems to have died down a bit in the weeks since, i assume the plagiarism scandal will be the main thing that is notable about this guy. homo momo (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

one possible source that discusses james somerton outside of just plagiarism is this student journalism website that interviewed him a year ago. https://tigermedianet.com/?p=63554

Not sure how reliable this is, as its mostly james doing self-promotion. homo momo (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, honestly lets Merge actually. yall make good points :D homo momo (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Had thought about making such an article myself, but it might not pass WP:SUSTAINED. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it seems that the notable thing here is the hbomber video and not somerton, we could move and expand this to cover that whole vid—blindlynx 02:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hbomberguy. Feel like it could be better talked about there. Wandering Morpheme 23:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hbomberguy, but I'd be open to a split article about the plagiarism video/controversy per DanielRigal's suggestion. Seems like that topic could pass GNG, and info about Somerton would be added there as appropriate. Regardless, the only other RS I could find from before the video was a Mary Sue article from 2022 which was updated in the wake of this controversy (but you can see the original in an archive). PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Mattl (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hbomberguy, we could probably just create a designated section of his page dedicated to the plagarism drama Cereally8 (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or refactor. After a bit more searching I'm in agreement with everybody else that there isn't enough here for a BLP. Maybe this could be an article about the video but, as it fails to mention any of the other channels called out for plagiarism, it would take some work to make rebalance it. Merging it to Hbomberguy might be the easier option. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively!) to Hbomberguy. Reliable sources are all about the plagiarism scandal, and most of them seem to be discussing Brewis' investigation and video more than they are discussing Somerton. Maybe there's an article on James Somerton plagiarism scandal or Plagiarism on Youtube to be written, but given how recent it all it it remains to be seen if there's any WP:SUSTAINED coverage, and given that everyone involved is a living person I would err on the side of not having an article which is going to be a perennial BLP/NPOV nightmare unless we are really sure it's important to have an article on. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with blindlynx regarding the Hbomber video - it can easily fill a page by itself. BlueMonday1984 (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are not that many sources most of the wikipedia articles would consider useful/reliable/etc. for the entire Hbomberguy video on its own, I think? Unless I'm missing some? We can't cite the actual youtube video by itself, can we? homo momo (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, see User:Caeciliusinhorto. There is definitely an article to be written on yt plagiarism but subject does not make sense as a standalone article — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 08:24, 13 January 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.

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 delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Phelps (author)

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

Per the nomination here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Knauff, this article is created by the same User:Jlksptn. Complete PR article with no reliable sources. Has 8 sources from News Max which is considered unreliable. Fails GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Economics. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is very little to indicate notability. Most of the coverage is in non-RS (Newsmax, Fox Business TV segment). Source 8 (NY Times) does not mention Phelps. The subject released a book in 2023, but it doesn't appear to have been reviewed in any significant outlets, which means the subject doesn't meet author notability reqs. Thenightaway (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. It is so poorly written (much in passive voice and with weasel words), that even if sourced, it would have to be re-written from scratch. The sourcing is very poor as well. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 12 January 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.

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 delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Knauff

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

Fails GNG. This article states that Jeremy Knauff is the founder of Spartan Media. Spartan Media website has ties with Entrepreneur, Benzinga, Fox News/ Fox Business, CNN and Forbes as displayed on their homepage. The sources cited in this article are only from the above news portals. This should have been G11'ed Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Businesspeople. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only substantive coverage of the subject is this bland puff piece on Fox News[5]. The Forbes cites are unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. The Fox Business cites are just brief remarks by the subject where they offer a bland opinion on business. Thenightaway (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Puff piece. Reads like a CV and not shown noteworthy for separate article. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Kierzek (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:SPAM. Not only it is written as spam, I am at a loss as to see what he's done that is actually notable. In 2024, everyone knows what we are not a free web host. 18:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Niwiński

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

BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Comments	Source
Database bio with very basic information. Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth	1. "prof. dr hab. Andrzej Niwiński ID: 63740", National Information Processing Institute Polish Science, retrieved 2024-01-03
List as receiving an award, I do not think this meets WP:ANYBIO#1, no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.	2. ^ "Egipt. Odznaczenia dla przedstawicieli Polonii". Prezydent.pl. 2022-05-22. Retrieved 2024-01-03.
Speaking engagement annoucement, "The guest of the next meeting will be prof. Ph.D. Andrzej Niwiński, Egyptologist", fails WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	3. ^ "Spotkanie z prof. dr. hab. Andrzejem Niwińskim". Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach. 2023-05-24. Retrieved 2024-01-03.
Youtube guest lecture by subject	4. ^ "Spotkania z Archeologią. Wykład prof. dr hab. Andrzeja Niwińskiego". Youtube. Muzeum Śląskie. 2023-04-17. Retrieved 2024-01-03.
Link is 404 and I cannot find the source	5. ^ M.P. z 2022 r. poz. 810

BEFORE found nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. I was not able to find an entry in a national biographical dictionary, if sources are found, ping me.

BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 01:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you. The article in under construction. Andrzej Niwiński is well recognizable author in Egyptology, but I am not sure if he have already any biography written. I will try to expland it as much as it is possible, and I will check the references again.
Niwinski, A. (1993). Quirke, S. (ed.). "Studies on the Illustrated Theban Funerary Papyri of the 11th and 10th Centuries BC" (PDF). The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. 79: cover page. doi:10.2307/3822191. ISSN 0307-5133.

Nbarchaeo (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple reviews of his books ([6][7][8], plus offline in: Archeologia Żywa 1996, 2004, 2005, 2006; Ars Regia 1994; and Acta Poloniae Historica 2006), meets WP:NAUTHOR and likely WP:PROF#C1. – Joe (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three more book reviews: JSTOR 40000588, JSTOR 3822191, JSTOR 43075790. With the ones above that's enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is the case of someone who should be notable, IMHO, but has trouble formally meeting GNG/NPROF. The best source about him I've found so far is a brief mention on a blog of one of his students: [9] about him receiving a major Polish state award (but I am not sure if technically this is enough to make him notable): Commander's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland. I abstain since as I said I think he should be notable, but formally, he has major issues with SIGCOV. Note that he is notable for pl wiki because habilitation is sufficient for any academic there. We have different criteria, for better or worse. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear some more assessments of sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NPROF is the one and only SNG that that community has unambiguously agreed sits separate from the GNG: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers, and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources....This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline." Satisfies NPROF c2 and c7 with the award of the Commander's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland - one of only 17 awarded that year, see pl:Order_Zasługi_Rzeczypospolitej_Polskiej#Andrzej_Duda_(od_6_sierpnia_2015_–_do_nadal). (Declaration - I finalised the 2022 stats). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:07, 20 January 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.

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 delete‎. All of the Delete views are solidly anchored in policy, while none of the Keep views are. As for AI-authored views, I don't have strong feelings either way, but it behooves you to train your Large Language Model on our policies and guidelines if you want the resulting text to be taken seriously. Owen× ☎ 16:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Parakala (executive)

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

Non-notable businessman, fails WP:NBIO. Draftified and creator was asked not to return it to mainspace without AFC review. Previously deleted six times and salted at Kumar Parakala, now 4th time at AfD. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 04:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:BASIC based on these articles: mbanews, ARN, indialink, IT News. Prior AFD's were from 2011 and 2012, that's over 11 years ago, so they are no longer relevant as he appears to have more news now. He could possibly meet WP:ANYBIO based on his awards. Royal88888 (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added a few more citations that I found. Along with all the ones mentioned by above editor (Royal88888), the page has enough citations to meet Wikipedia Guidelines. Here are the additional citations to consider:

"Kumar R. Parakala, KPMG Head of IT Advisory EMA & India..."

"Tech innovator's global digital career started in CQ"

Consulting Matters

"Kumar R. Parakala, KPMG Head of IT Advisory EMA & India, Chief Operating Officer Advisory India"

"ACS Elects New President for 2008/9"

There also appears to be a good Computerworld article on him, but the link is dead. You can tell from the title that is all about him: "Outgoing ACS President to Head up KPMG Indian IT Advisory Business"

Perfectstrangerz (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be very helpful to display links to previous AFDs. Also useful would be an evaluation to the sources mentioned in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the four citations I supplied earlier are the most valuable. They offer substantial coverage of the subject and originate from reputable publications. Some of the additions made by @Perfectstangerz are behind a paywall, but they could contribute to establishing notability. Royal88888 (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Feels like a case of WP:PROMO and WP:COI. Other than that, a lot of non-WP:SIGCOV sources. In addition, the sources listed in the discussion above feel like press releases. Maybe a rewrite could make it, eh, fine... TLA (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying the sources "feel like press release" is much different than being a Press Release. If the sources do not state they are a press release and the bottom of page does not have an ABOUT section and contact info, then it is not a press release. Another way to tell is to search the article to see if you can find a duplicate on another site, if not, you should not assume it is a press release. Often press is sent out, but when journalists write their own version from the press releases, they are no longer considered a press release. Which parts of the article did you think sound promotional? I have reviewed and can't see any promo issues. Royal88888 (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other comments above. Notable as the President of GHD Group, which has been around since 1928 (not some kind of flimsy startup). Also notable as the President of Australian Computer Society, another notable organization. Awards can be trimmed if they look a bit promotional, but overall still meets WP:NBIO criteria. Has plenty of press coverage in various mainstream Australian news outlets and thus meets SIGCOV. Batmanthe8th (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AN article with this long of a history needs more policy-based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PROMO, Gnews is all Forbes Council posts by this person, very much sponsored. Nothing to be found otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes Council is irrelevant. Please check my source analysis below, There are plenty of good sources. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a promo. None of his awards add to notability. No articles link to this except one on his surname. LibStar (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check this page Australian Computer Society. He has a link from there. Since he has an award from a listed company on Wikipedia, it should be considered a notable award. The award "Leadership Excellence Award from the Queensland Government" also seems like a big deal. Royal88888 (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" Since he has an award from a listed company on Wikipedia, it should be considered a notable award" No, doesn't make it a notable award. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here is a source analysis. Note this is not everything. I skipped the passing mentions.

- MBANews - Reliable Publication, Non-primary, In-Depth Article

- ARN - Reliable Publication, Non-primary, In-Depth Article

- IPthree - Partly interview, but it has long bio on him. Reliable Publication, Can't say if this is Primary or not, content may have been provided by the subject, In-Depth Article

- CQ University - Reliable Publication, Non-primary, In-Depth Article

- Indian Link - Reliable Publication, Non-primary, In-Depth Article

- ITNews - Reliable Publication, Non-primary, In-Depth Article

- International Federation for Information Processing -Reliable Publication, Non-primary, In-Depth Article

- iabca - Bio and profile, can be considered primary* The Hindustan Business Line - Behind paywall, but this may just be a mention based on the title

- Courier Mail - Reliable Publication, About half of the article can be considered primary and the other half is not, as it has some quotations, but also original coverage, In-Depth Article

Perfectstrangerz (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject, Kumar R. Parakala, demonstrates notability through various reliable sources, including MBANews, ARN, CQ University, Indian Link, and ITNews, providing in-depth coverage of his contributions and accomplishments. His role as President of the GHD Group, a longstanding organization since 1928, and his presidency of the Australian Computer Society contribute significantly to his notability. Awards, such as the Leadership Excellence Award from the Queensland Government, further underscore his recognition in notable spheres. While some critics have raised concerns about promotional language, the substantial press coverage and acknowledgment from reputable publications fulfill the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. The inclusion of Kumar R. Parakala in significant industry publications and leadership roles justifies retaining the article."KarKuZoNga (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This comment appears to be generated by AI. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 10:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing comment doesn't make it ai. Not sure about your point. If you have issue with my Keep vote and its justification please give proper argument to oppose that. KarKuZoNga (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the contrast in the writing style between your two comments does. All the quoted publications are either promotional (MBANews - a marketing company to promote studying an MBA in Australia, IndianLink - promoting the south asian community in Australia), niche trade publications (ARN & ITNews - both covering the IT industry in Australia) or have no editorial oversight (CQ University - the subject's university) and are unsuitable for determining notability. The subject has no credible claim to notability and the article violates both WP:PROMOTION and WP:SALT. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 12:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree, @SailingInABathTub. All of the other contributions that KarKuZoNga has made to deletion discussions all appear to be AI generated. GraziePrego (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if someone uses AI to better their grammar. Have you considered that English is not the first language for many? His arguments are valid. Let's review these sources more closely and look at the nominator's arguments which seem to be trying to validate his nomination of the page for deletion.

A publication about "MBA" does not make it promotional. Every publication is about a certain subject.

ARN is owned by Foundry, an IDG Company. Check the bottom of the site.This is a major media company, so we can assume they have editorial oversight.

ITNews is owned by Nextmedia, another major news company.

IndianLink is an Australian publication since 1994 and has won 27 awards (listed on their site and can be verified). They also have editors listed on their site, so there is oversight.

All these publications appear to be credible. There is absolutely no evidence any of them publish paid articles without disclosure as the nominator seem to imply. This is just the nominator's opinion, so let's let the closing admin be the judge. It seems to me the nominator is throwing any argument he can to validate his nomination. Royal88888 (talk) 01:35, 26 January 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.

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 delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Elbuhaisi

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

Article written by a single purpose account contains a list of links but does not have inline references to reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Reads like a resume and is primarily promotional in tone, as its content is mainly a list of the article subject's publications. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that there is the technical side and the editorial side but at the end its like Israel and Hamas conflict and the opinion of all people towards this conflict. I think it all depends on the experience on Wikipedia. If someone has experience then he can turn the low profiles into a professional ones if he is cerious. I don't know what lack of notability mean when it comes to awareness. I gave you example; Patrick Süskind is a German writer and screenwriter has only one photo in all of his life. Wold I say that he is not famous because he has no pictures on the internet, I think its silly. Well, I think politics somehow control Wikipedia based on its editors. It is mostly about competition and not raise the awareness. I think if Hamza Elbuhaisi knows about the deletion and the discussion, then he will smile and say why not if these people doesn't want to know about him or what he is doing!! 82.14.226.121 (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I can see that Hamza Elbuhaisi is famous more in his country Palestine and somehow in the Middle East based on the links on google and the research but he is not well known for English speaker but again I say its all about awareness that contradicts with the notability. 82.14.226.121 (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:Also, I can see that Hamza Elbuhaisi is famous more in his country Palestine and somehow in the Middle East based on the links on google and the research but he is not well known for English speakers but again I say its all about awareness that contradicts with the notability. 82.14.226.121 (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC) repeated text gidonb (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:I can see that Hamza Elbuhaisi is famous more in his country Palestine and somehow in the Middle East based on the links on google and the research but he is not well known for English speaker but again I say its all about awareness that contradicts with the notability. 82.14.226.121 (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC) repeated text gidonb (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: we have discretion whether to keep pages created by a COI/SPA. But in this case, the combination of poor writing and lack of SIGCOV for the subject makes our choice easy, especially with a BLP. Owen× ☎ 17:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a self-published and self-promoting PhD student who does not meet the GNG. Maybe one day he will. gidonb (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that there is the technical side and the editorial side but at the end its like Israel and Hamas conflict and the opinion of all people towards this conflict. I think it all depends on the experience on Wikipedia. If someone has experience then he can turn the low profiles into a professional ones if he is cerious. I don't know what lack of notability mean when it comes to awareness. I gave you example; Patrick Süskind is a German writer and screenwriter has only one photo in all of his life. Wold I say that he is not famous because he has no pictures on the internet, I think its silly. Well, I think politics somehow control Wikipedia based on its editors. It is mostly about competition and not raise the awareness. I think if Hamza Elbuhaisi knows about the deletion and the discussion, then he will smile and say why not if these people doesn't want to know about him or what he is doing!! 82.14.226.121 (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are WP:ILIKEIT, WP:TDLI, and WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. All irrelevant to deleting or keeping. Notability, on the other hand, is relevant. My only consideration. WP is not a forum for self promotion. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 16:10, 11 January 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Ivanov (writer)

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

lack of notability, no sources in English, no major edits since 2007 Artwhitemaster (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources exist ([10], [11]). The page needs to be rewritten, not deleted. FromCzech (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has entry in the Dictionary of the Czech Literature after 1945, which is a reputable source, as well as the second link posted by User:FromCzech. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, History, and Czech Republic. Skynxnex (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vejvančický. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possible WP:SNOW as the rationale "no sources in English, no major edits since 2007" betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of notability and deletion policy. The cs.wiki article contains several more references that can be used. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:51, 8 January 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaijit Bhattacharya

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

Article seems to be self-promotional. Notability of subject not established. There are about 1/2 dozen editors involved - all are single purpose accounts as noted on the talk page. Merbabu (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Economics, Technology, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I was able to find and add a few more citation, but I do not believe he has enough coverage. Royal88888 (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:21, 11 January 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.

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 no consensus‎. In the sense that there is disagreement about whether to keep the article (the majority's view) or to merge it with the case about the murder committed by the subject. But nobody supports deletion, and therefore, should people want to continue this discussion, the proper place to do so would be a merger proposal on the article talk page. Sandstein 13:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy-Rose Blanchard

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

Gypsy may one day be notable for something other than killing her mother. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and nothing in this article suggests any current independent notability; most of it is content that reiterates what's already covered in the article about her mother's murder. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, and Louisiana. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the references dated after the murder may establish notability. If the consensus is that there shouldn't be a standalone article, I would prefer to redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard than to delete. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do they establish anything that would make her notable if she hadn't murdered her mother? Daniel Case (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard (this could have been tried as a first step with a explanatory message prior to AFD, per WP:NPP#Content_forks and WP:BRD) given that the bio is a highly duplicative subset of the murder article and she is notable only in the context of this, so WP:NOPAGE applies. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gypsy Rose Blanchard (the correct spelling of her name), which I created as a redirect around the same time I created the original page, exists already. Of course, having this one as a redirect wouldn't hurt, either. Daniel Case (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah apologies -- missed that. It is a plausible redirect[12], and she may actually be using the hyphen now[13] ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she’s notable enough as an individual to have her own page, but the page needs a serious cleanup. TheXuitts (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
exactly what i was gonna say -jakeyounglol (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this 2604:3D09:757D:CE70:CCC5:B5C1:8FED:68A (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would a Merger be appropriate here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: ref [14] there's not much available to merge here, so while I'm not opposed to a merge decision, redirect is probably a cleaner result, and the page history is there for limited merger. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard. If she publishes a book and becomes notable herself, this article can be expanded in future years. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 16:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Currently she is only notable for one event. If this changes in the future an article can be created then, but at the moment there's no sense in having her biography be a separate page. Chocmilk03 (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard as per WP:BIO1E, there is nothing notable apart from her crime Atlantic306 (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard. There is no viable merge content, and much of the existing article was already improperly copied from that article. I've repaired it for now by providing attribution in an edit summary, as well as talk page templates. Additionally, this article is at the wrong location as the subject's name isn't hyphenated; Gypsy Rose Blanchard is already a redirect. In addition to WP:BLP1E, this page is the embodiment of WP:CRIMINAL which is clear that since we have the appropriate redirect target, this should not be an independent article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WAIT - This article has more detail regarding the life of Gypsy Rose Blanchard and the actions that lead up to the murder of her mother. I would wait a year before considering deleting the article. If no more notable information comes forward, now that she has been released, then merge the articles. DandEs (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially WP:CRYSTAL. It can always be recreated. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I feel this article should be kept because of the future of Gypsy since being released and the doccumentry series that has just been released about her life.

People would be looking her name up rather than her mum's or the guy she met online that killed her mum. I feel shes more notable than anyone else in this case. 93ben (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is notable for something already; according to the documentary she has had made about her she is the only known case of Munchausen by proxy victim who committed murder to get away from her abuser. I think that in and of itself makes her worth having at least a modest article written about her. Lisenka92 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but Wikipedians are not stupid. Remember when people tried to redirect COVID-19 when it first came about even though we knew it was going global? I think the sources and interest show Gypsy Rose has made a name in her own right, and I guarantee she will have appearances on Dancing with the Stars and Celebrity Big Brother under her belt come next year. Why redirect?Manipulative Maniac (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [blocked sock--indeed, Wikipedians are not stupid. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)][reply]

See above. This is even more CRYSTAL.
I also find it interesting that an account that has been around for less than a month "remembers" events here from four years ago ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Case, I don't have an explanation for that: their CU-confirmed socks go back to December of last year, if I remember correctly. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect She's only notable for the murder, so it should redirect there unless and until she has a substantial career that is not directly linked to her having killed her mother. Just because she may eventually become more notable doesn't mean she needs an article now. EasyAsPai (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy is notable as a high-profile victim of factitious disorder (Munchhausen-by-proxy). Her mother's abuse and the subsequent failure of the medical profession to detect it for so many years would make her notable even if she had not facilitated her mother's murder. Elinde7994 (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable, yes, within the context of a notable event. It does not necessarily follow from that that she is notable enough for a separate article. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's a notable public figure engaged in activism, and whether the notability is due to her mother's murder or not is irrelevant. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BIO1E it is very relevant. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is talked about more and has a lot more written about her than many people on this site that have pages covering content found in other pages. Listen1st (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while I'm not oppsed to keeping the page, a merger is probably the more realistic outcome. Looking through the murder article though, it seems most of Gypsys life is being told trough the biography of her mother, so I would prefer to see some kind of rewrite that separates the two a bit more, splitting the background section in two and incorporating parts of this article into it. Right now a simple redirect won't fix any of the issues with the main article. --jonas (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is exploding in the news and our readers deserve an article for a noteworthy, notorious, and famous person Caniteurbana (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSINTHENEWS. Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard as per WP:BIO1E. Only known for the murder of her mother so obviously makes sense to redirect there. –Davey2010^Talk 16:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO1E, allow separate articles about the same subject if the individual in questions becomes notable enough. “ However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.” - WP:BIO1E

you and many others arguing redirect, have failed mention and show how she does not qualify for this exception. BigRed606 (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Often people in high profile cases become media personalities upon release, it looks like she's going to become popular in her own right. ManicD101 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CRYSTAL. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the claims of the other users who voted keep. On @ManicD101:'s part, he might right. What happens next will be up to her. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CRYSTAL. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above XxLuckyCxX (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has become very notable over the last couple years. There have been many tv shows and documentaries on her, as mentioned above. She definitely meets the threshold of notability for a stand alone article. BigRed606 (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You confuse "TV shows about her" with "TV shows about the circumstances that led her to kill her mother". Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Article clearly reaches the criteria mentioned under WP:BIO1E, which states “ However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.”- WP:BIO1E. Based on the fact she has generated enough publicity for there to be multiple tv shows, about her life before during and after the murders, along with other major news sites talking about her recently, CNN, ABC, USA, Today ect… their seems to be enough notability to meet the criteria mentioned above per WP:BIO1E. BigRed606 (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others SDVBou (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. Like it or not, she is notable due to all the coverage of her life. – Meena • 18:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No, not an important figure, and a redirect to the other article is more than enough. We should not be acting on the whims of the boulevard press. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per others above. She has become notable over the years and was the subject of an entire television series. Now, she's all over the news and mainstream media in ways that aren't about the murder (an article which some suggest we should merge this too), see here, here, here, and here. She's become a celebrity.. even has 9.3 million followers on TikTok, which is a lot more than most other TikTokers who have articles on Wikipedia. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is basically WP:ITSINTHENEWS. And one's Tik Tok follower count is not, and never should be, a determinant of notability for a standalone article. We have deleted articles about far too many YouTubers and Twitchers whose followers created accounts to vainly make that argument for there to be any dispute about this. Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying her TikTok following determins her notability, I was using that as an example of her celebrity and growing presence as an internet personality especially seeing as there are now social media trends that she is the focus of. This is more than just being in the news. She's been on talk shows and given exclusive interviews for major magazines. She wrote a book, was the focus of a television movie, was the focus of a documentary, and was the main character in a television series. She's reached a certain level of famous for being famous for the criminal background.. I would argue it's very similar to Anna Sorokin. I mean, Slate even went so far as to call her America's Sweetheart. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for many reasons listed above, but a parallel case to this includes the page for the Menéndez Brothers [15]. As with Gypsy Rose Blanchcard, the Menéndez Brothers are primarily known for murdering their parents, but there is strong evidence of childhood abuse. In any case, the term "Menénsez Brothers" is more well known to the general public than that of their parents. See also Amy Fisher [16] and Pam Hupp [17]. This may not be what we wish for, but these individuals have gotten a celebrity status based on their crimes, and it can happen very quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EJPyatt (talk • contribs) 20:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Menendez Brothers had one trial that became almost a soap opera (and had one of the best real-life Perry Mason moments ever, even if it didn't result in a conviction) and a second after the first one ended in a partial mistrial. Amy Fisher was the subject of three made-for-TV movies and didn't kill the woman she shot. Pam Hupp's husband got convicted of a murder many people now think she committed, but which remains officially unsolved after he was acquitted at a second trial granted following evidence of severe prosecutorial misconduct. Hupp herself has been convicted of one murder; people also think she might have killed her own mother as well. There's a complex story there, as for the others.

Gypsy Rose? She killed her horribly abusive mother, pled guilty to second-degree murder and got a ten-year sentence, which ended with time off for good behavior a couple of weeks ago. She is hardly out of the shadow of the event which made her notable (and no, we cannot say "she pretended to be disabled and sick" before that when we all know her mother put her up to that, and if she hadn't she would never have killed her mother).

I do not argue, as some seem to be implying, that she will never be notable by herself. I fully expect her to do something like appear on Dancing With the Stars or Celebrity Big Brother or something like that soon, maybe even run for political office. When that happens I won't argue she isn't independently notable. But not now. Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, literally just saw on the news an interview where she is coming out with another book. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's quite a few participants created 15+ years ago who have minimal edits. Is there canvassing somewhere (other than delsorts)? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same thought, but don't have solid evidence. Especially given the huge number of Keep votes that are completely against policy, or don't give a rationale at all. I would encourage the closing administrator to carefully review the strength of the arguments, as this is WP:NOTAVOTE. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) agree, I have never seen so many dormant or semi-dormant accounts come out of the woodwork. I counted 7 I would put in those categories, including one that was dormant for 15 years and another for 4 years, plus the rest for multiple months. (I listed them in my original comment but got edit-conflicted, and can't be bothered re-listing.) The prima facie majority above is surely not an accurate reflection of true consensus as a result of this, on top of any potential weaknesses in arguments. Daniel (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt, that canvassing is at play here. Instead i believe the recent rise in her notability is the main reason we are seeing people who typically don’t edit on regular basis comment their support for “keep” in the debate page. BigRed606 (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While numerically, the editors (not all of whom have low edit counts) arguing to Keep this article have not presented many strong, policy-based arguments, there is no support for deletion so this is a decision between Keep and Merge/Redirect. But I'm also skeptical of the argument that this violates WP:BIO1E as most of the article is about her life with her mother and some on her post-prison life, only a portion is about the murder which I assume is the "event" considered. I see her on so many magazine covers that I don't think she will return to being a "low profile" person that is one of the WP:BLP1E conditions if we are looking at that policy. Also, even though "other things exist" is a popular essay (not policy), interpreted WP:BIO1E in this way would result in the deletion of articles on any person primarily known for either committing a crime or being a victim of a crime and we have hundreds of those articles (perhaps thousands). Also, I don't see any critique of the sourcing of this article which I assume is satisfactory. Let me state, I'm neutral here but I'd like to see more policy-guided arguments on what to do with this article, I'm wondering if there is anything more on the Redirect/Merge side than WP:BIO1E and how those advocating Keep would address this criticism.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Redirect/Merge side have offered nothing but a blanket response using Wikipedia’s WP:BIO1E as their standard for their argument, but have failed mention specifically how this article does not meet the expectation, for a stand alone article under a section of the WP:BIO1E, which states “ However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.”- WP:BIO1E. Judging by her recent rise in notability concerning not just her role in the murder, but her whole life in her totality before and after the murder. We will see that if we take this exception mentioned above into account, that this article does indeed in fact meet the criteria for a stand alone article. BigRed606 (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me the key phrase in BIO1E is "If the event is highly significant ..." Is a murder nine years ago really so significant yet? Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The murder from 9 years ago is not the main reason for her notability, it’s her recent release along with increasing media attention caused by the increasing number TV shows and articles about her life, of that is causing her to become notable. Hence why she should absolutely be considered for a stand alone article using the exception in Wikipedia BIO1E mentioned above. BigRed606 (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would she have been released from prison if she had never committed the murder? Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, what is there to say that can't be said on the article about the murder? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard. The tipping point for me is that there is almost complete duplication of the information, so why have two articles with so much overlap? Clarityfiend (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Gypsy Rose Blanchard, per other's points, has sort of outgrown her murder in terms of notability. At this point she is a notable influencer, even if it's upheld by a single event. Her life and the psychology behind her is also significantly documented and studied, and has most likely outgrown the murder article. --Wikiwillz (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Due to the rise of her popularity following her release, and her rise in social media numbers, she has essentially become a social media influencer that rivals many top members in the industry today, on top of the other contributions to keep the article as well (new book, interest in her specifically and not the murder, etc.). As well, we now have an article about her that can be added to depending on her life choices from this point onward. She has become a celebrity. Kbeast33 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Her story is encyclopedic and she's amassed a large social following. She's been featured either in person or in character in a number of documentaries, biopics, and interviews. Especially since her prison release, she's been pervasive in media and culture. Dmarquard (talk)
Keep: She has become a quite notable public figure over the last couple years and will likely do so in any future. Also, there are likely more media-coverage in any future – Especially her case being released premature. --Smartcom5 ^(Talk ?) 06:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So from what I've gathered it sounds like people suggest her own article because of her "rise to fame". However, what matters is whether or not her fame is discussed by WP:RS. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, what matters is what those RSes establish she is notable for. And right now I see precious little reason she gets media coverage that would have happened if she hadn't killed her mother, pleaded guilty to it, served eight years of a ten-year sentence and gotten released. Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (so basically delete). I edit a lot of crime articles and while I'd say I'm more inclusionist than most on the question of "should the perpetrator have an article", there's really nothing else here that isn't already in the article that would be undue on the main article, which IMO is the line for when the perpetrator should have one. I would guess she becomes notable for independent actions in the future but she is not right now and the relevant event already has an article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG. Subject have been in the media eye for a decade. Plenty of third party sources shows notability. Is releasing a book. And the media attention about her personally is establishing WP:GNG beyond the crime case.BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Do not redirect. A complex victim and participant in the murder, not convicted of first class murder with the one who was, so this is not just someone notable for killing someone. The post release from jail coverage cements here as worthy of an independent article. However, is do read the article as containing excessive content, it should be cut down, not merged elsewhere, but not cut down drastically. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage is ongoing now. This is definitely not NOTCRYSTAL. Points of interest include her youthful dubious diagnosis, the ongoing dubious diagnosis, murder of the mother, and now post release coverage. This far exceeds the limit of BIO1E. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that she has amassed enough attention to warrant having this article. Additionally, she's not only notable for her part in the murder. I think that insinuating such is a massive generalization. -Euphoria42 (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard. She got out of prison a week ago and hasn't done anything worthy of her own article at the moment. Her biography, the murder, and her time in prison are sufficiently covered in the existing article. She has gotten a lot of press in the last week or two, but I don't think a separate article is needed- Is there anything not covered in the existing article other than more details about her personal life and her announcement that she is going to publish an ebook? Anybar (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like it or not she keeps being interviewed and reported in the media ever since her release and that therfore contributes to significant coverage in reliable sources. Interviewed on national television by Good Morning America. Interviewed by CNN. Her release was profiled by the New York Times. Washington Post. ABC News. I mean, the sources are there. Trillfendi (talk) 06:04, 17 January 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.

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 delete‎. Daniel (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Annemarie Kleinert

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

Non-notable writer. Self-promo, only self-published sources provided. Search found only routine promotional sources, no independent sigcov to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, History, Germany, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A quick Google Scholar search already finds three published reviews of her books, a good start towards WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I can't find mention of this author, but the links shared above are French reviews of her book, brief but just enough to pass author notability requirements here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also get some English discussion of her books using the Jstor link above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. After more searching I have still been unable to find more than those three reviews of one book. That's not quite enough for WP:AUTHOR for me, but if another review of any other of her books turns up we could have a weak keep instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, does not pass WP:PROF and is kind of in a grey area when it comes to WP:AUTHOR. The article was created more than a decade ago, but the creator and several other editors have no other contributions other than this article, which on top of how it currently reads, gives off a WP:PROMO vibe. But I cannot object if another editor clearly demonstrates her notability. Aintabli (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as per David Epstein and Aintabli. Not meeting WP:PROF at all; looks like it falls shore of WP:AUTHOR. Qflib (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wholly self-sourced. No SNG Prof pass evident, nor is a GNG pass evident. Carrite (talk) 20:58, 16 January 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.

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Madigan

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

Non-notable screenwriter (ex-WWE/WWE Studios). Fails GNG. PRODed in 2010. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Film, Television, Wrestling, and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are only mentions of a person at UConn with this name, nothing about a person involved in screenwriting. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – there is more than "mentions" such as Bleacher Report (though some are probably not WP:RELIABLE, but it's mostly just citing quotes. TLA (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Jerricks, Terelle (2007-05-04). "Lucha Libre in the L.A Underground". Random Lengths News. pp. 1, 12, 24. ProQuest 363208421.
  The author talked to Dan Madigan. The article notes: "Despite his multi-cultural outlook, Madigan worried that race would be a factor in allowing him entry into the Lucha world, only to be set at ease when his bodybuilder physique and knowledge made other luchadores think he was a wrestler himself. ... Though Madigan's background is in writing and art. he also grappled in high school, college, and in the army. ... Madigan's career as a writer has been on a steady incline-especially after he joined the larger than life figure of American professional wrestling, Vince McMahon at his new film division World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE). During his first meeting with the producers of WWE films, they started talking about old time wrestling and were impressed with his encyclopedic knowledge of the genre. The producers asked if he would like to write for the WWE show, and Madigan deadpanned, "People write that stuff?" .. This lead to WWE films signing Madigan to write a script for Kane, a 7-foot, 326-pound WWE wrestler whose signature moves included the choke-slam (a maneuver that looks like it sounds) called "See No Evil." ... When Madigan began working for WWE, Ultimo left a couple of weeks later."
2. Oliver, Greg; Johnson, Steven (2019). The Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame: The Storytellers (From the Terrible Turk to Twitter). Toronto: ECW Press. ISBN 978-1-77041-502-7. Retrieved 2024-01-19 – via Google Books.
  The author talked to Dan Madigan. The book notes: "Oh, the boundless joys and endless frustrations of being a WWE writer. Dan Madigan experienced both. During the company’s Ruthless Aggression Era, he penned material for JBL (John Layfield) during his anti-immigrant crusade, which was directed mostly at Eddie Guerrero. As Madigan coached from the sidelines, JBL ranted during a filming in Texas that the Guerrero family snuck into the United States under the bellies of burros crossing the Rio Grande. “ ... At the other extreme, Madigan invented Mordecai (Kevin Fertig) as a white-clad, hypocritical religious zealot and a dream evil-versus-good foil for the Undertaker. WWE CEO Vince McMahon bought into Mordecai, who beat Bob Holly at the 2004 Great American Bash. Then the company abruptly deep-sixed the gimmick. ... In fact, Madigan once considered training to be a pro wrestler with Killer Kowalski, though he instead landed in Hollywood as a scriptwriter. ...
3. Lewinski, John Scott (2006). "Former WWE Writer Dan Madigan". Scr(i)pt. Vol. 12, no. 6. Active Interest Media. p. 16. EBSCOhost 23394195.
  The author talked to Dan Madigan. The article notes: "To get the basics of wrestling storytelling—and to transfer them to movie and TV models, we turned to Dan Madigan. He's a former writer for World Wrestling Entertainment's RAW and Smackdown! broadcasts, as well as the screenwriter of the recent horror feature See No Evil. ... Madigan worked in professional wrestling for a year, or, as it is called by the insiders "the business," before transitioning to work in Hollywood as a screenwriter.'
4. Gross, Josh (2016). Kelley, Erin (ed.). Ali Vs. Inoki: The Forgotten Fight That Inspired Mixed Martial Arts and Launched Sports Entertainment. Dallas: BenBella Books. pp. 114, 167, 169–170. ISBN 978-1-942952-19-0. Retrieved 2024-01-19 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes on page 114: "said Dan Madigan, a writer for the WWE in the early 2000s". The book notes on page 167: "said Madigan, who left the WWE in 2010 and writes screenplays in Los Angeles". The book notes on page 169: "One of the wrestlers Madigan worked with at the WWE was Kenzo Suzuki, a wrestler from New Japan Pro Wrestling. Suzuki had some good size to him, and Madigan didn't want to touch the old characters. They had done the samurai. The ninja. The cliché. Then Madigan pitched McMahon on "Hirohito," the great-grandson of the Emperor Hirohito, coming back to avenge his family honor and cultural heritage."
  The book notes on page 170: "Madigan once pitched a Nazi gimmick to McMahon. Baron Von Bobbin, the goose-stepping Nazi found frozen in the Swiss Alps. McMahon apparently stood up, didn't say a word, and walked out of their meeting. That one didn't fly, but others did and Madigan was responsible for sparking complaints from high ground. The Canadian government was upset over a character named Eugene because it portrayed a mentally challenged person."
5. Randazzo V, Matthew (2008). Ring of Hell: The Story of Chris Benoit & the Fall of the Pro Wrestling Industry. Beverly Hills, California: Phoenix Books. p. 265. ISBN 978-1-59777-579-3. Retrieved 2024-01-19 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes on page 265: "Writing team member Dan Madigan’s wife suffered a miscarriage, had her beloved father die, and learned that her dog had cancer all within a matter of days. Madigan informed WWE of his family crisis and left the road to comfort her. At his father-in-law’s gravesite, while he held his weeping wife over the loss of her father and their unborn child, Madigan’s cell phone rang. “It was a call from Stephanie’s secretary saying that she was disappointed that I missed the Tough Enough [WWE reality TV show] meeting. It was a fucking disgrace; that’s when I knew I was done with the company,” Madigan told me."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dan Madigan to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above by Cunard that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 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.

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. Daniel (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vishen Lakhiani

AfDs for this article:

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

Re-nominating, see WP:COIN#Paid editing agency. Please review whether the reasons of the previous nomination still apply. Janhrach (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Literature, and Malaysia. Janhrach (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Keep Article is "oh look this man has created a company" type. References are extremely poor. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He may get a pass via WP:NAUTHOR. Worth a look. If so I'll change my !vote. scope_creep^Talk

There is reviews on the boooks. I think he probably passes WP:NAUTHOR. I think he is probably not notable at the moment. The coverage is quite poor. scope_creep^Talk 12:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep South China Morning Post and BBC seem to be about him, should have enough to keep it. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I concur with Oaktree b. Additionally, NYT bestseller helps, Mindvalley is quite well known. TLA (talk) 03:28, 14 January 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.

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 no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wacław Chamrat

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found mention the author in connection with the Chronicle, but do not have WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. There is no article for Chronicle of Biała to merge or redirect to. // Timothy :: talk 06:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Law, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No sources found on Google Books or Scholar and possibly JSTOR; GB only showed a book mentioning the subject. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 13:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Chamrat is an author of the Kronika miasta Białej (Chronicle of Biała), which is considered as a priceless source for the history of Biała in the 18th Century. There are two sources, both written by scholars. And you could find mentions about Chamrat even on Google Books. [18] Herzog von Teschen (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into History of Bielsko-Biała as that article is seemingly one of the only few pages on the internet that mentions him. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or merge fper Ff above. I am not seeing anything about this person outside a mention in passing in my BEFORE. It is possible that his work (Kronika miasta Białej/Kronika Chamrata) would pass WP:GNG, and the author may want to write an article about it, but per WP:NINHERIT, it does not mean we need an article about his creator, about whom next to nothing is known (but if the article about his work is notable, a short bio section there would be fine). That said, I am concerned that the two sources listed are not linked and seem very hard to verify, the presumed academic article (" Kronika miasta Białej z lat 1732–1768 zwana Kroniką Chamrata") does not return any google (gscolar/gbook) hits outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. Due to verification trouble, I lean draftify as first choice, merge as second. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist so we can get a consensus on whether to Keep, Delete, Draftify or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fence leaning keep. On the one hand, arguments put forward by User:Herzog von Teschen point towards a keep, but on the other hand the Kronika is not accessible online (and what mentions and paraphrases from it are known are but minute) and, as User:Prokonsul Piotrus points out, next to nothing is known about the actual author. The insidious sign pointing towards a delete is that the author does not have an article on the Polish Wikipedia. I'm an inclusionist, tho, especially of topics of history, therefore I lean keep. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've created an article on the Polish Wikipedia. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - OT: It would now need to be populated with more information on Chamrat. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:00, 17 January 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.

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 no consensus‎. Feel free to re-nom at a time when there might be any input. Star Mississippi 23:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Stalinsky

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

As per reasons elaborated in the message box: WP:NPOV, WP:NOTCV, WP:CITEKILL, WP:NOTADVERT, and egregious and consistent violations of the Manual of Style—MOS:PUFFERY; MOS:TERRORIST, etc. The article was written by Justinimg, whose only contributions on Wikipedia have been to this article, and to the article for Interface Media Group, with whom Stalinsky is affiliated. The account in question clearly either belongs to an individual paid by Stalinsky to write the two articles, or likely Stalinsky himself (WP:COI). Despite efforts by such users as Horse Eye Jack to remove the most egregious puffery, what is left still consists entirely of unreliable, one-sided, weasel-worded, unreliably-cited, puffed up advertisement. This stands unfixable due to WP:GNG; no independent and reliable sources exist, and those published in reliable sources are authored by Stalinsky himself, and most reliable and independent sources regarding MEMRI TV make unsubstantial references to Stalinsky, if any. yaguzi (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that the article was written by Shadegarden in 2013. Justinimg expanded it in 2016-17. GoingBatty (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the 2013 article was 4 paragraphs and Special:Diff/654062278/789152138 is a tenfold expansion that removed all four of those original paragraphs and orphaned their sources in Special:Diff/728981405, it is not unfair to say that Justinimg (talk · contribs) wrote the article. Uncle G (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 7 January 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.

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 no consensus‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. C. Greenburg

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Cannot find any independent sources. The GreenwichTime article is a user-submitted listing of events and is not independent. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Lost. Johnj1995 (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Science, United States of America, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't see enough independant coverage to warrant an article, but as an WP:ATD could redirect to her more notable husband at Dan Greenburg. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions. While it might come to this closure, I am adverse to the frequent "Redirect woman's article to that of her husband" resolutions that often appear at AFD. If that is the consensus, so be it but one opinion is not consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed with relister about redirecting to husband idea. At minimum, it should be a merge. Also, she did win an Eleanor Cameron Award. Robina Fox (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the award sufficient?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Golden Duck Award#Eleanor Cameron Award. Not a "well-known and significant award" (WP:ANYBIO) or "major literary award" (WP:BKCRIT) to establish notability for a stand-alone article, but this target has a little info about the author. (And I don't know where this article would be merged to.) SilverLocust 💬 22:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find the Greenwich articles as mentioned, nothing else. The award might be notable, but with no sourcing, we can't have an article. Could perhaps redirect to the list of Golden Duck winners? Oaktree b (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Robina Fox. I think that the award is notable. The article neede more sources but I don't think deletion is a good idea. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I lean towards Redirect/Merge as an alternative to a No consensus closure but there isn't an agreed upon target article. But I don't think Redirecting a biography article to an award article is the best option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree it's not ideal, but absence of anything other than the award, I stand by my original suggestion of Dan Greenburg being the target for a redirect/merge. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When there's not a suitable redirect target, then we don't need to have one at all. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep based on reviews and a scholarly source added, and some further coverage on ProQuest, as well as the award (recognized by Booklist) helping generally support notability as an author for the Andrew Lost series of books. If the full version of ""Andrew Lost in the Garden" By J.C. Greenburg", Advocate; Baton Rouge, La. 24 May 2003: 8-D. (Abstract only available on ProQuest 415677651), can be found, this may help further bolster author notability. If there will be a redirect, I think the Golden Duck Award#Eleanor Cameron Award is preferable, because the subject and her work are mentioned, and it seems generally preferable to target the redirect to her career accomplishments than to her spouse. Beccaynr (talk) 18:25, 22 January 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.

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 delete‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Walling

AfDs for this article:

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

Most of the sources are either low-quality or not independent, I don't think this meets GNG or NAUTHOR. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Minnesota. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BuySomeApples - I would like to improve the article. Based on WP:100W his footprint is in the several hundred words from multiple sources and WP:GNG indicates that 2 or more resources is enough to establish notability. Do you have suggestions for what should be removed or needs clean up? I believe it meets GNG but maybe I need to remove which sources and information are low quality? I researched the authors of the major articles, such as Forbes, Entrepreneur, Foundr, are not affiliated with the topic. Also, Walling has been mentioned and referenced in multiple books by independent sources within his industry. I realize Foundr may not have the weight of the others (which for journalism is becoming more and more dubious every day), but as a source they seem to actually have credibility within that industry and the authors do not appear to be pay-for. Walling has a lot of information on Google News and Books that are secondary/independent which I have referenced, so I am asking so I can remove what I might have missed that seems not independent enough. I tried to limit use of information from primary interviews to WP:BLP qualifying facts only.

Open to suggestions. Thank you! Autoshotdc (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Autoshotdc: WP:FORBESCON is not considered reliable unfortunately. They look like Forbes articles but they don't have any editorial oversight. Sources like Entrepreneur and Foundr, which include short quotes or soundbytes from Walling but are not about him, don't count towards WP:GNG. (Also, WP:100W is just an essay, it's an opinion not a guideline.) BuySomeApples (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thank you for your reply! I see what you are saying, and I have a different interpretation. I realize that WP:100 is an opinion essay, and is therefore referenced the guidelines for GNG, as GNG is somewhat subjective, grey and less black and white, hence the existence of the essay and word counting as a loose framework to apply when situations are not black and white. The SAAS industry is rife with bad SMEs. He is a heavily referenced subject matter expert in his field, and I find him to be a rare credible source, most of his content not being paid-for and the ones that are, such as press releases, I did not reference in this article because they are not credible sources. However, I did take the time to review the Forbes contributors which is what is called for when it is a contributor, to generally distrust it and vet the writers yourself. For someone to be a reference in books, news mentioned so heavily by heavyweight individuals within a field establishes credibility, and to have published books in the field as well, so I'm going with keep on this one. Autoshotdc (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Autoshotdc: It's always disappointing to have one of your articles nominated for deletion. At the same time, it doesn't look like the Forbescon writers are subject matter experts, and the other sources in the article (the ones not written by Walling) aren't reliable, they're mostly podcasts, low quality websites or pay to publish. It doesn't even seem like WP:100 is really met if you don't count quotes/soundbytes and non-reliable sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (strike duplicate !vote Daniel (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)) reiterating that the author is an SME in the field, and one of the few worthwhile ones. I am an SME in the field and I listen to his podcasts. He is heavily referenced in books and magazines throughout the field. It's very niche but between the big names Forbes, Inc.com, Entrepreneur, and the niche mags, SaaS Mag, Foundr, breadth of info meets GNG.[reply]

Autoshotdc (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, we just have two editors' opinions and we really need to hear from others. A reminder that another version of this article was deleted a few months ago.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete sources are mostly interviews, podcast and mentions. There are 2 book reviews, but they seem to be from bloggers and not any place reputable.Perfectstrangerz (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A lot of sources come from people's blogs, interviews, non-staff sources. We also have a bunch of passing mentions that don't meet WP:SIGCOV. Not a lot of sources added since last discussion as User:Liz pointed out. TLA (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. As others above have stated the found sources seem to be interviews, blog type articles, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. If I've missed anything, post the best WP:THREE sources meeting WP:SIGCOV and I'll be happy to look at them. // Timothy :: talk 02:50, 18 January 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.

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 no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Raiter

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

Faiils WP:BIO. Sources are mainly primary. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Pakistan, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- This issue should not be the quality of the sources, but whether the subject is notable. He was for 5 years the principle of a Bible College. Bible colleges (in US seminaries) are often small independent academic institutions, but they ought not to be judged merely by size in comparison with institutions teaching a wider range of subjects. Three of his predecessors have articles, but others do not. Not being in Australia or Vanutu (where he founded another), I am not qualified to judge his notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still need sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Peterkingiron. This is someone who may be considered notable despite not clearing GNG's conventions. I'm reading this subject in the way we generally give leeway to bishops in significant denominations. Sourcing confirms that this person does exist and did hold some fairly notable positions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the positions held confer inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's possible that Stirrings of the Soul may meet WP:NBOOK given it won an award, though online RS reviews seem thin. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- As far as I can see, the subject fails WP:BIO and I don't see any other notability criteria that are met. I don't see that WP:BOOK is met. A reading of the award process (self-nomination and an entry fee required) and its criteria does not convey obvious notability. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - he's a well-known Anglican evangelist and preacher in Australia, was principal of a Bible College in Australia too which has notability in other countries. If there's no consensus to keep then please merge to Melbourne School of Theology to preserve the history of the article. Cavepavonem (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"well-known Anglican evangelist and preacher in Australia, was principal of a Bible College" are not criteria for notability. LibStar (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only applicable notability guideline is GNG, it requires in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and we do not have that. All the blathering in earlier contributions to this discussion about how we should ignore the guidelines and consider him notable because he's notable is content-free, circular, and should be disregarded. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider Merge option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He's discussed in a few textbooks [19], [20], with a quote in this one [21]. For such a small field of study, he's somewhat well-known. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 10 January 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.

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. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Hampton (writer)

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

Nominated by Oiyarbepsy with the following rationale (see request):

I've reviewed the sources listed and they are all either passing mentions, short quotes from Hampton, or the work of Hampton himself. He does not appear to meet the notability requirements. I'll add that enough sockpuppets have attempted to create articles on this person that his name made it to the title creation blacklist. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/New baba/Archive for one of the sockpuppet investigation pages.

This is a procedural nomination; I am neutral. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just from a quick glance for some sources, I'm finding plenty that cover his life and activities spanning years in multiple forms of publications, including the adaptation of one of his books into a TV series.

And that was just from a quick database search and Google search. So there's likely more to find for anyone who wants to dig deeper. Silver seren^C 06:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, California, Florida, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep sources are not entirely about the subject, but they have enough coverage to just get it over the notability "edge". Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ones given above are ok, I'd rather these than what's used in the article to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources listed in this discussion suffice. Please update the article accordingly. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well-published notable author and noted activist. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:30, 14 January 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.

Authors proposed deletions

Nazareth Hassan (via WP:PROD on 9 October 2023)

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ==Authors==
 <!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bader_bin_Saud_bin_Mohammed_Al_Saud}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudolph Ware}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruzbeh_Mammad}}