Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors: Difference between revisions
Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahra Razavi. (TW) |
|||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Authors== |
==Authors== |
||
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line --> |
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahra Razavi}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elise_Allen}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elise_Allen}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. C. Unnithan}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. C. Unnithan}} |
Revision as of 16:44, 19 February 2020
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.
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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Shahra Razavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources provided are mostly staff/contributor profile pages - not independent or reliable, plus one article written by the subject, so not independent. My own search turns up a few mentions in reliable sources, but only where she provides a quote as part of an article about a different topic - none of the articles are about her so there is no depth of coverage. Appears to fail WP:GNG and also WP:AUTHOR despite having a few published works to her name as there is no indication that she is regarded as an important figure, widely cited, or her works are well-known or have attracted any critical attention. Hugsyrup 16:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup 16:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup 16:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup 16:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep (article creator) The amount of WP:BEFORE carried out here could literally have been no more than 15 minutes, since the article was nominated for deletion 20 minutes after creation (how many of the items listed at WP:GDBN were carried out in those 15 minutes?). She is a senior UN official, director of a department of the ILO - there are only 9 department directors. She is a global expert in the field of gender and development as attested by her holding the directorship of the Progress of the World's Women report and publications in leading academic journals. The reference in the article from the World Bank is not a staff page but an expert recognition page, she has never worked at the World Bank. She holds a position well-above an equivalent full-professor rank at a university. Board member of international academic associations....all of which is revealed from a genuine review of the subject. A prod here would have been quite reasonable, AfD is simply inappropriate. Goldsztajn (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- 15 minutes is more than adequate to carry out a thorough WP:BEFORE. In fact I doubt it took me even half that time to read the four sources in the article and conduct the basic searches required. I appreciate it’s not pleasant having your work nominated for deletion but I do wish people would focus on making a clear, policy-based case for keep, rather than attacking the behaviour of delete nominators - it’s not productive. Anyway, the World Bank source is not an ‘expert recognition page’, it’s a speaker profile - in no way a reliable source and highly likely to have been provided by Razavi herself. Nothing else that you have said indicates passing the GNGs. Hugsyrup 20:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've been round here long enough that I take nothing personal about anything to do with this encyclopaedia. What I am concerned about is the general overuse of AfD in lieu of basic editing processes. Unfortunately, I cannot accept that any form of adequate BEFORE can be done in 15 minutes (or less as claimed) here. I think applying commonsense rather than an abridged AfD guidebook is a far more useful mechanism - especially when subjects cross category boundaries. So, the subject is not simply an academic (although aspects of her work are academic), but having been a board member of the International Association for Feminist Economics and an editorial board member of Feminist Economics would indicate that multiple aspects of WP:ACADEMIC are met. The subject is an international civil servant, so aspects of WP:POLITICIAN are relevant, ie holding an international office, but I accept that some may not find that categorisation conclusive. However, out of the 36,000 odd international professional staff of the UN (which is not all UN staff, that number is much larger, but the highest category of all UN staff), she sits on a grade (D1/D2) that less than 7% have obtained - so sits within a highly significant category within the most significant category of UN staff. Regarding the source discussed, whether or not it is a speaker profile, it is from the World Bank - she has never worked for the World Bank, so it is independent. Furthermore, the vast majority of work published by the UN is secondary source (the IPCC is the best example of this) - it is the only acceptable way to work amongst the constituents; it's not unreasonable to treat the UN agencies as RS.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the source discussed, whether or not it is a speaker profile, it is from the World Bank - she has never worked for the World Bank, so it is independent
this is a complete mischaracterisation of what independence means. She may not have worked there, but she spoke at one of their events [1] hence, naturally, why she has a speaker profile. A speaker profile is, almost by its definition, intended to promote the speaker or at least portray them in a positive light. They are often supplied by the speaker themselves, and are more akin to a press release than a substantial article about the individual. They are the furthest thing from independent, and no one can seriously believe that this is an 'independent, reliable source covering the subject in depth.' Hugsyrup 09:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Goldsztajn's rationale. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per the above rationale. Additionally, I did some WP:BEFORE myself and added a few more links. I also found numerous academic books from major university presses citing Razavi [1][2][3][4][5][6] It definitely looks like you could have, and should have, taken a bit more time.
References
- ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=5cRvAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA178&dq=shahra+razavi&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjstKy07N7nAhXNhXIEHdqPAmk4FBDoATAGegQIBxAC#v=onepage&q=shahra%20razavi&f=false
- ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=v8tPlht9lyAC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PT83&dq=shahra%20razavi&pg=PT83#v=onepage&q=shahra%20razavi&f=false
- ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=w6ROBAAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA17&dq=shahra%20razavi&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q=shahra%20razavi&f=false
- ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=dg0ABwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA445&dq=shahra%20razavi&pg=PA445#v=onepage&q=shahra%20razavi&f=false
- ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=5cRvAAAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA178&dq=shahra%20razavi&pg=PA178#v=onepage&q=shahra%20razavi&f=false
- ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=ovbVLZ2G6pMC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA251&dq=shahra%20razavi&pg=PA251#v=onepage&q=shahra%20razavi&f=false
- Please don't assume that because I didn't add things, I didn't find them. Being cited in a few books is not evidence of notability per se, and there is no clear agreement on how many cites are required to meet WP:ACADEMIC. The other sources you added are yet more examples of articles about other topics that simply quote Razavi. If you're going to attack me for an alleged lack of WP:BEFORE, it would be nice to at least show an understanding of what constitutes an acceptable source. Hugsyrup 09:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- OK, let's break down some metrics. She has been cited in a lot more than a "few books" but I intentionally highlighted citations from major academic publications which address the very same topics that Razavi researches, ie women's rights, economic developments & gender equity, etc. The sources I added are actually quite relevant if you read Criterion 7 for WP:NACADEMIC which states that "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area". Other sources in the article discuss Razavi's work instead of her personal biography, but for notability purposes that actually seems preferable. The thrust of this should be to determine whether she can be considered an authority in her field, and whether her work has made a broad impact.
- Worldcat shows that she has 5,226 library holdings, which is significant for a scholar in the humanities.[1] By contrast, Jordan Peterson (a very well known author and professor, though I'm personally not a fan) has 4,796.[2] I think this is a good litmus test for her notability as an academic. Further, she has an h-index of 14, while the average full professor in sociology has a 3.7 and the average full economics professor has a 7.6. Now h-index is not good as a standalone metric because it can be misleading across different fields , and can be influenced by a wide range of variables. However, I think this lines up fairly well with the rest of the information available. IphisOfCrete (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
References
- Keep per above , for her academic works Alex-h (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with the above point that she meets WP:ACADEMIC through Criteria 7 (“The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.”) but for different reasons than listed above. As already said, “Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area.” I personally don’t think academic book citations count as “outside academia” explicitly, so here are a list of conventional media that have quoted her (and her UN academic work) as an academic expert, in the area of women & labor/economics:
- CNN Money
- Al Jazeera
- Devex
- Stuff.co.nz
- CNN Indonesia
- Women in the World
- Thomson Reuters Foundation
- Bretton Woods Project
- Reuters
- The Independent
- Her working in a head research position in a United Nations branch has led her to having substantial impact outside academia, and to being quoted frequently as an academic expert (inside and outside of academia). I think this, along with her past and current UN research positions, and along with her long list of published academic work and references in other academic books (shown above and through an easy google books or google scholar search) is more than enough to establish notability (even if someone doesn't think any of these individually is notable enough on its own). WP:ACADEMIC notability also overrides the idea that "none of the articles are about her so there is no depth of coverage," because this type of notability is "measured by their academic achievements." Most of the articles you can find online that mention her are about her work & research.
- (Also, I want to point out that she is sometimes referred to as "Shahrashoub Razavi" professionally, since I have a found some older UN press and articles referring to her that way.) Whisperjanes (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per above points and in line with fulfilling WP:ACADEMIC through Criteria 7. Edited that Ravazi was an invited contributor to a Japan's journal on welfare policies discussion; Ravazi's analysis as UNRISD officer[※ 1] on care giving sectors among six Asian countries binds topics by Japanese researchers[※ 2], evoking a long term discussion.[※ 3]
References
- ^ In the Special issue: International comparison of care, accessed 23 February 2020, pdf ISSN 1344-3062 (in Japanese).
- ^ Contribution by Japanese researchers around Ravazi's article, ISSN 1344-3062 (in Japanese).
- ^ Emiko Ochiai; Leo Aoi Hosoya. "Transformation of the intimate and the public in Asian modernity", translated from Japanese; OCLC 984803155.
--Omotecho (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per above. I think she passes WP:ACADEMIC.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep There is enough information already provided to support the claim of her notability. She has enough coverage and a notable person in her field. Also fullfilling the WP:ACADEMIC - The9Man | (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2020 (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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Elise Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No independent or significant coverage of works listed, nor any bios or interviews, etc. Does not meet WP:GNG, IMHO. Wanderer0 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Middling coverage of her novel Populazzi from 2011 but nothing sig. There's drips of info here and there she's award winning, but IMDb listing shows two nominations, 2011 and 2015. Rdzogschen (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- delete @Rdzogschen:Populazzi reviews are all short, and none expand on Allen's bio. Fostrdv (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2020 (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. The "delete" opinions merely assert non-notability, but fail to discuss why the sources being offered by the "keep" side are insufficient. Sandstein 11:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- R. C. Unnithan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
FFailed to pass WP:NPOL WP:GNG Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Passes GNG, discussed in The history of trade union movement in Kerala (pp.551,554), from significant Kerala family, brother of Adoor Gopalakrishnan (photo here), obituary in Mathrubhumi|. AfD is not clean-up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldsztajn (talk • contribs)
- Comment: If you have more reliable sources that prove his notability, you can submit here. I admit Adoor Gopalakrishnan is a notable person.but that doesn't transfer here-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 16:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Padavalamkuttanpilla - can you please describe what WP:BEFORE, in particular parts B and D, you did before nominating?--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Padavalamkuttanpilla - your userpage indicates you are a native speaker of Malayalam - I can only access RC Unnithan's obitary via a poor Google translate, but what is there indicates notable activities throughout his life, which could be verified (although mostly from Malayali sources). Did you explore this? Why do you see nothing notable there? --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Padavalamkuttanpilla - can you please describe what WP:BEFORE, in particular parts B and D, you did before nominating?--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: If you have more reliable sources that prove his notability, you can submit here. I admit Adoor Gopalakrishnan is a notable person.but that doesn't transfer here-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 16:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. My understanding of the consensus is that, absent significant coverage, mayors of even medium-sized cities like this subject are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)- Delete. Non-notable politician. Fails WP:NPOL & WP:GNG. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Bearian I don't understand your comment:
"even medium-sized cities like this subject"
. The subject was an advocate (lawyer), AITUC/CITU trade unionist, writer and CPI(M) candidate, solely applying NPOL is not appropriate here. He was deemed worthy enough of attention to be imprisoned during the Emergency. His prison diary is a notable text held in multiple libraries. The difficulty is that the vast majority of text concerning him is in Malayali, but that is not a limit to his notability.--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)- Goldsztajn, None of those common posts merit an article. FYI, According to Amnesty International, 140,000 people had been arrested during the twenty months of emergency. I am sure you don't mean that all these are fit to get an article. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 12:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- DBigXray - there's a vast difference between being arrested and spending almost two years in gaol. --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Goldsztajn, As you can see I have not yet made up my mind on this AfD and still sitting on the fence. I wanted to point the obvious thing that came to my mind after reading your comment. Being a popular activist or a notable author does merit an article but someone needs to establish this that he is a cut above the rest. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 12:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- DBigXray - there's a vast difference between being arrested and spending almost two years in gaol. --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, seems to satisfy WP:GNG per sources provided by Goldsztajn. I must also add, nowhere does it state or has been argued that he was a mayor of anywhere, so I do not understand what Bearian is alluding to. From what I gather he seems to be primarily a trade unionist. Tayi Arajakate Talk 17:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Repeating the (insufficient) text of the nomination is inadequate; especially given that this AfD is contested. This is not a vote.--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. Its not a vote. So I voted delete and said why I have voted.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Repeating the (insufficient) text of the nomination is inadequate; especially given that this AfD is contested. This is not a vote.--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - I have mixed him up with a similarly-named person. This subject meets my standards for notable lawyers, as doing things other than just defending clients or suing persons. Bearian (talk) 14:48, 29 February 2020 (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 delete. Sandstein 20:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Suman Sen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Sources are user-generated from non-reliable websites. Pages for books were created by socks[2]. Listed filmography are basic youtube videos with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Sambhil32 (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sambhil32 (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The article fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Even via google search it doesn't seem to me that he will pass these criteria.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2020 (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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Kevin Courtney Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. No meaningful coverage to be found. Praxidicae (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:ENT BonkHindrance (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:ENT. No significant roles in notable works; no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Delete: My vote is only in relation to the subject's work as an actor, but I agree with the nominator—it's WP:TOOSOON. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG.GDX420 (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2020 (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. (non-admin closure) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Lori Borgman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Survived AfD in 2009 but notability is still not clear to me. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. As far as I could tell, she satisfies WP:AUTHOR as having significant reviews for at least one of her books (Kirkus & PW). Her books have been translated into several languages, and have been discussed in at least one other book by a different author (ISBNs 9780786480647). If you Google her you'll most likely find articles she's written for The Union Leader, Lima Ohio, or Chicago Tribune, but that's no reason to discount the AUTHOR argument. Children's book authors can be notable too, you know! PK650 (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree, a keeper due to WP:AUTHOR. XavierItzm (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2020 (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. KaisaL (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Gerda Boyesen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Practitioner of what looks like fringe science psychology. Notability per WP:BIO not apparent. Essentially unsourced (WP:V). The two references are about her teachings, not herself. Created by Meco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation according to their talk page, and indef-blocked by ArbCom since 2013. Sandstein 18:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 18:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 18:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep notablequack. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)- Roxy the dog, notable based on which sources? Sandstein 19:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT. This is a poorly sourced, typo-littered page about a person lacking significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. I found two decentish sources in print, namely The Handbook of Body Psychotherapy and Somatic Psychology at Google Books & Body Psychotherapy: History, Concepts, and Methods at Google Books. The thing is I'm unsure if they're enough to establish notability, and in any case I couldn't verify the authors' credibilities either. They could all be quacks, therefore giving weight to the delete argument! I agree the article is in terrible shape. PK650 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- delete per nom. I simply struck my previous position above, but it seems that wasn't enough. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 02:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Her work and the importance of her career has been cited and reviewed in multiple notable peer reviewed academic publications across multiple disciplines over several decades in non-trivial coverage. See:
- Mackenzie, Vicki (Jan 8, 1978). Massage your cares away. p. 23.
{{cite book}}
:|work=
ignored (help) - Bonenfant, Yvon (December 2007). Towards a politics of felt pulsation: De-disciplining voice and movement in the making of a musi-dance performance. Vol. 28. p. 39-58.
{{cite book}}
:|work=
ignored (help) - Leijssen, Mia (April 2006). Validation of the Body in Psychotherapy. Vol. 46. p. 126-146.
{{cite book}}
:|work=
ignored (help) - Hale, Sheila (Nov 17, 1985). Does the gut digest stress ?. p. 59.
{{cite book}}
:|work=
ignored (help) - Cinque, Ralph C. (May–June 1996). Chiropractic: The Victim's Perspective. Vol. 13. p. 28(4).
{{cite book}}
:|work=
ignored (help)
These in conjunction with the sources found by PK650 are enough to meet WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep agree per 4meter4. Idolmm (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep We have a pass of WP:N thank you 4meter4 Lightburst (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2020 (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 delete. Sandstein 20:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Jason M. Burns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to be non-notable BLP with no reliable independent sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Keep The person has won awards, and has collabarated with numerous notable people, I do believe that it is notable enough. Dellwood546 (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: Neither "winning awards" nor collaborating with notable people meet any notability guideline. Indeed, WP:NOTINHERITED explicitly debars connection with notable people to be held in isolation as conferring notability, and one must win significant awards to meet WP:BIO. For WP:CREATIVE -- the guideline pertinent here -- what element does any keep proponent claim the subject meets, and with what evidence? Ravenswing 19:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per Ravenswing - not even close to notable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - in a field full of awards, this one is mundane. Sources include MySpace. Really?! Searches online only show press releases from Business Wire. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2020 (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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 23:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Bibek Ojha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. No independent RS coverage. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Article has zero reliable references with citations to inappropriate references such as YouTube. My WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing.4meter4 (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - lack of significant coverage in any reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2020 (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 delete. Keep for disambiguation purposes is not a valid rationale in the absence of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Diana Morgan (novelist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Except for the link in the article I haven't found any other mentions. Therefore the subjects fails WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR. Less Unless (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep on the pragmatic grounds that this pseudonym needs to be distinguished from UK romance writer Diana Morgan (writer). PamD 12:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. If, for some reason, they need to be distinguished from the other Diana Morgan, then a note of their existence can be added to Diana Morgan (writer). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete lack of sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2020 (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. Yunshui 雲水 10:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Amanda Lovelace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This fails WP:NAUTHOR despite the bold claims here.
The sources are largely unreliable, primary/interviews (some written by a high school student!) or just a listing. The primary claim here is that winning Goodreads Choice Awards makes an individual notable, but the problem with this is that there is no standard for "winning" as everyone and anyone can vote - even multiple times. As per our own article on this, The Goodreads Choice Awards is a yearly award program, first launched on Goodreads in 2009. Users are able to vote for the books that Goodreads has nominated and are also able to nominate books of their choosing, released in the given year. The majority of books that Goodreads itself nominates are from Goodreads authors. The final voting round collects the top 10 books from 20 different categories.
I am also nominating The Princess Saves Herself in This One for the same reason. Praxidicae (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep - She has independent coverage and the fact that anyone can vote for Goodreads awards doesn't take away from the fact that she wont it. I've added a few more refs and made some minor text revisions. I'm not as convinced the The Princess Saves Herself in This One merits it's own page - partial merge into the Lovelace page might be appropriate. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete - User is not notable and sources are not credible. BonkHindrance (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep She passes WP:GNG, with non-trivial coverage from Bustle (magazine), Affinity Magazine, Boston Globe, Study Breaks and others. Given Wikipedia's track record with topics related to women, I do wonder if this page would have been nominated for deletion had the author or subject matter been different. IphisOfCrete (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Adding on to this, I was able to turn up references in Marie Claire, New York Times, Financial Times, American Booksellers Association, etc. I still can't see a reason to delete this. IphisOfCrete (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Your insinuation that it has anything to do with the fact that she's female is nothing short of a personal attack and completely absurd. The Globe article isn't even about her.Praxidicae (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Praxidicae Mea culpa, I didn't actually look at who posted the nom or else I would have held my tongue or said something else. I get a bit impassioned in these things sometimes and I'm sorry. IphisOfCrete (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Your insinuation that it has anything to do with the fact that she's female is nothing short of a personal attack and completely absurd. The Globe article isn't even about her.Praxidicae (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Note that a total of two articles are nominated for deletion herein, Amanda Lovelace and The Princess Saves Herself in This One. Commentary above after the nomination is mostly about the main Amanda Lovelace article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep for two reasons, one good and one...not so good as a matter of policy, but perhaps useful color. First, the good one: There are multiple reliable sources reporting on her and her work -- and while the discussions vary in depth and length, when your Google results for someone start returning the Financial Times, New York Times, Harvard Crimson, etc., it's pretty hard to claim that there aren't sufficient sources for a Wikipedia article. Second, she passes the "I, a random person, have heard of this" test. Now, that test isn't great policy for soooooo many reasons. I'm not seriously advocating a rule under which notability would be tied to what I, a random person, have heard of. But if I, a random person, went "oh, yeah, I've seen her books and read coverage of her somewhere" when I saw her name... well, maybe that was random chance, but there's also a decent chance it's because she's notable and thus appearing in media. When that's confirmed by looking to the sources, that suggests a keep. TheOtherBob 15:17, 21 February 2020 (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 delete. Sandstein 12:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- James Shortt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or any other notability guideline. Aside from gossip and tabloid sites (i.e., sites unsuitable for referencing a BLP), there are only passing mentions of the article subject in other sources. International Bodyguard Association is his own organization, and as such the references from IBA are unsuitable for establishing notability. Please note that BLP-violating material has been removed from this article. Risker (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Risker (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- :Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Subject is not notable and all sources appear to be unreliable, self-published, or otherwise from sources inappropriate to a BLP article. Notability fails WP:AUTHOR on multiple counts. Page appears to be an old attack page, created with no intention other than disparagement, that survived due to article subject's relative obscurity. Regarding prior AFD, the user who strong-armed keeping at that time has since been blocked for sock-puppetry.Legitimus (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment if Otfried Deubner satisfies WP:AUTHOR for 1 book (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otfried Deubner) then Shortt as author of 4 books must do so also. Mztourist (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Both linked AFD discussion and article suggest notability of Deubner was for far more than just authoring a single book. Also per WP:AUTHOR, its not the number of books published, but the significance of the book(s).Legitimus (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- No, that was the only basis for his notability, 1 book. Mztourist (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps this is not the best place to compare an article about a person with *no* significant reliable source references to one about an early 20th century academic whose work has been discussed and referenced by significantly more recent peers. It's really not about the number of books the article subject has written. Risker (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- I am making the point that the WP:AUTHOR criteria don't appear to be applied consistently.Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps this is not the best place to compare an article about a person with *no* significant reliable source references to one about an early 20th century academic whose work has been discussed and referenced by significantly more recent peers. It's really not about the number of books the article subject has written. Risker (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- No, that was the only basis for his notability, 1 book. Mztourist (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep meets WP:AUTHOR. A search on Google Scholar gives these citations of Special Air Service: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=3691399119079748637&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- I do not see Shortt's name or the title of his book when I click on that Google Scholar search, nor do I find him quoted or referred to in the google book links found there; you may have different results. What aspect of WP:AUTHOR does Shortt meet? Please be specific; there are four possible criteria, and I do not believe he meets any of them. Risker (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- 1 of WP:AUTHOR. Mztourist (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- That search doesn't seem to provide evidence to support that - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- 1 of WP:AUTHOR. Mztourist (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- I do not see Shortt's name or the title of his book when I click on that Google Scholar search, nor do I find him quoted or referred to in the google book links found there; you may have different results. What aspect of WP:AUTHOR does Shortt meet? Please be specific; there are four possible criteria, and I do not believe he meets any of them. Risker (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - closest he comes to notability is the Sun article, and that should frankly be removed - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- I just removed it, I can't find those claims in any RS. While I understand people's concern over such claims, we really can't use the blog or forum information on this in a Wikipedia bio - David Gerard (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete There's no evidence that he meets any of the notability criteria for authors and there doesn't seem to be any significant independent coverage of him. Brief mentions of changing claims he made about his military service do not qualify as meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2020 (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 delete. Not enough alien ambassadors manifested in this discussion to swing the consensus away from delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sheldan Nidle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The world may be "moving towards a new reality" about this article... Other than short mentions among other people in a few news articles, the only possible indicators of notability are the Randi prize (that is basically a trout from a skeptic about something that year) and about three pages of independent coverage in Guesses, Goofs & Prophetic Failures: What to Think When the World Doesn't End. A lot of self promotion on social networks and various fringe websites with mentions, but that's fringe "in-universe". —PaleoNeonate – 10:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —PaleoNeonate – 10:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —PaleoNeonate – 10:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —PaleoNeonate – 10:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —PaleoNeonate – 19:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. (Summoned here by telepathy) Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I was informed of the existence of another related article, Ground Crew Project by EricR. Since other possibilities than keep/delete exist as solutions, I thought it'd be worth mentioning here as well. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Ground Crew Project contains the same bio, so no need to even merge content. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. It may be better to have a Sheldan Nidle article, rather than Ground Crew Project article, but going by the current content delete per LuckyLouie and other issues can be fixed later.—eric 17:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - per LuckyLouie, there is no need for a merge. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2020 (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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ha. A. Mehler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Survived AfD in 2006 but essentially a promotional article. Mccapra (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Article is full of extraordinary claims with virtually no sourcing. Article would have to be wholly re-written to meet minimum standards and since nothings really be done since it scrapped by AfD 14 years ago, it's hard to imagine that's going to happen. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete It has exceptional claims, but not a single unexceptional reference, never mind an exceptional one. It may have survived 14 years ago, it doesn't show 14 years worth of improvement. - X201 (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - not that Amazon is the indicator, but a google search yielded little but an Amazon result. On there, it appears the figure has self-published several books, including one on how to write a best seller.. but no actual best sellers from what I can tell. So this appears to be a hoax. User:Literat24-7 added many of the claims (and has made no other edits), and other than the original creator (who has also made no edits in relation to Mehler), no other users added any information. Am I saying they are both related to the subject? Am I saying they are the same person? Am I saying they are both Mehler? No, but it wouldn't surprise me. Just as importantly, none of the claims are verified. Strong Delete. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete While a prolific author, Mehler does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Fourteen years should have been enough to provide a reference. Dorama285 (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2020 (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 delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yusuf Islahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable Indian Islamist. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 21:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 21:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I cannot see anything in the Australian context which contributes to notability. While certainly the subject's lecturing in Australia is evident, there does not appear to be any third party reporting of those lectures. Witholding a !vote for the time being in hopeful anticipation from other editors who can provide either an Indian context or Islamic context. Aoziwe (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Above article is much improved now. Added many new references including newspapers. Replaced dead links and cleaned up. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SCHOLAR. --BonkHindrance (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:SCHOLAR. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete warily though. The best I can find is this. To me it looks as though the subject should be notable, but without being able to find any reliable independent sources, at least in English, and no sign of any editor with an Indian or Islamic context coming forward to offer a sufficient basis for keep, I think delete is the way to go. Aoziwe (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Multiple independent reliable sources mention this subject [3] but I am not sure if these are all about this same person. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- This is the correct version of the above search. The above search was not matching on the full name. There are not many hits. Aoziwe (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2020 (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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- MI Abdul Azeez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable Jamaat-e-Islami Hind worker. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 21:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 21:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2020 (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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Wayne Keon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Semi-advertorialized WP:AUTOBIO (creator= Keonw) of a writer, not reliably sourced as clearing our notability standards for writers. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which writers are automatically entitled to have articles just because their own work technically metaverifies its own existence -- the notability test for a writer requires some evidence of his significance as a writer, such as winning notable literary awards or at least having enough reliable source coverage (journalism, critical analysis, etc.) about him to clear WP:GNG. But the only notability claim in evidence here is that his work exists, and the referencing is not getting him over GNG: two are just his own writing being cited as circular verification of its own existence, two are mere directory entries on the self-published websites of organizations or companies he's directly affiliated with, and one is a completely unrecoverable deadlink whose content and reliability are impossible to verify (even on the Wayback Machine, it was already a dead link the first time it was ever scraped at all.) As always, the notability test for a writer is not just that he exists, but requires journalism to be done about him in media -- and even a writer who can be shown to properly clear our notability standards still isn't entitled to create his own article himself, per WP:COI. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I have notified the article's creator about this dicussion. Mindmatrix 22:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. I originally tagged this for COI (based on the username of the creator), and performed a cursory web and Google Books search for this person. Indications are that there has been some coverage of him, but I cannot access any of it. Whether this coverage is by reliable sources is the concern, and I currently do not see such sources. Perhaps there are offline sources (eg - Canadian literature or indigenous culture magazines), or coverage accessible only via ProQuest or similar archives. The current article reads a bit like a CV and a bit as a collection of trivia. Mindmatrix 22:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Sourcing does not support WP:GNG and does not appear to pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPOET. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2020 (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 no consensus. Yunshui 雲水 09:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Jehanzeb Aziz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No coverage. Fails WP:NWRITER. Störm (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 02:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Very weak keep - May pass WP:ENT #3. Unsourced. Smells of (self-?) promotion.--89.206.117.157 (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2020 (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 delete. Yunshui 雲水 08:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- S. W. Hammond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. The references section is a textbook case of WP:REFBOMB with barely an example of significant coverage in a reliable secondary source: the absolute best source of the bunch is this brief review of one of his books from a section titled "Small press watch". I was unable to find professional reviews of any of his work or any other sort of additional coverage of the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 23:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 23:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 23:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 23:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Vote for Inclusion
I believe the article does meet WP:NAUTHOR guidelines. In regard to WP:REFBOMB, each citation supports its claim.
In addition to “Small Press Watch” by Midwest Book Review as significant coverage in a secondary source, Sean Byrne of GeekIreland.com has professionally reviewed Hammond’s work. GeekIreland.com is Ireland’s leading pop culture news / review website and hosts contributes to Ireland’s largest pop culture convention each year in Dublin. Also, Hammond has been a featured guest on the “Aspects of Writing” radio show and podcast. The show's original airing was broadcast through AMFM247 to over 5 million terrestrial listeners. Each show, including the airing with Hammond, is then archived and made available through iHeartRadio podcasts. There are also a variety of additional secondary sources discussing Hammond’s work by bloggers and book reviewers listed in the references.
I would be happy to refine the references section to alleviate WP:REFBOMB’ing. When creating the page I was under the impression that each statement needed to be substantiated. I believe each citation directs readers to a place where the subject is addressed thoroughly–not in passing–or proves the claim by providing secondary evidence. Any guidance to alleviate this issue would be appreciated.
Moreover, in User:Rosguill’s nomination calling for the page’s deletion, they admitted that the author has barely provided examples of significant coverage. In addition to the references highlighted above, “barely” still qualifies this page to be included in the Wikipedia community.
I vote that the page be included and will continue working to improve it. signed, WilliamHork talk 17:37, 5 February 2020 UTC
- I converted the misformatted "Vote for Inclusion" which was set as a section header. No opinion on the AfD. Madam Fatal (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- N.b. I said "barely an example". The general standard for notability, WP:GNG, requires multiple such examples. Regarding the examples highlighted here, GeekIreland does not publish any masthead or other editorial information about themselves and is thus presumed to not be a reliable source (unless you can provide evidence of it being widely cited or referenced by reliable sources). Being a featured guest on a radio show is unfortunately not an example of independent coverage unless there is extensive analysis of the subject or his work conducted by the hosts, independent from an interview segment. signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Upon a quick Google search, GeekIreland is active on a variety of platforms (all major social media, Twitch, Discord, YouTube, etc). Their articles, reviews, and awards are cited by numerous authors and entertainment creators: Geek Ireland remembers Spongebob Squarepants creator Steve Hillenburg by Mark Stephen Hughes, Kronos Rising: Kraken by Max Hawthorne, Maura McHugh (writer) — The Geekies 2015 – the Geek Ireland Awards – Best Irish Writer category, 2015. GeekIreland has also been referenced by IrishTimes, and Kansas City Comic Con. GeekIreland has interviewed numerous celebrities at press junkets, their videos being used and cited across the web. I have reached out to GeekIreland directly requesting editorial information, until I receive a response their LinkedIn page provides additional information.
- Being a featured guest on a radio show is, however, an example of notability. I would also argue that the interview does provide extensive analysis of Hammond’s work, The Final Book: Gods, and is an example of independent coverage. The title of episode is “Writing With The Human Condition In Mind”; Hammond invited to the show because of the host's extensive analysis of the subject. During the hour long discussion, the host routinely references existentialism, philosophy, and character development within the novel, allowing Hammond to elaborate on the host’s interpretation. signed, WilliamHork talk 18:40, 6 February 2020 UTC
- I think that these arguments miss the mark:
- Being active on social media does not matter
- A bunch of writers pointing out that Geek Ireland reviewed their work is not an indication of their reliability
- The extent of the Irish Times "reference" is mentioning that they saw someone wearing a Geek Ireland logo and calling them
a crowd responsible for running “Ireland’s Yellow Pages of Geekery”
. When I said "widely referenced" I mean other sources relying or extensively commenting on their reporting, not merely acknowledging that they exist. - Videos of them interviewing celebrities don't really mean much, lots of unreliable sources interview celebrities
- Regardless of how GeekIreland responds to your message on LinkedIn, the fact that they do not list their masthead on their website is a red flag of unprofessional or dishonest conduct, similar to sending a letter without a return address or signing a legal document in crayon.
- I am skeptical that an interview segment on a non-notable podcast (unclear if it's a professionally produced show or not) contributes much to notability. Here's their website. signed, Rosguill talk 22:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think that these arguments miss the mark:
- I think that User:Rosguill’s scrutiny misses the intent and purpose of Wikipedia. The article is well written, organized, and referenced. Thought and care was given to its creation, and in no way does its admission tarnish the credibility of Wikipedia. The references provided satisfy the broad and subjective qualifications set out by the community–the vagueness written within its guidelines are there to satisfy cases such as this—when non-traditional media has been used to create an impact.
- Each one of User:Rosguill’s numbered points could be argued that outlets such as the New York Times or CNN are irrelevant because they’re not peer reviewed scholarly journals. If that were the case, the majority of the content on Wikipedia would be inadmissible. It has been proven throughout this transcript; it is undeniable that the reading and writing community—both the consumer and the creator—the active participators who use this content—are using GeekIreland and Aspects of Writing as resources and considers them to be credible and notable. It purely comes down to the community’s attitude as gatekeepers—the qualifications have been met—it’s now subjective taste in upholding them.
- I urge you to remember Wikipedia’s anti-establishment roots when making your decision–or else we’d all be using the online version of Encyclopedia Britannica.signed, WilliamHork talk 5:36, 7 February 2020 UTC
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 11:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete This is a completely non-notable author. Having one or two kinda sorta okay references does not justify having an article on this website. Bluedude588 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I've never seen so much text on a page that didn't have very much to say. Definitely a lot of RefBombing. Dorama285 17:38, 19 February 2020 (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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Omer Tarin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable English language poet. Fails WP:NPOET. Störm (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep - I created this article quite some time ago and while not very notable, or famous, the poet Omer Tarin is still reasonably notable and well known as a Pakistani poet writing in English. He has received some critical attention in his country and elsewhere and students have even written research theses on his poetic writings. I still believe this article has a future for eventual expansion as the poet is still writing and his work is regularly published. So I would suggest to Keep, please. thanks. Khani100 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Khani100Blocked sock- @Khani100: Could you link examples of the critical attention or theses? — MarkH21talk 20:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi MarkH21, I can mention some of the sources offhand but I don't think they would be available online. For example, well-known Pakistani critics and writers like Tariq Rahman and Alamgir Hashmi have critiqued his poetry in their articles in Pakistani and foreign publications. I think a review appeared many years ago in The Journal of Commonwealth Literature , UK in the 1990s. I also remember that 2-3 theses were written on his poetry at BA and MA levels, in Pakistan. I think one thesis was written by a student at the University of Malakand in KP province of Pakistan, I think it was supervised by Prof Aziz of that university's English Department, probably sometime in 2013-2014. Many Pakistani writers and poets who write in English and are quite well-known started writing way back in the 1980s and the 1990s , they were also critiqued and reviewed back then mostly but does that mean that if something isn't available online it doesn't exist? Look at the pages on Wikipedia regarding Pakistani poets like Kaleem Omar, Taufiq Rafat, Shahryar Rashed and others. They are all well known writers but there is little material available on them today online. Omer Tarin is part of this chain or tradition of English poetry from Pakistan. Except for a few , the rest are now deceased. Omer Tarin and Harris Khalique are two who are still writing and will certainly grow in name and stature. They should remain. Khani100 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Khani100Blocked sock- They don't have to be online links, but specific citations (e.g. titles, publication details, etc.) would be nice for verification purposes. We need to know for sure whether the subject passes one of the criteria of WP:NPOET. — MarkH21talk 22:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, as I said before I am sorry I don’t have many details available with me now, as I mostly stopped editing Wikipedia maybe 8-9 years ago, although I do a bit occasionally. As far as critical reviews are concerned, if you look at the References section on the Omer Tarin page I think there are full citations given of some articles and reviews of his poetry by prominent Pakistani literary critics Dr Tariq Rahman, Muneeza Shamsie and Prof Eric Cyprian. Alamgir Hashmi the poet and academic also reviewed his poetry as well as some other poets from Pakistan in a research article in The Journal of Commonwealth Literature , UK, in September 1995, Vol 30 I think. Omer Tarin also played a part in developing the theory of a Pakistani literary-artistic idiom along with scholars, critics and poets like Taufiq Rafat, Raza Romi and others, this article by the writer Bina Shah briefly refers to this theoretic recognition: https://www.dawn.com/news/1240869 . He is also a historian and his writings and contributions in this field have also been recognized in books by some authors like Peter Oborne in his book on Pakistani cricket: https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=EXXGBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA523&lpg=PA523&dq=omer+tarin+and+peter+oborne&source=bl&ots=AoyFfJkZJY&sig=ACfU3U1IolbPEnzsctKet-1TMiv0pV_PEQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiiqoLv3LbnAhXJMMAKHdASDLgQ6AEwAnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=omer%20tarin%20and%20peter%20oborne&f=false In fact, if Omer Tarin’s literary and academic work is compared with other Pakistani writers it’s actually reasonably notable and noteworthy. Khani100 (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Khani100Blocked sock
- They don't have to be online links, but specific citations (e.g. titles, publication details, etc.) would be nice for verification purposes. We need to know for sure whether the subject passes one of the criteria of WP:NPOET. — MarkH21talk 22:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Khani100: Could you link examples of the critical attention or theses? — MarkH21talk 20:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Sir please I request, why you wish to delete this ? Kindly Keep. Many people like the poetry of Omar Tarin , a good poet from our country. Most humbly, thanks. SyedAnjumAli1 (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)SyedAnjumAli1Blocked sock
- Comment. One might argue that he passes WP:AUTHOR #4c (he did won some attention, and who knows if it was "significant"), however the history of creating this page and multiple accounts are concerning. My very best wishes (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Socktastic editor also made articles for him in German, Scots (!) and Fiji Hindi. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:NPOET. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete: There are reviews towards NPOET #1 & #3, but not enough for the admittedly subjective
significant
,important
, orwell-known
. — MarkH21talk 02:57, 24 February 2020 (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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Lee Sheldon (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources in the article since 2017 at least, and my online search could only find first-person sources (inc interviews, biographies) rather than independent secondary sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete the article has no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - No vote yet. I'll be honest and state right off that I don't know much about online gaming, although I went to a gaming law seminar this week and am trying to learn more. I found three possible sources online: 1, 2, and 3. Do they help? Bearian (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system(err0r?)(.log) 08:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- KEEP Easily passes WP:ENTERTAINER for having a notable part in a notable production. He was the writer of Remember Me (Star Trek: The Next Generation) and other notable things. Primary sources in the credits of these things are sufficient for things like this. Dream Focus 05:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Dream Focus - however WP:ENTERTAINER says clearly at the top under Basic Criteria that “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources...Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.” Therefore this subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- That refers to people talking about themselves. Nothing against primary sources of the entertainment media credits since there is no reason to doubt that information as valid. Anyway: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. is met. They can be notable if they meet the BASIC GNG criteria OR if they meet a subject specific guideline listed below that. Dream Focus 23:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Dream Focus it also says about additional criteria such as this that “meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.” In any case, he is a scriptwriter and not an actor and so falls under WP:AUTHOR which says that “The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). As writer on one episode, he fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ENTERTAINER. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Publishers Weekly [4] reviewed one of his books. Tagging this for Rescue assistance to see what else can be found. Dream Focus 19:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Dream Focus it also says about additional criteria such as this that “meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.” In any case, he is a scriptwriter and not an actor and so falls under WP:AUTHOR which says that “The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). As writer on one episode, he fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ENTERTAINER. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- That refers to people talking about themselves. Nothing against primary sources of the entertainment media credits since there is no reason to doubt that information as valid. Anyway: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. is met. They can be notable if they meet the BASIC GNG criteria OR if they meet a subject specific guideline listed below that. Dream Focus 23:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Dream Focus - however WP:ENTERTAINER says clearly at the top under Basic Criteria that “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources...Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.” Therefore this subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 19:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC) t
- Keep he gets quoted as an authority in the book: Visual Storytelling: Videography and Post Production in the Digital Age. He wrote quite a few Television screenplays, including Charlie's Angels. He is also a Computer Science professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute but may not pass WP:PROF. Has also written 3 books one is an Amazon Bestselling book The Multiplayer Classroom: Designing Coursework as a Game (2011) perhaps WP:AUTHOR. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete insufficient sources demonstrated to pass WP:ANYBIO Chetsford (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - For the TV side, he wrote one episode of ST:TNG, but also produced 8 episodes. For The Edge of Night, he was head writer and executive story editor and worked on 51 episodes. Had 3 notable nominations. StrayBolt (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Clearly notable. The career section says it all. Just take a look at the first paragraph: His television credits as a scriptwriter include Charlie's Angels, Quincy, M.E., Cagney & Lacey, The Edge of Night (Head Writer), Snoops, Another World, and Star Trek: The Next Generation (ST:TNG). He was nominated for two Edgar Awards from the Mystery Writers of America and a Writers Guild of America award. Clearly encyclopedic and notable. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per Dream Focus and Ambrosiawater. — Hunter Kahn 20:45, 16 February 2020 (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 delete. Sandstein 09:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Abby Barry Bergman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I found three reviews, but they only cover one coauthored book. I don't think it's quite enough for WP:AUTHOR and there seems to be little else. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: could this article be redirected to one about the book which seems to meet WP:NBOOK? TJMSmith (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- If some non-COI editor cares enough about the subject to make an article about the book, sure. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete – I can't find anything that would make her or her book pass GNG. Missvain (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
KeepPer WP:AUTHOR "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." - the work is cited in Teaching Green, The New Teaching Elementary Science, Science Curriculum and The greenhouse-effect experiment (behind a paywall but Google says they cite Jacobson & Bergman Science for Children). I have also added two sources to the article. The book source is more substantial with the NYT source being a trivial mention in the obituary of his co-author. As a side note, the article text says he is male but the article is claimed by Wikiproject Women Writers - I am guessing that someone got a little confused when they saw the name Abby (unless it is the text that is wrong, or the subject has had a change in gender). From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Another trawl looking for sources reveals that his 1998 work was also cited in "No limits to teach(er)" but how?, The Duties, Responsibilities, and Challenges of Opening a New Elementary School and Elementary Principals' Perspectives on Opening New Schools in a Large Urban School District, among others. I am not sure how "wide" the "widely cited by peers" has to be for WP:AUTHOR but he does get a lot of mentions. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Changing to Weak delete. While I think that he barely scrapes over the bar of notability, two exhaustive searches for online sources give little detail, even from trivial mentions. There is so little information that we are probably close to repeating the "about the author" section of his own book. For me this is a case of an article that would be useful to Wikipedia, if we had the reliable sources to take us beyond a list of his works. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Another trawl looking for sources reveals that his 1998 work was also cited in "No limits to teach(er)" but how?, The Duties, Responsibilities, and Challenges of Opening a New Elementary School and Elementary Principals' Perspectives on Opening New Schools in a Large Urban School District, among others. I am not sure how "wide" the "widely cited by peers" has to be for WP:AUTHOR but he does get a lot of mentions. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Delete, or redirect to article on the book. I also searched for reviews of other books without luck, although likely I was not as careful as David Eppstein. As far as citations, he has two pubs with about 40 citations each, which doesn't convince me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete The sources are weak for WP:GNG and the books published haven't met WP:NAUTHOR, even with the identification of additional works. Alansohn (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2020 (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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Jackie Beere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No decent evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, and if we had an article for every headteacher in the world, then Wikipedia would have way more articles about non-notable people! Minecrafter0271 (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable educator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, I think, like last time around, her OBE shows notablity in her field.Jahaza (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Jahaza: Can you show me one decent citation about her that's from a reliable source? --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Our article is somewhat promotional and should, if kept, be cut back. And I'm not at all convinced that OBEs and headmasters are automatically notable. But I found four reviews of her books, making a borderline case for WP:AUTHOR. The most colorful of the four is in The Guardian, which describes her Perfect Lesson as "A cynical, stupid, and deeply misguided bag of tips that is destined to make you a worse teacher." [5] But bad reviews are still reviews. I can't read [6] but it looks reliable enough. The other two are [7] and [8]. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think a CBE or upwards makes you notable, but not an OBE on its own. Head teachers need to have attracted public attention. Happy to withdraw if someone can introduce some external sources. Rathfelder (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:AUTHOR based on the reviews above. TJMSmith (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. No real accomplishments, this is basically a run of the mill educator. The certifications are fringe at best. Bad writing can be notable, but in a marginal case like this, it's a BLP violation. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Would love a bit more feedback. Anyone able to find any sources that help establish GNG? Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Not trying to be mean, but I don't see a single line in this that contributes to GNG! -- Dorama285 18:58, 05 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisting comment: The discussion seems to be inching towards a consensus to delete but we aren't there yet. Giving this another week in the hope for some clarity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - She has an OBE, and this clearly passes WP:ANYBIO. Ross-c (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep passes WP:BIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." An OBE is very obviously a well-known and significant honor, moreso I daresay than many acting awards or minor academic awards. Also passes WP:GNG, regardless of whether the reviews and coverage is positive or not. Uwe Boll's critically panned films are still notable, if not highly recommended.IphisOfCrete (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- OBE on it sown is not significant. CBE certainly. MBE maybe.Rathfelder (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2020 (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 no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Karl Coryat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable person just plain and simple. This article just feels like it may have been written and or edited by someone with a close connection to this person. Pahiy (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete not notable at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment As the originator of this article (in 2012), I recuse myself from this discussion. However, let me point out a few things that might get missed:
- 1. In addition to the other references, the subject has been awarded two prizes[9][10] by a major international physics organization, the Foundational Questions Institute — one as a writer and one as a videomaker.
- 2. Over the past 90 days, this article has averaged 18 views per day, with a significant increase in January, peaking at 91 on January 15.[11] By comparison, for the 20 most recent author-related AfDs that ended in "Keep," that number averages 7.95 views per day. -Jordgette [talk] 18:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. The new awards are minor. Much of the media coverage cited is about Jennings and other famous contestants, not Coryat. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Would the Coryat score be considered "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field"? (WP:ANYBIO) Although it's not an academic or professional field, Jeopardy is a specific field with a huge fanbase, and within that field, the Coryat score is widely recognized as a significant part of contestant statistics (enough to be cited by Atlantic, Wired, etc.). Coryat himself is mentioned in the first sentence of a Christian Science Monitor article on Jeopardy.[12] Here are three other RS references not included in the article: Fivethirtyeight [13], Chicago Tribune [14], Slate [15]. -Jordgette [talk] 19:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep This is tricky, because he doesn't have major notability in one area, but minor notability across multiple areas. Taken on the whole, he is notable for the number and quality (and diversity) of the sources, and because a Google search turns up endless references to the "Coryat score" among enthusiasts of that universe. PorkHeart (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I agree a SIGCOV argument would be quite weak, unless there's someone who can round up sources from back in the 90s newspapers. He is noted, however, for being the inspiration for the "Coryat score" (see this as an example, and many other articles). I think for this reason and its related coverage, at least a stub is appropriate or could very well be for the Coryat score itself. He's also the author of "The Frustrated Songwriter's Handbook", but I couldn't find any significant reviews for that book. PK650 (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: I agree with the points raised by PorkHeart and PK650, he doesn't have SIGCOV but still he is notable to deserve a page. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2020 (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.