|
- Zainal Arifin Mochtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant coverage that shows notability. I realize that the sources are non-English but doing my best through Google Translate I think this is likely the best source which looks more like a reprint of a bio. CNMall41 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Shirley Neal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable individual. Spam that smells of UPE. Claimed Emmy is only regional and fails verification. Lacks independent coverage about her. Wikipedia is not a PR platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Avivah Wittenberg-Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable individual. Spam that smells of UPE. Ref-bombed and Dishonestly sourced largely with primary sources. Lacks coverage about her in independent reliable sources. Comments from her are not coverage about her. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, especially considering the lack of good sources (and the fact that the article is an orphan) SirBrahms (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, England, Canada, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added in multiple reviews of her 2008 book, and note that the article is not an orphan. That being said, it is rather promotional and I have started remove some of the duplicate citations. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. The article now lists three reviews of her book Why Women Mean Business, a promising start. But I didn't find any reviews of her other books listed in the selected works section. They appear self-published but it's the reviews more than the publisher that concerns me. One more reliably published review of a different book (not in Chautauquan Daily, her go-to publicity outlet) would push me over to a weak keep per WP:AUTHOR, but I don't think we should pass that criterion based on only one book. I don't think the other sources provide in-depth and independent coverage of her suitable for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reji Joseph Pulluthuruthiyil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He has only won one notable award but I think more is needed to meet fails WP:JOURNALIST.
A search for sources in google news under his full name, Reji Pulluthuruthiyil and Joseph Pulluthuruthiyil did not yield anything. so fails WP:BIO more generally. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, India, and Kerala. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The journalist has won a notable award, which is significant. However, more comprehensive coverage on their work and achievements is needed, as it is currently lacking. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Page is around WP:BLP1E, an award won by subject but fails WP:SIGCOV on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Josiah Nelson Cushing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not well sourced, and of course, I couldn't find any in a WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral/Extend. The article may not be well sourced, but I believe as much time as can be afforded should be given to allow editors to find a source FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @FLIPPINGOUT My intent is to prevent an abandoned article due to overzealous eventualism. A week is long enough to find enough sources. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The biography is on the Web Archive but it's down for now. If there was a way to put an AfD on hold, I'd suggest waiting until the book is available to evaluate. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sanjay Singh Yadav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL criteria. The subject is only mentioned in a few news articles, and there is no significant coverage available. It’s unclear how the article has survived this long without meeting notability standards. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- David Roberts (political advisor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NBIO and WP:V. I've removed most of the promo but what remains is riddled with citations that don't support the statement that they are meant to, or dead links. It was declined three times at AfC but moved to mainspace by author. The subject of the article is keen on self-promotion (see the "Roberts Honored with Pollie and 40 Under 40 Nominations" citation for a lovely bit of them citing themselves praising themselves) Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete,
- Came to page to fix a Disambiguation link. Only to find something that reads like self promotion. Was gonna give benefit of doubt so went to check inline source next to disambiguation Link for context, it's an article for medium which is WP:MEDIUM which is a self promotion article site. Skimming the Notability and Verifiability policies I agree with @Curb Safe Charmer 100%.
- RCSCott91 (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Professor Dave Explains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced article that was moved from draftspace into mainspace. A before search returns mostly sources from one site (evolution news). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Education, Science, Biology, Mathematics, California, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete The only credible source is an interview, which is not an independent source. References to significant coverage in several reliable sources completely independent of Professor Dave are required. Cullen328 (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Kablammo (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No evidence of notability and doesn’t meet Wp:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackesan (talk • contribs) 11:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Evolution News is a Discovery Institute rag that counts for nothing. Creationists complaining about a scientist don't contribute to that scientist's notability, unless something quite unusual happens and reliable sources actually cover the incident in depth. That said, I could be convinced of a WP:PROF#C7 pass; the evidence isn't solid so far (see for example this), but that would be the way to go. XOR'easter (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hester Kaplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Most of the sources are to faculty pages and other profiles. The source from The New York Times is a wedding announcement and the bulk of the text of the article is about her parents and grandparents. A Google search for material about her turned up little to support a claim of notability, other than items like this one that are not the in-depth coverage required to meet the standard. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think there are easily enough published reviews of her books for WP:AUTHOR. Reviews of Kinship Theory: NYT, PW, AJΨ. Reviews of The Edge of Marriage: PW, KR, NY, Econ. Reviews of The Tell: PW, FWR, ☆T. Reviews of Unravished: PW, KR, LJ. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Blake Alma (numismatist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously deleted as WP:Articles for deletion/Blake Alma (TV Host) and in the first nomination, and salted as Blake Alma. WP:REFBOMBED with unreliable sources, quotes, passing mentions, etc. with very little actual significant coverage cited.
(Not tagging for speedy deletion because it's been several years so things could plausibly have changed. But the refs here fail to convince me they have) * Pppery * it has begun... 00:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And let's titleblacklist
.*blake.*alma once this is closed as delete so we can finally stop this campaign or whatever. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The article as provided demonstrates significant developments in Blake Alma's notability since the 2018 deletion. The sources cited, particularly WCPO (a major Cincinnati ABC affiliate), K-Love (a nationally syndicated radio network), and multiple Cincinnati Enquirer archive pieces, offer substantial, independent coverage that extends well beyond passing mentions or quotes.
- These are not unreliable sources or self-promotion; they are established, reputable media outlets providing significant coverage of Alma's work and impact. The WCPO and Cincinnati Enquirer pieces offer in-depth reporting on Alma's activities and influence in the outdoor and conservation spheres.
- This is not a case of WP:REFBOMBING. Each source included provides meaningful, substantial coverage. A thorough review of these sources, paying close attention to the depth of coverage and the independence of the reporting, is warranted.
- The current body of coverage, coming from established and independent media outlets, meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. The subject has clearly gained significant attention since the previous AfD, justifying a reevaluation of his notability status. If there are specific concerns about any of the sources or their content, they should be addressed individually rather than dismissing the article outright. Delawaretallman (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the detailed breakdown...I totally agree! I put a lot of effort into this article and it's great to see someone else recognizing how Alma's profile has grown since the other deletion which I wasn't aware of until a live admin told me. Those sources really do show he's become noteworthy for this page. Thanks @Delawaretallman Coincollector4500 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You're most welcome. Upon further review, some of the data in media coverage seems slightly like a form WP:REFBOMBING however, if cleaned up you should be just fine. Just use the secondary and primary sources that are in-depth. @Coincollector4500 Good luck! Delawaretallman (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Lastly, you quoted him on a religious statement from seemingly a personal social media account as the last source. I'd suggest you'd find that on a public account or another source. Looks like the K-Love article also quoted from that video so I suggest using that as the source. Delawaretallman (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it does look like the notability has changed. So yes, it should have been created in draft space and then an administrator could have moved it. But the process has nothing to do with whether it should be kept now. StAnselm (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. However, I'm not aware of any disrespect I've shown towards Wikipedia's processes or decisions. If I've inadvertently done so, I sincerely apologize. Could you please provide more specific information about the decision you're referring to? I'm always eager to learn and improve my contributions to Wikipedia. If there's been a misunderstanding, I'd be happy to discuss it further and ensure we're aligned with community consensus moving forward. Delawaretallman (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That "you" was really directed more to Coincollector4500, and I (perhaps erroneously) guilted you by association. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the clarification. I did provide some guidance to Coincollector4500, but I have no association with the article's creator. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention, as it's important to maintain transparency in Wikipedia collaborations. If there are concerns about the article's creation or maintenance, I'd be happy to discuss them further to ensure we're adhering to Wikipedia's policies and community decisions. Delawaretallman (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: the subject now passes GNG. StAnselm (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only sources that get close to WP:GNG-qualifying are WCPO, KLove, and Spectrum News. The WCPO piece predates all the other AfD discussions and appears almost entirely based on an WP:INTERVIEW that doesn't appear to involve substantial journalistic work beyond the comments from Alma, making it a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. The new-ish KLove piece is highly promotional and one-sided, with language like
Blake Alma's story is one of remarkable success and profound personal transformation.... his journey from a successful entrepreneur to a college student underscores the significance of aligning one's professional achievements with personal convictions. His narrative, enriched with personal reflections and aspirations, serves as an inspiration, highlighting the courage it takes to pursue a path that truly resonates with one's values and beliefs, even when it diverges from a successful, established route. This is transparently not an independent source, and again appears based solely on Alma's word, not original reporting. The same goes for the Spectrum News piece, it's based solely on Alma's words. The handful of Cincinnati Enquirer stories are likewise interview-based human interest pieces that function as primary sources since they're entirely based on Alma's words or videos. (Worth noting: the four Enquirer stories are not actually linked on the site of the publication or on ProQuest, but are copyright violations posted on a personal webhost service that coincidentally only includes these four articles and nothing else: https://cincinnatiarchives.tiiny.site/. I am deleting them from the article per WP:COPYLINK.). The rest of the links are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or press releases that don't support notability. Based on the non-independence of the sources used, I don't believe we have a WP:GNG pass here. The salting of the original article title was wise, and I agree with Pppery that additional permutations of this article title should be salted to avoid AfC evasion. Finally, this article was created a single-purpose account whose only other work was a draft for Alma's company CoinHub Media, so I strongly suspect we have a case of WP:UPE here as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You raise some valid points about the WCPO source - I agree it appears to be interview-based, and the unclear sourcing of the video content does make it less reliable as a provable independent source. However, I respectfully disagree about the K-love article. While it does contain some promotional-sounding language, this appears to be more a reflection of K-love established editorial style as a religous broadcasting network rather than a lack of independence. Klove is a national broadcasting network (operating over 400 stations) and should be a recognized secondary source. The religious perspective in their reporting shouldn't disqualify it as a reliable source. Regarding the Cincinnati Enquirer articles, that was a good catch and yes, you did a fine job of removing that. It appears a random IP address tried to fix the issue, presumably the article's creator. The Spectrum News piece, while containing interview footage, is reporting and verification of Alma's business operations, and is primary source material. I overall personally disagree with your assessment to delete but I do appreciate your viewpoint, and you've done excellent work catching the Cincinnati Enquirer citation issues and raising valid questions about the WCPO source. Delawaretallman (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but the Spectrum News piece verifies things by quoting... Alma himself. There's no evidence of other sources for Alma's claims. And the KLove piece appears to be based on nothing more than... Alma's claims about himself. And there's no evidence that KLove is operating as a real news organization per WP:NEWSORG. It has no editorial staff listing on its site, and it has no public editorial policy or statements about fact-checking or corrections. Its news feed (https://www.klove.com/news) is mostly reprints of wire stories mixed in with WP:USERGENERATED content. And its mission is explicitly about creating positive and inspiring content (see its "Positive People" feed), which means its content will always be editorially positive and thus introduces questions about independence and reliability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- David S. Feldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No independent source which discuss in depth about subject, fails WP:GNG, doesn’t received any prestigious award. TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Antik Mahmud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence or claim of notability. None of the sources provide the in-depth coverage needed for GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 15:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability found for this student. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. A well-known YouTuber. Ahammed Saad (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Having over 1,000,000 subscribers and over 153,000,000 views on YouTube, seems pretty notable in my opinion. But following, WP:NPOV, there's more than enough credible sources aswell as editor/writer(s) of those WP:RS article makes it more essential than ever. Don't know the point/reason of create/have(ing) a deletion talk for this article. Bruno 🌹 (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Improve
- He is notable, but the problem is there. I think the lack of proper writing, the need to add more information, and the carrier is empty. UzbukUdash (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @UzbukUdash, I kinda agree with you. He’s definitely notable, but yeah, I see the problem too. The writing feels rough in spots, and there’s definitely more information that could be added, I’m working on it in my sandbox and trying to develop it further. Bruno 🌹 (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mick Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This was WP:BLAR'd to Socialist Alternative (Australia)#History, but is not mentioned in the target and the redirect was taken to RFD. The discussion called for it to be listed here. I'm listing this because I closed the RFD; I have not otherwise investigated the subject. asilvering (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Australia. asilvering (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd like to point out that Mick Armstrong was mentioned in the target when the redirect was created. He was only removed from that article a minute before the redirect was listed for discussion, for not being mentioned in the target... The removal (and deletion) may turn out to be perfectly justified (I have no insight into and no opinion about this matter), but I find the reason "not mentioned in target" strange when the reason for this is that the user has removed it themselves moments earlier, and then doesn't disclose that they did this. Renerpho (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- With the original state of the Socialist Alternative (Australia) article (before the removal of that paragraph, and more so when the redirect was created in 2020), that redirect looks sensible to me. The relevant paragraph was tagged as needing citations since June 2024; and as I said, removing it may be the right choice. But it wasn't an unreasonable target for the redirect based on what it looked like at the time. Renerpho (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think once the material was removed though (as failing WP:V) at that point the redirect being discussed was valid. TarnishedPathtalk 06:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TarnishedPath: Yes, and maybe others will be more lenient. WP:CHALLENGE is clear that you had every right to remove it. That doesn't mean that the timing wasn't unfortunate, and that this wasn't important. I would have preferred either an upfront mention that you removed it ("I have just removed this as failing WP:V, and believe the redirect should be deleted because it's no longer mentioned in the target"), or to leave it and include it in the discussion ("I plan to remove this unsourced information from the target, at which point the subject will no longer be mentioned in the target"). This gives users the opportunity to form an opinion if sources exist (the talk page exists if there's more to know). It's a matter of transparency: When I see an argument like "not mentioned in the target", my impression is that this is because the two are unrelated, and the redirect was unreasonable. I feel misled when important background about the article's history is hidden from me. Renerpho (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll keep that in mind for future reference. TarnishedPathtalk 08:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Thanks for pointing it out in this AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Austudy Five has just been Prodded. I found a cite that Mick Armstrong was one of the 5 in a few seconds, a better cite would still be valuable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete: All the references in the article (that aren't broken) only mention him in passing besides this which is a review of one of Armstrong's books. Performing a search I found a bunch of articles written by him at redflag.org.au (One of Socialist Alternative's newspapers which Armstrong seems to be a member of) and other articles from the same site that discuss him. Redflag is obviously not independent and can't be used to establish notability. Nothing I've found would satisfy WP:AUTHOR and I don't think there's enough for WP:BASIC. Ping me if good sources are found. TarnishedPathtalk 04:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yoginder Sikand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG, Several articles authored by the subject are frequently cited as references; however, they have yet to receive significant mainstream media coverage (WP:SIGCOV). Jannatulbaqi (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Authors. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no independent sources to establish notability, mainly are self published, fails WP:GNG. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I find several reviews of the books [8][9][10][11], also [12] (but I'm not sure of the reliability of the last source). I think it's enough for WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All sources on the page are unreliable, dead domains, page not found and non-secondary independent. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NBIO. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as writer is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Priyamvad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem to be notable. I'm unable to find any coverage. Fails WP:BIO. --Ratekreel (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ratekreel, When you nominated the article, at that time only two references were there in the article. Now number of references are 10+. All references are from national newspapers or books or authenticated government websites. Author have written many books, all can not be listed in the article. Two stories are base for two different bollywood films. Some work by the author is translated in multiple languages by well known authors and translators. Looking at these things, article should not be deleted. There are some research articles which are clearly comparing author's work with Premchand, which is also like an award for Hindi writers. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sibylle Eschapasse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is sourced to blogs and the UN's website. As far as I'm aware working for the UN does not form part of any alternative notability criteria and the primary sources cited here don't cover this subject in any significant depth and don't support WP:ANYBIO 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 10:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thabiso Sikwane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Trivial Article that does not comply with WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. According to WP:BIO's additional criteria nor with WP:DIRECTOR Pitille02 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough reliable sources on the article demonstrate notability. Jeanette Fiery Red Haired Martin (dime?) 19:00, 14 October, 2024 b(ITC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 14. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 19:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Radio, and South Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Subject has received moderate attention after their passing (and prior). She headlined multiple secondary reliable publications. A simple Google search is enough. dxneo (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She passes WP:SIGCOV quite well. Here are some sources [13], [14], [15], [16]
- Tau Corvi (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sources in the article are either eulogizing her or gossiping about her personal life, and a BEFORE Google search turned up similar results with DJ Fresh dominating most of the headlines. There's no significant independent coverage of Sikwane's actual career. This is reflected in the article having been created nearly two months ago after her death (which alone does not automatically establish notability) but currently still a stub with next to no content. Is she known more for her media work, or her relationship with DJ Fresh? 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 03:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are sources about her and her life [17], also before her death [18][19]. BilboBeggins (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Keep" has the numbers, but I'm not sure the delete !vote has been fully addressed. Can we get a closer source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: yeah, I'm going to have to go with HopalongCasualty here. The sources in the article and presented above are ones that only either cover her relationship with DJ Fresh or her death more than her media career. I did also do an extended search on South African and nearby newspapers before her death (from 1/1/2000 to 1/1/2024, as a note) and found a brief burst of coverage on her being on Power FM in 2016, and a 2023 news article of a "hijacking ordeal" she was involved in. Those I'm doubtful establish notability of Sikwane outside of her former relationship with DJ Fresh or the coverage of her death more than her extended media career. Otherwise, I only found brief, passing mentions of her across several, if not many, sources I did find in the BEFORE search. Therefore, delete per HopalongCasualty and the sources found here. ~ Tails Wx 21:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Kingsley Okonkwo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An article about a "family life and relationship coach, TV personality, and author" sourced entirely to shady pieces. While most of the publications are reliable on their own, the pieces sourced to are either unreliable, of the subject's opinion, run of the mill coverages or vanispamcruft. It's either the subject is publishing their opinion or it's an unreliable "things you need to know about X" piece. Nothing to confer inherent notability here either. Fails WP:GNG over all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The subject appears notable and subject of discussion in national dailies here, here and could pass [Wp:GNG|GNG] with wide coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackesan (talk • contribs) 12:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Akhtar Usman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The BLP was created in the main namespace and later draftified by Maliner. The creator then submitted it for review, but later unilaterally moved the BLP back to the main namespace, to avoid AFC review process. So I feel compelled to take this to AFD so the community can decide whether it should remain or be deleted. IMO, it fails both GNG and NAUTHOR, as none of the works are notable enough. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Likely to be contested, so let's get a more firm outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephen Harrison (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As much as I think Harrison's writing about Wikipedia is insightful, I simply don't think he passes WP:NJOURNALIST. He's not really been the subject of significant coverage. I don't think interviews or reviews of his books in student newspapers (Student Life) are sigcov. The Fix interview might be significant coverage, but I am unfamiliar with the publication. 1A is a podcast interview, which I don't think counts for notability. The Salon, Slate and HuffPost links are just to his journalism and obviously don't count. The New America link is the description of an event that Harrison was participating in, and I don't think its sigcov either. The WashU entry is a "look what one of our alumni is up to" post and therefore it's not independent or sigcov. The Yahoo interview is part of the Yahoo for Creators program, which has an unclear level of editorial control from Yahoo itself, and may be published with little editorial oversight like WP:FORBESCON, but I'm not sure, and I think its status as significant coverage is questionable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I mostly agree with Oaktree above. Simply having published a book is definitely not enough to meet point 3 of WP:NCREATIVE, especially when that book's coverage has been pretty minimal. Going through the article's sources - author pages don't establish anything, the Yahoo article is misleading as it's aggregated from a Substack, and I would not consider alumni magazines to be sufficiently WP:INDEPENDENT. There may eventually be enough coverage for an article on his book, but it doesn't seem like there's enough here for an article on him. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 02:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Regrettably (I think he's one of best WP-journalists around) I can't disagree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This [21] might be considered a partial GNG-point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify per WP:ATD as it's possibly just a bit WP:TOOSOON. Continue adding coverage to the article as it is published, such as book reviews and author profiles. If no one updates for six months, it will get deleted. But if sufficient sources are added, it can get moved back into mainspace. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for Draftification since we have an editor willing to work on improving this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Harish S. Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is a WP:PROMO, fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. WP:NOTRESUME. Charlie (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Charlie (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:subject has significant coverage to meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO and the company, NASSCOM they founded is notable Tesleemah (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC) 05:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tesleemah At the moment, there are no reliable sources on Google News that covers him significantly, and independently. You are welcome to update the page and make it qualify as per WP:HEYMAN. But, please avoid using interviews or self-quotations. Charlie (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You could have updated the page if you agree it could be improved to meet WP:HEYMANTesleemah (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, you were not able to comprehend my statement. Charlie (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Tesleemah, for good or ill, the burden falls on editors wanting to Keep the article to bring reliable sources to the article or to the AFD discussion. Just saying that good sources exist carries no weight at all if you don't provide evidence of what they are. Other editors are not responsible for finding evidence to support your argument. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright @Liz Tesleemah (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Gujarat, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:NBIO, there's no significant coverage about him or his life in the cited sources, most of them infact are about the organisation he founded. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He co-founded NASSCOM (about which we have an article) with half a dozen or six dozen others. He wrote a book. The book was well received, and we have an article on it. He is apparently a somewhat-known name in India, anyway, but for the purposes of his article, he does not seem to pass GNG, as the coverage I've found tends to be either in-passing mentions or non-independent. The article itself is quite dreadful, as it happens, but it's not worth trying to repair his resumé at his current level of demonstrated notability. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 08:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dejan Crnomarković (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rejected draft. The included sources are of poor quality, and I couldn't find any others on Google. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A lot of work has gone into this article since its nomination, can we get a review here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
FA
A
GA
