Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Teemu.cod (talk | contribs) at 06:19, 23 April 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avinash Chate.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.


Purge page cache watch

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


Authors

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash Chate

Avinash Chate (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:GNG. All sources on the page are regurgitated paid PR articles. A Google search brings up more such paid PR publications. Teemu.cod (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - These sources appear to be paid, yet there is no conclusive evidence confirming them as such, as they lack disclaimers and are not featured in the "brandspot" section. The suspicion arises due to the absence of credited authors and the promotional nature of the articles, which deviate from typical news formats. Grabup (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Very PROMO with flowery language in multiple sources. Non-notable corporate communicator person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every news story cited here reads like paid placement. Per WP:NEWSORGINDIA, Indian news sources require careful consideration due to weak controls on advertising and sponsored content, and almost all of the stories would trigger caution (for example, their lack of a bylined author). We should not use the available sources to validate notability under GNG or BIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G4. ✗plicit 02:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marvín A. Santana

Marvín A. Santana (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 establishment of sustained notability using WP:RS Amigao (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zivit Inbar

Zivit Inbar (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)

Unreliable information. No RS. Fails the GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. There are well-made arguments on both sides and neither prevails in quality or quantity. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Unaegbu

AfDs for this article:
Jeff Unaegbu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came about this article during clean up and saw it's contains a bit vague and non verifiable content. Taking into cleaning up, I became tired at the line seeing almost if not all the sources lacks editorial guidelines, perhaps doesn't go with our policy and guidelines for reliable sources.

On the other hand, apart from the quality percentage of primary sources linking to book that were self published in the platforms such as Amazon, etc., the article generally doesn't meet WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV, and it contains a bit hoaxes that were made (those like references/acclaims which I have removed when cleaning part of the article). The article in general doesn't conform with Wikipedia's inclusion for authors, journalist too—since he edited a magazine and has written for some magazines per the article. Lacks verifiable source and seem looking like a advert/promotional/vaguely constructed source, and more.

The books he wrote doesn't meet our guidelines for books, so we may try redirecting or WP:PRESERVE albeit there is nothing to be preserved here. I also discovered the previous AFD that reads 'no consensus', and it seems there were no improvement or rather say; the previous AFD seeking for clean up which I've did to some part and found no substantial need for the inclusion of this article. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete:
Source assessment table prepared by User:Reading Beans
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
    A reliable national daily in Nigeria   The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
    A national daily that is has majority of readers from Northern Nigeria   This is an interview-like article talking about #OccupyNigeria and not necessarily about this subject ✘ No
    The source is a major newspaper ~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail; talks mainly about the book ? Unknown
  This is an interview   Gistmania is a gossip blog without any editorial started   ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The table above was prepared in response to Royalrumblebee. If we want to talk about book reviews, maybe, someone should write an article about the book itself. With the sources I see, the entry does not meet the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans 14:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Based on the source table, most appear to be non-RS. "Being born on October 1st" is about the best source, but that's not enough. I don't find anything further. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked closely at the sources, but I wanted to point out that WP:NAUTHOR allows people with multiple notable books (per WP:NBOOK) to have articles even without biographical coverage. In the sources listed here, I only see one contributing to NBOOK -- the Newswatch review of This Lagos Na Wa -- but I wanted to suggest that those interested in a "keep" should look for a second review of that and additional reviews of his other books. I think Achidie's mention of Biography of Nigeria's Foremost Professor of Statistics, Prof. James Nwoye Adichie in "Notes on Grief" is probably not enough to contribute to NBOOK for that specific book, but it might have reviews. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that all written was his books where many are self pubs. WP:NAUTHOR also covers being covered per WP:GNG. Strongly, we know this article contains vagues of uncited words. Also trivial mentions doesn't meet notability. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:

Notability as per WP:ANYBIO which allows people with major awards to have articles: His book, “Ode on Lagos” won a national award. This is the Association of Nigerian Authors/ Cadbury prize. This was reported in page 35 of a Nigerian national newspaper, The Nation (November 30, 2011). Below is the online link as hosted by The Nation newspapers. Please turn to page 35: https://issuu.com/thenation/docs/november_30__2011/1

His book, “Freedom in Our Bones” also won a national award. This is the Nigerian Universities Research and Development Fair award in 2008. It is reported in a national newspaper: Edukugho, E. (2008). “Third Nigerian Varsities Research Development Fair: Matters Arising”, Vanguard, April 3, P.43. It is available in the offline archives of this newspaper on phone request but there is no online link yet.

Notability as an academic or creative professional as stipulated in WP:AUTHOR: The subject is an academic as well as a creative professional. He is cited by many scholars as per WP:AUTHOR which allows multiple citing of a subject as proof of notability. This link leads to his book, “92 Days” being cited in an article, “Nigeria’s Leadership Questions: A Re-Appraisal Of Key Issues, 1961-1990”: https://journals-co-za.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/10.31920/2753-3204/2023/v1n1a4 Another book he wrote, “Fifty Years of African Studies: A History of the Institute of African Studies, University of Nigeria, Nsukka (1963–2013)” is cited thus: https://ebin.pub/transformations-in-africana-studies-history-theory-and-epistemology-1032277475-9781032277479.html

He is cited in JSTOR too (Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, Vol. 27, 2018, page 36: https://www.jstor.org/stable/48561674?searchText=jeff+unaegbu&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Djeff%2Bunaegbu%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A161914275d5e91e6c796bf7c807fce36&seq=13

Notability as per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NBOOK: Aside from the review of his book, “Ode to Lagos” by the national Newswatch, the article indicated that his book, “92 Days in Power” was reviewed by Professor Christian Opata in page 40 of the national Nigerian newspaper, Daily Sun of Friday 19 December 2014. This review is available as shown:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A2ZsX_N3K5iih_8jOB2K3bpwhrOgCvNy/view?usp=sharing

Notability as per WP:GNG: The subject has also been mentioned in depth by more national newspapers aside Punch as already mentioned above. Here are two from two different journalists:

Prof. Ozioma Onuzulike. (2007). “I write to Put Right the Wrongs_ Jeff Unaegbu”, Sunday Vanguard, April 8, P. 48.

Oge, O. (2011). “Poet Harps on Need to Educate Young Poets”, Nigerian Compass, Wednesday July 20, p. 16. The two above came from a bibliographical iindex list in a University library catalogue offline and I confirmed them as a journalist. There are no online links yet.

There is a long bio of the subject in this journal: https://themuseunn.com/guest-lecture-writing-and-publishing-trends-in-the-new-decade-mr-jeff-unaegbu/

Most of his books cited via amazon links would have to be changed to the more authentic links from the New York Public Library as shown: https://www.nypl.org/research/research-catalog/search?q=jeff%20unaegbu

And Stanford university library: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/?search_field=search&q=jeff+unaegbu

I will help do the clean up now. [ Diamondsee (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Passes WP:NAUTHOR for having their work reviewed on Newswatch and making significant contributions in his field, which is evident from WP:BEFORE. @LEvalyn I definitely agree with you on this. For several reason, I am not comfortable !voting for deletion here. I have taken over 1.5 hours doing BEFORE and have come to this conclusion. I have also personally reviewed short stubs about American authors who I deem to pass WP:NAUTHOR just exactly with the same minimal coverage this person has and having their work reviewed by INDEPENDENT RSs SIGNIFICANTly. The person and his work were reviewed by Newswatch and there's also a bit of SIGCOV at Punch, these two, is enough for me to write a stub. This person appearing in so many other sources (whether reliable or not) also shows a sign that they've made significant contributions in their field. Deletion is not cleanup for Christ's sake, and that is all this article needs. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To line up Diamondsee's sources with NBOOK criteria, what I see here is:
    • NBOOK#2 (major literary award) for Ode to Lagos and the ANA award // 1/2 of NBOOK#1 (2 reviews) for Ode to Lagos with Newswatch review
    • 1/2 of NBOOK#1 (2 reviews) for 92 Days in Power with Daily Sun review
The various citations don't really play a role for NBOOK. I don't think that's strictly an NAUTHOR#3 pass, since NAUTHOR#3 (significant body of work) is typically met through multiple wiki-notable works. Looking at the citations and other coverage, though, I see the case for NAUTHOR#1 (regarded as an important figure, widely cited) or simple GNG. I still haven't done any looking for sources myself, but I share Vanderwaalforces' sense that I have seen useful articles with similar or worse sourcing. I also increasingly suspect that the best sourcing will have been in print rather than readily available online. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 23:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristy Kiernan

Kristy Kiernan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:AUTHOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb45424 (talk • contribs)

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 redirect‎ to Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present)#Leaders. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Clouston

William Clouston (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 noted in WP:NPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider district or parish councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage. Likewise, being a candidate for national office doesn't normally meet WP:NPOL, absent substantial coverage in secondary sources, and I can find only routine local press coverage. He has written for and been interviewed by some notable media, but those are WP:PRIMARY sources, and his written work doesn't yet meet WP:NAUTHOR. Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON, unless he wins a parliamentary seat in the upcoming general election. Restoring the redirect would be fine as an alternative to deletion, but I've brought it here for discussion rather than WP:BOLDly redirecting. Wikishovel (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akuma Saningong

Akuma Saningong (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)

Purely promotional and written by a UPE. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSCIENTIST, other claims are spurious, nothing on Google that isn't press-related. BrigadierG (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this is a single-purpose account. Biruitorul Talk 06:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a UPE article filled with lots of refs that are mostly blogs/press-releases/non-RS entries (I deleted most of them but the blocked UPE returned under a different name to restore them). Several other of the UPEs creation are also at AfD (e.g. Iulia and Delia). The subject is not a notable scientist but they are an active speaker who needs a Wikipedia page to construct notability. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong Keep | Article is not promotional and written in neutral voice and it meets and passes WP:GNG. Article is well researched and backed with secondary references. Anyone doubting should go and check and they aren’t press releases as purported. I happened to have stumbled across this article on the web and I am not the UPE who is claimed to have written the article and there is no proof for that. I have studied other articles of the alleged UPE which were elected for deletion and they weren’t deleted e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Bernstein. It was kept on merit. Why all this hating on Wikipedia? Articles should be kept on merit and in the case of this one it passes Wikipedia guidelines for WP:GNG, WP:NSCIENTIST and WP:NAUTHOR. I might be a single-purpose account because I had the urge to intervene for justice to be served. It shouldn’t infringe my rights not to comment and stand for justice and the truth. Let the facts and evidence speak for themselves. Visit the talk page of the subject in question, where other two seasoned editors and contributors have made comments in favour to keep the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Akuma_Saningong Sword-Emperor-dev (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking 2nd !vote by the article creator. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other UPEs from User:CharlesBNB include Iulia and Delia, Renzo Vitale, and Georg Weissacher. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 08:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Ferrier

AfDs for this article:
Ian Ferrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. This was previously deleted in 2019 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Ferrier and then got recreated in fall 2023 after his death, but this version is still referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all -- even the one footnote that's technically citing a newspaper is still just his paid-inclusion death notice in the classifieds, not a journalist-written news story about his death, and virtually everything else is content self-published by companies or organizations he was directly affiliated with, while the one potentially acceptable source (LitLive) is not enough to clinch passage of GNG all by itself.
And for notability claims, there are statements (a minor literary award, presidency of an organization) that might count for something if they were sourced properly, but there's still absolutely nothing that would be "inherently" notable enough to hand him an automatic notability freebie in the absence of proper WP:GNG-worthy sourcing.
And the French interlang is based entirely on the same poor sourcing as this one, so it has no GNG-worthy footnotes that can be copied over to salvage this either. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both the English and French articles are based entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability, such as "staff" profiles or press releases on the self-published websites of organizations and companies that he was directly affiliated with — only one source (LitLive) is GNG-worthy at all, and one GNG-worthy source isn't enough. People don't pass GNG just by using primary sources to verify facts, people pass GNG by showing third-party journalism and/or books that cover said facts as subjects of news and analysis. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't a question of "your eyes", it's a question of whether the correct kind of sourcing is there or not. Bearcat (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "in my eyes" means in my opinion of whether or not the sourcing is good@Bearcat Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out precisely which sources are "good", considering that they're pretty much all primary sources right across the board. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has plenty of good references Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While every opinion after the deletion nomination has been a bolded 'keep', I am still not suitably persuaded. Further discourse regarding the 'quality' (in Wikipedia terms) of the French sources appears to be needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Even just limiting my search to English language sources, I see enough to meet WP:GNG. [1], [2], [3], ProQuest 1430523918, ProQuest 821134990. Jfire (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have expanded the article significantly using these sources and more. Jfire (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has reliable sources to prove its notability. It passes GNG. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Lushchai

Yuri Lushchai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person seems like a wonderful Wikipedian, but I do not see a claim to notability here or case for one as an author. He is unfortunately but one of many war casualties. Projectify as an obit might be an option? Star Mississippi 00:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://web.archive.org/web/20240413164446/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Lushchai
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:%D0%AE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%D0%9B.
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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Pantano

Daniele Pantano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is a poet, translator and academic. He is not sufficiently notable in any of those fields for Wikipedia inclusion. As explained on the article's Talk page, he has not been the recipient of any literary prize, shortlisting or other distinction. Critical commentary in independent secondary sources has amounted to just one newspaper review and one literary journal review of one poetry collection (published in 2010). Other coverage has been in web interviews etc, or self-generated. There is a strong suspicion that a major contributor to the article has been the subject himself, or someone closely associated with him. Previous versions of the article have included exaggerated claims (e.g. about his academic qualifications) that other editors have tried to correct, often with the misleading information being reinstated. The suspicion is that the article is being used as a tool of self-aggrandizement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosech (talk • contribs) 00:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete* I see bread and butter translation work (not enough for a Wiki page, but almost nothing in terms of sustained, independent secondary analysis of output (such as reviews in publications entirely independent with their own established editorship). Wiki had already rated this a Low Importance page. Coverage of their work is extremely small and the talk page reports Cosech’s extensive efforts to find it. The points about erroneous edits to qualifications by the proposer check out.
80.95.196.234 (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a clearly self-promotional article about a non-notable translator, poet, and associate professor (not a full professor, not a PhD). Does not rise to prominence or notability in any of those fields. Article creator, through IPs and sockpuppets, has done nothing else on Wikipedia besides this plus an article on the main poet he has translated. Persingo (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To add to the above, this is probably an autobiography, as it was started by an anonymous account tracing to the same time and place that the subject was a student back in 2005 in Tampa. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also worth noting that the author of that initial 2005 article called Pantano "award winning", though I have found no record of Pantano winning any award either before or since. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the article has been a 20 year vanity project by the author himself, and has only escaped scrutiny for so long because he is so little known. Cosech (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Barth

Stephen Barth (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 lawyer/keynote speaker. Lack WP:GNG-style direct and in-depth coverage. DepreciateAppreciate (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 08:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Brown (artist)

Colleen Brown (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an artist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for artists or writers. As always, creative professionals are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists -- the notability test doesn't hinge on sourcing their work to itself as proof that it exists, it hinges on sourcing their work to external validatation of its significance, through independent third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in media and/or books.
But this is referenced almost entirely to directly affiliated primary sources -- the self-published websites of galleries that have exhibited her work, "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's associated with, etc. -- and the only footnotes that represent any kind of third-party coverage are a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person and a single article in the local newspaper of her own hometown, which doesn't represent enough coverage to get her over the bar all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: subject of a 16 minute segment on CBC radio, holds a residency, has exhibited in many exhibitions. Plus, this well-referenced article seems to be the work of a new editor participating in an editathon, who submitted their work to AfC and had it approved, and has since created another well-referenced biography of a different artist; to delete this would be a slap in the face for a serious new contributor to the encyclopedia. (I was initially suspicious of COI or paid editing because I noticed that the editor had made 10 varied edits a little while before starting this article, but I note that the artist's name was on the list of "Suggestions for notable artists / writers / curators / contributors, etc. without articles:" at Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism 2024, so I believe this art historian is a genuine enthusiastic new editor in the field of artist biographies.) PamD 11:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Artists do not become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows by sourcing those gallery shows to content self-published by those galleries (as was done here) — artists only become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows if you can source the gallery shows to third-party content about the gallery shows, such as a newspaper or magazine art critic reviewing said show, but not a single gallery show here has cited the correct kind of sourcing to make her notable for that.
And the CBC source is an interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which is a kind of source that we're allowed to use for supplementary verification of stray facts in an article that has already passed WP:GNG on stronger sources but not a kind of source we can use to bring the GNG in and of itself, because it isn't independent of her. And no, articles aren't exempted from having to pass GNG just because they came out of editathons, either: editathons still have to follow the same principles as everybody else, and the articles resulting from them still have to properly source their notability claims. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the CBC radio piece is an interview, surely her selection as the subject of an interview in a series on a major radio station is an indicator of notability? As is her selection for two residencies: the organisations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist, and there are sources from those organisations. PamD 21:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC interview is from one of the CBC's local programs on one of its local stations, not from the national network, so it isn't automatically more special than other interviews just because it came from a CBC station instead of a Corus or Pattison or Rogers station. So it isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source she has.
It isn't enough that the organizations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist — they aren't independent of the residency, so they're still affiliated sources. The source for a residency obviously can't be her own website, but it also can't be the website of the organization that she worked with or for either — it has to be a third party that has no affiliation with either end of that relationship, namely a media outlet writing about the residency as news, because the organization is still affiliated with the statement. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, reluctantly. It seems to me I've previously read something about this artist, and her work has been exhibited in well known galleries. I'm just not finding any additional independent reliable sources beyond the first one in the article. Willing to change my vote if better sourcing is found. Curiocurio (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep per PamD. This was not a person-picked-off-the-street interview. BD2412 T 01:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: borderline but I think tagging the article for relying on primary sources might be sufficient without needing to delete the entry. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If primary sources are virtually all it has, then just tagging it for relying on primary sources isn't sufficient — it's not enough to assume that better sources exist that haven't been shown. Better sources have to be demonstrated to exist, not just speculated about as theoretically possible, in order to tip the balance between an AFD discussion and just being flagged for better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not speculating, read your discussion above with PamD then made my decision. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What adequate sources? I see exactly one. Curiocurio (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With the Guleph Today piece and CBC coverage, there is non-primary coverage. Whether aspects of the biography sourced to primary sources are wholly due as paragraphic body text or could be better rendered as a list of works/residences is a content question at the article level rather than an inclusion/deletion question at the encyclopedia level. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nicely done bio on the notability borderline. Don't we have more serious things to worry about? Carrite (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - most of the sources are primary, and not high-quality at that, as they are very promotional. She has very little reliable third-party coverage. Swordman97 talk to me 03:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A dozen warm-up edits then creation of a detailed article with mostly commercial non-archival references. Article has a cereal-filler claim to notability ("She is primarily known for her sculptural works which incorporate a variety of natural and industrial materials.") This looks like some kind of fan-page or COI. 2600:1700:8650:2C60:89EE:CBB:BDD3:F68E (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in a RS source does not indicate that the coverage contributes evidence of the subject's notability. I agree with other commenters that this falls short of WP:Artist, her importance in Maple Ridge, British Columbia notwithstanding. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - All these guidelines that allow us to say "passed xyz standard", or "fails XYZ standard" is handy to have. But the fact of the matter is, we have articles like this one, where it should be obvious that this is an accomplished artist. Maybe she does/or doesn't exactly fit into the guidelines we so love to haul out for our assessment. Wikipedia has kept stubs and others with far less content and substance than this one. As far as I'm concerned, her article shows her qualifications to be here. We get carried away sometimes on one view or the other. I say she's notable as an artist, and I'm sticking to my perspective on it. — Maile (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll concur with Maile66. I see sufficient anchoring sourcing (Guleph Today and CBC) and plenty of less independent stuff (which may be used to detail the subject once NOTE is met, which I now assert). Given the usual dearth of direct detailing of visual artists in media, this sourcing is pretty good. BusterD (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P. J. Sudhakar

P. J. Sudhakar (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 sources in the article either mention him in passing or are articles or blogposts Sudhakar has written, which do not count towards notability.

This brief webindia123 article mentions that he won a Raja Ram Mohan Roy Award, but I am unsure if this is significant with respect to WP:NBIO

The only sources discussing him in any detail are about his claims of having received over 100 different degrees from these three articles from DNA IndiaNews 18 and The Hindu. The Hindu article asserts that he has over 15 PhDs, which they say he obtained by "distance learning". The Hindu article, also asserts that he has a record from the "Gunnies Book of Records" [sic], but he is not in the Guinness database at all [5]. These claims are very obviously self promotional and the "degrees" are probably from diploma mills, but as the sources are completely uncritical there's nothing that can be written about this. I note that the DNA India and News 18 stories are only available by archive and you cannot find them on the current versions of the websites, I don't know if that is because the news organisations deleted them because of concerns regarding the reliability of Sudhakar's claims or for some other reason.

Overall, I just don't think it's possible to write a neutral, non-promotional biography about this individual, given the uncritical nature of the sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moisés Espírito Santo Bagagem

Moisés Espírito Santo Bagagem (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 and salted as Moisés Espírito Santo. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

I'm suspicious of new accounts that immediately seek an article's deletion but this is a Soft Delete so the article can be restored should valid concerns arise. Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Selby (psychologist)

John Selby (psychologist) (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)

Nominating this article for deletion because it does not meet the notability guidelines. No reliable sources are referenced or can be found online. Alexwiki0496 (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find it very strange that the article title has the disambiguator "psychologist" but it doesn't mention what qualifications he has in psychology. Could it be that that is because he has none? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Mendezona Roldán

Ramón Mendezona Roldán (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable. Agree with nominator. After I tagged it for sourcing earlier I watchlisted it. I thought about PRODDING but I certainly support deletion. Nirva20 (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 23:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erez_Safar

AfDs for this article:
Erez_Safar (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)

Page does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability Considerusinga (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, In addition to what's stated in the nomination, the article was created as an advertisement. Samoht27 (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PROMO begone! But seriously, there's no coverage, just fluff and personal branding. BrigadierG (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus is that sourcing isn't sufficient. While I'd advocate for those who found sourcing to start over to build an article based in sourcing, I'm willing to provide the text as a draft if experienced editors think they can make something viable from this. Star Mississippi 02:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Carnivale

David Carnivale (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)

A PROD on this expired in 2009; it should have been deleted a long time ago. The article is a weird puff piece, likely by a COI editor, and is really just promotional. I find nothing on the internet that suggests this person is notable. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I believe Drmies nailed it as "weird puff piece". Well ... it's different, but neither notable nor adequately sourced. There are only three inline sources for this individual, but you can't open the sources to verify what they are. Under "References", the majority of the Staten Island Advance listings are ... well ... not really sources. There's an online site for Statin Island, but not a news source, as much as it is select dates from about 30 years of the site. None of which seems to be relevant to this article. — Maile (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Architecture, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is Architect Dave Carnivale wishing to comment on my page (which I've been proud to have for 15 years) having been nominated for possible deletion.Listing why I should remain sounds immodest and it is awkward, but there are several reasons.
Having been the first architect in the world to have a website (affordablehouse.com) which made its debut March 15, 1996 - the world's first architectural website it should be noted - featuring what at the time was the second book to be printed cover-to-cover on the internet (the site was simplified and revised around 2022 after having been "on the air" so-to-speak for a quarter century - so it is no longer quite "cover-to-cover") is alone enough to warrant my page. Remember, in 1996 only 25k-30k websites were functioning at all; another 75k simply said "Under Construction."
Secondly, another item is that, acting pro se I fought N.Y.S. all the way to the Supreme Court against special interest legislation affecting N.Y.S. architects and for the most part I succeeded.
Third, in an 8 year federal case, acting pro se, which went twice to the Delaware District Court ('Carnivale v. Staub' Civ.No.08-764-SLR), the U.S. Federal Circuit (Appeal from the U.S.Patent and Trademark Office,Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in No. 92047553 'Staub v. Carnivale) and twice to the Third Circuit (Civil Action 1:08-cv-00764-SLR) - all of which I won - I brought trademark law, specifically the 1946 Lanham Act regarding trademark protections, into the computer age. The case is now cited throughout the country and established that tiny alterations in ___domain names are insufficient to protect against claims of trademark infringement. The Delaware District Court accepted evidence as having proven that, via my website, as of the 2007 date of the trial, 2,301,503 people had read all or part of my book (and it must be noted that the "unique viewers" the webhost reported counted everyone using a particular browser, such as Google or Yahoo etc., on any given day as being one "unique viewer" - meaning that 2.3 million figure was many times that in terms of individual people). That Delaware District case "Carnivale v. Staub Design, LLC, No. CIV. 08-cv-764-SLR" had its judgement entered 1/8/13; it was affirmed along with the statistical evidence mentioned, by the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [no. 13-1354 decided 12/3/13] and was again affirmed, including the statistical evidence, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its decision [Staub Design LLC. v. Carnivale, Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 2015, No. 2015-1306 decided August 6, 2015]. This shows three federal courts have considered it proven that millions had read all or part of my book as of 2007; undoubtedly millions more have done so in the subsequent years. Though I am not a "famous" architect, I suggest that few architects have had their writings read by, and drawings seen by, millions of people and suggest that alone is worth a Wikipedia entry.
In turning to my page I see a few inaccuracies which have crept in over the years; my projects now number more than 700 across the U.S. (not 500) and my book is now self published rather than published by BookSurge. Having practiced for nearly a half century (not quite but getting close) and having won nearly every preservation award there is in N.Y.C. (I am a very traditional architect with a strong interest in preserving historic architecture) I am not unknown and am as much an architect as any of those listed under 'American Architects' - and on Staten Island, a place of 500,000 people, I can say that I am fairly well known. I do not know why I was moved from "People from Staten Island" to "Artists from Staten Island"- that is inaccurate in that I am an architect, a retired college professor, a preservationist and an author and have, pro se, changed trademark law with respect to the internet - and as you likely know, architects, while they should be artistic in nature, are part historians, part engineers, part mathematicians, part psychologists, part diplomats, part lawyers and part businessmen too - putting me in the severely limited 'artists' category is simply inaccurate. I see that has been since been corrected, for which I am grateful. I saw my page called a "Puff Piece" which does not reflect that I was the first pioneer of a major profession on the internet, and, acting pro se for 8 years in federal court, I altered trademark law regarding the internet. For these reasons, I ask that you might be kind enough to enter my comments into the discussion for me, since I haven't been able to figure out how to do that. I thank you in advance, Sincerely yours, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:E8BA:D11:E26:2FB8 (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is Architect Dave Carnivale; someone notified me that my Wikipedia page (which I've been proud to have for many years) has been suggested by someone to be deleted. I write to you because I've tried but cannot find out how to "join the discussion" and hope you will be kind enough to add my comments for me.Sounding immodest cannot be helped in listing why I should remain, forgive me. First, being the first architect in the world to have a website (affordablehouse.com) which made its debut March 15, 1996, and that at the time having been the second book anywhere on Earth printed cover-to-cover on the internet (the site was simplified and revised around 2022 after having been "on the air" so-to-speak for a quarter century is enough to warrant my page. Remember, in 1996 only 25k-30k websites were functioning at all; another 75k simply said "Under Construction."Secondly, in an 8 year federal case, pro se, which went to the del. District Court ('Carnivale v. Staub' Civ.No.08-764-SLR), the Federal Circuit (Appeal from the U.S.Patent and Trademark Office,Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in No. 92047553 'Staub v. Carnivale) and the Third Circuit (Civil Action 1:08-cv-00764-SLR) I brought trademark law, specifically the 1948 Lanham Act regarding trademark protections into the computer age. The case is now cited throughout the country and established that tiny alterations in ___domain names is insufficient to protect against claims of trademark infringement. In turning to my page I see a few inaccuracies which have crept in over the years; my projects now number more than 700 across the U.S. (not 500) and my book is now self published rather than published by BookSurge. Having practiced for neary a half century (not quite but getting close) and having won nearly every preservation award there is in N.Y.C. (I am a very traditional architect with a strong interest in preserving historic architecture) I am not unknown and am, as much an architect as those listed under 'American Architects' - and on Staten Island, a place of 500,000 people, I can say that I am fairly well known.I do not know why someone moved me from "People from Staten Island" to "Artists from Staten Island"- that is inaccurate in that I am an architect, a retired college professor, a preservationist and an author - and architects, while they should be artistic, are part historians, part engineers, part mathematicians and part businessmen too- putting me in the 'artists' category is simply less accurate, if not inaccurate. I see someone called my page a "Puff Piece" which does not reflect I was the first pioneer of a major profession on the internet, and, acting pro se for 8 years in federal court, I altered trademark law regarding the internet. For these reasons, I ask that you might ne kind enough to enter my comments into the discussion for me, since I haven't been able to figure out how to do that. I may send this same message to another editor or two, but you are the first I've contacted....I thank you in advance, Sincerely yours, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:B1A5:F394:7F02:6A17 (talk) (transferred from User talk:Jevansen)

This is David Carnivale. In 1992 I read in 'The New York Times' that "someday people would have computers in their homes." Random House publishers did not like the book I wrote "The Affordable House" and I didn't intend to spend years going from publisher to publisher the way authors often do. I never intended to profit from the book; I wanted to sell the stock plans to homes featured in the book, so I resolved to find out how to get it on the "World Wide Web"(internet was not yet a commonly used term) and then wait until people got computers. I found one of the first webhosts Bway.net and on March 15, 1996 my website made its debut. There were about 100,000 websites more or less back then, and three quarters of them said "Under Construction." In 1996 only the Bible had been posted in its entirety; in 1996 I posted my entire book cover-to-cover and it remained that way without changes until it was simplified and revised in 2022. You may see The Affordable House on the Wayback Machine from nearly its first days, and the Domain name has been registered with Network Solutions since 1998. The first two years, at the dawn of the internet, few - including me - even knew ___domain names could be 'registered' which is why the ___domain name was unprotected during the first two years (1996-98). So I disagree with your calling my page a "weird puff piece." I have been fortunate enough to have been a small part of the Internet's early history, and it is documented and provable. 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:E8BA:D11:E26:2FB8 (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Above: "In 1996 only the Bible had been posted in its entirety": if this is a claim that the Bible was at the time the only book to have been published on the web in its entirety, it's a surprising one. Project Gutenberg claims that A Christmas Carol, for example, was "released" in 1992. The release may have been via FTP, but Hart's file header (with idiosyncratic monospaced justification) encouraged people to distribute PG's files and it's hard to imagine that nobody was doing this on the WWW. If A Christmas Carol can be dismissed as slight, there's also what PG termed the complete works of William Shakespeare, which PG claims it first released on 1 January '94. (Of course, PG isn't a disinterested source for information about PG ... and so forth.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Found nothing obviously helpful at archive.org or ProQuest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello; David Carnivale here. If your note means you were unable to locate "The Affordable House" from its early days on the Wayback Machine, here is the address for an archived page dated November 11, 1998 (about two years after the book appeared on the internet): http://web.archive.org/web/19981111185045/http://affordablehouse.com/ 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:89D7:3BB:FF22:368F (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I meant I was unable to find any WP:N-relevant sources about David Carnivale. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails both WP:GNG and also WP:NAUTHOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is something [8] (Staten Island Advance), there may be more at [9]. It's local, but local is not nothing. Quote "The author of the "The Affordable House" has completed about 510 buildings, including houses in various traditional styles, bars and clubs - a specialty - and recently, a small airport in Tennessee." Also this [10] from Historic Districts Council. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per sources linked in previous comment. Some in-article ref-titles hints there may be more, like "Preservation crusader to be honored citywide" Article needs to be re-written though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - First, I would thank Mr Carnivale for his contributions here. While it may be determined that he doesn’t now meet our Notability criteria, he has had an article here for 15 years and his input on why he believes it should be retained is of value. Second, I’m not competent to judge the notability issue myself but, noting his work on historic structures, I’d be interested in User:Epicgenius’s view. Nobody has written more on NYC’s historic buildings, and I think he’d offer a valuable perspective. KJP1 (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. I am not going to !vote here myself, but for what it's worth, the coverage of Mr. Carnivale on silive.com seems to mostly be letters/comments written by him, or projects that he worked on, rather than coverage about the man himself. I did find this interview and, to a lesser extent, this human-interest piece about how he creates blueprints. When I searched for his name on Google, I saw directory listings, results about other people, a self-published book, and documents relating to a lawsuit from 2006, but sadly not much else. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear KJPI, Thank you. David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:C5C3:31F6:21E4:FE1A (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Though no mention has ever been made on my Wikipedia entry, and because I've never known anyone who was able to add it, there may be a lack of recognition just how much my 8.5 year federal case changed internet and trademark law. Below, you'll see I've located a few citations about it; the result was a change in how ___domain names are treated by federal courts and although not 'Precedential' it has been cited in federal cases in other Circuit Courts. Even the ___domain of Wikipedia itself now is now affected by the outcome of this case.
    Regarding the Federal Circuit, I found this :
    https://casetext.com › case › staub-design-llc-v-carnivale
    https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2642&context=thirdcircuit_2012
    (2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit)
    From the legal website law.justia is this link:
    https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/11-1124/11-1124-2012-01-04.html
    and also:
    https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca3/11-1124
    From leagle.com is this link:
    https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20120104129
    From anylaw.com is this link:
    https://www.anylaw.com/case/david-john-carnivale-v-staub-design-llc/third-circuit/01-04-2012/AoENPmYBTlTomsSBBMcm
    .
    So, while the design of 700 projects, a small airport and a small town over the course of a long career may mean an architect has left a mark on things but not have given rise to many citations on the internet, the legal case certainly did, it affects everyone with a ___domain name, and is alone worth the continuation of my 15 or 16 year old page, (as is the fact, accepted as proven by three federal courts from evidence they examined, that millions had read all or part of my book) thank you, sincerely yours, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:C5C3:31F6:21E4:FE1A (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OFFLINE sources can be used, but the people you encounter here are very likely to rely on the internet, since trying to access physical newspaper collections etc is harder. If it helps, what we are looking for, for the purpose of this discussion, are sources that are at the same time reliably published (WP:RS), independent of you and about you in some detail. Add to this "rules" like WP:BLPPRIMARY. The court case(s) in itself doesn't matter here, but an article about it/you in The New Yorker probably would. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, if you're interested in editing WP on topics that interest you (apart from you), consider WP:REGISTER. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Gråbergs Gråa Sång helped explain a few details to me (thank you) but the heading said "offline" so I am replying here in hopes that it may add to the general discussion (I'm unsure if "offline" remarks can be seen by everyone discussing things here): I wonder if fame and 'notability' are being confused. Asked to name an architect, Europeans could likely name a dozen or two; ask an American and all they could name is Frank Lloyd Wright (perhaps a handful could name a second architect) - does that mean no American architect is notable or has ever done a notable thing? Except for Jonas Salk, no one who has ever developed life-saving drugs is famous, yet each is notable. In architecture there are no "Academy Awards" like Hollywood; we have a "Pritzker Prize" limited almost entirely to architects who design in the Bauhaus or International Style and there are preservation awards like the ones I received for architects with an interest in history, and the AIA gives out awards mainly to its members (and again that is limited almost exclusively to architects designing in just the International Style) but aside from a one-day mention in some press, these are soon remembered mainly by the recipients. The court cases matter in a way more visible; one relieved 15,000 New York State architects from a special-interest piece of legislation essentially forcing them to either join the private organization who wrote the bill, or suffer the consequence of having to obtain 36 college credits every 36 months for the rest of their lives to keep their license. It took me six years in court before, finally, both houses of the N.Y.S. legislature and the then-governor (Pataki) were forced to amend the law (over their previous vehement refusals to do so) thus relieving architects of that terrible choice. As for the other (Trademark) matter, it seems beyond question that protecting everyone's ___domain name against interlopers and bringing the 1946 trademark law into this century is notable. Wikipedia - as an encyclopedia - is more than just a 'top ten list' of what's been mentioned most often on Youtube or Salon or other popular websites - it is, I think, meant to be a compilation of knowledge and a resource for discovering things and uncovering facts not all of which have made the "Times;" I believe my being the first in the world in a major profession to be on the internet alone is enough to qualify, and that my website was the second book printed cover-to-cover on the web is more than notable enough to have my page continued. I would appreciate, since I do not know anyone who is able to do it, if one of those who've been participating in this discussion,would update my page; much has happened in the 15 or 16 years since the page was added.
    Thank you, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:810:2117:14D7:6EDA (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OFFLINE wasn't a heading, it was a hyperlink to the explanatory essay Wikipedia:Offline sources. My point was that "not have given rise to many citations on the internet" isn't necessarily the end of it. "Staten Island Advance. Thursday, April 16, 2009. Volume 124 Number 30,019 Page E6 "Preservation crusader to be honored citywide" by Tevah Platt." may be the kind of source we are looking for, but I can't read it, so I have no idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, for the "Preservation crusader to be honored citywide" story, does this link work for you? Epicgenius (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, I missed it before. IMO, that counts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, David Carnivale, if this article is kept, you might want to consider providing an image for it. WP:A picture of you has guidance on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Gråbergs Gråa Sång, This is David Carnivale. Thank you but while I'm not computer illiterate, Wikipedia seems to be a universe all of its own - it took me a few days of flailing around before I discovered how to enter this discussion! My photograph (which, being very privacy conscious, I tried to keep off the internet but it was taken from the "About the Author" section of my book) is now all over the place (along with images labeled as me but that aren't me that Google searches turns up sometimes). I would have no clue as to how to add my picture here, and it would be inappropriate for me to try to alter my own page, no? Anyway, this has all been very exhausting and I've found and located all the source material I could, listed it here, listed the updated and consequential (trademark case) information that I think should be added to the page by someone authorized to do so and which, so far, no one has. I'm frankly surprised by the reliance of second and third hand materials such as web links and magazine articles by an encyclopedia and reluctance of editors debating a deletion to examine first hand sources of material establishing documentation of what is on the page or what I've added to the existing material through statements I've made here - sources such as websites operated by law schools and legal organizations summarizing the import of cases, official court websites etc. making available the various federal court opinions in their entirety, examining the Wayback Machine for evidence of the website's existence from the dawn of the internet, et cetera. I'm sure it is even possible to check with NetworkSolutions to see they've been registering my ___domain name since 1998.
    I know little of the ways of Wikipedia, but, with respect, it seems to me when someone says "Let's delete this" they ought to closely examine the source material at its original ___location - otherwise deletions are more arbitrary than academic. I hope people here decide to leave well enough alone. As far as my picture goes, since my image is all over the web anyway, any editor here has my okay to add it to the page - I cannot. To ensure it is me and not a mislabeled picture that is occasionally found on the internet, the true image shows me in front of a reddish orange ancient building in a small Trastevere piazza in Rome and I'm wearing a white shirt with vertical blue stripes.The picture can also be found in the "About the author" section of my website "www.affordablehouse.com" (and no, I'm not plugging the website; don't misunderstand please - I'm nearing the end of a long career and keep the website more-or-less as a "calling card" and something that viewers might learn from or get inspired by in forming their own thoughts and opinions; at this stage of life the last thing I want are more clients...These days I just want to sit back and relax). But that is where you'll find the photograph. 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:EDE3:A409:B15B:7DA6 (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. For the IP editors identifying themselves as "David Carnivale", if you wish to continue to participate in this discussion, please keep comments concise and related to sources and Wikipedia policies, subjects that can impact whether or not this article subject (you) is considered notable by Wikipedia standards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Liz, This is David Carnivale. I realize my text was long but it was necessary to list as many citations as possible, and to illustrate the reasons the article should be kept.I expected this to end after seven days, which I read somewhere was the usual rule. 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:EDE3:A409:B15B:7DA6 (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No coverage of this person that I can find, no book reviews either. The wall of text above being set aside, this is from the wild west days of Wikipedia, when anyone could create an article and it was pretty much let loose on the world. We have much more stringent standards now, and this just doesn't stand up. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Oaktree, This is David Carnivale. I'm sorry that is your impression, but it may have been more helpful had you addressed my being the first pioneer on the internet from a of a major profession, or had brought U.S. trademark law into the internet age, or had made the lives of 15,000 N.Y.S. architects easier, or that the book was read by millions etc. Editorial decisions should be made after research, not - pardon me for saying so - from people simply stating impressions. 72.227.222.26 (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi David. Please take a look at this AfD's talk page; I've posted a few suggestions there that you might find helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Link:Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David Carnivale. Yes, we have pages for discussion about pages where we discuss things. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I will. Dave Carnivale 72.227.222.26 (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi David, none of the things you mention are relevant to whether there should be a Wikipedia article. Your accomplishments are certainly laudable and interesting, but are irrelevant to the question of the existence of an article. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what reliable sources have previously published. If there are no reliable sources covering a subject, there can be no Wikipedia article, regardless of how important or significant the subject is. Please read WP:N for our policy. Also note that, perhaps counterintuitively, Wikipedia relies mostly on secondary sources, not primary ones, because interpretation of primary sources can be difficult and contentious. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY for more about this. A newspaper or magazine article about you (that does not rely on your own statements) would be an excellent source helping to demonstrate notability. A court website publishing a decision in a legal case would be a primary source and therefore be a weak indication of notability. CodeTalker (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CodeTalker, in case you didn't see it, sources that have been mentioned in this afd are [12][13][14][15]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I did see the sources although I was responding specifically to David's last post which doesn't mention sources, but seems to be arguing for notability based on his works. Regarding the sources, the first seems to be a typo(?) because it's just a link to this AFD discussion. The second is a reasonably good source, being about the subject, although it has a lot of quotes from the subject himself so its independence is questionable. The third is a four-sentence blurb and doesn't meet the "in-depth" criterion IMO. The fourth seems to be a discussion of a legal case in which David was involved and doesn't discuss the subject himself in any detail. So of the three, I'd say only the second contributes to notability. CodeTalker (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CodeTalker Thanks and corrected. My view: 2 is a bit of a mix, but has enough not-interview to be valid. 3 is somewhere above passing mention, partial GNG-point. 4 is a strange source, but does include some info on Carnivale/plaintiff and his doings, as well as the court cases he was involved in. I say it also adds to the case for GNG, but hard to say how much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While there appears to be information about projects this person has been involved in to be found in the Staten Island Advance, there as yet to be anything beyond that source that is significantly about him. We generally consider multiple articles in a single source to be considered one notability source. I checked in the NY Times (and Staten Island news of import should be covered there) and found nothing. His book is self-published, so that does not support notability. Being party to a lawsuit itself does not support notability, only if the lawsuit gets significant press that talks about the person. Also, it looks like the Court decided [16] not to take up the case. Anyone can file, but it only matters if the court takes the case. Awards can count toward notability but local awards that get no notice outside of that jurisdiction do not themselves confer GNG. I must say that the claim that his book is "the second book to appear cover-to-cover on the internet" is simply wrong. I have a Project Gutenberg CD from that time with 10,000 books. Lamona (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, especially the cogent reasoning by Lamona, and that it's difficult to verify much of the information. If we cut out everything that we can't verify, what is left is a BLP violation. There are literally tens of thousands of writs of certiorari filed annually. The petitioner is not automatically notable, but the case he filed might be, so I would not oppose a move or redirect to the case name. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    David Carnivale, clearing up possible misconceptions: Host Colin Jost at the White House correspondents dinner a few nights ago spoke of the large circulation of the Staten Island Advance (the flagship publication of the entire Newhouse newspaper chain); it is the newspaper of record for Staten Island, whose 500,000 population makes it larger than Atlanta, Miami, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Minneapolis. Some comments have made it sound like a minor supermarket circular. As far as the many articles in law journals about the change I brought about to federal trademark law and N.Y.S. law, I've discovered that after 15 years, internet articles tend to disappear. An encyclopedia conflating 'notoriety' and 'notability' and limiting inclusions to temporary, passing, gossamer mentions on the web is built on a shaky foundation, since such mentions or 'likes' or press notices all tend to disappear over time. Doctors and lawyers, engineers and the other professions do not have any way to discover who among them was first on the internet or what was the first website in their profession to appear; my page allows architects to discover just that. To make Wikipedia less complete, less a repository of knowledge and less able to disseminate knowledge by erasing that bit of early internet history is of no benefit. After all, they call it the "Groves of Academe," not the "plains." I hope everyone will see the page is better left as is, and I hope someone who is able to will update it- 15 years is a long time. 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:D070:D841:D5BA:186E (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ and no indicaiton further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 02:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Henriques

Gregg Henriques (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)

Given that most external links go to either gregghenriques.com or unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org and not to very many well-known independent sources that would significantly cover him, I have a suspicion that this article might not survive the AfD test in its current state. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relistiing due to low participation. Please remember to sign all comments made in a deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 18:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suheir Abu Oksa Daoud

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

Does not fulfill the requirements for WP:Notability, not enough indepedent sigcov could be found either in the article or through own search. WP:NACADEMICS is not met either. FortunateSons (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nominator) All independent coverage is very minor and focussed on some area of research, I could not find enough coverage that is both significant and independent. No indication of meeting WP:NACADEMICS could be found. Almost all content is sourced from obviously non-independent sources.FortunateSons (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination is already a vote for deletion, please remove your bolded vote. You're just restating your nomination. nableezy - 03:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, striken struck FortunateSons (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um, in English one writes 'struck', unless you are thinking of 'stricken', which is something commonplace in I/P realities.Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that was a poor translation from my native language, my bad FortunateSons (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There appears to be ample proof of WP:GNG/WP:SUSTAINED. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Purcell (businessman)

AfDs for this article:
Matt Purcell (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AfD was no consensus. Created by a single purpose editor. An orphan article. I don't see his achievements adding to notability. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. Article claims he's a musician but I don't see evidence of that. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn’t appear to be notable. Long Dong Johnsonn (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotional puff piece article with nothing much in terms of reliable sourcing outside the local paper. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BEFORE search turns up few reliable sources apart from the local paper, which as other editors have noted, we cannot see without a subscription. Here's one not included, but I don't know whether Business News Australia is truly independent. Of existing sources, the two ProQuest links don't even show whether the articles refer to Purcell. All of the Herald links save this one appear to be Q&A-style interviews and thus not RS. The Radio National and AdNews sources are likewise Q&A-style interviews and thus not RS. In sum, I don't think there is enough independent, secondary, reliable, significant coverage to pass GNG or BIO thresholds. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shauna Vollmer King

Shauna Vollmer King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer and organizational founder, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, neither writers nor founders of organizations are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source media coverage about their work -- but this is referenced entirely to glancing namechecks of her existence as a provider of soundbite in articles about other things or people, which is not what it takes: we're not looking for sources in which she speaks about someone or something else, we're looking for sources that are about her.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to show much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This person is notable. Upon seeing a few sources like The Denver Post, one of the major news publishers. You can see a full detailed paragraph is covered.

"Shauna King, president of International Medical Relief, said about 20 people will go on this mission, including doctors, nurses, medical students, a disaster and refugee trained psychologist and Kelly. Several more have applied, King said, such as oral surgeons and other medical providers.

International Medical Relief dispatched a crew to Lesvos over a month ago to organize lodgings, a clinic station, transportation and line up interpreters.

Roughly 1,500 refugees arrive in Lesvos on overloaded boats on a daily basis, King said, and most are there temporarily."Larvatiled (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King is referenced in a single paragraph of a much longer local human-interest story (here's the link; actually published in the weekly local Broomfield Enterprise, a sub-brand of the Post but not the Post itself) focused on a local resident going on an International Medical Relief trip. All it says about King is that she is president of IMF; it quotes her speaking to other topics but contains no additional details that would help us know why she is notable. It is by definition a WP:TRIVIALMENTION and thus not appropriate to establish notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People don't become notable on the basis of sources in which they're speaking or writing about other things, they become notable on the basis of sources in which they're the subject that other people are speaking or writing about. That is, not sources which quote her statement on a mission: sources in which other people are talking about her. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. I found more information on her uncle (a Catholic priest) than on her in my search. If I cut the middle name I get social media profiles and information on an unrelated Shauna King. -- asilvering (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ziad Abdelnour (financier)

Ziad Abdelnour (financier) (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 and salted at Ziad Abdelnour/Ziad K. Abdelnour * Pppery * it has begun... 15:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, due to the previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ziad K Abdelnour, Soft deletion is not an option. We need more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Peacock

Nicholas Peacock (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 indication that the titular subject (the diarist/author) or the actual subject (the diary) meet any applicable criteria. In terms of the writer (the author of the diary), writing a personal diary (even in the 18th century) doesn't make one a notable author (WP:AUTHOR). In terms of the book (based on the diary), there is no indication that WP:NBOOK is met. (It appears to be like any other history work based on collated primary sources). WP:GNG is also not met. Frankly, and with every respect, this is another in a long-line of contributions from a Wikipedia editor who should have considered WP:WITHIN. (And perhaps used this source within and in support of other articles. Rather than writing individual articles on every historical person/name they encountered.) I cannot conceive of any appropriate WP:ATDs (redirect/draftify/etc). And so am left with AfD... Guliolopez (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ehmm. Is being mentioned, somewhat in passing, in two books (in addition to his own diary) significant coverage? To the extent that WP:NBASIC is met? In "Marriage in Ireland, 1660–1925" (2020), Luddy and O'Dowd (pages 115, 229 and 231) simply use Peacock (alongside at least a half-dozen other diarists and contemporaries) as an example of the [pervasive/male] opinion that the "purpose in securing a wife was to have someone look after the house and children". I do not have access to "A New Anatomy of Ireland: The Irish Protestants, 1649-1770" (2004), but Barnard doesn't appear to deal with Peacock as a topic directly or in particular detail. I'm clearly missing something, but WP:NBASIC expects that primary sources (like the subject's own diary) don't contribute to notability. At all. And any secondary sources would need to be substantial and/or numerous. And the few mentions in those two works don't seem to be either.... Guliolopez (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More for the social context in which he was alive, they fit him into the social history of the time. Oaktree b (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this [19] and this [20], second one is probably longer. We should at least have BASIC. Oaktree b (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The first of those is the same Barnard work ("A New Anatomy of Ireland"; 2004) that you (and I) have already mentioned. It's not additional/extra coverage. The second of those is also Barnard (in "The Irish Book in English"; 2006; edited by Gillespie & Hadfield). Essentially the same coverage. Condensed into a paragraph or so. We're still at 2 (perhaps 2 and a half) relatively short mentions in works which are (quite substantially) about something else. As per my nom, if Peacock is relevant only in the context of the "social history of the time", then that's how he should be covered. WP:WITHIN the relevant section of History of County Limerick or Agriculture in Ireland or Marriage in Ireland or similar. JUST as those works do. Not as a biographical subject/topic in own right... Guliolopez (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. We cannot redirect to an article that does not exist, but if one on the magazine is created, please ping me and I can restore the history under a redirect. Star Mississippi 02:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maan Abu Taleb

Maan Abu Taleb (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)

Took a look at this article at the suggestion of another editor who suggested a delete nom. After reviewing it, I'm gonna agree with him. The only sources I can find of this guy are, a Vice interview (not enough) and coverage of his magazine (sexual misconduct allegations, mostly) The magazine he founded, Ma3azef, may have a case for notability despite being a redlink, but this is not WP:INHERITED (and additionally, fails WP:AUTHOR 3.). Then there is the matter of his book, the english translation of the book seems to have gotten no coverage whatsoever and frankly, the fact that it was only longlisted for a rather niche prize (the Banipal, which is awarded to english translations of Arabic books), seems to only strengthen the case here. Given that this article has had this sourcing issue for at least four years, it seems to suggest that nobody else can find sources either. Hence, this likely fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR/WP:NEDITOR. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Numerous and diverse secondary sources emerge on a Google search. The English translation of his first novel was published by an academic press, and it appears he's active in the Arabic diaspora. I assess that the subject is notable and the page is marked as stub quality for lack of volunteer editors contributing to expand it. I've done some work and will add more soon. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Allan Nonymous, when you took a look at the article - did you look at the subject's Wikidata item, which was created back in 2019. In particular, on 13 December 2020 a contributor added the Google Knowledge Graph ID which has a wide amount of interesting information available at a click and waiting for further editing of the page by future volunteer editors (such as myself). Basing your judgment on the content of a stub page is a weak argument, and I write this as a Good Faith editor with a lot of work in Wikidata under my belt. In evaluating a page to nominate as AfD's, this would be my advice. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Deborahjay that article is made of paper, the numerous sources are only 2, I can't believe it when my Noam Bettan article had 22 sources. Furthermore, the first is an autobiography of a blog, if the article does not make it relevant, it lacks too much content for it to remain here, it seems like a mirror article, that article could very well be on another free website where it does not matter. ask for too much information like in FANDOM. Acartonadooopo (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Sock comment struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Acartonadooopo, you fail to show understanding of Wikipedia guidelines relevant to new page creators: notability, biographies of living people, reliable sources, stub article. Your 22 sources for the Noam Bettan page were from Israeli popular music platforms and websites, not mainstream media. I found them inadequate and agreed with the Deletion recommendation. This page you've proposed for deletion is a stub for notable person, an author with listings in the US Library of Congress and the National Library of Israel (and Canada, Japan and others, besides his ID included in the Virtual International Authority File. This is evinced by his Wikidata item. Considering how little experience you have in the EN WP, it's not too soon for you to learn the consensus on best practices of this collaborative effort before you criticize from your own point of view. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata shoudn't be used for notability here, it's user created, so just any old person can go create a profile there. It's really only useful to us for cross-platform linking of topics, it has its own set of standards that don't apply here either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it has come to my attention that the user here who suggested the nom was a sock. I have struck the portion of the comment referring to him, but I think the nom is still sound here (despite the rather unsavory way this was brought to my attention).
Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 12:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Storer

Doug Storer (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)

Biography of a writer and radio producer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or radio producers. The only claim of notability being attempted here is that he existed, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about his work in sources independent of himself -- but the only "reference" cited here is an archival fond of his own personal papers, which is not independent of himself, and the article has existed in this state since 2008 without ever having even one other source added to it.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to say more than just "he existed", or having to cite more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mirdad

Michael Mirdad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no reviews of his work and no significant coverage of him. He does not meet GNG in any way. Ynsfial (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G11: From reading the article, it feels promotional to me. As the nom has failed to find any significant coverage, this is likely eligible for speedy deletion as promotion . QwertyForest (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True Britt

True Britt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about the Autobiography of Britt Ekland, while she herself is clearly notable - her autobiography fails BOOKCRIT. Claim of being "best selling" is not held up. Contents of the article has no commentary on the book (sales figures, reviews etc) and just has a few quotes, with subjective inferences. Current sources are the book itself and a broken link to blogspot. Only reviews I could find were on GoodReads and such (NYT review about different book - happens to mention title in headline - that took me a while to figure out). The book may or may not be a valuable source for the Britt Ekland article, but doesn't warrant an article of its own. -- D'n'B-t -- 13:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Likewise the nominator, the author is a notable writer or in related field, and so, her book should be a redirect prior to what we see happens in such cases on Wikipedia. There could be in the future detailed reference to the book. So, redirecting to the main author is the 'perfect' way to justify this deletion discussion. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The book was mentioned in the media, but mainly by conveying gossip, so the reliability and significance is questionable. For the same reason, I don't think it should be redirected. Geschichte (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. No clear consensus to delete after a month of discussion and relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imre Vallyon

Imre Vallyon (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 per the notability guidelines for authors, an author is notable if: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

None of the preceding apply in this case and almost all the sources in the article are not independent. There are almost no reviews of his work and the awards he has won are not notable. The only significant coverage is of his legal issues. Ynsfial (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Spirituality, Hungary, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the Stuff article certainly establishes that he's notable, although the focus of it is on his child molestation convictions. The award from the Ashton Wylie Charitable Trust might be notable given that it's in conjunction with the New Zealand Society of Authors, which is definitely notable.-Gadfium (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how the Stuff article establishes his notability as an author. It's mostly about his convictions as you said. I'm struggling to find any reviews or analysis of his work. Even if the award is given in conjunction with the NZSA I don't think it's enough to confer notability. Do you think it is? It might also be worth noting that Vallyon himself is a member of the New Zealand Society of Authors, a membership he pays for.~~~ Ynsfial (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gadfium is not arguing that he is notable as an author. Gadfium is talking about GNG. Schwede66 17:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I misunderstood, sorry. What other sources do we have for GNG then? We would need multiple. Will we be establishing his notability as a criminal if not as an author? or as a spiritual guru and leader? The only significant coverage in general seems to be that Stuff article, which focuses on his history of sexual assault. It's not unusual for a local newspaper to cover local criminals and crimes.
    The article consists of primarily sourced biographical information, a list of books with no analysis or reviews and a mention of a minor prize. If we were to remove the Scoop article, a local paper detailing his criminal convictions, what would his notability be based on GNG or otherwise? Ynsfial (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Source 6 is a book review in a RS, this in a Seattle newspaper discusses the author and his work [22], should be at basic notability. Discussed here [23] in a RS from New Zealand. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't consider Horror News Net a reliable source, see How to Get Your Book or Comic Reviewed on (HNN) Horrornews.net? and How to Expedite your Film Review? Their About us states:
    "HNN simply is a means for your film, product, book or studio to have existence on the internet. Whether bad or good, a product without existence in the search engines is simply without relevance. You work hard to create something, while we work hard to create a site that provides existence for your items."
    It's used as a reference on dozens if not hundreds of articles, so this should be brought up on the WP:RSN.
    The review in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is a republished one from Blogcritics. Archived discussions on WP:RSN seem to indicate that it hasn't really been considered reliable the times it was brought up since it seems to accept content from any blogger. The website's About us states:
    "Blogcritics gives writers the opportunity to gain an exponentially higher level of visibility (and thus, traffic and search rank) than they could ever achieve through their home blog or website alone." Mooonswimmer 01:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The book review is a terrible source. Many egregious spelling mistakes (''thru'' (!) and ''alot'' for example), it refers to the author by his first name and most importantly it's written by a random writer for a site that publishes paid book reviews as Moonswimmer pointed out. The other source is also unreliable. Are you still convinced they're enough for notability? Ynsfial (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. The two reviews mentioned above by Oaktree b (the only ones I could find) are published in unreliable sources and are likely paid pieces. I'd say the Stuff article counts towards WP:GNG, but it's all I could find. The two awards he's won are minor and of debatable notability. Mooonswimmer 03:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The stuff article and the Dutch-language NOS article establish WP:GNG in my opinion. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you expand on how these two articles establish his notability and what they establish his notability as? I agree the Stuff article would count even though it's a weak source considering it focuses on his crimes and a local newspaper reporting on crime committed by a local isn't so uncommon. The NOS article focuses on the Dutch branch of the FHL, which is not notable, breaking with its leader Vallyon. They mention a Dutch victim of his and mostly discuss the group and separation. There is some but little information to extract about Vallyon.
What is Vallyon notable as? As an author? Do you think the book reviews provided by Oaktree B are reliable? Or as the leader of the FHL? Or as a child molester? The latter is what the only two weak sources are focusing on. Are there any other sources? Ynsfial (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 10:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George John Seaton

George John Seaton (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 of notability. All the significant sources dealing with the topic are written by the subject. All others simply reference background story and not the subject. Fails WP:GNG . An earlier version was draftified because it lacked any credible claim to notability, so the same authored simply created this new version in mainspace without improving notability.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Africa, France, England, and South America.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as well as the lack of notability, the whole thing reads like a school essay. Or maybe from a chat-bot. This is highlighted by the following comment in the lede: "This article explores George John Seaton's life as a prisoner, slave, and man. It will include researched documentation as well as information from his personal book, Isle of the Damned, to piece together the story of this man's intriguing life."--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It reads like a school essay because the person who wrote the article, Jeorgiaobrien, is a university student who made it for an assignment. Just putting that out there in case anyone else who comes across this doesn't know. Sadustu Tau (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose moving the article into the draftspace. As the user above noted, this is part of a student assignment, in which first-year college students are grappling with understanding the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. The article was prematurely moved to the mainspace and correctly flagged—but it can be turned into a feasible Wikipedia article because there is a relevant source base.
    Seaton’s notability primarily arises from the extensive reception of his autobiography, which occurred in two waves: 1) initial reception upon publication in the early 1950s, around the time Devil's Island ceased operations as a penal colony, by a largely Anglophone public and 2) the use of his autobiographical account in the contemporary historiography on French Guiana and related topics that reach from the treatment of prisoners across the French Empire to examples of queer sexuality during incarceration. In short, given that there is only a limited number of prisoners’ own accounts from their time in French Guiana (some of which have further been debunked as hoaxes), Seaton’s autobiography has become a standard historical source among scholars—and he, by extension, a model prisoner of sorts.
    I have advised the student to make the necessary edits to turn this article into a proper encyclopedic essay, and to restructure it around the significance of his autobiography, which can be properly verified with secondary sources. We would appreciate it if she received the opportunity to make these edits in the draftspace. Outcasts&Outlaws (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as nominator, I have no problem with this being moved back to Draft. I would have done so myself had there not already been a Draft in existnce preventing the new version being draftified. It will therefore need an Admin to do the draftification. However, I or any other editor, will still have be convinced by the sourcing that this person is indeed notable and not simply a self publicist, before accepting it in Mainspace.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as the only !voter, I am also happy with draftification.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am the author of this article. I am continuously working on the article, so it meets the notability requirements. There are no longer any direct quotes from Seaton's autobiography and any wording that may sound like an essay has been removed. Here is a list of secondary sources that speak directly of Seaton and are sourced throughout the article: Negros with Slaves by Jet Magazine, Words of the Week by Jet Magazine, Space in the Tropics by Peter Redfield (University of California Press), and Empire of the Underworld (Harvard University Press). Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have been working on improving the article, there are now over 10 new sources that are all secondary sources and relate to George John Seaton. I have implemented many changes including formatting, word choice, and the removal of any primary source quotes. Please review this article once again. If you have more improvements you would like me to make, please visit my talk page. I will be happy to continue to make changes. After reviewing the article, if it meets notability requirements then I would love for this article to no longer be flagged for deletion. I am doing my best to follow Wikipedia's guidelines while also sharing a story of a man who should be remembered. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change !vote to Keep - the changes described above tip the scales (just) in my opinion. I would still like to see the article's tone cleaned up to fix unsupported phrases like "notoriously one of the worst penal colonies of its time", "if imprisonment didn't kill a prisoner, then disease would", etc. and to spend less space discussing Papillon in two different sections. But I think this can be done in place rather that draftifying. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - From a brief look at this article and its references, perhaps it could be retitled Isle of the Damned and be restructured to be about the book/s Isles and Scars - their reviews and reception, use by University of Michigan, comparisons, censorship, etc? It would of course include a potted bio of Seaton. Is there enough for WP:NBOOK? JennyOz (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the feedback. I will speak with my professor about the suggestion and consider your idea. Best wishes, Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has basically been rewritten over the past two weeks and we have an unbolded "Keep" from the article creator. I'd like to hear from others, especially the nominator, whether these changes made to the article affect your point of view of what should happen with it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as the nominator, I still remain uncertain about notability. As indicated above, I would be content with draftification to allow for improvement. I don't have access to any of the sources added during the recent major revision, but from their context it appears that the content of the book has been used in historical analysis both about the prison and its treatment of prisoners and other topics. Had this article been about the book, this may well have been sufficiet to demonstrate notability, but since , in this case, notability dependends on demonstrating multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject, I cannot be sure that that has been achieved, especially as most of the claims to notability are bundled into a single short paragraph at the end. Those with access to the quoted sources may possibly disagree, in which case I would be content to defer to their better understanding.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your uncertainty about the article's notability but the changes you first requested when you flagged my article for deletion have since been implemented. As for the accessibility of sources, nearly all of these sources come from publications made by recognized universities or from google books, etc. You should not have trouble accessing these sources if you wish to learn more. The only sources you may have trouble retrieving are the sources pulled from my university's archives. However, being that we are a research university, it is possible to access these upon reaching out to the university.
    We did in fact leave out any claim that Seaton's book is credible. This is because the book is not being used as a source in the article but is instead just being referenced. My professor and I felt that it was more scholarly to explain how the book has been used in case studies rather than trying to persuade readers that the book is credible.
    From your comment, it seems that your biggest issue with the article is the uncertainty that the sources are referencing Seaton himself. Most of these sources do speak directly of Seaton and were published after devil's island was closed in 1953. Seaton gained popularity for surviving the island which led to news coverage of him. These articles are all sourced in the article and as mentioned above they are public access if you wish to find them.
    As the nominator, please give specific examples of what you would like changed in order to ensure notability and I will do so. I want to once again emphasize that nearly all of these sources can be accessed by the public and are available online. This can reassure you that subject matter is being reported on directly and not the context surrounding him. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from a leaning-towards-a-Delete-!vote contributor: What's with the numerous assignments in academic institutions for students to "create a Wikipedia article"? Since when Wikipedia's criteria for article creation are the same as the criteria for academic papers? Such a practice endangers the objectivity of contributors evaluating the text as worthy of being in the encyclopaedia. I, for one, would perhaps hesitate to !vote for Deletion if that means the student's grading suffers! And we are essentially asked to do a supervising professor's job, when we assess a student's work.
P.S. As it happens, I find the subject lacking in independent notability on the basis of reliable sources. But the issue of academic papers flooding Wikipedia is more important. We should bear in mind this, for instance. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am the creator of this article. As mentioned, I am a university student, and by no means an expert in writing encyclopedias. However, our class carefully trained with a Wikipedia representative from the Wikipedia Education Foundation (a group focused on building articles made by students). As well as help from our professor, who has a PhD in the topic, helped curate and edit our articles to meet Wikipedia standards. Since there has been issues with my particular article being granted publishing rights, she has stepped in to help me tremendously hoping to make this article go live.
Overall, our class is simply trying to share the stories of people who have been othered in history. A few of my sources are pulled from the University Library and Library Archives at Washington University in St. Louis. However, the rest of the sources are all available online and should be accessible to the public. I am unsure why accessing the sources has been an issue. Many of these sources have public access from esteemed Universities and others are published on google books, etc.
The original nomination for deletion was made due to the use of a primary source. This information has since been removed. My professor and I have added multiple new sources that are accessible through online databases and take the place of the primary source. As mentioned by the nominator (User:Velella), there is less emphasis on the book's notability. This was done on purpose, as we felt it was more scholarly to give facts about how the autobiography by Seaton has been used as case studies for prisons and prisoner homosexuality versus trying to make a biased claim that the book is credible. We also thought that including the credibility of the book was irrelevant to the article because there is no source usage of the book in the article any longer.
I would love more feedback for what changes you think this article may need. My class ends very quickly so I am hoping to have an article that is able to go live. Thanks. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Recent sentiment has been pointing towards keeping this article, but with some questions still being discussed regarding notability/sourcing etc. An extra 7 days can't hurt to shore up consensus either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definately met borderline GNG before, and now even more so per WP:HEYMAN. X (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Authors proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Authors&oldid=1220346810"