Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors

WP:DSAUTHORWP:DSAUTHOR

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

Authors

Kailas Gite

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

Contested draftification. Basically, the subject does not appear to be notable. The sources currently cited in the article are either unreliable (Goodreads, Amazon, the Medium article), self-published (Gite's two books), basically PR (the book reviews) or they do not even appear to mention Gite (the Free Press Journal articles and the Mumbai Live one). A quick search has failed to reveal any other source. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, India, and Uttar Pradesh. jolielover♥talk 10:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pretty much as explained in the nom, no reviews in RS, or anything to show notability. Prod was the correct decision, but was refused, so here we are. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NAUTHOR. The nominator is correct in analyzing the materials and what shows up in a WP:BEFORE.4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 4meter4. Miniapolis 22:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rankin (photographer)

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

See various tags Sushidude21! (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Photography, Environment, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:BIO Jamesmcardle (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify the sources do seem to be real articles, and independent, he just republished them on his website; he did not make them, and searching on google books they do seem to be real. Given the copyright there is questionable I wouldn't link them but they seem real. From sources 1 and 3 I would think he passes WP:NBIO, without checking anything else. Also some other stuff on google books [1] [2]

The problem is this is an autobiography, and so needs to be looked at/verified by an independent reviewer. but he does seem notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV. Lots of scanned documents of genuine secondary sources with independent coverage. Agree with Parakanyaa that they are indeed real, and indicate the subject passes GNG. Article has been in article space since December 2024 and is therefore not eligible for a move to draft under an WP:INCUBATION rationale as it is too old. The autobiography writing is concerning and the COI issues are evident. However, COI conflict isn't something we handle here at AFD and has no relevance to notability policy. This should be handled by the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) if it hasn't been reported there already. For AFD's purposes this article meets our guidelines. The issues in the article, which are WP:SURMOUNTABLE, can be solved through editing under the guidance of COIN.4meter4 (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laura C. Stevenson

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

No credible claim of significance, speedy deletion under A7 declined. –DMartin 23:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. –DMartin 23:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article does contain a "credible claim of significance". The version nominated for deletion already included citations to book reviews, which is a standard (and obvious) way of showing that an author is notable. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the presence of the reviews. Geschichte (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - credible allegations of notable, proven with multiple in-depth reviews in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 6 and 8 are identified as RS, the obituary helps show notability. Badly needs expansion, but I see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sybil Goulding

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

Tried to verify some of these sources during New Page Review and found two of them failed verification; a closer look makes it appear that this author is not notable. Most sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or database entries ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). This one doesn't mention her, at least not on page 10 as cited. They validate that she was a real person who existed but not much more. The only book I can verify she authored, Swift en France, does have multiple reviews ([8], [9]) but it takes more than one authored work to pass WP:NAUTHOR. There are a few passing mentions of her work in the academic literature on Swift but it doesn't seem like she left a major imprint that would meet WP:NACADEMIC. Considering we don't even have evidence of her birth and death dates, I don't think this person passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Happy to be corrected if anyone can supply qualifying sources. Also open to a redirect to First women admitted to degrees at the University of Oxford, where the subject is mentioned. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and United Kingdom. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added a couple of book reviews of Swift en France but that does not address all your concerns, Dclemens1971. There's more out there on Google Scholar but I don't have time now to go through them. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Her marriage to Rawden Henry Pitt West, an officer in Royal Marines (some info about him here), was reported in the 24 June 1931 Tatler. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a photo on St Hugh's website - under Sybil West. She appears to be on the Council of St. Hugh's, inner circle of the college's fellows.

https://www.st-hughs.ox.ac.uk/current-students/library/archive/images-online/#images-69

referenced from

https://www.st-hughs.ox.ac.uk/current-students/library/archive/images-online/

She's on the right end lower seating, just over from the two Bishops (both of whom have articles). She managed a better smile than her neighbour. The date is problematic, it's 1928 and they only married in 1931 in Berne, Switzerland. Just for interest, I can't cite notability for wearing a strange hat near a bishop. ChrysGalley (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DOB 1897, death 21 April 1971, then living at 3 Knoll Place, Walmer, near Dover, Kent. Probate was £54,516 = about £700,000 in today's terms. ChrysGalley (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrysGalley: I've added the dates to the article, but could you add a reference? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrysGalley agreed, once we have a WP:V source for the birth and death dates I think this will scrape over the line for notability per @J Milburn's reasoning. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. The probate record, which gives the date of death and ___location, is - as I understand it - a secondary record, since it's a summary list derived from the main probate record. It's visible to the public. So yes, for that I can add a reference (and the details align with her husband's death some 5 years before in terms of address etc). The date of birth comes from the record of her death, which is via an ancestry site and thus not RS. It points to birth records, which is primary. So I'm not sure I can add that. There is a newspaper record that East Riding Yorkshire Council gave Goulding a financial grant to go to Somerville, in 1915, when she would have been 18 years old, so that fits. There are several newspaper reports, mentioning Bridlington school, commending her exam results (in French, unsurprisingly) but that seems too minor to mention? I haven't found an obituary unfortunately, it looks like after a dazzling academic start from 1915 to 1933, when as a woman she was doing things that Cambridge completely prohibited, she then faded away in later life. No children that I could find. Fascinating stuff, really. I bet there is more in St. Hugh's library.

I will change "fellow" to "official fellow". Under the Oxford system there are several categories of fellows, and Official is the top of the tree since it puts them on to the college's governing body. Whereas say a Research Fellow wouldn't necessarily be on the Council, and a Visiting Fellow almost certainly would not be so. Strangely I can't find a Wiki entry for Oxford's fellowship system, however the article for All Souls has their version of this. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are a number of mentions on JSTOR. Mostly reviews and comments on Swift en France, one specific item

- Eighteenth-Century French Taste and "The Beggar's Opera" by Sybil Goulding, Modern Language Review, , Vol. 24, No. 3 (Jul., 1929), pp. 276-293

- Passing references to the above item in MR

- Christopher Thacker's "Swift and Voltaire" credits Goulding as a substantive source for the article (not just passing references). Hermathena, Sring 1967.

- Also the list of people reviewing Swift en France is greater than those in the article. E.g Mary Cyr in Musical Times

I've not been through the French based material in detail but on first glance there are a lot of references there too. This is an article that needs more work on it and better sourcing, but deletion is not a good way to handle this. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a number of mentions on JSTOR passes any notability guideline, though. (However, Swift en France would pass WP:NBOOK.) Articles by her don't demonstrate coverage of her, and there's no evidence here of WP:NACADEMIC's requirement that The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources, or of any other NACADEMIC pass. I searched for her based on her husband's surname and came up blank as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While I agree with what Dclemens says in response to Chrys, I think that being the author of a notable book, and being one of the first batch of female Oxford graduates, and being 'public' enough that Tatler reports your marriage is probably enough to tip someone over the notability line. Someone with access to the British Newspaper Archive or similar might be able to pull up an obituary or similar to help fill in some gaps. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the discussion above and the addition of stronger sourcing, I am withdrawing this nomination as a speedy keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2025 (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.

Paul David Tripp

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

no independent sources in article or from a WP:BEFORE search, an awful lot of routine listings that you would expect from a proflific author but nothing to establish notability. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Christianity. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nominator's search. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A bit of an oversight in WP:BEFORE here, since he passes WP:NAUTHOR as the author of multiple works that have each received multiple reviews in independent sources. See Lead (9Marks, AP (Australia), Themelios, Others), Dangerous Calling (Christianity Today, TGC, WLS), What Did You Expect? (Christianity Today, JBMW, WLS), and A Quest for More (TGC, Modern Reformation), among others. His early work Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands is a well-known book in the evangelical world and is widely cited. Tripp is also the subject of a profile in Bible Study magazine. Article needs work of course to rely on independent sources, but WP:DINC. Courtesy ping to A. B. for evaluation of provided sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Dclemens1971. I usually check AfD sources myself before commenting. Shame on me for not doing so this time. Thanks for the ping. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough sources as pointed out by Dclemens1971. Tripp has influenced Christian worldview in counselling and pastoral care.Alephjamie (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per @Dclemens1971.--JudeJnr (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yaron Benyamini

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

Unsourced AI slop; on a WP:BEFORE search, nothing appeared in my eyes. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 14:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Martial arts. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 14:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rafael,

I'm working on adding cites and references.

Please hold with the deletion. Omerbn (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Omerbn I could not find anything though. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 14:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafaelthegreat

Yes..

All the references I have are Grandmaster Benyamini's diplomas, pictures, certificates, medals, offline documents, etc..

I working on uploading those. Omerbn (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafaelthegreat@Spiderone

All the references I have are real-life documents (diplomas, certificates, medals, ...). I have ~70 such images.

I've added some in the page, but I'm afraid that showing them all in the page will be horrific.

I am planning on uploading them all to the Common-Wikimedia - what's the correct way in your opinion to present this?

Thanks! Omerbn (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Omerbn what? No! You need sources, not images to establish notability. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 15:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafaelthegreat

We have no other evidences.

But I think the diplomas, certificates and medals speak for themselves.

Since when did we (human beings) stop believing offline documents? Why are they less credible then other websites? Omerbn (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notability. Nswix (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability and lack of all sources GGOTCC 18:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GGOTCC

I've uploaded few diplomas and plan to upload more (incl. certificate and medals) in the next few days.

I don't understand why they are less credible than websites. Omerbn (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Omerbn This is a good question. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where the information shown should have been previously reported by reliable sources. Original research is banned because no one else would be able to verify the information. You can see more here. In this case, photos of diplomas that you have do not prove the article's contents. In addition, these are primary documents. Primary documents should only be used with caution, and as long as the information can be verified by others. You can see more here. No one else but you understands the material, and everything else in the article (ie. the quotes, background, styles) are still uncited.

Websites are not inherently more trustworthy than documents. However, the information needs to come from a reliable, published secondary source. A personal blog would also not be trustworthy, but a BBC article is as they BBC independently published information on the topic.

In addition, it appears you have a personal connection with the topic as you have his diplomas. If he is a close relative, then you should state that in accordance with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, as you have some incentive to present him in a certain light. GGOTCC 21:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a connection - he is my Kungfu teacher. I was surprised he doesn't have a Wikipedia page so I decided to write it. I have collected all documents he has in order to write an accurate article.

I was looking on another 9 duan taiji grandmaster Wikipedia page -https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_Zhenglei. The only sourced I saw were cites from his books, and references to/from his website.

Is this what needed? Am I missing something?

Please let me know so I can fix this article ASAP.

Thanks a lot Omerbn (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also,

Most of these events has happened before the invention of the internet...

If you look at the article of Yaron - there are links to his teachers. What are their credible resources? Omerbn (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Omerbn if they are reliable, secondary, and independent with a reputation for fact checking, then yes. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 14:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Omerbn - the reliable sources do not need to be digital or online, but they do need to be verifiable. Please see WP:NPERSON for more information about what is necessary -- things like diplomas and most of the other sources presented do not meet the notability requirements for inclusion. TiggerJay (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B. @GGOTCC @Rafaelthegreat @Tiggerjay

I want to improve the article to the standards you ask and would LOVE to get your help/guidance on how to do this!

------

As I said, I have looked on a wiki-page of a person who is chinese-martial-arts-wise at the same level as Yaron: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_Zhenglei

The references I saw are:

Chen Style Taijiquan: The Source of Taiji Boxing, North Atlantic Books, 2001 - which is a book that exists. no one can tell if it's credible or not.
The Chinese Contemporary Education celebrities Dictionary hardcover edition printed 1500 - another book that was written by a chen family member. is this considered credible?
"Chen Huixian Taijiquan Academy - 18-Form Step-by-step". - a link to a page that teaches the style Chen-Zhenglei practiced.
"Books/Videos | Grand Master Chen Zhenglei 太极宗师陈正雷". - his website (or a website about him)
"Chen Zhenglei". AbeBooks. Retrieved 2016-03-30. - A book that he wrote.

My questions are:

Are references from the subject's book/website considered credible? Yaron has a book and 2-3 websites - I can add references and cites from there. Should I ?
I've contacted to of the people mentioned in the article that are still alive, requesting them to support what's written. For example - (a) Patrick Van campenhout, who is now the president of EUEWF can approve that Yaron what the General-secretary of EWF in the 90s and also the connection with Kong Mien Ho. (b) Kong Mien Ho - to support Yaron's Dan certificate and exams (he was there with him), the studies at Ma Hong (he was sometimes with him) and more. My question - what's the best way to add these approval/supports/affidavits?
I've added wiki-links to styles Yaron has learnt. Isn't this good? If not, how exactly can I fix this?
Most of the things has happened to Yaron way before internet existed/available broadly. All of teachers has died since then (Except for old-aged Wu Bin); the CWA didn't broadcast any newsletter talking about results of exams back then; The organizations conducting the competitions no longer exist (although his certificate is signed by Bill Clinton); and more difficulties. How can I, given all the difficulties, create a better article? just tell me and I'll do it.

Thanks A LOT in advance! Omerbn (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See my long message below, it has some info that may be useful for your understanding. In a nutshell, we need verifiable, published sources such as newspaper/magazine articles or book chapters that were written about him by people who are not connected in any way to him. Netherzone (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

"by people who are not connected in any way to him" - If theoretically they were his teachers, confirming he was their students learning the styles it is written he did? What about judges in competitions he participated in, who later became friends (as he became the general secretary of EWF - does this count as not connected to him? Omerbn (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are all connected sources, therefore they do not contribute to his notability. Netherzone (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oberbn First, just because another article exists means either of them should -- sometimes other non-notable articles sneak in and that doesn't make it appropriate for this article to exist either. However, since you bring it up that will likely be reviewed and possibly subject to a similar discussion. Sometimes it is not simply about making an article "good enough" but rather the subject needs to be notable enough - as others have stated. If they do not meet the notability requirements, nothing can be done to "fix it" or "prevent it from being deleted". Sometimes there are very small articles, called stubs which are very small articles, but they meet notable requirements. Its not the length or number of sources that meets requirements. Please read what others have shared, and read the blue linked references before asking more questions -- as reading those will answer 99% of your questions. TiggerJay (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiggerjay OK, I will. I'm confident I can provide sources and citations. I will be available to do so in few days - towards the weekend.

Thanks! Omerbn (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet notability requirements, only a single non-notable book, social-media accounts show a miniscule following, no news articles, etc. Might be locally famous, but nothing more than that. The article itself is a promotional mess from a COI editor, but even if the page was to be majority reworked into something appropraite for a BLP, there does not appear to be any reliable sources to establish notability. TiggerJay (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I'm not sure this was created with AI, it doesn't have the usual "clues" one find with LLMs and after running it thru AI-detection software, it came up as being over 95% human-written. I don't think the nomination contains a valid rationale for deletion, however I do think it should be d*leted based on lack of notability; the subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSPERSON. The article is a COI creation by a new editor, Omerbn, who I encourage to read and understand WP's guidelines for notability of persons, such as: WP:BIO - it's a lot to read but will be useful if you decide to create another article in the future on another topic; just make certain that they will meet the notability criteria before spending the time crafting an article. I can tell you spent a lot of time on this. Also articles must contain citations (references, footnotes) to back up the claims (facts) in the article, the reason is that WP is an encyclopedia.. Here's some info for you, WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE that may be helpful. What you have written would probably work better as a personal website on the subject. There is a lot to learn about how things work on WP, so please don't be totally discouraged if this article is deleted. Netherzone (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone

I would like to improve the article and prevent its deletion. Can you please guide me on exactly what to do and i'll do it? Omerbn (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Omerbn, you will need substantial time to make the necessary changes, and to cite all of the claims (facts) in the article. You will need to prove that he meets WP notability criteria of either WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSPERSON. I'm pretty sure that the article will be deleted, however if and when that happens, you could contact the closing administrator to request that they move what you have written to your user-space as a draft. That would give you the time to learn more about how WP works in relation to its policies and guidelines. It takes a while to learn, it took me years! What is most important is that you do not craft the article based on what the subject tells you about himself, nor about what you personally know about him. The reason is that we are an encyclopedia, and everything that is used to establish his notability must be sourced to a verifiable, published, fully independent reliable source. That means that WP wants to know what others, independent of the person, have written about the person. If those kinds of sources do not exist (like newspaper and magazine articles about him, chapters in books about him) then he is probably not notable per Wikipedia's high standards for inclusion. Statements written by his colleagues, students, friends, teachers, associates, or business partners do not count, as they would be conflict of interest sources. WP needs independent sources. If you can't find these types of sources, I suggest that you create a website for him, or post about him on social media. Hope that helps. Netherzone (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Omerbn, having explained this, I don't want to get your hopes up too much for this article's subject. I took some time to really dig deeply into finding sources, and all that can be found are his own website, social media postings, and a few listings from places where he has taught workshops. No reliable sources exist about him. As far as books, I found nothing, other than his own self-published book, again, nothing at all about him. I translated the article in Hebrew, and it also contains no reliable sources. Sorry, but this is clearly an article that should be deleted, and I can't imagine it becoming notable in the future. You are, however welcome to continue editing on WP, just make sure if you try to create another article, that it is on a notable subject. Netherzone (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article still doesn't meet the requirements of our Notability (people) guideline using our Reliable sources guideline.

@Omerbn, I'm sorry if we started off pretty abruptly (to say the least) at the start of this discussion above. The bad news is that we have some very particular rules about what articles we accept and what references we require; your article doesn't appear to meet them. The good news is that it looks like you're really good at writing content. Even if this article doesn't qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia, I think you have a real future writing content here. If you live in Israel, also know that there's a Hebrew Wikipedia, too: עמוד_ראשי.

It's obvious you put a lot of work into first learning wiki markup and article layout then writing up an extensive article; I'm impressed.

Thanks for joining us. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B. Thanks :) Omerbn (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am concerned about our continuing viability as a charity. Omerbn has chosen the worst possible time to create a WP:BLP based on WP:OR. Come back in 17 months with this article. In the meantime, we need help. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What will happen in 17mo? Omerbn (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Omerbn, I think Bearian is referring to the next American Congress which will take office in January 2027. The Republican Congress has begun investigating Wikipedia:
Cervantes, Fernando. "Republicans in Congress open probe into Wikipedia for alleged bias". USA TODAY. Retrieved 1 September 2025.
Given the current climate, this has American First Amendment advocates spooked about a crackdown on free speech. Unreliable BLPs are a known political vulnerability for Wikipedia as well as any coverage of Israeli topics. If the Democrats win back control that'll relieve pressure; if the Republicans win, they'll probably double-down on their agenda. Bearian, if I'm wrong, please correct me.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. You are brilliant. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not brilliant. Just very aware of and worried about the obvious. Not even Canada is a safe place these days. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sportspeople, China, and Israel. Netherzone (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Instead of just destroying an article that the author obviously worked hard on, why not take it out of article space and put it into draft space, and let the author, and anyone else who is interested, find the necessary sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaringDonna (talk • contribs)

Paul L. Williams (author)

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

Article does not meet notability standards as per WP:AUTHOR. CountryLad (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CountryLad (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, Christianity, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep almost every book he has published is notable and several rs call out his works as especially significant for both good and bad reasons (namely, blasphemy and disputes over terrorists, repeatedly accused of being racist/sensationalist) [10] among others, he was an FBI consultant for which he received some coverage, and was he involved in a bizarre dispute over his publisher that made news in multiple countries and appears in several RS books, so WP:NAUTHOR pass. A few of his books are also widely cited (>100) which gives him a claim to WP:NACADEMIC [11] and [12] 1. The reviews of his books and news coverage of him also give enough coverage of him to pass GNG. He also has a profile in the Contemporary Authors series (encyclopedia.com link) which provides coverage and lists more reviews of his work.PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is seven years old and the subject has an 18-item bibliography. Keep as per WP:AUTHOR. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Swords

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

This is an article on a professor of flying saucers and ESP at Western Michigan University. It has had unresolved citation tags for the last 12 years.

The article is currently sourced to three non-RS (UFO blogs and fanzines) and a two-sentence mention in Popular Mechanics.

Fails GNG: A WP:BEFORE on JSTOR returns nothing WP:INDEPENDENT. A BEFORE on Google Books finds numerous instances of him being quoted and profiled in non-RS UFO cruft. A BEFORE on Google News using the operators '"Michael Swords" UFO' returns one mention of an entirely unrelated person in RS [13] and '"Michael D Swords" UFO' no mentions. [14]
Fails NAUTHOR: He does not meet the standards of WP:NAUTHOR on the basis of review of his book. WP:NAUTHOR affirms the multiple review test is the second of a two-part requirement: "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" and "In addition", such work must have been the "primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". We do not have an RS that establishes he has created a "well-known work", ergo, it doesn't pass the first part of the two-part NAUTHOR test, and no quantity of book reviews will remedy that.
Fails NPROF: Does not hold a named chair and has an average H-Index.

Chetsford (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Paranormal. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Happy to reconsider if Dr. Swords captures a flying saucer -- just ping me. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC) 🛸🛸🛸[reply]
Delete - a BLP without significant coverage. I don't think he passes WP:PROF either. Bearian (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very detailed nom. I could not find anything for any category of notability in a quick search.Ldm1954 (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond E. Fowler

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

This BLP has had unresolved sourcing tags on it for the last 15 years. It's currently sourced entirely to the website of the UFO club MUFON, the non-indexed Journal of Abduction Research, and something called "Fiddlehead Focus" that my browser is warning me against opening.

Fails GNG: A WP:BEFORE on JSTOR returns nothing. A BEFORE on Google Books finds numerous instances of him being quoted and profiled in non-RS UFO cruft. A BEFORE on Google News and newspapers.com wasn't efficiently possible to how common his name is and the number of false positives. A handful of references could be gleaned by adding the modifier "UFO" but these are generally incidental mentions that don't crest WP:SIGCOV.
Fails NAUTHOR: He does not meet the standards of WP:NAUTHOR on the basis of review of his books. WP:NAUTHOR affirms the multiple review test is the second of a two-part requirement: "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" and "In addition", such work must have been "the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". We do not have an RS that establishes he has created a "well-known work", ergo, it doesn't pass the first part of the two-part NAUTHOR test, and no quantity of book reviews will remedy that.

Chetsford (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Paranormal, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No apparent way today to source this to WP:GNG, the prime supreme metric for all articles regardless of topic. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only namedrop I could find in a reliable source was from a Portland Press-Herald article where the people he talked about in one of his books debunked the whole thing. Nothing in the subject article but primary sources or interviews of the subject by suspect sources. Ravenswing 04:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly sourced BLP. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Bruni

AfDs for this article:

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

This ~~BLP~~biography on a UFO enthusiast has had unresolved notability tags for the last nine years. It is sourced to non-RS such as the subject's own email newsletter "Hot Gossip", UFO fanzines, Ancient Aliens host Nick Pope's website, etc.. It also has a WP:PRIMARY and a single reference in The Independent.

Fails GNG: A WP:BEFORE on JSTOR returns nothing. A BEFORE on Google Books finds numerous instances of her being quoted and profiled in non-RS UFO cruft. A BEFORE on Google News finds copious instances of her being quoted or mentioned in "weird news" features on flying saucers in RS [15] but nothing which contains enough biographical information to crest WP:SIGCOV.
Fails NAUTHOR: She does not meet the standards of WP:NAUTHOR on the basis of review of her book. WP:NAUTHOR unambiguously affirms the multiple review test is the second of a two-part requirement: "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" and "In addition", such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" We do not have an RS that establishes she has created a "well-known work", ergo, it doesn't pass the first part of the two-part NAUTHOR test, and no quantity of book reviews will remedy that.

Chetsford (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2025 (UTC); 01:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did an extremely basic WP:BEFORE search and was able to find easily a peer reviewed journal article (Grove, A Look Back at Georgina Bruni's Book: You Can't Tell the People: The Definitive Account of the Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery) and a book (Pope, Encounter in Rendlesham Forest : the inside story of the world's best-documented UFO incident) that discuss her at length. She easily meets NAUTHOR.
I have added the two citations to the article. Considering that the existence of sources is sufficient (per WP:NEXISTS) and that the nomination does not show a proper BEFORE search done, this AfD should be withdrawn. I invite @Chetsford to consider doing so. Oblivy (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I decline. Both sources you added are unambiguously non-RS / independent.

You Can't Tell the People: The Definitive Account of the Rendlesham Forest UFO Mystery is written by Bruni herself and is therefore not WP:INDEPENDENT. The foreword is written by Nick Pope, the emcee of "Ancient Aliens: Live On Tour!" [16] — a traveling UFO carnival associated with the History Channel which posits giant Martians built the pyramids with magic gravity beams.
Journal of Scientific Exploration, the source for the Grove article, is associated with the Society for Scientific Exploration a crank, pseudoscience group.

Chetsford (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book that was added was not Bruni's book, and it discusses her activities at some length. Your comment strikes me as very WP:IDONTLIKE but I understand you don't want to withdraw the AfD so it will run its course, Oblivy (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right, you added Encounter in Rendlesham Forest : the inside story of the world's best-documented UFO incident [17] , written by Nick Pope, emcee of "Ancient Aliens: Live On Tour!" [18] — a traveling UFO carnival associated with the History Channel which posits giant Martians built the pyramids with magic gravity beams. Still not RS. Chetsford (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An author is presumed notable if:

1 The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors...or
3 The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work

There is ample evidence her work is regarded as important among her peers, i.e., the paranormal community. Her book is clearly regarded as significant within the field. It is not relevant if we think she and their peers lack credibility, as long as we stay within WP:FRINGE. This article is not promoting her ideas as truthful (or really promoting them at all), so that's not an issue and even if it was it could be cleaned up.

With respect to the Journal of Scientific Exploration there has been some discussion at WP:RSN about it but there has never been a community consensus that it is not RS. Oblivy (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Shamoun

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

Non-notable subject. All I could find were blogs and press releases. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 17:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Christianity. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 17:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable person with no significant coverate. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Islam, and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 18:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
less notable people with article that are apologetics. no point in deleting it Mediocremathematician (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mediocremathematician how?? You sourced a blog called God Reports and a social media platform called Reddit. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 00:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
get better sources then dont just outright delete it. Mediocremathematician (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mediocremathematician but there are no good sources online. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 12:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mediocremathematician they need to follow WP:BLP or else is leaves Wikipedia. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 12:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is a YouTuber with a relatively sizeable following AML KING (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AML KING so? Just because the YouTuber has many followers, does not mean they should have an article. What, you think KreekCraft would work?? ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 12:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Well, I guess I'm getting pulled out of retirement just to look at this AfD (I used to watch his content every once and awhile). 90% of the sources cited are low-quality blogs, reddit, and his personal website. However, I haven't fully !voted delete because GodReports does provide some substantive information, although I'm not finding other sources that do the same thing (heck, we could even expand the article using info from GodReports!). (If anybody wants to convince me that GodReports is also not marginally RS, I would like to hear your reasoning). ❤History Theorist❤ 16:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryTheorist maybe but GodReports as one source only might not be enough. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 18:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's why I wouldn't keep it. If @Mediocremathematician would like a copy of it in user space or draft space, I wouldn't be proposed to saving it in there so long as they don't move it back to article space. ❤History Theorist❤ 22:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yea i watched his content to thus i made this low effort article and expected the pros to polish it i am a beginner in wikipedia so take the articles quality from me not the internet Mediocremathematician (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Veniamin Smekhov

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

Written in unencylopedic tone, barely sourced Sushidude21! (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify- As is, it seems little more than a cv or resume. However, the subject does seem adequately notable. Perhaps it needs to incubate as a draft until it can be brought to a better state. Littenberg (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Television, and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assuming that the three references are substantiated, then he just ekes out notability. I'd prefer better sourcing nowadays for a WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify- article has potential, though the current citations listed in the article seems to lack in SIGCOV for the subject, there is potentially more SIGCOV sources in the russian version of the article, which has way more content it seems, to help improve the subject's notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ely

AfDs for this article:

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

Could not find sufficient reliable independent sources with significant coverage so as to meet either WP:NAUTHOR or WP:BIO. The article has remained unreferenced and essentially unchanged since the last AfD in 2016. SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Video games. SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri#Legacy: Seems the game novels are his only notable works (layman's definition of notable, that is, not WP:N's definition). Nil🥝 08:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - should've said in my nomination that I'd also be happy with a redirect. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally I'm all for keeping writers if possible but it's almost impossible to even find the books when you google him. I'd even just delete on the grounds that it frees up the name for someone later. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 11:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above, very little sourcing going in to anything on him as a person or the books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the lack of sources in this WP:BLP requires deletion. No problem with a redirect. Bearian (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Papalia

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBIO or WP:NAUTHOR. Most of these sources are non-independent as they are either almost completely written by her ([19], [20]), merely repeat her interview tips while adding vapid TikTok comments ([21], [22]), or repeat what she wants to say about her own book ([23], [24]). These sources do not contain serious independent analysis of her work, nor do they contain non-trivial biographical information. UPE concerns have been raised at another article created by the same editor (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulip Interfaces).

I found a capsule review here but that isn't enough for WP:NAUTHOR. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Women, and Pennsylvania. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if her one book was notable that isn't enough to fulfill NAUTHOR (we would shift it to the book... but that isn't notable either.) PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not the best sourcing, but it's something. Bearian (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Lanet

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources. The only references currently are databases which provide zero credence to notability, and I was unable to find anything better elsewhere. It appears that the subject may have written a book at some point, as evidenced by [[25]], but I'm not seeing a WP:NAUTHOR pass here either. A redirect to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. Let'srun (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lanet seems to have worked as a journalist after the Olympics [26], [27]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some field hockey coverage here [28] with a brief obituary "necrologie" near the middle of the page, under the "bloc-notes" section [29]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not only was has a journalist, he appears to have wrote at least one book. [30] Ike Lek (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I shared in my nomination statement. However, I couldn't find any evidence of a WP:NAUTHOR pass. Let'srun (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After a search at the BNF (above), there isn't enough coverage found to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Hockey, where his name was mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Not much. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to France at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Hockey – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Booth (writer)

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

Notability tag up for very many years. Jw93d59 (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Journalism, Travel and tourism, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP that badly fails significant coverage. The sources are by his publisher or otherwise created at his direction. Bearian (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasoning as Bearian, not enough coverage independent of the subject. Leonstojka (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failing in-depth, WP:SIGCOV and independent sources to be kept. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very easy pass of WP:NAUTHOR and probably also WP:GNG. I found reviews of Three Tigers, One Mountain in the LA Review of Books, Taipei Times, Times Literary Supplement, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus and The Heythrop Journal. Reviews of The Meaning of Rice in The Japan Times and The Spectator. Reviews of The Almost Nearly Perfect People: The Truth About the Nordic Miracle in The Observer, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Financial Times, Publishers Weekly and Kirkus. Reviews of Super Sushi Ramen Express in Kirkus, Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Japan Times and The Independent. Reviews of Doing without Delia in The Guardian and The Irish Times. Reviews of Sacre Cordon Bleu in The Financial Times, The Independent and The Daily Telegraph. Reviews of Just As Well I'm Leaving in Scotland on Sunday, The Guardian, The New Statesman, The Times Literary Supplement and The Daily Telegraph. MCE89 (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MCE89. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above multiple secondary sources. ResonantDis_tortion 18:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the extensive coverage in reliable sources found by MCE89, who has shown that Michael Booth passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Clarke (broadcaster)

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

Notability tag up for over five years. Jw93d59 (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Christianity, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG, and the prize he supposedly won has no sources. Svartner (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation needed inlines scattered all over the article shows that the article fails notability. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 23:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of passing any notability guideline. One of 366 most influential Liverpudlians does not really seem like an WP:ANYBIO-level pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails on WP:GNG as a BIO. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Cathie

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

This article on a deceased New Zealand airline pilot lacks any references to WP:RS (two sources are present, the author's own former website and the UFO magazine Nexus Magazine). Cathie was known for self-publishing a number of UFO books from the 1970s to 1990s but awareness of him never advanced outside the obscure ufology subculture. A WP:BEFORE finds an obit [31] but nothing else aside from one-line quotes here and there in RS, and more extensive treatments in unambiguously non-RS. Probably more appropriate for a UFO fan Wiki than our encyclopedia. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Aviation, and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is a book published by another UFO hunter a RS? [32]. You can find several listings about the world energy grid as well. Likely most of it is hokey, but seems to be enough for brief notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to add these sources I found as well [33], [34]. Seems to be mentioned in the same circles as the Ancient Aliens folks on TV. I'm not sure how much of it is real, but it's enough for an article I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The New Zealand Herald obit is the same one I mentioned in the OP. While it's a start, I think we need more than that. The book has ~10,000 sentences and mentions Cathie in two, which I don't think meets the spirit of WP:SIGCOV.Chetsford (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's the Guardian as well, it's a fairly long article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice little treatment -- about 350 words -- of his theory. It would be a great source for an article on this "grid" theory. But it really contains no biographical information on Cathie himself other than he, at some undefined moment in time, was a living person and that now he is not living. Chetsford (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete next to nothing here to prove notability. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 03:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of old newspaper coverage over several decades [35] (the piece linked by Oaktree b, useful to see the issue imo) [36] [37] [38] [39]. involved with Van Tassel et al. [40] [41] not a useful source but has a free photo of him so that's good NZHerald piece is also good.

Talked about in so many truly deranged books that it was hard to find the good but this university press book has a decently bit on him [42] and more on pages 90 and 92. He also has a full entry in the Ronald D. Story Encyclopedia of UFOs [43] I have used this source before and found it to be a good encyclopedia (rare in the world of UFOs encyclopedias; the entry i used before was a solid entry on the sociology of ufo religions). All in all, NZ obituary + guardian piece + academic book + encyclopedia + assorted old news coverage add up to a pass of WP:NBIO and WP:GNG, esp given how source discuss his relationships and influence on other ufologists. Didn't try to search for his books, might be more there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA -- I'm going to be frank; it's very difficult for me to respond to your interventions in AfDs on flying saucer topics as you have a tendency to firehose a huge number of references you've scooped up that happen to have one-line mentions of the subject into the article before !voting Keep and it's simply impossible to check every single one of them. I don't know why you do that, but the reason is ultimately irrelevant. In any case, as usual, I'm not able to check all of these so I did a spot check:

Item 1 [44] is a single word mention of the subject in a long article on an unrelated person.
Item 6 [45] is a one sentence caption of the subject in a photo.

I'm going to make a reasonable assumption the rest are similarly fleeting mentions that don't establish SIGCOV. Chetsford (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When searching for sources imo it is helpful to dig up as much as you can.

1) No it isn't, that's several hundred words about him. If you meant the Van Tassel article (not what you linked), yes that's not sigcov, I did not say it was, I was mentioning it as an interesting connection that could help to build an article. sigcov is [46] [47]

2) Yes, that's why I said item six wasn't sigcov and that it had a good photo. I linked it because it had a good photo that was free, which are always useful when constructing articles. my caption said "Not a useful source". Are you reading what I write? PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I was mentioning it as an interesting connection that could help to build an article"
"that's why I said item six wasn't sigcov and that it had a good photo. I linked it because it had a good photo that was free, which are always useful when constructing articles"
So there may be some confusion here. This (AfD) is where we identify whether sources exist to preserve an article. If you found a fun photo for the article, or interesting pieces of trivia, etc., those can be posted to the Talk page. But blasting the AfD discussion with a bunch of sources that even you acknowledge don't contribute to notability is extremely derailing to our underlying purpose. Chetsford (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant that we are able to build an article on the subject that is complete and full. Images and connections to other notable figures as part of the ufo-larp-giant rock circuit help establish the placement and influence he had even if they are not sigcov mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"connections to other notable figures as part of the ufo-larp-giant rock circuit help establish the placement"
Nope. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Chetsford (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They establish that he was known and influential on other ufologists, yes, which helps to build the article. Building the article is a different concern than notability-establishing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Building the article is a different concern than notability-establishing." Notability is the first, last, and only concern at AfD. All other matters should be addressed at the article's Talk page. Chetsford (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. AFD is for whether articles should be kept or deleted. Articles can be deleted on current quality grounds, or for subjects where if technically notable you can never write a good article, whether you can write a solid article or establishing sources to benefit the article is of course relevant to an AFD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article content does not determine notability. Suggestions for general improvement to the article can be made on the Talk page. Thanks for your help keeping this discussion on topic. Chetsford (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

for subjects where if technically notable you can never write a good article

What is an example of a subject that trivially passes WP:GNG and/or WP:SIGCOV but is so problematic we for unstated (here) reasons... we can't have a viable article on it?

That's like an invitation for high-value targets to hit. You got a list for me to build articles out of? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Item 1 [14] is a single word mention of the subject in a long article on an unrelated person.

Where do you see a single one-off appearance of the text string "Cathie" here? Click here for text based non-image version.

His name alone shows up 7 times and the entire 376-word piece is about the same person--Bruce Cathie. I used it here (click here). Who is the "unrelated person"? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not a BLP, so the burden of proof is on the nomination and those wanting to delete this. Bearian (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Subject passes WP:GNG with multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources offering significant coverage:

* New Zealand Herald — in-depth obituary.

* New Zealand Geographic — feature with 10+ mentions and profile discussion.

* The Guardian — international newspaper profile with analysis of his theories.

* Metro (magazine) — central figure in a 2022 feature on NZ UFO history.

* Ngā Taonga Sound & Vision — archived national documentary with Cathie as a major participant.

Coverage spans decades (1970s–2020s) and multiple mainstream outlets, both domestic and international, well beyond trivial mention. This comfortably satisfies GNG. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to whatever end, I've exhausted sourcing as far as I can tell, so this is it. @Chetsford: -- WP:HEY?

* Before I began: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Cathie&oldid=1308148259

* After I'm done: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Cathie&oldid=1308515838

I'm still !keep I think. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The New Zealand Herald is mentioned in my OP and I addressed The Guardian previously. The other items suffer a similar failure as The Guardian, namely, they address his theory and don't provide meaningful biographical information about the subject. Chetsford (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But they seem to have allowed me to craft a reasonably solid small article that spans the man's career and life over decades. Each of them had mention of biographical items alongside his research stuff. It simply required my reading every word on each article. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that's fine. I'm not going to rehash months of previous discussion about your interpretation of significant coverage. Chetsford (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Randles

AfDs for this article:

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

This BLP has had unresolved citation tags on it for the last 12 years.

The BLP is currently sourced to five non-RS (e.g. ufoevidence.com) or non-INDEPENDENT sources (the author's own books). A WP:BEFORE finds Randles widely quoted in RS on the subject of UFOs, but not subject to WP:SIGCOV. Actual, biographical treatments of the subject are limited to the usual UFO blogs and cruft sites. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Paranormal, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For the simple fact that the 2008 AfD lists several book reviews and a biographical entry in the Gale source. Would seem to pass AUTHOR on these alone. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw no book reviews that would meet the WP:NAUTHOR criteria listed in the 2008 AfD. The 2008 AfD consisted almost entirely of WP:VAGUEWAVES like "clearly notable" and "everyone who likes UFOs knows her" and things of that nature. Chetsford (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment: Keep She has an entry in Gale's Contemporary Authors, which by itself is good enough for me. (I can't link to it, but I'm sure someone else can verify that it's there.) Her books can be found in hundreds of libraries [3], and she has been described by the Austin American-Statesman as "one of Britain's leading UFOlogists". At ProQuest, there are abstracts of book reviews (both unfavorable and favorable) from Booklist, School Library Journal, The Times Literary Supplement, Geographical, and (for what it's worth) New Scientist. In addition, her "Oz factor" theory (which used to have its own article here) has an independent entry in this specialist reference book and is discussed in a few others, such as Jerome Clark's generally evenhanded Unexplained! The Jenny Randles article really isn't that badly written; outside of the "sex change" section, most of the details are just basic facts about her books. Zagalejo^^^ 8:43 pm, 29 September 2008, Monday (16 years, 11 months, 3 days ago) (UTC−4) Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get all of them:

"She has an entry in Gale's Contemporary Authors, which by itself is good enough for me." I checked Gale's and am unable to verify this to be the case.
"Her books can be found in hundreds of libraries" Irrelevant for notability.
"she has been described by the Austin American-Statesman as "one of Britain's leading UFOlogists" I checked the Austin American Statesman website and can't find this.
"At ProQuest, there are abstracts of book reviews (both unfavorable and favorable) from Booklist, School Library Journal, The Times Literary Supplement, Geographical, and (for what it's worth) New Scientist" Again, I'm having trouble locating these. All of these have a public-facing web presence so I'm unclear why this commenter is unwilling to provide any details by which these alleged book reviews could be WP:Verified.

This space tends to be occupied by persons who often (usually innocently) make exaggerated claims unsupported by reality. While I'm not saying that's the case with this comment from 17 years ago, WP:V is a core content policy on WP and simply averring stuff exists but that -- for some undefined reason it can't be proved -- is problematic, in my opinion. Chetsford (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if your ProQuest search is cursed or something but I did easily find all the reviews Oaktree b mentioned. There are quite a lot. [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] Literally dozens, including skeptic pieces, lots more than this. And not all of this is book reviews. I would vote keep based on this. Also a decent bit of coverage on newspapers.com. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about book reviews. I'm looking for SIGCOV. And no, having your book reviewed in half-a-dozen 20,000 circ community newspapaers does not cause one to crest NAUTHOR; book reviews in tandem with RS affirming the author created "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" is required. Chetsford (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAUTHOR says "such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" as for how it defines "significant or well-known body of work or collective body of work". Multiple notable books = author is notable. Sigcov about someone's works is about them as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on my comment above. lots of book reviews, enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR, and from a skim there is more biographical coverage too. If your complaint is that it's uncited I'll try to fix that tomorrow (if i forget ping me) PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the vast number of poorly sourced BLPs is the excuse that powerful interests will use to wreck us. Bearian (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian Would you change your vote if I addressed that? PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you add three reliable sources to the article. Then ping me. Bearian (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian Did a first pass, mostly focused on sourcing stuff rather than adding material. Everything is sourced now, at least, added some stuff. Will add more tomorrow. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One article's good, from the Guardian. The article about trans people is out of left field. The other article is not reliable. Bearian (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian Those are just interviews/her own comments to source her volunteering information about herself per WP:ABOUTSELF, the notability is from the books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So add three reviews from reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian Did. Sources 7, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 22 are reviews. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really reticent to use terminology this abrasive but this is just a classic WP:REFBOMB. You're not event citing (and I assume, haven't even reviewed) the sources you're adding, you're just firehosing links to database entries into the article. My spotcheck:

Item 7 is a bibliographic entry to a review of one of her books in something called "The Observatory" which, as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), was an Australian UFO zine from the 1980s. It's not RS and not SIGCOV.
Item 11 is (another) bibliographic entry to a review of one of her books in something called "Geographical" which I can find no information on at all.
Item 21 is (yet another) bibliographic entry to a review of one of her books in The Kingston Whig-Standard, a 21,000 circulation community newspaper.

The mere evidence that someone, somewhere, at some zine or community weekly, reviewed your books is not sufficient to crest the high standards of NAUTHOR which requires proof positive the individual "played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" in addition to multiple, independent reviews (in RS -not UFO zines). This is now an exhaustive biography built around one-line mentions in dozens of sources strung together to create a character. It is not encyclopedic by any stretch of the word. Chetsford (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford 1) No, it's The Observatory (journal), which is an astronomy academic journal. I obtained a copy of this (it's on one of the Harvard websites but it had every page broken up into a separate pdf. Why) and it is a full length academic review that has substantial commentary on the book. Her books were reviewed several times by New Scientist and TLS and many soueces explicitly describe her as a notable UFOLogist. Several books she wrote themself pass NBOOK< which does mean she passes NAUTHOR.

2) I did in fact review every source, briefly, I did not mine each for information as I could have. The only one I did not, the geographical review, is to add the title of the book she wrote on crop circles, because that is verified by the title of the article, and the crop circle information was already in the page and I needed to verify it (Included it in the list by mistake, whoops) Local sources are fine provided they aren't the only source, and I wanted to add multiple reviews for that book. From a look at the Geographical issue it was published by Savedash Enterprises and appears to be a fairly standard geographical (?) magazine, see this library listing for topics it ran articles on [59] [60]

I just did not prioritize adding content because Bearian's deletion vote was not based off of notability but of sourcing. I added reviews to books she has written that confirms that she wrote the book, the majority are imo sigcov reviews. There are even more, I did not go past the second page when reverse searching, but my mission was not to pile every notability proving source into this page.

I did not access them through ProQuest mostly but the ProQuest link gives you viewable bibliographic data so it is better than nothing. They confirm the content that I added - that she wrote the book, and that she said those things about certain topics, in order to address the uncited material, because a BLP being uncited was the biggest issue. Not one of the citations here is to a UFO zine. I did not add more review material because I have not slept in many hours and am very tired. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I did in fact review every source" Then why are you throwing up links to database entries instead of properly formatted references? Chetsford (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford Because it is 25x faster to do this:

click ProQuest button in Zotero -> 90% properly formatted ref for citations -> put into article after checking

than to manually format every single ref which takes like half an hour. And ProQuest gives you biographic data which my linkless sources do not, since I can only find them on websites that are dubiously compliant with copylink, e.g. the internet archive and their disabled access program which I have access to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't take it personally, but we have Nancy Mace literally trying to criminalize editing Wikipedia. We need to be cleaner that Caesar's wife. That's not enough. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Because it is 25x faster to do this" Yes, and this is what I find problematic about your approach to AfDs on flying saucer topics; that is, not doing a careful analysis of the treatment of the subject, but just punching their name into a database, firehosing every link you can find into the article, and effectively saying "there - prove me wrong". It takes five seconds for you to scoop up dozens of links from ProQuest or Worldcat without reading them but it will take me hours to go through and read each one, only to discover -- as I did in a parallel flying saucer AfD in which you're active -- they're all incidental, non-mentions. And, yes, the burden of proof is on me as the nominator so if you want to take this approach I guess you're entitled. But it's just the height of discourtesy, in my opinion.
We're not looking for evidence Jenny Randles is a real person, no one is disputing that. We're looking for evidence she meets our notability standards. Chetsford (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the burden of proof for a BLP is on those wishing to keep it. (And I meant than, not that.) Bearian (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, sorry. I'm processing multiple of these AfDs right now and confused this one (a BLP) with another one (a BDP). Chetsford (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford The notability standard is "has she written multiple notable books": the answer to that question is yes. Short mentions can be useful for verifying individual statements, and the most dire thing about this article before it stood was that it was basically entirely uncited. My goal was to get everything verified and show the books are notable - it is not obligated to make it so the article is GA quality, but that it is no longer a serious policy violation and so can be kept. Do her books have sigcov? Yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The notability standard is "has she written multiple notable books"

No.

1. The standard is that (a) they are the creator of a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, and, (b) that work has been reviewed multiple times.

2. Merely finding examples of the work being reviewed in the Kingston community newspaper does not establish that is "significant or well-known". You need RS that (a) affirm her work is significant or well-known, and, (b) evidence of multiple reviews.
To say that "I found 5 or 50 or 500 reviews so that must mean the work is well-known" is an interpretive error of NAUTHOR frequently made. Chetsford (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline defines significant body of work by it having been reviewed multiple times. Many notable works is notability for its creator, yes.

Yes, it was reviewed by established literary magazines (TLS, Booklist), academic journals (The Observatory), and science magazines (New Scientist). PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The guideline defines significant body of work by it having been reviewed multiple times." I'm sorry but, you're wrong. The conjunctive adverbial phrase "In addition" at WP:NAUTHOR unambiguously affirms the multiple review test is the second of a two-part requirement. I quote directly with emphasis added: "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" You're trying to crest NAUTHOR by meeting only part two of a two-part standard. Chetsford (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Roxy the dog 11:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chetsford. I can't really find anything. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added more content and citations to the article. Randles has, not one but two, biographical entries for her name on Encyclopedia.com, one in the Arts section and a longer one in the Science section, which is the preferred one to cite. [61], [62]. It is also very likely an entry exists in Gale's Contemporary Authors but that is an expensive subscription service for large libraries and requires an in-person visit or an online ID to access. It is clear to me notabilty for an article is obvious at this point and WP:HEY also applies. 5Q5|^✉ 14:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your !vote. It seems our general consensus on encyclopedia.com is that the sources it references should be cited, not the site directly. In the case of Randles, it cites 5 sources,[63] a non-RS book by haunted house writer / ghosthunter Jerome Clark, and four books all written by Randles herself. Also, I checked the mysterious Gale's reference and could find no entry. Chetsford (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the question of encyclopedia.com is probably a bigger issue than can be handled in an AfD now that I look into it. I've opened an RfC here to keep this page tidy. Apologies for the diversion. Chetsford (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5Q5 per the evolving RSN discussion, it seems sources identified via encyclopedia.com should be sourced to the original content that encyclopedia.com republished and then linked to encyclopedia.com for reader convenience. In the case of the entry on encyclopedia.com you linked to, the original source is Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. However, I checked Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology [64] and no entry on Jenny Randles exists. So I think we'll need to either identify where this content you found on encyclopedia.com is originating from or remove it for failing WP:V. Chetsford (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was editor PARAKANYAA's citation for Northern UFO News,[65] not mine. 5Q5|^✉ 11:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why hasn't an author of books like UFO Retrievals: The Recovery of Alien Spacecraft, Star Children: The True Story of Alien Offspring Among Us , Sixth Sense: Psychic Powers and Your Five Senses, etc. received any critical analysis of their extraordinary claims? That is usually a red flag that indicates an author is not notable enough to have been noticed by mainstream sources. Could she really be the skeptical and respected scientific investigator our present article presents her as? No, I found a couple of critical reviews that say otherwise so I added them to the article. But I'd expect a lot more for a truly notable fringe author. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 12:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mati Shemoelof

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

No substantial independent coverage. The mentioned award is from a non-notable website. Largoplazo (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Judaism, and Israel. Largoplazo (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mati Shemoelof is an established author and poet with a significant body of work published in both Israel and Germany. He has published 12 books, including poetry, prose, and essays, and his work spans multiple languages and cultures.

Shemoelof has written regular columns for leading publications such as Haaretz and Israel Hayom in Israel, The Jewish Independent in Australia, and currently writes for Berliner Zeitung in Germany. His writings and literary contributions have been covered by major media outlets, including The New York Times and prominent German newspapers.

In addition to his existing publications, Shemoelof is set to release his first book in English next year, along with a new book written in German to be published in Germany.

Given his international presence, ongoing literary activity, and the recognition he has received across various media platforms, deleting his Wikipedia page would overlook the notability and relevance of his work. His contributions to literature and journalism are well-documented, diverse, and continue to have a global impact. מתיאל (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't directly consider a person's work to make its own evaluation as to their notability. You need to establish his notability by showing where he has received elsewhere, in reliable sources, the sort of attention you're saying he should receive here. See WP:Notability. Largoplazo (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is a widely published author and poet whose work has been recognized in both academic scholarship and international media. His literary contributions have received independent, sustained attention across multiple years and languages.

Academic References

His work is discussed in Rachel Seelig’s monograph Strangers in Berlin: Modern Jewish Literature between East and West, 1919–1933 (University of Michigan Press, 2016), which situates his writing within the broader context of Jewish literary modernism in Berlin.

Link: https://press.umich.edu/Books/S/Strangers-in-Berlin

In the Brill volume Pillars of Salt: Israelis in Berlin and Toronto (2019), Chapter 3 describes him as “one of the more prolific Israeli literates in Berlin,” underscoring his importance in diasporic Israeli writing.

Link: https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004413816/BP000014.xml

His prose piece The Berlin Prize for Hebrew Literature was included in the De Gruyter volume The German-Hebrew Dialogue (2017), edited by Amir Eshel and Rachel Seelig, confirming his direct engagement with scholarly literary discourse.

Link: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110499620/html

Israel Studies Review (Vol. 39, Issue 3, 2024) published an article that analyzes his engagement with German literary culture and examines his role within Berlin’s Hebrew-writing community.

Link: https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/israel-studies-review/39/3/isr390309.xml

The article “The ‘return’ of a diasporic Hebrew literary culture in Berlin” (Jewish Culture and History, 2021) identifies him as a key Mizrahi author shaping the revival of Hebrew literature in Germany.

Link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1462169X.2021.1917059

Non-Academic & Media Coverage

Haaretz (1 May 2023) featured his work prominently in an article on Hebrew writers in Berlin, presenting him as part of a historical literary moment.

Link: https://www.haaretz.com/life/books/2023-05-01/ty-article/.premium/berlins-hebrew-writers-are-making-history/00000188-7e02-dc9c-a3db-ff7b7d640000

The Jewish Independent (2023) published his essay “A Language I Do Not Speak,” in which he reflects on questions of identity, migration, and literature in Berlin.

Link: https://www.thejewishindependent.com.au/a-language-i-do-not-speak/

His curated author profile on Literaturport, Berlin’s official literary portal, confirms his recognition as an established figure within the German literary field.

Link: https://www.literaturport.de/mati-shemoelof/

He was interviewed by the New Books Network (2021) about his book The Prize (Pardes), an international platform that engages with significant new contributions to world literature.

Link: https://newbooksnetwork.com/the-prize

Conclusion

Taken together, these references demonstrate:

Independent scholarly attention from major academic presses and peer-reviewed journals.

Sustained coverage across time (2016–2024), indicating enduring relevance.

Cultural and literary impact documented in prominent international media and Berlin’s literary institutions.

The subject therefore meets the notability criteria through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. For these reasons, the deletion proposal should be withdrawn. מתיאל (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC) מתיאל[reply]

Delete - while he's written lots of words, he's not gotten significant coverage about himself. Bearian (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful for other editors to review these new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Paparusso

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. This article was previously deleted through AfD for lack of valid secondary sourcing. This issue still exists. The new sources from 2025 added to this article are all puff pieces generated by LLMs: "Long before Nicola Paparusso emerged as a leading advocate for diversity in fashion, his professional journey was firmly anchored in the spheres of politics and media—fields where strategy, communication, and influence intertwine." and "In today’s digital era, where viral fame can skyrocket overnight, the role of a discerning talent manager has become indispensable." I also suspect the subject to be engaging in Brown envelope journalism as the professionally taken portrait photo has been professionally retouched in Adobe and shared with all the new news articles from 2025 and magically appears in his infobox. The creator of this article swears that they don't have a WP:COI but I don't believe them (see their talk page for convo). Also, the Order of Malta has 13,500 knights and the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic has 160,285 members, therefore, the simple fact of having these orders does not confer notability in itself. I don't see any valid sources from Italian media either, just blogs. I also kindly request the deleting admin to salt this article, thank you. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 11:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 11:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Fashion, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hello fellow Wikipedians. I am tagging you because of your previous comments in the last AfD on this subject. I would really appreciate your input once again. Thank you. @Oaktree b, Mekomo, and Vanderwaalforces: m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 13:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would prefer to see more sources outside of Nigeria to !keep. This was the best I could find [66]. Most of the sourcing in the article feels PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Oaktree b, here are few more Italian publications "reliable sources": 2, 3, and 4. I run this via Google news tab. Afí-afeti (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't seem to pull up any official sourcing for the SMOM award, I'm not very trusting of a Nigerian source as the only such confirmation. Could be a hoax for all we know. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Oaktree b, here's an Italian publication that also made mention of SMOM, a reliable source, listed on Newspapers in Italy. Afí-afeti (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The links above are mostly about the singer he represents, I'm unsure if they're RS (I'm not familiar with them), hoping others can weigh in. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are RS found in Ghana media: 5 and 6. In addition to RS in Italy, which made mention of SMOM, I found a magazine, which was the first link you mentioned above @Oaktree b. Afí-afeti (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Several Italian RS confirm that SMOM. An interview with the subject also indicates support from African institutions, like the Senegal’s Ministry of Culture, so I wouldn't be surprised by all the African coverage he's getting in West Africa. Furthermore, the subject has received national honors and has been covered in independent, reliable, and verifiable sources—particularly when corroborated by the Italian references. The subject passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.--Afí-afeti (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we need to be more specific about what constitutes a reliably sourced BLP, but this clearly isn't one. Managers are run of the mill - and don't inherit notability automatically from their clients. Bearian (talk) 11:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right that we need to apply WP:BLP and WP:RS rigorously, especially when assessing notability in biographical articles. However, it's important to clarify that notability for managers and other behind-the-scenes figures doesn't require inheritance from their clients, but rather independent, significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources per WP:GNG. Here's my key point: "Has the subject received in-depth, non-routine coverage that goes beyond trivial mention—coverage that demonstrates why they are notable in their own right, not just by association"?; the answer is "Yes". Afí-afeti (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian; I would like to point out that, the Subject is also a film producer, aside being a manager; credited as co-writer and producer of Gran Galà del Made in Italy, a television program co-produced with Rai 1 and broadcast internationally via Rai International. Furthermore, the program received the Medal of Representation from then-President Giorgio Napolitano, which is a formal recognition of cultural significance. Here's my point, as movie producer that has produced such an award winning program, he already passed WP:FILMS also. With all of this information found on local source. Afí-afeti (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Similar to how a film or video director of a major award-winning film/video is considered to meet the notability criteria under WP:FILMS regardless of whether they meet WP:GNG, the subject in question may satisfy the relevant subject-specific guideline. If GNG looks tricky due to the language barrier. The subject produced a notable music videos, aired in Europe and in Africa; aside from producing an award-winning TV program aired internationally.--Afí-afeti (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A producer is even less notable than a manager. My domestic partner produced a film that got into the Cannes Film Festival. So what? He does not have a Wikipedia article. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While producers may not always meet notability standards, some certainly do if they’ve received in-depth, third-party coverage. The question here should be whether this individual meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, not how their role compares to someone else's experience. Speaking of Festivals, his movie recently got into the 2025 Venice International Film Festival, titled: "Anime Di Coraggio", the subject executively produced. Afí-afeti (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orwellian

AfDs for this article:

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

This word should be either redirected to George Orwell or soft-redirected to wikt:Orwellian. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the useful encyclopedic information here can be easily merged to Orwell's biography article if need be. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Arts, Language, Literature, Philosophy, History, Politics, and England. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources used in the article show GNG - they don't just mention the word in passing, they have whole sources around the word and its connotation and significance. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Orwell § Influence on language and writing per WP:NOPAGE at the very least, since pretty much everything here is already there. This doesn't need a separate article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems like an unused neologism. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As much of a deletionist as I consider myself, this isn't a neologism, and it's quite well used. An ngrams search shows the first uses in the 1940s, with generally increasing usage ever since. Not only that, but we actually have sources discussing this as a concept (not just as a word), so I think there's actually worthwhile content here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG, multiple sources in article that directly address the term itself. Additional ones found after a quick search NYT, Vox, USA Today. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But why not redirect as I suggested? It's a mere paragraph, and there's just not that much to say about it outside the context of Orwell's biography generally. And indeed, this content is already there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

soft keep nothing wrong with it per se Oreocooke (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to George Orwell § Influence on language and writing as per above. This is really just an elaborated dict def, and while the word is tossed around quite a lot I don't see the need to spin this out into a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Honestly surprised this is as small as it is. Definitely notable as it has sustained usage for decades. Certainly needs expansion. Metallurgist (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to be a notable term that can be expanded on beyond a simple dictionary definition per WP:NEXIST. I am of the belief that redirecting an otherwise notable page can often permanently prevent it from being expanded because very few editors assume redirected pages have article potential. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any specific details or information the article could be expanded with that would not be redundant to nor in scope for George Orwell? silviaASH (inquire within) 10:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources brought up in this same discussion can clearly be used to expand it into a full non redundant article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, sorry, I missed those links somehow. I'll have a look later and give my opinion. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The use of this word and thus the importance of this article will only grow with time. 2601:600:8F82:8370:7DBC:F230:C0D1:CA89 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Strehlow

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

I'm struggling to see the notability of this subject. He has a highly notable family and there is coverage of him in relation to his family, but not really individually. The biography he wrote might make the benchmark for an article for him, but it's pretty borderline. He doesn't seem notable as a theatremaker. Boneymau (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Theatre, and Australia. Boneymau (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of his theatrical work, his Triad Stage Alliance was the first Australian company to perform on the Edinburgh Fringe. They also won a Fringe First for that performance. In my opinion, that gives Strehlow some degree of relevance, even if it's just for the Edinburgh Fringe. He also wrote a number of plays that were successful throughout Europe. That, on top of his biographical work, justifies the existence of a John Strehlow article. Dr. Johnny (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In 19 years on Wikipedia, I have rarely, if ever, seen such an over-written article. It is also badly under-referenced, except for a lot of incomplete references, usually missing titles and page numbers, to theatre reviews that are, apparently, not available online. I have greatly reduced the cruft/fluff/trivia, though I think the article should really be cut back quite a bit more. Two of the "citations" aren't even citations, just lists of critics who supposedly reviews his book, and nearly all very incomplete, missing the title of the source(!) and have no page number or url. I'm not convinced that running an Australian theatre company that was supposedly (cite needed?) the first to perform at the Edinburgh Fringe theatre festival, even if that could be verified, makes him or it notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The terrible current state can be alleviated somewhat by going back a year in the history (prior to the major changes emanating from Washington of all places). His book The Tale of Frieda Keysser was reviewed in Aboriginal History, The Monthly and The Weekend Australian. Maybe could be handled differently, eg by moving to an article on the book with some background on the author but that does not require deleting. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal History is a journal. Review is in Volume 36, 2012, four page (203-206) review by Regina Ganter from Griffith University. -- added by Duffbeerforme

The Monthly

The Weekend Australian, ~2190 word review by Nicholas Rothwell, 11 Feb 2012.

What is the title of the article in Aboriginal history? What is the title and page no. or url of the article in The Weekend Australian? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Title and page number of Weekend Australian added, no url I know of, is available in NewsBank. PDF of Book reviews section of Aboriginal History [67]. Journal info [68]. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the article "False witness" in The Australian 10 November 2020 by Amos Aikman also helps. May be available online behind a paywall titled "Was Walter Baldwin Spencer a forger and a fraud?". duffbeerforme (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The article might be salvageable, but it's quite incomplete, and most of the references are unacceptable for Wikipedia in their current state. Ira Leviton (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. If nothing happens there then the draft can be deleted. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the flow and citations need a lot of work as noted above, and hinge on the publication about family connections, his theatrical work is notable. SunnyBoi (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. If this person is notable, it is for the books, not the theatrical work, which is, in my opinion as someone who works extensively on theatre bios, run-of-the-mill; his company was a small touring company touring to mostly small venues -- a London-based company that never played in the West End, never was nominated for an Olivier Award or any other indication of notability, unless new sources show otherwise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the subject is non-notable. I could not find anything to establish notability.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Puschmann

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

Lack of notability. Sabirkir (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Finance, Science, Economics, Germany, and Switzerland. Sabirkir (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. Despite having a decent amount of citations as per Google Scholar, (asaik) he has not made any foundational or major pedagocial publications. Neither does he hold any elevated academic positions which would make hime notable under the SNG ACADEMIC. There is also no secondary coverage of his person from outside of academia, so general noatbility is not cleared either. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak-keep. He is the top editor of a significant book series in his field published by Springer Publishing. While it doesn't exactly fit criteria 8 of WP:NACADEMIC; I do think the series is equivalent to editing a top journal in his field. Under the spirit of criteria 8 I would say he does meet NACADEMIC. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. His citation record appears prima facie good enough for WP:PROF#C1 but a closer look reveals verifiability problems with our article. It calls him a professor at the University of Zurich and at the University of the Fraser Valley. But the source cited for this is a web page at Zurich [69] that lists him under "postdocs / senior researchers", not professors. That page does indeed say "Professor at the University of the Fraser Valley Vancouver Canada" (as do several other bios listed as sources) but I can find nothing on the ufv.ca web site that suggests that he is a professor there and he is not listed in the university directory [70]. I did find another of those probably-self-written bios listing his UFV professorship in the past tense (starting in 2022) and stating that he is at Stanford since 2023 [71], but although I can find announcements of the launch of his center there I cannot find evidence of its continued existence. A web page naming him at a different Stanford center [72] has a link to a Stanford directory page [73] that can be read on archived versions but is now a 404. WP:PROF notability isn't based on independent sourcing but we still need our content to be based on sources that are reliable (a different thing than independence) and I'm uncomfortable having an article when we can't even verify who is the subject's employer. The difficulty of verifying these positions in combination with the usual need for us to be accurate in what we say about our subjects suggests that we should be strict about our usual source reliability standards for BLPs, but that doesn't leave much for us to say. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Authors proposed deletions

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