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

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 [1] and '"Michael D Swords" UFO' no mentions. [2]
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]

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]

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 [3] 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!" [4] — 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 [5] , written by Nick Pope, emcee of "Ancient Aliens: Live On Tour!" [6] — 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]

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]

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 ([7], [8]), merely repeat her interview tips while adding vapid TikTok comments ([9], [10]), or repeat what she wants to say about her own book ([11], [12]). 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 [[13]], 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 [14], [15]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some field hockey coverage here [16] with a brief obituary "necrologie" near the middle of the page, under the "bloc-notes" section [17]. 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. [18] 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 [19] 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? [20]. 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 [21], [22]. 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 [23] (the piece linked by Oaktree b, useful to see the issue imo) [24] [25] [26] [27]. involved with Van Tassel et al. [28] [29] 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 [30] and more on pages 90 and 92. He also has a full entry in the Ronald D. Story Encyclopedia of UFOs [31] 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 [32] is a single word mention of the subject in a long article on an unrelated person.
Item 6 [33] 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 [34] [35]

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. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] 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 [47] [48]

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. [49], [50]. 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,[51] 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 [52] 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,[53] 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]

Józef Kasparek

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

Primary contributor/creator (with Logologist being an older account of Nihil novi) has self-identified on Wikipedia as someone who is related to the subject of this article (see this diff, book can be found on Internet Archive where the name can be confirmed).

Undisclosed COI aside, sourcing is really poor throughout. The parts of the article that contain references are mostly sourced from the subject’s own works (including memoirs which are not published anywhere, as far as I can ascertain) and a “Who’s Who” book which I would think best to extend caution on given the integrity of these genres of book as raised by MediaKyle at the AfD for Kasparek’s relative.

I’ve also had to remove material from the article which was cited to another source because it failed verification – it most likely employed some degree of original research. I imagine much of the other unsourced material is also OR.

I can find a couple of instances where Kasparek’s work has been cited in the occasional journal article and a single question/statement to the editors of the NY Book Review hosted on their website but no significant and reliable coverage regarding him. ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Law, Military, Politics, Czech Republic, Ukraine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not WikiTree, and we do not host vanity articles for family members of editors. I agree with ToeSchmoker's assessment - like the other Kasparek, there is practically nothing here with the exception of Who's Who in Polish America, which is more than likely not GNG-worthy, and certainly cannot be the entire basis of an article. The remaining sources are Kasparek's own books and translations, without any actual coverage - not even a newspaper clipping to speak of. MediaKyle (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine S. Layton

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

Not notable. Cited sources are non-independent or primary. A WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Education, and United States of America. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOVE BACK TO DRAFT this was moved into article space from draft more than once by the creator. The last move was very much done without properly addressing the reasons why it was moved back into draft space in the first place. Only a couple of additional sources were added. So it should either be deleted or moved back to draft. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope I refuse My Page to be Moved back to a Draft or even get Deleted and That it should Stay the way it is and I also don't know why The World's 1st Enclyopedia has to be so Strict on making Sure Articles look very Proper on Everything including Citations (I'm not saying Copyright and Vandalism shouldn't be One of those Things i know they're Both Bad and doesn't deserve to Exist at all) Devolver789 (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot refuse anything. This is a community. It is your contribution but it is not your article. See WP:OWN and perhaps also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG, there is only one remotely-reliable source cited in the article and none in a search. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Against Deletion: You said "none in a search" that Is actually not True because I Searched for this Information on The Chrome Search Bar and Tried looking for Available Websites for This and I did. Devolver789 (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review what counts as reliable source, because user-generated content doesn't count as reliable. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't find any sources that suggest Layton is notable. I wondered if Chechens: culture and society might be notable; ProQuest finds a reasonable short review in the ALA journal Choice from July 2015, but it'd need at least one more to meet WP:NBOOK. Adam Sampson (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Choice counts much towards notability; they are not very discriminate in what they review and their reviews do not have enough depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The purpose of Choice is to advise (mainly public) libraries on purchases. The reviewers are librarians who are knowledgeable about what libraries might need to serve their patrons, but may not be subject experts. Lamona (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Did a search myself and couldn't find anything that would pass WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Not to mention that the prose and broken grammar used in the article is so challenging to decipher, it might be easiest to tear it down and start over even if the subject is notable. nf utvol (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely does not pass WP:PROF, my searches did not turn up any additional book reviews that would contribute to WP:AUTHOR notability, no evidence of WP:GNG notability, the unsourced state of most of the article brings WP:TNT into play, and the combativeness of Devolver789 suggests that, if kept, maintaining the article in an acceptable state of encyclopedicness is likely to be difficult. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If You are Really considering to Delete Katherine S. Layton then Delete Draft:Katherine S. Layton aswell. Devolver789 (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That should happen automatically; the draft is currently just a redirect to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah I agree with you I don't understand why the draft doesn't have a Deletion Post unlike it's Redirection which does have one. Devolver789 (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  If the article is deleted, the redirect at the draft will presumably be deleted under criteria G8. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This bizarre article smells of trolling. Possible joe job directed at the subject. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the nominator, she doesn’t satisfy any notability standards.Gedaali (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: It's been days and The Article hasn't been submitted for deletion yet. Devolver789 (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2025 (UK Timezone)

You already registered your !vote above, no need to bludgeon the process. Deletion discussions usually run for seven days unless there is a reason to re-list the discussion due to lack of consensus or it is closed early due to a snowball. Kindly take a moment to review WP:INTROTODELETE for more information. nf utvol (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out the repeated boldface from the same editor. You are only allowed one of those per AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure if Devolver789 lacks tact, never follows the news, or just is actually unconcerned about how his actions affect us. We can't have poorly sourced BLPs: wealthy and powerful individuals are looking for a "good excuse" to destroy us. Equally necessary is to stick to our due process principles; 7 days is our standard for deletions. Come back in 17 months, when the coast is clear, or we are still at war with Eastasia. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: largely unsourced, no indication of notability, and written in very unencyclopedic style. Draftification has previously failed, as the creator has just moved it back to mainspace, so deletion is the only way forward. PamD 15:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed several unsourced paragraphs from this BLP article. It was moved out of draft space in no fit state for mainspace. PamD 15:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my eyes, this bu*****t reads like an AI-GENERATED essay. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 16:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey don't swear that type of Language is not allowed on Wikipedia you know even when it's censored. Devolver789 (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Devolver789 I don't think so. See WP:OM and WP:WINC. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 19:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good job you didn't tell him not to be a ****, or a ****-***** *******. You truly are the great one Rafael! 10mmsocket (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@10mmsocket what? I didn't understand. Can you write it less confusing please? ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 01:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm skeptical that this is entirely or primarily AI-generated. Most AI text that I have seen is not written in such bad English. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @David Eppstein the text I am thinking about is: For nearly two Decades (Twenty years), Katherine Sue Layton has been working as a Human Rights Professional fighting for proper Human Rights and Freedom for Countries who have been Torn from Historical Events that Soon led to them Being poor and have an Undependable Government mainly Türkiye, The Northern Caucasus, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina which is why She helped them By doing Lots and Lots of Fieldwork for Refugees to give Them Humanitarian Aid and advocating for their Rights. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 12:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems more clear cut than the debate indicates. Per nomination, delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayfer Veziroğlu

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

Page moved to main by COI editor (see Talk:International Association for Hydrogen Energy) over draftification. Editor is performing many promo and/or inappropriate actions on various pages including removal of tags, AI etc. This page is for a not notable CEO of an organisation. No pass of WP:NPROF, no WP:SIGCOV or pass of WP:BIO. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Chemistry and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ldm1954, but the proposed article on Dr. Ayfer Veziroğlu meets the notability requirements. She is the president, top leadership and top executive at a major academic society, the International Association for Hydrogen Energy. She particularly meets criteria #6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) 6-The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. Regarding the coverage note, as stated in the proposed page, you will find that her work and leadership in the International Association for Hydrogen Energy have received extensive, in-depth coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources, which are listed and detailed in the proposed wikipedia page.

I understand the concern about ai-generated content. I can assure you that I wrote this article myself, based on research I conducted from various reliable sources. I have checked and visited every single resource in this page, show me any prove of ai information, at least in this page!.

Regarding the note of me having a close connection to the subject, I declare that have no close connection to her; I am committed to improving all hydrogen related articles because hydrogen is my passion, and would welcome any and all edits from other editors to ensure it meets the highest standards of neutrality. My primary goal is for this to be a factual and encyclopedic page. HydrogenEagle (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The notability of International Association for Hydrogen Energy (the organisation of which she is the President and CEO) has been questioned by Cabrils, see the associated talk page. Note that "President and CEO" is a common term used for the executive director who is employed by the organization and is in charge of operations, different from being elected as President of an established notable society such as APS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question of notability of International Association for Hydrogen Energy is an old question..I trust Wikipedia editors have the right to ask this question, but the page of International Association for Hydrogen Energy has passed this step before, when it was published and accepted in articles for creation submission (AFC)..Does the following reference satisfy your concerns about her being 'elected' as a president? https://fuelcellsworks.com/2024/10/03/h2/the-international-association-for-hydrogen-energy-has-a-new-president-and-executive-vice-presidents HydrogenEagle (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Portugal, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACADEMIC. Lacks significant coverage in independent sources, and doesn't meet any WP:SNG criteria. Suggest reporting editor to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard if it hasn't been done already.4meter4 (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you 4meter4 for feedback, I have added more resouces to the page after editors feedbak in the deletion discussion, please check again. HydrogenEagle (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG despite the well-puffed content of the BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you Xxanthippe for feedback, I have added more resouces to the page after editors feedbak in the deletion discussion, please check again. I appreciate if you point out 'the puffed content' to remove it from the page. HydrogenEagle (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article states that she took over as head of IAHE from her husband, its founder. To me that suggests that it is more in the nature of a family business than an academic society whose elected presidency is a significant honor. I don't think we can use WP:PROF#C6 and must fall back on other criteria. But we have no evidence of WP:GNG notability, her citation record is borderline for WP:PROF#C1 (noting that all her highly-cited articles are in the journal of the organization she runs), and I don't see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you David for feedback. I have added more resources to the page after editors feedbak in the deletion discussion to show her coverage from outside the IAHE, Dr. AyferVeziroğlu's academic notability based on her publication record and high citation count (not only IAHE), from independent sources, directly addressing the concerns about WP:GNG and WP:PROF#C1.

Regarding the comment that the IAHE presidency may be 'more in the nature of a family business,' I respectfully submit that the internal governance or succession process of a professional organization is outside the scope of an encyclopedia. There is no evidence in any published source to support the claim that the IAHE is a 'family business.'. The role's significance is demonstrated by the extensive, independent coverage Dr. Ayfer Veziroğlu has received from academic journals, news outlets, and other professional bodies, as now detailed in the article. https://www.iahe.org/en/board

The notability of the subject should be judged solely on the verifiable, published record, not on speculation about the nature of her personal or professional relationships. The updated page now provides ample evidence from reliable sources to justify her inclusion. HydrogenEagle (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person hasn’t held any notable academic positions, and her research doesn’t meet WP:PROF#C1. also, there are no reliable sources per WP:GNG, so she fail notability.Gedaali (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gedaali for feedback, I have added more resouces to the page after editors feedbak in the deletion discussion, please check again. HydrogenEagle (talk) 07:56, 26 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 [54]. 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]

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]

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 [55]. Journal info [56]. 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]

Authors proposed deletions

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