Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors for deletion)
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Authors|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Authors. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Purge page cache watch

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


Authors

edit

Józef Kasparek

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

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]

Katherine S. Layton

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

Not notable. Cited sources are non-independent or primary. A WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. 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]

Ayfer Veziroğlu

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

Page 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

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

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

Nicola Paparusso

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

Fails WP:GNG. 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 MANÍ1990(talk | contribs) 11:51, 24 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]

Asif Adnan

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

Per WP:RELPEOPLE, subject does not appear to be notable. Coverage currently available is almost entirely limited to allegations of militancy/extremism, based on law enforcement press briefings. Such coverage alone does not seem sufficient to demonstrate significant, independent, and reliable sourcing required as per WP:GNG. —MdsShakil (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This runs afoul of WP:CRIME; not meeting any of the criteria for perpetrators. There's nothing here to suggest notability beyond alleged criminal allegations of terrorist activity, and that is insufficient for notability based on our guidelines for criminal perpetrators.4meter4 (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Scherber

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

Owning a bakery of local interest does not seem a claim to notability strong enough to merit an encyclopedic article.

In addition, I'd argue that, if anything is notable here, is the bakery itself, and not the person. This seems a case of someone who is known for a single event: having founded a bakery.

"When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." WP:SINGLEEVENT 

JohnMizuki (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, she was nominated twice for the James Beard award for outstanding pastry chef. Clearly someone at the top of her field. Thriley (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Amy's Bread and rework as needed. As per nom this appears to primarily be a WP:BLP1E, as even the books are based on the notability of the resturant/bakery. Nothing outside of the bakery seem to indicate she has done anything significant or noteworhty. It does look like her company, has come to widespread acclaim, with multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources, providing significant coverage of either the bakery or Amy herself. However, as it stands right now, this is all established because of her success as a busiensswoman and the acclaim she has received because of the business. The only reliable, sigcov that I found in the news was an interview about her daily life and her gardening[2] but there was nothing notable about that and if she wasn't known for her bakery (as established in the article lead), there is no reason given for why write about this persons private life. The books themselves are not notable, and fail WP:BKCRIT and they don't even rank all that well, such as Amazon showing all three books under the category of Baking Bread as not even in the top 500. All that to say, the books seem rather non-notable, and they gain their significance only from the association with the bakery. TiggerJay (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BLP1E is not accurate here at all. She’s gotten coverage for over 30 years from being a business owner, an author, and promoter of baking. She’s won awards- there are more nominations and wins to mention. Clearly meets GNG. Thriley (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for adding the information about the award nominations. I wasn't aware of that. Notability is now demonstrated. JohnMizuki (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO as a multiple nominee of the James Beard Award.4meter4 (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree that it passes WP:BASIC per the existing sources and possibly WP:GNG. Encourage the nominator to please slow down and familiarize yourself more with deletion processess before inappropriately prodding and nominating so many articles for deletion. You may also want to gain more experience with editing in mainspace and in participating in other tasks. Happy editing. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see what BLP1E or anything else wrong with this article. FWIW, several of my friends follow her on social media, and I've heard of her bakery. Bearian (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antony John Baptist

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

Fails to meet Wp:GNG and Wp:ANYBIO. No secondary coverage. Zuck28 (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – With respect, I believe this article meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements under several established guidelines:
  • Under WP:GNG, there is significant, independent coverage of Antony John Baptist in reliable secondary sources. This is more than routine or passing mentions.
  • According to WP:AUTHOR, authors are presumed notable if their works have received multiple independent reviews. Thus Spoke the Bible: Basics of Biblical Narratives and Unsung Melodies from Margins have indeed been reviewed in reliable publications, which supports this standard.
  • WP:ANYBIO also provides that individuals with significant coverage in independent sources merit a standalone article. As both a priest and published author with reviewed works, Antony John Baptist fits within this scope.
  • The sources demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, offering in-depth treatment rather than trivial mentions.

In light of these points, I suggest that the best course is to improve the article with the available references rather than delete it. The subject clearly meets the threshold set by Wikipedia’s own guidelines, and keeping the page would align with policy.

— Alephjamie (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly provide the " multiple independent reviews" and "significant, independent coverage of Antony John Baptist in reliable secondary sources." Zuck28 (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: As I have long done for such a WP:BLP, I won't consider new sources until they are added to the article. Bearian (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Meets, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:ANYBIO. Antony John Baptist has received significant, independent coverage in reliable sources as a Catholic priest, biblical scholar, and author. His academic and pastoral work focuses on contextual theology and the interpretation of biblical narratives from the perspective of marginalized communities such as Dalit women. His published works and leadership roles at NBCLC, CCBI, TNBC and CBCI constitute WP:SIGCOV, supporting his notability as both an author and priest.RevJackDaniels (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevJackDaniels (talk • contribs) 05:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ian M. Duguid

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

Lack of Wp:SIGCOV in Wp:RS, fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. The references are minimal and non-independent. Such content violates WP:NOTPROMO, turning Wikipedia into a free promotional tool for academics. Also, the article's title is misspelt, I don't understand whether deliberately or by mistake. Zuck28 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his first book is notable [6] [7], haven't checked the rest. Article is not promotional imo PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:20, 24 August 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. Withdrawn by nominator with unanimous support for keeping. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conversations avec J. M. G. Le Clézio

edit
Conversations avec J. M. G. Le Clézio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While J. M. G. Le Clézio is obviously notable, the article does not cite any sources and fails WP:NBOOK. I was unable to find evidence that "Conversations avec J. M. G. Le Clézio" has been the subject of any published works, let alone independent ones, failing criterion 1. The Nobel Prize website mentions the book, but the site does not specifically mention the book itself as having won any major awards, which makes me doubt that it meets criterion 2. I feel that if the book had made any contributions to sciences, humanities or arts or anything else, then there would be something mentioning it in the article -- there isn't, so I doubt it meets criterion 3. I was unable to find anything relating to the book being used as a subject of instruction at any schools, failing criterion 4. While the author is at least somewhat significant, he's not significant enough so that any of his works are considered notable- he's not a common subject of academic study, in other words. Gommeh 📖/🎮 15:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It also appears in an index of reviews of the Times Literary Supplement, though I don't have access to that publication. There seem to be many French reviews but are a victim of the very poor digital access of French periodicals. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:19, 22 August 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.

Orwellian

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

This 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]

John Strehlow

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

I'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]

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 [13]. Journal info [14]. 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]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I don't yet see justification to SALT the page. Owen× ☎ 22:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Levi Carter

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

Restored following the AfD two months ago. I've done a new WP:BEFORE search and still can't find any sources that show WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. His achievements don't meet WP:ANYBIO. References found all seem to be press releases and/or unreliable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – The subject has significant coverage in independent, reliable sources beyond routine announcements. Examples include VoyageHouston (2017 profile), Click2Houston (2020 news article), Defender Network (multiple features, 2019–2020), and BlackBusiness.com (2019 article). His company’s repeated recognition on the Inc. 5000 list and authorship with ForbesBooks demonstrate notability under WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Article should be improved, not deleted. SLC1CR (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these sources were already mentioned in the previous discussion. I'm not sure if the new ones are enough to change consensus. I'll ping the people that reviewed the sources 2 months ago to see if this is now acceptable. @Asamboi:, @Mekomo:, @Oaktree b:, @Mooonswimmer:, @Bearian:, @Gheus: - if the new sources do address the concerns from 2 months ago, I'll withdraw the AfD. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:36, 20 August 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.

Thomas Puschmann

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

Lack of notability. Sabirkir (talk) 07:53, 16 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]

Tom Brand

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Lacking significant coverage of this executive. Does not seem to be notable as an author either. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
    ~ Some details ? Unknown
      ✘ No
      Dead link ? Unknown
    ~ Some details ? Unknown
  Primary     ✘ No
      ? Unknown
    ~ Some details ? Unknown
  Primary     ✘ No
      ✘ No
      ✘ No
  Press release   ~ Some details ✘ No
      ✘ No
      ✘ No
  Primary     ✘ No
      ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I've assessed the sources in the article. I was unable to determine the reliability of most of them due to their being trade publications (see WP:TRADES) or being of poor quality (e.g. this blogspot). I'm not seeing significant coverage of the subject. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Disclosure: I am the subject. Independent coverage exists:
– News-Press NOW: Former NAFB head chosen to lead St. Joseph Community Alliance (2024)
– News-Press NOW: Veteran farm voice leaving KFEQ Radio (2011)
– News-Press NOW: Familiar local voice has book published (2025)
– Radio World: Tom Brand Named NAFB Executive Director (2011)
– Radio World: NAFB Executive Director Tom Brand Steps Down (2023)
– University of Illinois ACDC: New Books (2025)

These show coverage across independent local media, reliable industry press, and academic listings. —HeartlandStoryteller (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HeartlandStoryteller, editors can only cast one bolded "vote" and you have already done so at the beginning of this discussion so I have struck this second vote. Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more participants to weigh in here and a review of these newly added sources if they are not already included in the source assessment table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Here's my assessment of the new sources—
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
  Republished news release     ✘ No
  Entirely quotes of Brand     ✘ No
  Heavily quotes of Brand     ? Unknown
  Republished news release     ✘ No
  Republished news release     ✘ No
      States that book exists ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Some of these sources were also analyzed the first time around but my thoughts were written without reference to that. Overall these sources obviously heavily depend on press releases or interviews with limited journalistic transformation to make them proper secondary sources. It is important to me as well that you, HeartlandStoryteller, know that none of this is a personal attack against you (another reason why autobiographies are a bad idea because you don't WP:OWN anything once you publish it). And finally, you DON'T want to be WP:FAMOUS. Moritoriko (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Authors proposed deletions

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Authors&oldid=1307909049"