Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Crystal personal.svg WikiProject Biography
General information (edit · changes)
Announcements
Departments
Work groups and subprojects
Things you can do (edit)


Biography article statistics
Arts and Entertainment Work Group

The Arts and Entertainment Work Group is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.


Related Projects

Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.

Related Portals

Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs... Specific discipline portals are listed in that section.

Navigation
Articles
Announcements/To Do (edit)

Add this to-do list to your User page! {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Arts and entertainment/Announcements}}

Directions for expanding any division below

The general outline and collection has been started, but if you would like to expand and organize a discipline, here's what you do. Right below the page heading for the discipline insert this: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Work groups/Division banner}} and save. This will put a rough outline together for you and then you can edit it to conform to your area. See Writers and critics below for an example. If your project grows large enough where it's taking up a good portion of this page, you should probably move it to a subpage of this page.

You might also want to make a Members section for people to join your specific area!

Tagging articles

Any article related to this work group should be marked by adding |a&e-work-group=yes to the {{WPBiography}} project banner at the top of its talk page. This will automatically place it into Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles. Articles can be assessed for priority within this work group by using the |a&e-priority= parameter. See Template:WikiProject Biography/doc for detailed instructions on how to use the banner.

Members

  1. come help with the Bronwen Mantel article Smith Jones 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Lovelaughterlife (talk · contribs) Worked extensively on some biographies; reverted vandalism some others
  3. Francoisalex2 (talk · contribs)
  4. Dovebyrd (talk · contribs)
  5. Artventure22 (talk · contribs)
  6. Truth in Comedy (talk · contribs)
  7. Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs)
  8. DENAMAX (talk · contribs) Maxim Stoyalov
  9. Ozgod (talk · contribs)
  10. Eremeyv (talk · contribs)
  11. Susanlesch (talk · contribs), mostly inactive
  12. EraserGirl (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. Shruti14 (talk · contribs) will help when I can
  14. Jubileeclipman (talk · contribs) I am interested in taking on UK celebrities with articles that are stubs or otherwise non-standard. Entirely rewrote Fearne Cotton to raise standard and remove fansite tag. I am working on Holly Willoughby which was merely a list plus trivia. Will also work on musicians, all genre, living or dead.
  15. Jarhed (talk · contribs) 21:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  16. Mvzix (talk · contribs)
  17. Cassianto (talk · contribs)
  18. Iamthecheese44 (talk · contribs)
  19. Georgiasouthernlynn (talk · contribs)
  20. Fitindia (talk · contribs)
  21. BabbaQ (talk · contribs)
  22. Woodstop45 (talk · contribs)
  23. Willthacheerleader18 (talk · contribs)

General

Infoboxes

Requested articles

Actors

Architects

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Sanwal sharma

Illustrators

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Painters

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:
Painters

Photographers

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Sculptors

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:
Sculptors

Comics artists

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Visual arts deletions

Visual arts deletion sorting discussions


Visual arts

Joe Boudreau

Joe Boudreau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I can't find good sources for this article with one source. GNG Fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails GNG. The one source in the article has no link, but is cited as refuge.com. That is the website of a spa, and there is nothing on the site about art exhibitions. The ref is thus likely either not RS or entirely faked. SpinningSpark 03:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. A Google search turned up zero sources. The only thing relating to the subject is a GoFundMe page to cover the cost of the subject's cremation and memorial service. Straightforward fail of WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. The artist was mentioned and quoted on ABC 7 Eyewitness News, Gallery showcases work of recovering addicts, 4 February 2008, by Harry Porterfield. The artist is also mentioned and discussed on The Chicago Reader, Arts & Culture, Art Therapy, 6 March 2008, by Deanna Isaacs. And on his gallery website, Thomas Masters Gallery. So, to say "a Google search turned up zero sources" is not only imprecise, but simply erroneous. I found these reliable sources in a one minute search on Google, and will continue searching for a few more minutes. Coldcreation (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The artists is also mentioned on Chicago Artist Resource, Career Moves: Mieke Zuiderweg - Gallery Media Director, 26 October 2012 by Alicia Car. Coldcreation (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Mentioned too on Chicago Art Magazine, Joe Boudreau’s Crazy F----- Maps. 19 October 2009, by Erik Wennermark. Coldcreation (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
And Apartment Therapy, A Designer's Modern Mix in a Sophisticated Chicago Loft, 31 March 2017, Aimée Mazzenga. Coldcreation (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
And Modern Luxury, Interiors. And Windy City Media Group in 2009. And a brief mention in Chicago Architect, Best Interior Designers Chicago. And (not sure how reliable this one is) Ranker, Famous Neo-expressionism Artists. And Crain's Chicago Business, 1 May 2009.Coldcreation (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Therefore, the article appears to pass the WP:GNG test. Coldcreation (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Coldcreation, GNG is not passed with a bunch of passing mentions which is what you seem to have there. Do you have anything with substantial coverage? SpinningSpark 08:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Bob Eggleton

Bob Eggleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Your results may vary, but my search turned up only interviews and passing mentions of his legendary greatness. Obviously established in the sci-fi/horror art illustration scene, but article has three sources and I cannot find more. GNG Fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep won the Hugo Award for Best Professional Artist multiple times. Passes WP:ARTIST. Vexations (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - if we can get some citations for them, the Hugo Award and Chesley Award are pretty significant. Also, he's got an asteroid named after him; how cool is that? ;) BOZ (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
    Hugo Award for Best Professional Artist article notes his 8 wins, and has all the citations we could need. BOZ (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn OK, I'll stay away from Sci-fi articles in future. I had looked at the Hugo Award, but when I saw the Wordpress site and the web design, I gauged it for less notability than my esteemed colleagues above do. Article still only has three sources. Anyway, my mistake, apologies and withdrawn. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Ivan Jenson

Ivan Jenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Without notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

100 Contemporary Artists A-Z

100 Contemporary Artists A-Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails book notability, as it lacks two in-depth sources. I removed a source for the independent that was trivial, but more importantly for a different book. I also removed 'sources' by Amazon, Goodreads and Book Depository, who are not RS. Search turned up nothing more than promotional blurbs and book seller sites. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Steve Bogdanoff

Steve Bogdanoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I cannot find enough Rs to establish GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Tina Frugoli

Tina Frugoli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Recent article. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I am the article's author. I wasn't 100% confident myself that the subject qualified as notable, and will not oppose this deletion nomination, though I am not sure I understand how the article's "recentness" bears on the subject's notability (?). A loose noose (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It doesn't relate to notability. It's just a note to say the article has not been around for along time, which would have likely subjected it to more scrutiny.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay... But that seems like less of an argument and more of an innuendo: "This article hasn't been around long enough to have been thoroughly scrutinized, so let's begin with the assumption that it might be a good candidate for deletion, before we even begin looking at its sources." Shouldn't you begin by saying, "The sources in this article do not adequately convey the subject's notability" if that, in fact, is what you believe to be true? Arguing to the age of the article is like an ad hominem attack: it isn't actually relevant, though maybe it is just too tempting not to mention it. What if we had to stick to the article and its sources rather than its age or what color it is or how fast it can run? I am not saying the sources here convey notability, I am saying aren't they supposed to be the thing that matters? Or would you rather slip poison in my tea? A loose noose (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok , you found me out--I'm CIA. The article age comment is a code I use to signal my comrades in an undisclosed location. Seriously now, ad hominem ("against the man") attacks are not possible on ideas. That's just fallacious. You might be reading too much into it. For example new articles have AFC and the new articles feed for a reason. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Bryan Dubreuiel

Bryan Dubreuiel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

GNG fail. No RS found in search. Tagged for notability since 2010. (I am very curious also to know what the "amplification" section means.) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Criss

Andrew Criss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Straightforward GNG fail. I found one source in a search, published in the "Chestnut Hill Local" news. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Dana Levin (artist)

Dana Levin (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

First of all there is a Dana Levin (poet) who generates lots of results in a search for sources. This Dana Levin does not seem to meet NARTIST. The sources are so poor that I am not sure if she meets GNG either. Items like the "Interview with Artist/Teacher Dana Levin" by Art Renewal Center are not RS as it is an interview and it is about a scholarship they gave her. Most other sources given are exhibition blurbs (not independent) or passing mentions. I could not find enough in a search to establish notability, although I could be wrong. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete Not sure if this is a hoax, but the first four refs that I attempted to navigate to were no good.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Could find only two working sources in the article, one an art gallery profile and the other an alumni show. Neither are reliable sources. Also, nothing better from a Google search - actually found nothing at all. Fails WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Richard Holton

Richard Holton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non notable as sources can't be found. As is often the case with commercial artists, the page is basically used as an ad for his interior design company. Per our policies on advertising, I think the standard for inclusion here should be quite high. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Not Notable at this time Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 20:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as promo. The creator of the article, User:Anthonyn000 has a user page that is a biography of Anthony Niehaus, who is a partner in Holton Interiors. In the article/user page he is listed as Partner and Director of Sales. Vexations (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Pennina Barnett

Pennina Barnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Plenty of mentions and listings as a contributor here and there. Plenty of advertisements for books but nothing that talks about her from reliable and independent sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR.  Velella  Velella Talk   11:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I cannot find enough in-depth coverage in a search independent of the article. Article had signs of falsified/ puffed up sources and claims.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete founded a new and non-notable or , at least, not-yet-notable journal. My searches found a brief mention in Women's Studies Quarterly that described her as a "textile theorist." Lede calls her a "curator" but doesn't say where. There are many museums of textiles, and major museums have curators of textiles; perhaps she had curated some exhibits, but it's not a claim like "curator of textiles at the V & A" would be. I agree with ThatMontrealIP that this has a PROMO feel; Certainly text has a lot of woefully inadequate citations. And, well, I'm just not finding notability. Feel free ot flag me to revisit is somebody sources it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • About a hundred library holdings: [1]. GScholar h-index of at least 5: [2]. There do seem to be sources saying she won the ALPSP/Charlesworth Award for Best New Journal in 2005: [3]. Some coverage: [4] James500 (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Academic at Goldsmith's College, University of London: [5] [6]. Curator of the modern part of the "Subversive Stitch" exhibition at the Cornerhouse Gallery, Manchester, 1988 (see Cornerhouse): [7] [8] [9] [10]. James500 (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Blockwash

Blockwash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Not notable Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 08:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment' This technique is a form of resist painting, perhaps it can redirect there if it is ever adopted by more artist than the inventor. Vexations (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Frank Guild

Frank Guild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Magazine illustrator at turn of 19/20C, for which I can find no coverage. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as I couldn't find any coverage. Just a few examples of his work in gbooks. --Theredproject (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Jophen Stein

Jophen Stein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

A search did not produce enough SIGCOV for GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as I couldn't find enough SIGCOV. --Theredproject (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Anson Holzer

Anson Holzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Independent SIGCOV was not found in search or in article. Fails GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 23:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 23:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as I couldn't find anything beyond his own homepage. --Theredproject (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Chuck McLachlan

Chuck McLachlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

fails GNG. Tagged since 2009 for notability. I am pulling many AFD candidates from the "list of American Artists since 1900". ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • comment I found this profile in a local Greensboro paper[11] --Theredproject (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
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. Tone 10:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Robert Florczak

Robert Florczak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

article on a visual artist (WikiProject Visual arts) that seems to be poorly sourced Bus stop (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Article sources (including the very weak Epoch Times are not substantial enough for GNG. Search says the same thing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 10:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Evan Goldman

Evan Goldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

GNG fail, sources are almost nonexistent. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as even his own website can only point to the people he studied with... [12]--Theredproject (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete No indications of being notable as an artist and no significant independent coverage to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
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.

Rah Crawford

Rah Crawford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

G4 has been contested on this article. Fails on WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. The New York Times sources that are reliable, have been discussed at previous deletion discussion too and were deemed trivial. Draft has been rejected twice in last one year. Hitro talk 14:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete no one but the article subject could have propelled the creation of such a flattering and detailed promotional piece, built on a foundation of passing mentions, minor accomplishments and articles published in sketchy sources. Fails GNG for lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Given the serious intent to creating a false persona of success here, as well as the previous deletion AFD, I would suggest SALT also.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I found independent coverage that includes a feature article about the subject in Philadelphia City Paper here. Mentions in three New York Times articles, one for a building mural the subject painted, here, another in a review of a Brooklyn museum here, and the third for a painting of a grinning man included in a gallery showing here, do not alone hold up as significant coverage. But they add to notability when coupled with several other media outlet coverage. Also helping meet notability guidelines is the subject's inclusion in being named one of 11 City of Philadelphia creative ambassadors. I worked on the article and added a couple more citations, but it could use more paring down and some reorganizing. Still, based on the varied coverage as it stands now, the article passes WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment WP:BASIC says "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", which is the case here. Also, please explain how this artist meets WP:NARTIST? He does not meet any of the criteria. The Nytimes sources are the definition of trivial, passing mentions. Here is the all that that Times sources above say
  1. From one courtyard you can look up at Rah Crawford’s “We Are Golden,” depicting Bushwick residents including a pigtailed girl with an outstretched arm holding a red balloon;
  2. an exuberant triptych by Rah Crawford channels Little Richard.
  3. Rah Crawford's buoyant, optimistic depictions of a grinning man (above, iMan: Media) suggest endless possibility.
The Times coverage totals 55 words. The "my City Paper" source is the only decent source. You can dream all you want, but the notability standards are not met by a long shot. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Three inclusions in New York Times art reviews are hardly "trivial" or "passing mentions," and your saying so does not make it true. By the way, I do not "dream" about notability standards that by my understanding are clearly met. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • So you are saying that 18 or more words (55/3, roughly) in the New York Times is SIGCOV? What about 16 or 17 words, is that still SIGCOV? It's clearly trivial coverage; two of them are not even complete sentences! Please see the WP:GNG guideline where trivial mentions are explained in an example: "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." (22 words). The problem here is that 55 words in the NYT is not significant coverage and does not contribute the subject's notability. As the GNG says" "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - The New York Times has twice been ranked the No. 1 newspaper in the U.S., thus the untriviality of being included in a Times arts review. That was my point. No need for a lengthy response or reiterating definitions I am quite familiar with. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You did not answer how he meets WP:ARTIST, which is a high standard. I agree that the Times is good. 150 words in the New York Times would indeed be excellent coverage. A single sentence, or half a sentence is trivial. It means the reporter probably spent less than a minute writing it. It seems that being familiar with definitions and understanding them are two different things.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment As WP:NCORP makes clear with examples, coverage in The New York Times is generally reliable, but not always significant. A mention in a sentence fragment is not significant coverage. --Vexations (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG per AuthorAuthor's sources. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • delete PROMO overstuffed with sources that look better than they are. recalling that he is from Philadelphia and lives in NYC, the sources that look good turn out to be local. this NYTimes article [13] ran in the local real estate section of the Times. The Philadelphia City Paper is celebrating a local boy. So we're left with a 2008 Times review by art critic Holland Cotter, of the Museum of Contemporary African Diasporan Arts, in which Crawford got half a sentence: "an exuberant triptych by Rah Crawford channels Little Richard."[14]. (the article in the Las Vegas Sun is labeled "submitted by Rah Crawford.") and a different 2008 review of a museum show at the Museum of Contemporary African Diasporan Arts by Times critic Monica Drake in which [15] he gets an image and a sentence: "Rah Crawford's buoyant, optimistic depictions of a grinning man (above, iMan: Media) suggest endless possibility." fails WP:ARTIST.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Many reliable sources available on the subject.WO1977 (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)WO1977 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note that this SPA is the creator of this page .E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review

Performing arts

Comedians

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:
Comedians

Dancers

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:
Dancers

Directors

Musicians

Magicians

Writers and critics

Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics

The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.

Related Projects

Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.

Related Portals

Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts

FAs and GAs
Announcements/To do (edit)

Members

Categories

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:
Writers

Comics writers

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Romance authors

Lists

Poets

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:
Poets

Stubs

Authors / Writers deletions

Authors / Writers deletion sorting discussions


Authors

Proud Refuge

Proud Refuge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized WP:AUTOBIO (compare creator's username to subject's birth name) of a musician who has no credible claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to carry it. The notability claims here are a "hit" single whose status on any IFPI-certified pop chart is completely unspecified and unreferenced for the purposes of passing NMUSIC #2, and winning a minor local music award that does not pass NMUSIC #8 -- and the referencing is cutting no ice either, as it's referenced entirely to blogs and primary sources and the results page of a Google search rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage in even one GNG-eligible media outlet. As always, musicians are not entitled to use Wikipedia as a promotional venue -- but this shows no evidence of passing any of the required notability standards. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough evidence of significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as a promotional autobiography that is a case of WP:PROMO, didn't notice it was an autobio when I deprodded it, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Mark Judge (writer)

Mark Judge (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Not notable outside of single event so WP:BLP1E. PackMecEng (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. His role in the Supreme Court nomination controversy is minor. - MrX 🖋 14:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. I think this discussion would be more appropriate in a month or so. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Another Believer: Do you think he would become notable outside of this event in a month or so? He has not been for the past 20 years. PackMecEng (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, possibly, if he continues to receive coverage. His face is all over news outlets currently. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
That is basically WP:RECENTISM and all tied to one event, with no sign of lasting notability. Leading to WP:BLP1E. PackMecEng (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Your specious argument is specifically why I am focusing on research into sources BEFORE any particular event. Sagecandor (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Even after a week of his name in the news there is barley anything to support a page just for him. His name an history can be a small piece at the pages for Kavanaugh ‎and Ford. ContentEditman (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. KalHolmann (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, commentator and published author of minor note prior to this incident. Gamaliel (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Enos733: I clicked the link you provided. There is no mention of Mark Judge. How would this help a Wikipedia visitor? KalHolmann (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
If the subject is truly a WP:BLP1E, then a mention of his alleged involvement (participation?) in the controversy would be appropriate there. However, I am beginning to think there might be enough book reviews to meet WP:Author, but I note that the reliable book reviews did not immediately pop up in my initial searches. --Enos733 (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Keep per WP:HEY and the comments of E.M.Gregory. --Enos733 (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Enos733, for having the strength of character to reevaluate your prior position based on subsequent improvements to the article. Sagecandor (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Author of multiple published books. Books are each subject of multiple published book reviews. Notable author. Independent notability. Notability prior to, during, and after any one individual particular event. Sagecandor (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Publishing books doesn't necessarily mean notable. See WP:AUTHOR, where the guidelines are "widely cited," "originating a new concept," "well-known work," or "significant critical attention." I don't think Judge can demonstrate any of these. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Before recent events brought him more noteriety, he was already the author of multiple books related to Georgetown Prep life and Washington D.C. area culture, and served as a contributing writer at prominent outlets such as The Daily Caller and The American Spectator. The recent events magnify these existing themes even more, so his bio should not be seen as a WP:BLP1E violation for "only for one event." The third criteria of BLP1E is not met. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Fuzheado: The third criterion reads, "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." There is no question that Ford's allegations are significant. However, Mark Judge's role in the underlying event was at most unsubstantial. As Ford tells it, his active participation consisted solely of jumping on top of the grappling couple, sending all three tumbling. Even accepting her version as true, we are left to ponder why he did so. Was it drunken horseplay or was he trying to prevent a rape? And in any case, Mark Judge himself denies the whole incident. KalHolmann (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Fuzheado: They do not meet the criteria for WP:AUTHOR. From what I see it meets all three criteria for WP:BLP1E. Certainly only received the vast majority of his coverage in relation to this one event. After this event they are unlikely to be notable for anything besides this event. Finally their roll in this event is rather insignificant. If they need to be covered in relation to this even they can be covered in any of the three other articles that talk about it. PackMecEng (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep for independent notability and enhanced notability. The fact that Mr. Judge's name is now in the news is not somehow a strike against notability, it is a point for it. Robert K S (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. I was going to nominate this one myself. A few minor books about very minor topics do not convey notability as required by WP:AUTHOR. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    • WP:AUTHOR more than satisfied. Author of not one, but multiple notable books. Books that are themselves independently notable and the subject of multiple independent book reviews themselves. Sagecandor (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
RS say otherwise, with little to no coverage of the books before this event. Even then they meet no criteria of WP:AUTHOR. So no coverage and no impact from his writing means they are not notable for their writing. PackMecEng (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Wrong. Multiple book reviews for multiple books. Sagecandor (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately my friend you are very mistaken. Also he fails to meet the other criteria of WP:AUTHOR as others have pointed out. Point one, heck no. Point two, again nope. Point three, don't think so. Point four, not happening. Having books does not make one a notable author. PackMecEng (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:AUTHOR as author of multiple books that satisfy WP:NBOOK, does make one a notable author. Sagecandor (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:NBOOK is for the books themselves, not the author. Which these books do not meet either btw. Also WP:AUTHOR has nothing to do with the number of books. PackMecEng (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter how many books he wrote. None of them are widely reviewed, impactful, or well known. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter how many times you complain, but it won't stop the fact that the books satisfy WP:NBOOK. Sagecandor (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep notable author. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete (or redirect to the Kavanaugh confirmation battle) on WP:BLP1E grounds, with no prejudice towards recreation should he gain more WP:RS coverage for his work as an author. 28bytes (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NAUTHOR - coverage (e.g. NYT) of his books on drunkeness culture. Involvement in the nomination schedule (the 1E) only adds to notability and doea not subtract.Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: Did you mean WP:AUTHOR? PackMecEng (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Yup, fixed above.Icewhiz (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:NOTNEWS. -- ψλ 21:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and Note that WP:BLP1E, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:NOTNEWS do NOT apply because the books were reviewed and cited (checked titles in gBooks) years before his high school drinking buddy was nominated to the Supreme Court, and those reviews carry him pas WP:NAUTHOR. The fact that Judge's life, career and books - several of which are about his drunk, high school partying, have been the subject extensive coverage since the nomination battle. Between the book reviews, the discussions of his books in secondary sources (some of which pre-date the nomination battle,) and the coverage sparked by the nomination he has WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Sagecandor (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
      • "have been the subject extensive coverage since the nomination battle" Which is a perfect example of why WP:NOTNEWS exists, E.M.Gregory. If he had not been connected with Kavanaugh, an article on him would have been put up here at AfD and delete would have been the consensus for not meeting WP:GNG, even in light of WP:NAUTHOR (as PackMecEng points out below). -- ψλ 13:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No. When he came into this week's news cycle, he was being described as a as a high school drinking/partying buddy of Kavenaugh' who had published a memoir about his youthful alcoholism. Turns out he published several. I started this article only after looking and ascertaining that his books had gotten enough coverage back when they were published to support notability. It looked like this [16]. WP:HEYMANN, many more pre-2018 sources have since been added, a couple by me, most by other editors. What I want to point out is that it is routine and legitimate for an editor like me who creates pages often, to notice a topic because it is in the news cycle, run some searches, and decide that the subject in the news had pre-existing notability, as happened with Judge who can pass AUTHOR on pre-2018 material. Of course, a lot of WP:BLP1Es are kept, because the person has become too notable to delete (you might want to re-read that policy). But to me, and despite the fact that I had never heard of him until this week, Judge is not in the [[WP:BLP1E] category because of the many years of coverage in WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable putative eyewitness and participant of a critical event. Mksword (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Is he though? PackMecEng (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think he would be borderline as an author, but the coverage of Judge as an author plus the Kavanaugh-related coverage brings this over the significant-coverage threshold, in my eye. Neutralitytalk 01:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Neutrality: If there was not recent coverage, would he be notable enough? Looking at the sources listed for reviews there is nothing continuing and certainly nothing impactful, at least to me. Yes some of his work at the time of release was covered by secondary sources but they come off as mostly passing mention and nothing sustained or particularly notable. PackMecEng (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • If it hadn't been for this, he'd never be noticed and no one would have ever accused him of being a notable author--which he isn't anyway (he doesn't have the coverage for it). So delete per NOTNEWS, though I have no doubt this will be kept because...well, NEWS. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. The coverage regarding Kavanaugh, along with his previous books and journalistic work, are plenty for GNG. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - BLP-1E and NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS as he doesn't otherwise appear to be notable - article would be deleted if not for the recent controversy. SportingFlyer talk 05:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I strongly suggest that editors look at the pre-2018 sourcing, which include multiple reviews of his books in WP:RS, such as this deep dive into Judge's argument Tales of a Gen X Swinger; A music critic's juvenile cultural politics by Jesse Walker. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Arguments based on either 1) he wouldn't be notable if there was only this one event, or 2) he wouldn't be notable with only prior coverage without this one event, don't actually have anything to do with the subject's actual notability. All the above are added to the ledger when accounting for GNG. There is apparently enough to write a well sourced article with, because we have written what is apparently a fairly well sourced article. Therefore GNG. GMGtalk 14:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes they do--if he hadn't done anything noteworthy before, it's a case where either NOTNEWS or BLP1E can apply. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Coverage prior to the one event doesn't have to itself meet GNG in a vacuum; it has to be sufficient to exclude If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. That is not the same as saying The person would still be notable if this event had never occurred. The one event, along with the prior coverage both factor into to GNG, and it's not necessary that either of those alone would meet GNG to say that both of them together do. BLP1E is not leave to arbitrarily ignore extant sources when considering the entire body of sources available for a subject. It is leave to disregard a short burst of sources when that's all there is. GMGtalk 15:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Liz Allen

Liz Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable person. Only sources are about her books, and her claims to fame and other promotional crap are unsourced. » Shadowowl | talk 18:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The page is inadequate and under-referenced, but Allen is a figure in Irish journalism. Keep. Bmcln1 (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Martin Roll

Martin Roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Lack of notability. Cites are to items which are abot products rather than him. TheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I wrote the original entry and I am amazed by the continued attempts to delete him. The previous editor that tried, ended up supporting keeping the article, and improved it considerably. Roll is a frequent expert contributor to global media, there is a full back page from China Daily only about him and he is the author of several books, one of which won the accolades of Business+Strategy. I am really lost as to why this is not sufficient, as my reading of the notability guidelines I have always followed, says that he fulfils the requirement. I am also slightly disappointed by an editor who says "about products and not about him", when this is factually incorrect, something that is evident if one reads all the referenced articles. Tobias Tan (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Here is the talk page edit that I made after reaching the conclusion that, contrary to my initial opinion, Martin Roll meets WP:GNG and therefore merits an article in Wikipedia. Zazpot (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Catherine Kaputa

Catherine Kaputa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC (no more than 39 cites on Google Scholar for any of her stuff). Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are more than three thousand library holdings of her books: [17]. Publishers Weekly has a book review of The Female Brand [18] and other coverage [19][20] [21]. James500 (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Shapiro

Stephen Shapiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Looking at the cited sources and online, not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Neither of the books "24/7 Innovation" nor "Goal-Free Living" seem to have significant reviews. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not easy to search for. There seem to be several notable people called Stephen Shapiro (with or without a middle name). I don't know what the "M" in Stephen M Shapiro stands for. GScholar citations for Stephen M Shapiro: [22]. The book "24/7 Innovation" by this author is highly cited with 183 cites. There are some other highly cited works there with 100+ cites, especially the Supreme Court Practice of Stern, Gressman, Shapiro and Geller, and the spectrometry papers, but they might by someone else, judging by their dates and content. James500 (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Colin Broderick

Colin Broderick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Nothing cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online. Lots of name dropping, but subject has not doing anything notable enough. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep far from being TOOSOON, the splash made by Orangutan in 2009 is TOOLONGAGO to have shown up in User:Edwardx's searches. Broderick sails past NOTABILITY, AUTHOR with the reviews and coverage that memoir generated. Page just needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


  • I VOTE TO KEEP IT! Look, I never heard of a lot of people who have articles in Wikipedia. Some of them are there just because they're related to a famous person but haven't much to write about in their own lives - yet they have a page here. I never heard of Colin Broderick until I came across this article through a link from the article on Brendan Coyle. It was crap and needed work, so I cleaned it up. It took me quite a lot of time to do so.

    If anyone thinks it looks promotional now, after I spent almost the entire day yesterday looking for sources to cite --AND FOUND MANY-- then I might wonder about your sanity. You should compare what it looks like today to the previous versions before I found it. It had clearly been written by someone who knew him and made it look like a brochure, but full of typos, spelling and grammar errors, and links to ridiculous sources without in-line citations. There are over 20 sources now cited in that article, and ALL of them are there because of what I found yesterday. The more I researched, the more references to him and his works I found, in American, English, and Irish newspapers, trade publications (show business trade), etc. Variety doesn't write about just any schmuck - this guy has connections to established and notable actors and producers. He is an up-and-coming independent filmmaker, whose first film was a juried selection in four film festivals and is about to be released on iTunes. He's NOT a nobody without notability, and as I said, there are articles in Wikipedia on people who are far less notable than this guy.

    I tried to make the text as encyclopedic and neutral in tone as possible and I'm willing to work on it some more. Yes, I admit I would be upset if it were deleted because I spent SO MUCH time cleaning it up, when I should have been doing other things (Wikipedia is my go-to when I am procrastinating about doing other stuff), and I know it's still not a perfect Wiki article, BUT objectively, I feel this guy has notability according to WP:GNG, and it definitely SHOULD NOT be deleted! nycdi (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • sigh, the above and the page are certainly WP:PROMO, whether written by subject or by someone who loves, admires, or is paid to PROMOTE him I cannot say. There is a great deal of primary on the page, I removed a little, in the early paragraphs, and strongly advise User:Nycdi to remove everything sourced to a press release or a publisher . Here's a good rule of thumb: If it cannot be sourced to a WP:RS, it does not belong on the page. I also want to amend my statement above, the "splash" made by that first novel was in literary and Irish circles. Nevertheless, I have begun sourcing the page, and continue to see notability as an AUTHOR and FILMMAKER. Plus, WP:HEY I've added some sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment, E.M. Gregory - I actually was unsure about press releases as sources, but included two, I believe. I see now that I shouldn't have. I will go back and remove those and the comments from the publisher as soon as I can. I'm still learning, after all these years. I usually just correct grammar and spelling without looking too much at the structure of a page. It's still an improvement over what it was, albeit a flawed one, but having this deletion question come up has made me look at what I did, and other articles, more closely and is helping me be a better editor nycdi (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Greg Atkinson

Greg Atkinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable author lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. A majority of the references are work product. reddogsix (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep is notable within the Christian community and a published author and has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field. Shows in Google Scholar as being cited, is regarded as an important figure and passes WP:AUTHOR. --Barbarabcarneiro (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:PROMO, he has gotten a little coverage, Baptist News Global: ‘Secret church shopper’ reports quality of welcome determines if guests will visit a second time. but not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. However, because Greg Atkinson is such a common name (there's a chef in Seattle named Greg Atkinson who may well be notable enough to have a page,) that somebody may be able to source it. Feel free to flag me to reconsider if you think you have been able to show WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (I was flagged on my talk page and invited to revisit) Noting that the The Joplin Globe, the daily paper in the city where he is pastor of quite a large church (3 churches, a couple of thousand member - a sort of smallish megachurch). This is local coverage, WP:HEYMANN, I'd particularly need to see WP:SIGCOV of some aspect of his career in publications not located in Joplin, Missouri. User:Barbarabcarneiro, if can find such sources and want to make a really persuasive argument for notability, it would also be a really good idea to remove the WP:PROMO from the page. This includes both the ADVERT tone, and a good deal of the content. A good rule of thumb is: if you can't source it to WP:RS (2 such sources per fact or accomplishment are preferable,) it doesn't belong on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • E.M.Gregory I'll work on rewriting it later today. Could you please check the new sources? I've added two from Baptist News and one from Christianity Post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarabcarneiro (talkcontribs) 17:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Christian Post is a WP:RS. it is one of the first places I search when an Evangelical pastor or author turns up at AfD. however, the article you added is not a reported piece of journalism, it is a blog post. Like Forbes, CP hosts columns (iPost) by unpaid writers. These are not RS and do not establish notability. The Forbes story in the article looks PRIMARY to me. CP published a 2007 reported article that quoted Atkinson.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • E.M.Gregory here are two that mention him as a Christian leader and influencer: https://www.christianpost.com/news/new-website-connects-blogging-pastors-to-utilize-experiences-40381/ and https://www.christianpost.com/news/mushroom-eaters-media-savvy-churches-can-expand-god-146-s-kingdom-25921/. Are these worth adding? I'm still working on editing to remove WP:PROMO but it probably won't be until tomorrow. Barbarabcarneiro (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • in re: notability, what is really needed is stuff like profile articles, reviews of his books in WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV of his books in feature stories, and INDEPTH coverage of his career or of some aspect of his career - especially in books or scholar.y journals. Also, he has founded a couple of organizations, and headed a large church, Forest Park Carthage. The thing is, writing books and articles, leading a large chursh, founding an organization like exPastors.org is important work, but it is not WP:NOTABLE unless there is WP:SIGCOV of it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • E.M.Gregory sorry to tag you again, but I keep finding new stuff and appreciate your input. I believe these could help as well (https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2017/december-web-exclusives/ct-pastors-top-17-articles-of-2017.html voted as one of 17 of the top posts of 2017 for Christianity Today, http://ipost.christianpost.com/post/going-digital-for-his-kingdom listed as a speaker for a conference on Christian Post) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarabcarneiro (talkcontribs) 21:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Pennina Barnett

Pennina Barnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Plenty of mentions and listings as a contributor here and there. Plenty of advertisements for books but nothing that talks about her from reliable and independent sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR.  Velella  Velella Talk   11:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I cannot find enough in-depth coverage in a search independent of the article. Article had signs of falsified/ puffed up sources and claims.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete founded a new and non-notable or , at least, not-yet-notable journal. My searches found a brief mention in Women's Studies Quarterly that described her as a "textile theorist." Lede calls her a "curator" but doesn't say where. There are many museums of textiles, and major museums have curators of textiles; perhaps she had curated some exhibits, but it's not a claim like "curator of textiles at the V & A" would be. I agree with ThatMontrealIP that this has a PROMO feel; Certainly text has a lot of woefully inadequate citations. And, well, I'm just not finding notability. Feel free ot flag me to revisit is somebody sources it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • About a hundred library holdings: [23]. GScholar h-index of at least 5: [24]. There do seem to be sources saying she won the ALPSP/Charlesworth Award for Best New Journal in 2005: [25]. Some coverage: [26] James500 (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Academic at Goldsmith's College, University of London: [27] [28]. Curator of the modern part of the "Subversive Stitch" exhibition at the Cornerhouse Gallery, Manchester, 1988 (see Cornerhouse): [29] [30] [31] [32]. James500 (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Ian Stafford

Ian Stafford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Notices and warnings present since 2011 and the content still remains with no references and not obvious sources on google Ameera Patel (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete. pure advertising. cited to his own publications, none of which are een significant. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Bondegezou (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an antique, unsourced article, but Stafford is a sports writer for a large daily newspaper and his books get reviewed in other large daily newspapers. I searched in a news archive for "Ian Stafford" + book review. And started adding reviews, then came here instead to remind everybody that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, and that we have lots of poorly sourced articles on notable people. It has been correctly tagged for sourcing since 2011. But sources exist, all that is needed is a willing editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per E.M.Gregory. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR with multiple periodical book reviews. There are also several hundred library holdings of his books: [33] [34]. James500 (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep seems to be sufficient WP:NEXIST from sufficiently reliable secondary sources to support GNG. Yes the article could be improved. Aoziwe (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Howard Goldman

Howard Goldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non notable author, fails WP:GNG can't find any reliable secondary sources, let alone in depth ones. Theroadislong (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article offers no evidence of notability. I have failed to find any. Maproom (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG by a wide margin. Could have been speedily deleted. Edwardx (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • There is a professor called Howard B. Goldman who is notable [35] [36] [37]. But this article is not about him, as far as I can see. (Hint: I would like someone to create Howard B. Goldman). James500 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete PROMO for non notable "consultant."E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete My esteemed colleagues already have put it well. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:GNG failure and WP:NOTINHERITED concerns. Per above, seems like a WP:SNOW is falling.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Amit Offir

Amit Offir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

All of the sources are self published, interviews, amazon book links. Not sure whether just the authority control items make him notable or not. The creator and the significant contributor themselves added the COI tag. Editor General of Wiki (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Offir doesn't appear to be notable as an author, an artist, a time management specialist, or for any other reason. The article appears to be an autobiography created and curated by an editor whose edits are all related to Offir. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:G11. Then Amit can go and create a new time management course: "How to get your Wikipedia autobiography deleted in record time". (Hot tip: by not creating it in the first place). Just imagine, millions of people could benefit from this by not wasting their time trying to get their promotion on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia editors could save thousands of hours of time-consuming deletion discussions. --Vexations (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete This is so nice to see what are you writing about Mr. Amit offir. instead of helping fix the errors I have made (I am not a pro in wiki) you are insolting someone that is doing a great effort to make this world better. He is not only an author but a publisher of other author's books. my original language is Hebrew so my eng is not perfect. this is why I have made some mistakes while uploading the contcnt. please be fair and help keep this page. this author is a very important one in Israel and he should have a page on wiki because of his contribute to human kind. i dont know how to edit the page correctly so I am asking for your help guys. please help me fix it! thank you. This is a man's life and hard work he have done over the years. I am sorry that the references are linking to newspaper and tv. stations in Hebrew, vietnamese and other languages but please verify it and you will see that it is all real references. thank you
  • Mr. Amit Offir is not only self published - He is published with at least 10 different publishing houses before he opened a formal publishing house and literary agency. He is published with around 4-5 publishing houses in Israel, 3 publishing houses in Vietnam, 1 In America (Zipit), 1 in Poland, 1 in china, 1 in Russia. and I can show you proof to all of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihi g (talkcontribs) 16:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Lihi g The error you have made is that you wrote an egregiously promotional article. It is so bad that it cannot be fixed by regular editing and should be completely rewritten, if at all. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Based on the sources provided in the article that I have reviewed, Offir is not notable by our standards. Hence the article should be deleted. If you can provide evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, then please do so, and rewrite the article from a neutral point of view. Nobody is making fun of you because English is not your first language, certainly not me. English is not my first language either. I do reserve the right to make fun of Mr. Offir: Surely, one can see the irony in being both a "time management expert" and making 500,000 drawings on pebbles. Vexations (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I was working very hard to provide all evidence by linking to all major and reliable NEWS, TV., Radio and Articles pooving these facts and if you translate the articles you could find that it is all written there and also over the Tv from Vietnam, Malta and Israel. I dont know how to proof it otherwise but a little check from your side will proove all of it. such this link to Wena Polish publishing house - http://wenastudio.nazwa.pl/wena/autorzyautorki/amit-offir-eyal-nir/ that shows that Mr/ Amit Offir is a published author as well as in all 10 or more other publishing houses that was publishing his books around the world. He also in voluntiring around the world (also proven) and he donating for TREE PLANTING for every book that is getting published in his PUBLISHING HOUSE. I think He has alot of Notability and a little effort can help his leggacy be inspiring to other people. please help me or tell me what to do step by step in order to fix that. The page was ok untill I wanted to make more links to Mr. Offir update News from the last several years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihi g (talkcontribs) 18:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
this is also another link to another publishing house that have published 4 books by Amit Offir years ago - in 2000 which was just been published in Vietnam this year - https://www.gvanim-books.com/product-page/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A9-%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%A4%D7%A9-%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A8
also - ZIPIT is a global company that have published many books by Amit Offir in various languages - https://just-zipit.com/search?collection=all&type=product&x=10&y=11&q=amit+offir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihi g (talkcontribs) 18:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Lihi g, please don't misunderstand. We are not here to decide whether Mr. Offir is doing good work or whether he is important. We are trying to decide whether he meets the minimum requirements to qualify for an encyclopedia article on English Wikipedia, something we call Notability. There are a number of nuances, but the general idea is that in order to qualify for an encyclopedia article, a subject has to receive significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources.
This morning I read the obituary of Ruby Washington, the first African-American female staff photographer for The New York Times. I wanted to write an article about her, because she sounds like an important person, but I can't find significant coverage of her life—I can find her photos in thousands of New York Times articles and dozens of books, and in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution, but I can't find sufficient sources to establish her "notability".
That may be the case with Mr. Offir. We need coverage of him (not his books) by independent reliable sources (not his publishers' websites). Has any news source done a profile of him, including his childhood and education? Those are the sorts of things that make a person notable. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
(And sources don't have to be in English. We have editors who read other languages and tools such as Google Translate that help us. The key thing is the source, not the language. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC))

thank you for your kind reply. please let me understand what kind of things you need as evidence. Mr. Amit Offir have published many books and his drawing technique as well as hit time managemnt technique are helping so many people around the world in the most deserted places so exept from interviews to tv. about it, radio and newpapers and also pictures of him teaching around the world, saving animals and contribute to our planet what more do you need? please let me know and I will be happy to do the research and upload it - with a little bit of help from your side to make the page in the right format - i think this is the purpose of wiki, isnt it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihi g (talkcontribs) 21:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

"Comment @Lihi g: We are not discussing if he is good or have done something for the humanity. Wikipedia contains pages for highly notorious (notable for negative deeds) people also. We have pages for Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy etc. So issues here are WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOTADVERTISING.
To pass notability criteria we need multiple published sources which are:
  • Significant (Not just trivial mention or inclusion in a list of similar subject.)
  • Secondary (Not interviews and articles where the subject talks about himself)
  • Reliable (Not blog, forum, personal website, commercial book store, news sites with poor editorial integrity)
  • Independent (Not self published and self promoting videos, self written books or articles, paid news, press releases, personal website)
So, you might ask what kind of sources are accepted then?? You have to read WP:RS to clearly understand. Moreover, Wikipedia prohibits promotion through it's platform. Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site, nor a soapbox or means of promotion. - Editor General of Wiki (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
"Comment thank you for your kind reply. I deleted all of the links to interviews and things that Mr. Offir says to the news. now there are only articles about him and author's sites that present him. I have also put all together all the publishing houses that have published Mr. Offir's books or at least what I have been able to discover. please let me know if there is anything more that I can change to make the page better. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihi g (talkcontribs) 07:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The page has been on the encyclopedia for more than 5 years with over 200 edits. The references cited initially were strong to prove that Amit Offir is notable. I cannot read Vietnamese, Chinese, and other languages but I see news links, interviews, and videos when I search for his name online and believe that there would be enough published sources to establish notability for the subject. I suggest to either go back to the original content of the page that allowed it to stay for 5 years or translate the news links available online and refresh the content. RajkGuj (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment- @RajkGuj: Can you put here the link of the version of the article that you think contains strong references? And also put the links of the sources which would help us to keep his article in Wikipedia. Thanks. - Editor General of Wiki (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
CommentThere are many links to show that Mr. Offir activity around the world is important. His Drawing method 'Drawing Easily' won the Family Choice Award - http://www.familychoiceawards.com/gift-guide/zipit-drawing-easily/ of 2016,(that one wasn't one of the links in the page till now. also there is a link to national TV channel in Vietnam with Israeli ambassador about Israeli literature in Vietnam with the help of Mr. Offir - the owner of an Israeli Publishing house - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RypFoAZwMcY&list=PLE2C03470E2AC0D81. At least 10 different publishing houses have published his books, many Tv stations around the world interviewed him. also, Globes News, The biggest news in Israel - https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001123887 is a good source. there is also this News from Tv channel from Israel - in the bookfair in Germany who decided to cover the event and interview him as a publishing house from Israel and bestselling author - https://www.calcalist.co.il/consumer/articles/0,7340,L-3722998,00.html

and also this artice - https://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3616871,00.html I will try to put it back on the page. If someone here can please help me edit the page a little bit so it would fit wiki I will appreciate it a lot. thank you very much for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihi g (talkcontribs)

Catherine S. Snodgrass

Catherine S. Snodgrass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

GNG fail, promotional. The best source I can find for her is Wikipedia. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Illustrators and other commercial artists are really hard, because convention is not to use their clients. The question for me on this one, and more generally, is what does raise them up a level to satisfy the requirements here? Specifically, does the Benjamin Franklin Award Finalist constitute the kind of marker we are looking for? --Theredproject (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Winning a notable award confers notability on the subject (because very likely someone will write something that we can use as a source), but a nomination for a non-notable award almost certainly doesn't. Are the IBPA Benjamin Franklin Award™ notable? Barely. Are previous winners notable? I don't know. They have 54 categories, and each category has three winners, one gold and two silver. I don't recognize any of the authors, but that doesn't mean anything. Note that this award is more of a competition; submitting your independently published book costs $95, so my take on it is that winning such an award isn't even all that exceptional. Not winning? No, that doesn't make you notable. --Vexations (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Secondary coverage in good sources is what would raise them to the GNG standard.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • delete article created in 2009 by User:Dsnodgrass, an SPA. An attempt at SPEEDY was nixed. I note that the books that constitute the claim to notability were published between 2004 and 2009, and that they are children's picture books about autism with an advocacy goal to help children. Also, there is a Catherine Snodgrass who comes up in gNews as an advocate for children with autism and who has a son who is on the autism spectrum. A terrible thing was done by local police to her son in 2014 The Entrapment of Jesse Snodgrass; He was a friendless high school loner struggling with autism. So why did an undercover cop target him as a drug dealer? That incident may have beennotable, but it would be WP:BLP1E and I do not know whether it is the same family, Catherine and Snodgrass are very common names. As for notability as an author for this Catherine Snodgrass, One of the books was sponsored by the Autism foundation, and, as editors above have pointed out, others were self-published. the "Benjamin Franklin Award" is mere PROMO for commercial outfits that print self-published books. There is no notability here .E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see sufficient coverage for GNG or awards that would meet ANYBIO; the two children's books (of no particular prominence) aren't enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Muhammad Aanish

Muhammad Aanish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Article, once speedy deleted as spam, is written by an SPA COI account who previously identified as User:Aanish Ayaz, the subject. He is a 16-year-old who self-published through lulu.com. Sources include self-published articles (e.g. [38] and a lack of significant reliable coverage. This appears to exist on Wikipedia for advertising purposes only. CactusWriter (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete Article is basically a resume (WP:NOT), and the few sources that could be potentially considered "notable" are interviews with the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 23:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 23:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 23:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Regardless of who was the creator, the subject is completely non-notable. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Martha Rogers (professor)

Martha Rogers (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC - only an adjunct professor. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Edwardx (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep Passes WP:NACADEMIC#1 with thousands of citations to her work according to Google Scholar search. Though nom does not bring up WP:AUTHOR, subject probably passes that as well, given well-known books with multiple reviews. Bakazaka (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, but... The citation counts in Google Scholar for "Enterprise one-to-one", "Is your company ready", "Do you want to keep your customers", and "Managing customer experience" (two of them over 1000, the other two close) convince me that she does pass WP:PROF#C1 and probably WP:AUTHOR. But as you might guess from the spammy titles, the article is heavily promotional and needs effort to be brought in line with Wikipedia standards. In its current state, it is a plausible candidate for G11 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you, David Eppstein. I have done a little editing, moving it towards a more WP:NPOV. Compared to much of what I nominate for G11 speedy deletion, this one was not so bad! Edwardx (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Satisfies WP:PROF. James500 (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: meet PROF and likely AUTHOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO in the field of customer management ie. (apologies for the apparent hype:))"The names Don Peppers and Martha Rogers PhD are synonymous with the idea of dealing with customers one‐to‐one. ... They are now considered leading authorities on customer‐focused strategies for business." (from Conversations With Marketing Masters), "One-on-one with One-on-one's Martha Rogers" from Wired, and WP:NAUTHOR (again from Conversations With Marketing Masters - "Together they have co‐authored a series of international best sellers which have collectively sold well over a million copies in seventeen languages.", plus here are examples of reviews of her books: from Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship - review of Enterprise One to One, and from Publishers Weekly - a review of One to One B2B. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Shahena Ali

Shahena Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Promotional. Sources in the article are mainly deadlinks and/or self-authored profiles and some interviews. The two first sources are interviews with her father. The two half decent pieces are local ones - [39][40] - which is far from meeting SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:PROMO. The page is overstuffed with sources, so I started with a Proquest news archive search. It brought up an article in the Essex Chronicle: CURRY AID: Meals by Chelmsford chef are sent to UN troops in Africa Ali had cooked meals at a local restaurant, hired a private airplane, and talked some reporter into coming out to the airport and write up a story showing her boarding the private jet ot personally deliver the meals to UN troops in the Congo. This shows that the woman SELF-PROMOTES with flair. The other 7 hits were all in the Daily Mail and the Sun, promoting some beauty product she was pushing. those papers do that. But if a contemporary, born-in-England: "English celebrity chef, television presenter, naturopath, nutritionist, businesswoman, and food and beauty writer" is for real, there will be WP:SIGCOV in a powerful news archive search. Many sources on this page ( I did not check them all,) are fake. To take just one: the BBC, yes the BBC has a service called BBC Academy: "This profile is part of the BAME Expert Voices database that brings together the array of talent who applied for and attended BBC Academy Expert Voices training days across the UK. The following information has been supplied by the expert". delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Anamika Mishra

Anamika Mishra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Article has been deleted twice before at AfD, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anamika Mishra (Author). Still not enough to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Rashidah Ali

Rashidah Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

75% of these 6 sources are of her employer, VH1; she doesn’t have reliable sources outside of that. This article is a stub. She lacks her own notability at this time and I highly suggest redirecting it to the Love and Hip Hop article until she accrues enough notability. Trillfendi (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 01:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Goodreads link is broken, notability as a writer cannot be confirmed. -- Nsda (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Jim Carroll (author)

Jim Carroll (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Nothing in article or online that amounts to independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is written advertorially, reading more like the kind of "staff" profile a person would have on the self-published website of their own employer than like an encyclopedia article — and the referencing depends entirely on primary sources that cannot support or carry notability, with zero evidence of any proper reliable source coverage about him in real media being shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:PROMO created and edited by a series of IP, SPA accounts, but containing no claim to notability and no solid sources, none at all. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Steve Turley

Steve Turley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem suffiscient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. There is no in-depth coverage of him outside few author blurbs, likely written by the subject. He doesn't pass WP:NPROF (I checked Google Scholar; he doesn't seem to have any works that are significantly cited, plus he publishes as one of several co-authors) or WP:NARTIST (writer, journalist, YouTuber); he is mildly successful on several fronts, but not enough to win any awards, recognition, coverage - or notability. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 09:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 09:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 09:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 09:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 09:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 09:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 09:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep (as original creator of the article) Turley may not be a recognized name to the average Joe, but I think he's notable enough in his field of work. Piotrus, you mention his lack of "any awards, recognition, and coverage." However, he has multiple awards (as noted in the article) from his days as a classical guitarist, which earned him recognition on The 700 Club, he is internationally recognized in the circles of classical and Christian education (recently speaking at the Educacao Crista Classica Conference in Sao Paulo, Brazil), and in terms of coverage, his writing and videos have been featured by The American Conservative and Rod Dreher, Lew Rockwell, and Pat Buchanan. Combined with the rapid growth of Turley's online presence via his YouTube channel, I think his notability is only going to continue to rise at this point. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Every award that exists at all is not an automatic notability freebie — only certain specific nationally notable awards (such as the Grammys in the case of a musician) count as notability claims, while most minor specialist or regional awards do not. The extent to which an award counts as an article-clinching notability claim in and of itself is strictly coterminous with the extent to which media can be shown to care about reporting the winners of that award as news. And neither is notability conferred on the basis of where his writing or video work has been "featured" — it's conferred on the basis of sources in which he's the subject of coverage written by other people, and not on the basis of sources in which he's the author of coverage about other things. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    • While there are some cases where 'not enough in any field', combined, can seem to make one notable enough, notability as a sum of non-notable life paths is hard to achieve. In this case, I stand by my initial assessment - not notable in any field, nor in their sum. But let's see what others say. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I can see a couple of old newspapers listings of concerts where he played guitar, but they are just listings, nothing to support notability as a musician. Similarly, he does publish opinion essays, and 2 books, but no reviews, profiles, feature coverage or anything else to support notability as WP:AUTHOR. His Youtube think does not get discussed in the media (a couple of bloggers have mentioned it,) and I see no indication that his academic career passed WP:PROF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • keep seems to meet WP:NPROF, per User:Bcschneider53's reasoning.desmay (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • noting that User:Bcschneider53 does not offer any reason why Turley would meet PROF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @E.M.Gregory: I'm in the process of collecting sources to strengthen my argument. My college schedule is pretty hectic but I'm hoping I can get back to you this evening. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Please feel free to ping me to revisit when you've gathered them. What would be most persuasive would be WP:SIGCOV published before he became a candidate, or a demonstration that some of his publications or activities have had WP:IMPACT described in WP:RS. But do keep in mind that, for example, keynoting a conference does not confer notability unless it is discussed in a source (such as a newspaper) with no connection to the outfit sponsoring the conference. And that it not notability in itself that keeps pages up, only the recognition/confirmation of an individual's notability in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject can do that. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @E.M.Gregory: So in terms of academics, I've tried focusing on Turley's Ph.D. from Dur ham. His subsequent book on the subject was published through T&T Clark, one of the top New Testament publishers worldwide. It received several scholarly reviews, specifically from Oxford Academics' Journal of Theological Studies, Religious Studies Review, the Society of Biblical Literature, and a two-part review from Peter Leithart via Patheos (1, 2). Admittedly, it probably would have been beneficial for me to dig a bit deeper while creating the article and add these references, though I believe his one T&T Clark book alone meets criteria No. 1 for WP:NACADEMIC: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."
  • Addtionally, Google Scholar discovers a bit more when searching "Stephen Richard Turley" rather than simply "Steve Turley", as the former is his more commonly used name in publishing. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Another academic review: The Ritualized Revelation of the Messianic Age: Washings and Meals in Galatians and 1 Corinthians. By Stephen Richard Turley. The Ritualized Revelation of the Messianic Age: Washings and Meals in Galatians and 1 CorinthiansStephen Richard Turley, reviewed by Jan Heilmann, The Journal of Theological Studies, Volume 67, Issue 2, 1 October 2016, Pages 738–740, https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flw164.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • and another: The Ritualized Revelation of the Messianic Age: Washings and Meals in Galatians and 1 Corinthians By StephenRichard Turley. , 2015. reviewed by Jason Maston in the Religious Studies Review, 22 December 2016 https://doi.org/10.1111/rsr.12709. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This 2015 scholarly book is sufficiently widely reviewed to pass WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets NAUTHOR as well as GNG. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR with multiple periodical reviews. James500 (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and probably WP:TNT as it feels overly promotional. I don't think WP:GNG is satisfied, but he clearly satisfies WP:NAUTHOR - the problem is he's notable for being an author, and this information is buried. SportingFlyer talk 02:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I feel similarly to Piotrus below. The article was written in such a way to say "these books were reviewed in these places." The Oxford review talks about him - his book? - as his doctoral thesis. I looked at the article again after someone did an important WP:TNT and there's not a whole lot there - I'm not convinced he satisfies WP:NACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR, and I assumed above the author notability from the article, which said "his books were reviewed in X and Y and Z" - written as if to establish notability. Furthermore, as pointed out below, these are academic book reviews which point to academia and not authorship as we know it, and he clearly fails WP:NPROF. SportingFlyer talk 05:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @SportingFlyer: If it makes a difference, the article has been expanded again since the WP:TNT to further establish the subject's notability. I would welcome your second (or I suppose third?) opinion on it if you're willing to take another look. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Bcschneider53: I think one of the problems with the article is it was originally so promotional it was hard to figure out which notability guideline it should be reviewed as. As it is now written, it appears his notability comes from WP:NPROF, but he's an adjunct/affiliate faculty member, with no showing of being enough to qualify for WP:NPROF. The other news sources appear to cover him as a student and would not get him to alternative guidelines under WP:NMUSIC. WP:AUTHOR has been previously discussed. As a whole, I just don't think WP:GNG is met. SportingFlyer talk 20:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I commend User:Bcschneider53 on finding the alt name the subject uses in academia. I am however not convinced the reviews of his book estabilish hist notability. I think the reviews may be sufficient to establish notability for the book itself per WP:NBOOK, but being an author of a single book that got several reviews is IMHO not enough to pass WP:PROF (see also: WP:NOTINHERITED). Searching under his alt name, I am still not seeing that his work is having any impact - his most popular work seems to have been cited six (6) times: [41]. And his books seems to have been cited ONLY TWO TIMES. As such, while I have considered withdrawing this nom, I have decided not to do so, as I do not agree he meets notability criteria for an academic - please look at WP:NACADEMIC - which criteria is he meeting as an academic? IMHO still none. As for WP:AUTHOR, the issue is whether several academic reviews of an otherwise non-cited book are sufficient for CREATIVE#3: "The person has 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 an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.". While I think it could be well argued such reviews as presented above do fulfill the "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" part, please note that to pass that CREATIVE#3 the work in question also has to be "significant or well-known". I do not believe that a book with TWO CITATIONS to its name is significant or well-known (ping users who think PROF/CREATIVE does suffice for further discussion: @E.M.Gregory, Editorofthewiki, James500, and SportingFlyer: and ping User:DGG for an outside further comment - what do you think?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Your arguments are completely wrong from start to finish. Book reviews are what make an author in the humanities notable. Citations are largely irrelevant because these are low citation fields to begin with. Two citations is not that bad for some of these fields. James500 (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

    • I work professionally in the field of humanities (social sciences->sociology). In my field, publications in top journals mater more then books, unless said books become bestsellers or are at least widely known, which is not the case here. For example, Charles Tilly's books - not national bestsellers, but known to any sociologist of social movements - have thousands of citations ([42]). I'd be willing to consider even double digits in it citations as evidence of notability, but two? Nope. Despite what you claim, a widely known book will have numerous cites. His 2-cite book from a minor (if reliable) publisher (T&T Clark) is not enough to make him a notable scholar. At least in sociology/history. Perhaps theology has lower standards, I can't comment on that. And the argument about it being only from 2015? Sure... that's WP:TOOSOON. We can undelete this if in few years someone shows his book has now citations in double digits, let's say >30. How about that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I'd still dispute the idea that T&T Clark is a "minor" or "small" publisher. Its article may not be that extensive, but it's an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing, and it's been around for nearly two centuries publishing some of the top theological work of scholars since its beginning. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete-My views concur with Piotrus.WBGconverse 07:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Reaffirming KEEP. It is WP standard operating procedure at AfD for a writer, including humanities professors, to pass AUTHOR, 3."The person has created... a significant or well-known work.... In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of.... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Professors can and routinely do pass WP:AUTHOR by writing books that get respectfully reviewed in respected journals. The journals in which Turley's book was reviewed, The Journal of Theological Studies, Religious Studies Review, The Society of Biblical Literature - these are serious, scholarly journals. 2 other things to be aware of: 1. the sheer volume of authors reviewed at AfD every week. Most books get -zero- reviews, the snippet promo "review: at Pub. Weekly, then... nada. As for scholarly citations of The Ritualized Revelation of the Messianic Age: Washings and Meals in Galatians and 1 Corinthians, it's a 2015 book, and it is usual in humanities fields where people still publish in print on arcane topics for a few years to pass between publication, and citation by fellow scholars.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree. The books themselves do not have to be notable, but they need to be reviewed in reputable journals. Turley's work merits him an article. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. not notable under WP:PROF or under WP:AUTHOR or in any of his other fields. As for author, we never base that6 on a single published book unless it becomes a best seller--that would be truly INDISCRIMINATE. As for WP:PROF: he has no regular academic position at a university. He has published only one book, based only on his dissertation , which had a few routine reviewsThe standard for notability in the humanities is indeed books, not journal articles, but it takes more than one of them. In practice, our WP:PROF standard in all fields amounts to full professorship at a research university., and almost everyone who has articles under this criterion has met that, I would (and have) argued for years it should be set a little lower, at Associate Professor at the very best universities. In neither case, does one published book meet that, especially one that is based on the dissertation. His single work has had minimal impact on his field. And his career reflects the failure to meet the standards of the profession.
In fact the article shows good signs of bing a promotional bio: the inclusion of his non-notable work in multiple unrelated fields, the quote about why he switched fields --both of them are characteristic of over-personal promotional bios. I am strongly in favor of increasing our coverage of scholars in the humanities, and religion has been especially neglected here. There are tens of thousands of needed bios of those who are actually notable/ DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • DGG, I took your point, removed PROMO form the page, and ran a couple of additional searches using Stephen, Steve, middle initial keywords. Added a brief but well-sourced section on his career as a classical guitarist (long profile in the Baltimore Sun, and material from an interesting, lengthy analysis of his scripture-tinged political commentary drawn from somebody's recent PhD dissertation. I think this will satisfy your concerns.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment @DGG: Turley has actually published more than one book; his T&T Clark work is certainly his most notable, but he has published and co-authored several others through Classical Academic Press and Canon Press. (Just a few examples: 1 2 3.) And "no regular academic position at a university"? This is his 20th year at Eastern in the same position he has always held: professor of world music and aesthetics. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I had searches the first 2 of the 3 titles you mention before I wrote my first comment, I couldn't find any SECONDARY sources, news articles, reviews. There really seems to be very little about him in WP:RS, just one book reviewed in scholarly journals.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I do see DGG's point. Bcschneider53's here's a good rule of thumb: If you can't source something to WP:SIGCOV in multiple, independent, WP:RS - it doesn't belong on the page. Also, writing opinion columns in NOT NOTABLE and does not get onto the page. The exception is people who become such well known commentators that other people write articles in WP:RS publications about the fact that they write opinion columns, I have taken out all of the youtube, musician, political commentator hype out of both the text and the infobox. What we can source is his 2015 book and his post as a college professor. I'm thinking.... I may come back and strike my opinion. Gonna think it over.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No in-depth coverage can be found except for Christian trade publications. The subject has written one book from a small press with no independent third-party reliable source coverage. Does not pass WP:Author and WP:GNG, and notability has not been met for WP:PROF. The article has a promotional feel to it. Fails notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Will do. Yes, notability is still an issue. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no such thing as a Christian trade publication because Christianity is not a trade. James500 (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
These are highly regarded scholarly journals, absolutely WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Exaggerations and puffery" He is not a professor, and not even full time university faculty in any sense. His web page at Eastern says "Affiliate Faculty; Specialty: World Music, Theology, Classical Guitar " and "Stephen Turley is a part-time teacher of world music and aesthetics at Eastern University, and a full-time faculty member at Tall Oaks Classical School" [43]. In other words, he is a high school teacher with a part time adjunct position at a university. 2/WP:PROF does not apply to him. because he is not a professor of any sort, nor a researcher or scholar. He wrote a PhD thesis, and published it as a book. That's not enough to call someone a scholar, even loosely. Nor do we call high school teachers professors, or even academics. 3/ But even though it does not apply here, I do point out the WP:PROF does not require secondary sources, just RS that its requirements be met--it is a specific exception to the GNG . There is little consensus about the relationship of the other special notability guidelines to the GNG, but this one is written down explicitly. For WP:PROF, the standard fot books is publication by a major academic press, but again, the requirement is several books. The standards isn't reviews, because If it is published by a major academic press, there are always reviews in academic journals--but regardless of reviews, any number of non academic books do not contribute to notability under WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
He is verifiably a scholar. We do not hold lack of a full-time appointment against people who publish veritably scholarly books and articles. There are independent scholars, and part-time faculty who do highly regarded work. Some work for indsutry, some teach high school, if his job is cited inaccurately FIX IT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Patrick Henry College, a highly respected private classical liberal arts college in Virginia where Turley has given lectures in the past, considers him to be a "professor of Fine Arts" at Eastern. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I just did a Google search and the subject shows up on conspiracy theorist sites as a spokesperson. Just my take on it, but this Wiki article appears to be a possible effort at legitimizing the subject. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @AuthorAuthor: What “conspiracy theory sites” is he showing up on? I’m genuinely curious, because I researched him extensively and was not aware of any. I suppose it’s not a big deal now since this ultimately has little to no chance of surviving AfD at this point but I want to be very clear that legitimizing a “conspiracy theorist” was not my intention in creating this article. —Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Bcschneider53:, I did not see them at first either. He is all over nationalist sites and on YouTube as a conspiracy theorist, including promoting the 15,000 white South African farmers conspiracy. I would hate to repost any of those sites and YouTube channels here so I will not be sharing. If you continue paging down on Google, you will come across them. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • AuthorAuthor, I think we need to be extremely careful about branding living people as "conspiracy theorists," even on talk pages. Turly was among the many Americans who fell for this [44] July 9 fake news story from Russia Today. I never use Russia Today as a source on anything, I don't trust RT and I personally do not regard it as a reliable source on anything, not even on whether it's snowing in Moscow. But you're proposing to delete a BLP because the subject repeated one of RT's fake news stories on social media. Frankly who among us has never retweeted a fake news story? I remember one I swallowed whole, it was written by one of the most highly regarded journalists at the New York Times and stated that she (the journalist) had verified that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction...... but I digress. For a broader view of Turley, look at this report on Right Wing Watch, an outfit I would trust to know how far out there a YouTube personality is. Their July 2017 report: Writer Calls Trump Presidency ‘Redemptive,’ Part Of ‘Trajectory’ To Bring Us Pence portrays Turley as a conservative Christian who likes Trump but who would strongly prefer to have an evangelical Christian like Mike Pence in the Oval Office. According to Right Wing Watch, we're not talking Alex Jones here. Just a theology and music teacher who has a non-notable YouTube blog. And who supports "conservative nationalist populism" - his own words; prompted by AuthorAuthor's assertions I listened. I get that AuthorAuthor finds Turley's politically abhorrent, but the fact that an editor disagrees politically with the subject of a page is not an argument for deleting the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:HEY in addition to adding a profile/feature on Turley's career as a musician form the Baltimore Sun, I added a section on Turley's political commentary drawn from a lengthy analysis of his political thought in somebody's recent PhD dissertation. the dissertation discusses Turley as a political commentator who draws on formal theological arguments based on texts in Christian scripture. I continue to think that there is enough here to KEEP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    Comment If I may, I'd like to request a status update. If I counted correctly, I think we stand at five Keep votes and four Delete votes. While I know AfD is not based on a popular vote, I do think E.M.Gregory's recent updates have the article in much better shape than it was, establishing the subject's legitimacy and notability. I'll admit that while I created the article primarily due to his academic career, I figured I might as well include his YouTube info to make the article as complete as possible. I've always been more of an inclusionist; as long as it isn't blatant trivia, I'm usually okay with keeping material so long as it can be reliably sourced. This was my first attempt at writing an article in this subject area, and I think I've learned a lot about the notability guidelines for the future.
    That said, even without the YouTube/Turley Talks/online blog info, I think the article as it stands is complete enough to warrant it surviving AfD. I also still dispute DGG's claim that Turley is not a professor or scholar; his dissertation was rigorously scrutinized and reviewed, and he's held the same position at Eastern for over two decades, but we can continue that discussion later. The most important thing to me now is that I believe we've done enough to get the article in good enough condition for its subject's notability to be established and thus for the article to be kept. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not a vote. It is a discussion about policy, notability, and sufficiency of sources, not a nose count. I suggest you read the link on the template.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @E.M.Gregory: I know it's not a vote, hence why I said: "I know AfD is not based on a popular vote." I was just trying to analyze the general overview of where this stands at the moment. I've participated in AfDs before and am generally speaking familiar with the process. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment (to closing admin): please note that majority of keep votes appeared early on, and were essentially 'keep per PROF/WRITER'. I and DGG provided arguments why this is not correct, and I pinged each of the voters. Majority chose not to respond here, sadly, but I'll stress again that we have demonstrated hopefully, that rationale for those keep votes is insufficient (the subject does not pass PROF/CREATIVE). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I still think Turley meets criteria No. 1 under WP:NACADEMIC, "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." His dissertation (and subsequent publication) was a specialized study that broke new ground on rituals in early Christianity, receiving multiple scholarly reviews as well as one by prominent NT scholar Peter Leithart. The project was also overseen by Durham's John M. G. Barclay, one of the most influential NT scholars of this era. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
not every doctoral student overseen by a notable scholar is notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I concur with @DGG:. The subject has co-authored with other writers and has received no awards and no significant, nor wide coverage in independent publications. As a high-school teacher and part-time adjunct, the subject fails WP:NPROF and WP:NACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG as well. Perhaps with time, it will happen. As of now, the article still does not meet notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Userfy or send to WP:AfC -- appears to be a published author with quite few books based on Amazon.com's page here and per E.M.Gregory, James500. I was considering keep, but reading the other comments above I have some reservations. Although Amazon.com page is not secondary WP:RS (probably written by Turley) and it is possible these are self-published works, my feeling now that there may be enough secondary RS, but not yet fully convinced. Please note that some if not most of the current or recent RS is in the article such as his PhD (and [45]) are not appropriate for sourcing and not secondary. Delete -- I clicked on the refs/footnotes, and they go to something other than what they are supposed to be sourced to. My assumption is this page is some sort of joke on us used for advertising. If someone wants to convince me there is WP:RS for this person that makes him notable, please tell me where to look in the above wall-of-text or give me some links to good secondary sources. Feel free to ping me. I perused it and did not see SECONDARY sources about him. I saw things that he may have authored. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC) [revised 08:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)]
  • @David Tornheim: David, you have to be kidding me. I'm an editor with good intentions trying to make this project the best it can be. What happened to assuming good faith? I created the page because I believed he was notable enough on his academics and mistakenly included other non-notable things in an effort to make the page as complete as possible. As far as secondary sources, what refs are you talking about that "go to something other than what they are supposed to be sourced to?" Or that are a "joke" (as you mention in your edit summary)? E.M. Gregory did a great job revamping the article to fill in holes that I had previously missed to further establish his academics and political commentary. The first two refs seem to be behind a paywall so I'll fix that by adding a note to that in the refs, but please don't just assume that this page was created as a joke. I made some honest mistakes, yes, but I had no malicious intentions whatsoever. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Please take a look at the first two refs from this version. They both go to Columbia University libraries rather than where the refs say they go to. I see that the first one has been fixed to [46] in the more recent version. That's better. I'm glad to hear it's not a joke. I will reconsider now that at least some of the refs are fixed. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
These 2 articles were linked to link to Proquest News Archive, it is paywalled. It is an article in Newsday about a concert in which Turley played, the other is a long feature story in the Baltimore Sun about Turley as a young concert musician. Our policy is to WP:AGF about paywalled references. Line book reviews, a PROFILE article in a major daily papers demonstrates notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bcschneider and others have done a good job of digging deep for evidence of notability; unfortunately, that their extensive efforts have produced so little result convinces me that this individual isn't, in fact, notable. Somebody without a formal tenured position, whose most popular paper has six citations, and whose h-index so far as I can tell is not higher than 2, falls significantly short of WP:PROF. Similarly, I don't think their book (just one book, mind you) has received the level of coverage necessary for making its author notable. It's not a bestseller; I don't see it being widely cited. Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • H-index is useful for some fields, less so for biblical studies where serious work is published in books, and it can take years for a well-received book to be cited in other books. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • There are 3 claims to notability here. 1.) Coverage of his career as a musician (a promising-young-musician profile article,) 2.) academic book with multiple reviews in scholarly journals (including a deep dive by Peter Leithart. and 3.) serious people including Rod Dreher engaging with Turley as a political commentator. I also Note that there were unsupported, unsourced political accusations made against Turley by an editor in this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Colonel Ashfaq Hussain

Colonel Ashfaq Hussain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Authors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Subject has written some non-notable (at least by WP standards) books and Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and also lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources, thus fails both WP:AUTHOR and GNG. Saqib (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete He received coverage for his writings but it is not a significant one. Rzvas (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the OP is correct in saying the author isn't notable in this case, but there is substantial coverage of the book, which seems to be about the mismanagement of Pakistani policy during the Kargil war: [47], [48], [49], [50]. We could consider renaming and reworking this into an article about the book. Vanamonde (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow discussion re: Vanamonde's proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Nigel Hollis

Nigel Hollis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Published a book and has a blog - so what? Fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Satisfies PROF with several highly cited papers (100+ cites) having 681, 360, 158, 83, 70, 41 and so on cites [51]. Book review of The Global Brand: [52]. Coverage in The Irish Times: [53]. Other coverage: [54]. There are more than nine hundred library holdings of his books: [55]. James500 (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Nikolay Kurbatov

Nikolay Kurbatov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Kurbatov Stats)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 02:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 02:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 02:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I added a new sources. Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Do not convince. They are not about Nikolay Kurbatov, just a mention.--RTY9099 (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
It meet basic criteria (there is a lot of sources) and "Entertainers" (3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment). Please, don't delete article! Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Notice, that nominator RTY9099 was blocked in Russian Wikipedia: https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Участник:RTY9099&action=edit&redlink=1 Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
This has no connection to the article Nikolay Kurbatov.--RTY9099 (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a page about discussion of an article about YOU, not a page to discuss the behavior of some editors on an irrelevant site, so please stay on topic.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The person might actually be notable for receiving awards like "Philanthropist 2018" and for recognition by Russian Book of Records for his YT trailer edits, however the current article is a huge mess with a bunch of unreliable sources and a very obvious WP:COI editing by a subject of this article (who appear to have also created this article using his previous Commandos-rus account and who has tried to WP:CANVASS other editors here to help with this AfD nomination) so I am not sure if it's worth keeping in its current state. I'll avoid voting for now.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for comment! Yeah, commandos-rus it's me, i'm guilty. But try to understand me: bipolar disorder has brought me a lot of troubles, I can say, I have been depressed for several years, every day for several hours I have no a desire to live. Therefore, in order to partially compensate for my condition, I decided to create an article about myself. I really like your site and I'm glad that I can create useful articles about movies and localities. I hope for your understanding... Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I understand, but guidelines like WP:COI apply to everyone, regardless of your disability and how severe it is. If you really wanted an article about yourself and your achievements - you should've asked other people, preferably outside of Wikipedia, to write it, with plenty of reliable sources (here is a useful guideline about reliable sources: WP:RS) and you should definitely AVOID voting in AfD nominations involving articles about yourself.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I thought, there is no difference between writing about myself and asking other people... Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Jevon O'Neill

Jevon O'Neill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO. The only secondary coverage I find is about his films and mentions him incidentally. Rogermx (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Satisfies WP:CREATIVE with multiple periodical reviews of his films. Seems to have won the Sutherland Trophy and been nominated for the Emden Film Award. James500 (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
    • One obscure film does not translate into a significant body of creative work. Also, the number of film reviews really does not matter.Rogermx (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Ursula Pearson

Ursula Pearson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No sources in article, unable to find any when doing a Google search. Andise1 (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment (leaning delete) I added a minimal reference to the fact that she appeared in the film mentioned in the article but am not suggesting this satisfies GNG. I haven't found any indication that the memoir mentioned was published, as yet. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
    • The memoir was published in 2004: [56]. There are details of library holdings of the books and films in WorldCat: [57] [58]. There is some commentary on the book: [59]. James500 (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you for finding that. Authorhouse is a self-publisher, but third party RS commentary would still go to notability. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete The coverage verifies the subject to have been discussed by third-party but it is still lacking significant coverage. Rzvas (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

James Canton

James Canton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Article without substantial encyclopedic content. Lots of affiliations given but no direct description of role or relevance of subject. 4 in-line sources only support statements about being on advisory boards. All the rest is completely unsourced and filled with puffery. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. GScholar indicates that he has highly cited publications with hundreds of cites: [60]. There are thousands of holdings of his books in WorldCat member libraries: [61] [62]. James500 (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment: I fully agree that the subject is notable, but still can’t see much worth keeping in the article. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Christian_Schoyen

Christian_Schoyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Self-promotional article, reads like a PR firm wrote it. Is there a standard for notability? Skirts89 (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are more than two thousands library holdings of his books: [63]. James500 (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:PROMO. Libraries only hold one book he wrote en masse according to the above link, and I can't find any book reviews of that particular title, and his films don't appear notable either. Source-bombed. If kept on some notability loophole, needs massive TNT. SportingFlyer talk 07:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Joaquín Moya-Angeler Sánchez

Joaquín Moya-Angeler Sánchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I don't believe the subject is notable under WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:NPOL.

Of the sources listed on the page for him:

  1. "Sobresaliente 'cum laude' para Joaquín Moya-Angeler por su tesis doctoral en Economía (Outstanding' cum laude 'for Joaquín Moya-Angeler for his PhD in Economics.)" (in Spanish). 2011. : Routine local announcement that he wrote a doctoral thesis
  2. "Fundación Moya Angeler. B.O.E (Moya Angeler Foundation. B.O.E)" (in Spanish). 1995. : Primary source that records his charity is indeed a charity
  3. "Investigación. Universidad de Murcia. Coie (Research. Universidad de Murcia. Coie)". : Current & archive versions give error message, not enough context to know what it is
  4. "Cátedra de la Hacienda Territorial y del Observatorio de la Hacienda Territorial (Territorial Department of the Treasury and Finance Territorial Observatory)" (in Spanish). : Current version 404, no archive
  5. "B.O.E. Orden de 29 de octubre de 2008 por la que se nombra a D. Joaquín Moya-Angeler Sánchez como miembro del Consejo Social de la Universidad de Murcia (BOE Order of October 29, 2008 by appointing Angeler Joaquín Moya-Sánchez as a member of the Board of the University of Murcia)" (in Spanish). : Primary source that records his appointment to the university board
  6. "Convenios de colaboración entre la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia, a través del Servicio Regional de Empleo y Formación con la Universidad de Murcia para facilitar las prácticas de alumnos de últimos cursos de enseñanzas universitarias en empresas (collaboration agreements between the Autonomous Community of the Region of Murcia, through the Regional Employment and Training with the University of Murcia practices to facilitate senior students of university education in business)" (in Spanish). : Doesn't have his name anywhere in it
  7. "Centro de Orientación e Información de Empleo (Guidance and Information Centre for Employment)" (in Spanish). : Guidance center for employment main site, not about him
  8. "Corporación Municipal. Competencias como Primer Teniente de Alcalde y Delegado de Relaciones Institucionales (Competencies as Deputy Mayor and Minister of Institutional Relations)" (in Spanish). : Duplicate: same site as above with different title
  9. "Crisis económica y entidades financieras. (Economic crisis and financial institutions)" (in Spanish). : Listing of books that doesn't mention any books he's written
  10. "Coste para la Administración Pública de las Obligaciones tributarias (Cost to the Public of tax obligations)" (in Spanish). : Business listing of book he wrote
  11. "Publicaciones de Joaquín Moya-Angeler Sánchez recogidos en el periodo 1989 - 2002 en la plataforma de servicios documentales Dialnet (Publications of Joaquín Moya-Sánchez Angeler collected in the period 1989 - 2002 in the service platform of Dialnet documentaries)" (in Spanish). : Just a bibliography, see bottom of page

Not enough here for an article. His es.wiki article is the same as this one, with the same references - nothing new to use. Usual caveat that I don't speak Spanish or Basque. ♠PMC(talk) 23:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment it's a puff piece as written. I would have rejected it in draftspace for a lack of inline citations, but that's another story - he does seem to be covered in several news articles, unfavorably here: [64] and more favorably: [65]. I don't think he quite passes WP:AUTHOR (where are the reviews?) or WP:NPOL (just a regional post) but there's some other articles out there which may make this WP:PROMO failure notable. SportingFlyer talk 06:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talkcontributions) 01:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Beybala Khankishiyev

Beybala Khankishiyev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, I can't find mention of him on Google or academic databases. Rosguilltalk 23:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not at all military-related and should be delisted. Kges1901 (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
    Done.Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I suspect we may have the transliterated name wrong. I did find and link the ruwiki entry and azwiki entry, but haven't found this in the azwiki yet. beyond possibly passing NPROF, I think the supervisor of the Insurance industry in Azerbaijan would be notable today.az - we generally assume heads of similar regulatory bodies are notable.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The article contains several claims that would pass WP:PROF, and although not directly referenced, I have no particular reason to doubt them either. Searching for sources on Google etc. is not a good strategy for a Soviet academician; any sources that are out there are unlikely to be English, well-indexed, or even online at all. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. There aren't any refs in the article that verify notability, they are 404, trivial or similar. I did a copyvio check because it looks like a copy and paste, returned nothing. This was probably an obituary. Google returned an entry saying he was a civil servant of medium rank. This wouldn't get past AFC so we shouldn't keep it. Szzuk (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Bob Thompson (producer)

Bob Thompson (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Not seeing or finding any significant coverage. Producers are rarely notable, and executive producers are even less notable. Edwardx (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment I want to say keep because if he is the brains behind Bionicle lego toy line then, of course, he is notable but I could find nothing that states this that is not self-published. Freetheangels (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talkcontributions) 02:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 01:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Ahmed Yassin Al-Daradji

Ahmed Yassin Al-Daradji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:FILMMAKERJC7V-constructive zone 16:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Filmmaker is changes as director ... His short film is well known to the industry and it got valid sources like [1], [2], [3], [4] and more valid sourcing are available in the article. Srirammedfri (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Atfal Allah (Children Of God)". dubaifilmfest.com. Retrieved 2018-09-02. 
  2. ^ "Children of God (2013)". zlinfest.cz. Retrieved 2018-09-02. 
  3. ^ "CHILDREN OF GOD". giffonifilmfestival.it. Retrieved 2018-09-02. 
  4. ^ "Ahmed Yassin". lfs.org.uk. Retrieved 2018-09-02. 
the sources that you cite above and list below about Ahmed are PR pieces which are not the type of sources that show that the subject passes WP:GNG JC7V-constructive zone 04:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete This subject fails general notability and all the tests associated with biographies. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Agustín Laje

Agustín Laje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Subject does not meet notability. Sources here are self-published, authored by the subject of the article himself or non-reliable. There are some COI/POV-pusher editors doing cross-wiki spam persistently on this, the Spanish article had to be deleted 4 times (first two after AfD consultation) [66]. MarioGom (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Laje is an important published writer and conferencist. It is notable enough for any reasonable standard. If we are talking about the ideas of a political scientist, his own writings seem to be a good place to start. The big objection I intuitively see is not procedural but political. This is censorship masquerading as WP policies. Frasznik (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Neither being a published writer or a conferencist is enough to met Wikipedia notability policies. If it is notable enough by any reasonable standard, you just need to find reliable sources that support such claim. With respect to your intuition, I would kindly ask you to keep it to yourself, specially since it is already a few editors with experience that have questioned the notability of this article, both in English and Spanish Wikipedia. --MarioGom (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Good faith is also a general principle of law, at least in civil law traditions. Censors can perfectly do their job on the basis of believing the material to be harmful for the prospective readers. Thus, even assuming good faith is not enough to easily dismiss a censorship accusation. My article is independent from the past Spanish versions, I am not the same person of the article, and the sources are reliable given that 1) career and personal political views of a political scientist cannot be dissociated as if they appertained to different universes, 2) Prensa Republicana is managed by Nicolas Marquez, not Laje. That means that such sources are NOT self-published. Frasznik (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Addressing the issue of Prensa Republicana, Nicolas Marquez is not considered an independent source per WP:INDY: Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic. Being co-authors of a book that is central to Laje's career violates this premise of independence. --signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Prensa Republicana links removed and properly replaced. I doubt YouTube links can be supressed as they are primary sources. What is left to be done? Frasznik (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The issue at hand is demonstrating the notability of the subject through extensive coverage in reliable sources. Currently, the sources on the article are: Laje's Facebook page (not reliable), Razon + Fe (not reliable), YaTeCuento La Pampa (not reliable), La Nueva (possibly reliable, but a single abridged interview announcing a talk isn't particularly notable), Forbes Mexico (would be reliable, except that Laje wrote the article), YouTube (not reliable, wikipedia doesn't think very highly of primary sources), InfoBae articles written by Laje (not reliable), ACI Prensa (not reliable), Infonews (reliability unclear), La Izquierda Diario (not reliable), Cosecha Roja (not reliable), Disidentia (not reliable), Disidencias (not reliable), William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies Alumni Spotlight (not independent, not notable). While some of these sources may be sufficient for substantiating claims made in the article (for example, we can take Laje at his word vis-a-vis how he self-identifies politically; similarly, left-wing publications are sufficient for citing what left-wing critics think of him), they don't demonstrate notability of the subject.
In order to demonstrate notability, you need to either find more coverage in more widely-read, more neutral sources (I'm not super familiar with Argentinian news reporting, but based on Google results El Pais or La Nacion would potentially be acceptable Argentinian sources; an international publication would be even better), or demonstrate that Laje's work is heavily cited in academic literature (Google Scholar currently has *El libro negro de la nueva izquierda* sitting at 2 citations, not exactly heavily cited). signed, Rosguill talk 20:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 01:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete notability has not been demonstrated, sources cited cannot be considered independent. signed, Rosguill talk 01:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Denise Vega

Denise Vega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Author of several children's books, but received very little coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO. Bradv 03:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR. Her books, including "Click Here", seem to have won a lot of awards. There are more than four thousand library holdings of her books: [67]. There is a biography of her in volume 174 of "Something About The Author": [68] [69]. There is some coverage in GNews (303 Magazine). There are book reviews in School Library Journal [70] (review of "Access Denied") [71] (review of "Click Here") etc. And there is other coverage in GBooks and elsewhere, such as [72] [73] [74] [75]. James500 (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
That would seem to be an argument in favour of keeping an article on the book, but none of that establishes the notability of the author. Either way, can you please add some sources to one or both of the articles while you're working on this? I'll happily withdraw the nomination if we can find sources, but I couldn't. Bradv 00:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
All of that establishes the notability of the author. We have her biography, reviews and coverage of more than one of her books, awards for more than one of her books (eg "Facts of Life #31" seems to have won, in particular, the Colorado Book Award in 2009, and the Colorado Top Hand Award), a high level of library holdings for her several books generally. It is not as if the coverage was entirely about that one book or that book was the only popular one. And we generally regard an authors' output as being part of the same topic, since notable authors are by definition notable for their works of authorship. James500 (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • leaning delete, I am not finding WP:SIGCOV of her or her books in reliable SECONDARY sources. We need to show that either she has attracted INDEPTH coverage, or that one or more of her books has gotten enough attention to carry her past WP:AUTHOR She does have a number of books out with real publishing houses, but I'm fialing to find SECONDARY. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The subject's books have been reviewed by both Kirkus Reviews and Publisher's Weekly. At least two of her titles have won awards. I cleaned up the article some and added content and reliable sources. Newspaper and magazine coverage satisfy WP:GNG. Subject easily passes notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 23:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think she meets WP:AUTHOR as I can't find additional coverage and the links already there are (1) university faculty page, primary source; (2) short review which says nothing about the author; (3) a review which is a deadlink for me; (4) short article about Vega which looks like WP:ROUTINE coverage; (5) has one sentence on Vega; (6) short reviews of her books in a trade publication; (7) list of library award winners in which she was an Honor winner - looks like it means a runner-up, but I am not sure; (8) her book listed on the shortlist for another award. These might be helpful if we were looking for notability of her books, but they are not WP:SIGCOV of her - in fact I've rarely seen so little coverage of a writer. Tacyarg (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Additional coverage has been linked to above. ROUTINE only applies to events: Denise Vega is a person, not an event. The reviews are not short. AUTHOR makes it very clear that book reviews and similar sources count towards the notability of an author. Even if they didn't, all that would be achieved by that kind of objection is a page move to something like "Bibliography of Denise Vega". This would seem to be a waste of time because a notable author is by definition notable for their books. The level of coverage is actually good for a writer: many notable books, including a lot of bestsellers, get no reviews at all. James500 (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • delete Looks like it's a little WP:TOOSOON and for lack WP:SIGCOV. Reviews in Pub Weekly and Kirkus are inadequate to pass WP:AUTHOR. One of her books was reviewed in the education sectioon of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. that 's real, so is the regional Colorado Book Awards in category: young adult fiction. In addition there are a couple of articles in local media that cover her as one of a nyumber of local authors. It's not quite enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    E.M.Gregory, as an FYI, Publishers Weekly is renowned as "the bible of the book business" and an independent international news magazine about the literary world. Opining that PW and Kirkus - also a respected book review publication - is "inadequate to pass WP:AUTHOR" does not compute. While the Seattle PI review is "real," so are PW and Kirkus Reviews. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • the thing about PW is that it runs a snippet review of pretty much everything a reputable house is promoting. Yes, it's a functional way to scan upcoming releases. I certainly take it seriously when PW profiles a book or author, or discusses a book in one of their what's-gonna-be-hot-this-season, or in a group article on up-and-coming-teen-novelists, or similar. But to get a MILL snippet review in PW doesn't mean much more than: this book is being published.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Public relations folks practically beg PW to write reviews; PW does not review everything a traditional publisher promotes. All those reviews - for every book they publish? - certainly would overflow in the publication. And that would be news to publishers and authors. The subject's books have been published by Hatchette and Penguin Random House, two of the "big 5" traditional publishing houses - a big deal, unless you also believe it is easy to be published by the top publishers in the industry. Also, the WorldCat catalog shows that the subject's book Click Here alone has 644 copies in public libraries. Before I improved on the subject's article and decided on "Keep," I searched for reviews, news coverage of the subject and books, and WorldCat and found enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Please don't misquote me, I wrote "pretty much everything a reputable house is promoting."E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I paraphrased. My apologies. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • keep WP:HEY, I searched a little harder and found more, we have the old problem here of a much too common name, too many people named Denise Vega in the worls, and adding words like "click" or "book" doesn't help much. Article needs cleanyup, tightening, Still, I think she scrapes by.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    @E.M.Gregory: I found a 2017 review from the School Library Journal, a monthly literary magazine with reviews by librarians. I added it to the article. I too had to search a bit harder to find it, as her name appears to get confused with Vegas. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarun Sagar

Tools

Main tool page: toolserver.org
  • Reflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references
  • Checklinks - Edit and repair external links
  • Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links.
  • Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Arts_and_entertainment&oldid=855170236"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Arts_and_entertainment
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA