- Julie Breathnach-Banwait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't believe she meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO more broadly. 1 hit in google news and nothing in google books which is surprising for a writer. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and augment. Part of the issue with the author is that it can be difficult to meet WP:AUTHOR when her working language is Irish, and that doesn't Google so well. I'll also point to her article in the Irish Language Wikipedia, which has clearly met inclusion criteria there. Yes - different wiki, different rules, but still ... - Alison talk 04:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm not seeing sufficient independent RS to show that the notability criteria have been met. JMWt (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nabeel Qadeer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG. Written like a PROMO. Wikibear47 (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In its current state, the BLP is not ready for the main NS. This PROMO BLP appears to have been created by a newbie, yet it resembles the work of an experienced editor, which raises concerns about possible UPE. I suggest we draftify it for now to allow an AFC review. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your input, @Saqib. I am sorry but I am new to this space; could you please help me understand what UPE stands for?
- Please guide me about how to draftify the article and ways of improving it. Looking forward to your response. MohamoedKhaledZ010 (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify: It sure is written like a promo. Bunnypranav (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify for now, but I will note that the creator, MohamoedKhaledZ010, has been very responsive and looks like they are trying to be productive. It seems like this is just part of their interest area, and I don't believe the promotional tone is intentional. I pinged them to make sure they are aware of this discussion, and so they can chime in if they'd like. I'm certainly willing to help them as their mentor if needed. Fritzmann (message me) 03:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Harold Standish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article seems to be a hoax. I cannot find any of the cited books, and the cited Journal of Canadian Studies article or issue does not exist. A Google Search for "Harold Standish" finds only mirrors of his Wikipedia article. A Google Search for results before his article's creation finds nothing; only a PDF that mirrors our article on Canadian poetry, which he is name-checked in. Searches on Google Books, Google Scholar, or Newspapers.com return no sources that support his existence. As well, Standish and his works are not recorded in any library catalogs, such as WorldCat, and no edits to his article after 2008 have changed the content in a substantial way. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because of hoax concerns described above:
- The Golden Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 25. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Authors, and Canada. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A deep dive into Newspapers.com yields no results whatsoever for a Canadian writer by this name, or for the purported novel, "The Golden Time". It does turn up a descendant of Miles Standish by this name, but not fitting any of the other biographical details here. The Internet Archive only returns a "Harold Standish Corbin" (not our fencer, Harold Corbin, by the way). This is likely a hoax, but even if it were a real person it would be one lacking any actual sources. BD2412 T 00:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. None of the references listed exist. If his works truly were significant, surely some online sources would exist. Procyon117 (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Aoife Burke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not seeing a clear and evidenced claim of notability in this new article about a writer. I think her books are self-published, which would be fine if there were significant coverage of them in independent, reliable published sources, but I cannot find that there is. Several of the existing references read promotional and I'm not clear that they are reliable and independent sources. This one, for instance, at a site called Altright Australia, or this at a site called Techno Tricks, or this which looks like it was originally a memorial site to someone called Houston Stevenson. The only claim in the article which might contribute to notability is the statement that one of her books won an award in the Independent Press Awards 2022 - I found the awards website to verify that, but am not clear that the award has received independent coverage or is notable. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found anything to add to notability, or where I can be sure it is the same person. Tacyarg (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, and Ireland. Tacyarg (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: When I first looked at the article, my AI senses tingled, and as I tried to clean it up, they tingled more. Although 12 sources were listed, there were only 6: one promotional article slightly changed across multiple platforms, one link to a site similar to MuckRack with no information about the author, an Amazon book link, an Apple Books link, and wait for it an article that mentioned a different Aoife Burke who plays footy (which was cited multiple times), as well as an obit for some Aoife Burke's father. An independent search for sources has turned up several Aoife Burkes, none of which are writers. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for sorting all that out. Now wondering if this qualifies for speedy deletion under A7. Tacyarg (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Subject does not have significant coverage in independent sources hence fail WP:GNG and WP:Notability(people)Tesleemah (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Subject hasn't been the subject of significant/independent/reliable/verifiable sources - to the extent that WP:GNG or WP:NWRITER is met. As noted above, once all the unreliable/non-independent/unrelated sources are removed, the only thing that remains is a single blogpost (that was written 2 weeks before this article was created). Even if it were an independent/reliable source (and it doesn't appear to be), it doesn't constitute WP:SIGCOV on its own. Nor can I find any other sources to establish notability or support the text. (The text itself describes just about any author/writer - and the stuff about schoolgirl and student awards is borders on the silly..). Mine is a firm "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, all sources found are spam and fake blackhat SEO blogs. The author is an obvious UDPE, now blocked for using socks. That "houstonstevenson" source is one of the most repugnant things I've ever seen here: spammers have taken over an open blog on a memorial site. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - she won a made up in one day award for an amateur poet. I tried searching for more information online, and found a cellist and the aforementioned soccer player. Bearian (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebecca Tamás (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per IP: "Daughter of Someone Famous". This is a vanity page which refers to self-published poems and lists university awards as reason for notability. No substantial or notable press or internet presence. Not something one would expect in a generalist reference. UtherSRG (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've added references and think there is enough coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Shreeraj Kurup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet WP:SIGCOV and so unable to satisfy WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tesleemah (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Rudy Takala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not provide any indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, or WP:NAUTHOR. He ran for state legislature but did not win, and the sources are links to things he wrote, rather than articles about him. I am unable to find significant coverage of him from a Google search. ... discospinster talk 02:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Minnesota. ... discospinster talk 02:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'd have to say. As OP said, all those many refs are stuff by him. Not notable enough. Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per nom. No independent coverage of Takala himself outside of a few mentions in small local newspapers like this. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 03:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, Conservatism, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:POLITICIAN. Local party worker and commentator in his youth. No indication he ever held office other than within his own local party affiliations. — Maile (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The statement "Takala was elected chairman of Minnesota's Pine County Republicans at the age of 18. He was re-elected in 2009 with 60% of the vote, and again in 2011" looks promising except that it is without citation. Subject does not meet the notability of a politician and it fails WP:GNG Tesleemah (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Talks at Google (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Redirect to Google. Not independently notable and lack of WP:SIGCOV about Talks at Google as a standalone subject. Longhornsg (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Technology, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Google as a viable ATD, per Longhornsg. Sal2100 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Film, Music, Entertainment, Science, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Google.It is not independently notable and fails WP:GNG for a standalone article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per above. Pretty much nothing. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Zainal Arifin Mochtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant coverage that shows notability. I realize that the sources are non-English but doing my best through Google Translate I think this is likely the best source which looks more like a reprint of a bio. CNMall41 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, JarrahTree. Which sources would you consider significant coverage to show notability here? I will take a look and withdraw the AfD should they be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm seeing the deputy chairman of a sub-ministerial government body, moderator in a Presidential debate, and major interviewee in a viral film. Not necessarily sufficient on their own, but together they definitely support a presumption of notability. Referring to the sources:
- I'm also seeing a few lower-quality sources (still RSes, but not as established) through a quick Google search. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Shirley Neal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable individual. Spam that smells of UPE. Claimed Emmy is only regional and fails verification. Lacks independent coverage about her. Wikipedia is not a PR platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Avivah Wittenberg-Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable individual. Spam that smells of UPE. Ref-bombed and Dishonestly sourced largely with primary sources. Lacks coverage about her in independent reliable sources. Comments from her are not coverage about her. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, especially considering the lack of good sources (and the fact that the article is an orphan) SirBrahms (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- She is quoted in brief statements quite frequently, but I can find no other reviews of her books. I did some tidying up and removed references to promotional websites. The three news articles with the most extensive coverage that I can find are [8], the articles written by Carolyn Flynn for the Albuquerque Journal (newspaper.com clippings are in the article), and the 2018 article where she discusses her book Late Love [9]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. The article now lists three reviews of her book Why Women Mean Business, a promising start. But I didn't find any reviews of her other books listed in the selected works section. They appear self-published but it's the reviews more than the publisher that concerns me. One more reliably published review of a different book (not in Chautauquan Daily, her go-to publicity outlet) would push me over to a weak keep per WP:AUTHOR, but I don't think we should pass that criterion based on only one book. I don't think the other sources provide in-depth and independent coverage of her suitable for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as there are multiple WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. A number of these have been added since the AfD was initiated. Nnev66 (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- book reviewed by the NYTimes, cited as an expert in the field by Washington Post, and published as author by Harvard Business Review and Financial Times. There's promotion and fluff in the article, but I am happy to put the standard of external notability at a single book reviewed in the Times. It's not a slam dunk, but I think it's a keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reji Joseph Pulluthuruthiyil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He has only won one notable award but I think more is needed to meet fails WP:JOURNALIST.
A search for sources in google news under his full name, Reji Pulluthuruthiyil and Joseph Pulluthuruthiyil did not yield anything. so fails WP:BIO more generally. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, India, and Kerala. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The journalist has won a notable award, which is significant. However, more comprehensive coverage on their work and achievements is needed, as it is currently lacking. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Page is around WP:BLP1E, an award won by subject but fails WP:SIGCOV on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I’m not !voting, but I note that if the article is kept, the personal life section is unsourced and is potentially is a WP:BLP violation. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Josiah Nelson Cushing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not well sourced, and of course, I couldn't find any in a WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral/Extend. The article may not be well sourced, but I believe as much time as can be afforded should be given to allow editors to find a source FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @FLIPPINGOUT My intent is to prevent an abandoned article due to overzealous eventualism. A week is long enough to find enough sources. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The biography is on the Web Archive but it's down for now. If there was a way to put an AfD on hold, I'd suggest waiting until the book is available to evaluate. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it I dream of horses. There’s a discussion of his translation on pages 51-53 of the pdf in this article which corresponds to pages 176-178 of the text, and refers to yer another name for the language, the Kachin. Bearian (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian Please add sources to the article. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that anyone else will do it. I have yet to create or even significantly expand an article, and so it's probably best that it isn't it. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY. I have added several sources that refer to the subject’s pioneering work in translation of the Bible into the Shan language. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the article has been significantly improved since nomination including extra content sourced to references showing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as described in this discussion. Therefore WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sanjay Singh Yadav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL criteria. The subject is only mentioned in a few news articles, and there is no significant coverage available. It’s unclear how the article has survived this long without meeting notability standards. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Subject fails WP:NPOL and W:GNG. Some sources are self-published or not independent.- TheWikiholic (talk) 07:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Antik Mahmud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence or claim of notability. None of the sources provide the in-depth coverage needed for GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 15:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability found for this student. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. A well-known YouTuber. Ahammed Saad (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Having over 1,000,000 subscribers and over 153,000,000 views on YouTube, seems pretty notable in my opinion. But following, WP:NPOV, there's more than enough credible sources aswell as editor/writer(s) of those WP:RS article makes it more essential than ever. Don't know the point/reason of create/have(ing) a deletion talk for this article. Bruno 🌹 (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- He is notable, but the problem is there. I think the lack of proper writing, the need to add more information, and the carrier is empty. UzbukUdash (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @UzbukUdash, I kinda agree with you. He’s definitely notable, but yeah, I see the problem too. The writing feels rough in spots, and there’s definitely more information that could be added, I’m working on it in my sandbox and trying to develop it further. Bruno 🌹 (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Please provide references supporting your keep !votes to establish notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. subject meets WP:GNG,
WP:RELY Sources: 1 The Business Standard, 2 The Telegraph India, 3; 4 The Daily Star (Bangladesh), 5 The Daily Ittefaq, 6 BBC NEWS, 7 Daily Sun (Bangladesh) Bruno 🌹 (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only sources I can really find are this and this. Not enough for an article. Procyon117 (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. Available sources do not establish notability because those that contain significant coverage are uncritical interviews (The Business Standard 1 Jan 2022, The Daily Star, The Daily Ittefaq, and BBC) or reprintings of his social media posts (Daily Sun). What he says about himself is a primary, non-independent source.
- These pieces are generally accompanied by an introductory bio. The news organizations aren't transparent about where those capsule bios come from. One has to evaluate how similar they are to the "about me" section of his website and YouTube channel, and whether any independent sources are credited (e.g. "According to his class 9 teacher ...", "His college roommate said ...", etc.). If the bio has been supplied by him and is republished without analysis, evaluation, or interpretation by the journalist, then it is non-independent.
- In my evaluation the only independent, secondary source addressing him directly and in any depth is the one review in The Daily Star mentioned above by Bruno pnm ars and Procyon117.[10] It is insufficient to satisfy WP:NBIO. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mick Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This was WP:BLAR'd to Socialist Alternative (Australia)#History, but is not mentioned in the target and the redirect was taken to RFD. The discussion called for it to be listed here. I'm listing this because I closed the RFD; I have not otherwise investigated the subject. asilvering (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Australia. asilvering (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd like to point out that Mick Armstrong was mentioned in the target when the redirect was created. He was only removed from that article a minute before the redirect was listed for discussion, for not being mentioned in the target... The removal (and deletion) may turn out to be perfectly justified (I have no insight into and no opinion about this matter), but I find the reason "not mentioned in target" strange when the reason for this is that the user has removed it themselves moments earlier, and then doesn't disclose that they did this. Renerpho (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- With the original state of the Socialist Alternative (Australia) article (before the removal of that paragraph, and more so when the redirect was created in 2020), that redirect looks sensible to me. The relevant paragraph was tagged as needing citations since June 2024; and as I said, removing it may be the right choice. But it wasn't an unreasonable target for the redirect based on what it looked like at the time. Renerpho (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think once the material was removed though (as failing WP:V) at that point the redirect being discussed was valid. TarnishedPathtalk 06:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TarnishedPath: Yes, and maybe others will be more lenient. WP:CHALLENGE is clear that you had every right to remove it. That doesn't mean that the timing wasn't unfortunate, and that this wasn't important. I would have preferred either an upfront mention that you removed it ("I have just removed this as failing WP:V, and believe the redirect should be deleted because it's no longer mentioned in the target"), or to leave it and include it in the discussion ("I plan to remove this unsourced information from the target, at which point the subject will no longer be mentioned in the target"). This gives users the opportunity to form an opinion if sources exist (the talk page exists if there's more to know). It's a matter of transparency: When I see an argument like "not mentioned in the target", my impression is that this is because the two are unrelated, and the redirect was unreasonable. I feel misled when important background about the article's history is hidden from me. Renerpho (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll keep that in mind for future reference. TarnishedPathtalk 08:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Thanks for pointing it out in this AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Austudy Five has just been Prodded. I found a cite that Mick Armstrong was one of the 5 in a few seconds, a better cite would still be valuable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete: All the references in the article (that aren't broken) only mention him in passing besides this which is a review of one of Armstrong's books. Performing a search I found a bunch of articles written by him at redflag.org.au (One of Socialist Alternative's newspapers which Armstrong seems to be a member of) and other articles from the same site that discuss him. Redflag is obviously not independent and can't be used to establish notability. Nothing I've found would satisfy WP:AUTHOR and I don't think there's enough for WP:BASIC. Ping me if good sources are found. TarnishedPathtalk 04:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Subject to another deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 13#Mick Armstrong) so I don't think Soft Deletion is an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect back to Socialist Alternative (SA). That is, more or less turn back the clock to before the discussion of that redirect was started (including adding back the mention at the target; see my comment above). I find links.org.au and sa.org.au convincing enough to have him mentioned there, but too little for a standalone article. Both sources mention Armstrong at the very top, but only the latter does this because he comes alphabetically first; and judging from its critical standpoint, the former doesn't seem to be affiliated with SA. Books like this, while being self-published, at least demonstrate the link between Armstrong and SA (who surely wouldn't let him publish in their name if he wasn't speaking, well, in their name). As I said, there's not enough to demonstrate that Armstrong is notable enough for a standalone article, but the redirect looks like a straightforward "keep". Renerpho (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Priyamvad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem to be notable. I'm unable to find any coverage. Fails WP:BIO. --Ratekreel (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ratekreel, When you nominated the article, at that time only two references were there in the article. Now number of references are 10+. All references are from national newspapers or books or authenticated government websites. Author have written many books, all can not be listed in the article. Two stories are base for two different bollywood films. Some work by the author is translated in multiple languages by well known authors and translators. Looking at these things, article should not be deleted. There are some research articles which are clearly comparing author's work with Premchand, which is also like an award for Hindi writers. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thabiso Sikwane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Trivial Article that does not comply with WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. According to WP:BIO's additional criteria nor with WP:DIRECTOR Pitille02 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough reliable sources on the article demonstrate notability. Jeanette Fiery Red Haired Martin (dime?) 19:00, 14 October, 2024 b(ITC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 14. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 19:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Radio, and South Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Subject has received moderate attention after their passing (and prior). She headlined multiple secondary reliable publications. A simple Google search is enough. dxneo (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She passes WP:SIGCOV quite well. Here are some sources [11], [12], [13], [14]
- Tau Corvi (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sources in the article are either eulogizing her or gossiping about her personal life, and a BEFORE Google search turned up similar results with DJ Fresh dominating most of the headlines. There's no significant independent coverage of Sikwane's actual career. This is reflected in the article having been created nearly two months ago after her death (which alone does not automatically establish notability) but currently still a stub with next to no content. Is she known more for her media work, or her relationship with DJ Fresh? 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 03:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: "Keep" has the numbers, but I'm not sure the delete !vote has been fully addressed. Can we get a closer source analysis? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: yeah, I'm going to have to go with HopalongCasualty here. The sources in the article and presented above are ones that only either cover her relationship with DJ Fresh or her death more than her media career. I did also do an extended search on South African and nearby newspapers before her death (from 1/1/2000 to 1/1/2024, as a note) and found a brief burst of coverage on her being on Power FM in 2016, and a 2023 news article of a "hijacking ordeal" she was involved in. Those I'm doubtful establish notability of Sikwane outside of her former relationship with DJ Fresh or the coverage of her death more than her extended media career. Otherwise, I only found brief, passing mentions of her across several, if not many, sources I did find in the BEFORE search. Therefore, delete per HopalongCasualty and the sources found here. ~ Tails Wx 21:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: She was notable in her own right as a radio presenter.[18][19][20]. Again WP:WORLDWIDE needs to be taken into account-being unfamiliar with a subject doesn't make it more or less notable. The fact that she happened to have been married to a possibly more famous individual doesn't diminish her own notability. Park3r (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Kingsley Okonkwo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An article about a "family life and relationship coach, TV personality, and author" sourced entirely to shady pieces. While most of the publications are reliable on their own, the pieces sourced to are either unreliable, of the subject's opinion, run of the mill coverages or vanispamcruft. It's either the subject is publishing their opinion or it's an unreliable "things you need to know about X" piece. Nothing to confer inherent notability here either. Fails WP:GNG over all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The subject appears notable and subject of discussion in national dailies here, here and could pass [Wp:GNG|GNG] with wide coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackesan (talk • contribs) 12:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Akhtar Usman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The BLP was created in the main namespace and later draftified by Maliner. The creator then submitted it for review, but later unilaterally moved the BLP back to the main namespace, to avoid AFC review process. So I feel compelled to take this to AFD so the community can decide whether it should remain or be deleted. IMO, it fails both GNG and NAUTHOR, as none of the works are notable enough. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Likely to be contested, so let's get a more firm outcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep: The Dawn source is fine, I imagine there would be more in the several native languages mentioned. I found this [21] and [22], which seem fine. I couldn't find any reviews in Gscholar or Jstor. Oaktree b (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oaktree b, Why are you citing an opinion piece to establish GNG? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- appears to be a critical review of his work Oaktree b (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oaktree b, Whether it's critical or not isn't the point. What matters is if the source being used to establish GNG is RS and in this case, it isn't. It's just a column written by an unknown freelancer, which might be suitable for the BLP itself but does not adequately support the case for GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's published in a RS and helps support the other good sources given, I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per above. His book/work has been reviewed by Amjad Islam Amjad [23] and others [24], [25]. A few in-depth articles in Dawn are always helpful [26], [27]. Meets WP:NPOET. Gheus (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Sources like these DAWN, The News, DAWN, Dunya News, Express demonstrates notability. Libraa2019 (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephen Harrison (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As much as I think Harrison's writing about Wikipedia is insightful, I simply don't think he passes WP:NJOURNALIST. He's not really been the subject of significant coverage. I don't think interviews or reviews of his books in student newspapers (Student Life) are sigcov. The Fix interview might be significant coverage, but I am unfamiliar with the publication. 1A is a podcast interview, which I don't think counts for notability. The Salon, Slate and HuffPost links are just to his journalism and obviously don't count. The New America link is the description of an event that Harrison was participating in, and I don't think its sigcov either. The WashU entry is a "look what one of our alumni is up to" post and therefore it's not independent or sigcov. The Yahoo interview is part of the Yahoo for Creators program, which has an unclear level of editorial control from Yahoo itself, and may be published with little editorial oversight like WP:FORBESCON, but I'm not sure, and I think its status as significant coverage is questionable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I mostly agree with Oaktree above. Simply having published a book is definitely not enough to meet point 3 of WP:NCREATIVE, especially when that book's coverage has been pretty minimal. Going through the article's sources - author pages don't establish anything, the Yahoo article is misleading as it's aggregated from a Substack, and I would not consider alumni magazines to be sufficiently WP:INDEPENDENT. There may eventually be enough coverage for an article on his book, but it doesn't seem like there's enough here for an article on him. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 02:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Regrettably (I think he's one of best WP-journalists around) I can't disagree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This [29] might be considered a partial GNG-point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I'm fine with draftifying the article as an WP:ATD! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 03:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify per WP:ATD as it's possibly just a bit WP:TOOSOON. Continue adding coverage to the article as it is published, such as book reviews and author profiles. If no one updates for six months, it will get deleted. But if sufficient sources are added, it can get moved back into mainspace. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for Draftification since we have an editor willing to work on improving this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|