Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

Authors

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mordecai Plaut

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

Plaut is notable only for having a website. Does not seem to meet the guidelines for inclusion. Uses Blogs, commercial adv, etc. Seems to be a hagiographical page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:BIO. I only see passing mentions in blogs and a book. Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:BIO, specifically WP:AUTHOR. Not getting much in the way of independent third party sources either, so fails WP:GNG. -crh23 (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to show they meet WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Tomson

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

Not many citations of his works (collaborations), and little other coverage found of either himself or his company. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A number of sources have been added to the article, but most of them are connected to Tomson, press releases, or simply "Ross Tomson said" attributions in a discussion of something else. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Comment~~ Article was added to add clarity to who Ross Tomson is and his current career and overall biography as he has started to become a figure in Houston business and through that and his dealings is thereby notable. Article is heavily cited and well verified by independent sources that verify what is written to be factually accurate.Tomsontech (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are numerous citations to articles written by others about Ross Tomson and his companies. See the following citations: Houston Business Journal citation, Rice News citation, Offshore Magazine citation, Energy.gov citation, and the Texas Bar citations -- all of which are independent sources not tied to Tomson, but written about him or his companies. Tomsontech (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's review these. I pretty much covered them in my first comment, above.

Rice: A single sentence out of an entire article, "The Rice team is working with project leader Brine Chemistry Solutions LLC, a Houston company founded by Tomson’s son, Rice alumnus Ross Tomson" isn't substantial coverage of Ross Tomson. Nor, when this Rice project is written about on Rice's own website, is it independent. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rice: User should understand that this project was a joint Rice University Brine Chemistry Solutions project. The cited source is about Ross Tomson's wholly owned company - Brine Chemistry Solutions and is referenced to show the collaboration between Rice University and Brine Chemistry Solutions, as this was done under Ross Tomson's direct supervision and part of his leadership of the company.Tomsontech (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it says a lot about Brine Chemistry Solutions. It says nothing about Ross Tomson. And it's Rice talking about Rice's own project. Not independent. A similar example: an actor may be profiled on the websites of numerous theaters in connection with shows at those theaters in which the actor is performing. These profiles aren't independent coverage. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It in fact mentions Ross Tomson by name. It is also talking about a US DOE project that is partly being performed at Rice, not Rice's own project. Foxglove2016 (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've begun repeatedly bringing up points I've already addressed. In this case, it was above, when I wrote that a mention by name "isn't substantial coverage" of the person whose name it is. And it is about activity going on at Rice. It isn't arms-length coverage of a person with whom Rice has no involvement. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Offshore: This is an example of one of the scenarios I already noted. He is merely being quoted. Though the article is about his company, it isn't about him. (Notability is generally not considered to be inherited.)

Offshore: As should be clear by the article on Ross Tomson, his companies and Ross Tomson are intertwined because the company the wholly owned (and founded) by Ross Tomson and thereby this article discusses activities that Ross Tomson was engaged in through his company Brine Chemistry Solutions. What makes Ross Tomson notable is the fact that he has started this company that works on numerous projects like this one, which garner support from the media including this which was by Rice's media. In addition, this has nothing to do with inherited notability. Suggest a detailed read of the citation. Tomsontech (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to my earlier comment about how notability is not generally considered to be inherited. Technically, people can write whole books about a company, but if they never mention the person who owned the company, and he doesn't have coverage of his own, then that person isn't notable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Energy.gov: This can hardly be considered significant coverage of him when neither his first nor last name appears on the page.

Energy.gov: Again this user fails to see that this coverage is directly about Ross Tomson's company - Brine Chemistry Solutions (now part of Tomson Technologies) and this project was directly overseen by Ross Tomson himself. I suggest edits to the Ross Tomson page to make direct involvement more obvious to the casual reader. Tomsontech (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my previous reply. Also, it's the page on Energy.gov that someone would have to update to talk at length about Ross Tomson himself, for it to serve as a source for a finding of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Bar Association: It's a routine database listing that, at best, verifies that he's a lawyer. It isn't "coverage", per se. No contribution to a finding of notability, any more than being listed in the phonebook is.

Texas Bar Association: Yes, that's the point of this citation, to verify that part of the Ross Tomson article.Tomsontech (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine that it's serving that role, verification, in the article. But you brought it up to me in the context of this discussion of his notability. And I'm responding to that by explaining that it has no role in assessing this person's notability.

Of all these, the Houston Business Journal is the only one that comes close. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Business Journal: This unsolicited article about Ross Tomson verifies the notability of Ross Tomson and factually verifies parts of the Ross Tomson article. Tomsontech (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're conflating verifiability with notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. This article is written about Ross Tomson is meets all the guidelines for notability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline Foxglove2016 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to the citations above verifying factual information throughout the article, Tomson's journal publications have 10 citation from other publications and are themselves valid citations not originated by Tomson. Tomsontech (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another citation to an outside written source was added, supporting the Ross Tomson page. Please see citation to Materials & Performance magazine - August 2013. Tomsontech (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please let username Tomsontech (name change request pending to be in line with wikipedia guidelines) know how to best prevent deletion of the page and also allow for review / verification of the contents of the page.Tomsontech (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Namechange successful. Foxglove2016 (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Getting outside of a few counterpoints from above, it's clear that while there are some citations that may be useful for verification of this page, there are some that clearly show notability at a level to satisfy the Wikipedia standards and thereby this deletion request should be removed and the page allowed to remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxglove2016 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears well-written and, despite the conflict of interest (user Tompsontech writing an article about the founder of Tompson Technologies), appears to have been written from a relatively neutral point of view. My biggest concerns are the question of notability, the unsourced nature of some of the biographical information, the fact that most of the references are self-published, and the aforementioned conflict of interest. The latter especially leads me to believe the intent behind this article was self-promotion.

Regarding the question of notability, while there are a handful of secondary sources to support the subject's importance, I don't know that the coverage necessarily qualifies as "significant," per the notability guidelines for people. As such, I second Largo Plazo's nomination for deletion. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Erick Shepherd, however please consider this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Academics. This subject matter is clearly, among other things, an academic (scientist and researcher) having over a dozen journal articles published. This of course gives a different threshold for notability as per the article referenced. It would appear that he falls within a few different categories of people as per the notability article and on the whole appears to pass this notability test for people. In addition, may I suggest that some edits perhaps are necessary to address your biggest concern of the biographical information -- if that is the area you identify, perhaps removal of those non-referenced parts should be removed without deletion of the page.Foxglove2016 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the notability guidelines for academics, "having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are." His publications do not in themselves contribute to his notability unless they have had significant impact in their respective fields. That isn't to say that they have not, but there is little yet in the references to indicate that they have, and so the question of whether notability has been established is still somewhat unclear.

With regards to the biographical information, I don't think that their presence or removal would impact the outcome of the deletion proposal since the challenge initially posed was one of notability. However, should the proposal result in the article being kept, removal of the content in question or relevant citation to support it would be warranted in order to keep the article encyclopedic. If that is the verdict, I will be happy to help implement those edits.

--Erick Shepherd (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the aforementioned issues. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing better and none of this is currently convincing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Someone has gone to an awful lot of trouble to cobble together a long set of laregely weak and irrelevant and references that as a while fail to establish any kind of real-world notability for this individual.
Delete. There is nothing here that wouldn't be better in a LinkedIn profile, but really, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Quentin Q. Quackenbush (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. A recreation is possible, but only if the sourcing is good and the tone is neutral. Sandstein 11:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Klyukin

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

This article is about a non-notable person and is possibly autobiographical. FinnHK (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 20:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself would've also nominated because none of this has any convincing signs and, despite the collection of links, none of seem solid enough for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T Delete I think there are more than enough references in the article, proving that it's not about non-notable person.
Moreover, the links provided in this article clearly indicate us the evidence of Vasily Klyukin's works, his interaction with the most famous people of the world, as well as the popular mass media articles about his life and activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.173.118.69 (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC) — 46.173.118.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
These references only prove that the media is happy to publish nearly anything in the search for more clicks. His ideas are creative but there is no evidence to suggest they are anything more than the creative work of anyone on any 3D modeling forum. FinnHK (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question to the comments above. Do you really believe that over 1000 articles worldwide could be published about non-notable person? It's hard to imagine how notable the person should be, if Vasily Klyukin is not notable enough for you, guys... Virtually all of the top mass media, such as CNN, Yahoo, Forbes, GQ, Telegraph, Le Monde, etc. published numerous articles about his futuristic skyscrapers, villas and yachts, as well as his sculptures. Let me underline it again, these articles are not just self-made, but it was published by the most influential and popular mass media sources in the world. If we will neglect it, we should pay no attention to the most public figures, show business stars and celebrities as well. Please check out just few links provided in this Wikipedia article (there is a bunch of links is still to be added). Moreover, his books can be purchased in the stores all over the world, or for example, at Amazon: Designing Legends [[1]] and Collective Mind [[2]].
SwisterTwister, you should absolutely be nominated if you google your name and see it as top result, just like it is with Vasily Klyukin. Besides it, all you will need to do is to publish 2 successful books and to make top mass media write about you in over 1000 articles... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.173.118.69 (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC) — 46.173.118.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pushing for a delete, but I would certainly advocate re-writing it. It's so puffy and self-promotional and a victim of WP:WEASEL Lines like "His designs became well-known worldwide thanks to his innovative approach", where's the citation or evidence for that assertion? I have lots of issues with it, but they are predominantly stylistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupsbunch (talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to a Keep now, since it looks like he's passing WP:CREATIVE with this [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He may pass notability criteria, but this current article needs to go per WP:TNT. Highly promotional, covers none of the negative publicity about this architect, which in my searches outweighed the positive coverage. Notability is not the only reason for deletion, this would qualify under WP:DEL4. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give people time to evaluate the sources presented by Arthistorian1977 -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete - A little uncertain about this one. After searching Google, it does seem like there is some considerable news coverage (Daily Mail, Fox News) - granted, it's not a whole lot. But it would appear the subject is most notable for being an architect, not necessarily for being a writer, so I don't think going into extensive detail about his books and then citing Amazon as the source is necessary, encyclopedic, or even appropriate. I also strongly agree that this article is *extremely* promotional. I'm not an expert on space-traveling Monacan architects so this can go either way for me. I ultimately lean towards delete because of the strongly promotional language and the lack of reliable sources in the article. If the article is kept, I would strongly support a rewrite. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Notability for the subject has not been demonstrated, and consensus in this rather short discussion is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Michael Lam

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

I came across this as a speedy deletion via A7, but there's just enough of an assertion of notability to where it wouldn't have been a clean speedy. It's possible that he may be notable, but I can't find anything when searching or to really show that the awards he's won are really notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. This might be due to him performing predominantly in China and Japan, so I've asked both WikiProjects for help in finding sources, if any exist. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Things that also give off the potential for notability include things like this book, especially as the e-commerce site mentions that he's frequently performed on television. Whether or not these performances would establish notability has yet to be determined, but it's enough for it to pass speedy criteria. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any sources in Japanese, although there may well be sources out there, as from his Youtube videos it appears that he has been on Japanese TV. It may also be easier to find sources in Chinese than in Japanese. If any such sources are found, I can see myself switching from delete to keep, but at the moment we should assume he doesn't pass WP:BIO. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Chinese wiki page for this guy was G11'd earlier today--Prisencolin (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC).--Prisencolin (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: *Hi all, here are pics form facebook of TBS Asian Ace, to prove that Michael Lam really took part in the TBS television competition program, Asian Ace. https://www.facebook.com/tbsaace/photos/a.269581376412478.57890.245968228773793/293358387368110/?type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/tbsaace/photos/pb.245968228773793.-2207520000.1458619146./292364820800800/?type=3&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamjunejune (talk • contribs) 04:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply none of this actually suggests a better Wikipedia article, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. With no prejudice to article re-creation if better sources come up in the future. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Delgado

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

So many refs and so very little evidence of notability. Most are at very best tangential and many make no mention of the subject. The archetypal puff piece which fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 04:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has been modified to cleanup unnecessary information and add proper references so it has now the notability standards of WP:GNG. Torchbit ^{Torchbit Talk} 06:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This looks good to me. --Juancpena (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here are press clips from written press that proves notability. Regrettably DR papers are not so digital and Google News is not allowed in Spain. https://www.evernote.com/l/ADfxctKFXdlAS6YDxw1te7lWQVlv4rtzpTM --Ruidelgado (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As far as I'm concerned, you can prove notability with articles that are not in English and that are not online. Edsab15 (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC

Comment - can somebody please point out which, if any, of these refs convey notability. Language isn't an issue. Spanish is fine, but where exactly can notability be found ? Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this cannot be taken seriously as an excellent example keeping, the simple number of current sources are still questionable actually and, if there's nothing better, this is best deleted until better is available. Overall article is still questionable, SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd like to know which refs are considered questionable. This is why is hard to have a better representation of Dominicans on Wikipedia, since articles of the best newspaper in the country is considered "questionable". Torchbit ^{Torchbit Talk} 23:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of the sources in the article are from non-reliable sources (imdb, youtube), or are non-independent (crunchbase, evernote), or are not about him directly (about his company), or are interviews or articles by him (and therefore primary sources and not valid for notability purposes), or are mere mentions of him. The search engines do not turn up anywhere near enough to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Evernote link is a collection of scanned magazine features and interviews of him in Spanish. How is best to reference offline refs so it'd be admisible? The WP:GNG doesn't specify this matter - Torchbit (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that the Keep votes are not actually convincing to actually keep and improve this with the article currently still seeming as questionable as when it first started. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 no consensus. Sandstein 14:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Siddiqi

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

This article failed to meet the terms of Wikipedia notability through Basic criteria and Additional criteria. No reliable sources. Three of the five references are dead link. Otherwise no strong Third-party sources. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 07:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see why journalists shouldn't have their own article. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an argument for keeping. Journalists do not have inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person seems to be the editor of a widely read newspaper The Express Tribune. I searched a bit and I did find independent sources like [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] as well as passing mentions here [14], [15]. I would say the article subject is notable, but the article in its current form needs to be trimmed down. Keep article but trim. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So It would need additional sources as you provide and must be trim. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 11:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now actually as the article is still questionable overall and the Keep votes are not confident enough to suggest this will be better improved especially considering the article's current troubled state. Delete for now at best, Keep only if it's noticeably improved and, if not, Draft instead for future uses, and imaginably return to mainspace when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The most informative of the sources cited by the article is the Global Journalist story,[16] which is half interview transcript and half capsule bio. The latter might be the result of research and analysis by the reporting staff, but it reads like the average self-supplied author bio. The rest of the cited sources are largely written by him. To this I can add only one piece from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.[17] It's a fluffy everyman story about his relationship with his teenage daughter, but at least it's about him rather than by him. These are insufficient to pass any notability guideline.

Lemongirl942 has listed seven additional sources above. The deepest is most of a paragraph in the Herald (Karachi: Dawn Media Group)[18] which describes the self-censorship he has found necessary in Pakistan. The rest are generally of the form "Kamal Siddiqi, editor of the Express Tribune, said" followed by a brief quote. More of the same type are available. The problem is that networking with other news organizations, exchanging quotes, and getting your paper mentioned seem to be a routine part of the job of editor. Just because a journalist has been quoted by a dozen different media outlets, doesn't make them notable.

Perhaps he can satisfy criterion #1 of WP:JOURNALIST, "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Wikipedia itself cites articles he has written only 4 times. Google scholar shows a dozen citations spread over half a dozen of his articles. Google books returns many false positives, but if one further limits the search to after when he began his career (1990) and by the names of papers where he has worked, one gets 11 (Dawn) + 9 (The News) + 8 (Indian Express). These are not notable numbers. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think every journalist deserves a page, but this guy seems to. I think it's more appropriate to keep it and add a banner asking for more references.VanEman (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

seems notable? LibStar (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:VAGUEWAVE. zero attempt to explain how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the sources in the article meet the sourcing requirements of WP:N no additional comment is needed. But if you prefer: [19] is a source solely on the topic. [20] provides both an independent biography and documents an award from Stanford University. In addition he has been interviewed by The Guardian about the paper he's the editor for here as well as by the Washington Post [21]. Hobit (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. the supplied sources are not in-depth about the subject but merely confirm his role. Secondly most of the keep votes presented here make no real attempt to explain how a notability guideline is met. LibStar (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What most !votes do doesn't matter. That sources have been provided (both in the article and above) is all that matters. Just saying that "sources aren't in-depth about the subject" makes one suspect you didn't read the sources since at least one is purely about the subject... Hobit (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My perusal of the sources offered here and in the article reveal far too many passing mentions and primary sources. An example is this, which Lemongirl942 seems to consider comprehensive coverage (as it's grouped with several as "independent") and then offers two that are "passing mentions" separately. This example is most definitely a passing mention, rather than the comprehensive coverage needed to establish notability in a Wikipedia context. The most convincing argument I've seen for meeting notability criteria is the argument by Worldbruce, but I don't think it's quite there. For Hobit, I have read the sources, and this is my conclusion. The article simply having sources isn't sufficient, the sources must be reliable and of sufficient quality. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 redirect to Edward Hooper (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Wugapodes (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hooper

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

This article is not actually about Edward Hooper, it contains only his work on the refuted OPV AIDS hypothesis. It is a WP:COATRACK and per WP:BLP1E we should cover this at the article on the refuted hypothesis, rather than as a faux-biography of someone who appears to be known only for this. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sad, I really liked his book, here's biography at his website, he spent 18 years studying and writing about the OPV/AIDS origins. Can an article be made from his website-biography? Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, because it lacks independence. The problem is that he didn't actually study the OPV AIDS conjecture so much as spend years trying to find supporting evidence, mostly after the reality-based community had abandoned it as provably wrong. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This book shall stand since it has been created.KingOfKingsTheAssassin (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking meatpuppet !vote JMHamo (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (delete) to Edward Hooper (disambiguation) and any text of relevance left place in to OPV AIDS hypothesis article. This Edward Hooper stuff is way too refuted to it to have space in a wikicyclopedia. But his book and 'lifes work' does have some worldly effects which mostly came in the form of dead babies (Nigerian) so his contribution to health crises in real terms to be noted on the OPV-AIDS page. Gongwool (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Gongwool's suggestion. BLP-wise, there is hardly anything that would pass as a reliable source. - HyperGaruda (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect perhaps as suggested as I also hoped others would comment but this particular article is certainly questionable to keep as there's nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN proponent of a fringe medical thesis. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Humes

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

Non-notable artist/broadcaster lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His work with WP paladin radio and The Center for American Military Music Opportunities (CAMMO) as a disabled veteran is notable --Beckycontrols (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A subject is not presumed to be notable based on what they are involved in, but rather if it meets the Wikipedia criteria. Per Wikipedia, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article lacks non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better and this is not enough convincing to actually keep with no better signs of applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also does not meet WP:AUTHOR. (One book, self-published.) LaMona (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Fenton

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

Non-notable author of non-notable fiction books. Article created six years ago by an SPA with spammy tendencies. (edit:) The only two Refs are to bookstore listings, plus an external link to the author's personal webpage. Alsee (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack any source other than maybe his own website that gives anything even appraoching biographical data. No evidence anyone has even ever done a brief review of his books.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches simply found nothing better and the article is not better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Published by "regular" publishers, but no reviews (e.g. not even booklist, PW, Kirkus), and hardly found in any libraries. Pretty much zero commercial or social impact, I'd say. LaMona (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yumi Song

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

non-notable artist. Greek Legend (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's a usual problem with non English Artists that sources are not that easily searchable. I've searched her by her Kanji name and did find some sources which just need to be translated. So, by info in English on her site, she passes WP:CREATIVE, but it need support by verifiable sources. So, unless someone persuade me, they do not exist on Japanese, it's a keep for me. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Persuasion is that the page creator is Yumisong. And I checked the Japanese page of this page in Japanese wikipedia. Even that page is created and heavily edited by Yumisong. https://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E3%83%A6%E3%83%9F%E3%82%BD%E3%83%B3&action=history Greek Legend (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now and Draft if needed later as my searches found nothing outstandingly better, article is still currently questionable. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless multiple independent sources can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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. Unanimous consensus, after blocking the socks. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Grison

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

The article doesn't have any reliable sources that establish the notability of this person, and I can't find any. The article has been created and aggressively promoted by single-purpose accounts such as Torontofrenchpoetry2 (talk · contribs) and Australianpoets134 (talk · contribs). Graham87 09:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing in the article worth keeping. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks Graham and VegasCasinoKid for your recent notes and comments. I have added reliable sources to establish the notability of Laurent Grison. Is that better now? Thanks again.--A. Sise (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC) — A. Sise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as this is still questionable for the applicable notability at best. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this article has been deeply improved.--Louise Ecitre (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC) — Louise Ecitre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep as this is no more questionable for the applicable notability at best.--Hector Deparis (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC) — Hector Deparis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Reliable sources have been added to establish the notability of L. Grison.--S. Ebold (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC) — S. Ebold (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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. Many sources were presented, and shot down as not meeting our notability requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Fournier

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

Non-notable. Article is a content fork of Free Dominion. Other than that she is the author of a self-published book which has not been reviewed by any reliable sources. Selwyn Floyd (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is this deletion discussion not a multiple-forum abuse? There is an extensive unresolved merge discussion for this article: HERE. The latter discussion also addresses independent notability of the BLP article. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the sourcing is not adequate to meet WP:GNG as the topic of a standalone article in her own right separately from the website's article. Of the eleven sources here, one is a primary source supporting a distinction that doesn't constitute notability at all: the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal was presented to over 70,000 other Canadians besides her, on an "if anybody at all nominated you then you were guaranteed to get one" basis, so it cannot confer an automatic presumption of notability on every one of those people in and of itself. Then she was the author of three of them, which means those sources can't support notability. Another one is the text of a legal decision, which is a primary source that cannot support notability. Another two just namecheck her existence while not being about her in any substantive and non-trivial way, so yet again they cannot aid notability. And of the four remaining sources which are substantively about her in the manner necessary to count as supporting notability, all of them are covering her specifically in the context of the website. None of this suggests the need for a BLP of Fournier as an individual alongside a separate article about her website — it suggests adding content about Fournier to the website's article. Redirect to Free Dominion. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we are not reading the same sources? I see reliable independent sources about Fournier's contributions in matters distinct from Free Dominion: (1) on-going battle against Bill C-51, (2) opposition to Prime Minister Harper during a federal election using her book and despite being a known Conservative activist, and (3) successful campaign against the hate-speech provisions of the federal human rights code. In addition, she was the main self-represented defendant in major lawsuits tied to Free Dominion. The article's category is "Canadian activist" and few if any in this category have won three awards given for activism, including a national medal and a provincial civil liberties association award. I wonder if the WP notability test is not being taken too far here, especially in light of:

(A) the WP policy for proposed deletion of biographies of living people: "All BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it may be proposed for deletion. The tag may not be removed until a reliable source is provided, and if none is forthcoming, the article may be deleted after seven days. This does not affect other deletion processes mentioned in BLP policy and elsewhere."

(B) The WP practice for the "Canadian activist" category has not been to negate BLP pages in such cases as this one. In fact, as I examine the articles in the "Canadian activist" category, I find that approximately 30-50% of the articles are much less supported by sources and outward signs of notability than the Fournier article. For example: Mark Freiman, Sylvain Abitbol, Herbert Brownstein, Hershell Ezrin, Moshe Ronen, and many many others.

Keep Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal is not an award that can make every recipient notable enough for an encyclopedia article just for receiving it — as noted, it was presented to 71,000 Canadians nationwide, and was essentially presented to every single person who was nominated for it for any reason whatsoever by any nominator whatsoever. So it doesn't aid notability at all, because it doesn't inherently constitute a noteworthy distinction.

And as already noted in the talk page discussion, you're personally involved in the organization and administration of the civil liberties association award that she was given — which means you are not a neutral or objective party in any debate about whether that award constitutes enough notability, in and of itself, to make its winners suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia or not. You keep trying to dismiss that as irrelevant to the matter — but it's not. The question of whether an award is notable enough to constitute a valid notability claim in an article about its winners or nominees is entirely a question of the degree to which reliable source media outlets do or don't cover the granting of that award as being a news story in its own right. Major media outlets report it as news when a writer wins the Giller Prize, when an actor wins the Academy Award, when an activist gets named to the Order of Canada, and on and so forth — but if I can't find any article in any major media outlet in which "Connie Fournier named winner of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association award" is being reported as news in and of itself, then the award is not one that can get its winners over the notability bar in and of itself. The award's ability to get its winners over the Wikipedia notability hump is not something that the award's own organizers get to decide for themselves — the presence or absence of media coverage of that award, in sources independent of the award's own organizing committee, makes that decision for us.

(A) That criterion only makes an article ineligible for the {{blp prod}} process in particular. It does not preclude the possibility of an article being taken to AFD for a deletion discussion if there are valid reasons to reconsider its includability — it only makes it ineligible for one particular specialized deletion process, while not making it ineligible for our general deletion process. Did you miss, or misunderstand, the part of the quote you pasted where it says "This does not affect other deletion processes mentioned in BLP policy and elsewhere"?

(B) Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, nothing is stopping anybody from trying to create any article about any topic. I could try to create an article about myself, my best friend, my spouse or my cat if I wanted to — it wouldn't be a keepable article by any stretch of the imagination, but no process exists to stop me from trying, and even as a deletable article it could linger around here for weeks or months or even years until somebody noticed, and took action on, its deletability. The existence of a problematic article about one topic, thus, does not mean that another problematic article has to be kept just because it's not any worse than the other one — it means that the other one may need to be deleted too, and just hasn't been noticed yet. So that's an argument that just backfired on you, because all of the five articles you singled out just there are now going to get reviewed, and also nominated for deletion if they're really as bad as you claim they are and can't be salvaged with better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've now run sourcing checks on all five of the "comparable" activists. Four of the five each garner hundreds of coverage hits in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies database, and thus are salvageable and have been flagged for referencing improvement. Only Herbert Brownstein was unsalvageable, as he garnered just 15 hits of which 14 were mere namechecks of his existence — so he's been listed for deletion. Connie Fournier, by comparison, garners just 16 hits, of which most are just glancing namechecks — and all of the ones that are more substantive are already in this article as written, so there's nothing that can be added that would change my original comment. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have both presented our arguments. Your arguments are informed and strong. There is no need to talk about "backfiring" because I am acting in good faith here. I continue to hold, as I would with any comparable article, that you are applying an overly high threshold, in light of all the BLP items taken together, and not leaving out this one, published in The Tyee, as you have done since it is presently not in the article, which is substantively about several aspects of Fournier's long-term activism. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider -- @Bearcat: Please reconsider your position in light of the following. I was prompted by your assertion "all of the ones that are more substantive are already in this article as written, so there's nothing that can be added that would change my original comment" to do more research. In addition to the eleven (11) sources presently in the article, which you have reviewed and interpreted, I have found the following:

Harper Races Against Cracks Eroding His Base, The Tyee, 22 September 2015. - Substantively about several aspects of Fournier's long-term activism (as I mentioned above).
Disgruntled Tories consider rebuilding Reform Party, The Globe & Mail, 12 may 2007 and updated 13 March 2009. - Connie Fournier interviewed and cited about reforming the Conservative Party of Canada.
Maclean’s Live: The public safety committee scrutinizes Bill C-51, 23 march 2015. - Article and video that includes Connie Fournier's intervention in the House of Commons committee on Bill C-51.
Bill C-51: Sister of slain soldier Patrice Vincent testifies as committee review resumes, CBC News (TV and print), 23 March 2015. - Connie fournier intervenes on Bill C-51, as a representative of the Protect Our Privacy coalition.
Ms. Connie Fournier (Founder, Free Dominion, Protect Our Privacy Coalition) at the Public Safety and National Security Committee, fedral government archives, 23 March 2015. - The Protect Our Privacy Coalition was also co-represented by Canadian Civil Liberties Association executive director Sukanya Pillay. The government report also describes Fournier's role opposing section 13 of the Human Rights Code.
Harper is losing the argument on C-51 … with Conservatives, iPOLITICS, 26 March 2015. - Fournier is interviewed and cited regarding here oppositions to Bill C-51 and the CPC in the coming election.
Federal parties tussle to pull ahead in a tight 3-way race, The Current, CBC Radio (national), 13 July 2015. - Connie Fournier interviewed about the coming fedral election.
CHQR 770AM radio, Calgary, Alberta, 17-minute interview with Connie Fournier: Conservatives who oppose Bill C-51, posted 24 June 2015 and the sound recording on YouTube. - All about Fournier's opposition to Bill C-51.

Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a giver of soundbite in an article about something else does not assist a person's notability at all — she has to be the subject of the coverage, not a commentator within coverage of some other subject, for that coverage to count toward getting her over WP:GNG. So exactly zero of these new sources are game-changers. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Individually (e.g. Tyee, 22 september 2015) and together the now nineteen (19) sources (mostly renown national media) provide "significant coverage" of Canadian activist Connie Fournier's activism. Contrary to your reading, the sources do not interview Fournier solely for information about other subjects unconnected to her. Rather, the sources expressly state and imply that Fournier is a main persona in these "other subjects", and describe and cite Fournier's own activism in these "other subjects". Look at all the sources, and the three independent prizes, together. Even fewer of these should be sufficient to pass the notability threshold. Her Queen's Diamond Jubilee award was reported in The Tyee as: "Long-time Conservative supporter Connie Fournier, left, received a Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal for her work on free speech in 2013.", with photograph of Fournier receiving the award. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect to Free Dominion) as nominator and as per Bearcat's arguments. I think Denis.g.rancourt is somewhat embellishing Fournier's profile. She was one of tens of thousands of people who campaigned against Bill C-51 and as far as her opposition was notable it was through her temporary re-activation of Free Dominion and was not the key or even a main organizer (or as far as I can tell, an organizer at all) of the campaign. Similarly, she was one of many people who opposed Section 13 of the Human Rights Act and again was not an organizer of that campaign. Her notability as far as the lawsuits goes relates to Free Dominion and is covered by that article. Lastly, her opposition to Stephen Harper's re-election is no more notable than that of millions of other Canadians and the self-published book she wrote was not notable enough to be covered or reviewed by any notable media. Selwyn Floyd (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. WP:NOTE At least two third-party sources should cover the subject, to avoid idiosyncratic articles based upon a single perspective. WP:THIRDPARTY

There are many more than two reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject in this case. I can find no Wikipedia policy that states that a source weighs less toward notability if the media outlet has sought out the subject's opinion as an expert on a certain topic, as opposed to simply writing about the subject herself. Indeed, it would stand to reason that being sought by the media as a commentator would tend to point to greater notability, not less. Certainly, an interview is more than a "trivial mention", even if she is not the "main topic of the source material". WP:GNG

In any case, this article was barely created before it was nominated for speedy deletion and, when that failed, this AfD process was initiated. This is contrary to the policy on article quality that states that attempts should be make to improve the article, and to give others time to improve it rather than immediately propose for deletion. WP:AQU WP:BEFORE Given the time frame involved, it seems this would be an overzealous deletion. What's the rush? WP:RUSH

All that being said, if there is no rough consensus, a page should be kept, so I say, "keep". WP:DPAFD 70.210.192.175 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Note to admin: the above is from a single purpose account and is its only edit)

IP-175, I agree with you that those particular interviews in the media are valid sources for notability, not because Fournier is called upon to give "expert" information, but rather because she is called upon to comment on matters of public interest, which are connected to her person, such as her own opinions and activism on Section 13 and on Bill C-51. A specialized expert that simply contributes objective content is not necessarily notable. In the case in question here, Fournier is called upon not because she is an expert but rather because she is herself a prominent player in the political issues. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She goood at getting her publicity published; we shouldn't appropriately be another source for her. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: Which of the 19 independent sources (many national media) are examples of Fournier "getting her publicity published"? And what exactly is "her publicity"? Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete she has a self-published blog and hosts a blog where people write foul things. marginally notable and the effort to promote her pushes this over the edge to deletion for me; we don't have bandwidth to maintain article of people of marginal notability who are being promoted in WP. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog: The question is notability. The characterization "she has a self-published blog and hosts a blog where people write foul things" is not a criterion and is not relevant. Likewise, an alleged "effort to promote her" is not a criterion, is not relevant to notability, and is a personal attack if it refers to an editor's work on WP. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as this article is still questionable at best, despite the current article's appearance. Delete for now at best and restart later if needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some folks seem to believe the majority of sources are reliable. Here's my assessment of them:
- National Post: Written by her - as a primary source it's not reliable for establishing notability and only reliable for establishing that she said something specific at that
- Macleans: Only one mention of her in the whole article, thus only a "passing mention", not reliable for establishing notability
- CBCNews: Only one mention of her in the whole article, thus only a "passing mention", not reliable for establishing notability
- iPolitics: Written by her - as a primary source it's not reliable for establishing notability and only reliable for establishing that she said something specific at that
- The Tyee: Entirely an interview, even the non-quoted portions say "Fournier said..." or "...said Fournier" - as a primary source, it's not reliable for establishing notability.
- Betrayed by Connie Fournier: Written by her - as a primary source it's not reliable for establishing notability and only reliable for establishing that she said something specific at that
- Ottawa Citizen: This may actually be a reliable source, however it's regional news
- Ottawa Citizen 2: This may actually be a reliable source, but it's only about the lawsuit that the above ref discusses, and it's regional news
- Lawyers Weekly: Comprehensive coverage, seems solid enough, but again, only for the lawsuit (thinking WP:1E here)
- Judgement for Appeal: This is just the judgement, not media/journalistic coverage. It's not a reliable source in the context of Wikipedia. Including it is original research and isn't really necessary.
- The Diamond Jubilee Medal: It's not notable if it's awarded to 70,000 other people, as noted above.

So, for reliable sources (in the article), we're left with the two Ottawa Citizen articles (regional coverage only) and one industry specific article - all of which are specific to one event. And while not truly relevant here, I should also point out that the entire lead is sourced from the unreliable sources and actually amounts to WP:OR in and of itself. Chrisw80 (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisw80: You seem to have stopped reading too early. You covered the 11 sources in the present article. You were silent on the 8 additional sources listed and described above, for a total of 19. (Not that I agree with your evaluation of the 11 original sources.) Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denis.g.rancourt, I did read them, but I didn't feel it necessary, appropriate, or constructive to bash on each and every one - I felt sticking with what was incorporated into the article was best. I did not see enough difference between what was included in the article, and the supplementary references provided above to make it necessary. My assessments of each source are based on a thorough reading and understanding of WP:RS. It's an interesting and informative read, and if you haven't read it, I would recommend it. If after reading WP:RS, you disagree with my assessment, I would be happy to discuss the specific points you find inadequate in my assessment. Thank your for taking the time to reply! Chrisw80 (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisw80: Thank you for your clarification, and for your reading suggestion. I fail to understand how you can justify: "I felt sticking with what was incorporated into the article was best". I think the 8 other sources merit as much attention a priori as the 11 that you chose to specifically critique. Since you have already read the other 8, please provide your assessment on them individually, for the benefit of this discussion. Otherwise, it is difficult for me to see how you can discount them, as I have already explained above why I think each one is a valid source that adds to the question of notability. Maybe you could explain where you think I am incorrect in my individual assessments. After that, maybe we could discuss the cumulative value of the 19 sources taken together, since most are unambiguously independent and reliable. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Denis.g.rancourt, there is no reasonable expectation that I provide an analysis of every source proffered to support the potential notability of an article. I gave a guideline based analysis of more than half of the 19 total to support my position based on policy and guidelines (which is more than most editors do at AfD). To be clear, it's not about the quantity of the sources, it's about the quality. The "cumulative value" of a large number of unreliable sources has no meaning as it becomes original research at that point. I chose the ones in the article to analyze as they should be the ones that BEST represent the subject's notability. My analysis was based concisely on guidelines from WP:RS and WP:GNG. Thank you. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisw80: Given the primary importance of quality, which you explain, let us start with one of the 8 sources that you did not expressly assess. This is what I wrote above about it: "Harper Races Against Cracks Eroding His Base, The Tyee, 22 September 2015. - Substantively about several aspects of Fournier's long-term activism (as I mentioned above)." What is your argument to discount this one, which you have already read? After we complete this one, we can move on to another. I see several quality sources that address notability. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Denis.g.rancourt, as I mentioned before, there is no reasonable expectation that I provide a detailed analysis for every source proffered to support the potential notability of an article. I have looked at all the sources and come to my conclusion, as is my prerogative. I will give you ny short analysis of this one extra source as a courtesy, I do not intend to provide any more analysis of further sources despite your seeming wish that I do so. If you wish to dispute the analyses that I have performed already, please be specific. I may choose to look at further proffered sources, but I will not provide any analysis for discussion. This source is not about Fournier, but about Harper. While there is some in-depth discussion of her, it is not comprehensive. It might help establish notability per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, but it's not nearly enough to tip the scales for me, nor are the other sources proffered. Thank you. Chrisw80 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Nixon

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

No evidence of any special notability. The refs provide publicity not notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that someone who was discovered by the late Helmut Newton, photographed by some of the world's leading photographers, has written 2 best selling books, edited a fashion magazine, run a deli, and is now a company director for a company that manufacturers sanitary products for humanitarian aid is notable. To have one successful career is something that many would consider special to have several is both special and notable. Paulwest (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Paulwest (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Nizolan ^(talk) 03:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand and can sympathise with your concerns. However the bar for notability in Wikipedia is set higher than that, and measured against those criteria, this article does not demonstrate notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now since it's questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Her first book got some coverage: [22], [23], [24], [25]. However, most of these are just beauty tips, a quotation or two from Nixon, and a plug for the book. It's difficult to find articles about her specifically, but part of that may be a lack of digitized sources from the 1960s. I don't have a problem with deletion, but it seems like maybe this could be moved to draft space to give the creator a chance to look for better sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smells of conflict of interest. No idea what the heck is with this image upload at File:Image of Victoria Nixon.jpg with image license: This file is in the public domain, because On multiple websites -- what does that mean ??? Because "on multiple websites" means anything is in the public domain ??? Additionally, literally all uploads on Commons have no permission from original photographer or magazine that holds copyrights and are copyvio. — Cirt (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COI isn't a policy-based reason to delete an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject also fails on reception of significant discussion in secondary sources independent of the subject. — Cirt (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also similar problems with article by author at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Messenger. — Cirt (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a lot of problems with this article. Lack of sourcing, poor compliance with WP standards and copyright issues on the images. That said, I am unconvinced that this wouldn't meet our standards if only it was better written, and that's no reason to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley:Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us where the individual has received significant discussion in secondary sources independent of the subject ? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOUR. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well, this is an interesting one. Looking at it from the surface, my initial reaction was to think that she OUGHT to be notable at least for her modelling career. However, when I tried to probe further, I really struggled to find sources about her that are suitable. The article is very promotional. I do have to note that this "reference," as quoted: "Joyce Dinsay of the University of the Philippines Baguio school biology department mentions the advice given in Victoria's book "Supermodels' Beauty Secrets" - is just too adorably cute for words. Awww factor aside, though - sadly, it all has to be a delete vote. Mabalu (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 speedily deleted by Bishonen per CSD G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Williams (journalist)

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

I found only one RS source about this journalist. There are other people named Wade Williams in search results. Greek Legend (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for WP:CREATIVE as none of this is enough for the applicable notability, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CopyVio Copied from Humphrey Fellows blurb. This reads like a draft article, and if the creator (User:Williams704 - one single edit, which was the content of this article, and hasn't returned to make more edits) would like to take it back to draft space there might be something that could be done with it. I did find articles by her, a mention of a speaking engagement, and one reference (not ideal) about one of the awards, which I added to the article. LaMona (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, LaMona. I have speedied the article as an unambiguous copyright violation, and written a note to the author. If he wants to work on it, or if by any chance he owns the copyright himself, he can contact me. Bishonen | talk 15:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twana Amin

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

No RS Source in google book search. The claims can't be verified. With the exception of Central Kurdish Wikipedia, all articles in other Wikipedia projects was created by the same user named similar to the article. Greek Legend (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for the applicable notability, simply nothing convincing enough and the article certainly needs better work before becoming acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My sweeps (world news & Middle East news) did not turn up much. Might be a language problem here -- this is an English Wikipedia, and many external links are in hard-to-translate languages.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Sandstein 07:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bateman

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

Marked as autobiographical/promotional since 2011. Refbombed with primary sources. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. A redirect to Discworld Noir might be in order. czar 14:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 14:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 14:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as I myself could not comfortable comprehend the article and it's frankly better to restart anew with better information and sources, questionable at best. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, found these - [26], a mention at page 346 in a book Affective Computing and Interaction: Psychological, Cognitive and Neuroscientific Perspectives: Psychological, Cognitive and Neuroscientific Perspectives, [27] stating a review of one of his books appeared in Make (magazine), and Amazon shows that another one of his books has been reviewed academically(?) - [28]; but he still probably needs more stronger sources (are any cited in the article non-primary?) to be deemed notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sufficient secondary sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient evidence of academic impact to pass WP:PROF and insufficient evidence of reliable independent sources that cover the subject in-depth to pass WP:GNG. Although the article has many footnotes, I could not find one that was reliably published, independent of the subject and his employers, and about rather than by the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Sandstein 07:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Masini

If anyone has anything constructive to add, I am all ears. From where I stand all I see is "x****$£$$$""""#####" - Thanks. Jerome_Ornicar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome Ornicar (talk • contribs) 13:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, created by a person with an evident conflict of interest if you compare the creator's username to the name of the article subject's own self-launched publishing company, which makes and sources no strong claim to passing WP:NAUTHOR. The referencing here is almost entirely to blogs and YouTube videos, and the only reference which actually counts as reliable source coverage (La Dépeche) isn't substantively about her, but merely namechecks her existence as a participant in the thing that is the subject. Which means that the article is not adequately sourced to pass WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and WP:ADMASQ. The last sentence may indicate more sourcing, and the magazine who named her "one of 50 French people influential in London" is high-circulation, but it is unsourced, and the set of French people in London is small so any entrepreneur of a small business can probably receive an interview. Esquivalience ^t 19:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of unsourced statement, I've found "the set of French people in London is small" is unsourced. I can source the opposite statement with http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18234930 as reference: "More French people live in London than in Bordeaux, Nantes or Strasbourg and some now regard it as France's sixth biggest city in terms of population." and "The French consulate in London estimates between 300,000 and 400,000 French citizens live in the British capital" [emphasis added]. --Dereckson (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Both the article creator user account containing and the publishing house contain "Ornicar", so it's indeed probably an self promotional article. By the way, the article creator should be informed about the paid contributions policy and invited to add relevant disclaimer.
There is a screenshot of the article in L'Express here. Announcement of the publication could be found here. So I guess the reference is L. Da., Judith Masini. Un rêve bilingue., L'Express Théma, #10, April-May-June 2010. --Dereckson (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the youtube link you mention is an interview from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_3. Furthermore this is the article by l'Express : L'Express. Hope that sheds some light on the validity of the sources. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome Ornicar (talk • contribs) 20:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Further on the point "Not many French people live in London" : Is London really France's 'sixth biggest city'?. L'Express and France3 are national scale media. Source is undoubtedly biased, although the tone was changed to make it compliant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome Ornicar (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current article simply has no better convincing signs for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Keep (non-admin closure) 1.36.69.120 (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Black (art historian)

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

She has written two books based on collaborative museum exhibit design with First Nations communities whose culture is being interpreted. She is not as well known as she likely should be - part of a movement to be more inclusive in interpreting museum collections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by East Van Isdaitxv (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be notable. Couldn't find any google news hit for "Martha Black" + Heiltsuk JDDJS (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It should be noted that the article's creator has protested this deletion on the article's talk page, with the note that they are still in the process of writing it. I have placed the {underconstruction}} tag on the article to give the article's creator a chance to finish their work, however long that takes. Also a search of Google Books does result in multiple hits for her. — Maile (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Black is a curator, researcher and art historian who has worked extensively with First Nations communities to create collaborative exhibits. Her work has included examine the R.W. Large Collection of Heiltsuk art and artifacts. This important collection contains an unusual degree of associated information - allowing us to learn about named artists from the Heiltsuk - something that was not commonly recorded during the height of the collecting of northwest coast art and artifacts. Black has been involved in several exhibits involving First Nations - with the Heiltsuk - the Kaxlaya Gvilas exhibit (Royal Ontario Museum, with travelling exhibit to UBC, Montreal (McGill) and a local museum in Ontario. She also worked with the Nuu-chah-nuulth on an exhibit of their work - though I am less familiar with this work.

Black has written several works regarding art history and the exhibits she worked on - and has set a good model for academics working with First Nations to collaborate in presenting their culture and art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by East Van Isdaitxv (talk • contribs) 00:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She has published stuff, but it hasn't been noted much. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the book holdings (220 + 270) might seem on the low side, but I could only find three books on Inuit art with higher holdings and two were textbooks, so she seems to have fulfilled WP:PROF#C1 of achieving distinction in her field. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somewhat marginally, per User:Mscuthbert. Specialist in a very specific area. Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With a GS h-index of 4 she fails WP:Prof on cites. Book holdings are too low. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I'm extremely dubious that the h-index works for art history, especially in such a minority area. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

h-index compares like with like. How do her citations compare with those of other art historians? Another art historian Ernst Gombrich has an h-index of over 40 (as far as I was prepared to count, so probably much greater, even though he was before the web got under way), so art historians are not necessarily badly done by in respect to citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

That doesn't follow at all, and is comparing one extreme with the other. It is not true at all that "h-index compares like with like" - it is calculated the same way for physicists and art historians. Given that Gombrich is possibly the most-widely cited 20th-century art historian (and is now dead after a very long career, writing mostly broad theoretical stuff, or stuff on the most core European Renaissance area), his score suggests that art historian's indices should be multiplied by about 5 to equate with physicists. Or more. But really it is a bad idea to use indices, especially for people who are also curators. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is accepted by most people who contribute to academic AfDs here that different fields have different citation patterns for which allowance is made. Therefore one compares physicists with physicists and art historians with art historians, but not physicists with art historians. Also sub-fields have differences. There is plenty of discussion on the WP:Prof talk page and its archives. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

That is not at all what you said the first time. I've never heard of anyone trying to use an h-index for art historians, though I'm aware they are generally rejected as meaningful for historians in general. Do you have any RS links for their use for art history, and for the appropriate scale of values that would be required for this. Without that you should not be arguing from these here. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've looked at the WP:PROF page, where I see these very sensible comments:

"I have literally never heard of citation numbers brought up in a hiring or promotion situation in the humanities, so by emphasizing them we are creating our own WP idea of notability and not considering notability factors in the field (mainly letters of evaluation; quality of journals published in; reviews of books, etc.). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

citation numbers are not used, but quality of citations is. If a person's work is referred to in every serious book on a subject, they are likely an authority. As some additional points: (1) the humanities citation data is extracted only for cites from the journals WoS covers. Until recently , there were very few humanities journals among them, and the current situation is only slightly better. The citations then will be biased towards those publishing in fields which do have significant coverage--if for example citations are from psychology or economics journals. (3)WoS coverage for non-English journals is extremely weak. In the humanities, many area-specific subjects are primarily published in journals of that language. The archeology of scandinavia is reported mainly in the scandinavian languages. The ancient history of Italy is primarily in Italian. WoS generally does not cover these. (4) WoS refused to give impact factors data in the humanities for many years, precisely because of the the problems noted in this discussion--the very wide spread of journals in which they appear, the appearance of many or most of the citations in books rather than journals, and the extremely long span during which citations appear. (I had some personal discussions with Garfield on this, because when I was a beginning librarian, I did not understand.) (5) I do however disagree that every citation in the humanities is meaningful. I'm looking at McCormack's already classic Origins of the European Economy, and he makes a point of citing every published report in its field (To be sure its field is AD 300-900, where every bit of original source is precious & studied)But it is also true that most books in the humanities do indeed indicate which are the most important papers and books they cite, and applicable quotations to that effect can be found. Such can be found in the sciences too, for at least some of the cites, especially if review articles are examined. If this were done exhaustively, we could probably prove essentially all assistant professors in research universities as notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)"

You seem rather out on a limb there. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, subject may meet WP:NAUTHOR? a number of reviews of her books found in: [29] - American Indian Quarterly, [30] - University of Toronto Quarterly, [31] - BC Studies, [32] - Library Journal and Midwest Book Review, the book Native Art of the Northwest Coast (sorry no link as google books which lists the contents pages is wikiblocked) (has 2 reviews on pp 259, 718?) (she is also a contributor to this book). Coolabahapple (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain as this moment so I'm asking DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. meets WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR on the basis of the books. The article needs some adjust to emphasize them, for they are the true basis of notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per WP:PROF --Moxy (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs cleanup, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S Sajeev Kumar

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

Searches reveal no substantive coverage for this author or his works anywhere online. Does not appear to satisfy either WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 22:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 02:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO — LeoFrank ^Talk 17:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Rehm

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

Clearly not a notable author or politician. May be notable for controversial involvement in the EXIT group, but almost everything in this article is unverifiable. I just undid the edits by infinitely blocked User:Volkstod, but could someone please doublecheck the original sources if Rehm is mentioned there? PanchoS (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I restored an older version before possibly relevant content was deleted. For the additional sources to doublecheck, please see this version of the article. --PanchoS (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable author and politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still not convincing for all applicable notability, authors and politicians. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Consensus in this community discussion is that this is an exercise in self-promotion, which we empathically do not want, by a non-notable person. Accounts who continue with such editing may find themselves summarily blocked. Sandstein 21:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sujit Meher

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

Other relevant AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreams Beyond Grades

Sujit_Meher, a young fashion designer, is the author of the purported "bestseller" Dreams Beyond Grades, which I am concurrently listing. I don't know how best to AfD two connected articles which are both disrupted/recreated, etc, by the same crowd of disruptive socks, so I'll just put the relevant information in both places, and cross-link. (Look out for new socks in this discussion.) The article has been repeatedly speedied and recreated. See the deletion log here: [33]. Yunshui eventually restored Sujit Meher, obviously with some misgivings,[34] on request from a new user, Celebtech. Yunshui's AGF seems frankly of the suicidal kind; consider also the dialogue here. Anyway, Yunshui has left the project, but he was a checkuser and has blocked most of the socks involved in this saga of (to my mind obvious) self-promotion: Fashiondiva2015 (talk · contribs) and Quickjazz (talk · contribs). A new sock showed up when I prodded Dreams Beyond Grades yesterday, user:Fashiongrade2016, who removed the prod, restored copyright material to Dreams Beyond Grades, and restored unsourced puffery to Sujit_Meher. Blocked as a sock by Floquenbeam. The story emerging is of SPAs (or to put it more bluntly, socks) determined to promote the person Sujit Meher at all costs, in Sujit Meher and in Dreams Beyond Grades, repeatedly removing speedy templates and prods, requesting undeletion and recreating Sujit Meher with new accounts. I think we should delete and salt all this unscrupolous self-promotion. Oh, the article? Well, it fails WP:NBIO and the sources are all promotional. Bishonen | talk 16:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC). Bishonen | talk 16:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (See below) ~~Keep~~, as much as it pains me to say this, because the COI editing and other shenanigans have been deeply obnoxious and very disruptive. I'd say he passes WP:GNG. Leaving out the interview, the book plug, and ones with passing mentions, there are multiple articles about him and his designs in The Telegraph (Calcutta) [35], [36], [37], [38] and at least one in The Times of India [39]. They are all with bylines by reporters who regularly write on "lifestyle" topics for these papers (Pratyush Patra and Minati Singha). They span two years, and each one has different content. Yes, they're puff-piece-y in style, but that's how fashionistas write. The book is utterly non-notable. Voceditenore (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my "keep" to "delete". I'm going to defer to DGG's judgement and persuasive arguments here, and I must say it wasn't a difficult decision. Voceditenore (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. There's just now been some more disruption of both articles by a new sock, User:Mokaverma2016, removing AfD templates, restoring copyvio, threatening others with blocks (!) etc. It's a pity obnoxiousness is not a deletion reason, but of course it's not. I understand what you're saying about the normal way fashionistas write, Voceditenore. I have trouble taking the sources seriously, but then it's not important that I sympathize with them, or indeed that I sympathize with the article subject. If you say he's notable, I believe you. But if the article is kept, it'll need to be pretty much permanently watched against further peacockery and copyvio, sigh. Bishonen | talk 11:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hmmmm. Yes, User:Mokaverma2016's approach to deletion templates and restoring copyrvio is remarkably similar to User:Novelbuzz's. I certainly won't weep if this article gets deleted. I've got it on my watchlist and if it's kept, I'll keep it there. UGH! Voceditenore (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are we sure that the journalists aren't basically recycling press releases issued via, say, the National Institute of Fashion Technology? That institution and its faculty/alumni have been an absolute pain across various articles, notably Govind Kumar Singh. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first thought but after running various distinctive phrases etc. through Google, I have not been able to find any press releases similar to these articles. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen, simply that the source press releases aren't on line. It may also be common practice in India and Sri Lanka to feed stories to reporters. You'd be surprised at the amount of press Dinesh Subasinghe gets from the main papers in Sri Lanka, who all seem to uncritically take his word for his various accomplishments and write them up in lengthy, flowery articles. But it's very hard to prove that's what's going on. Voceditenore (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think commonality of suspicion among experienced 'Pedians should count for something. Please note that Google doesn't index a lot of India-centric stuff very well, which is one reason why someone at the India Project created a special search facility for English-language Indian news sources. - Sitush (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked using the India Project's search engine and it produced the same results as Google, i.e. the five articles I've linked above and zero press releases. I also did individual searches directly on the most common press release sites in India (india-press-release.com, www.prnewswire.co.in, news-pr.in) and found nothing. I have found quite a few NIFT press releases, but none of them mention Meher. The article is currently neutrally written. The sources are of the type that for any other subject at AfD would almost certainly be considered independent, reliable, and sufficient. I think we'd be on a very slippery slope here to (a) delete an article simply because it has attracted obnoxious COI editors (b) allow "suspicion by experienced Wikipedians" to override these sources, especially when that suspicion is potentially coloured by the obnoxiousness of the article's editors and not supported by any objective evidence. Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, indeed. If you've delved that deeply then I agree entirely with you. I can't concentrate well enough to dig deep at the moment, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per Voceditenore. He is mentioned in fashion-related articles in several reliable sources and the Wikipedia article is acceptably neutral. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to Draft instead if needed as this may seem minimally acceptable, I believe we can wait for better and, although the current amount of sources would seem acceptable, I'm still concerned about solidity. Asking DGG for any helpful analysis. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are promotional or mere mentions; the purpose is promotional. " mentioned in fashion-related articles" is not notability. If anything , such mentions and such promotional sources are good evidence there is nothing better available. I fully share Voceditenore's doubts about Indian news sources in the arts and applied arts and probably business also. --I no longer regard coverage by them as proof of anything but that the persona has a press agent. As evidence for my doubt, see the actual content of some of the stories: [40] is as pure a press release as has ever been written. phttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhubaneswar/Odia-designer-to-showcase-folk-fashion-at-Bangalore-show/articleshow/22445443.cms?referral=PM] is a somewhat longer equivalent, all in his own words with no indication of any editorial responsibility. [41] lists his name among several dozen people whom it does not consider among the famous designers of the title. Just his name--not a single word about him. But perhaps there is a little bit of editorial honesty--they all refer to him isn such terms as "budding designer" "young designer" or the equivalent--those are polite phrases that indicate what we would call not yet notable. Voceditenore. please look at the actual sources again.

Looked at with some editorial judgement of our own and knowledge of WP, this is not good faith editing. It's obvious work by a press agent, in apparent violation of our terms of use. According to the TOU, we all are responsible for enforcing them, and the way to do this is to delete the article and block the editors.

Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. That these are part of a promotional campaign is shown by the simultaneous attempt at an article about his book, a book not even in WorldCat. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The creator of the article on Meher's book, User:Novelbuzz, has been attempting today to canvass more people to this discussion (yet again!) and asking them to remove the AfD template: [42], [43], [44], [45]. Voceditenore (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still more canvassing: [46], [47], [48]. Voceditenore (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dear Admins, He is mentioned in all fashion-related articles by all eminent fashion journalist in several reliable sources and the Wikipedia article is acceptably neutral. I wrote about his book, and about book concern he might not be an author but he himself listed in those top 10 alumni of NIFT,^[1] and that published in NIFT website itself. And i guess its enough to be a notable person. Please kindly look at it Voceditenore DGG. If you go through his Facebook fan page. He has also verified as public figure by facebook itself with more than lakhs nos of followers. Which again shows the symptom of a notable person. And now a days Facebook is also a reliable source to verify a person to know whether he is a known person or not. His fb page: ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novelbuzz (talk • contribs) 09:03, 29 March 2016

Anyone can fake Facebook stuff and puff it up. The NIFT is known to be highly self-promotional. You are already getting a reputation for doing similar stuff here via your canvassing etc. All of this has been seen before at other NIFT-related articles. It needs to stop. - Sitush (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush Here NIFT published something that he was in the judge panel of IIT Kanpur Fashion Event. How can someone be a judge of such prestigious college like IIT without any notable mark? I guess IIT is not promoting him And there it clearly mentioned a renowned fashion designer by NIFT itself. Please go through the link. ^[3] ^[4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Novelbuzz (talk • contribs) 09:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note And we can't say all media houses like The Times Of India, The Telegraph and other medias, NIFT, IIT and all are promoting him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Novelbuzz (talk • contribs) 09:32, 29 March 2016

References

You may not be aware that IITs have also got into problems on Wikipedia due to their promotional activities. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Finally got my brain into gear and have had a look at the sources and for other sources. My original gut feeling - advertorial/promotion/no real notability stands. Please note that The Times of India is nowadays in many respects little more than a vehicle for puff pieces and has lost much of the kudos that once it had: standards have dropped enormously, even on such basic things as quality of prose, let alone of subject matter. Truly notable designers get mentions outside their own country: fashion is an international "movement", not a parochial one. DGG has it right, as far as I can see. - Sitush (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wasn't going to get involved, but then I was one of the lucky several to get solicited by Novelbuzz and so I thought I may as well take a look. Sorry, but I have to agree with everyone else who is saying delete. When this person becomes properly notable, then he can have an article, but right now, at my most super-charitable best, it is too borderline to call either way, and because I'm not feeling super-charitable about being canvassed, I'm going delete. Mabalu (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Jimerson

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

Promotional and refbombed BLP lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Loaded with primary source and non-independent refs but nothing reliable and in-depth about the individual. I don't think a redirect to any one work would be worthwhile but open to suggestions. czar 04:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 04:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 04:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of all the 43 references in this revision, not one is to an independent, reliable source. Mduvekot (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article has no obvious signs of the applicable notability, nothing actually convincing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 no consensus. Closing as "no consensus" per the strength of the "keep" votes, which are not based on policy. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Warren

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

Lacks real notability, at least for now. The references lead to things she has done, such as co-hosted a show on Vimeo, and writing articles on blogs such as "the unofficial apple weblog". There are jobs at USA Today and yes, she has interviewed Johnny Ives. However this is all notability by association-- the article subject herslef is not particularly notable. I could change my mind if sources turn up that are about her, with more context and content than the one about her husband proposing by Twitter. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no apparent notability, unless there's a lot more than that one USA Today article. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the lack of profiles and interviews of her is not great, but I think that her longstanding role at Mashable and the fact that they trust her to do their big interviews makes me vote yes on notability. Verified on Twitter with 77,000 followers, for context. Blythwood (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Warren is Senior Tech Correspondent at Mashable, which gives her some notability. Meatsgains (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm deleting the marriage part, as non-notable, but she does seem notable enough to stay. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just notable enough.VanEman (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I don't see a consensus for deleting Time (rapper) as well. No prejudice to Time (rapper) being nominated for deletion if thought appropriate. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Steele (journalist)

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

This article's last line is "Steele is also a hip-hop artist known as Time." The link is to the article Time (rapper). I didn't find any sources about this journalist named Chris Steele, though there are some doctors and sportsman named Chris Steele.

Time (rapper) The lead states that "Steele is also an investigative journalist." Why two articles were created about this guy by the same user after a gap of many years?

Others can decide whether Time (rapper) should be nominated together. Greek Legend (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not need two articles on him. Whether we even need one is debatable, but not two.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't need two articles on him. I was going to suggest a merge, but it looks like the article on his career as a rapper already includes the sourced bits from this one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionably better for solid independent notability (WP:CREATIVE). SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Sandstein 21:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard C. Onwuanibe

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

Promotional article with no evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. This seem like a WP:RESUME. I think it's necessary to remind the article creator that Wikipedia is not a place to publish their resume. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article as O. is oftenly cited in 'Tradtional African Medicine'.--Bussakendle (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC). There were 35 visits within two days time.--Bussakendle (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC). There were 86 visits within three days time.--Bussakendle (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The author should bear in mind that the number of visits over the last three days, which he cites, is more than likely fellow editors such as myself being invited to view the page to pass comment and judge whether it warrants deletion rather than evidence of a groundswell of public interest. As it stands the page is no more than a curriculum vitae or resume and the citations are not being used to prove notability but merely to establish what year he was born, what junior seminary he attended or in which city he now lives. I'd suggest the author takes the opportunity whilst the page is being discussed to re-write it in order to establish why he thinks the subject is notable enough to have a dedicated Wikipedia page and use sources and citations to re-enforce the claim of notability rather than just prove basic school and residency claims. If the page is not drastically improved I'd advocate Delete Pupsbunch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your assumption, the visitor count was mostly by critics, does not fit. The number 86 is on user visits only. The overall clicks were 238 in these 3 days.

https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/#project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=all-agents&start=2016-03-05&end=2016-03-24&pages=Richard_C._Onwuanibe

Nevertheless, I agree to Your request for more information. I'll do my best.--Bussakendle (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I do not see anything in his CV to point to notability. He has been a professor only in the American sense. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Draftify. Basically, this is a consensus to delete, but going to go with SwisterTwister's suggestion to move it to draft. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ackerman Berry

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG. A google search revealed no sources where the author was the primary subject. 4meter4 (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there was hardly anything found at all to satisfy GNG. GAB^Hello! 20:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep He'd pass NAUTHOR for Gentleman of the Road alone, as this was very well received on publication in the '70s. I remember doing it at school, one of the English teachers championing it as a return to Romanticism against the Modernists (we had Ted Hughes give a reading at our school). He's also quite well known in Bristol (no idea why) which led to Redcliffe publishing several other works.

Sourcing is being a problem, as usual for anyone of the recent pre-'net generation and this really isn't my field in order to look further. I wouldn't delete it though, without a literature scholar, familiar with the field, telling me that the author of so many well-received books really does count for nothing.Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I can't imagine that an author who died as late as 1996 wouldn't at least have an obituary online somewhere if he were indeed notable. As it is, I can't find anything (which to my mind is telling). The sources you added, while useful, are primary sources and to my mind don't sufficiently support the WP:GNG requirements for notability. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is puzzling me too. I'd expected something in the Grauniad at least. I'm not especially literary but the name, and one book, jogged my own memory, so I'd expected to see more. The trouble is that the places to look, like the TLS or the LRB, aren't somewhere I have access to. I would need to check in those before saying "not notable", anything less would be remiss. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and then Move to Draft as this is still questionably better, nothing convincing to keep for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, unreferenced BLP--Ymblanter (talk) 06:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Murray

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

Article should be deleted as per WP:TNT. Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication that any of this is even true. Blythwood (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO as a gsearch brings up nothing useable, also article creator's name GAB123Dublin (a spa) is eerily similar to article subject - Gabriel Murray of Dublin. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but BLP Prod will likely take effect first. IMDb entry appears to show notability, but as it is an unreliable source, and no other evidence to meet GNG, delete is the proper end result.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Fry

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

Completely non-notable writer. The news search results are about foreman, sportsperson and broker with the same name. There is no news about this writer. Greek Legend (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself patrolled this at NPP and planned to nominate because none of this satisfies any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of being notable. FiendYT ★ 21:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of any indepdent coverage or indepth coverage outside of her website. Also lack of any evidence that reviewers have noticed her works at all. The wording of the article makes it also seem like her works are self published, which makes it even harder to use her works to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Andreas

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

No indication of notability. All 5 references in article are self-published books (3 of which were written Andreas himself). Seems like some sort of promo article for him. Article does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests satisfying the applicable notability and my searches have found nothing better so far. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 20:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although topic is fringe, there are high GS cites for his work. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Arguments for keep are weak being not rooted in Wikipedia's article policies and guidelines, consensus is to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Rakesh Sinha

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

Highly promotional article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC as the article fails to make clear what makes him notable. Triggered two sockpuppet investigation requests (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mahant2013). The Banner talk 00:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete: in preparation for this AfD I've attempted to reformat and partially clean up this article, so that its poor quality won't turn the discussion (including my own) away from more relevant BLP/NOR/GNG issues.
All this being said, from having gone through the article, it appears that this guys only claim to fame is being on TV sometimes. He holds no distinguishing positions or status at his university, and pretty much fails the rest of WP:ACADEMIC. And aside from his professorship he really has nothing else BLP/GNG-wise to credit this article with, aside from being an occasional political personality. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not agree with this, as a Director of India Policy Foundation, New Delhi based think tank on policy issues, he has authored hundreds of research papers, interventions and monologues. His single largest contribution to RSS led Hindutva movement is that Prof Sinha has provided intellectual backbone to RSS ideology, which was earlier limited to emotional issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murdikardapoli (talk • contribs) 03:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC) — Murdikardapoli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Perhaps it is a good idea when you and friends start reading Wikipedia Reliable sources that prescribes that sources must be independent (not in anyway related to the subject), reliable (no social media or blogs) and publicly published. The Banner talk 11:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Primary sources (such as articles written by the subject) don't show notability of the subject. Any academic writes a lot of different texts, that is also not a claim to notability. --bonadea contributions talk 08:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per The Banner and Bonadea. Yes, he's been quoted in the media and written some things in various venues, but just listing publications off is not an indication of his notability. I wish the sockpuppetry alone was a valid rationale for deletion. GAB^Hello! 20:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, While some of us might not agree with his political views or RSS ideologies, Wikipedia is a place where we come to seek information about public personalities and Prof. Sinha with his constant presence on TV debates and news media, definitely is one. He has been representing RSS on various platforms for quite some time and his views were also highlighted in the Pradhanmantri TV series. Disclosure: COI (I am related to him)--Richas 23 (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC) — Richas 23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
STRONG Keep - Academic Freedom §- Recommendation of deletion of page of a professor who has influenced the methods of established thinking does not need more work to establish his scholarly credentials after already publishing few hundred articles. If talking about own research work is PROMOTION, then more than 80 percent of individual wiki profiles are promotion.

This article is based on references suchas Papers published in newspapers, magazines and published as books and monographs, link provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahul Singh Ind (talk • contribs) 19:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC) — Rahul Singh Ind (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete at best for now as the current article clearly needs extra better work and I have no considerable confidence this will be amply improved thus delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is a hot mess (of sockpuppetry or political partisanship, I know not) and Tpdwkouaa's valiant attempt at cleanup has all been lost by now. So we could go with WP:TNT as a deletion rationale. But also, there is no reliable source here about the subject. All sources are the subject's own writings, blogs and other such unreliable sources, or reliably published articles about other subjects that don't provide any in-depth coverage of the subject. As such, we have no evidence that he passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - §- There is sufficient link to other wiki pages and citations. It does not seem to be any orphan article. It seems recommendations come from those articles which are promoting there business online and violating wiki promotion policy. This article follows wiki policy at its interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahul Singh Ind (talk • contribs) — Rahul Singh Ind (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I have struck out your "keep": you are only allowed one keep or delete opinion per AfD. Also, please sign your messages. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That an article is an "orphan" does not mean that it has too few links to other Wikipedia articles. It means that other articles do not link to this one. But please note that that is not part of the reason why the article is listed for deletion. If the article should be kept, the cleanup issues (such as the many superfluous links to other Wikipedia articles, and the lack of links from other articles) can be addressed. Secondly, please do not make any assumptions about the motives of other editors here. The only relevant question in this discussion is whether the person meets the applicable notability criteria, WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Unfortunately that still does not seem to be the case. There are many, many (too many!) external links in the article - if it is kept, a large number of those links will have to be removed - but very few of them are secondary sources, which is what is needed to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 08:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. As author named Prof Rakesh Sinha is notable figure in India and the majority of the sources have quoted references from independent sources, we cannot term this wiki article as self promoting. The person named Rakesh Sinha is widely acknowledged figure in Indian intellectuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murdikardapoli (talk • contribs) 15:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You are only allowed to vote once. The Banner talk 15:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG, and the rampamt socking/meatsocking in support only makes me more convinced the article should be deleted. Jeppiz (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 both. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R.R. Turock

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

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

WP:BLP of an entirely self-published e-book writer and a separate article about one of her self-published book series, with no substantive or properly sourced indication of notability per WP:AUTHOR or WP:NBOOK. As written, these just assert that the writer and the books exist, and are sourced exclusively to her own self-published website and a profile on Smashwords. Writers are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because their own primary source profiles verify that they exist, nor are books automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- either a writer or a book has to be the subject of reliable source coverage, verifying an actual claim of notability, to qualify for an article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles. I see no evidence that either the self-published author nor the self-published book series are notable. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Publications-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. I couldn't find evidence to show that either are notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as they don't meet WP:GNG, no reviews, awards or anything else found that may lead to notability (which is a pity as the fox series pictures look cute:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John G. (Jack) Samson

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

Biography of a sport fisherman and author with no substantive or properly sourced indication of notability for either endeavour; as written, this is just a blurb which asserts his existence, and doesn't adequately demonstrate why his existence would be of concern to an encyclopedia. In addition, an anonymous IP has raised concerns that the closest thing to a "source" here, the authority control template, is inaccurately conflating the fly fisherman with an unrelated military historian of the same name. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if he can be properly sourced, but nothing claimed or sourced here makes this a keepable article in its existing state. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found a few links but nothing at all enough to suggest a keepable and improvable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Field & Stream. Neutral. The subject was an editor for the magazine from 1970–1972 and editor-in chief from 1972–1985.^[1] Some coverage is out there, but there may not be enough to retain the article. An extensive obituary was published by the Associated Press^[1]. There's an extensive piece about his life published by the Outdoor Writers Association of America^[2], some content in Fly Life magazine^[3], a paragraph in The New York Times^[4] and a short paragraph in Tuscon Citizen^[5]. The subject is presently not mentioned at the merge target article, so merging is functional to WP:PRESERVE appropriate content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b "Former Field and Stream Editor Dies at Age 84 in his Santa Fe Home". Associated Press. March 20, 2007. Retrieved 26 March 2016.
^ "Jack Samson: An OWAA Living Legend". Outdoor Writers Association of America.
^ "Feature: Fly Fishing for Sailfish Made Easy". Fly Life Magazine.
^ "New Trout Books Worthy of Perusal". The New York Times. 20 May 1984.
^ "Quimby Column". Tuscon Citizen. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Delete The references in the article provide significant coverage but are only obituaries; the additional ones listed above provide passing mentions; not enough for an article. I am always in favor of a redirect or merge when appropriate, but I don't think it works in this case. When I went to look at the proposed target article, I found no place to merge information to; none of the magazine's other editors are mentioned and it would be strange to add information about just one of them. So in this case I favor "delete". --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the above. Normally, I'd be all over any suggestion for a redirect if a reasonable target could be found, but you're right, it would be out of place given the current Field & Stream article. I would be nice to include a section in that article listing all the editors-in-chief over the history of the magazine, but a little half-hearted searching didn't come up with an obvious source for that. I suppose one could just read through the magazine archives and look at every masthead, but I'm not prepared to do that. So, doing with delete -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @MelanieN and RoySmith: I changed my !vote above to "neutral". Information about Field & Stream editors is readily available in Google Books searches (e.g. [49]), but I don't feel like working on the article to add all of this content at this time. Maybe someone else will someday, or maybe not... North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage about him from independent, reliable sources. Obits are fine, but everybody gets one. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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 no consensus. Consensus to keep is less than overwhelming, but there are some sources, and there is certainly no consensus to delete. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Wolfe (nutritionist)

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

Initially I was thinking that this article may be salvagable, but reading it through, almost all of the citations, even those critical of Wolfe, are to blogs, his own websites and or commercial sites. I think it's best if we WP:BLOWITUP and start over, if reliable sources can be found that establish this guy as notable. SarrCat ∑;3 03:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retain While we are not here to promote Wolfe, he and his ideas are notable. Less-than-ideal sourcing is only a problem on Wikipedia where we choose to make it an issue. One of the major weaknesses of Wikipedia is this tendency to delete and/or marginalize the alternative or unconventional. Regards, Glacier2009 (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am perfectly willing to help improve this article if I can find reliable sources, my proposal for deletion is merely because the article is currently such a mishmash of bad sourcing, that I was thinking deleting it and starting over may well be a better course of action. SarrCat ∑;3 03:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Rawson, Sharnee (2013-05-22). "Raw ambition". Nationwide News Pty Limited (News Corp). Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  A star of the super foods world, David Wolfe is on a global mission
  "Growing your own food is an amazing idea - it's like printing money"
  Fat makes us fat, dairy is essential for healthy bones, and wheat-based carbs should be the main component of our daily diets - these are just some of the nutritional "truths" coming under increasing scrutiny.
  Questioning the mainstream is nothing new to David Wolfe, the American raw food advocate who has spent 20 years telling women to eat more chocolate. Born in New York and now living in LA, David, 42, is probably the world's most famous raw foodie. Australians are about to witness his ability to whip audiences into a frenzy over something as simple as eating an orange.
  Nailing down exactly what David - who gave up legal studies to pursue nutrition - does is tricky. He is the author of eight books on superfoods and nutrition, runs a cacao orchard and raw chocolate company, and takes adventure tours around the globe. While in Australia this month and next, he'll lead a raw food retreat in Kakadu and chair conferences in state capitals.
  From http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=22239265:
  Nationwide News Pty Limited publishes news on print, digital, mobile, tablet, and NIM platforms. It offers The Australian, a daily national publication with early general news, business, life, recruitment, sport, arts, and classifieds sections; The Weekend Australian, a weekly national newspaper; theaustralian.com.au, a Website that informs and leads public opinion on the issues that affect Australians; The Australian Tablet App, which gives readers a virtual experience of the newspaper; and m.theaustralian.com.au, a mobile site that delivers The Australian to the audience on mobile phones. Nationwide News Pty Limited was formerly known as Hill Corner Pty. Limited. The company was founded in 1964 and is based in Surry Hills, Australia. Nationwide News Pty Limited operates as a subsidiary of News Corporation.
2. Dengate, Cayla (2011-02-22). "Raw talent". mX. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Healthy living advocate David Wolfe balances the wild side with the mild side, as CAYLA DENGATE reports
  Who would take health advice from a guy who eats powdered yams and thinks chocolate should be bitter?
  Woody Harrelson, for one. And he's not alone.
  Superfood crusader David Wolfe is in Australia, holding workshops on raw food, healthy chocolate and living well.
  The American dietitian lives on a farm called Noni Land in Hawaii, surrounded by vegan warrior workers who tend to exotic plants he's collected from South America, Asia and Europe.
  When Harrelson needed to shape up for Rampart, he asked Wolfe for a hand.
3. Skidmore, Sarah (2005-06-04). "Raw-food fervor starting to sprout: Nature's First Law is feeding followers". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  And at the uncooked heart of it all, are San Diego natives David Wolfe and Thor Bazler, the founders of Nature's First Law.
  Together, they've created a multimillion-dollar business and source of raw gospel nationwide. Their El Cajon company sells specialty food, information and products to support living raw.
  ...
  Wolfe discovered the alternative way of eating when he attended the University of California Santa Barbara. He began experimenting with nutrition to help with his sensitivity to certain foods and eventually discovered raw eating.
  He introduced his childhood friend Bazler, then known as Stephen Arlin, to the diet. The two Patrick Henry High School graduates, who had grown up across the street from each other, now swear by a 100 percent raw diet of organic, unprocessed, plant-based food.
  ...
  Ten years later, the aspirations paid off. They have 23 employees and their company is on target to exceed $6 million in revenue this year. Profits were at least $1.2 million last year, Bazler said. Popular organic retailer Whole Foods is adding Nature's First Law products to its stores.
4. Stumpe, Joe (2004-04-21). "The raw truth? Decide for yourself". The Wichita Eagle. Archived from the original on 2004-05-05. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  The raw food movement hasn't caught on yet in quite the same way as, say, low-carb diets and bottled water.
  But I defy any food movement anywhere to produce a more colorful spokesman than David Wolfe.
  Wolfe is, as he says, "a raw foodist, nudist and Buddhist." The 33-year-old Californian also stars in a reality series on the Sci-Fi Channel and plays drums in a rock band that tours the country in a vegetable oil-powered bus.
  ...
  Wolfe said his band, The Healing Waters, doesn't take itself too seriously, either. Their songs include "Raw Food Girl" (about the bass player's ex-girlfriend), "Bye Bye Burger World" and "Jonathan's the Name" (about a raw food-eating, cross-dressing biker). I told him Kirby's was a good venue for that sort of thing.
  Wolfe's TV show is called "Mad Mad House" and features five "alternative lifestyle" landlords sharing a house with 10 guests vying for a $100,000 prize. Wolfe is actually pretty tame compared with the other "alts," who include a witch, a vampire and a voodoo priestess.
  It was from the show's Web site, by the way, that I learned Wolfe prefers to be called by his nickname, "Avocado."
5. Han, Esther (2013-05-28). "A breath of fresh flair - raw food". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  An American guru of all things unprocessed has seen a niche interest turn into a global movement.
  David Wolfe has a habit of giving an answer the opposite of what is expected. Ask him about the neo-raw-food movement, and he describes it as "ancient, old and nothing new".
  Ask the American nutritionist about the modern Western diet of refined sugars, additives and processed foods, and he replies: "The dietary chaos we're in right now is actually very good."
  Let him explain: "We're finding out what doesn't work and what does. We're opening up new pathways of knowledge. Without crisis, there's no opportunity."
  Wolfe is one of the world's leading proponents of raw food, advocating a lifestyle of consuming only unprocessed and uncooked food. He overhauled his diet 20 years ago, changing to raw, plant-based foods.
  Raw foodism, as the movement is called, involves a diet of organic or wild foods, along with the so-called "superfoods" (see panel).
  Wolfe champions superfoods such as goji berries, hemp seed and blue-green algae, which he believes have helped him sustain a busy lifestyle touring the world promoting natural and organic living.
6. Fuller, Sharon (2001-11-02). "Raw Food Diet Is Anything But Half-Baked Idea". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  It was standing-room only for more than 70 people recently when David Wolfe came to speak about eating raw food.
  ...
  Wolfe is author of "The Sunfood Diet Success System," which essentially details his strategies for eating only raw. He started his lecture at the Wild Oats Community market in Ladue by explaining that people will eat anything. Like the guy who once ate an airplane by grinding the parts into powder. The same guy supposedly ate a television, too.
  Wolfe has been eating only raw foods for seven years. At one time, he says, he treated his body like an amusement park, meaning he ate everything from pepperoni pizza to carbonated sodas. A provocative speaker with a flawless complexion, the 31-year-old Missouri native appears to be at least a visual testament to the benefits of eating raw.
  ...
  In 1995 Wolfe and Stephen Arlin co-founded Nature's First Law Inc., which distributes books, juicers and bulk organic foods. Perhaps the ultimate indulgence would be to participate in one of the raw foods vacations that the organization sponsors. Upcoming ones will be held in India and Bali.
7. Shriver, Jerry (2002-04-26). "Healthful, raw-food trend is picking up steam". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  A just-released book from raw-food guru David Wolfe, Eating for Beauty (Maul Brothers Publishing, $24.95), promotes the raw-food diet as part of a wellness/beauty regimen.
  ...
  Wolfe estimates that at least 1 million people in the USA embrace some aspect of the raw-food diet, based upon traffic at various Web sites and the 100,000-plus copies of his book, The Sunfood Diet Success System, that have been sold since 1999.
8. "Healthy hearts and souls". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 2006-09-15. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  The IBPA said David Wolfe of Nature's First Law, an expert on raw foods, will appear 11 a.m. Saturday as part of the health and wellness fair. Wolfe is the author of "Eating for Beauty," "The Sunfood Diet Success System" and "Naked Chocolate." Nature's First Law is a distributor of books, juicers/audio/videotapes, organic beauty products, bulk organic foods and exotic raw foods.
9. Oliveira, Denise (2008-04-18). "Can chocolate help your skin?". Cape Cod Times. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  David Wolfe, of San Diego, Calif., co-author of the book "Naked Chocolate," has gained a reputation as a raw nutrition expert and leader of a raw chocolate movement in the United States that has had rippling effects abroad.
  Back in 2004, when Wolfe could not find raw cocoa beans for purchase in the United States, he started importing them from Hawaii and Ecuador through Sunfood Nutrition, a company set up to sell raw foods and related products.
  "I couldn't believe the most popular food in the world, in its original form, was impossible to get," said Wolfe, 37, who has a law degree and a master's in vegan and live food nutrition from the University of Integrative Science California.
10. "How To ... Use chocolate for your skin". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 2008-04-15. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  David Wolfe, of San Diego, co-author of the book "Naked Chocolate," has gained a reputation as a raw nutrition expert and leader of a raw chocolate movement in the United States.
  According to Wolfe, raw cocoa butter delivers the essential elements of the raw cocoa to the skin, such as vitamins and anti-oxidants, because the butter consists of oils that have such small particles that they can penetrate even the smallest of pores.
11. "600 Pages of raw material". Toronto Star. 1999-12-03. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Can't cook or don't want to be bothered? Have we got a diet for you. David Wolfe, author of The Sunfood Diet Success System (Maul Bros. Publishing, $29.95), hasn't eaten cooked food in five years. He eats only organic, raw, vegetarian food. Or, in the words of his publicist, Sequoia Neptune, Wolfe is promoting "raw plant-food-based lifestyles." In the 600-page volume you'll find the Gall Bladder Flush: Fast 3 days on raw fresh apple juice; on day 4, at 3 p.m., break the fast with 8 oz. of cold-pressed olive oil; follow with 8 oz. of freshly squeezed lemon juice.
12. Herrmann, Andrew (2008-10-18). "City in a garden gets an orchard - 24 trees may yield fruit by next year". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  The orchard was a donation from Absolut vodka under the direction of the Fruit Tree Planting Foundation, a San Diego-based charity that aims to plant 18 billion fruit trees across the world.
  The foundation was started by David Wolfe, a raw food guru and best-selling author.
13. Takahama, Valerie (1999-04-23). "The Raw Deal – Health. Practitioners say eating uncooked fruits, vegetables and grains raises their energy and improves their lives". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  On Monday, there were dueling raw-food gatherings, with the charismatic raw-food firebrand David Wolfe speaking at the Living Lighthouse at the same time that Brian Clement, director of the venerable Hippocrates Health Institute in West Palm Beach, Fla.,and Nomi Shannon, author of "The Raw Gourmet," held forth at O2.
14. Davenport, Kristen (2005-08-07). "Some Like It Raw ..." The Santa Fe New Mexican. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  As if it weren't enough that chocolate tastes good.
  Now raw food guru David Wolfe says it's good for you, too.
  Wolfe, whose book Naked Chocolate was released in April, says all you have to do is eat chocolate in its natural form: raw, untreated, naked cacao.
  ...
  Wolfe, 34, has been eating 100-percent raw foods for 11 years. Author of The Sunfood Diet Success System, he teaches across the United States, Canada, Europe and the South Pacific, following an annual tour of classes and speaking events. When he's not traveling, Wolfe lives in California, where he tutors celebrities such as Alicia Silverstone and Woody Harrelson on the raw-food diet.
  Wolfe stopped by Albuquerque last year on a national tour to promote raw chocolate; he might swing by the Land of Enchantment next year, too, he says.
15. Bain, Jennifer (2000-11-29). "Raw foodist awed by Toronto's bounty". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Raw foodist David Wolfe gingerly unwraps a spiky, 4-kilogram durian and exhales with anticipation at the sight of cracks on the bottom of its thick brown shell.
  ...
  Wolfe a raw food expert and author who was in Toronto last week to speak on radical nutrition at the Whole Life Expo confesses to spending $120 (U.S.) on durian in Toronto in four days.
  He lives in San Diego, where you can get fresh durian for only about one month a year. He calls durian the king of the fruit, for its balance of fat and sugar. His queen is the vitamin C and potassium-rich mangosteen. Vitamin-infused kale is the king of the veggies, while calming cucumber is the queen veggie.
  ...
  Fun for Wolfe, 30, is enjoying the work of raw chefs. The Fressen meal "was just outrageous it was so good."
  He envies Torontonians for the "amazing variety of food that's here," and says there's less selection in California because of the farm lobby.
  Wolfe, who stops in Toronto once a year on the global lecture circuit, indulges his fruit obsession wherever he can.
16. Schroedter, Andrew (2004-04-29). "Raw food, grease power this crew". Glencoe News. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  David Wolfe believes his raw food message has made him an enemy of big oil companies and maybe some fast-food establishments as well.
  That notion may be somewhat of a stretch, but a contingent of Wolfe backers believe the California nutritionist is riding the wave of the future, using the Internet, lectures and books to communicate the health and fitness benefits derived from a strict diet of uncooked food.
  Several times a year, Wolfe travels with his rock-and-roll band to places like New York City, Chicago, Pennsylvania, Kansas, Michigan, Maryland and Toronto.
  ...
  For Wolfe and his Healing Waters Band, it's more about ingesting large quantities of super foods, such as wolf berries, maca root, hemp seeds, Spirulina and bottles of oxygen water.
  ...
  Wolfe, 33, has authored two books on raw food nutrition, and leads more than 100 seminars and retreats on the topic throughout the year. Over the weekend, Wolfe came to Chicago to speak about detoxification and healthy eating.
17. Griffin, John (2002-08-21). "Uncooked food trend raises hopes, casts doubts". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  David Wolfe, author of "The Sunfood Diet Success System," says that pesticides are so prevalent in our environment that "they accumulate in the tissues of animals." To eat them raw would be unnecessarily risky, he says.
  ...
  Wolfe, who has eaten only raw food for the last eight years, has positioned himself as the movement's Anthony Robbins. He no longer talks of "tortured and murdered foul rotting flesh" (Juliano's description of meat). He takes a positive approach, preferring to discuss how "educating and empowering the individual" about raw food cleanses the body and leads to greater energy and vitality.
  Wolfe doesn't talk of missing cooked or processed foods. There are no references to chocolate cravings or Twinkee withdrawal. Instead, he talks of how many new foods there are to savor, such as goji berries from Tibet or cassia discs, so many items, in fact, that there's no time for cooked food.
18. Beckett, Fiona (2002-08-10). "Take the heat out of eating". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  It's 7 o'clock on a cool, grey summer evening and it's standing room only in the lecture theatre of Regent's College in London. Not quite the weather for extolling the virtues of raw food, but that's what the 150-strong audience has come to hear about.
  The draw is America's leading raw food guru, a slight, wild-eyed, wild-haired figure called David Wolfe. When I meet him before the lecture, he's soft-spoken, humorous, a model of restraint. On the platform he holds the audience mesmerised with an evangelistic three-hour presentation, alternately gabbling then dropping his voice to emphasise a point.
  ...
  Wolfe isn't a lone voice. There have been advocates of a diet largely based on raw foods since the beginning of the last century, when Dr Bircher-Benner set up his famous clinic in Switzerland. Raw food has also long been advocated for cancer patients. Leslie Kenton made it fashionable in the 1990s and juicing raw fruits and vegetables has taken off in the past five years.
19. Rawson, Sharnee (2013-05-22). "Raw ambition". Nationwide News Pty Limited (News Corp). Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  A star of the super foods world, David Wolfe is on a global mission
  "Growing your own food is an amazing idea - it's like printing money"
  ...
  Questioning the mainstream is nothing new to David Wolfe, the American raw food advocate who has spent 20 years telling women to eat more chocolate. Born in New York and now living in LA, David, 42, is probably the world's most famous raw foodie. Australians are about to witness his ability to whip audiences into a frenzy over something as simple as eating an orange.
  Nailing down exactly what David - who gave up legal studies to pursue nutrition - does is tricky. He is the author of eight books on superfoods and nutrition, runs a cacao orchard and raw chocolate company, and takes adventure tours around the globe. While in Australia this month and next, he'll lead a raw food retreat in Kakadu and chair conferences in state capitals.
20. Krum, Sharon (2003-09-06). "All steamed up about raw food - Food & Drink". The Times. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  But the prize for hyperbole -and for the best non sequitur -surely goes to the Californian David Wolfe, a self-taught nutritionist and co-author of Nature's First Law: The Raw-Food Diet, who toured England in July, spreading the message: "Nietzsche said God is dead; we say, cooked food is poison!"
  Addressing 200 people a night, in Leeds, Manchester, Brighton and London, Wolfe delivered his standard lesson in raw foods: heat destroys the natural enzymes in food needed for digestion, forcing your body to use its own enzymes to absorb food, he claims. This process wears the body down and accelerates disease and ageing. Raw foodies cook nothing past 46C (115F), the point at which enzymes begin to die.
  Wolfe then promised the curious that, if they weaned themselves off fish and chips, milk and meat, and embraced fruit, vegetables, nuts, green foods, "superfoods" (spirulina and algae) and sprouts, their excess weight and chronic illnesses would disappear.
Articles that discuss or mention Sacred Chocolate, the company he founded:
1. Thym, Jolene (2009-03-18). "Picky Eater: Chocolate, chocolate and more chocolate". Tri-Valley Herald. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Ramping up for the massive affair, chocolate companies have been dumping chocolate on my desk, hoping to convince me to stop by for a chocolate-chat. I tried ethereal hot chocolate from Chocolatique, chunks of exotic chocolate from TCHO, interesting chocolate raw chocolate bars from Sacred Steve (who probably wears Birkenstocks) at Sacred Chocolate, yummy chocolate brownie truffles laced with rose petals from Serendipity Chocolates, single-origin bars from Amano, a nutty, triangular shaped truffle bar from Sterling Confections, and even some sweet Muscat wines from Quady in Madera that are perfect for sipping alongside chocolate.
2. Harlib, Leslie (2008-02-13). "IJ Weekend: Indulge your dark side with upscale chocolates". Marin Independent Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-03-22. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
  The article notes:
  
  Chocolates are also going green, organic and raw. Steve Adler, whose line called Sacred Chocolate, made in San Rafael, launched in 2006, now turns out up to 15,000 bars a month. Sacred bars are made from beans (with their skins) grown in Ecuador and roasted at 114 degrees so they retain their enzymes as a raw food. The bars range in cacao content from 60 percent to 100 percent. He sweetens only with organic maple syrup. All bars are made with skin-on beans. One bar is flavored with organic black sage harvested in Marin.
  Adler sees chocolate as a "super food. When it's eaten in its raw form, it's actually an appetite suppressant."
  ...
  Sacred Chocolate
  1-800-628-8729, www.naturaw.com.
  Founded by Fairfax resident Steve Adler in autumn 2006 and produced in San Rafael, these raw chocolate bars are made with organic, fair trade-grown cacao. They are certified vegan, kosher and halal, sweetened with organic maple syrup, not sugar. "We do something that no other chocolatier in the world is doing as far as I know - using the whole bean, including the skins," Adler says. "Our antioxidant value is through the roof." Bar flavors include Wild Amazonian jungle peanut; black sage with rose oil; Pacific Paradise with nutmeg and kava, and plain chocolate bars with cacao butter content ranging from 60 to 100 percent. Order online.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow David Wolfe to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although informative and apparently large this article may seem, simply nothing suggests a better solidly notable article. Delete at best because none of this currently satisfies any applicable notability. Asking DGG for familiar analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Please note that per WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Does your !vote consider the sources posted in this discussion?

Delete. no possible notability, even as a crank. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: If the subject has "no possible notability", then why have several reliable sources provided significant coverage about the subject? I have provided a consolidated /concise summary of such sources that provide significant coverage in my !vote below in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The comments from SwisterTwister and DGG fail to explain why the sources I provided above are insufficient to establish notability. The sources span newspapers from different countries: Australia (The Sydney Morning Herald), Canada (Toronto Star), the United Kingdom (The Daily Telegraph and The Times), the United States (USA Today, Chicago Sun-Times, and St. Louis Post-Dispatch). The sources were published between 1999 and 2013, demonstrating sustained coverage of the subject.
Here are two book sources about the subject:
1. Iacobbo, Karen; Iacobbo, Michael (2006). Vegetarians and Vegans in America Today. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 48–49. ISBN 0275990168. Retrieved 2016-03-25.
  The book notes:
  
  David Wolfe, arguably the most popular promoter of raw foods in the Western world, states:
  [quote]
  Wolfe, who has eaten an all-raw foods diet since 1995, recommends that most people should eat 80 percent raw organic food "because that is easy to do for most people and is, in fact, good enough." The king of raw has made it his mission to "make raw-food nutrition an option for anyone on the planet." He has two Web sites—www.rawfood.com and www.davidwolfe.com—and several books (Naked Chocolate, Eating for Beauty, The Sunfood Diet Success System), and has made numerous television and radio appearances, and public lectures.
  A May 2, 2005, appearance on Coast-to-Coast AM radio exposed Wolfe to about 15 millions, resulting in a flood of hits to his Web sites and spreading recognition.
2. Goldstein, Myrna Chandler; Goldstein, Mark A. (2009). Food and Nutrition Controversies Today: A Reference Guide. Westport, Connecticut: ABC-CLIO. pp. 200–201. ISBN 0313354030. Retrieved 2016-03-25.
  The book notes:
  
  In an interview published in 2003 in Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, David Wolfe, one of the leaders in the world of raw foodists, said that during his childhood he ate everything. Meat, cheese, bread, fast food, and homemade food were all part of his diet. By the age of eighteen, Wolfe could no longer tolerate dairy products, so he stopped consuming them. Almost immediately, he "lost ten pounds, felt lighter, could think clearer, and instantly ended a lifetime of ear trouble."
  Soon, Wolfe began a quest to learn more about nutrition. He also started juicing and eating organic foods. Eventually, Wolfe became a vegetarian, and by the time he was twenty-four, he "was on a totally organic, raw-food diet." Wolfe is now devoted to educating others about the importance of proper nutrition, lecturing, writing books, and running a number of raw food-related businesses.

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline is clearly met. SwisterTwisters' "none of this currently satisfies any applicable notability" comment and DGG's "no possible notability" comment are unsupported by the numerous sources.

Cunard (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I think he is probably notable and quite possibly an utter charlatan, I also think that virtually all of what is in the article at present needs to go, so perhaps we should delete it per WP:TNT and start again based on reliable sources. I'm not even convinced that he is a nutritionist, which surely requires qualifications? --Michig (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of this passes the ten-year test. Notability derived from Coast-to-Coast AM radio is far from scholarly. Please note that I (had no prior knowledge of Wolf and) tried to clean up this article and find reliable sources for a few days before making this vote. Kyle^(talk) 17:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Khamar: There's no "ten-year test" to demonstrate notability on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NTEMP, where it states that "notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This notability is Recentism. I agree that even diet fads can be notable, but I suspect a higher standard applies here. My vote is in favor of balance and historical perspective. There is no rush, history will determine a proper place for this article. Additional editor comments and proper sources will resolve the issue. Kyle^(talk) 01:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support an overhaul of article sourcing and layout, or deleting and starting over with different sources. Cunard has demonstrated credible, reliable sources to establish notability. Let's not make Wolfe the issue; even if we don't like or agree with him, he is notable. Glacier2009 (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(a cautious keep) He is notable enough for a Wikipedia page. BUT I think that probably starting over with the most notable citations, then see where that gets us. I did not look in detail at Cunard's citations, so bow to others wisdom if they did look them over. I'm not sure who volunteered to rewrite this page, but I call "not it".Sgerbic (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit – The subject passes WP:BASIC. Here's some of the sources listed above and from the article that serve to denote that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]. Some of the delete !votes above come across as possibly basing notability upon subjective standards, rather than WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The Union-Tribune source found by NA confirms no qualification in nutrition, so if kept the title needs to be changed. You don't become a nutritionist by pushing diets. --Michig (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig: This source refers to the subject as a nutritionist: "the nutritionist and best-selling author ...". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well...it seems that in some countries anyone can call themselves a nutritionist, but yes, sources support it. I still think some other disambiguation may be more appropriate. --Michig (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A large number of potential sources have been presented, but not widely accepted. Despite the significant discussion to date, if I had to close this today, it would be as NC. I think it's worth keeping the discussion open another week to see if we can get better clarity on what kinds of sources we're looking for, and why the ones presented do or do not meet that standard. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am fine with renaming the article "David Wolfe (raw foodist)." I merely called him a "nutritionist" because the previous article "raw foodist" was deleted. Glacier2009 (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep - a reasonable article about a notable crank. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farahnaz Amirsoleymani

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

Ref #1: is a press release. Ref #2, 404 error— that aside, I am not convinced that the "leading Persian magazine of western Canada" has sufficient breadth of readership to qualify its content as able to support a notability claim. Ref #3 is a personal PDF file, lacking independence. Ref. #4 does not mention the subject anywhere. Ref #5 appears to be a press release on one of her books written by the publisher, "faripublishing.com". Ref #6 is a link to an Amazon page where her book can be purchased. Ref. #7 does not mention the subject, though it appears it may have originally been a kind of review for a book, in which case it might have been useful for a notability argument for that book, not necessarily for the author (just as the article on Hyperbole and a Half has no corresponding article on its author), and even if it did include that kind of coverage, I am not convinced, based on what I was able to determine from the web site, that the publication is itself a reliable source of information. Lastly, there is no corresponding article on the Persian Wikipedia about her, which leaves us at a dead end. There does not appear to be enough genuine, reliable, independent, non-trivial material here to qualify this person as notable, and failing the appearance of such, I nominate it for deletion. KDS4444^Talk 08:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks adequate sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article creator was a spa on this subject so doesn't appear to be around to possibly provide notable sources, a gsearch brings up nothing useable for either the subject or her books so delete as does not meet WP:GNG OR WP:AUTHOR, per nom the article references are unable to be used as they are either press releases from the publisher, don't work, are trivial mentions, or don't relate to subject. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Keep. There is a rough consensus below that the additional sources proffered during the course of the AfD are sufficient to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Majmudar

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

Not notable; has written a couple books and poems none of which appear to be of encyclopedic value Mdude04 (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Amit Majmudar

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps at best as my searches found a few links but this is still questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @SwisterTwister: Is your !vote based upon just viewing the links and guessing that the coverage was not substantial, perhaps based upon how many times the subject's name appears in source summaries, or did you actually read the articles? I found many links by using the find sources template atop and then actually reading the articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Swangtgd (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Swangtgd: Actually, that's not correct. Please see the sources I have provided below. Also pinging other users here to review sources: @Mdude04 and SwisterTwister:. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject passes point #3 of WP:NAUTHOR because his works have received "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and also meets WP:BASIC.

References

Review: "Book Review: 'Partitions'". NPR.
Review: "Review: Poetry by Lucia Perillo and Amit Majmudar". The New York Times.
Review: "Amit Majmudar's 'The Abundance' trades fake family happiness for something real". The Plain Dealer.
Review: "Four lives displaced by the dividing of India; Books and Authors". The Seattle Times. (subscription required)
Review: "Literary Fiction". Daily Mail. (subscription required)
Review: "A New Wave". The Virginian-Pilot. (subscription required)
Review: "3 books about restless Indians". The Washington Post. (subscription required)
Review: "Amit Majmudar puts the 1947 'Partitions' on a human scale: New in Paperback". The Plain Dealer.
"Indian American Novelist Amit Majmudar Named Ohio’s First Poet Laureate". India West.
"Ohio’s first official poet says writing isn’t work". The Columbus Dispatch.
"To Take Out Trump, Hillary Clinton Must First Dispense With Her Inner Politician". Time.
Also, while a primary source, Smithsonian Magazine has published some of his works: ""Pattern and Snarl" – A New Poem by Amit Majmudar".

– The subject is clearly notable per Wikipedia's standards. Most of the sources above were found by using links in the Find sources template above. It makes no sense for this article to be deleted per a lack of source searching that includes the viewing and actual reading of the sources that are available about the subject and his works. See also WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject meets WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE as evidence by references provided by Northamerica1000 above. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, here are some more reviews further showing that WP:ANYBIO is also met: The Abundance - "The narrative is slow, but sumptuous with recipes and reflection. Mr Majmudar, who is also a poet, imbues his prose with phrases and metaphors that linger with the warmth of spices." - The Economist [58], indeed based on the reviews (by Booklist, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Good Housekeeping, Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly) listed at amazon here [59] a separate book article could be created, Partitions - "Majmudar writes with the incisive prose of a poet and the unflinching eye of a scientist" and "The book’s flaw — if it’s a flaw — is that we’re so close to our subjects at every moment that we lose sight of the river they’re swept away by" - Hyphen magazine [60], and some more by (oh, oh) those trade magazines kirkus "In his magnificent first novel" and "Written with piercing beauty, alive with moral passion and sorrowful insight—a rueful masterpiece." - [61]; and pw "Poet Majmudar's unconvincing debut novel" - and "Tedious though not clumsy, ... but even the dark ending can't shake the notion that the whole endeavor feels like a semisanitized and oversensationalized theme park ride." - [62], and pw reviewing Dothead: Poems, "Aided by his unforgiving eye and a seemingly effortless ability to electrify his images, he composes a portrait of humankind that exposes its overreliance on the persuasive strength of fear." and "But throughout Majmudar keeps focused on one task: exposing what he views as the hollow American claims to being a “melting pot,” as only those who appease the fickle identity of an American are guaranteed their own freedom." - [63]. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abena Agyeman-Fisher

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Columnist are not notable simply because they have a page on their employer's website. No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as News, Books and browser found links but nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Same pattern: subject writes for many journals, many mentions, little coverage. It is unlikely that there are foreign-language sources about the subject as she lives in the US. Esquivalience ^t 21:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly not notable.Masterofroks (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.nift.ac.in/alumni_2015.html

[2] ttps://www.facebook.com/sujit.mhr/

[3] ttp://www.nift.ac.in/delhi/downloads/ANTARAGNI_2014_IIT_KANPUR.pdf

[4] ttp://www.abraxasnu.com/hotwheels/8-things-keep-mind-buying-new-car/

[AJ-5] "Former Field and Stream Editor Dies at Age 84 in his Santa Fe Home". Associated Press. March 20, 2007. Retrieved 26 March 2016.

[6] "Jack Samson: An OWAA Living Legend". Outdoor Writers Association of America.

[7] "Feature: Fly Fishing for Sailfish Made Easy". Fly Life Magazine.

[8] "New Trout Books Worthy of Perusal". The New York Times. 20 May 1984.

[9] "Quimby Column". Tuscon Citizen. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]