Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:26, 2 February 2016

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 Nomination for deletion withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 08:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Gershenson

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search in Google news reveals coverage from multiple reliable sources like this one in Spanish or this one from El Universal where it is reported he received an award for an app he developed. In google books there are also multiple hits, mainly as author. As an example even if it may not count as an independent source, this book in which he cooperated includes a brief bio. There seems to be enough independent and in depth coverage, and since the article does not violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not I believe that it meets our general notability guidelines.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as I am uncertain how to comment given the field, because the contents above are something but the article still seems questionable. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Six papers with over 100 citations according to Google Scholar. That's enough to show anyone an authority in their subject. Iadd the most cited to the article. the refs above should be added also. Kku, it is not of benefit to add articles as incomplete as this one was and let other people do the necessary work to show notability . DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination my error. Boleyn (talk) 07:50, 8 February 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 nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Télesphore Saint-Pierre

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

Biography of a journalist, sourced only to an "our writers" PR sketch on the website of a publishing company that holds rights to a book he wrote — thus not an independent source — and citing no reliable source coverage to demonstrate that the book would qualify him for a WP:AUTHOR pass in and of itself. Writers, even dead ones, do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just because their own publishing company provides verification that they exist — it takes media coverage in independent sources to get a writer in here. Delete, unless the referencing can be significantly beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing better convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was heading towards a Delete opinion until I found the subject's entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, which I have added as a reference to the article. Presuming that to be a notable selective source, it would seem reasonable to follow their assessment of notability. AllyD (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, that is a much stronger source than the original version contained — so consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep kudos thanks to User:AllyD He looks notable to me: [1]. It is important to slow down and search for sourcing when the claim is that the article is about a well-known journalist and author of a century ago. Adding a third bok ot the article, he shows up in news archive searches, as well. And French-Canadiana have more claim to a plge on WP in English than Francophone journalists form France becauuse Canada is bi-lingual. Non French speaking Canadians and American descendants of Canucks are likely to want to know about this old-timer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is that while that Google Books search brings up a lot of hits on his name, the majority of them are either passing namechecks or books where he's the author rather than a substantive subject — so while the number of hits suggests potential notability, the substance of them doesn't exactly offer us a ton of usable sources per se. And also, just for the record, my rationale had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that he's francophone — although I'm more comfortable speaking and writing in English than French because I was raised in a predominantly English part of Canada rather than in Quebec, I am of French Canadian background myself, so attempting to rectify our undercoverage of Québécois notables who fall through the cracks because of the language gap is one of the things I set as my personal priorities on here. Even so, I can still only WP:BEFORE in resources that I have access to — and French-language media coverage that predates the Google era is still one of the things I don't have an adequate resource for, so even with that goal in mind historical stuff can still sometimes slip past me if the topic hasn't also englished its way into The Globe and Mail. So I'm thankful for the improvement, and am withdrawing the nomination accordingly — but none of this proves that I didn't do any of the necessary priors. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 13 February 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trisha Torrey

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

Advertising for her books, a which are published by her own company. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps as this questionably solidly notable and it may only be happenstance coverage. SwisterTwister talk 16:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can be edited to be less promotional but clicking-through to "news" there are a multitude of reliable sources available.TeeVeeed (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC) edit to add :COI editing with this and related/linked topics noticed.Still a keeper imo but with understanding that COI and article probs will be addressed.TeeVeeed (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the references referred to above are links to things she wrote, not articles about her. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have been unable to find any reliably sourced reviews of her books. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject but article is badly done; I'll try to revamp it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Update: it was this and now it is this, as per WP:HEYMANN. Needs photo.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Rewriting the article doesn't sure the underlying lack of notability., Her principal book is in only 33 libraries, and there is no other indication of notability . DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 26 February 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. Seems to me to meet the general notability guidelines; although it could still be said that relatively few of the sources focus specially on her. (non-admin closure) jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Menon

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

inadequate notability, with the article supported by mere notices of unreliable sources connected with her employer. "Best bysiness news anchor" is not a award that imples notability . DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this currently better satisfies WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the reference states the importance of the article and it Fails Wikipedia:GNG. JackTracker (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known journalist. Secondary sources suffice to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Parsley Man (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that Nom performed WP:BEFORE or that any of the editors above searched for notability, beyond looking at the page. Seek and ye shall find. True, India is a tad retro in re sexism, so some of the coverage of her carer comes in the form of articles like 5 Hottest Female Indian Journalists [2]; also better stuff [3]. search a little, the coverage is there. e.g. this: [4] profile in The Hindu. And remember please, it's not the coverage on the page that counts , it's WP:NEXIST.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added the good sources E.M.Gregory found, and found a few myself, which are now in the article. I did a little cleanup, too. She's covered over time and passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:GNG, which is now reflected in a well sourced article thanks to E.M.Gregory and Megalibrarygirl. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 21 February 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. Michig (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zakaria Polash

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

The cited sources are written by the subject or contain only a brief quote from him. Searches of the usual types found only more of the same: [5] and [6] (for non-subscribers: "JU student also JUDO members Zakaria Polash, Shakayat Jamil Saikat and Jafor Sadik were adjudged the competition."). These do not add up to in-depth coverage that is independent of the subject, so fails WP:BASIC. Worldbruce (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionably solidly notable for the applicable notability, delete and restart at best. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can locate secondary sources that discuss this scholar/journalist - as opposed to material he has authored. I could not source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Parsley Man (talk) 02:09, 11 February 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 02:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taurino Araujo

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

This article is trying to use Wikipedia to promote a person that don't meets WP:NOTE. See this discussion on page deletion request at pt-wiki. pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Taurino Araújo. . HombreDHojalata.^talk 20:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary

Agree Article was deleted from Luso-Wiki because it was created as propaganda. Should be eliminated. Luizpuodzius (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 17:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page Maintenance

Let me kindly disagree about the proposition to delete this page. Taurino Araujo is a notorious person of Bahia, not the kind of popularity singers, soccer players, TV or movie actors have. He has a relevant profile on media, appearing to answer questions about law, justice and social sciences, to make it crystal clear, indeed he is a professor and the youngest person honored with the highest decoration of Bahia's parliament, representing more than 14 million inhabitants. It is common sense, quite a rule of thumb, to give such a decoration to whom has about 60 years old or more. He got it at age 44. He is notable, lots of people guess, let’s say 14 million. It´s weird, but he is the only one notorious holding a João Mangabeira Medal - CBJM not present in pt.wikipedia, maybe envy or some kind of dictatorship lovers revenge. Some say attorneys are Devil´s creation, as so are politicians and professors. This guy is all of these. But let me tell you, even under the heavy truncheon of dictatorship in Brazil, he gave his contribution to nowadays democracy and freedom. There are lots of other info you can get in the article, make a try. His notoriety is based on the recognition of his peers, the people of Bahia, his work, his professional journey and the recognition made real with medals, titles and decorations. You can’t get such things on Ebay for some bucks. I mean some things has value, others has a price tag. So, I ask to maintain the page because, as we can infer, this proposition is based on mislead. The belief is that a page must be deleted everywhere without criteria because it was deleted someware. We must pay attention to the WP:WHACAMOLE game and WP:POINT. Prudenciosilva (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as this seems questionable for the applicable notability with perhaps nothing else better convincing. Notifying DGG for better analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG and SwisterTwister in particular. Helping with the suggested better analysis, I hope the inclusion of Taurino Araujo CBJM page in several lists should not deviate the focus and context in which it was created and through which it can stay in en.wiki, fulfilling the general requirement of notability: the discussion was initiated under a flawed argument, but should not be conducted same way. What is done in the pt.wiki is entirely this community's job, it does not concern other languages wikipedia. As can be read in the article, he is honored with the highest decoration of Bahia's Parliament, thus he is notable, as is notable everyone awarded Meritorious Citizen of the Freedom and Social Justice João Mangabeira (CBJM). It is a precondition, but, let´s assume that one decorated could be a complete stranger, an alien from outer space; after the prize he became notable and worthy to figure in history and be known. This is the wikipedia job, let info be available, without censorship and bias. Freedom for free. Taurino Araujo clearly passes WP:BASIC, which states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", and WP:ANYBIO “The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times”. Prudenciosilva (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~outrageously~~ promotional, and does not meet any rational notability standard . Highest level national awards can bring notability, but not state awards. For the award Meritorious Citizen of the Freedom and Social Justice João Mangabeira (CBJM), it seems the ed. who started this article also started that one. And I notice that the corresponding article to the present one is the Spanish WP is marked as promotional. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I do not take part in any kind of promotional campaign or related activities. My concerns are en.wiki and pt.wiki, other pages in languages not comfortable to me are out of my radar. By the way, Taurino Araujo has huge coverage of media, so, a wiki page is not relevant to him as it could be for some celebrities. Perusing the Spanish page it was tagged for deletion in June, 7, 2014, and the decision was maintenance (Spanish talk). Now there is a new proposal to delete. If the page remains I infer the next year there will be a new proposal and so on. The argumentation to preserve this page was based on a technical level, discarding subjective appreciations and opinions. Prudenciosilva (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the effect is promotional, regardless of your good intentions. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prudenciosilva, I suggest that you take a little time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:GNG before attempting to create new articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because sources do not exist to support notability. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Antes de mais nada, desculpem-me por falar em português e trazer a tradução por tradutor automático. Fui um dos criadores desta página na wikipédia lusófona e até hoje não compreendi seu apagamento lá; sou um ex-administrador, e sou da Bahia - o estado do biografado que, aqui, recebeu a mais alta homenagem de uma assembleia composta por 63 deputados (histórico do artigo que motivou-me a criação deste artigo e dos outros que citarei adiante).. Também biografei na pt-wiki outros que receberam tal homenagem (como este e este) e, curiosamente, não tiveram seus artigos apagados. Minha suposição sobre o apagamento na pt-wiki é de que há em curso perseguições a editores que possam se insurgir contra os desvios de conduta que lá acontecem e ficam impunes. Por apagamentos como este, patentemente persecutórios, a pt-wiki vem perdendo muitos bons editores. Não tenho, nunca tive, interesse em fazer propaganda de ninguém naquele projeto; e ver apagarem artigos referenciados e importantes como este, lá, é uma das muitas decepções que assistimos, com ataques que usam o sistema para continuarem impunes. Peço, assim, que repensem sobre o apagamento. Grato. André Koehne (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, excuse me for speaking in Portuguese and bring the translation by google translation. I was one of the creators of this page in Lusophone wikipedia and still did not understand their deletion there; I am a former ex-administrator in pt-wiki, and I am from Bahia - the state of the biographed, here, received the highest honor an assembly made up of 63 deputies (history of the article that motivated the creation of this and all other cited below). Also I biography in pt-wiki others who have received this honor (like this and this) and, interestingly, did not have their deleted items. My guess about the erasure in pt-wiki is that there is ongoing harassment of editors who can rise against the misconduct that there happen and go unpunished. For deletions like this, patently persecutory, the pt-wiki is losing many good editors. I don't have, and I never had, interest in doing propaganda that nobody in that project; and see erase referenced and important articles like this, there is one of the many disappointments we have experienced with attacks that use the system to continue unpunished. I ask, therefore, to rethink about this deletion. Grateful to all. André Koehne (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

André Koehne, you said that "(...)still did not understand their deletion there...". Can you read Portuguese? Follow the link HERE, and you are going to be able to understand that the honorable Taurino Araujo is using the Wiki as "self-promotion page" and the pt-wiki community agreed that "The additions made in the article, are all made by IPs of Salvador, Bahia, for editors who do not speak the Dutch language..." (like you), "...and a user who communicates in German. Salvador, not coincidentally, is the residence of the prestigious and illustrious Mr. Araujo". Additionally, pt-wiki decided that it was "an organized attempt to place a promotional article.". Hope I was able to help you understand the reason for "deletion there". Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 02:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prezado, após a criação do artigo (por mim) outros inseriram conteúdo tendencioso. A solução deveria ser a reversão ao conteúdo imparcial, e nunca o apagamento. Quem criou o artigo fui eu, e o desafio a apontar que eu tenha feito "autopromoção" (posto que eu não sou o Taurino, obviamente). Obrigado por considerar nossas ponderações - mas elas não respondem aquilo que falei. André Koehne (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Luizpuodzius, after the creation of the article (by me) other insert biased content. The solution should be a reversion to the neutral content, and never deletion. Who created the article was me, and challenge the point that I have made "self-promotion" (since I'm not the Taurino, obviously). Thank you for considering our weights - but they do not answer what I said. André Koehne (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: E, sim, eu vivo a 757 km de Salvador e jamais editei naquela cidade. Portanto, não pode nunca afirmar "like you" neste caso! Confira o meu IP, posso editar aqui deslogado, caso queira ver com seus próprios olhos... André Koehne (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: And, yes, I live 757 km from Salvador and never edited in that city. Therefore, you can never say "like you" in this case! Check out my IP, edit here offline, if you want to see with your own eyes... André Koehne (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources here are not reliable or notability-conferring ones — right across the board, they're all primary ones, such as press releases and passing namechecks on the websites of directly-affiliated organizations. This is not how a person gets a Wikipedia article — regardless of how much notability the article claims, the article still does not pass our inclusion standards until reliable source coverage properly supports it. I'm not an expert on Brazilian figures by any stretch of the imagination, so I'm not in a position to make any sort of pronouncement one way or the other about whether better sources than this exist or not — I can only evaluate this on the basis of the sources that are in front of me, and the sources that are in front of me don't cut it. No prejudice against possible recreation in the future if, and only if, it can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - Error other wikis should not be copied. André Koehne (talk) 09:45, 6 February 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) sst✈^(conjugate) 14:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Cohn

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

This individual is an excellent scientist but does not yet meet WP's criteria for notability; neither the general notability guideline nor the specific guidelines for academics. There are a couple independent news sources covering his work (this is not uncommon in science news, given the influence of university press releases, although admittedly the two sources cited in the current version of the article do focus more on Cohn himself than is typical in these kinds of articles) but they are not enough to constitute significant coverage or to meet any of the WP:NACADEMICS criteria. The rest of the sources are his own scholarly papers, which don't constitute independent demonstration of notability of the author himself. The article was created by a single-purpose account which I suspect was a research assistant or lab manager assigned to create this page, which would explain why it reads like an advertisement. (Also note that this nomination is not related to a previous nomination which was started, but never completed, in 2014 [7]). GermanJoe (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - completing this nomination on behalf of IP user 80.4.164.166, nomination statement copied from article talkpage (no own stance on the article). GermanJoe (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If the article's tone, contents, or references are poor, then that's an argument for improvement rather than deletion unless better sources don't exist. They do. Books which reference him and his work include this, this, and this. Articles which reference him and his work include this, this, and this. GScholar (acknowledging issues, and noting that this is a small field) has a few somewhat cited works. Meets WP:NACADEMIC#1 and WP:ANYBIO#2. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 09:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems currently convincing for an article. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 1 February 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. Mackensen (talk)

Louis Tharp

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

basically an advertisement for his book DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as the current sourcing is questionably solid and thus may also not satisfy WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was not intended as a promotion for his book. It is just that most of the sources that would meet wikipedia's requirements have been written as a consequence of his book. However, they directly address the subject (Louis Tharp) and I have tried to write this article in a neutral way to reflect on his achievements and not in order to promote him or his book. Please let me know how I can improve it. I only mention the book once, I can remove any mention of the book if that helps. The rest of the article is purely facts about what he's done (writing the book was one of these things which is why I mentioned it). SometimesIWriteThings (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sources to establish notability. Not notable as an athlete or a writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot source notability as an author or as an athlete, he does self-promote his activism and professional career on social media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Yeah, that was actually me too, on his behalf. Trying to fix a damaged reputation. If you do some digging you'll find a defamation case that he won, there are still articles on Google that refer to the original issue, which he won the case about because they are inaccurate, and we're trying to get rid of those. He was arrested and blackmailed for something he didn't do. Won his case, had articles written about it (inaccurately) and won a defamation case against that. What does social media have to do with Wikipedia? If Harry Styles (should find a more suitable example but can't think of any right now) promotes One Direction or himself on Social Media that does not make his achievements any less wikipedia-worthy if you refer to reliable sources in Wikipedia. I am not referring to any of the social media in the wiki article, and he doesn't care about promoting himself. The only thing I'm trying to do is outrank some articles that are complete and total nonsense and have been there for years. This is just some of the material I had to work with to try and outrank them. He does have notable achievements, he competed in the Gay Games, the Outgames and WorldMasters, which are all national or international swimming competitions, and won bronze, silver and gold medals. There are multiple articles covering this and you can check the results for the Masters, Gay Games and outgames here. I made sure that everything I wrote on his wikipedia page has a source. Here is some of the coverage in Seattle Gay News, Wind City times. And as you will see in the talk page I have asked politely for help if anyone has any feedback of how to fix anything. I, nor the subject, will care if you find a particular fact not well sourced enough or too promotional and I can remove or rewrite any details you like. Just let me know and I will fix it. SometimesIWriteThings (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete None of the sources here are very convincing, and most are basically interviews, with a significant amount of the material quotes or paraphrases. I don't find better sources, unfortunately, because in general his story sounds interesting. LaMona (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Thanks for your feedback. These are some other sources on Edge Media Network Gay Games Athlete Profile and he was mentioned and quoted in this article. There were more sources that are mentioned on his own site and that of his publisher, but the links no longer work so I think they have all been archived. I know that most sources include a lot of quotes but we're talking about a person. How can you know any information about a person unless they tell you? I understand anyone can say that they won medals in the games, but that is why I included the actual results for proof of that. Someone's actual story , such as how he decided to start swimming and train at West Point can only come from the person themselves or other people involved right? There are a few blogs that he wrote such as this one on realjock. How I understand the guidelines is that self-published sources are allowed to be used when they are about yourself, as long as not the entire article is based on them. So I tried to stay away from using them but if you do think we can use any, please let me know. If it helps, all proceeds from the triathlon book went/go to the west point triathlon team, so there is no way he profits of the book himself. (which is mentioned here at this blog.. which could be used as another source thought I though the Seattle News and Wind City Media would be more credible) But again, if you want me to remove the book, I will.

Otherwise, to try another angle: Besides swimming and writing he is a social entrepreneur and has co-founded CreakyJoints in 1999. This was the first online patient community for people with arthritis. They now have over 100,000 members. The organization has been merged into Global Healthy Living Foundation, which includes other patient advocacy organizations. Louis and his co-founder Seth Ginsberg advocate on behalf of people with chronic diseases such as against the Fail First policy with Fail First Hurts : 1 2 and 3, on biosimilars -where Louis is quoted here and wrote this blog and this one, they do patient research through Arthritis Power (which was covered in the Rheumatologist) among probably other places, etc. etc. I've linked to a few of his blogs and op-eds on this tumblr and he wrote a bunch more. I wish there were better sources covering more about them and their organization because it is interesting and it seems like important work that is making a difference. Still do you think there is something we can use here? For example they had an article in the Boston Globe a week after they founded CreakyJoints, but again this source has been archived and you can also find it on highbeam. So I don't understand why there are no other major publications. However, they are mentioned on PCORI a number of times: 1 2 and 3 Most of these are more about his co-founder Seth though. And then they cover a bunch of the speeches they delivered in this book.. though that is obviously not independent, which is why I haven't used it in this article, but still, it shows the work they do... Moreover, he took an appointment with the Obama Administration. He reports to the Secretary of the Army and serves on the Army Education Advisory Committee which you can see here. He was appointed in 2012 and reappointed for 3 years in 2015.

If there is anything you think I should be using please let me know. SometimesIWriteThings (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Struck multiple Keep votes.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:42, 6 February 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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Himani Dalmia

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG CerealKillerYum (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 21:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Delete at best for now perhaps as there's nothing to better assume WP:CREATIVE yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I removed all of the unsourced material and then rewrote the article, adding sources. She is covered in multiple reliable sources, several of them completely about her. She passes GNG. The book made it to bestseller status in India. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the article and sourcing have been substantially changed (by Megalibrarygirl) following all but the last comment here, I'd like to see other editors look at the sourcing as it now stands. joe decker ^talk 00:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 00:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kudos to User:Megalibrarygirl for her WP:HEY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 10 February 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. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Andrews

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

Non-notable actor and writer. I could not find anything about him on a Google search. Natg 19 (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 30 January 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) 08:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Mayo

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

Seems to have been covered in a couple of local newspaper articles - both appear in the article, one is a dead link now. Appears to have written a couple of books, but I can't find anything that meets the general notability guideline or the fairly lenient standard of WP:AUTHOR. Has some advertising on the web, has entered some photography contests, has a blog - but I'm not finding anything significant. All of the significant coverage leads to other Brooke Mayos, such as an MMA fighter and a soccer player. A search for Brooke Mayo Wright is also unhelpful. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails N, AUTHOR, and GNG. Quis separabit? 13:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Currently questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 30 January 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. The "keep" opinions do not bring up arguments relevant to inclusion per our policies and practices. Sandstein 08:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avni Sali

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

Non-notable doctor, failing GNG and BLP. Sources are poor and additional search turned up nothing. Delta13C (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 23:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 23:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is an owner of Swisse a notable vitamin company and he's also the plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit against the Australian Broadcasting Company.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That point does not convey notability. Further, Swisse also looks to be suffering from a severe lack of reliable sources, and it should probably be considered for AfD. Delta13C (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems he may not be convincingly solidly notable. Keep perhaps even though I'm not entirely certain but this seems convincing enough to keep. Notifying DGG for familiar analysis. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is claimed as his "major" research is trivial: the first paper listed has been cited only 4 times in Google Scholar [8]; the second,only two times [9]. Of all his work only 16 articles have beencited 16 times or more,which is trivial for someone in clinical medicine. The awards are minor. Only his book on biliary surgery is a medical textbook (held in 84 libraries) ; "Guide to evidence-based integrative and complementary medicine" is apparently a popular work, for it is held in almost no medical library. That one textbook isn't enough for academic notability, and there is nothing else substantial. His Graduate School ofI ntegrative Medicine lasted from 1992 to 2009, and was not located in a medical or comprehensive university but in a technical college. It was succeeded by his National Institute of Integrative Medicine, which is not a National body like the parts of the NIH in the US, but a private medical practice. As for other notability, the claim to public influence is based only on a web site for what is now a minor charity, but I can't find the page on it.

I note some apparent promotion/bias: The article reports on libel suit against those criticizing his research, but doesn't link to the published criticism. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I work with Avni Sali at NIIM. This article does not list many of his most notable accomplishments (eg he was Head of the Department of Surgery at Heidelberg Hospital, he was an NHMRC Fellow, he was on a number of government advisory committees, he published hundreds of research articles in peer-reviewed journals since the 70s, he was a regular author in newspaper publications such as Australian Doctor and Melbourne Review, lots of media activity in the 80s etc. etc. I can organise to have it updated and properly referenced over the next month or so? (what is the timeline for decisions re deletion?) Thanks. Surgikill talk 05:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soon @Surgikill:. It's high quality sources about the man we need, not a list of his achievements. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Malcolmx15:. OK thanks - a lot of his work was pre-internet so we will possibly need to trawl through newspaper archives, journals etc but should be able to arrange this--Surgikill (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His citation numbers in Google scholar are not high enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 and I am also not convinced that the awards are significant. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 2 February 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) 02:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Reed

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

non notable publicist. We do have articles for her notable client, Digital Pipeline / Computers 4 Africa, The references n the article are almost entirely to her clients. DGG ( talk ) 11:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned, still questionably notable for an independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notablity is not inherited, nothing else found. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 28 January 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. The keep !votes do not address the argument that there is a lack of significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Myers (journalist)

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, without the level of reliable source coverage needed to support a BLP. More than half of the "references" here are to content for which he's the bylined author, not the subject — and once you discount those, not a single one of the remaining references is substantively about him, but rather every last one of them merely namechecks his existence in an article about some other topic. This is not what it takes to get a journalist into Wikipedia: it takes media coverage in which he's substantively the subject of the reference, in a volume sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets notability with recent work on Jeremy Corbyn and known in UK press and as sky news presenter. Benjamin moores (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a factor of the reliable sourcing you can provide to properly support the claim — none of Wikipedia's notability criteria can ever be passed simply by asserting that it's passed but not sourcing the fact properly. If this had proper sourcing in it, that would be perfectly acceptable as a claim of notability — but it's not a claim of notability that entitles him to keep an article that's sourced this way. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See recent edits. You can help sourcing it better. No one else would vote to delete this. Benjamin moores (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the "recent edits". Of the two new sources you added, one was just a reduplication of a primary source that was already present in the article, and the other one isn't substantively about him, but merely features him giving soundbite in an article whose subject is the play — and even if we give that latter source the benefit of the doubt as to whether it contributes GNG points or not, one source still isn't enough to pass GNG if all the rest of the sourcing around it is bad. And no, I can't help source this better myself — I have access to Canadian media databases, not UK ones, so for a British topic I can only assist in direct referencing improvement if their sourceability crosses The Pond somehow. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy for now at best until a better solid article is available. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable and known throughout British media.Funkygishh (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find neither sources that cover him an sufficient depth, although there is this : [10], and he could become notable if the musical hits. At present, I find no evidence of a sufficiently notable body of work to justify an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:23, 2 February 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. Although there is little in-depth dicussion of the sources, nobody apart from 89.133.187.29 believes in the notability of the subject. Sandstein 09:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltán Deme

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

Cannot find any verifiable WP:BLP independent sources other than 1 Hungarian book-listing for "Deme Zoltán ... 1949" In ictu oculi (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note

The required verifiable WP:BLP independent sources coming very soon both to talk page and to the respected admins In ictu oculi and North America¹⁰⁰⁰ who placed the AfD and other marks on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.187.29 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 22 January 2016‎

Comment I saw that references had been added. However, even though I have access to newspaper databases I cannot find either of the newspaper articles listed. Could you provide a link indicating where you found them? I have to say that none of my searches has turned up anything to confirm notability under WP:CREATIVE. His books are held in very few libraries in WorldCat. LC has copies of the ones in English, probably as a result of copyright deposit. I don't recognize (nor find online) any of the publishing houses used. Some of his books are cataloged as "no publisher given" which means that the items are either manuscripts or very informally published. I also don't find anything about him in general databases or even in a Google books search. Magazine and newspaper searches do not turn up any reviews or discussions of his work. I'm searching in English, of course, but he did publish in English so it would be reasonable to expect sources in this language. LaMona (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

Hi Dear LaMona! I am Norbert, a Hungarian. I worked in the Hungarian crew of one of the movies of Zoltan Demme (Prometheus) years ago. This Prometheus-shooting was an important part of my life, full with fond memories, so I was very sad when I saw that the Zoltan Demme Wikipedia Article was nominated to deletion. I am not a Wiki contributor, but maybe I am able to help with some information the decision making of the contributors, and I can give answers to the problems arised in your precise and careful comment.

Working hard during the day I had just limited time for research, but I have some initial results. Let me mention to you, talking about the biggest concern arised in your comment, that his books are rather not copyright deposits, manuscripts, or informally published releases, but real books (You can see the pictures of 20 items, if visiting this website that I found from year 2013: http://forimdb.webnode.hu/ [[11]] if visiting, please scroll down, and on the left side make a click on this: "Könyv/Zoltan Demme books"). Please, do not misunderstand me, I highly appreciate all your arguments and carefulness, but being a Hungarian for me it was probably little bit easier to search the .hu websites and to find something. The native language also helped me to identify the precise ISBN numbers of many LC numbered book (for instance: book Programme, where instead of the LC 56592831 the ISBN 9635500718 is correct, or, book Chords of Scales, where instead of LC 54373620 the ISBN 9635500726 is correct, etc.). Almost each of the books has correct ISBN, I will collect them, double-check them, and provide them for the decision makers very soon.

The basis of the other problems, as I think, that is the pre-Internet era. Most of these book are from the eighties of the past century; and who knows what happened with (not more than 2-3) involved publishing houses during the almost 30 years that passed, maybe they does not exist in our era. (Others survived, http://akkrt.hu/ [[12]], and I will continue when having time). Same thing with the 1980-1990 printed reviews of the books: researching via Internet the pre-Internet items easily runs to poor result. For instance, here, in the very local library, I found the full texts of 8 Hungarian review items about Zoltan Demme's books, while by Google none of these! In the Internet were nothing else, than, sometimes, the name of the author and the title of these reviews. (for instance, see the buttom item in this site http://vfek.vfmk.hu/00000115/sz_05.htm [[13]] and the 16th item in this site http://www.matarka.hu/cikk_list.php?fusz=27226 [[14]] I will collect them and I will provide the all to the decision makers).

The other thing is, that I am not wondering at all that these mostly philosophical books have poor presence in libraries. WorldCat lists only 74 and this is not too much, even if we know that most of the libraries of the past communist countries and Russia are still not fully digitalized, thus Russian and Hungarian books are underrepresented in WorldCat. But the Library of Congress has the larger half of his books (as I think, 2-3 books could reach the LC shelves even accidentally, but not 10). And oppositely the Internet sources, here not the "no publisher given" note is indicated, but the name of the publishing houses, each occasion. But besides his books, in Hungary this author is also known by his publications in popular periodicals, thus I made a short search on this path. ( https://www.antikvarium.hu/index.php?type=search&ksz=deme-zoltan&szid=159001&oldalcount=1&interfaceid=103 [[15]] , these are the first results.)

The other problem is the author himself. From the time of the Prometheus-shooting I know the he is an absolutely against-the-media person. This old man, close to his 70 years of age, as I know during his life consequently refused all the interview requests, all the media invitations and media appearances, saying: talk solely by the books, by the films, let them express everything, instead of myself, my colleagues, reporters, magazines, etc. He allows to release his products only 12 years by 12 years from his youth, he is against of any werkfilm, promotional material, etc. For sure, who thinks like this, will be present in Google search modest way. Despite of this, still there are lots of printed sources about his life and biography (for instance Balogh György: Deme Zoltán, Hungarológiai Értesítő 1987., Fried István: Deme Zoltán könyveiről. Irodalomtörténet 1985., etc. I will collect these too.) Besides, my starting search efforts resulted some Internet sources either (for instance http://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00001/00358/pdf/itk_EPA00001_1990_02_275-277.pdf [[16]], and I plan to continue this search).

And last, a little problem, a misunderstanding. Not me added the References and sources to the article! They are there since almost 6 years, with no changes and no dispute, as I see (if you think, please check the history of contributions of the article for verification). Many eagle-eyed persons control the Wikipedia, the 6 years time is long, from this reason I think that these data might be correct - but I did not search the databases I can access, this is a later-to-do for me, at first I collect reliable additional sources. Being a very experienced contributor as I see in your Talk Page, if you would have any advice, any proposal, any suggestion relating to my search, please, let me know.

Thanks for your attention and reading this message dear LaMona. What you did, when searching, I feel that it is great, but I feel also that this matter still needs some more further investigation and search. Sincerely yours, Norbert. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 89.133.187.29 -- before you spend much more time on this it would be good for you to understand Wikipedia policy relating to notability and sources. For example, your source "www.antikvarium.hu" is an online book sales site, which cannot be used to establish notability. Publication lists (Matarka), library listings, etc. do not support notability. I'm not doubting that his books exist, I'm looking for evidence that he meets WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE or WP:NACADEMIC. This is done by showing reliable sources as per WP:RS. The best thing that you can do would be to find substantial published materials that are about him. Being on Wikipedia for 6 years is not a reason to assume the article meets the criteria. There are over 5 million articles on English wikipedia, and ones turn up here at AfD often because some comes across them by changes. LaMona (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice Dear LaMona! Now I go on that path that you proposed! I collect the published materials that are directly and clearly about the author, then I list them, double-check them, and within a short time, if you allow, I will show you. Have please nice days, nice weekend, and good health. Yours sincerely, Norbert.89.133.187.29 (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dear LaMona! Following you advice I searched for sources that are solely and clearly about the author, so I went through the printed material of the local library here, and I found 34 additional, hopefully quite informative, solid, and relaible items about him!

Hiller István: Deme Zoltán: Halász Gábor élete és munkássága. Soproni Szemle, Vol. XX. No. 4. p. 94.
Lőrincze Lajos: Deme Zoltán: Halász Gábor élete és munkássága. Szolnok Megyei Néplap, 1966-06-09. p. 6.
J. Barta: Zoltán Deme: Verseghy et le double rythme iambique. Studia Litteraria, 1973. p. 135.
Karcsai Kulcsár István: Filmévkönyv, Deme Zoltán. Magyar Filmtudományi Intézet és Filmarchívum, 1979. p. 302.
Julow Viktor: Irodalomtudományi szekció alakult (Deme Zoltán előadást tart). Szolnok Megyei Néplap, 1980-12-02. p. 5.
Karcsai Kulcsár István: Filmévkönyv, Deme Zoltán. Magyar Filmtudományi Intézet és Filmarchívum, 1981. p. 289.
Hegyi Béla: Deme Zoltán. Vigília 1982. Vol. II. p. 161.
Sinkovits Péter: Deme Zoltán: Piet Mondrian. Művészet, 1983.Vol. V. p. 64.
Fried István: Megjegyzések Verseghy Ferenc kiadatlan írásai I. kötethez (Deme Zoltán könyvéről). Irodalomtörténet, 1984. p. 756.
Mezey Katalin: Színkép, Deme Zoltán. Kozmosz könyvek, 1984. p. 47.
Sztáray Zoltán: Deme Zoltán: Elment egy nemzedék. Új Látóhatár (Munich, Germany), 1985. p. 423.
Julow Viktor: Bevezetés Deme Zoltán tanulmányaihoz. In: Debreceni műhelymunkák, 1985. p. 5.
Tóth Béla: Utószó Deme Zoltán tanulmánykötetéhez. In: Debreceni műhelymunkák, 1985. p. 121.
Fried István: Egy kis Verseghy-filológia (Deme Zoltán könyveiről). Irodalomtörténet, 1985. p. 956.
Király István: Deme Zoltán: Arpeggio, Mikrokozmosz. Könyvvilág, 1985. p. 4.
Szurmay Ernő: Deme Zoltán két újabb kötetéről. Jászkunság, 1985. Vol.III. p. 41.
Nagy Pál: Deme Zoltán: Arpeggio és Mikrokozmosz. Magyar Műhely (Paris, France), 1985. p. 45.
Balogh György: Deme Zoltán: Arpeggio. Hungarológiai Értesítő, 1986. p. 48.
Lukácsy Sándor: Deme Zoltán: Verseghy könyvtára. Hungarológiai Értesítő, 1987. p. 38.
Hopp Lajos: Deme Zoltán: Verseghy könyvtára. Magyar Könyvszemle, 1988. p. 226.
Rónay László: Kulturális krónika (Deme Zoltán: Klasszikusok öröksége). Vigília, 1989. Vol VII. p. 558.
Hopp Lajos: Deme Zoltán: Verseghy könyvtára. Helikon, 1989. p. 285.
Kiss János: Neki címezték, nekünk küldték (Deme Zoltánról). Békés Megyei Népújság, 1990-4-28. p. 2.
Szilasi László: Deme Zoltán: Klasszikusok öröksége. Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények, 1990 p. 275.
Kiss János: Deme Zoltán nem sajátitható ki. Békés Megyei Népújság, 1990-03-27. p. 2.
Michel Deguy: Zoltan Deme: Lutte contre l'absurdité de l'existence humaine. Atelier Hongrois (Montrouge, France). 1990. p. 38.
Szurmay Ernő: Helyi szerzők Verseghy-képe (Deme Zoltánról). In Memoriam Verseghy Ferenc, Vol.IV. 1994. p. 72.
Harast Alexander: Források és elemzések Deme Zoltán emlékáramaihoz (Sourcing and analyzing Zoltan Deme's poetic memoir). Jászkunság, 1996. p. 81.
Clara Gyorgyey: Introductions to Zoltan Deme's works. In: Chords of Scales, Warwick Township, NY., Universe Publishing 1995. p. 17.
Fried István: A korán jött ember (Deme Zoltán Verseghy-válogatása). Hungarológiai Értesítő, 1996. p. 42.
Istvan Udvari: Zoltan Deme Conference. Acta Beregsasiensis (Beregovo, Ukraine, former Soviet Union), 2000. p. 46.
Judit Lukovszki: Addenda to Zoltan Deme's works. In: Programme. Pompton Lakes, NJ., Globe P. House 2002. p. 116.
Zsuzsa Ujszaszi: Addenda to Zoltan Deme's essay 'Struggling against the Absurdity'. In: Programme. Pompton Lakes, NJ., Globe P. House 2002. p. 95.
Clara Gyorgyey: A Renaissance Man. Journal of American Studies. Eger 2009. p. 134.

My next step is to find Internet links to these sources, which is not easy and needs time because the Hungarian, Ukrainian, Russian libraries mostly just partially digitalized (or not digitalized at all.) When I will be done with this, and if you allow, I will show them to you. I feel deep thanks for your previous help, you made me light in the darkness of the research, without your advices these third party secondary sources maybe never would be revealed.

Last, let me share please an interesting experience. This tag on the top of this AfD page

"Find sources: "Zoltán Deme" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images"

proved to be absolutely useless for the research work. For example "Scholar" gives 1 citation, though just with 10 minutes research I got immediately 20 citations! [[17]] page 65 [[18]] p.2 [[19]] p.23 [[20]] p.1 [[21]] p.289 [[22]] p.5 [[23]] p.2 [[24]] p.353 [[25]] p.35 [[26]] p.1 [[27]] p.46 [[28]] p.75 [[29]] p.63 [[30]] p.84 [[31]] p.64 [[32]] p.1 [[33]] p.48 [[34]] p.317 [[35]] p.196 [[36]] p.101. (Plus I got many items, as "required reading" in the universities, like [[37]] p.1 [[38]] p.1 [[39]] p.48 [[40]] and so on). For other example, Books, Google Books gives 3 items, while this site (and others) show the pictures and data of more than 20 items! [[41]] [[42]] This above tag is not only useless as I think, but deceptive! (It presents misconducting information).

However, despite of the above lists, my purpose this time is not the confirmation of the notability under WP:NACADEMIC or WP:CREATIVE, this is a later-to-do for me, now as a first step I plan to confirm the firm notability under WP:GNG. If you would have any advice, proposal, suggestion relating to my work and the material I have provided here, please, dear LaMona, let me know.

Thank you for everything! Yours, Norbert.89.133.187.29 (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dear LaMona! Let me, please, inform you that I have started to improve the article. I added about 30 new sources (these are long reviews about the author and his works, and not just 2-3 sentences as summaries) and I also supported the 6 years old original references of the page with other sources (but I kept untouched the content and the data of the old references until I will have time to access each of them for verification). I also kept the original structure of the page (but temporarily I deleted the chapters about his stage music compositions and stage plays being also a later-to-do for me to find the proper sources to support these chapters). Now my first of all to-do is to enlarge the scale of the direct Internet links and this still needs a couple of days: the pre-Internet era poorly is represented in the Google and it is not easy to find 30-40 years old English, Russian, Ukrainian, Slovakian, Hungarian articles as posted pdf files or direct links. But I have some progress in this field, and hopefully within 2-3 days, if you allow, I can show the results to you. If you would have any advice, any suggestion, any proposal relating to my research, please dear LaMona, let me know. Yours, Norbert. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering that the time for the relisting expires today, under the Wikipedia policy requirements I reviewed three times the improved article carefully, and based on these reviews my vote is to keep it. Unsourced parts were entirely deleted, while instead of the original 7 sources the page has now 42 third party secondary sources, it has now separate reference lists to the biography and to books of the author with altogether 80 inline citations, and it meets WP:BLP, WP:GNG as it is in the recent minute. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: can we get those sources evaluated please? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dear LaMona! Let me to inform you that I have started to put aside those old sources that were placed in the page 6 years ago, but neither yourself nor myself was able to access them for verification up to the recent time. Plus I took the liberty and made a short new chapter about the youth of the author, because I plodded through the old printed material and found Internet links. If you would have any proposal or advice related to my research work, please let me know! Yours, Norbert. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few non-notable films ≠ WP:creative. If he was notable, my quick news search wiuld have more than this: [43].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Response Hello E.M.Gregory, thank you for commenting! I deleted the very short "Further information" section (about his films) that could be misleading. Not his films meet WP:GNG , but the long chapters "His books" (29 inline citations) "His philosophy" (34 citations) and his biography (11 citations) as I think - and I, rather, never claimed the author's movie notability under WP:CREATIVE (as you can see this here, above, in my note, made few days ago). I just wanted to give a bit of additional information for the readers with this very short "Further information" section, but probably better to avoid any misinterpretation, so I am thankful, that you drew my attention to this problem. Sincerely yours, Norbert. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note People may think that he is notable because he directed films though this was a side activity of him, thus I have deleted now the all movie related parts. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Thanks for everyone who helped my research! But I still have a problem. This tag:

"Find sources: "Zoltán Deme" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images"

proved to be useless for reaching the sources of 1960-1980 decades especially in the past communist countries of East Europe where many libraries poorly digitized. For example "Scholar" gives 1 citation, though just with 10 minutes research I got 20 citations! [[44]] page 65 [[45]] p.2 [[46]] p.23 [[47]] p.1 [[48]] p.289 [[49]] p.5 [[50]] p.2 [[51]] p.353 [[52]] p.35 [[53]] p.1 [[54]] p.46 [[55]] p.75 [[56]] p.63 [[57]] p.84 [[58]] p.64[[59]] p.1 [[60]] p.317 [[61]] p.196 [[62]] p.101. For other example, Google Books gives 3 items, while this site (and others) show the pictures and data of more than 20 items: [[63]] [[64]] This misleads almost everyone, presents the subject non-notable with only one citation and three books, thus, I had to go over this problem and collect printed material. If an experience contributor with some Eastern European expertise would be online, and if her or his time would allow, please would you so kind to investigate the refreshed article, is my work now sufficient? Thanks again for everyone. Norbert. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 16:37, 11 February 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 speedy delete. I know Ive commented, but on checking the references once more I find it to be an exact copyvio from http://www.jmrab.edu.lb/index.php/1/front-page-news/author-of-the-week/831-roger-achkar. We can't possible keep copyvios regardless of other factors. There are very few absolute rules in WP, but this is one of them. DGG ( talk ) 08:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Achkar

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

I PRODed the page and the tag was removed. References were added by another user. I'm neutral on keeping the page but it looks as though the subject lacks notability. Meatsgains (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources cited in the article substantiate notability. The subject has been known to be a polymath (musician, author, philosopher), and not just an author. Two awards including an international literary award and the repetitive appearance on TV channels, in addition to starring on music works with famous singers cannot be treated unseriously. To prove this more, the well-respected pan arab web awards do not award prizes for best personal websites in the Arab world for unknown people, for judgment is built not only on design but also on content richness and subject notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samer editor (talk • contribs) 07:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC) — Samer editor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. He has a large number of followers on LinkedIn (https://lb.linkedin.com/in/rogerachkar): Around 42500, which is I strongly believe the largest number of followers for a Lebanese person. The second followed Lebanese on LinkedIn as per my research is an HR professional which has around 32000 followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editcontent corrector (talk • contribs) — Editcontent corrector (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The number of followers a subject has on Linkedin does not verify notability. Meatsgains (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Being included in the list of the 100 most connected and viewed people in the world on Linkedin still means something: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/top-100-jan-2016-world-most-connected-people-linkedin-dorian especially when there is one Lebanese only in the full list!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editcontent corrector (talk • contribs) 13:23, 31 January 2016‎ — Editcontent corrector (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

While you are welcome to make additional comments, you are only allowed one !vote per AFD. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy instead as my searches found nothing better at all and the current article is still not solidly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you can understand Arabic language. If you can, then please watch: http://mtv.com.lb/Programs/Baynetna/2011/videos/Roger_Achkar/ and you will then judge if this man is notable or not. In Lebanon, internet sources are not the only reference, and not all TVs have net archives on their websites. I remember when his winning book 'Numen Lumen' was prominently displayed in all bookshops in Lebanon. You want to get convinced, then please get someone to translate the video for you. I am not sure how can a model be counted notable, and a prominent thinker, philosopher, musician, engineer and winning author is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samer editor (talk • contribs) 13:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have included a study of Near East cultures that features Roger Achkar as a representative artist of Lebanon with some particular and interesting painting technique (https://iabproyectinterdisciplinario2012.wikispaces.com/Asia+Cercano+Oriente+Near+East+Asia). I strongly believe that this article should be kept, and one very evident reason is the inclusion of Roger Achkar on the site of the well-known Lebanese School 'Jesus and Mary School' as being a famous person from Lebanon along with very famous writers like Said Akl and Khalil Gebran (http://www.jmrab.edu.lb/index.php/1/front-page-news/author-of-the-week/831-roger-achkar). After all, a famous local school known by everyone from Lebanon cannot include an author of the week erroneously and without teaching about his books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintingcritic (talk • contribs) 14:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Asking DGG to comment for his analysis as I feel this AfD still needs better attention. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Less than notable in a number of fields does not sum up to notability. DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 10 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faizan Aslam Soofi

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

Relisting from incorrect use of CSD, article lacks explanation of notability or significance, is very vague, and lacks useful encyclopedic content. Scientific Alan 2 ^{(What have I said?)}^{(What have I done?)} 08:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 09:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 09:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The subject is a very young author, but there appears to be sufficient coverage, albeit low, of their early works to fulfill WP:GNG here. I've made some initial improvements to the article to reflect that coverage. The main claim to notability is the young author bit, but there is more coverage beyond that. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability for the author, of a single non-notable book. Being a promising very young author makes for posible notability--in the future. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with nothing currently better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Has written only one non notable book and is upcoming at best a case of WP:TOOSOON. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:13, 3 February 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. As no reliable, independent sources covering Elizabeth specifically and significantly have been presented, the arguments for retention are not backed by policy. Therefore, the article's subject is found to lack notability at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Elizabeth

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

Does not meet GNG, NAUTHOR or REALITYTV. Also quite PROMO, but not to the level of nuking it. Just not notable. John from Idegon (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - with all the additions since the nomination, perhaps it has reached the level where TNT would be appropriate per PROMO. John from Idegon (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although she did get cited a little after publicatino of Poverty Sucks, it was just a few mentions [65], not reviews of the book'; no alone profiles/interviews that enable sourcing of a bio with RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Delete - all the additions since the nomination were done in an effort to correct the issues described that led to nomination. More references from varied sources to show notability. Internal and external lists as requested. Photo as requested. Content neutral. Prefer further correction instead of deletion. Suggestions?112233445566 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Delete Subject is well-known nationally and accomplished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.30.229 (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC) — 68.227.30.229 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Non-Delete Aimee Elizabeth is an internationally known reality tv personality and best selling author.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.133.14 (talk • contribs) — 146.199.133.14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Subject is an expert in her field and has been quoted in highly regarded publications such as Fox Business, US News & World Report, Bankrate.com, Business Insider. Interviews on major television networks, radio and various other publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112233445566 (talk • contribs) You only get to vote once. John from Idegon (talk) 23:10, 1 February 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 02:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Ifeanyichukwu Josiah Iluno

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Sources provided are self-published and primary sources Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of the article is not wholly faulted by WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Sources [3] and [4] are not self-published and primary sources.105.112.33.30 (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.33.30 (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The nominator is correct in noting that most of the article's sources are either self-published or primary. Even the article from the Guardian (November 29) is largely just a rehash of statements made by several clerics at a "debate". Although not self-published, it is still primary and, in any event, is not about the subject. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 1 February 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burton Speiser

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

I don't think this guy is notable. The Amercian Brachytherapy Society, of which he was president, may be ok but there are very few sources for the man himself (614 GHits here, including LinkedIn etc). The cited obituary is a paid-for classified in the New York Times and everything else mentioned is typical stuff for a "minor" researcher. Sitush (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points. However, generally medical publications won't exhibit the same fame as basic physics and mathematics in the mainstream press. There tend to be significantly more publications for medical research (in this case only a few were cited but there are more for this physician and researcher) to document research results, which build on each other to the ultimate improvements that will pass FDA approval as new therapies. And in looking at a given piece, like this one, it shows a very high citation rate (31 citations) with subsequent discoveries in treatments for lung cancer) https://scholar.google.com/scholar?safe=off&espv=2&biw=1263&bih=622&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc&ion=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=14880646036521840522

This doctor also invented what became known as the Speiser Needle (a needle within a needle for delivering radioactive treatments to tumors). However the only source I have online for that right now is the following (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf2/k020015.pdf) and so am hoping there will be more sources forthcoming to add to this part of the description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pellamayor (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 03:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 03:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 03:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can find sources somewhere then great but if they aren't discussing him then he is unlikely to be notable. Even the Speiser Needle might possibly be a notable device without Speiser himself being a notable person per se. We'd just mention him in an article about that device and, if it existed, perhaps redirect this article to that one. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:15, 1 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sofija Skoric

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

WP:BLP — galloping headlong toward the edge of an outright public relations advertisement — of a writer, without a shred of reliable source coverage to support it: the "references" here are two primary sources and a library directory, and a Google News search brings up just six hits all of which are just glancing namechecks rather than substantive coverage. All of which puts her at exactly zero on the WP:GNG scale. No writer ever gets an inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because she exists; RS coverage must be present to support one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nom is overstated. This is an emeritus or retired librarian, editor, writer, founder and president of an a significant-sounding organization, and an award-winner, not a self-promoting writer wannabe. Perhaps tag for some more references? But seems notable on her own. And the organization also seems notable. It is a combo article; if either is notable then the article is to be kept, though a rename could be suggested. (Take note, user:Orthodox2014, what do you think?) do ncr am 04:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a decidedly advertorial tone (not quite enough to be speediable on sight as a G11, but definitely enough that it's not neutral and most certainly does need a significant rewrite), and is parked on exactly zero reliable sources — and I did more than enough WP:BEFORE to determine that there aren't solidly better sources out there. No writer ever gets an exemption from having to be properly sourced just because the article makes impressive-sounding claims, especially if it's a WP:BLP. Bearcat (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 05:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not promotional! There is no product or service or religion or anything available to be sold. "Advertorial" does not apply.
I am sure you'd like to find some negativity to express...perhaps some library users who hate her because she found them stealing library materials? Or a former colleague who has a grudge because she was promoted over them 30 or 40 years ago? Do you know that she has some evil side that must be exposed? There really do exist near-retirement persons who are beloved by all that know them. In such a case, an article should not gush with adjectives, but insubstantial/made-up controversy should not be included either.
She is near retirement and is not in Google news. RS sources would be dead-tree and/or specialized and behind paywalls. Tag it and provide explanation at the Talk page about what kind of sourcing is desirable, and wait at least a year. Don't expect an immediate substantial reply to rant that could well seem offensive to non-regular editors. Avoid driving potential editors away just because they won't dive into angry mudslinging culture. :) -do ncr am 13:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Promotional" does not require the subject to be a product or service; it is entirely possible to write a promotionally toned article about a person, and several parts of this article do cross over that line. POV-toned language is not given a pass just because the article topic is a person rather than a company. And a WP:BLP does not get a year of "allowed to exist on purely primary and directory sourcing just to see if better sourcing becomes possible", either — a BLP has to have reliable sources in it right off the bat, gets no period of even temporary exemption from that, and is a candidate for AFD or prod if it isn't fixed immediately. And I didn't say anything about the necessity of including controversy or negativity whatsoever — your entire point #2 is a strawman that you made up in your own head, not a thing I said or implied or thought or suggested in any way whatsoever. I talked about the necessity of including reliable sourcing, and the necessity of toning down the places where the article is already gushing with POV adjectives — nowhere in this entire discussion have I ever suggested that her includability was in any way dependent on finding evidence of criticism or unpopularity. Notability on Wikipedia is a factor of sourcing, not a factor of how beloved a person is or isn't in her personal life. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're both kind of right. The article does read like a puff piece at places, but I've seen worse, and yes, sourcing is currently way below BLP standard. However, WP has this odd practice that AFD is not cleanup (that I'm not a fan of, I try to follow WP:HEY when I'm marginally interested in it), so we in 99% cases assess only the subject's worthiness of an article (and I think it's here), even if the article itself is unadulterated crap; WP:TNT is, unfortunately, applied much less often that it should. However, this one is not that bad, at least if we incorporate some of sources I dug up and tone down the puffery. I must notice we've wasted more time & bytes in this debate than it would take to improve it... No such user (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, find sources says otherwise. --Zoupan 14:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Find sources" brings up a lot of namechecks of her existence in sources that can't support notability in a WP:BLP, like primary sources and simple directories — it does not bring up a lot, or even really any at all, of the reliable source coverage about her that it would take to carry the referencing in an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I investigated a little, including sources in Serbian. She is active in Serbian diaspora organizations, and she is the founder and president of Serbian Heritage Academy of Canada [66] (founded in 1981, so likely pretty promenent), and a member of board of Serbian Unity congress [67]. She has been interviewed several times in those roles, 2003. 2006 2001. In 2015 she authored an exhibition in Belgrade on Canadian medicinal missions in Serbia during WWI [68]. However, I can't find much sources about her. I'm undecided if she passes the GNG bar, but on retrospect probably yes. No such user (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as this is currently questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you No such user for your sources including in Serbian language. From reading in them I see there will further be Canadian and Serbian news articles (deadtree) about her and her work. For just one newsworthy example: in 1984 for an exhibit and presentation she created, and awards received for doing so, including in person from the Premier of Ontario and, presumably also in person from the President of Serbia. Some points:
- President of SHA, one of 5 founding members, achievements described here.
- She was the one who created an academic exhibit and presentation about Canadian medical volunteers in Serbia during World War I. The project was "officially supported by both states, Yugoslavia and Canada". The exhibit opened at the University of Toronto on November 11, 1984, Remembrance Day..... "SHA was awarded a special Citation from Bill Davis, the Premier of Ontario, for this endeavour." Skoric presented the exhibit in Serbia along with outgoing and incoming Canadian ambassadors James Bissett, at the National Library in Belgrade, and then traveling to many cities. "After completing the tour, the exhibit was gifted to the Serbian Medical Society’s Museum of Serbian Medicine in Belgrade and at that time another “Thank you Canadians” plaque was unveiled at the Museum. Special recognition and medals were awarded to the organizers as symbols of gratitude by the Society of the Descendants of the Salonika Veterans."([69]) }}
- She won awards: "For her work in promoting Serbian culture she received awards: Charter of the government of Ontario government in 1984, the Order of the Association of Solunci, Order of the President of Serbia Vuk Karadžić and Order of the Foundation Braća Karić." "When she retired she was bestowed with the honorary title of Librarian Emeritus."
- She established the Slavic Research Center at Robarts Library, University of Toronto.
- editor and founder of the publishing house Serbian Literary Company
- "past vice-president of Serbian Unity Congress." Serbian Unity Congress is second-listed of "Serbian diaspora organizations" in our Serbian diaspora article. From Google translation I can't tell if she is "in charge of culture" or not for the Serbian Unity Congress, but that is the largest organization of its type and she was vice president of it.
  Sofija Skoric [obtained] a master's degree in Russian studies in Toronto and [is] a specialist in Slavic studies at the local university library..... [She is a] Member of the Management Board of the Serbian Unity Congress, ... [the] largest organization of Serbs in the Diaspora, which includes about 100,000 of our compatriots in the United States and Canada. ...The nineties were [a] black decade for tens of thousands of young and educated people who were trying to find their second life in Canada . In Toronto there are about 30,000 Serbs.... Sofija Skoric [is] concerned about keeping their links with the homeland: "For me it is a painful problem. They reached here disgust at everything that happening in Serbia, ucaurili[sic] are in their new homes, are not included in the work of the church, Serbian clubs, our cultural and humanitarian organizations".... (edited from Google translation of srpskadijaspora.info page)
- Google scholar "Find sources AFD" search link above yields her masters thesis and a number (6-10?) of academic articles by her covered in Google scholar, besides library collection/curatorial works (which might or might not be important too). Other hits include academic citations of her works. She turns out to have been President (1988-1990) of the North American Society for Serbian Studies, also, publisher of Serbian Studies academic journal (an issue is here ).
- I !voted Keep above already; I believe her notability is significant and that there is more coverage (including Canadian and Serbian newspapers) not turned up by searching so far. It seems to me that she is a significant person in connection with the Serbian diaspora, and the only such person covered in Wikipedia at all, AFAIK. --do ncr am 05:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, found these reviews which add to Skoric's notableness - review of Return to Hilandar (Povratak u Hilandar) by Aleksander B. Lakovic, translated by Sofija Skoric from Slavic and East European Journal, listed by ebsco, [70], part of the review found here, [71] - "As for Sofija Skoric's translation, she is to be highly commended for bringing this English version before the public. Her translation is accurate - although I would disagree with a few of her intrpretations." review of Russian Reference Aids in the University of Toronto Library by Skoric, from Papers of the Bibliographical Society of Canada, [72] - "a welcome addition to Canadian initiatives in this field. .. All in all, this bibliography is an excellent contributions to Slavic teaching aids in Canada.". Coolabahapple (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 29 January 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.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 ==Authors==
 <!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carlos_Gershenson}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Télesphore Saint-Pierre}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trisha_Torrey}}