Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors

WP:DSAUTHOR

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

Authors

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melody MacDonald

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

only one citation presented and I cannot find other reliable info about her. Caphadouk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Caphadouk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Caphadouk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Caphadouk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Caphadouk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: she's only written the one book as far as I can tell, and I haven't turned up anything else that would count for notability. She's not even mentioned in the one citation that's on the article now. -- asilvering (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found no WP:SIGCOV either (via Google Search). No Merge material (that isn't already in Wilhelm Feldberg). The one ref presently in the article doesn't actually mention the subject. There is a low chance that old press material exists that would make her meet WP:GNG. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 16:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 22:18, 8 March 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Sinjin

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

BLP. Only references are to his own works. Rathfelder (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't even think his book is notable. All google hits seem to circle back to wikipedia or his website. Not turning up any news hits at all. -- asilvering (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2022 (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 — consensus that WP:AUTHOR is met, and nomination withdrawn. XOR'easter (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Chung Chien-peng

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

The page creator maintains that the subject satisfies WP:NAUTHOR, but I don't see it. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by the nominator - It looks like I misinterpted our requirements under WP:NAUTHOR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article as nominated already includes multiple published in-depth reviews of multiple books by the subject. This is enough for WP:AUTHOR 4(c), and also enough for WP:GNG: we have multiple independent reliable in-depth secondary sources about the subject's contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with David Eppstein that the five reviews cited in the article are enough for a WP:NAUTHOR pass, and I think there's an argument to be made that his books and articles are cited frequently enough for a pass of WP:NPROF crit. 1, at least for a lower-citation field like international relations. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Mccapra (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:AUTHOR with existing citations. 47.46.83.102 (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conn Nugent

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

BLP with lots of references, but none of them seem to be about him. Rathfelder (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Ireland. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article appears to attempt to inherit notability from the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, but the subject itself does not appear to be independently notable. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find GNG-qualifying coverage of Nugent: although he's occasionally quoted or mentioned in the press, he does not appear to have received significant coverage. There do not appear to be any logical alternatives to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Long

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

Like another AFD candidate, Jeff Gum (actor), Long was "Executive Producer" for both Rambo: Last Blood (24 Executive Producers) and Tesla (2020 film) (14 Executive Producers) and the page creator of this article (with 27 edits) has also voiced a Keep vote at the Jeff Gum AFD. I'm sensing both paid editing and some sockpuppetry but the bottom line is that I don't think Long meets WP:FILMMAKER or WP:AUTHOR. And I should probably file an SPI, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Africa, and Illinois. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:47, 14 March 2022 (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esat Ayyıldız

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

This individual does not seem to meet WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, or the GNG. Although he's published a few scholarly articles, they haven't received nearly enough citations to meet NPROF crit. 1; associate professors don't meet NPROF crit. 5; his book (a published version of his doctoral thesis) does not seem to have garnered the reviews needed for a pass of NAUTHOR; a WP:BEFORE search found no GNG-qualifying coverage. Since he only received his Ph.D. in 2019, it is likely too soon for notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With 21 cites on GS you must be joking: eons WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No disagreement with nom here. -- asilvering (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Full agreement with the nom. Zippybonzo (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2022 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Sadler

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

Fails WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:GNG. While there are 23 sources, none cover the subject in depth. Most offer only a brief mention of Sadler in relation to broader Trump administration controversies. Blurbs about her comments regarding John McCain do not contribute to GNG per WP:BLP1E. KidAd • SPEAK 20:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Conservatism, and Politics. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, including due to a lack of WP:SUSTAINED, in-depth coverage, and per WP:BLP1E: 1. reliable sources only seem to cover Sadler in the context of the single event of her losing her job, e.g. CNN, June 6, 2018, NYT June 5, 2018, NBC News, June 6, 2018, CBS News, June 5, 2018, USAToday, June 6, 2018; 2. She appears to otherwise remain and likely to remain a low-profile individual, based on attempts to find sources about her since this event; and 3. the event does not appear to have been significant due to the limited burst of coverage about it, and Sadler's role does not appear to be substantial or well-documented, based on the limited and repetitive reporting on the event. Beccaynr (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC) There also appears to be insufficient support for WP:JOURNALIST notability. Beccaynr (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination and the policy based logic given above. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after looking at the article and the sources and reading the Beccaynr talk, I agree to delete it. Amir cheraghian (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2022 (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. ✗plicit 14:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Keffler

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

Does not meet NBASIC. Majority of the sources are not significant or reliable. ––FormalDude talk 14:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Virginia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is a very little notability here but I do feel that the bar has to be set fairly high before we have a BLP article that can reasonably be interpreted as saying "This is a completely awful person", even if that was not the author's intent and if it is couched in sympathetic euphemistic language. I am wondering whether one or more her organisations might be more genuinely notable than she is as an individual. (I regret to have to say that I have at least heard of "Partners for Ethical Care".) If so, having an article about that/those would avoid the problem with having a negative BLP. If the article is kept then the weasel words have to go. We can't have the euphemistic language of "concerns" and "rights" where very conspicuously nobody says what those "concerns" and "rights" actually are. Either we talk about her plainly or we don't talk about her at all. If she is notable then it will be easy enough to turn up RS coverage and criticism of her. Oddly enough, there is little to none in the article, which also speaks against notability. Also against her notability is the fact that the article is very close to being an orphan. So what do the Google links say? It's hard to tell whether there is additional notability here as the initial hits are mostly just hyperbolic praise from the sort of sources who will loudly embrace anybody who is against trans people. Is there more actual notability for her as an author under all that? I didn't see any but I also didn't feel inclined dig deep enough to say "no" for sure, hence the "weak delete". --DanielRigal (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apt analysis. My search turned up the same thing. ––FormalDude talk 00:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: co-signing the above. She's appearing in the articles that aren't about her recent book because she's the spokesperson for an org, not because she herself is notable. In order to have a BLP on someone who is notable for opposing "the gender cult", we'd need sources that talk about her in that role, but that aren't interviews (right? someone correct me if not), and it doesn't look like we have that in a manner other than the aforementioned hyperbolic praise from the sort of sources who will loudly embrace anybody who is against trans people. -- asilvering (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct–interviews are primary sources and therefore do not count towards notability. ––FormalDude talk 06:10, 7 March 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Chandran

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

Marketing article. Saying did TED talk when he just did Tedx. Two are very different and Tedx now got no value since everyone do it just like that. Most links not talking about his work in detail. Not good for WP:GNG. Just interviews mostly. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sexuality and gender, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus is the challenges present with sources, they do not indicate notability. Star Mississippi 18:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Enenche

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

BLP does not seem to meet WP:NBIO- notability of the church is not WP:INHERITED to the person. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Health and fitness, Christianity, Medicine, and Nigeria. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has substantial coverage in reliable sources such as here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a promotional puff-piece to me. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its significant coverage in a reliable source. Just because its positive coverage doesn't mean it should be ignored. "Puff piece " is a meaningless catch all, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is about the pastor of a local church on which we have no article. Despite its name there is no indication of the church's size. I am not doubting that anything in the article is true, but that does not imply notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per MrsSnoozyTurtle. The sigcov presented is almost certainly PR or paid given they contain lines like "Endowed with the double-edged gift of scientific knowledge as a medical doctor and God’s anointing for healing, Dr. Enenche’s ministration is characterised by the deliverance of multitudes from every manner of sickness and oppression." Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2022 (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:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 23:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Rasekh

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

Looks self-promo. WP:GNG Ladsgroup^overleg 13:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and Fashion. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article belongs to a scholar from Iran and this article had problems and mistakes that were fixed by me, and now all the information of Mohammad Rasekh's Persian Wikipedia has been transferred to his English page. Mehdisefid (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 19 March 2022 (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. ✗plicit 02:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bascombe

AfDs for this article:

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

Two AFD discussions ended in no consensus about a decade ago. Still and all, the subject seems primarily notable for a 15-year-old controversy that was essentially a flash in the pan. Clearly time for another look. Seems to lack significant coverage other than for the newspaper incidents. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 00:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Sports, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am the subject of this page and would please ask for it to be deleted. The page condenses my life to a narrow period and focuses disproportionately on one contentious moment 15 years ago. It does not exist as an accurate biography. It lacks far too many details to qualify it as a biography. No-one has ever researched my age, my place of birth, my family members or any other details that would reasonably merit its existence as a fair and balanced biography. Did the person who created this page really do so to create a biography of a ‘notable’ individual? They obviously did not. The creation of this page was for malicious purposes - the page’s early history confirms that - which contravenes wiki policies. It was subsequently edited so it could remain & exist in its current form. There is no reasonable reason why it should not be deleted given how much information it lacks and how outdated it is.

More seriously, it creates the impression I am some kind controversial figure. This is wholly inaccurate, unfair and damaging. Again, please consider if this truly qualifies as a biography of a notable individual, and please ask yourself why no-one has sought to update it for so long. It has not been edited at all for a year, and there has been no material change for much longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbasc (talk • contribs) 06:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: given the link to Hillsborough in the article, I'm adding it to the deletion sorting for Football. Nfitz (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have the broad sourcing to show that this person is truly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ I am still going with weak keep, he writes plenty of articles with The Daily Telegraph, his association with Liverpool FC that in turn has his named mentioned by other sources is a clear indication that this should pass GNG. [1], [2]. There is room for improvement. Govvy (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blank the slate It seems the subject of the article would like the article deleted. Although I feel the Chris Bascombe is notable, I have nothing against deleting the article to be maybe started again. Govvy (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the subject of the article can have it both ways. If the article can be fixed in a manner that is in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, then it should be kept and fixed. If it's deleted because the subject wants it to be deleted, then recreating into a more suitable version that subject might be more likely to agree to seems like gaming and shouldn't be allowed. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is a courtesy offered to subjects who find having an article written about them on Wikipedia is causing them real world difficulties; it's a way to "edit" articles into something that the subject prefers. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources presented by Govvy and at first AFD. GNG is met. Giant Snowman 22:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to understand the motivation behind the arguments to keep and would please ask for reconsideration. It was first suggested in 2012 this page needed ‘improvement not deletion’. You can see plainly there has been no attempt to improve in the ten years since - not a single additional source in ten years or any attempt to create a fuller biography. If the notability criteria is based on being a football journalist and ghostwriter of a book, why is this part of the biography so disproportionately lacking in sources and detail? Is every journalist considered ‘notable’ based on their subject matter? There are 187 words on this page, of which 97 are focused on the moment when a local reporter left a job for a national newspaper. The sources cited referencing the move are from a journalism industry website and a specialist media journalist whose main focus was anecdotes from the media industry. It was not a ‘news’ story yet here it makes up 52 per cent of the ‘biography’. I have to ask again, did the person who created the page claim notability on the basis of a journalism career, or wish to create notability on the grounds of a journalist leaving a job? I think that is question at the heart of this. I do not believe anyone can credibly argue this page exists as a biography of a notable person. It is a page which was first set-up in an attempt to create some kind of notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbasc (talk • contribs) 23:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could I just add here, that I would welcome any users who still wish to keep the page to email/contact me & perhaps give me the chance to explain in as much detail possible & necessary (not so publicly) further personal reasons why I think it is right, fair & proper this page is deleted. I am sure you can all empathise with how stressful (and surreal) it can be having the merits of one’s own ‘biography’ discussed online.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbasc (talk • contribs) 00:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisbasc: I sent you a message on twitter, if it is really you, you should respond on twitter. If it's not, it's dangerous to impersonate someone and the account will most likely be banned. Govvy (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you it is me. I keep twitter notifications off except for those I follow, so only just seen yours. I 'liked' your tweet.

I am sorry if my request is becoming repetitive, but some of the reasons cited for 'notability' are not actually reflected in the construction of the page. It actually feels the discussion pages for deletion are more thoroughly researched than the page itself!! I can only repeat that in the absence of the improvement which ensured it remained in 2012 and 2013, it should be deleted. And I am more than happy to discuss further privately. Chrisbasc (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and just to confirm, if you allow me to DM you on Twitter I can verify (i just followed you). Not especially keen to broaden public discussion on Twitter. It's unsettling enough do it on here!! Chrisbasc (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you'd say you're not notable, I know who you are! I've read your articles for years. You're at the same level as Henry Winter in my opinion. If you want to get rid of your article you might have to ask at WP:TEAHOUSE as I am not sure how it works. But to me, you should just leave it be, it's not the best article, but it does enhance your notability. Also, there is no harm in you improving the article as long as you declare your WP:COI with it. Govvy (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why there is any eagerness to keep it! I am certainly not as notable as Henry Winter!!! But if that was the case, there would be a more thorough, biographical tone to it. When you say 'it's not the best article' (putting it mildly) that cuts to the chase of the problem. It is so flawed (and actually inaccurate because I was at the Liverpool Echo for ten years!!) that even the sources cited have issues. Is 'enhancing notability' the purpose of wikipedia, or does notability have to be established to justify the biography (which we can see is not really a biography at all) ?? I keep saying I would like to discuss in private and yet no-one wants to. Very frustrating because there are points to be made which I hope would help users see my perspective which it is unfair to expect me to make on a public forum. Chrisbasc (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic Comment - I'm suddenly seeing why we end up with paid editors to fix stuff - when it's clear it won't fix itself, in many cases. Nfitz (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks notability as currently presented. Gusfriend (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team is the correct process to verify that the user is the person mentioned in the article. If account is verified as the person, then and only then, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies, and so it should be deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: User:Chrisbasc has had their identity verified as Chris Bascombe via the VRT. Full documentation is available to trusted volunteers at VRTS ticket # 2022030410010274. ––FormalDude talk 05:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, then delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which overrides his possible marginal notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page kind of has meh sourcing, and the page itself is kind of meh, and the subject itself says they want deletion. I can really see this going either way. casualdejekyll 12:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article was created as an attack page. There have been some improvements in the subsequent 14 years; but it still doesn't meet the standards of a BLP. Notability is doubtful. And I respect the civilised way the subject has asked for deletion. Maproom (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources currently in the article that are arguably of WP:GNG quality are those related to him joining NotW. That falls squarely under WP:BIO1E, and for an event that is not all that eventful either. (If someone can exhibit a source of GNG quality which does not deal primarily with NotW I will reconsider.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stands on-wiki, they are marginally notable and so deference to their wishes should be granted. And consideration should be given to removing the so-called controversy regardless of the result of this discussionSlywriter (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no need for an article, and its subject has been extraordinarily patient and courteous about the matter. -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. ––FormalDude talk 03:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joseph2302 above. If the subject wants to email Wikimedia VRT, have their identity verified, and then request that the article be deleted, then it seems that their wish should be granted. However, this doesn't mean the that subject can then try and have the article recreated into something more up-to-date or more to their liking. If the subject only wants to challenge some of the content currently in the article, then there are ways to do so given in WP:BIOSELF and WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Avilich (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2022 (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. ✗plicit 13:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venkatesh Rao (writer)

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

Tagged for notability since 2018. The only cited RS are a Vox article and a Guardian article which merely have passing mentions referencing Rao's blog. A search for other sources failed to produce additional significant RS coverage. This subject fails notability guidelines. Freelance-frank (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, India, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unclear if a WP:BEFORE was done here but my own does not change the conclusion. The coverage of this writer does not demonstrate significant independent coverage of the author or their works. The coverage that is significant is either not independent or not reliable and vice-versa. No readily-apparent WP:ATD presents itself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His fascinating and consistently insightful posts have been discussed quite a lot in various books and by other writers, arguably enough for NAUTHOR #1 & #2, as these searches shows. But a couple of low-effort book reviews in some city color supplement of The Hindu or some WP:ADMASQ "articles" in Times of India on book launches would get a dull writer enough WP notability, while posts about vgr's writing like these - [3], [4] - would (correctly per WP:RS) be disputed as blog posts. And of course, he's already tweeted about this aspect of attention mechanics. Reminds me of two recent AfDs where obviously unencyclopedic entries weren't deleted due to the loopholes in Notability rules. This could be the other-side-of-that-coin case, where something that should be retained gets deleted. I'm not going to vote though, since he's said the page is "awful and should be deleted" and I don't know how to make it better. Hemantha (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails WP:GNG very little material can be found online about the subject PastaMonk 14:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is the sources present do not overcome GNG/NPOL barriers due to quality Star Mississippi 02:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Singh Lalpura

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

Non notable politician who fails to meet any criterion form WP:NPOL. Celestina007 (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL does not hold a notable position. Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 12:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be notable, see https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/who-is-iqbal-singh-lalpura-the-former-cop-chosen-as-national-minorities-commission-head-7501050/ , https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/ex-cop-iqbal-singh-lalpura-who-arrested-jarnail-singh-bhindranwale-is-national-minority-commission-chief-308470 , https://www.business-standard.com/article/elections/lalpura-resigns-as-ncm-chief-after-bjp-fields-him-in-punjab-assembly-polls-122020101684_1.html , https://www.firstpost.com/india/ex-ips-iqbal-singh-lalpura-who-probed-1978-sikh-nirankari-clash-to-head-national-minorities-commission-9950091.html , https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bjp-spokesperson-iqbal-singh-lalpura-to-head-national-commission-for-minorities-report-2534501 --Soman (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, fails WP:NPOL. JoyStick101 (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why should the chairman of National Commission for Minorities not be notable ? There are enough references which could be added to the article.Inwind (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Failing NPOL does not provide grounds for deletion, it simply means the subject does not meet those specific criteria for presumed notability, not notability in general. Sources provided by Soman above satisfy passing of the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG Puglia1999 (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reasons below:

The Indian Express source says 'Express News service' and hence, not independent. IE is a reputed source and when they are not putting a byline, it means they don't want to take accountability of it.
Same goes for Tribune
Business standard says Press Trust of India. Not independent.
Firstpost says FP Staff but in the end says 'inputs from agencies' which dilutes the independence. It means, some information was fed to FP that they used to write this. If it had some independent commentary, it could have been used to assert notability.
NDTV is again Press Trust of India, likely to be fed by the party or his media team.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2022 (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 sources put forth in the keep have been countered, and having survived since 2008 is not a reason to keep. Star Mississippi 02:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tuhin Sinha

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

The refs are all either book reviews (mostly brief ones at that) or subject's own articles and interviews. Since he's a spokesperson of a major party, there are a lot of search hits but the coverage is limited to quotes only. Journal hits are a different person. Note that he was a columnist for Times of India, so ToI refs need additional scrutiny. Hemantha (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Television. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. What to apply? WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPOL? The entity fails in both. Possibly WP:TOOSOON case. -Hatchens (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as the article has survived since 2008. There are enough citations to support the article. --NeverTry4Me - TT Page 04:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have plenty of coverage, especially for #3 of WP:NAUTHOR ("multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" of a work or collection of work). Here are some of his books that have articles and/or reviews:
- Of Love and Politics - The Hindu review, "A mix of politics and love" - The New Indian Express article (via ProQuest), "Tuhin's 'Of Love & Politics' an insight into India's pol history" - United News of India review (via ProQuest), "A stuttering tale of love" - DNA review (via ProQuest)
- Edge of Desire - The Hindu review, News 18 review, "Women empowerment, focus of Tuhin Sinha's 'Edge of Desire'" - United News of India article (via ProQuest)
- When the Chief Fell in Love - "Tuhin Sinha's new book aims to add new perspective to Kashmir issue" - United News of India article (via ProQuest), "'When the Chief Fell in Love', to release tomorrow" - Indo Asian News Service article (via ProQuest), IWM Buzz article
- India Fights the Dragon - Republic World review
- The Legend of Birsa Munda - Entertainment Times review
- Daddy - "The New-age Father" - The New Indian Express (via ProQuest)
Otherwise, there are also sources that seem suitable for GNG:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- That's a long list of hits from ProQuest search. Have you looked through them? Some of your links are so blatantly inappropriate that I'm not sure if this wasn't WP:REFBOMBing. Still, let's go through.

On sources you claim cover NAUTHOR #3

IWMBuzz isn't even considered reliable for Indian films, their main coverage area.
Republic is a deprecated source.
This ToI review literally has "micro-review" in its head. It can't possibly be WP:SIGCOV. Note also that WP:NFSOURCES (while not applicable directly) has wording that specifically bars these "capsule reviews".
All the UNI (a wire agency) reports are credited to the same author. The article on When the chief fell in love is clearly not a review. The one on Of Love & Politics uses identical words (Aditya Samar Singh aristocratic, Brajesh Ranjan overtly nationalistic agenda) as TNIE and is mostly made up of dialogs copied from the book instead of any significant independent content. The one on Edge of Desire uses same lines from the book's blurb. Neither appears to have been carried by any WP:RS. Combined with UNI's unknown reliability, there is enough to doubt the independence of these articles.
Beyond Of Love and Politics (which itself can be argued with, but I haven't looked in detail), none of these books could be considered significant enough for Wikipedia. The current state, where none of those books have articles on them, reflects it.

On the sources you claim suitable for GNG -

Business Standard is actually from IANS, a newswire, but also carried by other newswires like ANI. Without a by-line or a credit, this routine announcement is indistinguishable from a press release.
The three Telegraph pieces ([5], [6],[7]) are all book launch announcements, by the same author who has reused the same general structure and even identical bio blurbs (Before penning books, Tuhin also used to write screenplays for Hindi daily soaps. ... Finishing school in 1995, Tuhin then went on to pursue graduation in commerce from Hindu College, Delhi. He also holds a diploma from National Institute of Advertising.) since his first book release in 2008. The rest of those articles are made up of author quotes and they are basically interviews. The extreme similarity of the article on "Have a Safe Journey" launch to other articles covering it (similar lines on author lists, road safety awareness, Minister's foreword, CEO's message - all in that same order), brings into question the independence of these articles.
The remaining Telegraph article actually covers a speech he made and is full of quotes from that speech. It has nothing at all about him apart from Sinha, who is a novelist, a BJP spokesperson in Mumbai and an advisor to the ministry Hemantha (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Certainly passes WG:GNG, also there are SIGCOV. The article needed to clean up. UphillAthlete (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2022 (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. ✗plicit 11:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Adhikari

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

Note that this is not the same person as Dipak Adhikari, who's also currently up for AFD in a separate discussion -- however, the creator of that article did try to make this one go away by arbitrarily moving it into draftspace and then blanking it solely in order to "clear the decks" for his pet topic.
So I've reverted that since it isn't proper process, but that doesn't mean the article itself is okay: it's an article about a journalist who isn't properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for journalists. An article about a journalist needs to be referenced to sources in which he's the subject of coverage written by other people, but this is referenced almost entirely to sources where he's the bylined author of coverage about other things, which is not what it takes to make a journalist notable. And the only source that does actually meet the required standard just gives one blurb's worth of information about him in the context of having been one of 12 contributors to an anthology book, which isn't enough proper media coverage to pass WP:GNG all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Dev (Bengali actor). Searching is difficult (partly because there are several others with the same name and partly of the language barrier), but I haven't been able to identify any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The available sources consist mainly of interviews, passing mentions, quotes, and articles that Adhikari himself has written—none of which satisfy the GNG. There is similarly no indication that any of the criteria at WP:NJOURNALIST are met. This title would be a useful redirect to Dev (Bengali actor), although there would be no reason to preserve this article's unrelated page history in that case. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable journalist. No coverage found which has indepth coverage about his bio. Also, never heard of those awards he received, most likey it is a scholarship fund, not an actual award. nirmal (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2022 (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) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hasibe Çerko

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

Fails notability, WP:AUTHOR Juggyevil (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources insufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I really don't think a WP:BEFORE was even attempted here, there isn't even an attempt to explain why the sources in the article are insufficient.
- TEİS: this source, used in the article already, is a reliable source written by a scholar. It also cites two different critiques of Çerko's work.
- This journal has an article about one of Çerko's books.
- An offline article about the short story writing of Çerko.
- Here is another article about her in a literary publication.
So yeah, the sources are more than sufficient. --GGT (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't speak the language, but the sources presented by GGT appear to be directly detailing the subject and her works. I'll have to AGF these sources meet independent RS, but the appearance and links appear to check out. Very difficult to find English sources on a subject only covered in Turkish. BusterD (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 01:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the new sources that are revealed now. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lorraine C. Ladish

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

This is autobiography by Lcladish13 (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. Lcladish (talk · contribs), and I suspect also Thebestwriter13 (talk · contribs) and Penelope1313 (talk · contribs) in the years since). I find no sources not written by the article subject xyrself, and the fact that I found someone disputing the truth of Unialphabet (AfD discussion) back in 2008, having tested out what Wikipedia said on the subject, leads to accuracy worries about the information here, as they were written by the same person, alongside Delfin Carbonell Basset (AfD discussion) who is claimed to be an immediate family member of this person on this person's autobiography elsewhere on the WWW.

Proposed deletion of the autobiography was challenged by the autobiographer in 2006.

Uncle G (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Pennsylvania. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find anything about her in either Gnews or the NYT, although there are several hits on her name, not sure how many are this person Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That a page so lacking in any sources has survived for 16 years is a mark against Wikipedia. The only listed source is a book written by the subject. We need sources created by others saying something about those we have articles on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One self-sourced autobiography....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable figure, plus COI concerns. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also currently live in Sarasota so I checked our local library catalog as well as some other sources and found nothing that would signify this person as notable. Amscheip (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2022 (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. ✗plicit 13:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Rogowski

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, and does not meet any of the criteria of WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Illinois. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our standards for inclusion of articles on academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2022 (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. ✗plicit 13:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Baugher

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

BLP based entirely on subject's personal page. A quick google search doesn't produce any coverage from other sources. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a lightly edited guide to the internet. We need more than sourcing to a subject's own website to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This article dates back to 21 May, 2003. That is very early for a Wikipedia article to come from. It is amazing how long super substandard articles are able to survive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While the subject may have enjoyed a successful career, notability has not been shown. A search found no evidence of notability. It fails WP:GNG guidelines and does not pass WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2022 (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. ✗plicit 03:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Bahareth

AfDs for this article:

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

All but one of the sources provided would be considered reliable but it's no where near enough to show they meet the GNG criteria. My searches only bring up a bunch of press releases. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Law. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Lacking reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2022 (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. ✗plicit 00:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Plato-Shinar

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

Advertising/promotional piece about a subject with dubious notability. Was written by a professional PR manager, Noam Furer. FASTILY 22:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Law, and Israel. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost half the article is a list of articles she's written. Delete, non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added her 2016 book,^[1] and a review^[2] and mention^[3] of the book. Her other book was published in Hebrew, so there might be more information available to someone who can read Hebrew. The page itself would need major pruning as so much of it is uncited. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Pelato-Shinar, Ruth (2016). Banking regulation in Israel : prudential regulation versus consumer protection. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands. ISBN 978-90-411-6791-0. OCLC 962231856.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^ Packin, Nizan Geslevich (September 2018). "Banking Regulation in Israel: Prudential Regulation versus Consumer Protection". Banking & Finance Law Review, Toronto. 33 (3): 495–499 – via ProQuest.
^ Micklitz, Hans-W. (December 2017). "Book Notes Law 4/2017". Journal of Consumer Policy. 40 (4): 509–519. doi:10.1007/s10603-017-9362-z. ISSN 0168-7034.

Delete - If she were being cited in more works, or by the media, or had more references to her works elsewhere, then perhaps she'd creep into the range of notability, but I don't see much of any of that in searching around. Not quite above the bar. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Examing the references in the article, above, sources elsewhere per WP:NEXIST, and eyeballing Google Scholar, Plato-Shinar seems to fail WP:PROF and the WP:GNG at present. If someone has proof to the opposite, they are welcome to tag me. gidonb (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2022 (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. ✗plicit 00:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Zalph

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and lacks significant coverage. Only source is a column written by the subject's cousin. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just want to say that just because we can't find much on the internet doesn't mean the article's subject fails GNG. The article's subject lived before mass adoption of the internet. That being said, I'm not able to find much so may fail GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 22:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Journalism. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've tried the NY Times back files. He's listed in this article with the title: Senate Unit Finds Red Link in Press. But he just gets a mention in a list of people brought up before the committee who took the fifth. He's mentioned in another similar article, just a name check. He also is listed in the Senate report. Unfortunately he was just one of many hundreds who were hounded during the red scare of the 1950's, and he wasn't important enough, as far as I can tell, to merit more biographical information. Lamona (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Sadly, one of hundreds who were blacklisted. The only source in the article is self-published by his cousin, and the two sources since found by Lamona are not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggest keeping a revised version of this page. True he is one of many pursued in the 1950s "loyalty" hearings but his testimony is notable for its citation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution, as well as the First and Fifth, in support of his refusal to answer questions. Sources (at least one of which would need to be added to the page) are the published transcript of the testimony: https://books.google.com/books?id=z6B9imvD-P0C&pg=PA1014&lpg=PA1014&dq, and this article in CQ Press: https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal56-1347749, as well as other newspaper sources including the Galveston Daily News: https://newspaperarchive.com/galveston-daily-news-jan-05-1956-p-2/ and the Billings Gazette: https://newspaperarchive.com/billings-gazette-jan-05-1956-p-1/ . I've been unable to find any reference to any other "loyalty" hearing witness citing the Ninth or Tenth Amendment. His reliance on the Ninth Amendment in the loyalty hearings seems noteworthy in light of the limited history of use of this Amendment prior to the hearings, and the Amendment's more recent growing prominence, as reflected by its later discussion in Supreme Court decisions and the recent statement by US President Joseph Biden to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he wanted "a Supreme Court candidate with a judicial philosophy 'that suggests that there are unenumerated rights in the Constitution, and all the amendments mean something, including the Ninth Amendment.'” https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/23/supreme-court-ninth-amendment-bork-biden-00010847. (Full disclosure: I am a family member.)

Editor 5050 (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, for failing notability guidelines at WP:BIO. Removing the sentence in the article explaining why the subject's brother is notable would reduce the size of the stub by 25%. After this much time, it is unlikely further references will be found. Ifnord (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm actually seeing a lot of coverage in 1956 on newspapers.com, but it's mostly AP wire stories (or modified AP wire stories). A bunch of newspapers reporting that he refused to testify in front of congress, pleading a bunch of amendments, is clear WP:BIO1E. WP:SUSTAINED notes that If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. The lack of any meaningful follow-up in the 66 years since his testimony from anyone other than his cousin shows that reliable sources only cover him in the context of a single event. Since he remained low-profile throughout his life, I see no compelling reason to consider him notable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2022 (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) Natg 19 (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Simpson (Poets' Club founder)

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

~~One line, 17-year-old article lacking inline citations. Two obscure sources listed a separate references. Article subject fails WP:GNG and lacks significant coverage~~. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to the efforts of Piecesofuk, this is no longer the one-sentence article I found it to be when nominated, but a multiple-sourced, small biography worthy of Wikipedia. Request close as keep. Thanks, Piecesofuk. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability has not been demonstrated. Perhaps offline sources could provide more information, but until then this should not be kept around. Toadspike (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On ISBN 9780198112341 page 458 this person is literally a 1-sentence footnote in history. Sadly, that's as much as I can find in any source. No-one has documented in depth the life and works of Scottish banker Henry Roberts, founder and sometime president of the Poets Club, and friend of Charles G. D. Roberts. Uncle G (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think he passes notability. There's a fair few mentions in the British Newspaper Archive. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and awarded an Honorary Life Fellowship for Services to Poetry and Letters, he was also Honorary Treasurer... Aberdeen Press and Journal - Saturday 10 May 1947 He also didn't die in 1939 as the previous article shows Piecesofuk (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article about the Poet's Club and Henry Simpson in the Graphic - Saturday 20 November 1909 Review of one of his books of poetry in the Aberdeen Press and Journal - Monday 17 January 1910 (the book is available on archive.org https://archive.org/details/faryflute00simpiala/mode/2up) Piecesofuk (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject was a fellow and honorary treasurer of the Royal Society of Literature, and he wrote three books of poetry, which were all reviewed, plus the award of an Honorary Life Fellowship for Services to Poetry and Letters. Notability is also clearly shown in newspaper archives. Clearly passes guidelines for WP:GNG and easily meets WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY by Piecesofuk.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2022 (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. Or at most no consensus. Apart from the nominator, the "delete" opinions don't really develop an argument or address the sources found by the "keep" side in any detail. Sandstein 08:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Van Hoang

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

Poorly sourced stub about a non-notable writer. A search finds this article, but I don't know how WP:RS Publishers Weekly is, and in any case one source isn't enough to establish notability. Fails general WP:GNG and specific WP:AUTHOR notability. (The only reason I didn't request speedy was because some might argue that a published book implies some noteworthiness.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Conventionally, an author can usually pass WP:NAUTHOR with two WP:NBOOK-notable books. In addition to the Publishers' Weekly profile/interview from the nom, I found some reviews. Monkey King: kirkus (starred) booklist (starred) PW (starred) school library journal. Jade War: kirkus booklist (starred). PW doesn't have a full review of the sequel, just a nod in a list of noteworthy sequels; no mention of the sequel at SLJ. (As a general tip, looking at the publisher's page for a book can be a good way to find published reviews, since they like to quote from them.) I interpret that as two NBOOK passes and therefore an NAUTHOR pass. The PW profile gives a useful amount of biographical information that allows for a meaningful author profile to be written, and there is also a kirkus interview. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, implied in my !vote but I should state it -- I consider PW a standard RS for book reviews. Kirkus, PW, and Booklist are not the most selective review venues (ie they're not slam-dunk for notability the way a NYT or LARB review would be) but the starred reviews are much more distinctive, so the first one is a clear pass with 3 starred reviews, and it's the star at booklist that really pushes the second one over the line for NBOOK for me. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment — two things: 1) a book review may make the book notable, but not its author, unless it provides sigcov of the latter; and 2) even if you accept that two notable books makes the author inherently notable, where is the second notable book? A book having been written does not automatically make it notable. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DoubleGrazing I missed the second book reading the comment too, because it's buried in the list of review links. That's Jade War, which has both a Kirkus review and the starred Booklist one. -- asilvering (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - 1) WP:AUTHOR states that an author is notable if they have created ... a significant or well-known work or collective body of work which has been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. There is no requirement for sigcov of the author. NAUTHOR is unusual, like WP:NPROF, for allowing persons to derive notability from their works even when there is no direct biographical coverage. However, in this case we also have two RS profiles of the author in addition to the reviews. 2) WP:NBOOK states that a book is notable if it has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include ... reviews. The second book has two published reviews. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The "sources" currently provided are all mere publicity. There's already a wiki article on the novel. What's the point of a biographical article on the author with no biographical information and no reliable sources? Ficaia (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. LEvalyn has demonstrated the two WP:NBOOK passes. I think it's worth adding that the second book only just came out, so this is more an "already two reviews" situation than an "only two reviews" situation. As for "what's the point in a biographical article that is only a sentence long" - that's an argument against stubs, not this stub in particular, and to expand this one we do have biographical info - see for example this extensive profile in PW: [8] (to answer nom's question - this is the trade journal for publishing in the USA). -- asilvering (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ~ L 🌸 and asilvering, and on Proquest, there is an Oct 2020 review for Girl Giant and the Monkey King by The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books (an academic journal) and the in-depth Dec 2020 Publishers Weekly article noted above about her and her career. Beccaynr (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a case of WP:TOOSOON, The topic is not eligible for a Wikipedia article. Fails WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not disagreeing with your vote, but @Jeni Wolf can you clarify The topic is not eligible for a Wikipedia article please? An author is eligible and it appears that they may meet notability now. Star Mississippi 00:42, 15 March 2022 (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. AFD has been running for over a month, no realistic possibility of the article being deleted based on the below. This is not a bar to an appropriate merger. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Denyer

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

WP:BLP1E and no discernible profiles of his writing to meet WP:AUTHOR Yogiile (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. The subject is only known for a single event, a controversy about sexual misconduct at the Washington Post. Apart from that he is a low profile individual. Hut 8.5 19:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the small amount of coverage of another minor controversy is enough to overcome these concerns. Per WP:NPF we should consider not even including this information in an article about an unknown BLP at all. And being a bureau chief of the Washington Post is not enough to establish notability per WP:BIO. Hut 8.5 12:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bureau chief of a notable publication is enough to establish notability. Also, I am not sure why WP:BLP1E is brought in here. There are accusations of plagiarism which has multiple full article length discussions other than his sexual misconducts. WP:BLP1E is applicable only when "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." We have many coverages like [9], [10] and [11] which aren't about the incident of his sexual misconduct. Hence WP:BLP1E isn't applicable here and the person seems notable even without the chapter of sexual misconduct. Cirton (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kirtos67. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Washington Post - This article seems like a WP:BLP violation to me. Between the Daily Beast reports and the Washingtonian report, I do think the subject meets WP:GNG. Unfortunately, I don't see how we could write an article about the subject while meeting WP:BLP. If desired, someone could write an article about the specific allegations regarding Denyer, Kaiman, and the Post's China bureau. That said, I don't think deletion is necessary here: regarding merge target, we don't have an article on Felicia Sonmez or her lawsuit, but it doesn't look like the Post article is so long that it can't be expanded with three sentences (about the lawsuit, the allegations against Denyer, and his resignation). (A further note on sources: the Foreign Policy blog doesn't explicitly mention Denyer, and the plagiarism sources are only passing mentions; if the article were kept, they could support at most a single sentence, and don't contribute to my assessment of notability.)Suriname0 (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems to have points of notability enough, if not aplenty. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2022 (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. ✗plicit 14:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kirshenbaum

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

Routine PR executive riddled with a non notable agency's "milestones" Yogiile (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete highly promotional article that's way off the mark. If this survives AfD, someone had better come up with a good source supporting the concept that he's a "best selling author", because judging by the amazon situation, that's a reality-stretch even for an advertising executive. Elemimele (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - he might be notable, but the fluff is way up. It's almost so bad as to start from scratch. If he wrote it himself, he's terrible as a writer. If he paid for this, he was robbed. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Worth userfying?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete − The article's creator has an apparent connection to one of Kirshenbaum's companies. Painting17 (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2022 (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. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hardy Wallace

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

I don't think this meets WP:GNG or WP:BLP. PepperBeast (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Wine, and California. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A quick google news search will show that Wallace easily meets WP:GNG.
(refactored) I started this article 12 years ago when Wallace had just won the inaugural version extremely widely covered contest to become a house blogger for a major independent winery. He has since received significant coverage in a number of independent sources for a variety of things, including founding and running "One of California's most influential modern wineries" (per sources, below). A comprehensive coverage of the wine industry would include bios of the most visible and influential winemakers, so having this article does fit our mission here of presenting encyclopedic collection of knowledge. A partial list of some of the more significant sources:
- One of California's most influential modern wineries, Dirty & Rowdy, is ending after 11 years. Article entirely about Wallace in the San Francisco Chronicle, one of the largest 20 or so newspapers in the US and one of the most authoritative in its coverage of the wine industry, describes him as "highly influential".
- Hardy Wallace: Soul of a Winemaker. Profile article entirely about Wallace in the Vallejo Herald, a significant (100 years old, 15,000 circulation) regional daily newspaper.
- Is it Time to Change How We Describe Wine, about 1/3 of this feature article in Wine Enthusiast Magazine (circulation 250,000) is about Wallace
- Honeymoon tester is latest dream job, 1/3 to 1/2 of this article in CNN is about Wallace and the contest he won
- Atlanta blogger wins Murphy-Goode's 'dream job', article in SFGate entirely about Wallace winning the contest
- California wine's new paradigm: Bright, juicy, translucent reds, article in the SF Chronicle, about 1/3 devoted to Wallace's winemaking style
- Top 10 Inspirational Quotes From The World Of Wine, 2 of the 10 quotes Forbes selected are Wallace's

-Wikidemon (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm much less sure than Wikidemon about this. First, we need to get rid of all of the sources that are not only not about him, but do not mention him. Those are the ones number 6, 14 and 15 here. There is the info about this "dream job". The famed "contest" was to become the winery's "lifestyle correspondent" aka blogger/tweeter, for six months. (The SF Chron article at #5 is a paragraph saying that he was #1 in the line to get into the venue.) Then there are articles about him moving on to other jobs, which are pretty puffy, generally based on his "fame" of winning the original contest. The Food Republic article ("9 people...") is a longish single paragraph about his wine (but little about him), and the NapaValley paper ("7 of ...") is a short paragraph (5 sentences) about the wine product. The most extensive article is the SF Chron from September 2021, but that's only one source. He shows up in Google searches, but nothing more impressive than what I see here. His job was as PR person for various concerns, so there are quotes from him about other people's products. I'm leaning toward delete. Lamona (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been expanding the sections on his wine-making and adding refs from what Wikidemon provided. If the article is more about his wine-making accomplishments and less on the contest, then I go for weak keep. However, I'm not finding anything that I consider to be truly current - he did some podcasts in 2018 and I see that he is scheduled to speak at a 2023 symposium on wines but it doesn't make clear what his current business is. There's a hint in his linkedin profile, but that's not usable as a source. Lamona (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the whole I think we lack any good sources that are both in depth and truly independent. Most of this amounts to local promotional journalism, and not quality coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Johnpacklambert. --Vaco98 (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the spirit of full disclosure, I lived in the Napa Valley for almost 30 years and know many people in the Napa and Sonoma wine industry. A small percentage of my edits have to do with wine. In my judgment, this person is not a notable winemaker. He won a publicity stunt contest and got paid for a while to do social media promotional activity for a well known winery. Since then, he has connected with various other winemakers and assisted them with their online public relations and social media activities. I do not believe that constitutes notability. The ongoing coverage following the publicity stunt is mostly hyperlocal. Cullen328 (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator. Weak notability, fails WP:GNG. 2600:4040:100F:9100:D0DF:37B8:3E03:1A9B (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2022 (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) ––FormalDude talk 15:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert de Ravinel

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

Biography of a recently deceased writer, not properly referenced as passing WP:AUTHOR. While there are claims here (mostly late-in-life honours) that would probably make him eligible for an article that was reliably sourced, as written the referencing here is entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as his listing on the website of the funeral home that handled his burial, and content self-published by organizations directly affiliated with the distinction claims -- and the French article is even worse, citing only the funeral home with no other footnotes whatsoever. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on real coverage about his work in real media. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Television, and France. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Legion of the Knight of Honor from France is enough to confer notability, everything else is gravy. The article reads like a resume however and badly needs a rewrite. He's also got a few articles in GScholar that could be useful, as is the subject of a peer-reviewed journal.Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subject was a chevalier in the Légion d'honneur, the lowest level and equivalent to an MBE, which has always been held to be at least two levels below anything satisfying WP:ANYBIO. There may possibly be other reasons for notability, but that is not one. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine if the article were sourced properly, but isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any coverage in real media, precisely because the extent to which any award is notable enough to make its winners "inherently" notable because they won it is determined by the extent to which the award does or doesn't get media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree with Phil Bridger that the fact of receiving the Légion d'honneur is not enough on its own. The National Order of Quebec may be stronger, I'm not sure, but I still don't think it's something that would automatically convey notability without WP:GNG-level sourcing. And I can't find any evidence of WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR notability, so WP:GNG seems like the only possibility. But there is some nontrivial coverage of him that may be reliable and independent enough to pass WP:GNG: from the government of Quebec in the citation for his Order of Quebec [12], from Les petits frères, an organization he seems to have been associated with, in a story giving his biography and noting his award of the Légion d'honneur [13], and in a published tribute letter to him after his death (two sites and two languages but really only one letter) [14] [15]. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing for an award claim has to be media reportage about the presentation of the award, not the self-published website of the award's giver, to turn any award into an article-clinching notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we're using the award for WP:PROF#C2 notability or the like, then the fact of the award is enough. And if we're going by GNG-based notability, then it is the sourcing, not the award, that makes him notable, and the fact that the sourcing has detailed coverage of the subject and is published by an impeccably reliable source, the government of Quebec, makes it irrelevant that at the same time they published the source they also gave him an award. Do you somehow think that the same publication from the same source would be made much stronger if only they had not also given him an award when they published it? That's absurd. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content published by the government of Quebec would never be notability-building coverage in any context, because the government of Quebec is not media. The extent to which any award is ever notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it is always strictly coterminous with the extent to which that award generates third-party media coverage in sources independent of the awarding organization's own self-published content about its own activities. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your position was already absurd, but you have outdone yourself by insisting that governments are incapable of generating independent reliable publications. Ridiculous and made up out of thin air, rather than anything actually written into our guidelines. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While neither award on its own is sufficient to pass WP:ANYBIO, I think the two together probably make it over the threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per his work and publications, i think he passes WP:BASIC. JoyStick101 (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep I believe the award plus the sum of other achievements just gets the subject across the line to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to This is Us. there's a clear consensus to redirect, and CHEAP. A toss up on destination, but her show seemed more likely target than the person who got her there. If the target eventually changes, that can be done editorially. Star Mississippi 01:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Thompson

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

Thought to CSD this, but was a little unsure. The subject doesn't look like it meets WP:GNG or WP:ENT. And a Google search doesn't give too much details about her, and nor are reliable sources found. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 14:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Ohio. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added three sources which establish notability, plenty of interviews out there as well. Mujinga (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to This Is Us, her only notable role. Fails WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interviews do not add towards establishing notability, and one significant role is not enough to show notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Of note is that none of the sources added to the article during this discussion consist of interviews. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dan Fogelman CHEAP, and definite influence on who got her on This Is Us. Nate • (chatter) 21:40, 11 March 2022 (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. Of note is that the nominator stated in the nomination, "I think this page should be merged, deleted, or further developed". As such, this is not a pure "delete" nomination from the start. The two delete !votes following the nomination state that the subject is non-notable in a rather generic manner, and in part based upon personal opinions, because they did not directly cite any specific notability guidelines. Furthermore, only one out of three delete !voters (including the nominator) checked back to the discussion to provide input about sources that were later presented. The keep !votes provide relatively solid evidence that the subject meets notability guidelines, but again, after sources were presented two out of three delete !voters did not come back to assess those sources. The same two out of three provided no input about sources added to the article as well, which occurred on 3 March 2022‎.

The two delete !votes following the nomination focus mostly upon the subject's internet posts, stating that such posts do not create notability, but do not provide much other qualification for deletion relative to notability guidelines, other than simply stating that the subject is not notable per their respective rationales, and neither opiner referred to any specific notability guideline.

Conversely, keep !voters here provided evidence and cited specific notability guidelines, such as WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Yates Sexton

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

As has been outlined on the talk page by other users; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jared_Yates_Sexton several months ago. And I quote; Lets go through the criteria: The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. No unless I'm missing something? The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. No. (c) is the closest. Sure his books have been reviewed but I would say that constitutes critical attention of a standard sort. His works have not received more attention than usual or "significant" attention. Again tell me if I'm off here. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Perhaps you could say his coverage of the Presidency of Donald Trump would fit the mold of something notable he was involved with. Or you could say the 2016 United States presidential election was something notable he contributed to. But he certainly didn't play a "major" role in either of those. You could find hundreds of people who played a larger role in both of those. His name or coverage does not appear on either of those wiki pages. Finally, The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. This is the most difficult to parse. He doesn't have any successors yet so it would be peers. Do other authors cite his work? I don't see evidence of that in the References area of the article so at the very least that should be updated. In fact, regarding the references, there are only four out of nineteen which qualify as WP:SECONDARY sources: #'s 2, 7, 8 and 14. For 2, Barrelhouse is a quite small outlet. Not worthy of much weight. For 7, Bloomberg News qualifies as a reliable source but this is an opinion article, filed under their "turnabout" section. For 8, again, Mother Jones qualifies as a reliable source but using it for politics (as this does) requires attribution per WP:RSPSOURCES. Reference 14 is Deadspin which is not a reliable source. For all these reasons I think this page should be merged, deleted, or further developed. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, and Indiana. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable political journalist who got a little coverage for some social media posts he made, but nothing rising to the level to justify an encyclopedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to delete this page. Sexton is a notable author and commentator. The article has many sources. Could it be better? Of course. It should not be a candidate for deletion.Utahredrock (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few viral tweets does not equal notability. Sexton's work is definitely not journalism, he is not independently investigating anything. His work is also not academic. He is simply a person with strong opinions. Also the authority control box still directs to the wrong Jared Sexton. Nweil (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we do have several articles on people who were opinion columnists, so people do not need to be doing investigative journalism, or "journalism" per some definition, to be notable. However, they do need good quality sources about them which we seem to lack here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His works have received "significant critical attention"; saying he hasn't received "more attention than usual" and therefore existing coverage doesn't count seems totally arbitrary and would make inclusion successively harder the later an entry appears in the encyclopedia. He's received attention from multiple independent sources, and that's significant per WP:SIGCOV. Moving on, the criteria is saying "the person has created...a significant or well-known work or body of work," not "must have played a major role in a significant historical event," as the nominator seems to be understanding it. No, he did not play a massive role in electing Trump or anything, but his work is itself "significant or well-known," based on the coverage of it, which treats it as such (even if you personally disagree). Yitz (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you believe the "significant work" you mention (I'm guessing the tweeting? Or his books? Please clarify since they are different) has been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.? Please cite. Nweil (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has, see below. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I just added links to four high profile reviews of his books LA Times, NPR etc. They alone satisfy WP:AUTHOR as he has created a work that has multiple independent reviews (criteria 3). CT55555 (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no review in the LA Times. Nweil (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It's here: https://www.latimes.com/books/la-ca-jc-review-jared-yates-sexton-man-they-wanted-20190620-story.html CT55555 (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep Has been reviewed in the Los Angeles Review of Books and has authored articles in the Globe and Mail among others, even if most of his "coverage" is hanging off Donald Trump's "fame" while in office. His book also has a review in the The Journal of Psychohistory, [16], via ProQuest. I think he's notable, that's 3 critical reviews, two in the LA book review and this one. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the WP:AUTHOR bar: multiple reviews, including two for each of two books, indicating there's a body of work to write about. XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- OK great, lets look at these reviews. So going book by book. Book: The People Are Going to Rise Like the Waters on Your Shore Article: written by Blake Morlock in LA Review of Books, published in October 20, 2017. So the writer here has only been published in LA Review of Books once, only for this specific review. Furthermore, I can't find any other book review from Mr. Morlock, ever. He seems to be a local news reporter in Tuscon. Also, digging more into the LA Review of Books, despite having a very lofty sounding name, it has only been in existence for 10 years. Wikipedia has a fairly extensive list of literary review periodicals and magazines at List of literary magazines, and LA Review of Books is nowhere to be found on that. Is this a serious operation? The magazine originated on Tumblr, which would obviously not meet our standard. It has since transitioned to online and print to be fair, but it's founder Tom Lutz described their strategy for growth as "we had to learn to insert ourselves into social media conversations" which is an odd thing for a book review periodical to be concerned about. And it casts some doubt in my mind about their intentions. Especially given that the Wikipedia article at hand (JY Sexton) has such a large social media following. Book: The Man They Wanted Me to Be Article: written by Nicholas Cannariato in NPR, published May 10, 2019. The tone of this review is very personal. In fact, the writer includes personal anecdotes about their own life rather than focusing on the book at hand. It's much more based on raw feelings rather than any academic interest or historical literary contextualizing. The writer is a self described freelance writer. It's unclear what editorial control was applied to this article, as NPR books does not have a masthead. NPR is not known as an outlet that reviews books, and similar to LA Review of Books, it does not appear on the Wikipedia list at List of literary magazines. It's difficult to take a previous commenter seriously when they described this review as "high profile". It's simply a freelance article, generated for NPR's engagement numbers. Essay: written by Harriet Fraad in the Journal for Psychohistory, published in Fall 2019. If you check the reliable sources noticeboard, there has already been a discussion of the reliablility of psychohistorians, such as Fraad. The verdict was that it's close to, if not completely over the line of, WP:FRINGE. A link to this essay by Fraad would be ill-advised. Book: American Rule Article: written by Paige Welsh in LA Review of Books, published September 27, 2020 The LA Review of Books masthead indicates that their politics editor is Tom Zoellner. Zoellner is a professor at Chapman University in the same department where the writer (Welsh) is a student, and in this case, submitted a politics-related book review even though none of her other available writings relate to politics or even book reviews. It seems clear that Zoeller encouraged or helped Welsh get published, or at least we can't discount that as a possibility. All of this, again, calls into questions the reliability of LA Review of Books as a serious publication for our purposes. If you look at the actual review from Welsh, it spends a significant amount of time chastising Sexton for a lack of "wokeness" asking why Native peoples were not featured more prominently. In fact, she counted the number of times a white man's name appeared in the book. What the review does not do is contextualize Sexton's book in the literary canon. Reading the review, you are left with no inkling of whether the work is significant in a literary sense or not. All this to say, these reviews are pretty lame and I strongly encourage the keep voters to rethink their position. Nweil (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Los Angeles Review of Books "only" reviewing books for 10 years doesn't seem like good reason to discredit them. I likewise consider NPR to be a very reliable source. I'd request if you quote me again, to please tag me so I can reply sooner. Also, I added a link to the LA Times review that you said didn't exist above. In summary I've done the rethink that you asked for and your research/analysis has not shifted my opinion. CT55555 (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you forgot the essay in the peer-reviewed journal I cited above. It and the two "lame" reveiews as you call them seem to add up to notablity. He's also cited at least 3 times in this peer-reviewed journal from New Zealand, [17], as well as this theology journal, quoting several of his tweets, [18]. Three or four others also use his writing to discuss various issues in psychology, theology and journalism in general. I would consider that at least a modicum of notability on which to base an article in Wikipedia? Oaktree b (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, we have enough to write an article about the effect he's had on society based on these peer-reviewed journals, "Jared Yates Sexton and Trumpism" or something similar. He's gained enough traction to have two articles in Wikipedia! Oaktree b (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the reviews noted above all seem above board, the fact that the subject is frequently cited in media of various kinds and has been covered for his work all suggest that he's notable enough to remain. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:09, 12 March 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don Martin (journalist)

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

Non-notable local journalist - no RS about his career that rises to the level of GNG. Juniperesque (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juniperesque (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, Canada, and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wikipedia:NJOURNALIST no significant independent coverage. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 10:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly, he's not just a local journalist; he started out that way, but later became a national columnist and a national anchor on a national news channel, which are roles that do satisfy NJOURNALIST. Secondly, this was a more balanced and better-referenced article in the past, which was turned into a primary sourced rewrite of his CTV staff profile only a few months ago by a new editor whose edit history carries hints of "paid public relations consultant" — but I've returned and properly sourced some of the content that got scrubbed last fall. Thirdly, for a person whose career has stretched over 40 years, not all of his best sourcing is necessarily going to Google well, but instead will have to be retrieved from archives, and I've recovered more than enough proper non-CTV sourcing from ProQuest to eliminate the problem. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with thanks to Bearcat for fixing the article up. See WP:HEY. The sources now cited in the article appear to establish notability (particularly when combined with possible offline sources), and while I don't have access to all of them I assume that they provide significant coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 3 March 2022 (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Bogdanov

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

Does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Poetry, Television, and Russia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would need a Russian speaker to confirm how useful the given sources are. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 6 March 2022 (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. Even two weeks after the article was improved, we still have only one person advocating for keeping it. Sandstein 16:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Kirkland

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

As I noted in my decline and draftification, none of these sources are legitimate - they're interviews or unreliable and his supposed "breakout roles" are 1-2 episode arcs or unnamed characters. He simply doesn't meet NACTOR at this point. CUPIDICAE💕 01:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GoldMiner24 (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing my vote to keep per HEY GoldMiner24 ^Talk 04:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while there is a potential claim of notability, there's nothing here to support the claim and nothing found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I previously marked it as PROD. Fails WP:NACTOR. DMySon (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:HEY and after analysing the article and its references closely, i changed my vote to Keep. I found the best four 1, 2, 3 and 4. DMySon (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to call either of his characters in TV shows "significant" would seem to require a very broad use of the word.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This debate was originally close as "delete", but I noted on the closing admin's talk page that the page was significantly expanded since the last comment. @Praxidicae, Vaco98, GoldMiner24, Alansohn, DMySon, and Johnpacklambert: Can you please revisit the article and reaffirm or modify your !vote accordingly? Thank you. ✗plicit 03:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain my nomination. [19] isn't even remotely about him. It's a single sentence mention for a character he played that isn't even a main character. this is basically a rehashed press release from the productions PR team. The outsider piece, I have doubts about it's integrity and reliability. CUPIDICAE💕 15:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We still lack adequate sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus among established editors that she does not meet biographic notability standards Star Mississippi 03:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juliette Rossant

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

Promotional article sourced almost entirely to subjects own articles in Forbes and alumni magazines. Lacks independent secondary sources covering the subject sufficient to satisfy WP:ANYBIO, and falls far short of the requirements of WP:JOURNALIST. Coretheapple (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coretheapple (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a reference but yes this article needs a lot of changes. I also think this subject is notable and the article can be kept if changes are done and notable reference are added. FBedits (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep if the book reviews that are elicited here exist. I didn’t see links. But assuming good faith that they exist. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one other book review: Money Toques. By: Smillie, Dirk, Forbes, 00156914, 4/19/2004, Vol. 173, Issue 8 (note that she wrote or writes for Forbes magazine). I can't get to Gastronimica, but the reviews I did see, including "First Meals, Then Deals", which is listed here, are all pretty brief. Oddly, the Publisher's Weekly review pans the book, calling it: "This plodding group biography traces the careers and personal lives of chefs..." I find nothing about HER in any independent sources. The majority of sources here are not independent. Lamona (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nomination. The "Career" section consists of an unsourced recitation of the subject's journalism career, and padded text on the "Super Chefs" book. The added reviews do not contribute to notability as observed by Lamona, The "magazine" subsection relates to a personal website that has been inactive since 2017. Coretheapple (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC) The numerous citations added subsequent to my !vote, (such as footnote nos. 14-23) show Rossant being quoted. They are citations to articles about other people, I'll not remove them but these are trivial mentions that do not belong in the article and do not establish notability. Coretheapple (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following major overhaul – not only shorter text but numerous citations to books, magazines, and newspapers that document notability as expert; previous voters, please be sure to re-read entry and re-vote - Aboudaqn (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems pretty noteworthy to me, article seems fine, and notability is clear when subject is cited as expert to publications like New York Times and TIME Magazine. Raffmeiste (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: original article from 2006 now revised 2022 with major overhaul: text is shorter, more encyclopedic, and contains up-to-date citations (scholarly books, popular books, magazines, newspapers) that document subject's notability as expert - Aboudaqn (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Strike duplicate !vote. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 18:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Looks plenty notable to me! - Bobo1926 (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC) — Bobo1926 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Just to reiterate so I'm kept in this round, I do think this article is noteworthy and meets all criteria for being kept. The subject is being cited in large publications, and this article should stay around. Raffmeiste (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Strike duplicate !vote. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 12:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot !vote twice. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Lacking indepth coverage of her as the subject. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't know what went on above with the SPA's, but I don't see this person being notable. The article seems in a better position right now compared to how it was before the nomination, but I can still clearly see WP:REFBOMB attempts. Per WP:SIGCOV, merely "being cited" isn't enough, and without significant coverage there is no sign of a GNG pass. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 12:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Pelato-Shinar, Ruth (2016). Banking regulation in Israel : prudential regulation versus consumer protection. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands. ISBN 978-90-411-6791-0. OCLC 962231856.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

[2] Packin, Nizan Geslevich (September 2018). "Banking Regulation in Israel: Prudential Regulation versus Consumer Protection". Banking & Finance Law Review, Toronto. 33 (3): 495–499 – via ProQuest.

[3] Micklitz, Hans-W. (December 2017). "Book Notes Law 4/2017". Journal of Consumer Policy. 40 (4): 509–519. doi:10.1007/s10603-017-9362-z. ISSN 0168-7034.

[1]

[2]

[3]