Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Timtrent (talk | contribs) at 15:38, 15 May 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dee Brestin.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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

Dee Brestin

Dee Brestin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prohibits unilateral return top Draft. WP:ROTM author. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: I just want to say that this is incredibly poorly written. I fixed a few of the worst mistakes. It's almost impossible to get past the typos for me to judge the notability of the subject. Bearian (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Gottfried

David Gottfried (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of significance. References are passing mentions, profiles and interviews. scope_creepTalk 07:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usa article that uses Gottfried self-published book to expand the article to two small paras. It is WP:PRIMARY. The whitepaper lists references but no reference list, so it can't be verified, which is curious. That is a particularly poor design of a whitepaper. It is also full of adverts and corporate spam. Regarding 2nd ref in the article that was added on the 19 May. It is a passing mention at most. Its not in-depth either. These references are extremely poor and prove most of all that the dude lacks WP:SIGCOV that is independent, indepth and secondary. scope_creepTalk 00:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Headbomb: How goes it? I don't think notability is inherited. Is there a better argument here. I don't know. scope_creepTalk 19:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Allfather (Benison) (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep: Coverage from three different countries/locations [1], [2], [3], spanning a decade. With what's also in the article, we can easily show notability. My sources are a few interviews, but we have more than enough sourcing overall. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. The consensus is clear that this author meets the criteria of WP:NAUTHOR, and any further improvements with the references discussed may be added to expand upon the article's subject. (non-admin closure) Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Prevost

Robert W. Prevost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have to admit I only created this article due to the similar name with Robert Francis Prevost. He seems to only be notable for one event, that being his book Probability and Theistic Explanation, and he hasn't received any major awards. I'm not speedying this because I would like input from others. ―Howard • 🌽33 21:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, he did co-edit another notable book (How to Play Theological Ping Pong has several other reviews). So this isn't the worst case. But as above at worst this could become an article on the book. I would oppose deletion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any opinions on Prevost's editing. Most reviews appear to be focused on Mitchell and his work. ―Howard • 🌽33 21:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say delete. If the books are notable then they should be made into articles instead. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to delete when the work is already started and when the author's name is likely going to be a redirect to the book anyways. Just move it and edit it. Jahaza (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jahaza, fair point! Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2025 (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 06:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Schumann Howell

Frances Schumann Howell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The one element of sigcov I could find on a BEFORE search is Molina's article (cited in the wiki article already). Not really enough by itself to establish GNG. Eddie891 Talk Work 06:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2025 (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. Nomination withdrawn citing improvements in the article per the nominator. The consensus was keep. It is to be noted that efforts of Ldm1954 and argument of WP:NPROF#1 for a keep was also maintained by most of the keep voters. (non-admin closure) HilssaMansen19 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kirtiraj Gaikwad

Kirtiraj Gaikwad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No Independent significant coverage about him and his work. Published scientific articles alone doesn't inherit notability. Draft was moved back to main space without adding anything valuable. Question of COI is also raised by other reviewers. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unfortunately the nominator has made a fundamental error: scientific articles are sufficient for notability under WP:NPROF#C1. At 42 his h-factor is a little low, and 300 is not that large for his highest cited paper. However, if you look at his areas in GScholar they are not high cite topics, so 42 is a clear pass of WP:NPROF. The nominator may want to reconsider. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    N.B., the nominators statement "Question of COI is also raised by other reviewers" appears to be incorrect, I see no such statements by any reviewers (myself included). Ldm1954 (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPROF#C1 under this there are other points too, just number of publications are not sufficient in my opinion. Regarding COI you are right, I mis interpretated "SELF PUBLISHED SOURCES " as COI. Thanks for pointing it out. Scientific articles , I mean any published article in a Journal is called scientific article and this doesn't justify notability. We need to see quality and impact of such publications. Thanks for getting involved in this discussion. Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but you are not correct in your interpretation. So long as the journals are not predatory and there is no evidence of citation manipulation we accept them. (Manipulation can occur, see WT:NPROF#C1 and mathematics). However. I saw (please note tense) nothing when I checked the article a week ago. His most cited work is in Environmental Chemistry Letters which is a decent Springer journal, please see here Ldm1954 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen your contribution in this article. I am aware of Springer journal. Let me have a review on his published articles once again. Thank you Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject passes WP:NPROF#C1, I do agree with Ldm1954. Taabii (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I understand the importance of independent coverage for notability. While the article may not currently highlight significant independent sources, the subject's work is well-documented in peer-reviewed journals, which are highly regarded in academic circles. I can revise the article to add more independent references and clarify any areas of concern. Regarding the COI issue, I have no personal or financial ties to the subject, but I can address any concerns on the Talk page.
Here are the some his independent scientific research highlights in national and internation news and scientific articles:
IIT Roorkee's eco-packaging extends fresh produce shelf life by one week
IIT Roorkee innovates nutritious edible millet straws as a sustainable alternative alternative to plastic
In a first, IIT Roorkee develops kodo millet based edible cup
Indian researchers develop nutritious edible cups to replace conventional plastic applications Bhushanpkg (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Bhushanpkg (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Note: please 'do not add those sources. Those are exactly the type of popular science/advertising which we do not want in an encyclopedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some independent scientist new articles.
IIT Roorkee's eco-packaging extends fresh produce shelf life by one week
IIT Roorkee innovates nutritious edible millet straws as a sustainable alternative alternative to plastic
In a first, IIT Roorkee develops kodo millet based edible cup
Indian researchers develop nutritious edible cups to replace conventional plastic applications
14.139.233.131 (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, there is no evidence to substantiate notability. Does not meet the criteria for notability as outlined in WP:GNG. Commenting by IP address signifies the same user as the article's creator. B-Factor (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably delete, associate professor isn't enough, and although it's true that peer-reviewed literature counts as independent, for the purposes of NPROF C1 there need to be highly-cited publications with strong impact. Gaikwad has some fairly well-cited publications, but, partly because of his alarmingly high rate of publication, there seems to be quite a high level of self-citation. Also most of his output is a very, very large number of articles of very narrow scope, and reviews; I'm not 100% convinced that this is in keeping with NPROF. Elemimele (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - while it's rare for us to keep an associate professor, it's not unheard of (see, e.g., Barbette Spaeth). That's true in the cases where they have gotten tenure, but have not gotten full professorship for some bureaucratic reason. However, to keep per WP:HEY, I'd really prefer that the sources found literally be added to the article. Bearian (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep associate professors are usually fully tenured professors, Donna Strickland was an associate professor at the time she received her Nobel prize so this should be a non-argument. Instead we should look at his actual impact in the field. His citation profile looks sufficient for WP:NPROF#1 with an h-index of 42 and a total of 16 publications with 100+ citations to pass the bar and is in line with previous outcomes of academics. --hroest 20:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being an associate professor is absolutely not evidence of non-notability. Many associate professors are notable through their academic accomplishments, and many others are not; the rank provides no evidence either way and we must look at other criteria. In this case, the citation record and WP:PROF#C1 are convincing enough to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn : I find improvement in article after being nominated for deletion. This made me reconsider my decision and hereby withdraw my nomination. Rahmatula786 (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, but at this point we need to wait out the full AfD period because there still remain other delete !votes. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J. D. Scott

J. D. Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A longtime redirect to Oneok (for former Oneok chairman and CEO J.D. "Scotty" Scott) was hijacked as an WP:ADMASQ page for an Iowa deputy sheriff's self-published novel. The book is not notable, and beyond a human-interest story in his local newspaper I'm not seeing any WP:SIGCOV that would qualify for a pass of WP:GNG. I would have just restored the redirect but it was previously contested, so in the absence of passing WP:N I'm seeking an AfD consensus to restore the redirect to Oneok. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that a Wikipedia page titled J. D. Scott should redirect to the company Oneok simply because a former CEO was named "Scotty Scott" is, frankly, ridiculous. Wikipedia is not owned or dictated by corporate entities, and a company does not gain perpetual rights over a personal name—especially one as common as J. D. Scott—based solely on a former executive's nickname.
More importantly, the previous version of the J. D. Scott page referred to a legitimate author, complete with reliable sources, and was improperly deleted to reinstate a redirect that serves no encyclopedic purpose. The argument that the redirect was "longstanding" does not justify replacing a fact-based article about a notable individual with a misleading and irrelevant corporate redirect.
Wikipedia’s mission is to provide accurate, verifiable information—not to protect redirects rooted in corporate confusion or coincidental name overlap. The deletion of sourced content in favor of such a redirect undermines the integrity of the platform. 158.120.123.239 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with a redirect somewhere else but I am not OK with a page being hijacked to promote a non-notable author's self-published book. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably be redirected to JD Scott, who appears to be an actually notable author. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2025 (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. Complex/Rational 22:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Kamanda

George Kamanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional biography of a non-notable political adviser and lawyer. Fails all possible notability guidelines. The sources are limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCE bios ([4]), affiliated sources like his university ([5]), his own writings ([6], [7]), and one source that doesn't even mention him ([8]). WP:BEFORE turns up more of the same but no WP:GNG-qualifying sources. Meanwhile, his books are WP:SELFPUBLISHED (Palmetto Publishing, CreateSpace, others, and his sole academic paper has not been cited once according to Google Scholar, so there are no WP:NBIO SNGs to hook onto here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2025 (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 00:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zeynep Heyzen Ateş

Zeynep Heyzen Ateş (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 18:19, 12 May 2025 (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.

Ben Birdsall

AfDs for this article:
Ben Birdsall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not satisfied he meets WP:NAUTHOR as his work has not been widely reviewed (the best I found was a 1996 review of his first book in Kirkus). Search his name and you quickly run into other people called Ben Birdsall, so I'm not convinced he meets the WP:GNG criteria either.

The article was also created by a single purpose account that is very likely to be the man himself, hence the chunks of text that are uncited. In other words, this is a poorly sourced promo. Leonstojka (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Leadbetter, Russell (2016-06-10). "Whisky galore! Or: one man's distillery tour on a 50cc Vespa". The Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-05-12. Retrieved 2025-05-12.

      The review notes: "Ben Birdsall arrived on his loaded-up Vespa on Jura and met a couple of strangers sitting outside a hotel. ... West Yorkshire-born Birdsall had many such encounters on his Vespa-borne travels round Arran, Kintyre, Islay, Jura, Mull, Skye, the west and central Highlands, Speyside and, finally, the east Highlands and Orkney. He has now poured his writings, photographs and paintings of that trip into a rather nice book. ... Birdsall, who is 49, lives with his wife and daughter in Winterthur, a city in the Swiss canton of Zurich, where he teaches English "and paint and write in my spare time". Having written a book about his travels round Tuscany by Vespa, he originally envisaged his Scottish project as a painting trip with a few distilleries thrown in, but the idea gradually evolved in favour of the distilleries."

    2. Deering, Paul (1995-07-19). "How Sligo roots inspired novelist". The Sligo Champion. p. 21. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "A young Englishman of Irish descent who has links with Dromore West has had his first novel, set in Connemara published. Indeed, for author Ben Birdsall (28) it was the beauty of the West of Ireland and his summer and Christmas holidays spent here that drew him to put pen to paper. ... His novel, Blue Charm, is published by Blackstaff and is the story of one man's renewal through the joys, strangeness and humour of country life. Charged with the hidden rhythms and resonances of a fading Gaelic way of life, the novel catches a twilight society poised between a haunted past and an unsteady future. ... While the main character has an interest in art, so too has Ben, so much so that painting plays just as big a part in his life as writing. ... After leaving Durham University, Ben spent some years working on his uncle's farm in the Dromore West area but in the last two years he has been living in Tuscany, Italy, studying the Renaissance artists and painting their landscapes. ... Writing is certainly in the Birdsall blood. Ben's father, James has published two successful volumes of memoirs ... Timothy Birdsall, Ben's uncle, reached fame through his cartoon ... Ben's early writing career had a bit of a chequered history. In 1985 while a pupil at Sedbergh School, Cumbria, his play The Happiest Days the story of a revolt in a boys' school was banned before it was due to be performed on Open Day on the grounds that it was unsuitable for parents. A year later, Ben began reading English Literature at Durham University and his first attempt at a novel, The Wanderings of a Buadno-Marxist, was published in the student magazine."

    3. DD (1995-09-24). "What lies between the covers". Sunday Tribune. p. 20. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      This is a book review of Blue Charm by Ben Birdsall published by The Blackstaff Press. The review notes: "This may be the worst book on Ireland ever written. What condemns it is not the mistaken belief that the quality of the writing can disguise the absence of a plot; it is not Birdsall's conceit that he is accurately representing a little piece of Ireland; it is, rather, the brass neck of the publishers in thinking that they can pass off such a blatant piece of Paddywhackery as literature that really gets up the nose. When Birdsall confines himself to descriptions of nature or places he is quite a nice writer. However he is determined to make quite a large section of people in the West fit the faith and begorrah, fairy-believing cliche so beloved of much of the English middle-classes. ... Blue Charm is a joke, made worse by Birdsall's patronising treatment of the people to whom he purports to be strongly attached."

    4. Relich, Mario (1987-08-28). "Festival Review: Around the Fringe". The Scotsman. p. 9. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The review notes: "Staggart Lane: Collingwood Catdaddy Codpieces. This meandering new play by Ben Birdsall, an undergraduate from Durham University, has some very effective moments. There can be no doubt, as well, that the playwright shows great potential, but the smarties handed out to the audience at Masonic Lodge, Hill Street were easier to digest than the to find life meaningless, and therefore recklessly waste it. This theme is explored through an anti-hero who has problems with drugs. But he is prevented from facing what has made him an addict in the first place by officiously well-meaning do gooders who queue up to save him. These include, among others, an aerobic Christian, and an implacable Buddhist—both richly comic cameo roles."

    5. "Festival date for Yorks playwright". Telegraph & Argus. 1987-08-27. Archived from the original on 2025-05-12. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Edinburgh's famous Fringe Festival will next week be the venue of a new play by young Keighley writer Ben Birdsall. The play, Staggart Lane will be performed at the festival renowned as an outlet for new theatrical talents from August 24 to 29 at the Masonic Lodge Theatre. Now at Durham University, Ben, of Cross Hills, was a pupil at South Craven School before going to Sedburgh."

    6. "Author is nominated for literary award". Craven Herald & Pioneer. 1996-04-19. Archived from the original on 2025-05-12. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The first novel by Cross Hills writer Ben Birdsall has been nominated for a top literary prize. Blue Charm is one of five books shortlisted for the Author's Club First Novel Award. The prize is given annually to the writer of the most promising first novel published in the United Kingdom. ... Educated at Glusburn and South Craven Schools and later at Sedbergh, Ben gained a BA Hons degree in English language and literature at Durham University. Being of Anglo-Irish origin, he returns regularly to his family home in County Sligo, and has formed a deep attachment to the West of Ireland and its peo-ple. Indeed, his novel Blue Charm is based in County Galway."

    7. "Cross Hills: Author was thwarted during 'Happiest Days' but now he is in print at last. Novel success for Ben". Telegraph & Argus. 1995-07-21. Archived from the original on 2025-05-12. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "It is ten years since Ben Birdsall's first attempt at writing was thwarted by cautious teachers at his school. His play The Happiest Days, which told the story of a revolt in a boys' school, was banned from performance at Sedbergh School, North Yorkshire, because it was felt to be unsuitable for parents. Now the Keighley author is celebrating seeing his first novel in print. Blue Charm, which paints a vivid picture of life in Connemara, Ireland, has just been published by Belfast-based Blackstaff Press. ... His literary interest grew at Durham University where he read English Literature. His first attempt at a novel — The Wanderings of a Buddho-Marxist — was published in extracts in the student magazine Inprint. In his last year at Durham he wrote a dissertation on his own work."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ben Birdsall to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete First AFD nomination was delete. This second time, notability is still not established with the sources available. Many of these look like promotion or announcements. I don't think this is enough for notability or for a stand alone article. Plus much of the page is WP:OR which means someone close or even the subject may be writing their own biographical details. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 20:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are going to offer an argument, please evaluate the sources presented in the article and in the discussion. We don't want to make a closure based on impressions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet NAUTH:
  • he is not "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited". Most sources are primarily small, local papers (Sligo Champion, Telegraph and Argus, Charlston Mercury. (The latter appears to be very informal, and without paid writers.)) Two of the reviews blast him (see above) which indicates that he is not considered a serious author.
  • Nor, as per criterion 3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I can see one independent source (The Herald). The #2 reference in the article is 1) an interview and 2) by the organization that published his book. And there is no indication that this is considered a "significant body of work."
  • The festival date article is not significant, and he was nominated for an award but did not win.
  • While much is often made of GNG when some sources are found, the policy is: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6] This policy does not say that if sources are found the subject is automatically notable. We need to analyze what the sources are telling us, and in this case I conclude that not even the cumulation of the sources adds up to notability. Lamona (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers:
Big or small, all of these newspapers are (or were) reliable, independent sources with editorial supervision.
The Notability (people) guideline says WP:NAUTHOR is an alternative means of qualifying as notable; authors are not required to meet it. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria:
  • "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria states:
  • "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability"
Negative reviews do not count against notability. Even Hemingway and Joyce got some negative reviews; probably Dante back in his day, too. -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the article history. Created and mainly edited by a WP:SPA, so probably either himself or a paid editor. What I see here is a mediocre writer trying to use Wikipedia for WP:PROMO. And, funny thing, that editor is User:Wormtub67 and (I know this is a stretch but not out of the bounds of possibility) Birdsall's year of birth is '67. As for the newspapers, I didn't say they weren't reliable. I do say that being written up in a source that reaches a small (by my standards) community isn't enough. If he'd gotten a review in The Times or The Guardian then I would see notability. Oh, and Hemingway and Joyce got (and still get) positive reviews and academic treatment, and are pronounced as cultural titans. Maybe if we wait 50 years this guy will be in the canon of literature, but I for one would not put money on it. Lamona (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 for deletion, and none likely to arise. asilvering (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Allen

AfDs for this article:
Elise Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not convinced this person is notable. Yes she wrote a "New York Times bestseller", but even for that the primary reason it was a bestseller was because she coauthored it with Hilary Duff, and it seems likely many people bought it because they were fans of Duff – essentially ghostwriting in the open. She created some children's TV shows – even if those shows are notable, I don't think that necessarily makes her notable by extension. Note this article was already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elise_Allen in Feb 2020 but then recreated roughly 10 months later – and I'm not sure if anything had really changed between its deletion and its recreation. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:58, 18 May 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Blake (entrepreneur)

Trevor Blake (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was flagged a few years back for questionable notability, and since then no major improvement has taken place to demonstrate the subject meets the criteria. I have the following concerns:

  • I have been unable to verify the claim that he sold a company for upwards of $100 million (in other places, the claim is various companies for $300 million)
  • While his book has numerous ratings, I cannot locate reviews in major publications, just blogs. The Huffington Post story referenced in this article was written by Blake himself.
  • The article is overly reliant on primary sources, and I couldn't find significant secondary source coverage. The closest thing was a brief 2012 Forbes online article written by a fellow entrepreneur/self help type (see here) and a story in a regional newspaper in Wales describing his 'rags to riches' life story. I also checked the archived version of his website (current one isn't working for me, or the website of his most recent venture for that matter) and could not his verify his claim that his book had been profiled by the Wall Street Journal.
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 14:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhwinder Panchhi

Sukhwinder Panchhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly non notable. Doesn’t satisfy any notability criteria. Also i checked on google but found nothing. Afstromen (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2025 (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) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 18:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Piette

Albert Piette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is pretty much a list of the man's works with no other analysis of the subject matter. There's no section on his personal life, views, etc. Would be OK revoking this RFD if these concerns were addressed but with the article as is, I don't know if this is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 13:00, 9 May 2025 (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 14:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Dhillon

Dev Dhillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He doesn’t have any reliable source to establish notability. Sources in the article are unreliable. Clearly non notable. Afstromen (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2025 (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 06:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gora Chakk Wala

Gora Chakk Wala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable singer. Found nothing reliable and significant for his notability. Afstromen (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2025 (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. Ordinarily, I might have closed this as No consensus but I found the Keep arguments to be persuasive and the focused on the sources while most Delete comments relied on their own personal knowledge or that of associates which isn't a factor in an AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elissa_Shevinsky

AfDs for this article:
Elissa_Shevinsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability has not been established for this person. Page was previously nominated for deletion Barrettsprivateers (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking phys.org reference as I don't think it counts as a reliable source. However, keeping my !vote the same given three strong sources previously identified and three reviews for Lean Out. Nnev66 (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis would be helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hard to analyze a negative. Notability has not been established. Therefore my comment of delete is pretty much all that is required in a vote. RocketDwiki (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Shapiro book section may not be completely independent, author is in the same niche as subject (tech startup CEOs who are frequently quoted about misogyny in the tech space) - guessing that's a pretty small world. See his blog post about their interview and article they were quoted in together. But the NYT piece is clearly sigcov, CNN is decent if a bit less in-depth, and her book has at least 3 reviews in RS. Put altogether subject seems at least weakly notable. Zzz plant (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree that the NYT piece, the CNN piece, and the reviews for her book are sufficient to establish notability. Her book and her work are also mentioned in at least half a dozen academic books and journal articles, e.g. [59] [60]. At worst, this should be redirected to Lean Out: The Struggle for Gender Equality in Tech and Start-up Culture as an ATD. MCE89 (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not establish to be notable under WP:GNG. Have also discussed with cyber experts and she is not known to them.Fordyhall (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Talking with outside experts is original research, which is not acceptable at Wikipedia (see WP:OR). I also find it interesting that you found a discussion at Articles for Deletion on your second edit. Have you been editing Wikipedia with another username? DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just noting here that only one of the four nominators has put forward a reason for deletion consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Even the one who said they thought the article didn't meet WP:GNG guidelines didn't address the three sources DaffodilOcean put forward for notability in their Keep !vote above. Zzz plant questions whether the book is independent because the author and subject are in the same smallish field but also !voted Keep. I'll expand here on the three book reviews for Lean Out. Two of them also have coverage of the subject: [61], [62] and the other is a comprehensive review: [63]. With all of these sources taken together this article should clear GNG. I'm willing to accept the subject is not a cybersecurity expert, but this is not relevant for this discussion. Nnev66 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Atzori

Daniel Atzori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Former scholar (he appears to now be working in private sector) with low research impact. Has never held a senior academic post, and his books were not widely reviewed either.

The article was created in 2010, before the subject had even earned his PhD, and was presumably made in order to promote his first book. Leonstojka (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR, I could only find 5 entries in JSTOR and no review of his book at all. I found no indication of notability. --hroest 15:58, 8 May 2025 (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.

Mehzeb Chowdhury

Mehzeb Chowdhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Other than the sheer obnoxiousness of this article (which is just one long advert about why the subject is the most awesome and interesting man in the world), I'm not totally convinced it meets the notability criteria. Reasons below:

  • Many of the sources are just passing mentions, and they aren't always high quality (e.g. a casting website is used to support the claim he is an actor/filmmaker)
  • A previous editor has marked the article as relying too heavily on sources that may be closely related to the subject. I happen to agree, and the generally sycophantic nature of these articles is off-putting and undermines the case for notability (given his father is a prominent journalist, I wonder if he has some connections with The Daily Star, which is one of the main sources)
  • The big notability claim is his association with MABMAT, and while that is notable, I'm not sure it justifies Chowdhury having an article to himself. Furthermore, this article seems to credit Chowdhury as the sole inventor, whereas The Times was more balanced, indicating he led a team at Durham University that developed it [64]
  • As a researcher he has a low h-index [65]
  • An excessive number of claims rely on primary sources. A few claims aren't even verified (e.g. that he worked for Goal.com as a correspondent) Leonstojka (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Journalism, Law, Social science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (creator) The nomination is strictly reliant on issues regarding the article. Issues regarding an article can be raised in its talk page or Wikiprojects' talk pages (I do agree it needs some touch, and I'm willing to do them once able, but that's irrelevant to an article's notability).
    Just because an article is not up to the mark on some aspects, it does not become non-notable. Many of the sources are just passing mentions- not every source of an article need to be of high quality or of depth. An article fo shizz will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims.
    There exist several sources (in Bengali as well) in and out of the article that definitely speak volume for this person's notability. X (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 'An article fo shizz will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims' – Sure, but if we're establishing general notability it is best to have more than passing mentions, because lots of people are sometimes contacted by the media to provide comment for stories. I also have concerns about the promotional nature of some of the Bangladeshi sources (e.g. this one), which read like adulatory press releases. Leonstojka (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
~ Not sure how to rate independence. ~ Not sure on reliability of this. Yes 700 words about subject ~ Partial
~ Not sure how to rate independence: asked in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-ActivelyDisinterested-20250516114100-PacificDepths-20250516083000 ~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional? Yes Entire article is about subject. ~ Partial
~ Some interview quotes. Not sure how to rate independence. ~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional? Yes Entire article is about subject. ~ Partial
~ Some interview quotes. Not sure how to rate independence. ~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional? Yes Entire article is about subject. ~ Partial
No Mostly an interview, primary source material ~ unknown No One sentence description of subject ✘ No
No Mostly an interview, primary source material ~ Treat case by case basis per WP:NEWSWEEK No one sentence description and quote ✘ No
No Interview: Primary source ~ Yes ✘ No
No Interview Yes No Little information about the subject ✘ No
No Primary source Yes No One sentence about the subject ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • @PacificDepths Simply discarding sources labeled as "interviews" is flawed. These are features that include quotations and interview segments, as features inherently contain such elements. You cannot broadly dismiss them by merely labeling them as interviews. Claiming they "feel promotional" is your subjective opinion (these features have proper bylines and are not promo pieces, if so, they'd have been designated as such from these reputed pubs). Overall, I strongly disagree with this source analysis table. Additionally, several Bengali news sources, TV appearances, and passing mentions in reputable publications recognize him as a notable person or expert. Collectively, these demonstrate his notability. GNG is fo shizzle met here. X (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • And by the way, common sense should prevail. The newsweek and diplomat sources were mentioned to demonstrate a point that this person also gets called out for their expert opinion, assessing and labeling these 2 as "One sentence description of subject" is utterly asinine, like of course these are passing mentions. And as I stated earlier, not every source of an article need to be entirely about the subject or of depth. An article will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims. X (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've re-ordered the sources and edited some. I'm not sure how to judge Business Standard, Daily Star, ICE Today. I don't think The Times should demonstrate notability. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PacificDepths, and those who are unfamiliar, TBS, DS, Prothom Alo, Ice Today, these all are reputed and generally deemed reliable publications. X (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While numerically, there are more editors arguing to Keep this article I don't find their arguments compelling. We need more editors reviewing and commenting on the source analysis which is a strong argument for Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kudos to PacificDepths for doing a source assessment. The set of sources cited has changed a little since then. Two thirds of the sources are written by Chowdhury or are passing mentions of him. For the remainder, I'll try to expand on PacificDepths' work and resolve some of the "maybe" entries. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table prepared by User:Worldbruce
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No Interview, primary source. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 477#Business Standard Bangladesh tbsnews.net. Yes Yes Entire article is about subject ✘ No
No Interview, primary source Yes Yes Entire article is about subject ✘ No
No Interview, primary source Yes Yes Entire article is about subject ✘ No
No Uses Chowdhury as a source ("Chowdhury says", "he believes") Yes No One sentence identification ✘ No
No Quotations of Chowdhury, primary source ~ Treat case by case basis per WP:NEWSWEEK No One sentence identification ✘ No
No Interview, primary source Yes Yes ✘ No
No Chowdhury talking about Chowdhury Yes Yes ✘ No
Yes Yes No ✘ No
No Uses Chowdhury as a source ("Chowdhury says", "he told", "according to him") Yes No One sentence identification ✘ No
No Press release, identical wording in multiple Bangladeshi newspapers Yes Yes ✘ No
~ No byline, almost certainly a press release Yes Yes ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Delete Despite the large number of sources, there are no sources that are both independent and that contain significant coverage of him. Every source of substance is Chowdhury talking about Chowdhury. The sources repeat what he says uncritically, and without bringing in any other views. Publishers evidently can't find anyone with anything to say about him other than him - no colleague who has read the chapter he wrote, no viewer of his 1-minute film, no listener to his album, etc. Self-promotion is not the route to notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to the article's other top ten (by edits or added text) non-bot registered editors, as concerned editors: (Bearcat—Caeciliusinhorto-public—David notMD—Diannaa—GoingBatty—HeyElliott—MrsSnoozyTurtle—R'n'B) --Worldbruce (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: I'm shocked that I'm in the top 10 for this article, but apparently adding categories and DEFAULTSORT plus tweaking references two years ago gets me there. While I have no desire to review the 34 references in the article, it would be nice if @X: would add the references they mentioned to the article. GoingBatty (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm apparently in the top 10 by virtue of having edited this article once (to fix an ambiguous link). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I stand by my previous remarks. While one can nitpick the individual sources, common sense should prevail. X (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re the source table done by Worldbruce, I'd have to repeat myself here. Simply discarding sources labeled as "interviews" is flawed. These are features that include quotations and interview segments, as features inherently contain such elements. You cannot broadly dismiss them by merely labeling them as interviews. Claiming they "feel promotional" is your subjective opinion (these features have proper bylines and are not promo pieces, if so, they'd have been designated as such from these reputed pubs). Additionally, several Bengali news sources, TV appearances, and passing mentions in reputable publications recognize him as a notable person or expert. Collectively, these demonstrate his notability. GNG is fo shizzle met here.
And by the way, common sense should prevail. Some sources are added to demonstrate a point that this person also gets called out for their expert opinion, assessing and labeling these as "One sentence identification" is utterly asinine, like of course these are passing mentions. And as I stated earlier, not every source of an article need to be entirely about the subject or of depth. An article will contain many sources that might just well be passing mentions, supporting the asserted claims. X (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re @GoingBatty, here are two prominent features previously not present in the article, this from prothomalo, this from Ice today. There are multiple news pieces in Bengali as well which are not sources in the article.
Once again I'd have to respectfully retort myself, collectively, all the sources (of depth and the otw) speak for this person's notability who has been recurrently getting media coverage for a decade now. They are called for their opinions and introduced as an expert in those "passing mentions" as well, along with tv coverage, in combination with the full-fledged features from multiple reputed pubs -- all these warrant GNG here. Why'd a non-notable person get recurrent coverage, all thanks to "self promo?" And the film or music stuff are their side gigs, not the talking point of their notability. They are mainly notable for their invention, as well-being an expert in criminology, also more recently they got some coverage on being an adviser to Newcastle United. X (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'They are mainly notable for their invention'
Right, this is one of the reasons for the nomination I addressed above. It is arguably the strongest claim, but it seems more like a justification for the MABMAT rather than Chowdhury himself. And there isn't enough evidence that his work as a criminologist strengthens his notability claim e.g. not that many citations, no major awards, has not been chief editor of a major journal and so on.
Why'd a non-notable person get recurrent coverage, all thanks to "self promo?"
Well, I suppose if Chowdhury is a skilled networker who is good at leveraging connections with media in Bangladesh. That can't be proven of course, but it's the somewhat obsequious nature of his coverage that raises an eyebrow and makes me wonder (as other users have noted) how independent of Chowdhury these sources really are. I found it very interesting that when I searched for the Newcastle Utd independent advisory group, the first mentions were disproportionately reports of Chowdhury getting appointed from Bangladeshi publications, whereas the other members of this group were much harder to identify and their role did not generate any press attention. Why is that? Leonstojka (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Keep Many of the sources are borderline in terms of independence, but there are a lot of them: it isn't a situation where we only have two sources and both of them are dubious, we're talking in the double digits here, across publications and continents. Interviews can be promotional, but if the interview is done by an independent outlet and it includes at least some independent commentary by written by the article author or journalist, then I think that's enough for SIGCOV purposes. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 18:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 23:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Narinder Batth

Narinder Batth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His work might seem notable, but the lack of coverage in reliable sources indicates that he is not notable Afstromen (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 15 May 2025 (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. ✗plicit 14:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lufkin

Robert Lufkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet NACADEMIC or NAUTHOR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2025 (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. There doesn't seem to be agreement that there enough sources to build a complete article here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soun Takeda

Soun Takeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note tag placed. I think its non-notable. References are extremly poor, some promo. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Man doing his job. scope_creepTalk 09:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced search for: 
"武田双雲"
In books/documents 
Google Books
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
refseek
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives
Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal
The Wikipedia Library

Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central
Internet Archive
BASE  · Persée

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
Advanced search for: 
"Soun Takeda"
In books/documents 
Google Books
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
refseek
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives
Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal
The Wikipedia Library

Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central
Internet Archive
BASE  · Persée

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
Bro even got a PBS source lol Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question for @Miminity - Could you please list below which are the three best citations that are: verifiable secondary reliable sources that provide in-depth significant coverage, and are fully-independent from the subject himself? Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: sorry for the late reply: It passes GNG, Despite the (1) PBS source being about a local event, it is still not a WP:MILL news, it is still has a significant coverage about who the author is. (2) This Sankei Sports review. (3) This Nihonbashi Keizai Article
Additionally:
(4) This Sports Hochi source. I exclude paywalled sources. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally I also found (3.5) this Journal by OpenEdition Journals , though in french might have a significant coverage about him Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Miminity, Thank you for getting back to me. We differ in our analyses of the sources. I’ve already expressed what I thought about the PBS source (so I won't repeat myself here); the Sankai Sports piece is in a sports publication rather than an art or art history publication – it’s PR for a show at a department store and seems to be a press release not in any way a serious art review of a show at a museum or notable gallery or national gallery. The is promo for a calligraphy performance event, not an art review of his work. The Sports Hochi has the same problem in that it is not a serious art reference in an art publication, it’s about his performance of calligraphy as a kind of sport performed in a store. It’s human interest story, content created for the sports public not serious art criticism or art history. He does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT nor WP:NARTIST at this time. Don’t get me wrong, he seems like a great guy and an interesting calligrapher. I just don’t think the sourcing is what is usually present for a notable artist. Maybe in a few more years but now it is WP:TOOSOON.
This citation is pretty good: Cipango is a peer reviewed publication. I’d count that towards GNG, but not the others. If you can find two more like this I might change my mind. Netherzone (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Miminity Bookmarking WP:JAPANBEFORE! Thank you for putting that together, I think it is excellent. I may make a few suggestions on the talk page if you are open to it? DCsansei (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added an image to the article. See RIKEN Advance Institute for Computational Science (AICS-RIKEN) photo gallery for more pictures. Thanks. Tortillovsky (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The subject of the article fails WP:NARTIST due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Many of the sources in the article seem to be PR or promotional puff pieces. What are needed are serious critical analysis of his work within an art historical framework. It doesn't matter that he's written a lot of books, if his books have not received critical attention he does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. WomanArtistUpdates rationale is very clear, as is their point that PBS is local coverage for a hyper-local event. Netherzone (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Prolific author. Popular calligraphy artist. In practical terms, his work can be seen on the K computer (article available in several languages); image found in Commons. Originally, the article "Soun Takeda" (jp: 武田双雲) was translated from Wikipedia in Japanese. Thanks Tortillovsky (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Get a commissioned work doesn't make you notable. scope_creepTalk 04:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tortillovsky, being a "popular" or a "prolific" is not the same as notability; nor is being "seen" on the decommissioned K supercomputer. Just because an article exists on another language Wikipedia does not mean that they are notable per English Wikipedia criteria. Netherzone (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bit suprised at that. Ref 2 doesn't appear to have a byline and appears to constute almost an interview. Ref 3 "See and play" with ticket details has no byline either and appears to be a routine annoucement of the event. I'm curious how these two are significant. scope_creepTalk 09:54, 13 May 2025 (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 11:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Sikora

Bernd Sikora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod without improvement. Currently sourcing does not show they pass WP:GNG, and searches did not turn up with enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources to show they meet GNG. And they do not appear to meet WP:NSCHOLAR either. Onel5969 TT me 14:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:24, 11 May 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Takis Sakellariou

Takis Sakellariou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG - clearly falls into WP:LUGSTUBS. Réunion! 03:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is not a typical Lugstub at all. Has anyone searched in Wikilibrary sources? Cbl62 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of people with the name Takis Sakellariou. There's also no Greek article on him, unfortunately, so it's not like we can just expand it with the corresponding article in Greek. If someone native in the language looked, maybe we'd get a more definitive answer if there's any articles that do pass GNG on him. Réunion! 20:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There will certainly be namesakes, but what is the basis for saying there are a lot of them? Sakellariou is not unusual but neither is it a particularly common Greek surname, and the same could be said for the forename, Takis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, this one [77] is clearly more notable and accounts for most of what I am turning up. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Greek there is an extensive reference to Sakelariou here which comes from a book on the subject - I think it's a reliable source. Apart from that, however, I have not found anything else worthwhile. Delete Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Greece at the 1936 Summer Olympics or consider Grigoris Lambrakis, although mention at the page would be required. I have searched but unable to find any SIGCOV secondary sources for this subject. There is a more notable namesake in entertainment (actor and producer) and most sources refer to that one. However the sources I found above are confirmed to be this page subject. The problem is that these are just not enough. The history of the Olympic art competitions confirms his entry, but doesn't have anything to tell us about the man. Likewise Gkotzaridis (2016), that is, A Pacifist's Life and Death: Grigorios Lambrakis and Greece in the Long Shadow of Civil War, which I have now obtained a library copy of, only actually has three mentions of the page subject, the other mentions of Sakellariou in the work referring to one of five others with that surname: Alexandros, Aristeidis, Epameinondas, Petros and Vassileos. The most substantial of the references to the page subject reads: As for Takis Sakellariou, he was properly bedazzled and stirred - like so many others back at home - by the spectacle of Germans rooting for Greek athletes in Greek and some even succeeding in intoning the first verses of the Greek national anthem! and this is referenced to one of his works:
- Takis Sakellariou, "The Foustanela-dressed of the Gymnastics Academy and the Greek Champions: Mantikas, Syllas and Papadimas," Athlitismos, August 10, 1936.
That source, of course, is primary. The book also confirms his involvement in training, with As soon as he met Grigorios, the coach, Takis Sakellariou, sensed at once that he had in front of him a rare instance of an athlete, with remarkable jumping capabilities. He started to train him, believing firmly that he would grow into a wonderful jumper. The other mention also briefly mentions training. And that is it. We have no secondary sources covering the subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the one good source below, striking my redirect for now, as focus on the subject as a sports science pioneer may be more fruitful than as an Olympian. At the very least we should allow time for further searches. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am putting my redirect !vote back. The source below is excerpted from a local history book published by the Piraeus association. The website is similarly supported by the association. The claims about him being a pioneer are, it seems, overhyped, as there is no other evidence of this. He is of local interest, but it is a single source by an association promoting Piraeus. This is not enough for GNG and nothing else is coming to light. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Greece at the 1936 Summer Olympics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. @Svartner and Sirfurboy: A search brought up that he literally had an in-depth story written on him this year, see this, which is 1,600 words on him by some Greek historical writer, titled "the pioneer of scientific gymnastics". In addition to it being SIGCOV, the fact that he still gets in-depth coverage today and that recent Greek writers were able to find so much on him strongly indicates that there would be further, offline coverage, as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree this one meets SIGCOV in a secondary source, and is an excerpt from a book that appears to be reliable, and independent. Who are the Thematic Office of Culture? Almost certainly this gives us one good source. We need multiple to meet GNG, so one more will do it (given that we have the brief mentions too). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The website you found deals exclusively with Piraeus issues - it records the local history of the city. There is no in-depth coverage of this person anywhere else. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no in-depth coverage of this person anywhere else. – How do you know? Have you checked old Greek archives? What about 1930s newspapers? Not everything is on the internet... BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are sources that are inaccessible to us - it is as if they do not exist since they cannot be documented. The newspapers of the time are considered primary sources since they cannot prove notability. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Inaccessible to you does not equate to non-existent. If you have not checked any Greek archives, then you have no right to claim that they do not exist. Neither are all newspaper sources primary and unusable like you claim. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is essentially a Russell's teapot argument. It is for the people asserting that these things exist to demonstrate that they do. FOARP (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Its also utterly ridiculous to claim a clearly prominent figure who still gets covered by historians today has "no further coverage" when no one has looked where the coverage is most likely to be! The chances that he would not have been covered significantly in his day is very, very, very slim given that he's still being covered today. No one has checked any Greek archives. People get covered most when they are active; that he gets covered significantly decades after his death is a very strong indication that there was significant coverage of him in the past. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. We have one source with clear sigcov and some other sources that mention him. For a topic so inaccessible, this is enough to convince me that WP:NEXIST applies. Toadspike [Talk] 10:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – I have struck my !vote after seeing FOARP point out below that the one source with sigcov seems to be a blog created with the "sole purpose" of promoting Piraeus. The author's other credentials are not, in my opinion, enough to qualify him as so much of a subject-matter expert that it can overcome the obvious declared bias. Toadspike [Talk] 21:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The website is hosting content from a book the author wrote on Pireaus history. Plenty of reliable writers/media outlets focus on specific regions. What sort of credentials are you looking for for a subject-matter expert? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - Olympedia is an unreliable source, as we saw with the Frank English AFD (wrong death-date, wrong name) and others. Moreover the operators corrected Olympedia directly in response to our Frank English AFD so it appears that they are using Wiki as a source. This unreliability is part and parcel of the other reason that Olympedia does not indicate notability: it has wide-sweeping inclusion criteria. A lot of their data appears to come from family members, so it is not independent even ignoring the fact that it is owned by the IOC.
I was tempted to vote keep based on the Pireorama, but looking at the about page it appears to just be a blog set up to promote Pireus, and as such is a self-published source. The article is an excerpt from what appears to be a self-published book (Milesis is a prominent member of the Pireus Association). The article also references an encyclopaedia listing for Sakellariou but crucially it also tells you that Sakellariou authored that encyclopaedia - as such, that encyclopaedia is not an independent source.
It just doesn't look like there's any there there, which is the problem with so many of these LUGSTUB articles. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you consider Pireorama a self-published source, the author Stefanos Milesis (Στέφανος Μίλεσης) is clearly a subject-matter expert, given that he's a historian, newspaper columnist, lecturer, television host and the author of nearly two dozen history books, many of which are non-self-published. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP - Every site has some errors. It happens. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Greece at the 1936 Summer Olympics : Subject lacks the required WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. I too share the concerns with using Olympedia and I can't find anything better to support notability here. Let'srun (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what's wrong with Milesis's article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a blog post, an excerpt from a book published by the association of which Milesis is a member, about that association (and so self-published). FOARP (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      But Sakellariou wasn't a member of that organization, was he? Self-published sources can still be reliable if the author is a subject matter expert. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It says he's a member on his Linkedin profile: ("He is a member of the National Society of Greek Writers, the Piraeus Association and the Maritime Museum of Greece."). FOARP (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I mean Sakellariou. If Sakellariou has no connection to the Piraeus Association, then someone in the Piraeus Association who is a subject matter expert writing SIGCOV about Sakellariou is SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The passage in the book certainly is SIGCOV. But that is not enough. To count towards GNG, you need significant coverage (SIGCOV) in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. A self published source is not a reliable source. But, in any case, you can argue the toss on this one - we still don't have multiple sources. And sources like this are exactly why we need multiple sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      A self published source is a reliable source if the author is an expert, which, in this case, he is. Note that per WP:SPORTCRIT, having one piece of SIGCOV indicate[s] that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. Also note that, per WP:NSPORT, The sports-specific notability guidelines are ... meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist ... Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English-language sources are difficult to find. One piece of SIGCOV is sufficient to satisfy NSPORT, and thus it should be acceptable to allow for more time instead of demanding "GNG now!" He's got SIGCOV, a second piece of arguably borderline coverage (Olympedia), and thus it should be acceptable to keep this on that basis for now. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Nah, it's not. SPORTCRIT starts off (emphasis mine) A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The bit you quote specifically says one source does not indicate notability but is a minimum requirement for any article that meets the following shortcut criteria for a presumption of notability. And no one has argued that this article meets any of those. But again, SPORTCRIT is the same as GNG here. Multiple sources are required. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no other way to interpret that having SIGCOV, like here, indicate[s] that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article, and meeting it is meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist ... [and] Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English-language sources are difficult to find. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not how it works Beannie: Self-published works are self-published works regardless of what they are writing about. The Pireus association is obviously interested in promoting their city. WP:SPS also warns against using self-published works, particularly for biographies ("if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". WP:SPS also requires the "expert" to have expertise "in the relevant field", which is questionable here - as far as I can see Milesis's background is in business administration and his career is broadcasting, he is at best an amateur historian. FOARP (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Per above, A self published source is a reliable source if the author is an expert, which, in this case, he is. You think its "questionable"? He's a newspaper columnist, a television/radio host discussing the area history, a lecturer on the area history, and has written numerous published history books on area history. He's clearly acceptable for area history like this. if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources – yeah, the thing is that no one has looked in any of the archives where that coverage would be. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Which sound exactly like millions of other amateur historians. FOARP (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, you can say that, but all that matters is that Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Being published in newspapers, on radio / television shows and having books published by independent houses meets that, whether you think its like "millions of others" or not. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      In addition to what Sirfurboy has ably discussed above, I’d throw in self-published sources being a poor indicator of notability even accepting for the sake of argument the author being an expert of some kind. “Self published by an expert” might be reliable because the person writing about it knows the subject area, but the fact that they couldn’t get anyone else to care enough about the topic to publish the piece for them and had to do it themselves makes notability dubious. FOARP (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Self-published doesn't automatically mean that the author couldn’t get anyone else to care enough about the topic to publish the piece for them... If written by an expert, the piece is reliable per our policy on self-published sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "Reliable" does not automatically mean "notable". People talking about themselves is an example of a source that is reliable, but does not show that the subject is notable. FOARP (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "Reliable" + "independent" + "in-depth" = SIGCOV. This is not a subject talking about themselves. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No WP:SIGCOV just means significant coverage. That is, it is in-depth, addressing the subject. For a subject to be notable, it must meet the general notability guidelines (GNG), for which there must be multiple sources with SIGCOV, where each must be reliable, and independent. And also these must be secondary sources. Furthermore, the article must not be excluded under what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). See WP:N. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      And? Pireaus is both reliable, independent, and in-depth. NOT has no application here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability. This WP:SPS has been discussed above against that standard. We do not agree that it is reliable. Even if it were, we still need multiple sources. We especially need multiple sources if the only source we have is a local self published source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Ugh, I've demonstrated that the source is clearly a subject-matter expert, which means that even if SPS, it is reliable. Olympedia can be counted as the second source; it is over 100 words on him. I contacted Millesis and he said that Sakellariou was covered numerous times in his day, so I've asked if he could share the extent of some of the sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request as this is soon due for closure, could we get a relist? (see above comment) Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On what basis? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See the comment directly above the request. Let'srun (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Has someone looked into Greek newspapers, as newspapers can be good quality reliable secondary sources? 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at a number through archive.org, yes. The expectation, of course, is that news reporting will usually be primary, not secondary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If a newspaper article is reporting about a current event it's a primary source, in most other cases it's a secondary article. If we are able to find a newspaper article writing about the works of Sakellariou, it's likely to be a secondary source article. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Archive.org is not the best place to search for offline-newspaper articles. Is there an online website where you can search into old Greek newspapers? 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What Greek newspapers did you look in? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I managed to find this piece of significant coverage on him from 1958 following his death that's more or less 300 words. [78] Additionally, we now know when and why he passed away, the when being on the 17th of September 1958 (which can also be confirmed here) and the why being from a cerebral haemorrhage following a stroke. Using Google Translate, he is described as a "teacher", he was the deputy director of the "Maternal Education" and a sports editor (including for Vradyni for 10 years) who wrote "many articles in newspapers and magazines". He also "dealt with studies on sports in antiquity and published a dozen of notable books that were translated into foreign languages". In addition, he was also a professor at the "Gymnastics Academy" and a swimming coach for the national team and for Panathinaikos A.O. who "highlighted a number of excellent swimmers." Whilst the other pieces of coverage that I've found didn't contain significant coverage of him, they could help in expanding the article. This piece talks about the establishment of prizes in his honour; this piece describes him (using Google Translate) as a "great teacher"; and even though this doesn't contribute to notability, I also managed to find an article written by him. [79] I think based on this, we can safely assume that there's more coverage on him in offline sources than what is currently available to us. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as per coverage found by Aviationwikiflight, which I think pretty clearly indicates the existence of more coverage from the time. JTtheOG (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the new multi-paragraph obituary. FOARP (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2025 (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.

Authors proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Authors&oldid=1290564243"