Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors

WP:DSAUTHOR

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

Authors

Queen Afua

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

Most of the references are not about the subject or provide only passing mentions. Fails WP:SIRS so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG Sources include: a full-page article about her on the front page of The Jackson Sun; a full-page article about her on page 2 of the metro section of the New York Daily News; a peer-reviewed book chapter about her work in an academic publications; a master's thesis about her from Georgia State University. NotBartEhrman (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are four RS focussed solely on her, which as far as I can tell passes WP:SIRS twice over. NotBartEhrman (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Levi Carter

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

Article has bunch of sources but none is WP:RS. They are press releases, primary sources and bookselling websites. Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO despite the bunch of sources. Mekomo (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article as it stands is promotional garbage, and the creator Dogimarket has been flagged as a potential sockpuppet of a paid editing service (although, at time of writing, the investigation has not concluded, and the history of those socks is extremely convoluted). Jpatokal (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Flowery promotional language, lack of any coverage outside of PR items... [1] is only one of two hits in Gnews, and it's a PR item. No book reviews found for his book... The likely sock puppet author is another red flag. I see no claim at notability, very PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Mooonswimmer 17:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I thank everyone contributing their thoughts regarding this nomination.

Currently, I am working on the article by removing promotional language and incorporating independent, third-party references consistent with Wikipedia content policies, especially WP:NPOV and WP:GNG.

Regarding notability, Sterling Staffing Solutions, Stephen Carter’s company, has prominently featured on the Inc. 5000 list several times, which is an unaffiliated notable recognition. His co-authored business book also published by ForbesBooks, a noted imprinted business publisher, adds to the list. There further exist non-partisan media coverage of his youth entrepreneurship non-profit initiatives in Click2Houston, Defender Network, and PRWeb.

I appreciate the concern regarding possible sockpuppetry. I can assure you that does not concern me; I do not belong to any paid editing companies, nor am I a sockpuppet account. The edits are made in good faith and with the goal of improving the encyclopedia.

I would like to request the chance to update the article as explained above prior to the deletion decision being finalized.

— Dogimarket (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you state for the record if you have any WP:COI for Carter? It's an interesting choice of first article to create, especially given that your previous edit history consists of mostly adding references to obscure species of beetles. Jpatokal (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jpatokal Thanks for your message. In response to your question: I have no (WP:COI) on the matter of the Carter article. My contributions are entirely in good faith using only sources that are reliable and citable following Wikipedia's core content standards such as WP:NPOV and WP:V.

And speaking of subject matter – editors are not bound by previous projects. Wikipedia is all about branching out into areas nobody else is doing, and the creation of new articles, is best judged on it's merit and actual content, not who created it.

Willing to meet any content-wise objections with thought and consideration

—Dogimarket (talk) 06:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. At best, the subject is marginally notable. Anything associated with Forbes for the past 10 to 12 years has been considered deprecated. It's not worth our time trying to rescue it. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James P Mahon

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

Refbombed promotion for non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Many sources but most are by him instead of about him. A little bit of local interest puff but nothing significant. Awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, Radio, Television, Sports, Ireland, Romania, England, Scotland, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have decided not to make a specific recommendation here. Yet. As, frankly, I wonder if I can leave aside the years of WP:COI and WP:REFBOMB concerns that I've struggled with on this title. And, perhaps, any !vote contribution from me may not be fully objective. However, I have long wondered whether WP:BASIC and WP:JOURNALIST and WP:NACADEMIC are met here. As, IMO, there is limited evidence that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The sources (in the article and seemingly those that are available) are almost all either written by the subject (some about himself and others just things he has written generally), or by entities associated with the subject (university bio profiles, Huffington Post profile, news employer bio, etc), or are just trivial passing mentions. The only three sources, of which the subject is a primary topic and which are could be considered somewhat independent, are the three pieces in the local Clare Champion newspaper (from 2013, 2021 & 2022). And, personally, I'd question whether these are fully independent. Or whether these types of "local boy graduates" stories materially contribute to notability. Any more than this "former co-worker wrote autobiography" piece is strictly independent. Anyway. If I was confident that years of COI/REFBOMB/FV annoyance with this title weren't influencing my recommendation, I'd probably lean "delete". But, being perfectly frank and hopefully somewhat self-aware, I'm not convinced would be an entirely objective recommendation (based entirely on NBIO merit).... Guliolopez (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael E. Cuomo

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

Associate professor who doesn't meet WP:NPROF. His work has been covered in news outlets, but these seem to be passing churnalism, likely driven by his institution's public relations team. The book seems to be self-published by an out-of-business published (Booktango). Scopus shows H-index of 17, which is modest for the field and correct for career stage. Overall, WP:TOOSOON. Klbrain (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Medicine, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is well known in the field of addiction and cancer. Even just a couple days ago, MSN published the following article:

Raphael Cuomo Is Changing How the World Understands Cancer

A couple months before that, one of his articles published in the Annals of Epidemiology generated a firestorm of media attention:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14659567/habit-millions-daily-colon-cancer-death-rate-study.html

https://nypost.com/2025/04/29/health/colon-cancer-patients-are-24-times-more-likely-to-die-within-5-years-if-they-had-this-habit-before-their-diagnosis/

https://www.deseret.com/lifestyle/2025/04/29/cannabis-use-history-deadly-colon-cancer-patients-die-new-study/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/heavy-cannabis-linked-worse-colon-180248380.html

On social media as well:

r/science High Cannabis Use Linked to Increased Mortality in Colon Cancer Patients

r/worldnews https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1ka03fz/high_cannabis_use_linked_to_increased_mortality/

He's also been cited as a "leading expert" and "top doctor" in a number of outlets. Here are examples:

Professor says 'up to 50% of cancer cases' could be prevented by erasing one factor

Top doctor says that one lifestyle choice could prevent 'up to 50% of cancer cases'

This is just recent stuff. There are plenty of examples before that as well. Also, per his IMDB page, he's frequently recorded on TV interviews, symposia, podcasts, etc. Overall notable enough to meet WP:NPROF per criterion 7. wikicreativity (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC) — Creativitywiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Request to Improve Article

Keep: Subject meets notability through significant academic and media coverage in cancer epidemiology. Request time for article improvements. Lasetunde (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC) — Lasetunde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Request to Improve Article

~~Keep~~: Subject meets notability through significant academic and media coverage in cancer epidemiology. Request time for article improvements. Lasetunde (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC) — Lasetunde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak delete. The highly cited papers I see are also highly coauthored, and I am not convinced by WP:NPROF impact. The Royal Society for Public Health fellowship [2] does not appear to be the kind of fellowship considered in WP:NPROF C3. The coverage discussed in the above !vote is mostly in tabloid sources (see e.g. WP:RSP), other sources tend not to significantly mention the subject here, and I don't think WP:BASIC is met. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I agree with Russ, the subject is not yet established enough to pass WP:NPROF#1, seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 17:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NPROF. Having one study mentioned in the Daily Mail and such isn't the same as having biographical sourcing available. Also worth noting that this article has been a target of paid editors, so expect the socks to come out of the woodwork on this one. This was discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_217#Raphael_E._Cuomo The part where they accidentally replied from the incorrect sock puppet account is especially enlightening. - MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a well-known researcher. Per WP:NPROF (C7), he is "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." There are several examples of this (some already discussed here), but here are a couple additional ones where he was interviewed by popular media sources on the topic of early-onset cancer:

Sacramento Bee: https://www.sacbee.com/entertainment/living/wellness/article301115259.html

Miami Herald: https://www.miamiherald.com/living/wellness/article301115259.html

Here is some further coverage where he is quoted on a study he authored on UVB and colon cancer:

SciTech: https://scitechdaily.com/lower-exposure-to-uvb-light-from-the-sun-may-increase-colorectal-cancer-risk/

New Telegraph: https://newtelegraphng.com/study-links-lack-of-sunlight-vitamin-d-to-colon-cancer-risk/

There are many others. CNET, Women's Health, etc. Some are listed on his current page and others are not yet added, so perhaps this needs an update but certainly meets the WP:NPROF standard to keep. Willkgauss (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC) — Willkgauss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: Hello, this is Raphael. Please do delete this page. I never wanted a page on this website as I have other sites, like my faculty site and personal webpage, which exist for anyone who wants to learn about my work. However I'm honored that someone wanted to put up this page and I appreciate all the supportive comments here and elsewhere on this website. Rapha1023~enwikibooks (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is absolutely nothing conclusive to indicate that the account Rapha1023~enwikibooks belongs to the subject. Bear in mind that this subject publishes research on things like cannabis and cancer, and also nutrition and cancer, both of which draw a lot of attention and cause controversy. To illustrate, see the massviews analysis below where this page is the most highly-viewed in the category for cancer epidemiologists on Wikipedia. Anyone can create an account and claim to be someone on here, or any other site, in an attempt to influence the removal of a page of someone publishing research that they don't like. The page should be assessed on its merits where it clearly meets C7 of WP:NPROF.

https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews/?platform=all-access&agent=user&source=category&range=latest-20&subjectpage=0&subcategories=0&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&target=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cancer%20epidemiologists wikicreativity (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikibooks account is 19 years old. That's a long time to lie in wait to disrupt an AFD. I think it is rather more likely that this person is who they say they are. And again, see the COIN section linked above. MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well-cited enough that I might consider keeping per WP:PROF#C1, but still borderline-enough as a case that I think we should respect WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, taking the comment above this one per WP:AGF as legitimately from the subject despite this not having been verified. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I cleaned up the absolute worst of the deprecated sourcing, and underneath is a very marginal case, for which I'm leaning towards deleting. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Costas

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia’s WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable secondary sources. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 22:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Bibliographies, News media, Music, Business, Management, and Australia. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 22:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I am the author of this Wikipedia page. I note @S-Aura that you have nominated this page for deletion. I am curious to know why?

I would say that the article on Damien Costas clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria under both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. There is significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject in depth, not just in passing.

Examples include:

• The Sydney Morning Herald’s detailed report on Costas’s bankruptcy annulment and business dealings (https://www.smh.com.au/culture/celebrity/porn-king-says-supporters-prepared-to-forgive-his-millions-in-bad-debt-20210728-p58dmf.html).

• Crikey’s reporting on his editorial transformation of Australian Penthouse (https://www.crikey.com.au/2018/11/07/penthouse-australia-alt-right/).

• The Guardian and ABC News coverage of public events he organized (Milo Yiannopoulos and Nigel Farage tours).

• International Business Times on his media influence (https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/damien-costas-reshaping-thought-behind-media-influence-responsibility-moulding-public-opinion-1727160).

These sources span business, politics, and culture — showing that the subject of Damien Costas has been covered across domains over a number of years. I believe that the article is neutrally written and properly cited. I would argue that there is no policy-based reason to delete this page. CharlotteMilic (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey's report mentions Costas once. This is a long way from WP:SIGCOV of him.
The Guardian and ABC reports don't mention him at all.
The International Business Times report is an interview. Interviews are WP:PRIMARY and don't count towards establishing notablity.

TarnishedPath^talk 06:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the follow-up. To clarify, with specific reference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines:

Regarding significant coverage and source quality:

The Sydney Morning Herald article ("Debt deal and sex appeal") is an independent, reliable source that provides significant coverage of Costas's business activities and financial history. Per WP:GNG, "significant coverage" means coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." This article clearly meets the threshold of WP:SIGCOV as it discusses the subject substantively rather than in passing. As established in Wikipedia policy, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" and "does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

Crikey's article mentions Costas several times throughout. Further, it is not used alone to establish notability. It complements other sources that do provide in-depth coverage. Under WP:GNG, multiple sources providing coverage can collectively demonstrate notability, as the guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Regarding supporting sources and their appropriate use:

ABC News and The Guardian are used to verify key aspects of Costas's professional activities — specifically his role in organizing major speaking tours. These are supporting citations, not primary evidence of notability. Per WP:BIO (WP:Notability (people)), biographical articles may include material from multiple reliable sources to establish the full scope of a person's notable activities.

Regarding primary sources and interviews:

Regarding the International Business Times, while interviews are considered WP:PRIMARY sources, this does not make them unusable. Per WP:NOR, "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care." They can be cited to support attributed statements or commentary about the subject's views — which is precisely how it's used in the article. As stated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author."

Additional supporting coverage:

Additionally, a recent article in Men's Health Australia (October 2024) offers a profile on Costas's media leadership and innovation strategies, providing another layer of significant coverage from a reputable publication (https://menshealth.com.au/damien-costas-on-fostering-creativity-and-innovation-in-the-media-industry)

Meeting notability requirements:

Taken together — Sydney Morning Herald, Men's Health, SmartCompany, and IBTimes (for attributed quotes) — the subject clearly receives sustained, non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, satisfying WP:GNG. The General Notability Guideline requires that "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Per WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."

The coverage spans business, media, and cultural domains over multiple years, demonstrating the sustained attention that indicates lasting notability rather than temporary news coverage. As stated in WP:N, "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability" and "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability" - meaning topics are notable when "the outside world has already 'taken notice of it.'"

I'm happy to improve the article if needed, but the topic plainly meets notability standards under both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. CharlotteMilic (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Duerr

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN (minor behind-the-scenes positions) and WP:AUTHOR (no reviews that I can find). A "lifelong member of the Democratic Party" ... who's all of 20 years old. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very PROMO. This is about the best there is [3], this is PROMO as well [4]. Seems to be going places, but isn't there yet, for notability anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and doesn't pass any inclusionary criteria. Super promotional article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The books are self-published and not particularly long so WP:AUTHOR is failed. There is no reasonable claim to notability for political involvement either through NPOL or GNG. Hope he accomplishes a lot in life, but the subject does not warrant an article.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An article about yourself or someone you like/support isn't necessarily a good thing. --Mpen320 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew David Bradley

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

No WP:SIGCOV found to demonstrate notability for WP:ANYBIO or WP:JOURNALIST. Article was previously moved per WP:DRAFTIFY back in March 2025, but was moved back to mainspace with insufficient sourcing, which do not establish that the BLP meets notability criteria. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Tyler

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

No significant coverage from reliable sources. The Guardian source is a blogpost that only mentions the subject in passing. Aŭstriano (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Literature, and United States of America. Aŭstriano (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those looking for sources, there appears to be another author with a pen name of Alison Tyler (Elise Title is her real name) who writes romance novels. Given the book titles and geography, I think these are different people. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Her work has gotten reviews in Publishers Weekly [5] [6] [7] [8] and Library Journal [9] [10] [11] [12]. I'd want to see a little bit more in order to satisfy NAUTHOR, but some of her work seems to be notable. Will keep looking. MCE89 (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Pir Badshah

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

This article fails to meet the notability guidelines as outlined in WP:N. The subject is not the focus of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The few mentions that do exist are passing and do not provide the depth of material necessary to support a standalone article. Most of the sources cited are either not about the subject or use it only as a brief example without substantial analysis or dedicated discussion. Given the lack of notability and meaningful coverage, the article does not justify its own space. Deletion or merging into a broader, more relevant topic (if applicable) would be more appropriate. Retaining it in its current state risks violating Wikipedia’s standards. Jaunpurzada (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 23, Bangladesh, India and Islam. Jaunpurzada (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jaunpurzada (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm confused about what makes this person notable. Please ping me if you can fix this mess. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The given references don’t give significant coverage about subject. Not a single in depth coverage. Google search , hard to find about the subject. Even the write up looks to cover matters which are irrelevant like name of his son. COI can’t be ruled out. Hard to find genuine matters which could indicate any signs of notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Shah Israil

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

This article fails to meet the notability guidelines as outlined in WP:N. The subject is not the focus of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The few mentions that do exist are passing and do not provide the depth of material necessary to support a standalone article. Most of the sources cited are either not about the subject or use it only as a brief example without substantial analysis or dedicated discussion. Given the lack of notability and meaningful coverage, the article does not justify its own space. Deletion or merging into a broader, more relevant topic (if applicable) would be more appropriate. Retaining it in its current state risks violating Wikipedia’s standards. Jaunpurzada (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 23, Bangladesh, India and Islam. Jaunpurzada (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jaunpurzada (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both the context and sourcing doesn't explain why he's notable. Where are the reviews of his works? Where are the compendiums or other collections? Bearian (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sylhetis#Other languages. The deepest source is a single paragraph, half of which is about who he was descended from, about his uncle, and about one of his sons. The remainder is just two sentences: "[Syed Israil] was a sufi saint well known for his high proficiency in Arabic and Persian. He was also known as the Malek-ul-Ulama, well-versed in both Arabic and Persian: he wrote Madanul Fauaed in Persian in 914 Hijri." The other sources manage to cover the same ground in one sentence each. Because of the absence of significant coverage, this shouldn't be a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Ghoshe

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Sources are mentions, unreliable, or otherwise not in-depth about the subject. CNMall41 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NOTINHERITED. First off, we need an analysis of the reviews, if any, of his books in reliable sources. Next, his tenuous relationship with a famous foundation is not explained. Finally, it's too promotional in tone. Ping me if you can fix this mess of a page. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a long list of references but hardly relevant. He has written books but are they notable, Hard to find news about his books. I even couldn’t find any reliable book reviews to understand more about the subject. Neither there are coverage on subject in independent sources. He clearly fails WP:NAUTHOR. Above all article is promoting the individual by language and contents as well. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article clearly meets both WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. The article contains citations from:
Times of India – National daily; easily passes “newspaper of record” bar for reliability.^[1]
The Daily Star – Independent, third-party literary criticism → satisfies NAUTHOR #3.^[2]
Indiablooms – National digital news-wire, independent.^[3]
The Telegraph – Independent national daily (mostly popular in West Bengal and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands).^[4]
Trans World Features – in-depth author interview.^[5]

Each of these pieces is non-PR and non-paid. Together they comfortably exceed the two-source threshold of WP:GNG. Publishing credentials:

ISBN citations include works from Rupa Publications – one of India’s oldest mainstream publishers.
N.E. Publishers and Smriti Publishers – both commercial, audited presses (not vanity).

This, plus multiple in-depth reviews (at least on two books), means Victor Ghoshe meets WP:NAUTHOR outright. Additional evidence of lasting impact:

Library holdings: Tomb of God is catalogued in the Kerala State Central Library – the country’s second-oldest public library.^[6]
International distribution: The novel is stocked by Waterstones UK (brick-and-mortar chain).^[7]
Cultural cross-overs: Launches were headlined by National Film-Award legend Soumitra Chatterjee (for Tomb of God) and Sahitya Akademi winner Shirshendu Mukhopadhyay (for Paranormal 2).^[3]

These points strengthen the “enduring, not temporary” aspect of notability per WP:N.

On the Gates Foundation mention: The caption of the image is the only evidence for that collaboration. If this single citation is insufficient, we can remove the claim without affecting notability.

Addressing the objections:

Mentions are not trivial: Coverage comes from mainstream dailies.
No independent book reviews: Daily Star piece is a 1 000-word critique; TOI article devotes its entire feature to dissecting plot and historical backdrop.
Tone is promotional: Agreed. The solution is copy-editing, not deletion.

--ParallelDimension (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Kolkata gets its own Da Vinci Code version with Charnock fiction". The Times of India. 12 March 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
^ "If Only Job Charnock Knew!". The Daily Star. 28 May 2017. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
^ ^a ^b "Actor Soumitra Chatterjee launches Victor Kalyan Ghoshe's latest novel". Indiablooms. 22 Mar 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
^ "Shirshendu Mukhopadhyay launches author Victor Ghosh's latest book Paranormal 2". The Telegraph. 11 Jun 2023. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
^ "The Job Charnock Riddle is written as a visual treat: Victor Ghoshe". Trans World Features. 22 May 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
^ "Tomb of God". Kerala State Central Library catalogue. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
^ "Tomb of God". Waterstones. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

Keep per ParallelDimension, passes NAUTHOR.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 08:51, 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 14:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lekshmi Gopinathan

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

The sources mentioned are not reputable or independent. No sufficient coverage found to satisfy subject notability. Pasados (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Pasados (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable author, unable to meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. B-Factor (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely and a non-notable article. Should be immediately deleted.Almandavi (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: It is just waste of time. Nothing significant to prolong the discussion. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, can't believe this has been around since 2017 and only now came to attention. Non-notable author who fails NAUTHOR.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 09:06, 29 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 06:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juhani Seppovaara

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

Non-notable Finnish photographer. No indication subject meets WP:NCREATIVE. Cabrils (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Photography, Finland, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possibly notable as a book author. I would suggest searching German and Finnish media for articles. Especially Unter dem Himmel Ostberlins seems to have received some awards and attentiom: [13][14]. His 70th birthday was noted in Helsingin Sanomat: [15] Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep - His books have received enough reviews to meet the criteria at WP:NCREATIVE. Plus the coverage by Deutsche Welle contributes towards notability.
- Book reviews: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]
- Video report by Deutsche Welle: [23]
- Article by ET-lehti: [24]
- Article by Yle: [25]
- Interview by Iltalehti: [26] (requires registering)
- Lots of hits on Google Books, nothing fully readable, hard to assess if there is any significant coverage --Mika1h (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, convinced by the links to nation-wide Finnish and German media above. /Julle (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the excellent research by Miki1h, he meets WP:GNG, and may also meet WP:NAUTHOR based on the multiple book reviews. Netherzone (talk) 12:39, 26 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, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Brooks (author)

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR: no book reviews that I can find. The assertion that he "has written dozens of scientific papers on eye diseases and eye surgery" is unsourced and word-for-word straight out of his own claim on this commercial website. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Finance, Medicine, California, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a shame, he looks a lot like my uncle (who is a nice guy). But, just like my uncle, he is non-notable. I found absolutely no independent coverage to establish GNG or even a case for NAUTHOR/NSCHOLAR. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Holla @Eddie891, This sounds really funny tho, The fact that you made emphasis on your "uncle" is so hilarious, but seriously I was expecting more from this author. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 02:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As fails WP:AUTHOR. I attempted to find reviews of his books and could only locate a few, all on non-notable, unreliable blogs. — Vikram S Pasari (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, I was expecting more for an author, You can barely find source to verify his notability. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 02:11, 29 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 23:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Arshad (writer)

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

This article fails to meet the notability guidelines as outlined in WP:N. The subject is not the focus of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The few mentions that do exist are passing and do not provide the depth of material necessary to support a standalone article. Most of the sources cited are either not about the subject or use it only as a brief example without substantial analysis or dedicated discussion. Given the lack of notability and meaningful coverage, the article does not justify its own space. Deletion or merging into a broader, more relevant topic (if applicable) would be more appropriate. Retaining it in its current state risks violating Wikipedia’s standards. Jaunpurzada (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 21, Bangladesh, India and Islam. Jaunpurzada (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable author. Unable to meet WP:SIGCOV, Fails WP:GNG. B-Factor (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Each source contains one (more or less identical) sentence on the topic:
- "... Arshad of Baniachong who wrote Zararul Musannif."
- "and Muhammad Arshad of Baniachang, who wrote Zaraul Musannif."
- "Md. Arshad of Baniachong belonging to later tenth century Hijri wrote ‘Zararul Masannef."
- "In the 19th century Zohrul Musannaf was written by Maulana Arshad who lived in Banlachong."

Searches found no significant coverage, so does not meet WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:11, 27 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 23:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Rayhan ad-Din

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

This article fails to meet the notability guidelines as outlined in WP:N. The subject is not the focus of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The few mentions that do exist are passing and do not provide the depth of material necessary to support a standalone article. Most of the sources cited are either not about the subject or use it only as a brief example without substantial analysis or dedicated discussion. Given the lack of notability and meaningful coverage, the article does not justify its own space. Deletion or merging into a broader, more relevant topic (if applicable) would be more appropriate. Retaining it in its current state risks violating Wikipedia’s standards. Jaunpurzada (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 21, Bangladesh, India and Islam. Jaunpurzada (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't evaluate the page of Karim's book, to which I don't have ready access. Otherwise, the situation is very similar to that of Muhammad Arshad (writer). Each source contains 1-2 sentences (all more or less the same) on the topic:
- "Syed Raihan Uddin (RA) of Pail received the title of 'Bulbule Bangla' from the court of Delhi. He wrote the immortal Persian books Khabnama and Mashnabiye Gulebakawali"
- "Syed Raihan uddin from the village Pail of Hobiganj wrote Masnabi-a-Gule Bakauali O Khabnama."
- "A poet from Sylhet, Syed Rehan Uddin, wrote a book in Persian and received the title of 'Bulbule Bangal' from the Delhi court."
- "Bulbul-e-Bangala Syed Raihanuddin of Pail was an eminent persian poet. He wrote ‘Khabnama’ and ‘Masnavi Gulbakauli’."
- "Syed Raihanuddin of Pail was a noted Persian poet who wrote Khwabnamah and the masnavi, gule bakawali."

Searches found no significant coverage, so does not meet WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:20, 27 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 23:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Pagès

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

No sources giving significant coverage are on the article and a search has not revealed any WP:SIGCOV in any reliable source. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. We are not an Amazon company. We are not a soap box. Bearian (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As someone in the relevant academic field he's both not someone I haven't heard of inasmuch as I'm vaguely aware of figures in far-right politics and Islamophobia in France who are involved in Catholic-Muslim relations but at the same time he's also not someone I can find much in the way of verifiable sources dealing with him. He's mentioned in brief in a French polemical book written to criticize Pope Francis from a secular liberal perspective and he's mentioned in some literature on Christian eschatology for his diatribes against Hans Urs von Balthasar but there's not really anything to establish notability. So with that in mind, Delete per the foregoing. M.A.Spinn (talk) 17:19, 27 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 23:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Codava Makkada Coota

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

None of the articles are about the organization, just mentions. Mostly WP:ROTM stuff about events they participated in. (to be fair, please review this version from before I removed some WP:NEWSORGINDIA content). 🄻 🄰 15:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Literature, Organizations, Companies, and India. 🄻 🄰 15:08, 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.

Peter Chee

AfDs for this article:

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

Still fails WP:GNG as refs don't pass WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and Malaysia. UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Peter Chee is ranked #2 globally by Global Gurus (2023) and was named to the inaugural Coaches50 list by Thinkers50. Both these platforms are independent, reputable authorities in executive coaching. He has co-authored books with Jack Canfield, Brian Tracy, and Marshall Goldsmith, and is featured in major media including The Star and CNN Philippines. The article cites independent, verifiable sources. It meets notability guidelines under WP:BIO and WP:CORP and should be "KEEP". User:CS Aaron 08:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I" and "V" are only two parts. Please read WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Was just at a previous AFD a few days ago so it is ineligible for another Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely looks like a grifter with no meaningful contribution to the coaching profession. All "sources" are PR driven. 178.23.206.26 (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article. No significant coverage in any reliable sources other than fluffy executive profiles. N3rsti (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP the article. All sources are clearly verified and credible. His contributions to thought leadership through original coaching models and internationally recognized certifications are substantial and well-documented. Collaborations with top-tier coaches and recognition by global rankings should not be discounted simply because the subject operates outside more traditionally covered geographies. This article clearly meets notability guidelines under WP:BIO and WP:CORP and should be KEPT. User:CS Aaron (talk) 02:12, 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 keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Routledge

AfDs for this article:

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

If not WP:BLP1E, then WP:BLP1E-adjacent. Was in the news once because he went to Kabul in August of 2021, and again because he went back to Afghanistan in 2023 and got arrested.

He is listed as an author but the only source I can find on the internet about him writing a book mentions it in passing. Having 171,000 subscribers on YouTube is probably not enough to meet notability requirements on its own.

I don't think this meets WP:N. —tony^{st (talk)} 01:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —tony^{st (talk)} 01:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is definitely not a WP:BLP1E, since as you say, there are at least two notable events -- two being a different and larger number than one, and explicitly not the focus of this policy. There is not a "WP:BLP2E" policy. Without even doing a WP:BEFORE search, in the currently-existing article there are a variety of sources that satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV:

Wallen, Joe; Sabur, Rozina (2023-04-01). "British self-styled 'danger tourist' captured by Taliban secret police". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2023-04-02.
"Tourist stranded in Kabul says he has 'no regrets' in Afghanistan collapse". NZ Herald. 2 November 2023.
"British College Student 'Lord Miles' Claims He's Stuck in Afghanistan". Vice. 16 August 2021.
Hardy, Jack (August 16, 2021). "British student stuck in Kabul after 'danger tourism' stunt backfires". The Telegraph.
"'If I die, It'll be funny I think': A student named 'Lord Miles' is live streaming from Afghanistan after getting 'stuck'". The Daily Dot. August 16, 2021.
Ball, Tom (August 15, 2021). "British student on holiday in Afghanistan 'accepts death'". The Times. Archived from the original on August 15, 2021. Retrieved August 15, 2021.
"UK student who travelled to Afghanistan for holiday evacuated". BBC News. 2021-08-17. Retrieved 2021-08-17.
"Two of three British men being held by Taliban allowed call to families". BBC. April 2, 2023. Archived from the original on April 2, 2023.

Looking him up on a web search, I see that he was also in the news last year, apparently for going on some sort of bigoted tirade on Twitter (see [27], [28], [29]). While I do not think acting like a racist knob on the Internet is noble or worthy of celebration, the man would seem to clearly meet our notability guidelines. jp×g 🗯️ 01:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Travel and tourism, Internet, Afghanistan, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Gamaliel (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I appreciate that it is galling that a self-aggrandising twit like this can make himself notable just by being a nuisance but if he has done so then we have to accept that it is valid to have an article about him. He seems to be over the line for notability even if not by much. A greater concern is what we are not saying about him. His book is published by a neo-Nazi publisher but there is nothing about his links to the far-right in the article. Maybe this can help? That links him to Andrew Tate and covers his praise for the Taliban. There are also plausibly RS sources talking about his idiotic "jokes" about nuking India here, here and possibly also here although that last one seems to be region blocked for me. Finally, I don't think that we should be giving his full name as "Miles Arthur Le-Vesconte Routledge" when the source is clearly sceptical of that (and might not even be RS) saying "Miles (who also calls himself Miles Arthur Le-vesconte Routledge)". --DanielRigal (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BLP1E, not once but twice. Self aggrandising publicity seekers do not have notability. Notoriety s not the same thing at all. Fails WP:BIO / WP:GNG 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: Two times one is not one. jp×g 🗯️ 22:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG yet it was basically the same thing, repeated. In this case that doesn't make two either. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The policy emphatically says the opposite of this. jp×g 🗯️ 17:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is a legitimate biography encapsulating different aspects of life, including a businessman, an explorer, and an imprisonment. I don't see the urgency to delete the article, I feel the request is bias. Cltjames (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the research provided by jpxg. Meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified by JPxG and DanielRigal. Also, he was mentioned in Forbes (29 Mar 2024) and Express Tribune (29 Mar 2024) articles, so taking all of that together, I think he's a well-documented public figure who meets the notability standards. 95m95 (talk) 02:27, 25 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.

Dee Brestin

(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. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Christianity, and United States of America. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois, Missouri, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet WP:RS standards and at least half are just profiles on non-independent sites. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a couple independent sources covering Brestin's work, namely, a 2010 review of her book in the journal Death Studies; a 2019 Publishers Weekly book review; and a bit of analysis of her 2002 book by Kathaleen Amende in Desire and the Divine: Feminine Identity in White Southern Women's Writing (Louisiana State University Press). There's also an interview with Today's Christian Woman magazine she did alongside a co-author, though I'm not sure how much that factors into WP:NAUTHOR. These sources have been added to the article. Best, Bridget (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the sources provided above and below by Nnev66 for WP:NAUTHOR. Bridget (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found newspaper articles about the subject, two of which were about her book "The Friendships of Women" and I've added them to the article. With the sources Bridget found, meets WP:NAUTHOR #3 and possibly WP:GNG. Nnev66 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the additional reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:18, 22 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

(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_creep^Talk 07:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Businesspeople, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Only the Syracuse source counts towards notability, everything else being a press release, unreliable, or an interview. Bearian (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this topic is notable as a founder and leader in the green building community, especially with the sustainability concerns of today. Bearian has commented here that the Syracuse source counts. I just added another source which shows the subject's notability with significant coverage from a reliable, independent source (the government's EPA archives): https://archive.epa.gov/greenbuilding/web/pdf/bdcwhitepaperr2.pdf. I also think this USA Today article shows his significance from a reliable, independent source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/25/green-building-big-business-leed-certification/1655367/Jonasstaff (talk) 18:33, 19 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_creep^Talk 00:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep founder of major notable organizations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:41, 21 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_creep^Talk 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 [30], [31], [32], 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]

Ben Birdsall

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - tagged as 'artist' due to painting career Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 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]

Keep per Cunard's source analysis and my own reading of the articles I could access. Unfortunately, 3 others are in the British Newspaper Archive and my Wikipedia Library access to that site has expired. Perhaps another editor has access to these articles? That said, references behind paywalls count just as much as free articles. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:22, 19 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]

Mehzeb Chowdhury

(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 [33]
As a researcher he has a low h-index [34]
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]

Keep - The article has enough RS about the subject (Wired, Digital trends, HuffPost, The Times) to pass WP:NBIO. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are more features that are not cited in the article as well, such as this from Ice Today. There's coverage in Bengali too, with TV appearances, features in reputed mags such as The Diplomat and Newsweek where he is introduced as an expert. Overall, why'd a non-notable person get recurrent coverage throughout the years from big pubs. X (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Xoak is right. Somajyoti ✉ 20:04, 9 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]

Keep. Notability is clear by the sources. Mifflefunt 03:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Striking !vote of blocked account who was here just to spam porn sites. MarioGom (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Which sources establish notability under WP:GNG? Is it this one from Business Standard? what else? I see many articles written by the subject, but I don't see reliable, independent, secondary sources with significant coverage. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has refs from Wired, Digital trends, HuffPost and The Times, which are independent RS. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the articles in The Times and Wired use Chowdhury as a source (as in "Chowdhury says", "he believes", "he told", "according to him"). What he says is not independent of him. Similarly, Digital Trends is an interview with him, so not independent of him. If they consulted any other sources, they don't say so. HuffPost does not contain significant coverage of him. None of these four do anything to help establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce, These 4 aren't the only sources. Many sources exist about this individual (see the aforementioned points). A non-notable person does not get recurrent media coverage throughout the years (it may well be interviews, passing mentions, anything; he does have sig in-depth cov as well for the record). X (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at making a source assessment table. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Ice Today https://icetoday.net/2024/03/building-blockbusters/	~ Not sure how to rate independence.	~ Not sure on reliability of this.	700 words about subject	~ Partial
Business Standard https://www.tbsnews.net/features/pursuit/he-modernised-crime-scene-investigation-making-movies-and-music-along-way-487946	~ Not sure how to rate independence: asked in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-ActivelyDisinterested-20250516114100-PacificDepths-20250516083000	~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional?	Entire article is about subject.	~ Partial
Daily Star https://www.thedailystar.net/entertainment/tv-film/news/mehzeb-chowdhury-pioneer-criminology-savant-films-3147896	~ Some interview quotes. Not sure how to rate independence.	~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional?	Entire article is about subject.	~ Partial
Prothom Alo https://www.prothomalo.com/lifestyle/5uuxkcz9qu	~ Some interview quotes. Not sure how to rate independence.	~ Not sure on reliability of this. Promotional?	Entire article is about subject.	~ Partial
The Diplomat https://thediplomat.com/2024/08/can-the-bangladesh-police-recover/	Mostly an interview, primary source material	~ unknown	One sentence description of subject	✘ No
Newsweek https://www.newsweek.com/body-farms-decomposing-bodies-forensic-science-murder-1798397	Mostly an interview, primary source material	~ Treat case by case basis per WP:NEWSWEEK	one sentence description and quote	✘ No
Jamuna TV Plus Interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8x8r90VZE4	Interview: Primary source	~		✘ No
Wired https://www.wired.com/story/crime-scene-technology/	Interview		Little information about the subject	✘ No
The Times: "Robots will create virtual crime scenes for juries"	Primary source		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?
The Business Standard https://www.tbsnews.net/features/pursuit/he-modernised-crime-scene-investigation-making-movies-and-music-along-way-487946	Interview, primary source. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 477#Business Standard Bangladesh tbsnews.net.		Entire article is about subject	✘ No
The Daily Star https://www.thedailystar.net/entertainment/tv-film/news/mehzeb-chowdhury-pioneer-criminology-savant-films-3147896	Interview, primary source		Entire article is about subject	✘ No
Prothom Alo https://www.prothomalo.com/lifestyle/5uuxkcz9qu	Interview, primary source		Entire article is about subject	✘ No
The Times https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/robots-will-create-virtual-crime-scenes-for-juries-636pmm986	Uses Chowdhury as a source ("Chowdhury says", "he believes")		One sentence identification	✘ No
Newsweek https://www.newsweek.com/body-farms-decomposing-bodies-forensic-science-murder-1798397	Quotations of Chowdhury, primary source	~ Treat case by case basis per WP:NEWSWEEK	One sentence identification	✘ No
The Daily Star https://www.thedailystar.net/supplements/32nd-anniversary/where-showbiz-meets-the-internet/news/working-behind-the-scenes-hollywood-3247811	Interview, primary source			✘ No
Digital Trends https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/vr-crime-scene-robot/	Chowdhury talking about Chowdhury			✘ No
HuffPost https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/5-industries-virtual-reality_b_13338798				✘ No
Wired https://www.wired.com/story/crime-scene-technology/	Uses Chowdhury as a source ("Chowdhury says", "he told", "according to him")		One sentence identification	✘ No
The Daily Star https://www.thedailystar.net/sports/football/news/chowdhury-appointed-advisory-group-newcastle-utd-3367306	Press release, identical wording in multiple Bangladeshi newspapers			✘ No
Dhaka Tribune https://archive.dhakatribune.com/showtime/2018/02/20/megalithic-unearth-the-unnamed-february-23	~ No byline, almost certainly a press release			~ 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]

Authors proposed deletions

Nazareth Hassan (via WP:PROD on 9 October 2023)

[TOI-1] "Kolkata gets its own Da Vinci Code version with Charnock fiction". The Times of India. 12 March 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[DS-2] "If Only Job Charnock Knew!". The Daily Star. 28 May 2017. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[IB-3] "Actor Soumitra Chatterjee launches Victor Kalyan Ghoshe's latest novel". Indiablooms. 22 Mar 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[Telegraph-4] "Shirshendu Mukhopadhyay launches author Victor Ghosh's latest book Paranormal 2". The Telegraph. 11 Jun 2023. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[TWF-5] "The Job Charnock Riddle is written as a visual treat: Victor Ghoshe". Trans World Features. 22 May 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[KSCL-6] "Tomb of God". Kerala State Central Library catalogue. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[Waterstones-7] "Tomb of God". Waterstones. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]