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

Habib al-Rahman Kandhalwi

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

I found no indication in this article that it meets the criteria set out in WP:GNG or WP:Scholar. However, I did come across a video in which another scholar discusses this individual's work, which suggests that the subject may have some notability as a researcher. That said, this alone is not sufficient to establish Wikipedia notability. I propose deletion. I would be happy if someone could provide reliable sources to support the subject's notability and thus prevent deletion. I also found a 15-year-old AfD discussion where participants similarly struggled to find reliable sources.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 22:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 22:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Pakistan, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Saks

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. As always, writers and musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to pass certain defined notability criteria verified by WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them and their work in reliable sources independent of themselves -- for example, you don't make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his books to themselves as circular metaverification of their own existence, you make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his books to third-party media coverage about them, such as professional book reviews and/or evidence that they've won or been nominated for major literary awards.
But this essentially just states that his work exists, without documenting anything that would meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:AUTHOR criteria, and it's referenced almost entirely to primary sourcing that isn't support for notability, such as his own podcast and the books metaverifying themselves. The only secondary source cited here at all is a (deadlinked but recoverable) Tiny Desk Concert, which just briefly namechecks his participation in the surrounding text without saying anything substantive about him, and thus isn't sufficient to get him over GNG all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Keep: It already has bare minimum of sources + this source from Jewish Telegraphic Agency. I seen worse cases where there's nothing to be done, and the deletion is reserved for these cases. LastJabberwocky (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nomination. He hasn’t yet achieved enough coverage or notoriety to merit keeping the article. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erinola E. Daranijo

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

Autobiography of a lesser-known journalist. Some sources are self-published, and there's very little indication of notability. Fails WP:NJOURNALIST. Author has also removed maintenance templates for no apparent reason. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only here for self promotion. A draft Draft:Erinola E. Daranijo already exists. Agent 007 (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not yet notable. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Poetry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Self-promotion that reads more like a resume. Aspening (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very easy call. Promotional and fails every conceivable measure by which articles are validated. GNG, RS, and others. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harun Izhar

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

The current article cites a total of nine references, eight of which focus solely on a single incident—his arrest and release. The remaining one is about his father. This is insufficient to meet the criteria of WP:GNG and does not establish the subject's notability as a Wp:Nscholar, writer, or religious figure.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 21:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 21:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Crime. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. ZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 03:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He was arrested three times. Could be notable under WP:GNG.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Tandon

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

The only significant coverage I'm seeing does not appear to be independent. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:V. I find it hard to get through the mess of things here. It's as if the creator has never actually read a Wikipedia article. It's just nice photos and what appears to be AI or machine translation of a social media post. Beyond that, there's no evidence on the page that this person actually exists. Bearian (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Macdonald (scientist)

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

Fails WP:SIRS and so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has anyone seen if he passes one of the criteria for WP:PROF? The Prof Test is an alternative method of showing notability, so please ping me. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a young professor who has just gotten an under-40 years old award. The "extensive coverage" of his work is the newspaper reports generated from a single University of Cambridge press release. He appears to have only that single paper in Google scholar, which has mixed him up with a Canadian business professor. It is too soon for him to have an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Erin Fleming

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

Subject is not notable. Upon searching up the subject, no reliable, independent sources can be found. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalayna Price

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

Author best known for a 7-book fantasy series. I can only find reviews in Publishers Weekly for books number 1 [1], 5 [2], 6 [3], and 7 [4] in the series. Book 6 also has a second review in Library Journal [5]; however, this is the only one of the series that (barely) meets WP:NBOOK, and so I don't think the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. Astaire (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Astaire (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reviews mentioned in the nom are more than we see for the majority of authors here in AfD. I'd argue they show critical notice, for a series of books for the last 15 yrs or so. It's not War and Peace, but we have some reviews over a span of time, that's the bare minimum for author notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With 9 books written by this author and only 1 of them (barely) meeting NBOOK, and most of the coverage coming from a single source (Publishers Weekly), I just don't see this as a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. But maybe there's a different prevailing interpretation of NAUTHOR here at AFD. Astaire (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the author has a single book that passes NBOOK and that book is part of a series, I am generally inclined to either have a page on the author OR have a page on the series. This is because having an entry on say, book 6, would be generally undesirable because it's not very comprehensive, can lack some context for people wanting more information on the series and can generally be seen as an invitation to create (or recreate) articles on the author or other books.

A series page usually satisfies the average person coming into Wikipedia, however sometimes I'll recommend author pages if the author has put out more than one series. It serves roughly the same purpose - giving a more comprehensive overview of everything and having a bibliography section for the multiple series also helps deter people from trying to re/create pages that would fail notability guidelines or otherwise be unnecessary.

This is a situation where I'd recommend the author page simply because of the multiple series. That other series looks to have been cancelled, but it's possible that it might get picked up again or the author might put out other works. That said, this does need some general editing - for example, it's completely unnecessary to mention who is representing her. The page could also use a teensy bit more info about the Craft series. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the tl;dnr here is that while Price isn't a super fit for NAUTHOR, an author article is an easier way to impart information on her work, which has received some coverage. It's a case of IAR in that we're not exactly ignoring notability guidelines, just that since at least some part of her work is notable the author page is probably the most helpful way to impart info about that work to the reader. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, she has entries in Gale's Contemporary Authors (Gale H1000203928), and Something about the Author (Gale CX3773000061, accessible via TWL), but the contents of the two, while not the same, are extremely similar. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They help satisfy AUTHOR. Small coverage but we have a few of them together. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samia Gore

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

Dear editors, the article subject, Samia Gore, is requesting a soft deletion on English Wikipedia, claiming the content is promotional and inaccurately presented. I would also like to highlight that the notability is somewhat unclear. Thank you in advance for your thoughts on this! SG2025wiki (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easy keep [6], [7], plus the Essence article now used for sourcing. There are many more that come up, showing notability. Keeping the article also promotes gender equality and helps combat gender bias, as a person of colour in the USA. Oaktree b (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Nahar

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

Orignal creator of this article was blocked for WP:COI and WP:PROMO. This persons fails WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR, due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Also most of the sources on this article are not about him, hence checked carefully. It may be created for undisclosed payments because this article creator also created articles on his multiple books which are also nothing more than promotion. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR TheSlumPanda (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

The article on Vijay Nahar should be retained. There is sufficient coverage in a wide range of independent and reliable sources, satisfying Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline for authors, historians, and public figures. His work spans historical biographies, political commentary, and education-focused literature. Below is a list of significant sources that discuss his contributions:
=== Media & News Coverage: ===
=== Literary & Historical Commentary: ===
=== Library Catalogs & Book Listings: ===
----These references clearly demonstrate both the coverage and influence of Vijay Nahar’s work. While the Wikipedia article might benefit from improvements in structure, formatting, and inline citations, the subject himself meets Wikipedia's notability threshold. Therefore, the article should be improved, not dele Gujjar.rudraa (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all sources are not about this subject. Some are about maharana Pratap, or other are about modi or vasundra raje, also the #2 TOI article is a reliable source but that talks more about the book written by him. And please remind that online listing of books for purchase like Amazon doesn’t confer notability. TheSlumPanda (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vijay Nahar is an Indian author and historian known for his biographical and historical works on notable Indian political figures and Rajput kings. His book Swarnim Bharat ke Swapndrishtha Narendra Modi has been referenced in multiple media outlets, including The Sunday Guardian, for its early commentary on Narendra Modi’s developmental vision and personal life aspects, including his marriage, which was highlighted during political discourse (The Sunday Guardian, Amar Ujala).

Nahar’s biography of Vasundhara Raje, Vasundhara Raje aur Viksit Rajasthan, is among the first dedicated publications on her political career and is noted in news profiles (Jansatta). His contributions to historical research include books on Samrat Bhoj Parmar, Mihir Bhoj, and Rao Akheraj Songara, which have been cited in literary platforms such as Sahitya Kunj and Sahitya Nama, and are among the few comprehensive modern works available on these historical figures (Sahitya Kunj, Udaipur Kiran).

In the context of Maharana Pratap, Nahar's writings have been used in regional discourse to support the view that Pratap was born in Pali, Rajasthan—challenging the traditionally cited location of Kumbhalgarh attributed to Colonel Tod (Bhaskar, Samvad). His contributions have also been recognized through awards and coverage in local media outlets, emphasizing his role in historical interpretation and education.

While online listings like Amazon do not independently confer notability, they help identify the range and accessibility of his publications. Furthermore, his books have been featured in school libraries in Rajasthan, according to a report by The Times of India (TOI). Gujjar.rudraa (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His book on narendra modi got media coverage like 1, 2. While the sunday guardian have only passing mention at last which is not enough. But if we talk about notability of this subject them i am still inclined toward deletion because of lack of Significant coverage about him in independent sources rather than sticking only on his modi book.TheSlumPanda (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
== Sources supporting notability ==
Lokmat Times – Photos of Gulab Kataria Ji – Features visuals and associations, including those connected to historian Vijay Nahar and other BJP figures.

Dainik Bhaskar – Pali historian Nahar got Bhandari Honors in Udaipur – Reports on a prestigious honor conferred to Vijay Nahar, recognizing his contributions to historical literature.

Sahitya Kunj – Samraat Bhoj Parmar Sameeksha – A critical review of Vijay Nahar’s historical writing on King Bhoj, hosted by a Hindi literary platform.

Jansatta – Vasundhara Raje’s political profile – Refers to authors including Nahar who’ve written about Rajasthan’s leadership and political figures.

Punjab Kesari – Maharana Pratap Jayanti – Covers public celebration of figures about whom Vijay Nahar has authored biographies.

News Puran – Death Anniversary of Maharana Pratap – Discusses cultural memory around Maharana Pratap, a key figure in Vijay Nahar’s historical works.

Samvad.in – It’s a lie that Maharana Pratap ate grass loaves – Offers myth-busting perspectives in history also reflected in Vijay Nahar’s revisionist narratives.

Jain Gazette – Freedom Fighter Mention – Reflects on themes of patriotism and freedom fighters that appear in Nahar’s works.

Sarkari Manthan – Maharana Pratap statue tribute – Reports community events inspired by figures researched by Vijay Nahar.

Sahitya Nama – Maharana Pratap articles – Discusses literary works on Maharana Pratap, including those by Nahar.

Udaipur Kiran – Book review: Pali Naresh Akheraj Songara – Reviews a book authored by Vijay Nahar, showcasing his reach in historical documentation.

Amar Ujala – Book on Modi and Jashodaben – Reports on Nahar’s controversial yet widely discussed book on Narendra Modi's early life.

Pathey Kan – Maharana Pratap death anniversary – Further evidence of Nahar’s engagement with historical storytelling in public discourse.

OneIndia Hindi – Book on Narendra Modi – A news piece discussing the content and release of Nahar’s book on Modi.

Hindi Kunj – Article on Bhoja – Provides literary context for historical kings such as Bhoja, also studied by Nahar.

Dainik Bhaskar (Mat) – Historical works in Pali – Features Vijay Nahar as a local historian contributing to regional identity.

Patrika – Maharana Pratap Jayanti, women’s role – Cultural event tied to figures researched and published by Nahar.

Public Live – Local event coverage – Mentions contributions of historians including Nahar in community awareness.

Dainik Bhaskar (Rohida) – Need for research on Rao Sinhaji Rathore – Features local historians including Nahar advocating for deeper research.

Surabhi Saloni – Historical commemoration article – Echoes Nahar’s themes of valor and historical justice.

Press Note – Educational event report – Discusses academic contributions by Vijay Nahar in educational forums.

Pathey Kan – Historical pieces on Pratap – Platform hosting several pieces aligned with Nahar's themes.

Pathey Kan (alternate) – Akbar vs Maharana Pratap – Reflects on contrasting historical figures often discussed in Vijay Nahar’s writings.

BJP Library Catalog – Vijay Nahar books in BJP Library – Lists Nahar’s books held in BJP-associated library catalog, confirming institutional presence.

Jagran Josh – List of books on PM Modi – Includes Vijay Nahar among notable authors writing about PM Modi.

Amazon – Vasundhara Raje Aur Viksit Rajasthan – One of Vijay Nahar’s published books on Rajasthan politics, available through major retailers.

Amazon – Haldighati Yuddha Vijayeta Maharana Pratap – Another key historical publication by Nahar, highlighting the Battle of Haldighati.

Sahitya Kunj – Vijay Nahar Author Profile – A central repository of Nahar’s literary contributions and publications.

Most of the sources cited to support the notability of Vijay Nahar are from Hindi-language newspapers and online publications. However, these are established and widely circulated media outlets in India, such as Dainik Bhaskar, Amar Ujala, Rajasthan Patrika, Punjab Kesari, Jansatta, and the Hindi edition of Times of India. These outlets are considered reliable sources under Wikipedia guidelines for regional and vernacular coverage.

The references include interviews, book reviews, coverage of public recognitions and awards, listings of published works, and inclusion of his books in institutional libraries. Several sources document his contributions as a biographer of public figures like Narendra Modi, Vasundhara Raje, and Maharana Pratap. Many of these sources offer English summaries or have accessible translations. Gujjar.rudraa (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat none of these sources cover this person in depth, lack WP:SIGCOV also most of these sources are non reliable TheSlumPanda (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gujjar.rudraa have you edited only this person page since creation of your wiki account ?TheSlumPanda (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nicholas

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

After reviewing the article it came to my attention that the person this article is about does not meet the notability criteria for creative professionals since:

- There is no readily available evidence to suggest that Anna Nicholas is widely cited by her peers or successors, or that she is considered an "important figure" within the broader literary community.

- It is unlikely that Anna Nicholas has originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique within the literary field. Her work, while potentially popular, does not appear to have revolutionized or significantly altered literary practices.

-While Anna Nicholas has published books, it is questionable whether these works have been the "primary subject" of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" that meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. Simply having reviews or mentions is insufficient; the reviews must be substantial and from reputable sources. It must be demonstrated that the books have had a significant cultural impact.

- There is no evidence to suggest that Anna Nicholas's works have achieved any of these criteria. Her books do not appear to have become "significant monuments," been part of significant exhibitions, received exceptional critical attention, or been included in notable gallery or museum collections. Fatimald (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and United Kingdom. Fatimald (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interestingly there is a recent review of one of her books in the Telegraph[8] but also two recent bylines[9][10] so this cannot be considered an independent source. Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR and article is largely unchanged from the one she herself originally created 17 years ago. Orange sticker (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Travel and tourism, Spain, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find the Telegraph review used in the article, not enough to meet AUTHOR. With one or two more book reviews we should have AUTHOR notability, but I don't see any. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Telegraph article is not independent and failing other reliable sources the article does not have enough to be kept. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

José Luis Ricón

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

Dubious notability. The Org seems to be the equivalent of a LinkedIn page, and the Future page does not provide any notable information. Many of the citations in the article are not verified in the sources, such as the claim of a "widely cited resource" Longevity FAQ. In addition, I have reason to believe this might be a trolling attempt, due to the creation of a prediction market on if the article will survive to the end of the year (https://manifold.markets/infiniteErgodicity/will-the-wikipedia-article-for-jose) Duckduckgoop (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Duckduckgoop (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science, Internet, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nemrah Ahmed Khan

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

The article is about author. I have searched about the subject but didn't find significant coverages.. That can pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Although I did come across a few mentions about the person, they were news-related and not about the work for which the person is known as an author. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am trying to find sources, not easy when I do not read Urdu. However, it looks like she may have had more than one bestseller - Mus'haf as noted (but not yet sourced) in the article, and Jannat Kay Pattay, mentioned in this [11] and this [12]. I will try to find better sources. I note too that on the Talk:Nemrah Ahmed Khan page, there is mention of other Romanised spellings of her name, including Nimra Ahmad. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rachele Focardi

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

Does not seem to pass NPEOPLE. I see only passing mentions in independent sources. [13] is an interview, so it is neither secondary nor independent. [14] seems to have some coverage, but if I interpret Acknowledgements correctly, the coverage is primarily based on interviews, so this source is also not independent. I also see a few other interviews, but nothing notability-confering. Janhrach (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Management, Asia, and Italy. Janhrach (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Golshani

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

There's no indication of notability as per WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. The subject probably passes WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of a legislative body SCCR, but it's good to reach a clearer consensus. Xpander (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Xpander (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, WP:SK3. What is the point of starting an AfD when the nomination statement itself states that the subject probably passes a notability criterion, WP:NPOL? But for the record I think he also has a good case for WP:PROF #C2 (Templeton prize), #C3 (Academy of Sciences of Iran), and #C5 (distinguished professor), so the nomination claim of "no indication of notability" through academic notability is both a WP:VAGUEWAVE and completely erroneous. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein. As for #C5 I couldn't find any independent sources for the distinction claim. As for #C2 how is "winner of a course program" and a "former judge" notable? As for #C3 it has hundreds of members most of which are not notable. So I don't think it passes WP:PROF as suggested. Xpander (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point. Why would you nominate a former member of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution for deletion when you say yourself that it's enough for NPOL? People who are notable need only be notable for one thing; even if you don't believe he is notable as an academic, notability as a politician is enough. For that matter, he's also likely not notable as an athlete (because we have no record of any athletic accomplishments) nor as a musician (likewise); do you think that should be a valid rationale to delete someone notable as a politician? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @David Eppstein I certainly respect your points. The issue with SCCR is that it is not a de jure legislative body, and if it is, it is not a common one, i.e. as compared to the US, UK etc. where the only legislature is the Congress/Parliament/Assembly. On their website they mention:
  
  The duties of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution can be divided into three areas: policymaking, regulation development, and supervision^[1].
  
  So it doesn't say lawmaking specifically, although it is mentioned in their by-law, that in case of needing law-changes they can ask the corresponding body to provide the necessary arrangements:
  
  Article 32 - If the Supreme Council resolution requires a law, regulation, or resources to be implemented, the matter will be sent to the head of the relevant authority or the highest official of the relevant body for legal procedures to be carried out, in order to provide the necessary arrangements.^[2]
  
  So maybe it could be interpreted as an executive body rather than a legislative one? That's why I said probably. Some editors have rejected the notability claim based on membership of this body. So the rationale was to reach as clear a consensus as possible. Xpander (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "درباره شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
^ "شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might do to revisit some tacit assumptions, David Eppstein. I found a potted biography preceding the main interview in Richardson & Slack 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRichardsonSlack2005 (help), and whilst it has degrees, awards, and books it has no mention of membership of that organization. The claim to membership was not in this article for the first 10 years of its life, only being added without source nor edit summary in 2017. It's not even made in Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, which merely claims, with zero sourcing, membership of a predecessor organization. Is the whole back-and-forth above based upon assuming as a given a claim that is not actually true? Certainly, even with the assumption, what the status of the SCCR is is irrelevant, as the (unsourced!) claim is that this person was a member of an appointed council of university professors in the Cultural Revolution HQ that preceded the 1984 foundation of the SCCR. Uncle G (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Richardson, Mark; Slack, Gordy, eds. (2005). "Mehdi Golshani: The Ladder To God". Faith in Science: Scientists Search for Truth. Routledge. pp. 121 et seq. ISBN 9781134516568.

Choa Kok Sui (Master)

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

Repost of previously deleted and salted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choa Kok Sui * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does this not fall in line with WP:G4? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No because the prior AfD is very old, and the recent deletions are speedies for reasons that don't seem to apply here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still non-notable. Does not pass WP:NAUTHOR (or even [[[WP:NBIO]]). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree this page was previously deleted and salted. The preceding AFD is 18 years old. Since then, numerous independent references from credible sources have emerged regarding the subject. Consequently, it meets the criteria of WP:GNG.. Sore Shout (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Leebaert

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

Non-notable, self published article. Nearly all references (which are poorly sourced anyways) are unused in the actual article. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leerbaert has written at least a half dozen books that have been reviewed in peer-reviewed academic journals. Unfortunately, most of what is in the article is unsourced, which violates BLP rules. I looked for more bio info based on what is in the article but have not found it. I will try to at least get the weightier reviews into the article, and will mark ^{[citation needed]} where I will be looking for sources. Lacking sources, though, the article will need to be greatly reduced. Lamona (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Example reviews:

Reviewed Work: Soviet Military Thinking. by Derek Leebaert

Review by: Jeffrey T. Richelson

Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 97, No. 3 (Autumn, 1982), pp. 554-556 (3 pages) https://doi.org/10.2307/2150041

Immerman, Richard. 2019. Grand Improvisations: America Confronts the British Superpower, 1945-1957. Derek Leebaert. Journal of American History. Vol. 134. p. 818 doi: 10.1093/jahist/jaz636
Hirschey, Mark. 1984. What Role for Government? Lessons from Policy Research. Richard J. Zeckhauser Derek Leebaert. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 22. pp. 1122-1123

Lamona (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've made many changes to the article and have found some good reviews (good = reliable sources) for his books. I have yet to find anything independent for biographical information, so all of that may either need to be sourced to non-independent sources or be removed. I do not know what to do about the WP:COI, aka AUTOBIOGRAPHY. As the changes have all been done with an IP (and the same IP) I would suggest blocking that IP, even though it's easy to get around that. I'll add some COI notices. Lamona (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page for information on COI. I will also remove unsourced BLP content. What's left will help me see if there is enough to keep. Lamona (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article created by blocked sock puppet. Subject is not notable. Mostly edited by IPs and may indicate COI issues. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Book reviews in the New York Times [15] -archived, and the Wall Street Journal [16], plus the academic journal ones listed elsewhere, easily passes AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject appears to be notable as seen from the improvement by uninvolved editors, especially Lamona. I'm waiting for others to comment before !voting on this autobiography. Bearian (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Perkins

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

Only independent sources I can find are ones that mention her in passing. Created over a declined AfC in 2015 by a single-purpose account editing about Perkins and her publishing company. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously non-notable subject, promotional BLP. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but stubify. Underneath the promotional tone is a lot of important work in publishing award-winning Lesbian writers. The Lambda Literary Awards are the Pulitzers of queer writing, and her imprints have for over a dozen years published many notable women's literature, including Cecilia Tan. I don't know the subject, but I met Tan once or twice at SF Cons. Can I take a crack at this? Thanks for your patience. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC) P.S. I've started to work on it. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC) P.P.S. I cut out what can't be sourced or is out of date, and added a source. I considered a merger but upon further reflection took it back. Discuss. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as between the three book reviews, awards, and coverage about her agency and e-book house there seems to be enough for at least WP:NAUTHOR if not WP:BASIC. The article is a bit of a mess and would benefit from a re-write. Nnev66 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Bergeron

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

I can’t find any sources that aren’t connected to the subject. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Authors. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
? What does the nominator think about the subject's citation record? It appears to contain hundreds of sources that are not connected to the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. I see three articles with over 500 citations, a fourth with 478, and more articles with over 100 citations. That appears to pass the PROF Test. Plus, while Harvard cheats at hockey, the medical school is sort of prestigious. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we confirm that he's actually a Harvard professor? Not all self-described "teaching at Harvard" is prestigious. --Jahaza (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that info is out of date. Note that most of his books were published between 2001-2003, and we have so far articles from 2007-2019. We won't be able to include his teaching unless we find some actual biographical info. He can meet NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC on the basis of his writings alone, although that isn't satisfying as an article. Lamona (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did find a press release that gives a full bio: "Bryan Bergeron Named Acting Director of Clinical Investigation Graduate Program." Business Wire, 31 July 2007. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A166986885/ITOF?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=89c774e5. Accessed 13 Apr. 2025. It says: The MGH Institute of Health Professions, an academic affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, announces the appointment of Bryan Bergeron, MD, as Acting Director of the Graduate Program in Clinical Investigation. There are various prior positions and what AFAIK some minor awards. So far I haven't found an independent source for this info. Lamona (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has been here since 2005. The article is just one line and one weak source. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramos1990, that has nothing to do with whether the subject is notable or not. -- asilvering (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see at least 2000 reliable sources not connected to the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. It is a bit of a red flag to me how low his ratio of book reviews to books is. I found only two reviews, from many books, and one of the two is in a journal I think may be dubious: [17] [18]. That's not enough for WP:AUTHOR for me and I don't think his citation record is strong enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a list of his books and a few articles. His books get hundreds of cites (905, 690, 620 ...). I did not find bio information (yet) and the one reference that is there from business wire is a press release. I did find an interview. I still think he passes NAUTHOR and possibly NACADEMIC. Lamona (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Cooper (podcaster)

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

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

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

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

This article was deleted after a discussion in September and there are no new sources. Old version. Previous discussion. New version includes false promotional language like "Cooper is a writer for The American Conservative and has contributed to Tablet Magazine" (1 article at AC, 0 at Tablet), unsourced sections, and no mention of past statements like "FDR chose the wrong side in WW2" and Hitler not being in hell. This is still a WP:BLP1E, the only difference is that the new version pretends otherwise and uses promotional framing for his views. Tagging from previous discussion: Isaidnoway Xegma Wcquidditch Chaimanmeow Liz ArmenianSniper Googleguy007 AusLondonder Gusbenz Cosmokiwi LizardJr8 Lostsandwich The_Four_Deuces Osomite Wyattroberts A._Randomdude0000 FeldBum Seefooddiet John_Z Kriddl Donald_Albury Andol HonestManBad Kimdime Hemiauchenia Sandstein. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete I have this article watchlisted because I do generally think it's wise to keep an eye on the pages of holocaust deniers so that we can avoid Wikipedia hosting, you know, holocaust denial, but this guy's definitely a good example of WP:BLP1E. While I do think it's good for Wikipedia to cover notable pseudohistorians, including notable holocaust deniers, I don't think we need to have a page for every holocaust denier with a Podcastle subscription. Should evidence be presented this man is a more significant holocaust denier then I guess I'll go back to keeping him on my watchlist but otherwise I think deletion is the best course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also tagging @Hemiauchenia @Tsarstvovanie @Ekozie @Sweetstache @Kungigult from old page. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 While Cooper gained noterietay from the Carlson interview, the number of sources since the last article was deleted in September have increased. Aside from receiving 10s of millions of views on popular shows & podcats like Carslon and Rogan, Cooper hosts 2 popular podcasts of his own and has a substack with over 160k subscribers. I think that this page is clearly unfinished and some of the sourcing should be fixed. It also entirely focuses on his recent comments with Carlson and Rogan. This is a better argument to expand the page than to delete it. Cooper's popularity is clearly growing, he does now fit the criteria for a notable person. I think it is important for wikipedia to cover this person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Showing up as a guest in the walled garden of right-wing podcasts isn't an automatic indication of notability nor is having a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but his popularity is. Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. Many of Cooper's associated personalities are equally as notable and have wiki pages. Comic Dave Smith for example. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison to Dave Smith (comedian) is actually a good one for demonstrating why Cooper is not notable. Smith has many reliable sources talking about a variety of actual event appearances such as festivals and such. His advocacy for Trump made it into Reason for goodness sake. The SPLC has a profile on Smith and has documented his conflict with the holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Dave Smith is clearly notable by Wikipedia's standards because reliable sources treat him as such. Showing up on Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan while being a far-right podcaster is not intrinsically notable. Having a blog is not intrinsically notable. In fact the contrast between Cooper and Smith reinforces why we should not have a page about Cooper. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So then your argument is that being different and notable is not different and notable enough to be delineated on a website that literally is about informing people how things are different and notable. Your argument is just talking in circles. 216.49.143.3 (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of order, the previous version was not deleted – The result was redirect‎ to Tucker Carlson#Darryl Cooper World War II controversy. I'll look at the newly created version and sources a little later and get back. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We will wait with baited breath and stop the world to wait for your opinion. 216.49.143.3 (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete/Merge My opinion hasn't really changed here, eventhough the article has grown. Nearly all of the citations fall into two groups: first-party/non-notable, like the subject's substack or podcast homepage, or specifically about a single opinion/appearance--and all from September 2024. There are now two citations about a second podcast appearance, this time on Joe Rogan, but it's still basically the same problem; the subject is only notable when he makes a fuss or controversial statement on someone else's program. Basically, when you get down to it, this is person is known for two slightly viral moments. I know that BLP2E isn't a "real" policy around here, but this feels more like an extension of BLP1E. I'm assuming the subject will continue to make enough noise to eventually meet notabilty guidelines; I just don't think here's there yet based on the current article. --FeldBum (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neill Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[[[Neil Ferguson]] more an “anti-historian”[19] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neil Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[20] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Times of Israel is a good source, [21], this is an opinion piece [22], [23], [24]. The person certainly is opinionated, but we shold have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all about the same one event. Please see WP:BLP1E. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The current version of the article is much more detailed and has a number of reliable sources. Eric Carpenter (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of which seem to be about his Tucker Carlson interview. Except for one source that mentioned a pro-Hitler tweet of his. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just your opinion. There's also a number of other quotes and information now in the article, his Joe Rogan appearance, the many, many articles criticizing his point of view. Eric Carpenter (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
certainly a noteworthy topic..keep 173.91.127.46 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since I was pinged as a "participant" in the last nomination, I wanted to clarify that my only contribution to that was deletion sorting. Other than this comment, that is also the case for this nomination; I had no opinion on the old article and also offer no opinion for this version. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. The previous article only focused on the Tucker Interview, which is why it was considered WP:BLP1E. Cooper’s work has been widely discussed in major outlets including The Times (UK), Vox, Axios, Yad Vashem, and The Free Press, which reflects the notability standards set by Wikipedia for public figures. Additionally, many of the personalities he associates with such as comic Dave Smith have wikipedia pages despite equal noterietay at best. These factors—his independent contributions to historical analysis, his partnerships with notable figures, and his coverage by reliable secondary sources—clearly demonstrate that Cooper meets the criteria a notable person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there are already Darryl Cooper articles in German and French [25] Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete here's very little reliable sourcing for Cooper except that he is a podcaster who made several controversial appearances on right-wing talk shows promoting holocaust denial. These controversies are best covered in articles about the hosts.

TFD (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So wealthy well-connected podcasters get the social credit, but the minions get a little blurb that will be deleted by the Wikipedia Hatekeepers when they want to feel powerful, because they are meaningless humans otherwise. 216.49.143.3 (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A certain level of prudence is required to productively apply notability guidelines. Cooper is a writer and podcaster with a large audience who has been involved in several controversies. This is enough for him to be notable, and the point of notability guidelines is fundamentally to filter out what's not notable. Not to provide material for (admittedly) politically-motivated quibbling over alleged edge cases as if the norms themselves were the point. Note also the almost inevitable meta-level political bias that sneaks in when editors are free to apply different levels of scrutiny to different topics based on their own biases. A serious effort to remain unbiased would involve opening discussions on politics-related articles with an encouragement for users to check their biases at the door - instead we have editors more or less stating that they are here to enforce their political preferences. Anyway, it's three events now and it was two events last time when WP:BLP1E was applied. HonestManBad (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The three "events" are two podcast appearances and a bad tweet. We do retain articles on notable nazi podcasters like Christopher Cantwell this guy just isn't as significant as him. Simonm223 (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad in any way that's relevant to this discussion. It's not a single tweet but a thread of 35 tweets - an article of sorts, you could say - not that it matters. The reactions from significant figures and publications are what makes the events notable. HonestManBad (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that happens on Twitter matters at all no many how many tweets were in a thread. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on Twitter is not relevant to this discussion. HonestManBad (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that a tweet, even a thread, does not constitute a distinct event for BLP1E purposes. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Again, the reactions from significant figures and publications are what makes the events notable. HonestManBad (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: BLP1E doeesn't apply because there are at least 4 events that have received coverage in secondary sources: 1) The 1/6 tweets, 2) the Hitler tweet, 3) The Tucker Carlson appearance, and 4) The Joe Rogan appearance. While it is true that none of these in themselves would make someone notable, the fact that these events have been covered in secondary source does. Additionally, Cooper has tens of thousands of paid subscribers on Substack, making him one of the highest earners on the site.[26] Mr. Squidroot (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a podcaster interacting with other podcasters and making some noise for bigoted tweets is not proof of notoriety. The article also seems like a puff piece. A lot of sources are subpar, unreliable, and some were also pulled from ChatGPT. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leftist talking points and elitism isn't a policy-based argument. JDiala (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Strong Keep, the sources from a scan of the internet and available media shows that this should meet GNG. Per Mr. Squiqroot. This article should not be deleted, but more WP:BEFORE should have been done. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case this page was kept kindly move this page to Darryl Cooper (which is redirect to itself). Current title includes an unnessesary disambiguation. Ping me or the closing admin themself can do it if possible. Thank You and No opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support this comment. It does not make sense to have a disambiguation unless needed. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of sources. JDiala (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NebulaDrift (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Almost none of these keep !votes have any relevance to our notability guidelines. Do we have WP:GNG/WP:NBIO here or not? That's the question at hand. Getting a lot of attention on social media or having a highly subscribed Substack are not relevant to WP:N.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, I mentioned in my "Keep" !vote that the article passes GNG based on the availability of the reliable sources. That includes The Washington Post and others. The first relist was warranted, but this second one now is unjustified and the article should be closed as a "Keep" IMHO. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even realize there was doubt about whether the subject meets WP:GNG. There are many reliable sources. Here's a couple from a quick google search [27][28]. My comment about the Substack subscribers was addressing the appeal to WP:BLP1E which only applies to low profile individuals. Both this delete discussion and the first one from September centered on BLP1E so you didn't see comments addressing GNG since that didn't seem up for question. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep per WP:GNG, there are perhaps enough reliable sources, but the article needs major shortening with the current RS. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New York times just put out a piece on Darryl Cooper today [29]. Not only does this support presumption of notability under WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, it supports the non-applicability of WP:BLP1E since the article is about Cooper himself, not any particular event. I'm curious if this changes the minds of any of the delete !voters. @Simonm223 @TFD @FeldBum @GordonGlottal @Paprikaiser Mr. Squidroot (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should be closed as a Keep already. I do not know why it is still open after the latest new reliable source mentioned by @Mr. Squidroot. I am assuming some closer has just not come along to see this yet.. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, at risk of beating a dead horse here, we are apparently keeping this open because the keep !votes weren't based on guidelines but let's look at the arguments for deletion
This is WP:BLP1E but also too biased because it doesn't mention 1 of the events

Tweets aren't notable even if they are covered by secondary, reliable sources

Podcast appearances aren't notable even if they are covered by secondary, reliable sources

WP:BLP2E isn't policy but we should we should use it here anyway

the subject will continue to make enough noise to eventually meet notabilty guidelines but is also WP:LOWPROFILE and therefore applicable to BLP1E
Obviously, there is no coherent guideline-based argument that BLP1E applies here. But now we have to argue why it meets WP:GNG, something no one has ever contested, not even in September when there weren't half the sources there are now. I actually agree with a lot of the delete !votes that the current state of the article is not very good, but who wants to work on an article with an axe over its head? Hoping that someone can take another look and consider closing now. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable individual with multiple sources online regarding his work. He seems to be a source of controversy with multiple sources talking about his work. Grimforge (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna McCarthy

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. References limited to self-published sources. Lacks significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent publications. WP:BEFORE search turned up little beyond self-published sources, book lists and one TED talk recording. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disagree with nomination. Jenna is linked to sources besides her own. She is an advocate for the truth as shown in the substack article referenced on her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeJMyhre (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that substack isn't a reliable source, so this has been removed. No comment on the notability of McCarthy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Jenna has a large national following from her books and TED talks, and a wonderful daily satire page on Substack. 2600:1700:79B0:F740:64D5:6B98:4232:4CDB (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Agree with the nomination. Tried my own search and only found references from primary sources (author, publisher) + her Tedx talk. Don't consider reviews from Kirkus reviews to be significant due to potential to pay for review.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also pointed out that the conspiracy theorist label was wrong. They claimed that I was not presenting a neutral point of view. Below are my comments:

My comments were a neutral point of view. The text I was trying to change said:

"Jenna McCarthy is an American conspiracy theorist." with no links or arguments to support the claim.

I tried to change it to "Jenna McCarthy has been called an American conspiracy theorist." which is true without argument or need for support.

I then also included an article from Jenna McCarthy that explained what are and are not conspiracy theories. This of course was her opinion which was explained in my edit. To not include any relevant arguments and simply claim that 'she is a conspiracy theorist' is not a neutral point of view. You can't remove my edits trying to correct your current bias and claim that I don't have a neutral view 24.143.78.9 (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article no longer mentions the "conspiracy theorist" label. In any case, this is not relevant to whether the article should be deleted. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Are you sure this wasn't nominated for deletion because I pointed out that it was libelous to call someone a "conspiracy theorist"? I see you changed THAT. Hmmmmm. 2600:1700:60:1170:896B:C934:647B:6353 (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I see a few articles on Google news here and there. Also, herein is a brief description of her TED talk on their website. This is not an endorsement of her views on anything. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The body of work consists of material that in the past has been censored and dismissed as "conspiracy based". But as with most COVID "conspriacies", much of it has turned out to be true. No downside to keeping, and not a good look to continue censoring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmatich (talk • contribs) 16:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed MikeJMyhre (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This looks like the person we're discussing [30] and would be a book review, but one isn't enough. I don't find anything else about this person, this likely doesn't pass AUTHOR. (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, Oaktree b, and Anonrfjwhuikdzz. This subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO on multiple reliable sources, and reviews do not appear to support WP:NAUTHOR. JFHJr (㊟) 22:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, she does appear to be a prolific writer, according to Baker & Taylor Author Biographies: McCarthy is a writer whose work has appeared in more than 40 national and international magazines including: Allure, Parenting, Shape, Fit Pregnancy, Babytalk, Glamour, Seventeen, New Parent, Real Simple, New Woman, Self, and in anthologies such as the popular Chicken Soup series. She's had a decent amount of book reviews, and she co-authored (with Pierre Kory), a top-ten national bestseller. I found a lot of newspapers that quoted her and/or mentioned her books, but no significant coverage about her – that I could find. So I'm neutral on whether to keep or delete the article.

Lola Knows A Lot. Kirkus Reviews, 6/1/2016, Vol. 84, Issue 11, page 129
Lola Knows a Lot. Publishers Weekly, 3/28/2016, Vol. 263, Issue 13, page 89
If It Was Easy, They'd Call the Whole Damn Thing a Honeymoon: Living With and Loving the TV-Addicted, Sex-Obsessed, Not-So-Handy Man You Married. Publishers Weekly. 8/22/2011, Vol. 258 Issue 34, pages 57-58
If It Was Easy, They'd Call the Whole Damn Thing a Honeymoon: Living With and Loving the TV-Addicted, Sex-Obsessed, Not-So-Han:dy Man You Married. Kirkus Reviews. 10/15/2011, Vol. 79 Issue 20, page 1905
If It Was Easy, They'd Call the Whole Damn Thing a Honeymoon: Living With and Loving the TV-Addicted, Sex-Obsessed, Not-So-Han:dy Man You Married. St. Petersburg Times, 10/23/2011, page 7L
Jenna McCarthy discusses her book, "If It Was Easy, They'd Call The Whole Damn Thing A Honeymoon". 2011, Today Show
Poppy Louise Is Not Afraid of Anything. Publishers Weekly, 2/13/2017, Vol. 264, Issue 7, page 73
Poppy Louise Is Not Afraid of Anything. Booklist, 2/15/2017, Vol. 113, Issue 12, page 83
The Parent Trip: From High Heels and Parties to High Chairs and Potties. Foreword Magazine, May-June 2008
Maggie Malone and the Mostly Magical Boots. The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, July-August 2014, Vol. 67, Issue 11, pages 585-586
Maggie Malone and the Mostly Magical Boots. Library Media Connection, January-February 2015, Vol. 33, Issue 4, page 58
War on Ivermectin: The Medicine that Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the Pandemic. co-author with Pierre Kory, June 2023 – Top 10 National Bestseller (data from independent and chain bookstores, book wholesalers and independent distributors nationwide - Publishers Weekly) ProQuest 2826943152 – Isaidnoway (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and AFAICT neither of the Kirkus reviews are part of the paid Kirkus indie programme [31] [32] Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (presumably) writing nonsense about covid is not a reason for deletion. The question is whether she's notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Given her publication list she seems notable as an author to me, hence she should be kept. Keep in mind notability of authors/journalists/writers is not an assessment of the quality or correctness of their work.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Searching newspapers.com, I found one review, of The Parent Trip [33], and several other articles where she, or one of her books, is quoted [34], [35], [36]. So there's the review I found, the one that Oaktree b and Bearian found, the Foreword Magazine review, St. Petersburg Times review, and the Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly reviews that Isaidnoway found. That's not a lot, for such a prolific author, but it's probably just enough for a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Updating my vote based on sources that others have found. Given her writing on ivermectin, I do think it would be appropriate for the article to include some mention of McCarthy promoting use of ivermectin for COVID despite the lack of quality evidence. Whether or not that includes the specific label of conspiracy theorist will depend on secondary sources about her.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the nomination. Upon some research, her first PRIMARY source is literally a medium article written by her with the intent of amending her own wikipedia page.

Writing an article about yourself on medium with the intent of using it as a citable source absolutely fails WP:GNG - it is clear she is non-notable else why would she go through the lengths to do this?

The only other sources are a dead link, her TED talk (which can be paid promotion), and her own website.

Non-Notable. Arguably should qualify for speedy deletion. Brenae wafato (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:SIGCOV of the author herself in the book reviews that @RebeccaGreen cited or that @Isaidnoway researched. Writing nonsense about Covid is not a reason for deletion, but it's also not a reason for inclusion, either. Maybe someone will publish an article about her as an author/contributor at some point, but it's WP:TOOSOON to keep this now. BBQboffin^{grill me} 00:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This one is borderline, but an objective review indicates she failed [[WP:GNG] and WP:RS criterion. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Durusau

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

While certainly accomplished, I cannot find enough in-depth references to show that he meets WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, United States of America, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to High places in cyberspace. I have found three reviews of his book High places in cyberspace: in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies [37], in Semeia : an Experimental Journal for Biblical Studies [38] (p 166), and in the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion [39]. So it looks as though the book is notable, per WP:NBOOK. We could either write an article about the book, or keep the article about him, adding references including the book reviews. There are certainly newspaper articles which verify that he worked as a defence lawyer, which don't contribute to notability but would probably be better sources than a law report. I haven't yet found secondary sources about his work with OASIS or ISO standards. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could move the current article to the book title, to maintain history, and make the article about the book, which per your sourcing looks notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Onel5969:: I would have no objection to moving the current title to the book title, but I personally do not have either the time or interest to write an article about the book. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or move as suggested. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR / WP:NBOOK based on the book reviews found by RebeccaGreen, and no objection to a move to the book title following the AfD. A redirect would also be fine if someone does decide to create a separate article about the book prior to this AfD's closure. MCE89 (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and poorly sourced article. May be better to rework this in draftsapce if it can be salvaged. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Ars Technica source is a green reliable source and should be sufficient for this article to be kept. There is a self source which would not be enough, and then there are a few others, but with the green reliable source and others, on net, this article is a Keep in my evaluation. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a deletion discussion about a person, and yet so far the discussion has not come to a consensus about this person, and has instead determined that a book they wrote - which does not currently have an article - is notable (noting here that the arguments for keeping that have been presented are all about the book, and do not establish notability for the author). The AfD closer cannot be responsible for implementing such a reframing, and it isn't reasonable to move what is patently a biography to a title about a book without reframing. As such, this currently looks like a "delete" outcome - I'm relisting for one more week in the hope that someone will do something to avoid such a closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote was not considering notability from the perspective of WP:NBOOK but if anything WP:AUTHOR, the BLPs consensus is leaning if anything towards a Keep if I were to look at it again. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I said in my !vote, the book reviews are enough to establish notability under WP:NBOOK or under WP:NAUTHOR (specifically criteria 3, which says that an individual who created a significant and notable work can themselves be considered notable). With authors who have written a single notable book, it's obviously a common outcome to prefer having an article about the book rather than about the author, since having both is typically redundant. But the sources that establish WP:NBOOK notability here also establish WP:NAUTHOR notability, and as the nominator here said themselves, there is value to retaining the article history. So I don't see any reason why we shouldn't keep this article on the basis of WP:NAUTHOR, and a discussion can be had outside of AfD about whether or not to reframe it to be about the book. MCE89 (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Authors proposed deletions

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

[1] "درباره شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.

[2] "شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.

[1]

[2]