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

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]

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: [1][2]. His 70th birthday was noted in Helsingin Sanomat: [3] 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: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]
- Video report by Deutsche Welle: [11]
- Article by ET-lehti: [12]
- Article by Yle: [13]
- Interview by Iltalehti: [14] (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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Nigel Hughes

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite holding a faculty position and receiving an award, there is no significant coverage of Nigel Hughes in independent sources. The article relies mostly on university-hosted professional profiles, I could not find substantial third-party sources and article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Education, Archaeology, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep per WP:NPROF. He passes WP:NPROF#1 due to a high citation count in a low citation field with an h-index of 39 per Scopus and more than 10 publications with 100+ citations per Google Scholar. The award he received is a strong argument that he likely also passes WP:NPROF#2. Both of these are way beyond what is usually required in AfD to keep an article of an academic. Since we can apply NPROF, we do not have to consider GNG and after establishing notability, we can use professional profiles to write an article per NPROF and substantial coverage in third party sources is not required. It seems the nominator has not done a substantial WP:BEFORE and evaluation per WP:NPROF before nomination. --hroest 03:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide those links to verify your claim, so I can reconsider my AfD nomination? Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sure, here you go for Scopus and GS (he doesnt seem to have his own profile) and the award. --11:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
keep. Has honors. --Altenmann >talk 03:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wanted to note for the record that the first nomination was for a different Nigel Hughes. (This seemed apparent from the nominations themselves, but the logs preserved the first bit of both articles' wikitext, and they clearly reflect two different birthdates of two different people.) No opinion on the current article on the current subject. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that his citation count is sufficient to satisfy WP:NPROF#C1. He is also a Fellow of the Paleontological Society [15], which appears to be a selective elected position that gives him a pass of WP:NPROF#C3. And his Raymond C. Moore Medal gives him a reasonable claim to notability under WP:NPROF#C2. MCE89 (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hannes Röst [16] for providing those links. I’ve reviewed them and am now convinced to withdraw the nomination. Chronos.Zx (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as above, a clear pass of WP:NPROF. My vote is probably not needed, adding it because my independent search agreed with above. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the above comment, I've withdrawn it. Its useless to vote here, I'm waiting for any user to close the afd. Chronos.Zx (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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 [17], [18], [19]). 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]
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]

Johannes Hoffmeister (philosopher)

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

Notability assessment Xpander (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, and Germany. Xpander (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Xpander1, you have created this article as a translation of the de.wiki article and then you yourself have nominated it for deletion 3 minutes later, with this "Notability assessment" rationale. I am not understanding what you are seeking to accomplish by these steps and such a non-specific rationale? AllyD (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep until rationale for deletion is advanced. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: I just had translated the page, that it got blanked here by User:Onel5969 (on notability and verifiability grounds), therefore I thought I'd bring the page here so that it's better assessed by reliable consensus. If this rationale is not sufficient, then I would be happy to withdraw the nomination. Xpander (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So based on this, we have two articles, the original Johannes Hoffmeister on which the article text was reverted, and this new Johannes Hoffmeister (philosopher) which was created to open this discussion. A bit messy, but the AFD rationale is effectively then Onel5969's comment on the other article "Restore redirect - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Also, zero sources to satisfy WP:VERIFY". AllyD (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ACADEMIC 1.c. as per the festschrift Johannes Hoffmeister zum Gedächtnis (1956). Jahaza (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made Johannes Hoffmeister a disambig, but the philosopher is probably the primary topic, at least for now. Jahaza (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a significant figure in Hegel scholarship, overseeing some enormous works (his work was apparently also important for non-German-reading Hegel scholars). There's biographical discussion (in German) in this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A history merge is surely appropriate here... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn, thanks for providing the new sources. I've added those to the article. By WP:HISTMERGE do you suggest that the page-history would be merged with Johannes Hoffmeister (currently a disambiguation page)? If so histmerge suggests that in case that "only one editor has written all of the content" a histmerge is not necessary. What's more is that the aforementioned page was originally created as a redirect to Hans Hoffmeister (water polo) which is a totally different topic, that content-wise is also not relevant. Best. Xpander (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fair enough -- I'd misunderstood the situation! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deaftify. Independent of an notability this is far short of the requirements for sourcing. Currently it reads like an essay as well. It needs a complete rewtite. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Dempsey (author)

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

Lack of notability. all I'll say about the cites is that the library from which I habitually edit will not allow me to acess them. TheLongTone (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which citation would your library not allow you to access? Was it this one: https://www.faspr.org/events/meet-sean-dempsey-author-of-the-investors-warp-whistles? It's an organization out of PR, which is perhaps why your library has blocked access. Iceman101184 (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources. The only sources the article references are either self-published and/or sponsored websites, or in the case of the Financial Analysts' Society of Puerto Rico, WP:BIASED at best, as they hired the author to speak at the event. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:59, 16 May 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)} 16:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Celjski Grad. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ivo Toman

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Awards won appear to be very minor, and only reliable source seems to be an interview, even taking into account sources on other language Wikis. C 679 13:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Czech Republic. C 679 13:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article about a seller of food supplements / motivational speaker (the politician of the same name - whose Polish article was wrongly linked - needs to be distinguished). The awards claimed do not appear notable, and searches are finding nothing to indicate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG King ChristLike (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 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]

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 [20], [21], [22], 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]

Elise Allen

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I suppose the Emmy nomination could be notable, but all we have for sourcing is a list with a name. I can't find sourcing about this person, so not enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Comics and animation, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Commenting as this is reaching the end of a week of AfD - I have so far found coverage of her and another book she wrote, The Traveling Marathoner (Fodor, 2006). That could certainly be added to the article. I'll see what else I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added reviews of her books - not just those she co-authored, but there are multiple reviews for Populazzi (which has a WP article) and Twinchantment (which doesn't yet, but should). It looks like her book The Traveling Marathoner also had multiple reviews - I have added one, one in the Chicago Tribune is paywalled [23], and the Los Angeles Times says [24] that "For summer reading, Runner’s World recommended “The Traveling Marathoner: A Complete Guide to Top U.S. Races and Sightseeing on the Run.” So she meets WP:AUTHOR, even without considering her significant contributions (as developer, producer, co-creator, writer) to Princess Power, Rainbow High, Gabby Duran and the Unsittables, Rainbow Rangers, and multiple Barbie movies. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which aspect of WP:AUTHOR do you think is fulfilled? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Plenty of coverage on the things she wrote, but there isn't significant coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per RebeccaGreen. Meets NAUTHOR3 and 4(c). Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with RebeccaGreen and others that the article passes notability via WP:NAUTHOR #3 with multiple reviews in independent reliable secondary sources for the subject's books. Nnev66 (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elissa_Shevinsky

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Computing, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the previous AfD discussion was closed in 2013, so that was a while back. There is news coverage on Shevinsky that post-dates the previous discussion. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Voting for delete due to lack of notability. Research indicates that the subject does not have a reputation amongst her peers— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrettsprivateers (talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination is already a vote. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 11:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have done a bit of tidying up and removed the poorly-cited, resume-like items to focus on news coverage of Shevinsky. The best three sources (all in the article) are a 2014 New York Times article [25], and 2015 CNN article [26], and her coverage in a 2014 book by Dan Shapiro [27]. In addition, she has been widely quoted in the news talking about sexism in the tech industry (see examples in the article). DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a bit better written after that clean up, but she is still not notable by WP:GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes GNG with WP:SIGCOV in independent WP:RS's mentioned by DaffodilOcean ~~and also phys.org [28]~~. She may also pass WP:AUTHOR #3 for her book Lean Out. Nnev66 (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking phys.org reference as I don't think it counts as a reliable source. However, keeping my !vote the same given three strong sources previously identified and three reviews for Lean Out. Nnev66 (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still not notable by WP:GNG RocketDwiki (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis would be helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hard to analyze a negative. Notability has not been established. Therefore my comment of delete is pretty much all that is required in a vote. RocketDwiki (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Shapiro book section may not be completely independent, author is in the same niche as subject (tech startup CEOs who are frequently quoted about misogyny in the tech space) - guessing that's a pretty small world. See his blog post about their interview and article they were quoted in together. But the NYT piece is clearly sigcov, CNN is decent if a bit less in-depth, and her book has at least 3 reviews in RS. Put altogether subject seems at least weakly notable. Zzz plant (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that the NYT piece, the CNN piece, and the reviews for her book are sufficient to establish notability. Her book and her work are also mentioned in at least half a dozen academic books and journal articles, e.g. [29] [30]. At worst, this should be redirected to Lean Out: The Struggle for Gender Equality in Tech and Start-up Culture as an ATD. MCE89 (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not establish to be notable under WP:GNG. Have also discussed with cyber experts and she is not known to them.Fordyhall (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talking with outside experts is original research, which is not acceptable at Wikipedia (see WP:OR). I also find it interesting that you found a discussion at Articles for Deletion on your second edit. Have you been editing Wikipedia with another username? DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just noting here that only one of the four nominators has put forward a reason for deletion consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Even the one who said they thought the article didn't meet WP:GNG guidelines didn't address the three sources DaffodilOcean put forward for notability in their Keep !vote above. Zzz plant questions whether the book is independent because the author and subject are in the same smallish field but also !voted Keep. I'll expand here on the three book reviews for Lean Out. Two of them also have coverage of the subject: [31], [32] and the other is a comprehensive review: [33]. With all of these sources taken together this article should clear GNG. I'm willing to accept the subject is not a cybersecurity expert, but this is not relevant for this discussion. Nnev66 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 [34]
As a researcher he has a low h-index [35]
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]

Authors proposed deletions

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