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

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.

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]

Margo Savchuk

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

Fails WP:BIO. Not seeing any demonstrated notability for this person. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. And this is an obvious spam article. Skazi (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Internet, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (moderate to strong) -- Created by a seemingly single-purpose editor (User:Արշո; tagging for transparency and fairness' sake), and it just so happens to be an essay-like or ad-like submission? Wikipedia does not exist for aggrandizment, promotion, or advertising (not to mention it is against policy). Sans the allegedly promotional content, I'm not seeing what would bring us notability with this individual. A few fluff pieces by Russian blogsphere tabloids do not count as WP:RS. MWFwiki (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability of this blogger. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concerns and I have tried to write the article to the best of my ability with quality content. However, if there are issues with the notability or other aspects of the article, I don’t mind if it gets deleted. I appreciate the transparency and will be happy to improve or clarify the article if needed.--Արշո (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

appears to be spam in Google news search. So this can be deleted. Rupesh Kumar Saigal (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Al Hafiz

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

I checked the references and determined that all but a few of them have a 404 error, and the remainder link to book-selling sites. Book-selling sites are not acceptable sources, according to WP:RS. (Reference 5 and 9 have a 404 error, and 3, 4, and 6 are book-selling sites.) Further, no independent, third-party publication or news source providing evidence regarding his published books and claimed prizes. Only ref no.2 can be opened, but it starts https://barta24.com/, and no such newspaper as Barta24 exists in the List of newspapers in Bangladesh.
Musa Al Hafiz had been characterized as a poet, researcher, and chairman of the Bangladesh Islamic History and Culture Olympiad. None of the above claims exist in the form of any such significant, independent, or neutral source. Wikipedia policy WP:NBIO declares that a piece of work or a contribution by a particular individual must be significant enough on the international or national level so that the individual deserves an article. But such recognition is absent here.
Tone in the article ("born once in a thousand years", "extraordinary poet is a rare gem") contradicts Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy since they are promotionally biased. There is no published source or evidence that can be used to support the assertion. It appears that it had been authored largely for self-promotion.
I could not trace any publication date and review copy of his books (such as Mukti Anonde Amio Hasbo and Mrityur Janmodin) in any national repository.
This piece clearly appears to be self-promotional. It therefore disregards the spirit of Wikipedia (WP:NOTPROMO). It does not provide useful content but instead misinforms people with unverifiable information.

For all the reasons stated above, I think this article does not meet Wikipedia's standards and should be deleted under WP:Notability (people), WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion, point 5. Somajyoti ✉ 15:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. Somajyoti ✉ 17:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. There are a small number of sources but they do indicate notability.

Isoceles-sai (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the reason. Take another look. Somajyoti ✉ 15:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how the sources indicate notability per WP:NBIO. None of the nominee's arguments have been addressed. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Le Mare

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

Notability ash (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. ash (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've proposed this for deletion as it doesn't appear to establish more than a passing notability. The only two facts about her are that she is the co-founder of an organisation and a magazine. The stub hasn't been expanded in the last 15 years. Also, only one page appears to link to this page. Suggest a Wikidata page would be sufficient. Alternatively, the stub could be added to the page for the Society.

ash (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: the Malayan Nature Journal pops up in Gscholar where this person is mentioned [1] as the editor. This [2] and [[3]] are both by the same author but appear to show notabililty. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Might meet notability as the editor of the Malayan Nature Journal, PROF, but I don't remember which point it is exacly (C3?) Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editorship is C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Malaysia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Animal, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the information found by User:Oaktree b, her two early publications (writing as Gladys Keay) on mites were cited by others in the scientific literature. I have added those citations. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Double-digit numbers of citations are generally insufficient to make a case for WP:PROF#C1 notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think this contributes to notability, particularly since those papers were written in a time when citation counts were lower. In my mind, the points raised by Oaktree b are the best discussion notes for a keep argument. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep meets WP:NPROF#C8, especially given the time when she lived. Nnev66 (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the comments above. Bduke (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: co-founder of society, notable contributions to entomology. PamD 07:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per arguments of Nnev66 and PamD: for a female scientist from the 1940s and 1950s the notability and sourcing is sufficient. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raseshwari Devi Ji

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG. The coverage in the article and in BEFORE is limited to tabloid sources, trivial mentions, or unbylined coverage from WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources. The third reference (Times Now) is a paid article which is not independent or reliable for establishing notability. Junbeesh (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Junbeesh (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Hinduism, and Chhattisgarh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources as well as no Odia language article from which to translate. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Charlton

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

Fails WP:BIO, Fails WP:V, And my WP:BEFORE failed to find anything significant. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 09:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and England. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 09:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed, no significant coverage. The best I can find is a primary source confirming that he has written for Listen Against. Tacyarg (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find articles about someone with the same name that works for a "Brothers and Sisters" agency in London, nothing about this person. Sourcing used in the article is not helpful, it's only one source and doesn't show notability anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No meaningful sources found. Most hits are about the other, unrelated Matt Charlton. Clearly not a significantly notable individual. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with the above. The subject does not meet WP:GNG, as there is no significant, independent, and sustained coverage available to establish notability. The only source in the article is primary and does not demonstrate the depth required. Most search results refer to a different individual with the same name, further confusing the issue. Without reliable, in-depth secondary sources focused on this person, the article does not warrant inclusion. Bhw664488 (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Chains

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

Novel that fails WP:GNG WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Arts. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article notes three independent reviews, so it meets WP:GNG. BOZ (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article now quotes two separate reviews. If anyone has a copy of Vector #188, a third review could be added as well. Three reviews easily meets notability guidelines. Guinness323 (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is available here Geschichte (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NBOOK per sources already existing in the article. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:50, 6 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]

Andres David Drobny

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

questionable notability, as it relies predominantly on sources too closely associated with the subject and lacks significant independent coverage in reputable publications. Additionally, the article presents a promotional tone Mapsama (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just about meets WP:NAUTHOR, with two reviews of the subject's book in academic journals, which I have added to the article. I agree the tone is rather promotional. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s two reviews about the author’s book without any awards, I believe the entry should be about the book and not the author. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, England, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He has at least two other books, Inside the house of money: top hedge fund traders on profiting in the global markets and The Invisible Hands: Top Hedge Fund Traders on Bubbles, Crashes, and Real Money, but my searches could not find any reliably published reviews. Two reviews of one book isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR for me, we don't have the citation record needed for WP:PROF#C1, and I don't see the significant coverage in independent sources needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. I also note that three of the sources in the article are primarily about Larry Summers and his citation of the subject's work, rather than directly about the subject. That's a WP:BLP1E situation. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 5 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]

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]
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]

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]

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]

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]

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”[4] 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”[5] 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, [6], this is an opinion piece [7], [8], [9]. 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 [10] 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]

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.[11] 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]

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, 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]

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 [12] 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 [13] [14] 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 [15], and several other articles where she, or one of her books, is quoted [16], [17], [18]. 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]

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 [19], in Semeia : an Experimental Journal for Biblical Studies [20] (p 166), and in the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion [21]. 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]

Michael Eigen

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

No indication of notability. Of 11 refs, almost all are from his own works; one is an interview with him, one is an entry from Contemporary Authors: A Bio-Bibliographical Guide. He has written 45 books. It is not easy to find reviews other than publisher abstracts or Goodreads blurbs or equivalent; one of his better-known ones (caveat: I am not knowledgeable about this) appears to be Toxic Nourishment, and a search for reviews returns mostly sales sites. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Psychology, and United States of America. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His main works are Psychotic Core and Psychoanalytic Mystic.

I disagree strongly with him not being notable. Eigen is a major figure, and the fact that, e.g., Routledge published an introduction to his work (which is rare for a living person) testifies to that fact: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003002871/michael-eigen-loray-daws

His works are widely cited, as a search on Google Scholar indicates, with many of his papers and books having several hundred citations (which is significant for an individual). So disagreed w/r/t notability of Eigen.

However, I think you are rightfully calling attention to --- if implicitly --- to another issue: The page on Eigen has an insufficient number of external sources. Purely based on a cursory reading of this page one will likely --- and thus correctly --- come to the conclusion that Eigen is an isolated figure. In actuality, he is an important member of the psychoanalytic community, and he teaches worldwide (as his Seoul seminars indicate).

The article does not reflect that, however, and I am grateful for you bringing this to my/psy-community's attention. Once I have more time, I will try and add some external sources and appraisals.

But I strongly object to a deletion, Eigen is important, and the literature reflects that clearly. Honigfrau (talk) 09:19, 24 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!} 23:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are four books published by Routledge about his work listed in the Further Reading section of this article. Even without looking further, that certainly meets WP:GNG. The use of primary sources for citations is probably due to not understanding Wikipedia's requirements, not to a lack of secondary sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not look encyclopedic. Also sources are pretty good - publisher-wise, but do not establish him as a significant author. Many authors have credentials, but that does not mean they should have their own article. Two of the few editors to this page seem to be single purpose editors for Michael Eigen [22] and [23]. I think there is COI issues here. I agree with Mathglot's assessment of the current sources in the article. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am going to try adding sources to this article, though without access to the four books written about him, this may be difficult. I would like to point out that he certainly meets WP:NACADEMIC#1: Google Scholar shows that his 10 most-cited works (ie written by him) have 652, 484, 455, 356, 339, 243, 244, 165, 128 and 123 citations. His most cited book is The psychoanalytic mystic, followed by The psychotic core (as Honigfrau noted). Articles reviewing his work are to be found in academic journals, through Google Scholar, not through a general Google search. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence C. Marsh

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

Fails WP:GNG & Wp:nprof Sabirkir (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Economics. Sabirkir (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two items with pretty good citation levels is below what I'm generally looking for in WP:NPROF. University-wide teaching awards do not contribute here. On the other hand, one book tends to fall under WP:BLP1E so far as WP:NAUTHOR goes; I did not anyway find reviews on a cursory search. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Indiana, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. For someone at this level of seniority, two well-cited publications (one a textbook) with the rest falling off steeply is below the bar for WP:PROF#C1, and nothing else in the article looks to contribute to notability. I did find one published review of the book, and hints that there might have been another by Garman in [24] (from which any book reviews are now missing), but even if I could find the second review it wouldn't be enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To my mind a notable econometrician. His founding of/chairing of the Midwest Econometrics Group (MEG) is I think very notable within the US academic econometrics community and his role as the guest editor for a special edition of a highly prestigious econometrics journal - the Journal of Econometrics is important, as his work on Splines in ecmetrics via his book and papers ... and these seem to me together sufficient for notability. His published academic work in econometrics is very wide ranging....and I have used some if it in different contexts.... His later post-retirement books and media / opinion piece work seem to me less notable (but my bias is towards the academic side) and I don't know how notable his work as an independent Midwest Voices columnist on the Kansas City Star online edition might be from a journalistic point of view. (Msrasnw (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Keep The article has been expanded since its creation. The contributions made by Msrasnw, consisting of valuable content including his publications, serve to further establish the notability of the subject. Gedaali (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gedaali: perhaps you could explain which notability criterion is satisfied by providing a listing of publications? Do you think every academic for whom we could list publications is notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While he has (as mentioned above) a couple of well cited papers, the dropoff is fast and the total number of citations at 1359 is weak. His own page does not indicate anything notable except some prior students; notability is not inheritable from his prior students. I don't see indications that his book(s) have had an impact. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:29, 22 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!} 22:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The only type of sources I can find was this one here ^[1] and it is a book that he wrote. It seems like it's sort of notable for someone to write a book and have other sourcing. But, thoroughly scanning Google I could not find any other sort of citations besides that one. I would just draftify this until better sourcing is needed. Editz2341231 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "was this". July 2023.

Weak delete ~~keep~~ - I think the obsession over citations misses the point that we have a variety of criteria to meet the PROF test. He mentored 80 students to their PhD. His book has hundreds of citations. He's a Professor Emeritus, which is very rarely given anymore. He founded an important work group. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian, I have to call you on 2 points:

His CV says "80 Ph.D. dissertation committees", which is very different. I will estimate that typical faculty sit on 4-5 times as many committees as they have students.
"Professor Emeritus" is standard, and is a $0 appointment which lets you use the online library, have access to useful software and maybe a bit more. At least at my institution it is routine.

Ldm1954 (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my !vote to weak delete. I'm reminded that many professors (like one of my relatives) sits on many more committees than she chairs. It's sadly not been my experience that "Emeritus" is granted automatically (another family member retired as an Associate Professor yet was denied the honor of Emeritus, and I and dozens of other faculty were tossed to the curb without even a retirement party, but then again, my college went bankrupt). Also, the number of citations vary wildly from discipline to discipline. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 5 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.

[3] "was this". July 2023.

[1]

[2]

[1]