- Jasper Rees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources included do not prove WP:GNG. Ktkvtsh (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The Crestoran Odyssey: Heroes Inception (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was PROD'd but the tag was removed by the article's creator who is also the author of this book. Given that it is self-published, I don't believe it has been reviewed or meets WP:NBOOK. Obviously, COI involved here and all of the editor's content creation. I know that this is not a valid deletion rationale but I thought I'd point it out in this statement. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Malcom Kyeyune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-promotional and self-penned promo bio of yet another right-wing podcaster, Digital Creator and Twitter troll. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Malcom Kyeyune has been a columnist for Göteborgs-Posten (the dominating newspaper in western Sweden), Fokus (magazine) (one of the most important political magazines), w:sv:Dagens Samhälle and so on. While I'm sure the article can be improved improved (it really looks like it's been written to convince the reader of Kyeyune's importance), the nomination makes him sound like a someone who writes on social media and tries to use Wikipedia to inflate his own importance. Kyeyune has had regular access to key print platforms, across several publications. Nor am I entirely convinced this article is self-penned, looking at the main editor's contributions and how they connect across Swedish political topics. /Julle (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth I know the original and primary author of the article and have met them so I can confirm they are 100% not Malcom Kyeyune. I do agree that there's a promotional tone in the current state though. AlexandraAVX (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not only is the writer mostly involved in left-wing publications, he is in a sufficient number of mainstream international/English-speaking ones. 1 2 3 I think he's notable enough to meet notability criteria. Additionally I don't think there is any rule against authors about people based on them being right or left-leaning, or on their activities on social media. By all means though if anyone thinks the article warrants improvement go ahead of course. FelipeFritschF (talk)
- Keep per Julle. Thriley (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep if improved, the only secondary source with significant coverage is the ETC article, but there seems to be at least one other source here [9] (along with several other articles at Flamman). This is extremely borderline for WP:NBASIC but given his still somewhat significant role in Swedish political debate I'm leaning towards notability. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because there is notability and the reasons listed for deletion are irrelevant to Wikipedia. Likeanechointheforest (talk)
- Dumitru Găleșanu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no clear evidence of notability. The subject has won three obscure prizes: that’s it. I also suspect paid editing: the article is by a new account, with links to google.pk. I would imagine that someone from Pakistan whose very first article is about a random Romanian poet was paid to publish. Biruitorul Talk 13:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yogacharya Govindan Nair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don’t see any sources in English to support WP:AUTHOR. The subject has written multiple books but I see no in-depth reviews, just online bookshops and Wikipedia mirrors. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The Twenty Seventh Edition of his book was released on the International day by the publisher who published his book nearly 4 decades ago. here is the link https://www.instagram.com/dcbooks/p/C8eOMOMyNxz/?hl=en&img_index=1 2405:201:E010:706F:F0B9:15A2:5E91:AA5B (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources on the page. Fails WP:NBIO. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, who is not widely cited by peers or successors. As Author and Yoga instructor, subject has not created a significant or well-known work and I cannot find subject's work in multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work. Fails WP:GNG too. RangersRus (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Zoe Gardner (migration expert) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All edits are by this obvious agency - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Starklinson
This amounts to a self-written autobiography of an opinion columnist. It does not warrant a wikipedia article and the current one is promotional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
![Not a vote](//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Emblem-WikiVote.svg/50px-Emblem-WikiVote.svg.png) | 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}} . |
- Delete - as above, clearly promotional content relating to a non-notable person. Furthermore, use of “expert” in disambiguation in article title clearly biased and inappropriate. Elshad (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - very clear cut case of a non-notable person. Badharlick (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, this should be on LinkdIn, not a supposed encylopædia. It’s essentially an advert for a self declared “expert” fishing for media appearances. 141.195.160.217 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was only created in August 2023, her media appearances long predate that - this[12] is from 2015. I think it's important that media pundits have articles, it enables everyone to easily look at their credentials and assess their motivations. Orange sticker (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, Wikipedia policy does not care about your opinions on how you think the world ought to be. Badharlick (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Clearly not autobiographical as has been alleged - the creating editor, @Starklinson:, although they have chosen to remain as a redlinked editor without a userpage, has created and edited a wide range of articles over seven years (in contrast to the nominator of this AfD who appears to be proposing this AfD as their first edit). Appears to be a notable expert in the field, cited in many sources. The disambiguation, needed to distinguish her from Z G (actress), could perhaps be "(migration specialist)" to avoid any perceived subjectivity in "expert", so perhaps Keep and move. PamD 08:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with all this including altering the title.Orange sticker (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @PamD, I'm thinking this discussion could end up as being a no consensus outcome. What do you feel about (refugee advocate) as the disambiguation? TarnishedPathtalk 12:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TarnishedPath Not sure about "advocate". She describes herself on LinkedIn as "migration policy specialist". I think I'd still go with "(migration specialist)", which covers a wider range of activity than "advocate" but avoids the possible puffery of "expert". The category Category:Experts on refugees, which was created in 2015, is slightly odd, with no parent category in a "people by occupation" tree. It's difficult to find a descriptor which fits someone employed in a field, rather than various "activists" categories or disambiguators. PamD 18:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence she is a migration 'specialist' or expert. This appears to be a confusion of one sided activism with actual non-partisan knowledge. Working for a pro-immigration ngo for asylum seekers is hardly expertise and this characterisation favours open border policy which is contentious in the public realm. Must be deleted and replaced with something like 'activist' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A10:D582:D18:0:AC59:B40E:AD1E:937B (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep surprised to see this as I recognised the name immediately, has appeared regularly on news programmes and is referred to as an expert as references and news search show. Orange sticker (talk)
- Delete: Per WP:NOTRESUME. TarnishedPathtalk 10:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I noticed how this was nominated by, and many of the votes are by, new users who have made no other contributions to the project so searched Twitter and it seems the subject of this article made a tweet yesterday that received a lot of attention and then Twitter users brought attention to her Wikipedia page. I've looked to see if there is an appropriate template to flag this AfD but can't find one, but it seems to be this has been nominated in bad faith Orange sticker (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's interesting that we don't allow a brand-new editor to create an article in mainspace, but we do allow them to create an AfD. Perhaps this should be reconsidered? PamD 11:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @PamD and @Orange sticker, I've added a {{notavote}} notice. However, I must note that the first and third editors to !vote delete after nomination are editors who have been on Wikipedia 19 years and 9 years respectively, so while there are some IPs voting and the article was nominated by a very new user, I don't think it's completely accurate to state that many of the votes are by new users. TarnishedPathtalk 12:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TarnishedPath Yes but: did you see the editing history of the 19-year editor? 4 edits since 2019, of which one to their user page, one to their talk page. Not a very active editor. The 9-year editor does seem to be a regular contributor on a range of topics. PamD 13:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- While I do agree that it's highly unusual when a day old account makes such a nomination and then is followed by some IPs participating, I really don't think that's enough to make judgments about longstanding editors regardless of their recent history. TarnishedPathtalk 13:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think rather than back or forth about who is editing perhaps engaging with the substance here would be preferable - to qualify as an ‘expert’, you would presumably need well read academic publications and so on. Every Think Tank employee in the U.K. doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, even if they are occasionally cited in the press. The subject has no published books, academic papers, etc; this is clearly below the threshold of noteworthy-ness. Plus the article is promotional in tone and I strongly suspect some connection, financial or otherwise, between the main editor and the subject 2A01:CB06:B852:BE75:69B1:C245:F364:C83B (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Activity level is not a requirement for a users vote to be considered legitimate. I find your arguments in this discussion to be highly suspect in their motivation, as you appear to be attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the vote rather than participating in the actual discussion. Badharlick (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It is extremely bad etiquette to assume bad faith as you are. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, provided they follow the rules set out in the policy. It does not exist for cabals of users to gatekeep others from contributing. Badharlick (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thank you, @PamD:. I only put (migration expert) because I didn't know what else to call her - that's how she's often referred to by the British press. I don't think 'expert' is necessarily biased, it just means she's done significant research on the topic. And I don't think 'activist' quite fits. However, if anyone has a better idea for the title, I'd be open to that. – Starklinson 13:13 UTC
- ALSO, Wikipedia has a category Category:Experts on refugees, suggesting the language of 'expert' is not considered too partial for Wikipedia. I would also like to make it very clear that I have never received payment for my work on Wikipedia, nor have I ever made a page for someone as a favour. I know none of these people personally. – Starklinson 21:43 UTC
- Delete: Appears in various media as a subject expert, but I don't find much coverage about this person. Source 2 is a "30 under 30 list" in a PR item. The BBC sources is an interview where she talks about things. Source 14 is ok-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What about source 1? Starklinson (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an interview with/about her, not terrible but not nearly enough. Generally don't count for RS as they are primary. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Regardless of the provenance of this article, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Awards are WP:MILL (a trade pub's 30 under 30), and the rest of the sources are WP:INTERVIEWS (which do not contribute to notability), WP:ROUTINE coverage of organizations she works for and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. No obvious redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly agree with this. Badharlick (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Could draftify be an option? – Starklinson 13:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Starklinson, draftification is generally for newish articles, not for ones which have already been around for a year and haven't demonstrated that they meet our notability guidelines in that time. See WP:DRAFTNO. TarnishedPathtalk 06:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Oaktree b and Dclemens1971. It also does read somewhat like a resume. Flyingfishee (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As PamD explains, the accusation of autobiography doesn't hold water. And while some of the sources are interviews or trivial, there are multiple sources that are prose (not interviews) and that focus on Gardner as a person (are not trivial). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those articles constitute WP:SIGCOV. They are WP:ROUTINE coverage of her in her capacity as an employee of her organization. The National article in particular is primarily composed of her quotations. The only material we could extract on her encyclopedically is that she worked for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bibhuprasad Mohapatra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Simply fails WP:GNG a before shows no independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- E. A. Jabbar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are no reliable sources, almost all sources are self-published, clearly fails WP:GNG. Thank you! Youknow? (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, India, and Kerala. Youknow? (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|✉ 11:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This is about the best I can pull up [13], a blog post from a RS. Sourcing now in the article is of the same quality; the Times of India is a marginal-reliability source per Source Highlighter. With nothing better found, it's not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: He is a well known personality in rationalism in kerala. See his debate itself has covered in national news papers [[14]]He is also a well known author [[15]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:4527:3200:B820:9D4B:4640:990E (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC) — 2600:4040:4527:3200:B820:9D4B:4640:990E (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep: Popular in this filed - rationalism in Kerala. Mostly people from this category might not have frequent news appearances like of celebrities. [[16]] [[17]] [[18]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.13.213 (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:NBIO and WP:GTEST (news search), imo. Called a "Renowned Atheist and Speaker" here, is featured in the Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala article. Tag with Template:BLP sources (more citations needed) instead of deletion. Helps balance out the encyclopedia in this topic area. 5Q5|✉ 11:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect to M._M._Akbar#Debate_with_E._A._Jabbar. Page is WP:CFORK. 14 sources on the page. Source 1 is WP:ROUTINE news about subject seeking police protection. Source 2 is about debate between rationalist E A Jabbar and Islamic preacher M M Akbar. Source 3 is again news with passing mention. Source 4 and 5 are same about the debate. Source 6 duplicate of source 1. Source 7 is YouTube on the debate. Source 8 is also about debate. Source 9 duplicate of source 2. Source 10 is also about debate. Source 11 is YouTube blog of the subject. Source 12 is duplicate of source 7. Source 13 and 14 are user generated Facebook pages. No sources have any significant coverage on the biography of the subject or any other except for the debate. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The article primarily cites TOI, which is not a reliable source to establish notability. I agree with Oaktree’s decision to delete the article. GrabUp - Talk 07:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: simple google search with his Malayalam language name itself gives a lot of reliable sources [19]. Also Malayalam Wikipedia does exist for a long time. [20]
Wikipedia need to be balanced. The person whom he had debate with M. M. Akbar has English references than him just because he is an Islamic scholar and this person is an atheist. On Indian atheism topic he is notable.
So for English reference better tag with ‘need more English references’. Do not delete the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.59.127.107 (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Partha Chatterjee (scholar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks significant coverage. Notability issues. Other than the primary sources cited, nothing reliable found when performed web search. Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politics, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Some scholarly recognition apparent in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. An academic who has published many monographs with internationally significant schtolarly publishers. Many of these will have attracted significant coverage (and, indeed, be notable in their own right), meaning their author meets WP:NAUTHOR. I quickly googled the title of his most recent book and found reviews in Asian Affairs, Current Anthropology, Reviews in History, American Anthropologist, The Caravan, and History. I then stopped looking. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seriously, not quite Donna Strickland level nomination...but in the ball park. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per Josh Milburn's research. The list of monograph publishers (Princeton University Press, Oxford, Columbia) alone should have indicated that this is a thinker who is widely regarded as a major contributor to the field.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep tentatively per WP:HEY if and only if the found resources are added to the external links. Bearian (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel B. Cid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not enough in-depth references for a WP:BIO, suggest redirecting the article to his notable creation OSSEC. Already done that, but was reverted. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter Seidel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Came across this article while looking at orphans. No significant independent coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPERSON. Newspapers.com, ProQuest, and Google came up and the best were interviews and a single book review in a journal here}. The page was created a long time ago by the author himself. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Architecture, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He does not appear to be notable as an architect or through WP:PROF, but I found and added to the article seven reviews of four books. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. And the entry about him in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction goes some way towards GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per David Eppstein. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh I see very little impact - low sales (checking Amazon although that's not 100%), not carried by many libraries (checked books in WorldCat), reviews only in niche journals (with Counterpoise being the best known). I'll go with Weak delete but I think that's generous. Lamona (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I guess. Like Lamona's !vote, just on the other side. I don't think David Eppstein's sources show a WP:NAUTHOR pass so much as a pass of the one book specifically (the others only have one review each). But we don't have an article on that book to redirect to, and I don't think it would be helpful to do that anyway. The SF encyclopedia entry helps, a bit. Meh is right. -- asilvering (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Jean Cocteau bibliography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No need for a standalone article on this, can easily be incorporated into Jean Cocteau#Further reading if relevant. --woodensuperman 15:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer wider community input on this, as I have spotted that there are a number of these in Category:Books about film directors, so would like to see how appropriate we think these are as articles. Whilst Orson Welles bibliography seems a worthwhile article, I don't think we need Roberto Rossellini bibliography or Lars von Trier bibliography for example. --woodensuperman 11:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- (also note that if this is kept it should be renamed to Bibliography of works on Jean Cocteau per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Naming). --woodensuperman 11:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to discuss whether to merge or not, WP:PROPMERGE outlines step by step, how to propose a merge and gather more input from community. AfD is not the right forum.
- Think you've nailed it on the head – that the long ones like Orson Welles bibliography seem appropriate as a standalone, whereas the short ones like this one do not. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It is fine to discuss here, as I think that this and similar articles should be deleted. I'm not sure that it is necessary to merge, hence the "if relevant". --woodensuperman 12:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Timothy Williams (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't see that this has WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources or that they meet WP:NACTOR. The article itself lists roles in multiple TV series and TV movies, however I can't see reliable sourcing to support the claims. The only independent reliable source which has SIGCOV I could find in an WP:BEFORE was this. TarnishedPathtalk 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Virginia. TarnishedPathtalk 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom. Not enough coverage to write a verifiable article and certainly not enough to establish notability. I can't find any significant coverage. The CBC article linked is about Tim Williams (actor), not this guy. C F A 💬 02:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the pick-up that the CBC article is about an entirely different person. TarnishedPathtalk 10:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to draft. Tag everything that is uncited as {{citation needed}} and tag everything that is cited to IMDb as {{better citation needed}}. BD2412 T 03:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to draft I support moving the article to draft where it can go incubated and sources added. Tesleemah 09:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any sources that could be added though? This person's notability has not been established in nearly a decade. I doubt something big is going to happen in the next six months before it is deleted. C F A 💬 14:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources? If there are sources they could be added now. This article was created 10:52, 24 December 2015. Draftification should generally be used for newish articles, not articles which haven't demonstrated notability after almost 9 years. TarnishedPathtalk 10:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Draftifying an article this old is pointless. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between Draftify and Delete. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per nom and per WP:DRAFTNO, articles older than 90 days shouldn't be moved to draft. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 05:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DRAFTNO does not say, ‘Articles older than 90 days shouldn’t be moved to draft.’ You may have been misunderstood it. It is a guideline for new page reviewers, stating, ‘Do not draftify articles older than 90 days without discussion through AfD. If there is consensus to draftify, then it will be draftified.’ GrabUp - Talk 11:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- While WP:DRAFTNO does pertain to new page reviewers, I do think the general idea that draftification should be used for newish articles holds. I don't think it's appropriate to draftify biographical articles which have failed to established the notability of their subject after almost nine years. TarnishedPathtalk 12:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just here to clarify the WP:DRAFTNO; not commenting to the AfD. GrabUp - Talk 12:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I do not see a compelling reason to draft. Drafting is good when an article is not quite yet ready for main, but will or could be ready soon. I do not like to draft when there is a lack of sourcing and/or meeting the relevant notability guideline. If we draft, this article is likely to either end up back in main before it's ready (and then possible end up back at AFD), or sit in draft and end up deleted in six months. The subject does not meet notability and there is no indication they can or will do so in the near future. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- David Rowley (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Help! Can't find any reviews of the Beatles books written by this guy, hence failing WP:NAUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There are at least two sigcov reviews of his books on ProQuest. 1 for Beatles For Sale, 1 for All Together Now. That's not quite there but I can't do an in depth check now - however, it's not nothing. I will vote after I have done a better check. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Does one of the ProQuest articles include a review from The Spectator? A review for All Together Now shows up in Google Search, but it's a dead link and not archived from what I can tell. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Significa liberdade Yes, that's one of them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @PARAKANYAA: Is the other the review in Goldmine? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Significa liberdade Yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|