Dean Karr

Dean Karr (  | 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 certainly looks impressive, but not one of the sources used is significant coverage from an independent reliable source. IMDB and MVDB are user generated and should not be used at all. Allmusic lists everything, so while it may be ok for verification it doesn't get us anywhere for notability. Websites owned or operated by the subject are possibly ok primary sources but again, no use as far as notability. VideoStatic, I'd never heard of but the coverage there is just crediting this person for their role in various projects, there's no depth of coverage about this person.

My own search didn't turn up anything any better. He certainly seems to be prolific in his industry, but somehow apparently has not been the subject of significant coverage. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Film, Visual arts, and Photography. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Working commercial photographer, with a too long list of everything they've ever worked on here... Wiki isn't for your CV. I find nothing covering this individual, not even PR items. There just isn't coverage about them. Delete for lack of sourcing. What's used now in the article is primary or simply a name drop... Oaktree b ( talk) 20:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - None of the sources are reliable, and as mentioned in the nom, not SIGCOV. The article is PROMO for a commercial photographer just doing his job. Performing one's job as a creative does not automatically confer notability. I saw on his website a claim that his work was "the subject of an exhibition at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) which gave hope that he might pass NARTIST if he were in the collection and other collections could be found at notable museums or national galleries. However a search of LACMA's collection resulted in nothing, and a basic search of his name on their website revealed no hits at all [8]. Netherzone ( talk) 20:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

X (demoparty)

X (demoparty) (  | 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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The name of the event makes it more difficult to search. I was only able to find mentions, such as "One of the most traditional and largest events still running today is demoparty X, a specific event for the Commodore 64 platform with the first edition held in 1995 in the Netherlands (POLGáR, 2016)." (machine translated from Portuguese) in a paper about the demoscene in Brazil. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties.

"The great meeting events of the Commodore 64 scene in the second half of the nineties were the great international demoparties: The Party in Denmark, Assembly in Finland, and mainly the German Mekka Symposium and Breakpoint. These parties, in addition to the great annual X parties organized by Success & The Ruling Company. For the first time, in 1995, this party was held in Utrecht, Netherlands but moved several times to different cities. Some still remember X’95 as the best X party, and later X parties as the best parties of C64 scene history. Interestingly enough the X still takes place every year. In 1997 the party united with Takeover, and became a multiplatform party under X-Takeover label but the cool oldschool atmosphere was broken by Amiga and PC users, so the cooperation split up. X is still the largest Commodore-only demoparty."

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Visual arts, Events, Computing, and Netherlands. toweli ( talk) 12:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties as an WP:AtD. -- Mika1h ( talk) 16:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

AKA Mr. Chow

AKA Mr. Chow (  | 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 clear evidence or assertion of notability. Article has previously been recreated, which I redirected to subject, and again a second time, which was disputed by creator, hence ending up at AfD.

References offered only prove show exists and that subject themselves is notable (as they have their own article), but a show about them is not in itself necessarily notable in its own right. In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article. Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 06:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Business. Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 06:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. ―  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sorry but the following statement is almost bizarre: In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article. .....???? .... Documentary films that are not series MAY be notable, most evidently.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: At least one of the current refs is clearly about the movie — the Hollywood Reporter article is called "Michael Chow Shares the Pain Behind the Glamour in New Documentary ‘AKA Mr. Chow’". There's also a Wall Street Journal review called "‘AKA Mr. Chow’ Review: Portrait of the Artist as a Restaurateur", and a Beverly Hills Courier review called "‘AKA Mr. Chow’—But Who is ‘M?’" Toughpigs ( talk) 06:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  My thoughts on this really are that this is a documentary programme, not a film, so we aren't looking at notability in necessarily the same way. The documentary is about the subject, who is notable, whereas a film article would be expected to assert notability in its own right (like a tv episode, series etc). The question really is whether the actual documentary series is notable in its own right, irrespective that it covers (and is biographical in its nature) a subject who we know is notable.

  My view on the sources largely are that they are really useful in expanding the article on the individual, but I can't be sure if they assert notability to have a standalone article for a 90min documentary programme. Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 11:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  a documentary programme, not a film....hmmm.....yes, this a documentary film. (it's available on HBO but that does not make it a non-film)...and yes, it's notable "in its own right" as multiple reviews and a lot of very significant coverage addressing the subject in depth and directly in extremely notable reliable (and independent) sources prove it. Kindly have a look at the sources that have been added and check the rest of the existing ones, thank you. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Selena Gomez: My Mind & Me is also a documentary; so is Madonna: Truth or Dare. I'm not making an "other stuff exists" argument, just saying that there is no precedent for judging a documentary as non-notable just because it's about a notable subject. Notability is not un-inherited. As for the sources, as I said, there is a Wall Street Journal review that begins with the phrase "‘AKA Mr. Chow’ Review". Why doesn't that count? Toughpigs ( talk) 14:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Indeed, the 2 reviews in WSJ and Guardian should be enough to keep ANY film, and here we have 5-10 times that. (The reviews can ALSO be used to expand the bio of Chow, but that does not diminish the notability of the film according to WP requirements). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• (Keep): I didn't search and only the sources that the page currently ha(d)s, but they seem(ed) to be sufficient to show it's notable. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Did search 3 minutes. Added some. See for yourself. Changing to STRONG KEEP. reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Michael Chow (restaurateur) while there is nothing at all in the article. The sources are about the individual really and only mention the documentary as part of an interview or, worse, as a fact of existence, except the Hollywood Reporter article as mentioned. No need for a separate article—  Iadmc ♫ ^talk  12:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Leaning towards keep. The article at least has some substance now. Will watch. —  Iadmc ♫ ^talk  15:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Keep article is now well sourced to establish notabilty and I have added quotes to it—  Iadmc ♫ ^talk  18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Redirect I don't see the need for a standalone article at this point. Reywas92 ^Talk 13:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note to nominator@ Bungle:: Have you really checked existing sources??? also @ Iadmc and Reywas92: Reviews and significant coverage in WSJ, Decider, Guardian, NYT, etc, etc...I'm inviting you to kindly withdraw this nomination. Added some to the page. - Feel free to add more! My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'd firstly note that edit summaries/comments such as No evidence a BEFORE was indeed performed and Have you really checked existing sources???, do not feel like an assumption of good faith, and is a tone to perhaps reflect upon in future. My concerns where not through a lack of media coverage, as outlined. That said, regardless of my own view, consensus seems to be towards retaining, even though I still feel there is a credible case to rd or merge into the subject's article where it's barely mentioned, given it's broadly a collection of journalists' opinions and referencing overuse. Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 05:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  What is broadly a collection of journalists' opinions according to you? If it's the sources added to the page, it seems to be another way for acknowledging the existence of LOTS of reviews, which you may have seen or read during your BEFORE, as apparently you consider that you have done one, which I indeed seriously doubted, for which I apologise since you seem to indicate you have and honestly did everything in your power to find sources ("If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." said WP:BEFORE, and you are apparently telling me that you did. I will therefore assume that it's true.) and found "No clear evidence or assertion of notability".

  I don't think my tone was nasty, and it was sincerely not meant in a nasty way, but I did seriously doubt that you made a BEFORE at all (not questioning your general good faith but the fact that you really spent time checking sources), yes, and I am still surprised that a film with so many reviews was taken to Afd, when you could have just added the reviews that apparently you had seen and read (but that you did not even mention, btw) as GNG, NFILM, etc. are obviously and more than fairly met.

  I was not expecting thanks for presenting various sources that you may have seen during that BEFORE but if a film is reviewed in so many extremely reliable sources, your concern did and does not seem justified, nor does this Afd, for that matter, and calling additional sources that you are telling me you saw but failed to simply mention, even in a general statement (like "I have seen reviews in WSJ, Guardian, Decider, etc. during my BEFORE but think they're not enough for notability of a standalone page", "Despite a lot of media coverage found in my BEFORE, my concern is that it is not enough to warrant an article and etc." or smth of the kind), referencing overuse (unless you are, again, not referring to this article but to the one about Chow) is not exactly the response I was hoping, to be, again, perfectly honest with you. I take it you won't withdraw, then. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  That is a lot of text to try and absorb, but i'll say I didn't say anything was "nasty", and I do admire your determination. That said, while I remain unconvinced that we should have, or need, a separate article for this (when on the basis of existing content, I feel it would be better suited being mentioned on the subject's article), I respect the consensus view that is to the contrary, so it seems fruitless at this stage to consider anything other than a withdrawal. Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 16:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, China, and United Kingdom. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Architecture. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep article has plenty of reliable sources. Eric Carpenter ( talk) 17:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep as the article know has referenced reviews from reliable sources such as The Guardian, Toronto Star, The Decider and therefore passes WP:NFILM in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: The reviews in WSJ, Beverly Hills Courier, Toronto Star and MovieWeb are enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk) 03:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep, per above, plenty of good sources exist. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Light and Space Contemporary

Light and Space Contemporary (  | 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)

Could not find reliable sources online, except for some (including sources used in this article) having short mentions on this subject. Sanglahi86 ( talk) 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Museums and libraries, and Philippines. Sanglahi86 ( talk) 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the sources used in the article. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Carl Faingold

Carl Faingold (  | 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've cleaned this article up a bit but after looking for additional information to add more substance, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. He's certainly had his name attached to many published papers, but they are pretty niche in content and many co-authors don't have their own pages. Looking at the page history, it appears that this may have been initially authored by a student or someone associated with him. Most recently, an IP user copy/pasted a numbered list of his papers but started at "112" which makes me think it came from somewhere else, but I can't find where. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Andy Byrd

Andy Byrd (  | 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)

Newer article created in March 2024; sourced ok enough, but the information doesn't seem to be related to the subject very much. I can strip away that blatently unrelated information, but I'm not able to find much on this guy to warrant even a stub afterwards. He's got an OK social media following, but doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Lindsey40186 ( talk) 18:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree, he doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. I think it is best to delete this article. Johnmarkdyer ( talk) 18:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete nn. And I removed massive sections, seconding Lindsey40186's concern. - Altenmann >talk 19:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and California. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I can only find podcasts or various videos about this individual, nothing we can use for notability. Seems that after the non-RS are taken out, we're left with a stub, simply confirming he exists... Nothing for notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete I agree with the above editors. This appears to be an easy call to delete, even after the initial edit and cleanup. Go4thProsper ( talk) 21:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Raba Khan

Raba Khan (  | 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)

Being in the list of a 30 people for a region doesn't mean we have to create an article for each of them. May be she is a celebrity but not notable to be in Wikipedia like the other youtubers. No independent notability other than being a youtuber. AlbeitPK ( talk) 06:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK ( talk) 06:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Radio, Entertainment, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Being in the list of a 30 people for a region doesn't mean we have to create an article for each of them. No, we do not have articles for each of them.
  The nom seems to be focused on the subject rather than individual. Regardless what they're known for, if they receive enough notable coverage, they are notable. And this person most definitely passes GNG regardless of the causes. It's not limited to a one-off event (the Forbes list) but sustained coverage exist for this individual.
  No independent notability other than being a YouTuber That's the most illogical rationale I've ever seen on an AFD nom. We have thousands of biographies on YouTubers. Since when, YouTubers aren't notable solely based on the fact that they are YouTubers? It all comes down to coverage, if they fulfill the notability criteria, they are notable.
  And even if taking this fallacy into consideration just for the sake of it, this person has received coverage for other ventures outside their digital content creation on YouTube. YouTube contributed to their initial fame but from then on she has received coverage for other activities such as vlogs on Facebook or media collaborations, UNICEF activities, writing, singing, modeling, etc. X ( talk) 21:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• @ AlbeitPK, I'm inviting you to do a complete source analysis. You clearly did not practice WP:BEFORE, which is not a surprise, you being an inexperienced user. As a friendly advice, I'd urge you to spend more time on article creation and expansion before hopping onto AFD. Familiarize yourself with the policies and when you get a good grip you may participate in these spaces.
  Albeit being largely primary, the Ice Today piece alone is a clear indication of notability. And independent in-depth coverage do exist. Sources are available in Bengali exist as well, all of which are not included in the article, but I'll be happy to list them if one asks. X ( talk) 21:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. Source analysis:

• This is essentially just a paragaph mentioning she posted a video.
• Daily Star 30-under-30 #1 has a good paragraph describing her
• A short interview with a little more significant commentary
• Daily Sun 30-under-30 article doesn't say much other than republishing the announcement
• An entire article on her, which is probably sourced from an interview, but the newspaper is the one making statements so I think it's valid.
• Another 4 good paragraphs in the Forbes list
• BBC Bengali mention in review of Facebook influencers, only a little but it is there
• More Daily Star coverage under being a 30-under-30 winner
• Article on her, though whether the Vanity Star is a reliable source I don't know
• The interview mentioned, which is very long but primary. Good for the article, but probably doesn't establish notability (but the other sources probably do)
• Short article

Plus:

• A full 12-ish-paragraph article reviewing her book and her
• Another 12-ish-paragraph one disagreeing with the first one

So, while a lot of the coverage is just tiny 5-sentence mentions, she does seem to be notable (according to these things) in Bengali online media. The book and the popularity probably push her over "random youtuber", and I think the last two sources + the interview + the forbes list and associated sources all together meet the significant coverage criteria. Mrfoogles ( talk) 00:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for this. Yes, almost all the sources that discusses her starts with something like "Famous social media personality" or "Popular content creator", etc. She also has been the subject of at least 5 full length talk show interviews by the countries largest media Prothom Alo alone. They also dedicated entire episodes of shows on her lifestyle (one about "What's Raba Khan shopping this Eid"). And numerous national and international magazine features. Everything combined speaks for her notability. It appears the nominator is an inexperienced editor, hence they do not have a good grasp over Wiki notability guidelines. I won't say I'm always right, but this is the first WIR article (2nd overall) created by me that has been brought to AFD (I'm taking a Wiki break but had to respond here when I saw the mail, NGL, the nom rationale is ridiculous.) X ( talk) 14:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. Thank you for the source analysis Mrfoogles. I am content that on the basis of those sources the subject meets WP:N. Spinifex&Sand ( talk) 02:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Per source analysis above. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 05:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

James Cushing (poet)

James Cushing (poet) (  | 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 poet appears to be non-notable under WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR. His books of poetry are functionally self-published (Cahuenga Press is a cooperative owned and run by five "poet-members" that exists to publish its owners' work). No substantial reviews of his work appear to be available. I can only find one item of WP:SIGCOV, a local news story. The rest are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or non-independent mentions in affiliated sources (e.g. college magazine). Dclemens1971 ( talk) 17:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Poetry, and Radio. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete It's hard to be notable as a poet, but even giving some latitude I don't think this person achieves notability. He has published books of poetry but all of the ones I can find were published by Cahuenga Press of which he is one of the owners. The books aren't widely held in libraries (cf WorldCat). He is an academic but I only found two articles by him and neither had any citations. Lamona ( talk) 01:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Abby Cunnane

Abby Cunnane (  | 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)

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. A mere 5 google news hits, none are in-depth coverage. LibStar ( talk) 00:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and New Zealand. LibStar ( talk) 00:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: The Stuff article is all I find [9], no book reviews or no listing in the Getty ULAN. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ahmed Zitouni

Ahmed Zitouni (  | 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)

The article does not meet the notability requirement NBV2010 ( talk) 19:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I could not find sufficient coverage to justify notability per WP:NAUTHOR. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep additional sources at 1 and 2 as well as numerous Google book references such as 3 (pp.21-22). Mccapra ( talk) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Algeria. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: This smells of retaliation since the nom had the article about them deleted via AFD. UtherSRG (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Philip Krejcarek

Philip Krejcarek (  | 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)

Autobiography of an apparently non-notable retired photography teacher. No in-depth secondary sources, and his awards for photography and teaching do not seem to be significant ones. Belbury ( talk) 13:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Belbury ( talk) 13:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Very trivial coverage in Gnews, with his name in a list of art exhibits. Sources now used in the article are primary or non-RS. Nothing I can find for notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Photography, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete -- pretty close to the line for WP:PROF based on rank and publisher quality for academic textbooks (which are reviewed less often than research texts) but not enough coverage to pass the bar. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete I can't find any sources to bring this up to notable. The biographical information is not verified by the link to his faculty listing at Carroll. The "award" is a regional Milwaukee Area Teachers of Art prize for a photograph. -- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 00:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Kirk Lynn

Kirk Lynn (  | 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 subject appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. JFHJr ( ㊟) 22:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. JFHJr ( ㊟) 22:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep here, but a weak one, following some rework. I've added some sources and reworked the article. I think there is a narrow claim to notability, his first book seems to have received a fair amount of coverage in some reliable sources (and been made into a film, unfortunately most of the coverage of that seems to be focused on the actor, not the film, so I've left that out), as well as some of his play work. Others may disagree, but I think he's just over the line. Mdann52 ( talk) 12:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Weak-ish delete I think it's close but not quite GNG. He has written one book that was reviewed in major local newspapers. He has written and adapted plays in that same locality. In 2020 his book was adapted to the film as a short. (I don't find much about it at IMDB) That's about it. At this point I think he is a fish in a pond, but not beyond it. Lamona ( talk) 04:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The Guardian review and [12], Kirkus reviews. We should have enough for notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Troy Stetina

Troy Stetina (  | 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 nominated this before but it was closed as no consensus since there were no other participates. Same reasoning as before applies: fails WP:MUSICBIO and quite promotional. Can’t find any in-depth sources on the subject. The cited Washington Post article [13] is about the subject’s father, Wayne Stetina. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Indiana, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment Delate. I suggest that, if nobody comes to support it, it should be considered as a prod. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC). reply
• Delete. This subject is not notable enough for an article. Qflib ( talk) 03:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. To be notable through publishing works on how to play guitar, we would need in-depth published reviews of those works, and I don't see them. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Very Weak Keep on a hunch (i.e., easily overruled). Coverage is basically blog and genre-magazine style, which needs a lot to add up to notability, but there is a lot out there (even discounting some that seem more like PR/Press-release interview type). Head of department (conservatories often don't have traditional academic ranks) but of a small department. Each part of his career adds up to slightly less than the relevant notability guideline, but together they peek just over the edge for me. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Any non-blog, non-PR sources you would like to share? Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 21:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. He is well known in the guitar community and among musicians for his instruction releases. The problem is that this article is poorly sourced so I can see why it attracts a deletion nom. I know that his Left-Handed Guitar: The Complete Method by Stetina, Troy (2001) is quite popular. Yes of course, it takes more than good sales. His Fretboard Mastery was very popular too. He's had articles about him in various guitar mags both paper and online. The Guitarist magazine March 1993 is one. He had article beside Dominic Miller and Tony Zemaitis as you can see. The Guitar Noise website which is a huge go-to source for axmen and axeladies refers to Stetina as an "internationally recognized guitarist and music educator". There's others too but I don't want to get too caught up with this one. Further info below
  * This is from the magazine, Modern Drummer, September 1993 - Page 106 SPEED AND THRASH METAL DRUM METHOD by Troy Stetina and Charlie Busher.
  * And there's an article by Stetina published in Guitar One, Volume 9, No 2 February 2006 - Page 176 RETURN OF THE SHRED Come Together Two Essential Hybrid Scales
  There's more but searching gets flooded with the dozens of releases he has had put out. Karl Twist ( talk) 12:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Those two books on Amazon have about 200 reviews each. This one is ranked 16,000+ in Music Instruction & Study. By no stretch of the imagination are these "popular" books and they don't contribute to notability.
  • Is this an article he wrote?
  • 1) The Guitar Noise website seems to be just a group blog about how to play the guitar. 2) The link you gave is just him responding to someone else's comment. That "internationally recognized" line is a promotional line he wrote himself (as per his own website).
  • The two articles in Modern Drummer and Guitar one are articles written by Stetina not articles about Stetina. They don't contribute to notability. You would need to find in-depth articles about Stetina.

  Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 18:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Well, the Amazon books have more reviews than releases by so-called main-stream artists. They do appear to be quite popular! And I wasn't trying to use them as proof of notability. Just to give an idea of what the guy's exposure is. Somebody in Germany must have heard of him, there's a German Wikipedia article (needs work) See here.
  Forget the Guitar Noise one, that wasn't the one I meant to put in. Sorry. It was another online music news source. I have to try and remember. There was also a reliable source good size review on that I thought I had put in but for the life of me it's vanished. I went back though the page history and it isn't there. Maybe I thought I did. Perhaps it was on notepad, and I closed it before I had edited it in. It was similar to the Fret 12 review but not related to the sale of the product. The Modern Drummer (if it isn't about him) and Guitar One still show his profile. They are well-respected and notable publications. Well, there's no article page for Guitar One yet.

  The articles below are relaible,
  

  • OnMilwaukee, Apr 07, 2005 - Despite impressive resume, Stetina lacks name recognition at home By Bobby Tanzilo
  • Metal Shock Finland, October 13, 2011 - Interview with TROY STETINA: Music truly is the world’s best hope to cross borders, cross cultures and show humanity what we have in common. Interview by Mohsen Fayyazi
  • Maximum Ink Madison's music magazine, September 2012 - Second Soul
    AN INTERVIEW WITH TROY STETINA OF SECOND SOUL BY MIKE HUBERTY
  • Guitariste Metal, 3 Octobre 2014 - Troy Stetina interview

    And these below are helpful,
    

  • The Journal Times, Sep 25, 2013 - Center Stage /Oversoulss /5-19 - By Loreen Mohr
  • The Journal Times, - Center Stage/Oversoulss - By Loreen Mohr

    Easily notable! He's had a huge influence on a good amount of major notable guitarists. I can find more but I have been drawn into this as I do sometimes and have neglected other stuff.
    Thanks

  Karl Twist ( talk) 11:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Sorry but almost all of those sources are interviews with the subject. Interviews are considered primary sources and they don’t contribute to notability. The only non-interview source in there is the Journal Times article. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Hello again Dr. Swag Lord . Well actually the first part of the OnMilwaukee article is not interview. The subject was researched (as it's the normal procedure) before the interview was conducted. And if considered primary, it's not like it's from the subject's own site anyway. Yes, I understand that primary sources and sources related to the subject themselves cannot be used to support content in a page. By that's not what we're looking at. We're looking at the status of the subject and the reliable sources that support the assertion that he is a notable person. The Maximum Ink is similar. Well, the first 196 worlds / 15 sentences (not including the title) are about him and not by him. The interview is secondary. There are two Journal Times articles. Then there's the Modern Drummer article by Matt Pieken about his book-cd combo, Speed and Thrash Metal Drum Method that he did with Charlie Bushor. It's about his work, not written by him.

  Going on what user Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert said earlier with "together they peek just over the edge", well with what I've come up with, the interviews by respected news sources etc., his contributions to major music magazines etc., collectively they well and truly sit on top of the table. And the Modern Drummer review proves it more. And this below, a C&P of what I edited into the article page,

  According to La Scena Musicale, Stetina was booked along with Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, and Jonathan Kreisberg to appear at the Wilson Center Guitar Competition & Festival which ran from August 13 to 15, 2015, at the Sharon Lynne Wilson Center for the Arts. La Scena Musicale, 3 August 2015 - International Guitar Legends Headlining Wilson Center Guitar Competition & Festival: 2015 Artists include Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, Jonathan Kreisberg, Troy Stetina

  It's obvious when Stetina is mentioned in the same headline such as these premier artists, he's well and widely known in various fields and notable. His volume of work speaks for itself, especially when artists such as Mark Tremonti, Michael Angelo Batio, Bill Peck, and Eric Friedman appear on Troy Stetina: The Sound and the Story etc. etc.. For him not to be notable would be an exception to the rule.

  Karl Twist ( talk) 06:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • The Modern Drummer article is a short review of one of Stetina’s books. It has no in-depth content of the subject’s life or activities.
  • Please note, the article in La Scena Musicale is an example of WP:SPONSORED content. At the bottom of the article it states: “LSM Newswire is La Scena's Newswire service. Organizations can post a press release on our website for a fee. See the media kit at our advertising page at https://myscena.org/advertising”. Since that is an ad paid for by the band it is not RS and does not add to notability.
  • You say there’s two Journal Times articles, but you linked to the same one twice.
  • Please take a look at WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because the subject has been associated with notable individuals does not make him notable himself.

  Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 18:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  On a further note, “metalshockfinland.com” and “guitariste-metal.fris” are certainly not RSs (obviously blog sources). Also, Maximum Ink seems WP:QS at best. There’s no published editorial board, no published editorial policies. Additionally, it’s quite suspicious that the article links to the Wikipedia page of Tony Stetina and links to places where you can purchase Stetina’s CD (seems pretty promotional to me). Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 00:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Well, the Modern Drummer review isn't what I would call short. It's an acceptable size. It's not supposed to be about an "in-depth content of the subject’s life or activities". It's a review of his work.
  • Ok if one of them such as La Scena Musicale is an example of WP:SPONSORED content. There's enough of the other! And as I mentioned with Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert saying "but together they peek just over the edge for me", I go further and say there's enough reliable stuff to sit him on top of the table!
  • Sorry my bad about the Journal Times. Yes, it was one article. There was the additional updated page.
  • Well the WP:NOTINHERITED would be the card to pull out if there were no other good supporting info about him. But thankfully there is! The point I made about him being associated with notable individuals was that he is regarded as prominent.
  • “metalshockfinland.com” and “guitariste-metal.fris” are possibly blog type in format. But the first one has been used to reference around fifty+ pages here, (most of them about heavy metal no surprise) and is a respected source of info.
  • Nothing suspicious or promotional about the German page for Troy Stetina. Because he's been so prolific with his published works, the searches get flooded with them and for someone who has German as a first language and English as second, this is how a page would be likely to add up. I'm not going to make any assertions about lazy editing because I'm not going to judge an editor's ability. I'd just go with the language thing.
    Thanks Karl Twist ( talk) 09:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

    Well since the topic of this article is Troy Stetina, the Modern Dummer review fails WP:SIGCOV. There’s no material about Stetina specifically. If you really think metal shock Finland is an RS, then I think I’ll open up a discussion on RSN. Also, I never mentioned the German Wikipedia page—I was referencing the Maximum Ink article that has a link at the bottom directing us to Stetina’s en WP page. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 16:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

    I opened a RSN discussion on the above source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#metalshockfinland Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 22:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

    The Modern Drummer article doesn't fail anything! It's just a good review of a release of his. A review in a well-respected publication. Actually, you said earlier (18:29, 11 June 2024) that it was written by him. It was actually written by Matt Pieken. And actually, I believe that somewhere here someone said that there were no reviews of his work. Well there's the Matt Pieken review in Modern Drummer and another which I have to re-find. Incidentally, Pieken has done reviews for artists such as Jane's Addiction. And OK, minus one Metal Shock by Mohsen Fayyazi if it be so. Well, we still have good enough on him to support the Keep status.

    Yes, I see that you've opened an RSN discussion on Metal Shock. OK, what can I say.

    The fact that Stetina has written for two of the two of the biggest selling guitar mags is additional proof of his status. He was employed by Guitar One and wrote for Guitar World. Just a quick grab of the Ozwinds site where it says, "Go inside the mind of one of the most accomplished guitar instructors in history", you said something previously that this was copied from his website. Well, perhaps one or two others may have done this, or he has copied on to his website what has been said about him. Most to the majority of sites refer to him as something similar, I guess this is because this is what he is!

    To tell the truth I'm not that keen on heavy metal or this type of music. I had heard of Stetina in the past but didn't know that much about him. If I didn't think he was notable I would have just gone for a re-direct or maybe wouldn't have bothered at all.

    Karl Twist ( talk) 06:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

    I really don’t think where he was employed or what magazines he written for are relevant for notability. Do you have any other sources to share? Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 18:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note to closing admin, Even though I believe there's enough on Troy Stetina to warrant a keep, could I ask please that if the consensus eventually leans towards a deletion, you might consider redirecting rather than deleting? There are a number of possibilities. One would be Mark Tremonti who has a historical and ongoing musical association with Stetina. There was already a mention of him there on the page. I have also done a bit more. There's other content that would eventually go in there as per the normal growth of an article. This is regardless of a deletion or not. If in the event of a deletion consideration, that would probably be the best. Perhaps if the Guitar One article was created, that would be another one as Stetina was involved with the magazine for some time as a writer and contributor. Then there could be his brothers Dale and Wayne where a paragraph could be. They're only stubs at the moment. With a re-direct, the history can be preserved which IMO is always a good thing.
  I would like to do more to fix the subject's page as it is a mess. Sadly, my time is limited and I am neglecting other things. Thanks Karl Twist ( talk) 07:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus yet and different assessments of the existing sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Elnur Aslanov

Elnur Aslanov (  | 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)

• Delete' being a department manager cannot make a person directly encyclopedic.-- Correspondentman ( talk) 10:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 7. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Politics, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The article has many sources, enough for Wikipedia:GNG, even searching for him unloads possible sources.

TheNuggeteer ( talk) 08:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk) 13:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: I somehow didn't catch when I first sorted this that {{ subst:afd2}} does not appear to have been implemented here, leaving the AfD header incomplete. I have fixed this. (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Romy Tiongco

Romy Tiongco (  | 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)

The article does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN TheNuggeteer ( talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. TheNuggeteer ( talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Philippines, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I think the two programmes on the BBC all about him and the first of these and its report his on him were what led me to start this page and think him notable enough - perhaps via general notability rather than as a politician per se. A political activist, NGO worker and then politician ( Msrasnw ( talk) 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)) reply

  • Comment - maybe you should find more sources, only 2 out of the 7 sources work.

  TheNuggeteer ( talk) 00:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  If there are 2 "working" sources, that should be enough for WP:GNG. Howard the Duck ( talk) 05:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  One of the sources is a video source which does not work anymore, is one source okay? TheNuggeteer ( talk) 05:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Our "policy" on this is WP:LINKROT, and it being dead should not be taken against the article, more so if the reference is more than a decade old.

  So no, your premise of this article having just one source doesn't hold. Howard the Duck ( talk) 07:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete I did a WP:BEFORE search outside of the sources in the article and can't find anything which suggests to me that the article passes WP:GNG. The non-working links do not necessarily suggest there was secondary coverage of him, either - the magazine just has a wordpress site and the BBC radio bit is an interview, which are not secondary. SportingFlyer T· C 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Saeed Reza Khoshshans

Saeed Reza Khoshshans (  | 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)

Refund requested after soft deletion so here we are again. Two editors in support of deletion and no support for keep in the first AfD so hopefully we can get a bigger consensus here. As before, the subject does not qualify under WP:GNG, as the sources (both in article and in BEFORE search) appear to be affiliated with the author, press releases, or trivial mentions. (One source might qualify, but we need multiple.) The subject also does not meet the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NWRITER. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 01:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Theatre, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Soft deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Still no sources found. This is about all I can find [14], which does not help notability. Even what's in the article now isn't enough. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Zack Cooper

Zack Cooper (  | 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'd originally PROD'ed this, that was removed. Bringing it to AfD as I still don't think the sources support notability. I was and am unable to find sourcing about this individual, only things they've written. Unsure if this would pass academic notability or notability for business people. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep. This scholar of international affairs has a good GS record that passes WP:Prof#C1 and has published notable books. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC). reply
• Keep: I am satisfied with the publications which sums up WP:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR. Safari Scribe ^{Edits! Talk!} 21:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete I don't find anything independent about him. In terms of publications, if you do a scholar search on "Zack Cooper" you get high hits but it is someone else - someone who writes about hospitals. If you add "Japan" to the search you get cites in the single to very low double digits. There's the same confusion in WorldCat books, but this Zack Cooper's books are found again in the single digits. (In VIAF he's "Cooper, Zack‏ ‎‡c (Researcher in security studies)‏". With the 2 keep !votes above I wonder if this name confusion wasn't noticed. Lamona ( talk) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Click on the scholar link above which differentiates between the two Zack Coopers. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC). reply

Thanks, I overlooked that. I still don't think he meets NPROF. His H-index is not high, in almost all of his publications he's one of 3 or 4 authors. I see no indication that meets: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I don't see awards. For AUTH we have " is known for originating a significant new concept," "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Just being an author or co-author of articles is not enough. I don't see that he is someone known for furthering a body of knowledge. Lamona ( talk) 15:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It is certainly a borderline case. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC). reply

Chipping in a bit. I also found the article bearer is a "Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute". Of course tis a good way WP:ANYBIO. Safari Scribe ^{Edits! Talk!} 02:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete for a guideline like NPROF there has to be a sub-heading under which he is said to qualify. With respect to @ Xxanthippe I don't see how this person passes under #1 -- the article makes no assertion he's recognized for significant impact by others in his discipline. No other heading seems to apply - he's not been a named chair professor or top academic institution leader, there's no assertion his publications have had significant impact, no evidence of impact outside of academia (meeting with a foreign official is a good start, but just a start), etc. Oblivy ( talk) 00:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Take a look at the scholar link, which I admit does not indicate outstanding citations. What do you think of it? I think that this BLP is borderline and might be argued to be a case of [WP:Too soon]]. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC). reply

I don't see a google scholar link. Can you provide links, or just explain what you think demonstrates notability? Note that WP:TOOSOON is grounds for deletion, such as for a recent news story or someone who has received what could be temporary notability. Oblivy ( talk) 03:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

On my screen the scholar link is 6.3 inches above this text. It will work if you click it. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC). reply

So you just wanted want me to click on the google scholar link on the nomination template and do my own searches? I do that anyway before voting -- it seems he's written a number of papers with a low citation count which is pretty close to irrelevant for notability IMHO. Oblivy ( talk) 04:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Abdul Malek

Muhammad Abdul Malek (  | 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 a single source used in this article is reliable which can establish notability of the person. - AlbeitPK ( talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK ( talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet

Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet (  | 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 subject fails WP:GNG because only insubstantial coverage is indicated in articles that are all topically about her spouse, or published by her own school. She fails WP:GNG today and is unlikely to garner more substantial coverage in the future due to her being so dead. JFHJr ( ㊟) 05:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, Poetry, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I have added in reviews of two of her publications. She wrote under the name Elizabeth Young, which makes searching for discussions of her work a challenge. I suspect there is more coverage of her work, but it requires sifting through articles about similar people. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Keep - I find reviews for multiple books. I also added back some of the text that had been removed prior to the AFD nomination. While this text needs citations (and is now marked as such), it is useful to know in order to find the sources needed. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

keep as meeting WP:BASIC. This is not an easy pass -- her books have a relatively low citation count but she has had an impact. Old London Churches seems to have been regarded as a significant work and has been cited quite a bit in the context of for conservation efforts received a number of reviews which are not available online. She got obituaries in the Independent and Telegraph which I think counts for a lot. Here are the sources I think taken together are sufficient:

• this book review [15]
• this obit in the Independent [16]
• this obituary in the Telegraph [17]
• minimal discussion about her in her husband's biography [18]
• this obituary, albeit in a low-circulation paper [19]
• this entry showing that her papers are now held under supervision of the UK national archives [20]

One note: immediately prior to bringing this AfD the nominator removed more than 4K of text from the article including removing her extensive biography. I'm not sure how that is justified - surely if the books exist they are sources, although whether they count for notability may be another matter. I wholly agree with @ DaffodilOcean's decision to reinstate them, and to identify additional cites. Oblivy ( talk) 01:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Scott Fox (author)

Scott Fox (author) (  | 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)

Appears to be overly promotional and shows no sign of meeting WP:GNG due to lack of RS. — VORTEX ³⁴²⁷ ( Talk!) 03:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Entertainment, Finance, Law, Internet, California, Michigan, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi Vortex - We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion. Great timing as I have been meaning to hopefully update it. The info is old and not entirely accurate as it was written by fans of my books years ago. Can u share any guidance on how we can improve its "notability" to meet Wikipedia standards? Also what is "RS"? You're probably a volunteer so thanks for all the work you do for the Wikipedia community. Scott Nelsonave21 ( talk) 20:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi, Scott. Please read this link WP:GNG for the general standards to meet " notability". On Wikipedia, RS stands for "reliable sources". For authors, this commonly includes reviews of your books. None of the sources cited on the article are WP:RS because they are just raw interviews of you, only mention you briefly (see WP:GNG for more info) or are written by Forbes contributors (see this link WP:FORBES for info on deciding what Forbes articles count as RS).

Also, yes, like many editors on Wikipedia, I am a volunteer and edit as a hobby :) — VORTEX ³⁴²⁷ ( Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Mention: @ Nelsonave21 — VORTEX ³⁴²⁷ ( Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Additionally, I'm concerned about you saying "We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion." Just a head's up — if you got an email about this, please be aware that scammers have targeted people whose articles have been deleted or flagged for deletion before ( WP:SCAM), offering to restore it or something similar. Most, if not all, of these offers are fradulent. — VORTEX ³⁴²⁷ ( Talk!) 09:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Vortex: thank you for this detailed reply. This is super helpful. We will work on it. What is the best way to submit or update? Is there a timeline? Thanks again, including for the accurate warning about the (likely scammy) deletion email we received. Nelsonave21 ( talk) 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Nelsonave21: Please see WP:AFD, particularly this line: If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search [for] reliable sources so that the article meets notability guidelines. AfD discussion like this one are kept open for at least seven days before a decision is made (multiple editors have to give their opinions first before a decision about the consensus can be made, so this discussion will probably go on for longer).

In your case, editing the article yourself would be COI editing, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. However, you can find examples of reliable sources about you or your books and post it here, on this AfD, to prove the article meets WP:GNG. This would prevent deletion. Again, most RS for authors takes the form of book reviews in newspapers, magazines, or periodicals.

If this AfD is closed with consensus to delete the article, the article can be recreated if and only if it satisfies WP:GNG. In this case, I recommend the AfC process, which involves writing a draft article and submitting it for review. — VORTEX ³⁴²⁷ ( Talk!) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I've not reviewed the article yet, but while it is normal for an AFD discussion to be closed within a week or a month, don't worry too much about that, you can usually get an admin to restore the contents as a draft or by email if you'd like to work on it. "Deletion" is not generally irreversible. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 04:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The USA Today won't open, the rest are non-RS per Cite Highlighter. Unfortunately, I don't see book reviews, nor much of anything for this person. No notability found, does not pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Hi Oaktree, Alpha3031, Vortex3427 and other editors - thanks very much for the followup on this.

  We have gathered 100+ links referring to my work supporting startup entrepreneurs over the years, including dozens of book reviews, speaking appearances, and podcasts. We will narrow those down to the more significant ones.

  What's the best way to share those links? I know you are volunteers and don't want to burden you, so how can we help best? (Happy to draft a rewrite of the current page for your review but not sure that's allowed.)

  Also, many of the bigger name book reviews were from my first book back in 2006-8. It was a pioneering work in the development of Web 2.0 entrepreneurship. We have jpgs and some PDFs of those articles from outlets like the Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, Toronto Globe & Mail, Orange County Register etc. but unfortunately the old URLs are mostly 404 by now. How best to share those?

  Similarly - my books have been translated into many languages around the world. That seems to show they are "notable" also in other languages. We found links to some of those (Turkish, Polish, Vietnamese) but other editions (like Russian and Japanese) are not discoverable via English search engines. We do have screen shots of the cover art, though. Can we share those, too?

  Thanks for your help learning how Wikipedia works. I have donated repeatedly in the past but never gotten into the nuts & bolts of it like this.

  Scott

  p.s. I'm currently working on 2 new books to help startup founders, esp under-represented female, minority, and non-US entrepreneurs. Thank you all for your time. Hopefully we can keep my page alive so its available during those book launches next year. Nelsonave21 ( talk) 20:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Nelsonave21: Yes, please share the PDFs here. — VORTEX ³⁴²⁷ ( Talk!) 00:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  OK, will do. How do we share PDFs here, though? There's no attachments tool in the toolbar.

  Thanks. Nelsonave21 ( talk) 06:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Nelsonave21: You'd have to upload it on another website and share the links here. — VORTEX ³⁴²⁷ ( Talk!) 08:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment After scouring the internet for any possible sources, I've found two book reviews and one article that I believe would count towards notability. I've also found four more book reviews, but I'm unsure if the coverage is significant enough to count. Leaving them here for a more experienced editor to assess. — VORTEX ³⁴²⁷ ( Talk!) 09:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi again - thanks for your guidance here. And for finding those additional sources. You found coverage I've never seen before!

Below is a list of URLs that are still active online that include some of the coverage of my books and work.

We have also put up a Google Drive folder here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1j0KUxFYUl4A5qAo3-sKwzr-Z4MBIBIZI?usp=sharing That contains a couple of dozen more press clippings, major market book reviews, foreign book covers, etc. for publicity that has since fallen offline.

If these are helpful, we easily have a lot more from my almost 20 years of serving entrepreneurs if you'd like to see it.

Hopefully that's the right idea for sources.

Please LMK how we can help if we can? It looks like a fair bit of work to parse through those and assign them properly into an article, etc. The article needs updating anyway and we'd be happy to assist.

Thanks again very much for your work here.

Scott

https://antrepreneur.uci.edu/2023/08/07/uci-antrepreneur-center-joins-forces-with-the-oc-startup-council-to-empower-student-entrepreneurs/

https://www.engine.is/news/startupseverywhere-orange-county-calif

https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/click-millionaires-work-less-live-more-internet-business-you-love

https://alliancesocal.org/news/2024/03/01/preparing-founders-for-success-and-connections-at-happy-hour-in-irvine/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO6JdpN17P8

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericwagner/2012/09/04/click-millionaires-7-secrets-to-less-work-and-more-life/

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13132762-click-millionaires

https://www.eofire.com/podcast/scott-fox-of-click-millionaires-interview-with-john-lee-dumas-of-entrepreneur-on-fire-2/

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58917442-e-riches-2-0

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/108552513-internet-zenginleri

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44557823-click-millionaires-czyli-internetowi-milionerzy-e-biznes-na-twoich-zasad

https://www.beckman-foundation.org/latest-news/irvine-tech-week/

https://www.revolv3.com/resources/what-makes-orange-county-the-hottest-hub-for-startups-today

https://www.socalentrepreneurship.org/scce-24

https://www.operatepod.com/e/scott-fox-orange-county-startup-council/

https://www.cakeequity.com/podcasts/how-to-raise-first-rounds-scott-fox

https://startupgamechanger.org/speakers/scott-fox/ Nelsonave21 ( talk) 06:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we have any editors willing to look through some of these references brought up in this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. Article as is is too promotional but the book reviews presented by Vortex look good. He passes WP:NAUTHOR, his works themselves appear to have been sufficiently reviewed enough for notability. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 04:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

There are also additional reviews of his work on Newspapers.com. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 05:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Tan Yinglan

Tan Yinglan (  | 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)

Factors do not appear to have meaningfully changed since the prior discussion. He's an active businessperson, and Insignia Ventures Partners may be notable but he does not appear so as an author. Star Mississippi 01:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and Singapore. Star Mississippi 01:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep per https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-19/singapore-s-insignia-ventures-intensifies-push-into-healthtech, https://www.ft.com/content/8c484648-f4b7-11e9-a79c-bc9acae3b654, https://www.reuters.com/technology/insignia-ventures-raises-516-mln-bets-southeast-asian-tech-firms-2022-08-01/, https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/13/insignia-venture-partners-fund-25-million-yinglan-tan/. There is also coverage in New Straits Times [21] [22]. 182.190.216.63 ( talk) 14:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone want to assess the sources offered by the IP editor?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment here's a start on assessing the newly identified sources:

• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-19/singapore-s-insignia-ventures-intensifies-push-into-healthtech – free version here [23] just regurgitating information from the company
• https://www.ft.com/content/8c484648-f4b7-11e9-a79c-bc9acae3b654 - paywalled, can’t access
• https://www.reuters.com/technology/insignia-ventures-raises-516-mln-bets-southeast-asian-tech-firms-2022-08-01/ this is regurgitating information from the company with a tiny bit of commentary on the market as a while; no bio on Tan
• https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/13/insignia-venture-partners-fund-25-million-yinglan-tan/ - could be significant coverage with some biographical details; even though this is a capital-raise article it seems to be drawing on other editorial resources for the info on Tan
• New Straits Times - paywalled, can’t access

Oblivy ( talk) 02:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Michel Pontremoli

Michel Pontremoli (  | 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)

Doesn't meet WP:BASIC C F A 💬 02:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, Judaism, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment could you elaborate on why none of the sources meet BASIC in your opinion? FortunateSons ( talk) 09:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep the biography in Educational Institutions Pamphlets (which is actually a 1950 L'Ecole National D'Administration book) plus short mentions in La Rabia De La Expresion, Le conseil d'état et le régime de Vichy", and the State Council plaque should be sufficient for WP:NBASIC. There are other short mentions, perhaps some longer ones, on GScholar. Oblivy ( talk) 02:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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