|
- Rachel McLean (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)
inexplicably declined - despite no evidence of notability - being a "kindle author" is meaningless in the absence of actual meaningful coverage, of which there is none. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 21:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - (As I had to go and look to work out what you meant by 'Inexplicably declined'...) Your nomination for a speedy deletion was declined, with the perfectly clear explanation that "the Kindle award is enough to get past an A7, and the article is not promotional". Speedy Deletion is for a very strictly determined subset of articles. JeffUK 15:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Jimmy Rex (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)
Total promo nonsense article, sourced to passing mentions with nothing meaningful in the way of actual coverage - and the only mentions of Rex are again, in passing, if even that. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dont label an article that I spent my time and effort working on nonsense. Talk to me with respect. Cokeandbread (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete: I was asked to review this article earlier. I tagged it as relying too heavily on primary sources. It seems like with how long this person has been around and the circles they trade in it would be easy for him to be notable by some metric, but his projects and interviews have no independent coverage and there's little to nothing I could find that discusses him in an impartial way. Reconrabbit 20:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks man. Cokeandbread (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I created the page so let me explain why. I will start like this.
- In the early days of Instagram verification, before Instagram gave out verification, they didnt know how to select who was worthy of being verified and why those people were worthy and others were not. So they found a solution. One of the criteria they used to determine if someone was notable to be verified was to check out the number of DMs said person from other verified accounts. Getting DMs from verified accounts meant you were notable too. E.g an obscure music producer getting DMs from different big musicians meant he was notable even though he wasnt famous. Afterall some notable people work behind the scenes. Jimmy Rex's Show have had some great people on the podcast. In Wikipedia we call those "associates". Lots of people who have Wikipedia articles have been guests at his show. A non notable podcaster wont pull notable guests to his podcast.
- There is something else I should point out. There was a debate about Giannis Antetokounmpo, and how his opening sentence should be worded. The bone of contention was whether he should be labeled as a Greek or a Nigerian-Greek. What put that argument to rest was a video from YouTube. In the video he said that he represents both Nigeria and Greece. These are the scenarios when Youtube videos can be employed. In Jimmy Rex's case, these notable guests are talking by themselves for themselves. You watch the video and see them. It is verifiable. When you say primary source, do you know that you mean that the words are coming from Jimmy Rex's mouth? And in this case, are they? Cokeandbread (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read what WP:SOURCING is, because I'm not going to explain it to you. It details the different types and the fact that your article is a raging advertisement sourced to blackhat SEO doesn't help. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:YOUTUBE-EL.
- And about SEO blackhatting, you are simply projecting, because I never had the intention for such. Cokeandbread (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how I am projecting? What does that mean? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some signs that you might be projecting onto me:
- • You make assumptions about my intentions. With no good faith.
- • You accuse me of doing something that you yourself might be guilty of.
- • You seem overly sensitive to my words or actions, as if you’re taking them personally. Cokeandbread (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Define projecting. Cause this isn't it. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont have time for this. Cokeandbread (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not seeing in-depth independent coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. A ref-bombed promo article, most likely COI/paid editing. Edwardx (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- When I created the article, I wrote a sub section about his controversy and I was asked to remove it because it was negative. Now, the article seems like a promo because it is too nice? Okay.
- Also Read WP:YOUTUBE-EL. Cokeandbread (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommended that the controversy section be removed because controversy sections are generally a poor idea, especially on a biography of a living person. Vice News was not a strong enough source to justify it. Reconrabbit 15:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Every single source is either a passing mention, not independent of the subject, or about a different subject entirely (referring to one of his guests). Plus, there is WP:TRIVIA being used to puff up the citations list: Guatemala is one of his favorite travel destinations? An NBA star crashed one of his parties? Who TF cares. Not notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A Wikipedia article with minimal citations but clear notability. Deletion of notable Wikipedia pages because of fewer citations can set a dangerous precedent. Gracefoundme (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks to me like there are plenty of citations, but many of them are weak in terms of reliability and are not independent of Jimmy Rex. Reconrabbit 15:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. From what I see I believe the Wikipedia article is notable. The creating editor seems naive so I think it is creator issue, not a notability issue. Keep and keep improving. Wallclockticking (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I am learning. Cokeandbread (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the article currently is written. I'm of the opinion that controversy often makes a person notable. Recent examples of articles that I've saved because of bad reviews or controversy include Topaz (novel) and The Legend That Was Earth. Another article is Sangre Grande Regional Complex, often described as a white elephant. Many a bad broadcaster has achieved notability by having outrageous guests. I'm glad to change my !vote if critiques are added back in. Bearian (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Good day Bearian. I have followed your instructions and added his critiques. I dont know if it is sufficient to change your mind though. Cokeandbread (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Shafiqa Zawqari (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)
Unnotable yemeni short story writer. All sources in this article are broken. No significant information about him could be found on the Internet. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- J. Bhagyalakshmi (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)
WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and the notability test hinges on the quality and depth of the sourcing that can be used to independently verify their significance -- but this article is referenced entirely to her own writing metaverifying its own existence in Google Books directory entries rather than any evidence of GNG-building coverage and analysis about her, and the article has been tagged for sourcing problems since 2010 without ever having any better sourcing added.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Elyssa East (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 subject appears to fail WP:GNG for lack of WP:SIGCOV by unrelated parties. Interviews, WP:BLPSPS websites and the like don't help here. This subject also fails WP:NAUTHOR because contributions appear not to be very significant. And PEN New England Awards do not confer automatic notability. JFHJr (㊟) 01:11, 14 December 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 (㊟) 01:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or rename. Her book, Dogtown, is notable, having won a PEN award and been reviewed by, e.g., The New York Times. We should have an article about the book or its author. pburka (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: apart from one sentence, this page is about Dogtown, her notable book. The content should be kept. We can rename the page or leave it alone. In my opinion, it's often preferable to have pages about authors rather than books, since she may write more books in the future. pburka (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- With little to no WP:SIGCOV about the person, I'd find moving the article to the book's namespace more supportable than leaving this BLP alone. Especially since no other noteworthy publication has emerged at this time. "Maybe" isn't a valid reason to keep a BLP with little to no foundational biographical material about the author, at least which is published by unrelated reliable sources in a non-interview format. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (U.S. state), Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Tulika Mehrotra (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)
Do not pass WP:AUTHOR or even WP:BASIC ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Uttar Pradesh, and Illinois. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a book review from Vogue India and an article from The Hindu on her books. Not too familiar with the English-language media landscape throughout India, but I think there's a good chance there is sufficient coverage that would make this pass WP:NAUTHOR (e.g., book reviews), especially considering the books were published by Penguin (one of the Big Five publishers). Bridget (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bridget Thank you for your efforts. I also conducted a search for relevant sources initially, but I did not find them to meet the notability criteria. Both sources are primarily interview-based descriptions. The piece in Vogue India is a one-time article by Ridhima Sud, and the The Hindu article also revolves around an interview. Neither of these, on their own, can establish notability. While publishing with Penguin is a significant accomplishment, it alone does not satisfy the notability requirements according to Wikipedia's standards. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 15:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Megan Dalla-Camina (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)
A highly promotional bio of an individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The sources in the article comprise:
My WP:BEFORE search turned up more of the same kind of content, nothing qualifying. I also searched for book reviews to see if she passed WP:NAUTHOR for any of her books, but I found only a single independent review for Women Rising, so there's no pass on that criterion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Kealan Patrick Burke (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 subject appears to fail WP:GNG as well as higher bars at WP:NACTOR and WP:NAUTHOR. Note, not every Bram Stoker Award recipient is inherently notable. JFHJr (㊟) 00:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Authors. JFHJr (㊟) 00:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article having a single primary source since 2006 when it was created. Before search indicate that this person fails WP:NAUTHOR. Mekomo (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While not offering a specific recommendation right now (WP:BEFORE still ongoing), the SPA/COI/PROMO nature of the article's creation is somewhat difficult to overlook. Also, while I've found (and added) a handful of sources to address the otherwise almost entirely uncited body, none of these sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. A search for biographical sources returns only the types of WP:INTERVIEWS (common for most authors and not contributory to notability) and the types of "writers bio" written by publishers/distributors/etc (not WP:INDEPENDENT and therefore also not normally supportive of a notability claim). As the subject is Irish, I searched in the usual "mainstream" national news sources in Ireland (Irish Times, Irish Independent, Irish Examiner, RTÉ, etc) - and could find NOTHING AT ALL. As the subject is from County Waterford, I also looked in "local" Waterford news sources - and could only find this "listicle" - where the subject is only mentioned in passing. Will continue with BEFORE when I have time. But, as it stands, I can find nothing to support retention... Guliolopez (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the Bram Stoker Awards is a good source, but it's literally a paragraph. None of the other sources contribute to significant coverage. Ping me if you find more. Bearian (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sirous Ahmadi (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)
2 google news hits and nothing in Google Books. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Being an immigration consultant hardly adds to notability. LibStar (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Iran, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:AUTHOR. Herinalian (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He passes GNG because of significant coverage by different sources. Also he was a member of Iran national canoeing team (IRNA) and won the third place in Asian Canoeing Championships in 2004.(IRNA). Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the sources you have supplied are 1 line mentions and do not meet WP:SIGCOV. I don't see him meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the sources for his canoeing to the page. His record-setting has been covered by several media as well. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you declared your connection to him? duffbeerforme (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not have any connection to him. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That photo you took of him? How then did that come about? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good question, duffbeer. Please answer the question. There's a potential conflict of interest here. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the pictures of hundreds of people to Wikipedia; do I have a connection to all of them!? Sometimes I try to access copyright-free pictures of the subjects for whom I created a page through emailing them. In this case too, long after I created his page, I received a copyright-free picture. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you now saying that you lied about taking it? And that your are not, as you claimed, the copyright holder? duffbeerforme (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm the copyright-holder, like this one and many others. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're the copyright holder of a copyright free image that you created yourself and was supplied to you by someone you have no connection to. Makes sense. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability. specially that part about being a member of Iran canoeing team. he was just a member but never won anything major. the page creator claims he won a medal at the Asian Canoeing Championship and provides a source for that. but that's not correct. the source says it was the Central/West Asian Championship not the main Asian Canoeing Championships. Sports2021 (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Kim Crawley (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)
WP:BLP of a technology writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to pass certain concrete benchmarks of significance (noteworthy awards, third-party attention by critics and reviewers, evidence of their work having had a verifiable impact on the field they write about, etc.) supported by third-party reliable sources independent of themselves -- but the only notability claim in evidence here is that she exists, and the article is referenced almost entirely to primary sources (staff profiles, directory entries, her own writing metaverifying its own existence, podcast interviews, etc.) that are not support for notability, with just one footnote (#10, "Silicon Republic") that represents an independent source writing about her. And while it's questionable as to whether even that counts as a WP:GNG-worthy source at all, one hit of RS coverage isn't enough all by itself even if we do give it the benefit of the doubt.
It also warrants note that the article has been tagged for suspected WP:AUTOBIO editing by the subject herself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Laurence James Ludovici (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)
PROD was contested. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The bulk of the article is just an unsourced list of his non-notable works. The article has had a notability tag for almost 9 years with no additions to support the subjects notability. cyberdog958Talk 07:16, 9 December 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. cyberdog958Talk 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sri Lanka and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Gscholar brings up two papers this person wrote, but I'm not sure that's enough for an academic notability pass. I don't see any reviews of this person's other books either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, have added further information and references - satisfies WP:NAUTHOR. Dan arndt (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that he meets WP:NAUTHOR. You added references that the subject wrote, but none of it is about the subject himself. There is no evidence that he is widely regarded or cited by peers, originated a new concept, authored a body of work that itself is notable, or created a work that has been regarded as significant. cyberdog958Talk 15:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, as the author of the first biography on Alexander Fleming, which received significant international attention at the time of its publication. I would have to disagree with your view. Dan arndt (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see more input from the community on the recent edits.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The several archived reviews of the biography of Fleming in the article show that that book is notable. I picked one other book at random to search at the British Newspaper Archive and immediately found this review. I won't bother looking for more, since this author clearly meets the GNG, but I suspect many more sources exist. Toadspike [Talk] 12:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Phiwa Nkambule (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)
So this article was created by Phwaice who seems to be a WP:COI user judging by username and behavior. The article was previously nominated for deletion and the consensus was to redirect to a company article that is now deleted due to lack of notability. The article was then reverted by Carloschilo who also seems to have COI behavior.
The issue is this article from a quick glance seem to be nothing more than a PR puff piece for the subject which is basically WP:PROMO. There’s also issue of notability. The vast majority of sources are basically brief mentions of the subject. You have some which are interviews, so they are not independent. The subject is mentioned in a few lists, but these again seem more like mentions and not really in-depth.
This article probably needs to be rewritten from scratch to comply with Wikipedia standards. That’s assuming we get enough independent in-depth sources of notability.
Edit: There seems to be a lot of WP:SPA users on this article. Lenoviah, Iceemagic,SimonSemenya and NganonoMrico. Not sure if these are all WP:SOCK accounts by one person or if its basically a PR agency being paid to fluff this article.
Imcdc Contact 03:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As previously stated my focus is primarily on articles of subjects linked to Eswatini, which are not many unfortunately as the country on has a 1 million population. This country is extremely under-covered. Here are a few examples that show notability of the subject:
- 1. https://www.google.co.za/books/edition/Entrepreneurs_Who_Changed_History/vAbnDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=phiwa%20nkambule%20entrepreneurs%20who%20changed%20history&pg=PT958&printsec=frontcover
- 2. https://www.google.co.za/books/edition/Simple_Algorithms/-IdeEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=phiwa%20nkambule%20simple%20coding&pg=PT23&printsec=frontcover
- 3. https://www.forbesafrica.com/cover-story/2019/10/14/forbes-africa-8-years-and-growing/
- 4. https://www.forbesafrica.com/under-30/2018/06/04/under-30-technology/
- 5. https://www.google.co.za/books/edition/Autonomic_Computing/nozJEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=phiwa%20nkambule&pg=PA1946&printsec=frontcover Carloschilo (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All the sources above so far seem to be mainly about another subject but has a brief mention on the current nominated subject with most of them just stating his role founding non-notable companies. Also AFD consensus shows lists like Forbes 30 Under 30 is not considered a reliable source in establishing notability since every year there are 1,230 people under 30 years old placed on the list so it gives the impression it is more of a promotional tool. Notability should not be driven by being on the list although some of the objective information may be used to provide further context on the subject. Imcdc Contact 02:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Liz it appears a number of referenced online articles have been rot considering they are pre-2020 articles but there are references to physical newspapers like this one [17] and books which cover the subject. There are also video interviews done by CNBC on the subject. Maybe converting it to a stub may be a more reasonable because the subject is notable.
- Carloschilo (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Anders Jallai (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)
WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. As far as his writing goes, the only attempt at a notability claim here is that his work exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself -- writers have to show that they pass WP:GNG on significant third-party coverage and analysis about their writing, not just use ISBN and Libris links to verify that their work exists. And the other attempted notability claim here is that he led a search for a missing plane, which wouldn't be "inherently" notable without a GNG-worthy depth and volume of coverage about that either.
But for sourcing, what we've got here is one deadlinked directory entry that isn't support for notability at all, and one deadlinked (but recoverable via Wayback) National Geographic article that briefly glances off Jallai's involvement in the plane search without being about him in any non-trivial sense, which thus isn't enough to magically vault him over WP:GNG all by itself. And while the Swedish interlang is longer and features more referencing than this, it's still based mainly on primary source directory entries that aren't support for notability, alongside a small smattering of more short blurbs about the plane search that also briefly mention Anders Jallai without being about him, so that article also doesn't have sources that could just be cut and pasted over to salvage this.
As I don't have access to archives of Swedish media coverage, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who does have such access can actually find enough substantive coverage to salvage the article, but nothing in it is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Awards don't clinch notability if your source for the award is the self-published website of the award. Since an award has to be notable in its own right before it can make its winners notable for winning it, the source for an award claim has to be media reportage that treats the award presentation as news, in order to demonstrate that the award is notable in the first place. And that's even more the case for general honors that can be presented to absolutely anybody for absolutely any reason, as opposed to being a defined awards program for achievement in a specific domain like literature or film. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconding Bearcat's point Czarking0 (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 23:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] - Comment - There are more sources on sv.wikipedia.org: [20] JeffUK 15:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I addressed that in my nomination statement: those are also virtually all primary sources or short blurbs that briefly namecheck Anders Jallai without being about Anders Jallai in any non-trivial sense, and thus aren't GNG-building sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Margaret D. Nadauld (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)
Margaret D. Nadauld was a former president of the Young Women organization. This article was deleted on october 17, 2018 for being unnotable. It was recreated today, the author added 25 new sources but all of them seem to be just brief mentions of her. I still think that this article does not satisfy notability guidelines. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 | 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}}. |
- Comment The first AfD had no discussion on it which is disappointing and I don't know how to see what the article looked like at that time. My comments are that there seems to be reporting on her actions as president of the organization from non-related sources and that women, especially in more socially conservative areas like religious groups, are mentioned less than equivalent men. Having said that I am not certain this article either meets or doesn't meet requirements I just want to help start a conversation that should be had. The primary author of the article posted on the talk page their reasoning for keeping, not sure why it isn't here.
- Moritoriko (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep This article was nominated for deletion by a new WP user (account created Nov. 5), who nominated 25+ articles for deletion in one day using Twinkle, with the explanation, "Its relaxing, I love cleaning Wikipedia from bad articles!" on his talk page. When I kindly (I hope) pointed out that this creates significant work for others, within hours this user nominated this new article of mine for deletion. Because I think the deletion proposal was not made on the merits or in good faith I believe this meets the requirements for WP:SK per reason 2a.
- Regarding the merits of the case for deletion, the proposer reports to have perused the 29 attached sources and only found "just brief mentions of her". Hmmm. Six articles are entirely about Nadauld. All of the rest that are news articles have at least full paragraphs about her, and are in the context of her activities and accomplishments. As with the other 20+ proposed deletions, he does not report having followed the required WP:BEFORE process, and I believe has not done so. This despite being told by at least three people about WP:BEFORE before he proposed deletion of this article. I've counted over 200 articles mentioning Nadauld in my WP:BEFORE search, one of which is a lengthy, independent secondary source newspaper article entirely about her. Somehow he missed that.
- This new article establishes notability by using over 25 different sources. None are trivial mentions per WP:SIGCOV. They are a mix of primary and secondary.
- Several sources are clearly, irrefutably independent, including the retrospective of Nadauld's presidency in The Daily Spectrum, the Provo Daily Herald article, and the several Salt Lake Tribune articles. The Tribune was founded specifically for the purpose of being a counterpoint to the Church's viewpoint, as detailed in its WP article. And three secondary sources are academic historical research papers, assessing impact of various initiatives during Nadauld's tenure. As a whole, this all establishes the notability of the article's subject.
- Other factors regarding Nadauld's notability:
- She was global president of a one million-plus member notable organization.
- The organization has had sixteen presidents in its 144-year history, and Nadauld was the only one who does not have a WP article, despite serving a full term of five years. I tend to believe the deletion of Nadauld's article would be an error (if it were sourced properly), rather than the creation of the other fifteen articles being errors.
- Seven other WP articles reference Margaret D. Nadauld. This is specified as a measure of notability.
- WP:SUSTAINED is established by several sources:
- the 2005 masters thesis,
- the 2008 Spectrum retrospective article,
- the news report of the luncheon honoring her nine years after leaving office,
- the peer reviewed research from 2015 assessing her impact,
- the television interview with Nadauld in 2015 analyzing organization changes made by the church,
- multiple invitations to speak at university graduations in the decades since her service, and
- the fact that several quotes from her speeches and books regularly appear on social media and quote collections, such as on Goodreads, twenty-plus years after her tenure. This google image search shows several hundred examples: [21]. Do I need to link some of these as sources? Davemc0 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking through the sources of this version of the page, they are (organized by supporting notability):
- 3. The Spectrum article is actually good.
- 21. OK, but also just the school newspaper that her husband was the president at
- 28. OK
- 2. A short biography (and a speech she wrote), I think a lot hinges on if this biography was provided by her or written independently. If it's the former then it doesn't support notability at all.
- 6. a mention
- 7. a mention
- 8. a mention
- 9. a mention
- 15. a mention
- 16. a mention
- 23. a mention
- 10. trivial
- 12. trivial
- 13. trivial
- 14. trivial
- 18. trivial
- 19. trivial
- 20. trivial
- 22. trivial
- 24. trivial
- 25. trivial
- 26. trivial
- 4. primary, no notability
- 5. primary, no notability
- 27. primary, no notability
- 29. entirely consists of quotes from her, no notability
- 1. no mention
- 11. no mention
- 17. no mention
- I think you are overstating your case here when you might not need to. As far as the other factors go:
- 500,000 people at the time she was president according to the best article about her but potato potato.
- I've looked through the other presidents, many of them are also notable for things besides being president and at least one of the others I think doesn't have enough sources on her page for her to be notable either.
- Good point
- The masters thesis barely mentions her, I didn't find the 2015 peer reviewed research about her impact, which source is that? Again the spectrum article is the best article for her notability.
- @SolxrgashiUnited can you have a look through the Spectrum article and let me know what you think? Moritoriko (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, im unable to access it. For some reason the site does not open. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. What behavior do you get when you try? We're talking about these two links, right? [22] and [23]. It works for me on two computers and two browsers. Weird. I can make a copy for you somewhere if you need me to. Davemc0 (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Cloudflare blocked me. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a pain! I put copies of the two halves of the article on my Google Drive here: https: //photos.app.goo .gl/DyDaHMCEB2iaFrkG8 (you have to copy and paste the link without spaces). If Cloudflare blocks that for you I could put them on my talk page for a short time and then delete them. Cheers. Davemc0 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding sources:
- 2. Agree that the bio doesn't indicate notability if she wrote it. Typically, the university leadership will put together a bio from a few sources. But ignoring the bio, this source is a college graduation address, which is a strong indicator of notability, especially since she was invited 20 years after her presidency term ended.
- 6. Five paragraphs are about her and what she said. The other 6 paragraphs are about Faust, who also spoke. So this is much more than a mention.
- 7. The article is about six speeches given. Three paragraphs were about hers. That's more than a mention, in my opinion.
- Er, the histories were 2011, not 2015. They are refs 16 and 18. 16 is a history of the whole organization, and has three paragraphs about Nadauld and her tenure. That's NOT trivial, and places her leadership in the context of the broader history. The later paragraph about camps is also regarding the 8400 acre camp that Nadauld started.
- 18. The other history. One long paragraph places Nadauld's 2002 changes in context. I'd promote this one from "trivial" to "a mention".
- 29. Correct that it's not a news story about her. The fact that a network affiliate news organization chose her to interview about the actions of a 16 million member church is how this indicates notability. And the fact that the station did so 13 years after Nadauld ended her leadership in the church's organization is the indication of WP:SUSTAINED.
- The size of the organization (1 million vs. 500,000) came from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article. It's a 1991 figure. I know the church grew between 1991 and 2002, so I was surprised to see the 500,000 figure. Similarly, that article says she visited 25 countries as president, while the Ensign College bio says 55. I don't know which is more accurate.
- Anyone have thoughts about the couple hundred post of quotes of hers that are currently floating around social media? Recall that sources in articles and actual notability are completely separate concepts.
- I can't track what you're replying to with your other comments. Which was a good point? Which was overstating my case? If you don't think I need to state the case more strongly I'd sure appreciate if you would render a "Keep" or "Speedy Keep" opinion to help us all move on.
Davemc0 (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Davemc0 You should remove the bolding from your later comments, as editors are allowed only one bolded !vote in any discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. "I don't think" isn't really the standard for deletion. Clearly, the individual is notable. (Capricious AfD noms really do diminish WP.) DesignatedGrammarian (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. . Seems to satify satisfy quite well the requirements of WP:GNG. Regards, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/procedural keep per Davemc0. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Striking per the below. I'll do a proper source review. In fact, no. Off my expertise. I'll unwatch this one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]- Comment for closer: I am not going to weigh in on the merits of this debate, but one participant, Davemc0, sought to canvass several editors (see ([24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]) to manipulate the outcome by !voting "keep." At least one editor, BoyTheKingCanDance, !voted "keep" after receiving the inappropriate canvassing message. (Furthermore, "speedy keep" does not apply since, whether or not the sources are as participants say, asserting a lack of notability is an appropriate rationale.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't know about the canvassing rule. Someone pointed it out right afterward, and I apologized and haven't done it since. While I was not neutral in phrasing my request for help, I think the people who I asked to take a look mostly meet the description of "concerned editors" under "appropriate people". The only canvassed person who responded is a very expert reviewer of new pages, so I believe the discussion is not very tainted. Anyway, sorry. Davemc0 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I really think "Speedy Keep" DOES apply here. The fact that the nominator chose a rationale does not negate the fact that it was a vexatious nomination. If otherwise, any vexatious nomination could circumvent "Speedy Keep" by simply randomly mentioning a rationale. But the rule appears to be designed to prevent that:
- "The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion. For example:
- obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations (such as recently featured content or April Fools jokes) (WP:SK 2.a.)
- Davemc0 (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per today's revelations regarding canvassing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Sources 6 and 7 confirm this person was the chair of the organization. Source 21 is also confirmation, albeit brief. If the role itself is notable, we at least have basic confirmation of this person holding that role. The rest is more than enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Much of the discussion of the subject is of the I don't like it sort. My personal opinion is irrelevant. The organization that she lead appears to be the LDS equivalent of the Girl scouts or Girl
Guides. The "coverage problem" with all LDS leaders has been that they didn't get much media coverage until the late 1960s and early 1970s. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrei Polgar (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)
Page`s notability might not meet Wikipedia's standards due to a potential lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] - Delete. An analysis of sources:
- Can't access source 1, source 2 is unreliable, sources 3, 5, 7, 8 and 12 just have one or two videos from his channel without any mention of Polgar himself, source 4 is a self-published blog, source 6 is just a video, source 9 is his YouTube channel, source 10 is a...course(?), same with source 11, with just a link to his YouTube channel at the bottom, no idea what source 13 is but it's unreliable anyway, sources 14 and 16 are Amazon links, and source 18 is a duplicate of source 6. Sources 15 and 17 are the only ones that mention Polgar by name at all, with 17 being an interview and 15 just talking about his books on Amazon.
- In other words, not a single reliable or significant source, aside from possibly 17. Procyon117 (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added few more sources, please have a look. Herinalian (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had a look. I'm still not convinced that notability is met. Procyon117 (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
FA
A
GA
