|
- Darryl Cooper (podcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was deleted after a discussion in September and there are no new sources. Old version. Previous discussion. New version includes false promotional language like "Cooper is a writer for The American Conservative and has contributed to Tablet Magazine" (1 article at AC, 0 at Tablet), unsourced sections, and no mention of past statements like "FDR chose the wrong side in WW2" and Hitler not being in hell. This is still a WP:BLP1E, the only difference is that the new version pretends otherwise and uses promotional framing for his views. Tagging from previous discussion: Isaidnoway Xegma Wcquidditch Chaimanmeow Liz ArmenianSniper Googleguy007 AusLondonder Gusbenz Cosmokiwi LizardJr8 Lostsandwich The_Four_Deuces Osomite Wyattroberts A._Randomdude0000 FeldBum Seefooddiet John_Z Kriddl Donald_Albury Andol HonestManBad Kimdime Hemiauchenia Sandstein. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I have this article watchlisted because I do generally think it's wise to keep an eye on the pages of holocaust deniers so that we can avoid Wikipedia hosting, you know, holocaust denial, but this guy's definitely a good example of WP:BLP1E. While I do think it's good for Wikipedia to cover notable pseudohistorians, including notable holocaust deniers, I don't think we need to have a page for every holocaust denier with a Podcastle subscription. Should evidence be presented this man is a more significant holocaust denier then I guess I'll go back to keeping him on my watchlist but otherwise I think deletion is the best course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Also tagging @Hemiauchenia @Tsarstvovanie @Ekozie @Sweetstache @Kungigult from old page. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Simonm223 While Cooper gained noterietay from the Carlson interview, the number of sources since the last article was deleted in September have increased. Aside from receiving 10s of millions of views on popular shows & podcats like Carslon and Rogan, Cooper hosts 2 popular podcasts of his own and has a substack with over 160k subscribers. I think that this page is clearly unfinished and some of the sourcing should be fixed. It also entirely focuses on his recent comments with Carlson and Rogan. This is a better argument to expand the page than to delete it. Cooper's popularity is clearly growing, he does now fit the criteria for a notable person. I think it is important for wikipedia to cover this person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Showing up as a guest in the walled garden of right-wing podcasts isn't an automatic indication of notability nor is having a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, but his popularity is. Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. Many of Cooper's associated personalities are equally as notable and have wiki pages. Comic Dave Smith for example. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comparison to Dave Smith (comedian) is actually a good one for demonstrating why Cooper is not notable. Smith has many reliable sources talking about a variety of actual event appearances such as festivals and such. His advocacy for Trump made it into Reason for goodness sake. The SPLC has a profile on Smith and has documented his conflict with the holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Dave Smith is clearly notable by Wikipedia's standards because reliable sources treat him as such. Showing up on Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan while being a far-right podcaster is not intrinsically notable. Having a blog is not intrinsically notable. In fact the contrast between Cooper and Smith reinforces why we should not have a page about Cooper. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a point of order, the previous version was not deleted – The result was redirect to Tucker Carlson#Darryl Cooper World War II controversy. I'll look at the newly created version and sources a little later and get back. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete/Merge My opinion hasn't really changed here, eventhough the article has grown. Nearly all of the citations fall into two groups: first-party/non-notable, like the subject's substack or podcast homepage, or specifically about a single opinion/appearance--and all from September 2024. There are now two citations about a second podcast appearance, this time on Joe Rogan, but it's still basically the same problem; the subject is only notable when he makes a fuss or controversial statement on someone else's program. Basically, when you get down to it, this is person is known for two slightly viral moments. I know that BLP2E isn't a "real" policy around here, but this feels more like an extension of BLP1E. I'm assuming the subject will continue to make enough noise to eventually meet notabilty guidelines; I just don't think here's there yet based on the current article. --FeldBum (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neill Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[[[Neil Ferguson]] more an “anti-historian”[8] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neil Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[9] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Times of Israel is a good source, [10], this is an opinion piece [11], [12], [13]. The person certainly is opinionated, but we shold have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- These are all about the same one event. Please see WP:BLP1E. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The current version of the article is much more detailed and has a number of reliable sources. Eric Carpenter (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- All of which seem to be about his Tucker Carlson interview. Except for one source that mentioned a pro-Hitler tweet of his. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just your opinion. There's also a number of other quotes and information now in the article, his Joe Rogan appearance, the many, many articles criticizing his point of view. Eric Carpenter (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since I was pinged as a "participant" in the last nomination, I wanted to clarify that my only contribution to that was deletion sorting. Other than this comment, that is also the case for this nomination; I had no opinion on the old article and also offer no opinion for this version. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. The previous article only focused on the Tucker Interview, which is why it was considered WP:BLP1E. Cooper’s work has been widely discussed in major outlets including The Times (UK), Vox, Axios, Yad Vashem, and The Free Press, which reflects the notability standards set by Wikipedia for public figures. Additionally, many of the personalities he associates with such as comic Dave Smith have wikipedia pages despite equal noterietay at best. These factors—his independent contributions to historical analysis, his partnerships with notable figures, and his coverage by reliable secondary sources—clearly demonstrate that Cooper meets the criteria a notable person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore there are already Darryl Cooper articles in German and French [14] Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete here's very little reliable sourcing for Cooper except that he is a podcaster who made several controversial appearances on right-wing talk shows promoting holocaust denial. These controversies are best covered in articles about the hosts.
- TFD (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: A certain level of prudence is required to productively apply notability guidelines. Cooper is a writer and podcaster with a large audience who has been involved in several controversies. This is enough for him to be notable, and the point of notability guidelines is fundamentally to filter out what's not notable. Not to provide material for (admittedly) politically-motivated quibbling over alleged edge cases as if the norms themselves were the point. Note also the almost inevitable meta-level political bias that sneaks in when editors are free to apply different levels of scrutiny to different topics based on their own biases. A serious effort to remain unbiased would involve opening discussions on politics-related articles with an encouragement for users to check their biases at the door - instead we have editors more or less stating that they are here to enforce their political preferences. Anyway, it's three events now and it was two events last time when WP:BLP1E was applied. HonestManBad (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The three "events" are two podcast appearances and a bad tweet. We do retain articles on notable nazi podcasters like Christopher Cantwell this guy just isn't as significant as him. Simonm223 (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Ved Prakash Upadhyay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was created by a confirmed sockpuppet identified in the SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lazy-restless/Archive. The creation by a blocked user tied to the "Lazy-restless" investigation suggests potential WP:POV pushing. The subject does not meet WP:GNG, as no sources provide sufficient coverage. NXcrypto Message 12:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Major portion of this article sources copied by sock from deleted articles, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar Aur Muhammad Saheb, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avtar aur Muhammad sahib (book). It was also spammed by Lazy-restless IPs and socks, e.g., Hindi Wiki (history) using IP 202.134.10.142, IP 202.134.10.136, IP 202.134.10.131, IP 202.134.11.228, and Assad Jibran (blocked as a Lazy-restless sock). Created by Lazy-restless on Malayalam Wiki (history), Turkish Wiki (history), Fiji Hindi Wiki (history), Malay Wiki (history), Urdu Wiki (history), Arabic Wiki (history), Punjabi Wiki (history with IP 103.66.169.1), Sanskrit Wiki (history with IP 202.134.11.228 and IP 103.230.104.41), and Kashmiri Wiki (history with IP 103.230.106.29). All tied to the banned user IP range, and the majority of these IPs are blocked. NXcrypto Message 13:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Hinduism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I see no links in Jstor or Gscholar about this individual, the rest of the sourcing doesn't seem appropriate for a scholar. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Still not notable. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Wayne Keeley (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)
Created by a WP:SPA in 2009. The creator contributed the bulk (62%) of the edits to the article and has not edited since the article was created. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Lacks significant coverage with few cites to reliable, independent sources. Reads like a resume and is little more than a promotional accomplishments listing designed to sell or "puff piece." Many unsourced statements. Geoff | Who, me? 17:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Jenna McCarthy (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)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. References limited to self-published sources. Lacks significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent publications. WP:BEFORE search turned up little beyond self-published sources, book lists and one TED talk recording. Geoff | Who, me? 19:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with the nomination. Tried my own search and only found references from primary sources (author, publisher) + her Tedx talk. Don't consider reviews from Kirkus reviews to be significant due to potential to pay for review.
- Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I also pointed out that the conspiracy theorist label was wrong. They claimed that I was not presenting a neutral point of view. Below are my comments:
- My comments were a neutral point of view. The text I was trying to change said:
- "Jenna McCarthy is an American conspiracy theorist." with no links or arguments to support the claim.
- I tried to change it to "Jenna McCarthy has been called an American conspiracy theorist." which is true without argument or need for support.
- I then also included an article from Jenna McCarthy that explained what are and are not conspiracy theories. This of course was her opinion which was explained in my edit. To not include any relevant arguments and simply claim that 'she is a conspiracy theorist' is not a neutral point of view. You can't remove my edits trying to correct your current bias and claim that I don't have a neutral view 24.143.78.9 (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure this wasn't nominated for deletion because I pointed out that it was libelous to call someone a "conspiracy theorist"? I see you changed THAT. Hmmmmm. 2600:1700:60:1170:896B:C934:647B:6353 (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Jauwad Hassan (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)
The bio fails WP GNG, NPOL, AUTHOR (journalist). Promotional and lacking RS Cinder painter (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Laura Barton (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)
The subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Notably, out of the four articles on the page, two are self-published by the subject. TheWikiholic (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, Music, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: have expanded with book review, radio series review, photo-essay and forthcoming memoir, all sourced. PamD 09:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The article currently has 8 references, with 4 from The Guardian and 1 from The Independent, both of which the subject has written for. Additionally, 2 references are written by the subject themselves. However, the article still lacks WP:SIGCOV]] as the sources primarily focus on reviews related to the subject, lacking the in-depth coverage essential for a BLP. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Based on improvements by PamD, I have removed the older January 2013 and December 2020 tags. Let's see how this goes. — Maile (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evening Standard has a substantial review of Twenty-One Locks, "Jeannie's dreams of escape" by Rosamund Urwin, 8 July 2010. That adds to the other reviews and is independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Added that review plus another Independent one. Best I can tell she started writing for the Independent circa 2019, nearly a decade after the reviews in that publication so they had no problems with being (small i) independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Uzor Ngoladi (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)
Subject fails WP:NWRITER as a writer or journalist and fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Donald Walker (musician) (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 and musician, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. As always, neither writers nor musicians are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about their work -- but four of the nine footnotes here are just his own work being cited as metaverification of its own existence, two are blogs, one is a mere directory entry, and the only two nominally reliable sources in the bunch (one book and one improperly cited newspaper article) both just briefly namecheck Donald Walker without being about him in any sense, which is not the kind of coverage we need to see.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Bruce Nissen (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)
Basically a resumé, devoid of independent coverage and therefore failing NPROF. JayCubby 23:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. JayCubby 23:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- courtesy ping @Ldm1954 and @Bearian. JayCubby 23:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The nominators explanation is inconsistent with WP:NPROF; the issue for NPROF is whether the subject qualifies under any of the criteria WP:NPROF#C1 to WP:NPROF#C8, not independent coverage. While the page is poorly sourced, it does not appear that a full WP:BEFORE was performed; for certain the lack of sources can be largely fixed by normal editing, so per policy, that is not grounds for deletion. (In a quick check I found some sources which I added, and there are also some reviews of his books and at least one interview of him that I have not added.) His citations with an h-factor of 20 are not great, but looking at his areas in GS they are low citation topics. More to the point, he has a national award which supports #C3, and he was either the editor or co-editor of a journal from 2000-2008. While not the strongest of notability cases, it is not the clear-cut delete that the nomination implies. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Florida, Indiana, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. My first concern is WP:BLP. I don't see any reliable sources at all on several different searches; I assume that they must exist somewhere because you claimed that they exist. As for WP:NPROF#C1 and WP:NPROF#C2, for awards, "Biographical listings in and awards from vanity press publishers, such as the American Biographical Institute, or from publications incorporating a substantial vanity press element in their business model, such as Marquis Who's Who, do not qualify for satisfying Criterion 2 or for partially satisfying Criterion 1." You can't just take his word for it; but a citation to the organization's website is probably sufficient. As I told you, find a source, any source, and put it in as an inline source. As for WP:NPROF#C8, "8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area" (emphasis added) which I was eventually able to confirm after many clicks and scrolls, that he was, with Paul Jarley, Co-editor of the Labor Studies Journal. I can't say a full keep because of that. Thank you for pushing me, but why didn't you just show us your evidence? Bearian (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. One authored book with published reviews wouldn't ordinarily be enough for WP:AUTHOR for me, but he also has many reviews for many edited volumes. I trimmed a lot of unselective listing of publications from the article but it could still use more cleanup. Thanks to Bearian for tracking down the editorship; I couldn't tell from the article whether it passed WP:PROF#C8 (as editor-in-chief) or merely membership in a large editorial board (which would not pass). I think maybe it does pass, but again only enough for a weak keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- A minor detail which I was going to ignore....I added the editorship as a source and also the source for his award when I deprodded this page, before the AfD was done by @JayCubby, please see the edit history on the page. @Bearian it appears independently confirmed the sources I added. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Those darn lawyers, keeping folks honest with their cross examinations. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- 🙏 Ldm1954 (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Patrick Durusau (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)
While certainly accomplished, I cannot find enough in-depth references to show that he meets WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 16:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, United States of America, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or redirect to High places in cyberspace. I have found three reviews of his book High places in cyberspace: in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies [15], in Semeia : an Experimental Journal for Biblical Studies [16] (p 166), and in the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion [17]. So it looks as though the book is notable, per WP:NBOOK. We could either write an article about the book, or keep the article about him, adding references including the book reviews. There are certainly newspaper articles which verify that he worked as a defence lawyer, which don't contribute to notability but would probably be better sources than a law report. I haven't yet found secondary sources about his work with OASIS or ISO standards. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- We could move the current article to the book title, to maintain history, and make the article about the book, which per your sourcing looks notable. Onel5969 TT me 20:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Damarea Liao (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:BLP1E - the Kardashian thing. Fails WP:BIO. I am not persuaded that "National Youth Poet Laureate to Japan" confers notability. WP:NOTINHERITED from random relatives. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:34, 23 March 2025 (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}}. |
- Michael Eigen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability. Of 11 refs, almost all are from his own works; one is an interview with him, one is an entry from Contemporary Authors: A Bio-Bibliographical Guide. He has written 45 books. It is not easy to find reviews other than publisher abstracts or Goodreads blurbs or equivalent; one of his better-known ones (caveat: I am not knowledgeable about this) appears to be Toxic Nourishment, and a search for reviews returns mostly sales sites. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- His main works are Psychotic Core and Psychoanalytic Mystic.
- I disagree strongly with him not being notable. Eigen is a major figure, and the fact that, e.g., Routledge published an introduction to his work (which is rare for a living person) testifies to that fact: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003002871/michael-eigen-loray-daws
- His works are widely cited, as a search on Google Scholar indicates, with many of his papers and books having several hundred citations (which is significant for an individual). So disagreed w/r/t notability of Eigen.
- However, I think you are rightfully calling attention to --- if implicitly --- to another issue: The page on Eigen has an insufficient number of external sources. Purely based on a cursory reading of this page one will likely --- and thus correctly --- come to the conclusion that Eigen is an isolated figure. In actuality, he is an important member of the psychoanalytic community, and he teaches worldwide (as his Seoul seminars indicate).
- The article does not reflect that, however, and I am grateful for you bringing this to my/psy-community's attention. Once I have more time, I will try and add some external sources and appraisals.
- But I strongly object to a deletion, Eigen is important, and the literature reflects that clearly. Honigfrau (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Wendelin Küpers (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)
The subject appears not to meet any of the notabilty criteria laid down in WP:NACADEMIC, and no evidence is offered of him meeting WP:GNG. The only source cited with a working link is to Küpers page at the Karlshochschule International University, a small non-profit private foundation university, where he is currently a professor. The article is simply a resume, created by the article subject himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Indrajit Sawant (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)
Fails WP:NBIO and WP:AUTHOR, there is no significant coverage, most of it can be attributed to the controversial statements he has made. CharlesWain (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article lacks independent sources. The given sources aren't enough coverage. Articles are more about subject talk on something rather than someone talking about him. Fails GNG.Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I couldn’t find much substantial information about the subject, apart from news about an attack on them and an FIR, which seems to be routine coverage. Baqi:) (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant coverage on the career of the subject and any achievements note worthy in any secondary independent reliable sources. All sources on the page are not independent. RangersRus (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Lacks SIGCOV. known for one event only. Zuck28 (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Karen Osborne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is a lot that Osborne says about herself, which would be OK if it were complemented by independent sourcing, but I have not been able to identify any, and there's no indication she meets N:AUTHOR nor that her books are notable. Star Mississippi 23:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Maryland, and New York. Star Mississippi 23:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I was hoping this would be useful as a book review [18], but the "contact us" section explains how to send in a book for promotion... I don't see any other reviews for this author, so we don't have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This might be reliable, but that's all I can find. She has been a finalist for several major awards, but hasn't won yet. Bearian (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. With sources found in a quick search, and the one provided by Bearian, I think there's enough critical reception of her works to likely pass WP:NAUTHOR. They've been added to the article. Book Marks (review aggregator) has some more reviews for Architects of Memory listed here. Bridget (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Freesfonline.net also lists reviews of her short stories (all from Tangent Online and Locus magazine) at this page. AudioFile magazine reviewed the audiobook for Architects here. I've added most of these to the article in this edit. Bridget (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I changed my !vote per WP:HEY. Excellent work by Bridget to rescue this article. If anyone is looking for a researcher, I recommend her. Bearian (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Though I would say that, wouldn't I? I'm the one who originally posted the article. My reasons for keeping are the same as my reasons for posting in the first place; the author has been nominated for multiple awards, and therefore can be regarded as a significant writer. (That's my criteria for most author articles I've originated, actually.) And there's more, now. I note, from just a quick websearch, that a few of her books do have reviews from some of the major industry review sources, such as Architects of Memory (PUblishers Weekly, Booklist) and Engines of Oblivion (also Publishers Weekly). So, yeah, keep. BPK (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The recognition section shows enough nominations and the bibliography section shows enough book reviews; so, this is clear pass on NAUTHOR. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops I'd somehow unfollowed the AfD, which isn't my normal practice. There's an extant delete so I can't withdraw & close. But any passing editor may close this as nom withdrawn. Not sure how my Google failed on this one. Star Mississippi 12:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Shoukath (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)
Expedited PROD to AFD. Clearly not notable, no references on a BLP which is unacceptable, and has been ghostwritten by someone with a COI to the person in this article. DotesConks (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DotesConks (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Kerala. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Close AFD and Delete somehow Can I suggest User:DotesConks that you stop doing quasi-admin type stuff like Prod removal, AFD creation, article renaming, starting ITN and closing discussions - because with only a few weeks of editing, it's quite clear that you don't know what you are doing. Most of what you are doing appears to be in good faith - but ... why would you ever, ever, ever, remove a Prod only to AFD the article? If you think that was appropriate, you are the last person who should be creating AFDs. Perhaps just stick to mainspace editing for a year or two, and leave this stuff to people with some experience. Nfitz (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nfitz Hello Nfitz, I don't believe what I am doing is quasi-administrative stuff. This was out of a misunderstanding about how PROD and AFD worked. Now I know how AFD works and it won't happen again. I don't remember closing discussions, ITN nominations are normal, renaming is normal, and articles that are clearly unnotable should be deleted. So I'm simply taking up the work to do it. Are there things I get wrong? Yes, absolutely and I apologize for those errors. But I am simply trying to help the encyclopedia that has helped me.DotesConks (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I said like - not did. There's certainly been other things as well. ITN nominations are normal? Very few people do an ITN nomination. I've been here for 20 years and I've never done one. But more seriously is the quality. You nominated a routine local government financing bill as "Super important". It's hard to assess just how many warnings have been given on your talk page this month alone - because you kept blanking it! Nfitz (talk) 06:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SENIORITY DotesConks (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CIR WP:TBAN Nfitz (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. WP:A7 (no indication of notability) and WP:G6 (cleanup) because the article was unreferenced, PRODded, and the PROD was removed shortly before expiry by an editor who wanted the article to be deleted anyway. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This article is unclear, you have to read a bit to understand that this is a religious person. It's badly written, with no refs. [19] doesn't seem to be about this person either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per A7. This shouldn't even be a topic of discussion, in my opinion. GSK (talk • edits) 14:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per A7/G6, PROD was mistakenly removed. Sarsenet (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Dave Sargent (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)
Heavily advertorialized WP:BLP of a chef, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for chefs. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs -- you don't make a person notable by citing his own self-published web presence as verification that he exists, you make a person notable by citing media coverage about him in sources independent of himself as verification that he garnered third-party attention.
But this is referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability -- his own cookbook being "cited" to itself, his own podcast, TripAdvisor -- except for a single piece of "local man does stuff" in the community hyperlocal newspaper of his own small hometown, which is not nearly enough media coverage to singlehandedly get him over WP:GNG all by itself.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on much, much better sourcing than this, and even if it can be salvaged with better sourcing it would have to be heavily rewritten for neutral point of view regardless. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Norman Gänser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no significant coverage, fails gng ProtobowlAddict uwu! (talk | contributions) 18:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Lizzie Waterworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've declined a speedy deletion request on this—voicing the titular character in a major TV series is obviously a credible claim of significance—but sourcing this meagre is clearly not appropriate in a BLP. ‑ Iridescent 17:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. ‑ Iridescent 17:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: She is apparently a BAFTA-nominated individual and has written a book [21]. That source doesn't help notability, but at least confirms these facts. The BAFTA nomination would suggest notability, but I don't have enough coverage found to !vote at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- She's voiced named characters in notable productions, but I can't find much out there as far as sourcing goes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She was nominated for a British Academy Children's Award in the Performer category in 2019 for her role in Horrid Henry [22], and has also voiced named characters in the two other series mentioned in the article, plus 20 of 35 episodes of The Sandman (podcast) and all episodes of Tinpo (as well as named characters in other series that don't have WP articles like an animated version of Isadora Moon, 50 episodes of Mush-Mush and the Mushables and 35 episodes of Marcus Level. That would see her meet WP:NACTOR, but I have so far found very little independent sourcing, even to confirm her roles. I'll see if I can find more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Kelly Hyman (TV personality) (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)
Repost of previously deleted and salted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Hyman * Pppery * it has begun... 18:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, Television, Law, Politics, California, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, unsalt the “Kelly Hyman” page and move to that title. A lot has changed in the seven years since the page was deleted and salted. SIGCOV which post-dates the prior deletion now exists on the article. Frank Anchor 15:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep due to becoming notable since the last AfD. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Lola Adeyemi (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)
Non-notable "physician", "politician", and individual. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said she's a politician? Ahola .O (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It wasn't mentioned or categorized that she's a politician or an author. She passes both WP:BIO and WP:GNG.
- Here are some reports about her on Businessday and Thisdaylive: Why I’m Mentoring a New Generation of Women – THISDAYLIVE, Lola Adeyemi, Founder and CEO at Mentoring Her - Businessday NG but i considered them to be interviews. For WP:BIO, she is a Nigerian cancer researcher that has presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and World Health Organization (WHO), has been recognized by Forbes, was awarded by Johns Hopkins University and a Special Advisor to the Minister of Education, Nigeria. I hope this helps. Ahola .O (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of independent, reliable sources supporting the subject's notability. A brief internet search reveals that most available sources are interviews or press releases, which are not considered reliable for establishing notability. Additionally, presentations at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) do not, on their own, confer notability. Ibjaja055 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No real sourcing to support a WP:BLP. scope_creepTalk 21:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Publications from notable universities are generally considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. This page has a reference from Johns Hopkins University which talked about her education and being a physician. Additionally, I recently added some references from Nairametrics, and Media Trust. Concerning reliable sources about the subject's notability, she was awarded by Johns Hopkins University and was recognized in a Forbes's list which are both published on thier websites and are in use in the page. This page is a stub, instead of trying to get rid of it, why not help in expanding it. I have made some changes to the page, and I hope they help. Ahola .O (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ahola .O I just tagged the whole article's biography section as unreferenced. Can you provide the source to the information or reveal where you get the information from. Thank you. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I only see a couple of reliable sources about her, as opposed to interviews and what she wrote. If I had additional evidence of notable awards or tenure, I'd be more firm in my stance. But I don't see a lot of junk journalism that I've seen with DJs and producers. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian Are you serious right now? Please maintain consistency in your judgment. What guideline exactly are you citing the subject passes? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Plain old WP:SIGCOV. I'm not a strict deletionist. I really do go on a case-by-case basis. I see a big difference between this article and a lot of the other articles that we've seen lately at AfD. I'm saying "weak keep" because I see two reliable, in depth sources but the standard for significant coverage is three sources. Bearian (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian Please help me provide the two sources you're talking about? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the last two: Johns Hopkins and the Forbes editorial content. Bearian (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian Thank you for mentioning. Did you realise that Johns Hopkins Alumni Association cannot get the information without the subject being involved? She, as a matter of fact, will have to provide them with the details there, that is how it works; this thus fails WP:IRS. The Forbes has nothing usable, it is literally an empty page, and even if it has contents, it would still fail WP:INDEPENDENT because it is a self-published author page. So, I do not see how these two sources add a pinch of notability passage to the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The sources available in and outside the article do not prove that the subject is notable. Plus, the lead and Early life and education section have no sources, and none of the cited sources in the article support those details. I don’t want to assume anything shady is going on, so I’ll just assume good faith. Idoghor Melody (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - I was focused on what's not there (the usual suspects of content farms: see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nigeria/Nigerian_sources), as opposed to what's already there, but I've been convinced to lean the other way. There's still a nub of notability, but not significant enough coverage. A soft delete is probably in order. Bearian (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Looks like this doesn't quite pass notability, a working medical person, but not enough to be more notable than others in a similar position. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Lawrence C. Marsh (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)
Fails WP:GNG & Wp:nprof Sabirkir (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Economics. Sabirkir (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Two items with pretty good citation levels is below what I'm generally looking for in WP:NPROF. University-wide teaching awards do not contribute here. On the other hand, one book tends to fall under WP:BLP1E so far as WP:NAUTHOR goes; I did not anyway find reviews on a cursory search. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Indiana, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. For someone at this level of seniority, two well-cited publications (one a textbook) with the rest falling off steeply is below the bar for WP:PROF#C1, and nothing else in the article looks to contribute to notability. I did find one published review of the book, and hints that there might have been another by Garman in [24] (from which any book reviews are now missing), but even if I could find the second review it wouldn't be enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. To my mind a notable econometrician. His founding of/chairing of the Midwest Econometrics Group (MEG) is I think very notable within the US academic econometrics community and his role as the guest editor for a special edition of a highly prestigious econometrics journal - the Journal of Econometrics is important, as his work on Splines in ecmetrics via his book and papers ... and these seem to me together sufficient for notability. His published academic work in econometrics is very wide ranging....and I have used some if it in different contexts.... His later post-retirement books and media / opinion piece work seem to me less notable (but my bias is towards the academic side) and I don't know how notable his work as an independent Midwest Voices columnist on the Kansas City Star online edition might be from a journalistic point of view. (Msrasnw (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep The article has been expanded since its creation. The contributions made by Msrasnw, consisting of valuable content including his publications, serve to further establish the notability of the subject. Gedaali (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While he has (as mentioned above) a couple of well cited papers, the dropoff is fast and the total number of citations at 1359 is weak. His own page does not indicate anything notable except some prior students; notability is not inheritable from his prior students. I don't see indications that his book(s) have had an impact. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebecca Renner (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)
Bio of a one-book author that appears to fail notability guidelines for WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Single valid reference about this person is an announcement in a small college daily. The other refs provided are her PR agent, blogs, and several of her own bi-lined articles. All the remaining references cover the book, not the author. None of this is enough significant coverage to meet GNG. It seems there could be enough refs for a page about the book where a redirect might be appropriate. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately someone recently removed a review of her book from the references without explaining why. There is sufficient coverage of her work to justify this page. She is an author. Her work is the thing that matters. Who gives a fuck about where she was born or what her favourite colour is. What has she written and how has it been received is what is encyclopedic content. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- After another look at the edit history I am no longer able to support the keeping of this spam. Blow it away. Delete UPE spam, deny them their ill gotten gains. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: I think the more notable subject is her true crime work, but there seems to be enough individualized coverage to support an article on her. The Stenson article does not contribute to notability, so I have to make this a weak keep. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Has had one popular book, which received RS reviews. I do not find it on best seller lists. I just don't think a single successful book (but no awards) suffices. Lamona (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Multiple articles by major media organizations, including NPR, the Tampa Bay Times, and the Minnesota Star Tribune, qualify this article as notable due to the Wikipedia notability criteria of significant coverage by multiple sources. Orlando Davis (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- John Delony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no substantive RS coverage of the subject. The subject authored a "Wall Street Journal best-seller" but I'm not sure what that is and whether that meets WP:AUTHOR notability. The page was created by an editor who is creating lots of promotional pages for figures related to Dave Ramsey. Thenightaway (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ramsey Show is the second-most popular radio show in the US. The hosts are well known across the country and have their own podcasts that have large audiences (which you can see from their YouTube views). I created this article because Kamel's notoriety and place as a co-host on the show warranted it.
- What about this article sounded promotional? Was there too much biographical info? Are we not supposed to write that books are bestsellers? Are we not supposed to mention that certain recording artists have x amount of top 40 hits or that movies from a certain actor have made billions of dollars, for that matter? Because I've seen those in articles on this platform as well. What is the standard?
- I really want to know because I don't think this article deserves to be deleted. I'm happy to adjust to fit standards, and have attempted to do so in the past. But it seems like the "promotional" standard is based on a sliding scale.
- And I don't just edit Ramsey-related articles. I have edited and created articles on a variety of subjects from pop culture to music, American history, Disney, etc. Ramsey was just something where I saw a need and filled it. 2719Hyperion (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Ramsey Solutions and/or The Ramsey Show, not seeing anything which suggests that the topic is of stand alone notability. GNG is not met and I don't think that any of the SNG are either... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- On top of his two bestselling books and his role as a co-host on the second-most listened to radio show in the US, John Delony recently hit over one million subscribers on his YouTube page. I would argue that qualifies as notoriety, as only a relatively small percentage of YouTube pages hit that milestone.
- These standards seem to have a lot of inconsistencies. I have seen many biographical articles that are less in depth than Delony's and the tone is very similar. I can rewrite, eliminate the "promotional" language, and resubmit for review. I don't think this article should be deleted. 2719Hyperion (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- • Merge Proposal to merge with The Ramsey Show: After giving this some thought and after reviewing the GNG and SNG, I'm agreeing with this nomination. The Delony article should be merged with The Ramsey Show, as Delony is best known for being a co-host of the show. I will work on merging these articles by creating a section about the hosts on The Ramsey Show article. 2719Hyperion (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Ken Coleman (radio host) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no substantive RS coverage of the subject. The subject authored a "Wall Street Journal best-seller" but I'm not sure what that is and whether that meets WP:AUTHOR notability. The page was created by an editor who is creating lots of promotional pages for figures related to Dave Ramsey. Thenightaway (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ramsey Show is the second-most popular radio show in the US and the hosts are well known across the country and have their own podcasts that have big audiences (which you can see from their YouTube views). I created this article because Coleman's notoriety and place as a co-host on the show warranted it.
- What about this article sounded promotional? Was there too much biographical info? Are we not supposed to write that books are bestsellers? Are we not supposed to mention that certain recording artists have x amount of top 40 hits or that movies from a certain actor have made billions of dollars, for that matter? Because I've seen that on this platform as well. What is the standard?
- I really want to know because I don't think the article deserves to be deleted. I'm happy adjusting to fit standards, and have attempted to do so in the past.
- And I don't just edit Ramsey-related articles. I have edited and created articles on a variety of subjects from pop culture to Disney, music, etc. Ramsey was just something where I saw a need and filled it. 2719Hyperion (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not opposed to a redirect if it turns out that there isn't really anything to merge. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't merging these articles with The Ramsey Show article make the latter a bit large? And I have seen quite a few biographical articles that contain thinner information than Coleman's. Why are those okay?
- I can try and rewrite the article and resubmit for review. I don't think it warrants deletion. 2719Hyperion (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The Coleman article should not remain in mainspace because as a subject he fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. But there's a valid reason per WP:ATD to redirect to a notable topic he is associated with, and it will preserve the page history if Coleman becomes notable in the future. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- • Merge with The Ramsey Show: After giving this some thought and after reviewing the GNG and SNG, I'm agreeing with this nomination. The Coleman article should be merged with The Ramsey Show, as Coleman is best known for being a co-host of the show. I will work on merging these articles by creating a section about the hosts on The Ramsey Show article and submit the article for review. 2719Hyperion (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- George Kamel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no substantive RS coverage of the subject. There is nothing to indicate that they are notable. The page was created by an editor who is creating lots of promotional pages for figures related to Dave Ramsey. Thenightaway (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ramsey Show is the second-most popular radio show in the US. The hosts are well known across the country and have their own podcasts that have big audiences (which you can see from their YouTube views). I created this article because Kamel's notoriety and place as a co-host on the show warranted it.
- What about this article sounded promotional? Was there too much biographical info? Are we not supposed to write that books are bestsellers? Are we not supposed to mention that certain recording artists have x amount of top 40 hits or that movies from a certain actor have made billions of dollars, for that matter? Because I've seen those in articles on this platform as well. What is the standard?
- I really want to know because I don't think this article deserves to be deleted. I'm happy to adjust to fit standards, and have attempted to do so in the past. But it seems like the "promotional" standard is based on a sliding scale.
- And I don't just edit Ramsey-related articles. I have edited and created articles on a variety of subjects from pop culture to music, American history, Disney, etc. Ramsey was just something where I saw a need and filled it. 2719Hyperion (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- • Proposal to merge with The Ramsey Show: After giving this some thought and after reviewing the GNG and SNG, I'm agreeing with this nomination. The Kamel article should be merged with The Ramsey Show, as Kamel is best known for being a co-host of the show. I will work on merging these articles. 2719Hyperion (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Jerusalem Demsas (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)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Lacks direct and in-depth coverage in independent secondary sources. Self-auhtored articles are not enough to prove her notability. Gheus (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:
- Multiple references show significant, not trivial, coverage in independent secondary sources, discussing her early life (references 1-5), professional career and her views and contributions to the discussion of the housing crisis. An important notability factor (WP:AUTHOR) relies on the following: The person's work (or works) has won significant critical attention. Her book has received has significant critical attention, including book reviews in major sites including Vox and Bloomberg News (ref 9), which stated that Demsas "has distinguished herself within the supply-side camp." Her overall work has led to multiple high profile interviews, including on Bloomberg (ref. 9), NPR (ref. 11) and Ezra Klein's NYTimes interview (ref. 12), indicating her work has had significant attention. Per WP:NAUTHOR, references 8 & 9 show she is known for originating a significant new concept, further enhancing her notability. Included in the article were her opinions on the housing crisis; there is no Wikipedia injunction against discussing a subject's views. There is no Wikipedia injunction against using the subject's self-authored published works in reputable publications to verify the information presented. The references discussed above were used to verify Demsas' views, not to establish notability. And, only 4/23 references even fall within that purview. In brief: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (Wikipedia:Notability (people)). The article meets all criteria.
- I note that the first reviewer (Ipigott]) did not see a problem with this article, and later removed a tag stating that this article may not achieve notability, claiming that "del tag - no longer applicable." Mwinog2777 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This was because additional pertinent work had been carried out on the article.--Ipigott (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree that she meets WP:AUTHOR. A search of Newspapers.com shows a lot of columnists in other newspapers basing columns on articles by Demsas in The Atlantic and critiquing what she has written. So far I've found examples in The Indianapolis Star, The Herald-Palladium, Sun Journal (Lewiston, Maine), and The San Francisco Examiner, by 5 different columnists. I'll try to add them to the article. (Before searching, I had thought this might be a case of TOOSOON, as she joined The Atlantic only 3 years ago, in 2022. But it's clear that she very quickly had a big impact.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think added refs are examples of WP:SIGCOV. Quotes of her work in independent secondary sources are helpful to expand the article (and I'm thankful to you for doing this research), but there must be some coverage that is directly about her (preferably about her early life, education, career) to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree with you; check references 1, 3-5 and 7, particularly such reporting in reference 1.Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I'm not seeing the kind of coverage required to meet WP:NJOURNALIST. Some participants above are citing discussion of her work ([25], [26]) as WP:SIGCOV of her, which it's not (that's more of an WP:NACADEMIC criterion). These are mentions, not independent reviews of her body of work required to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Meanwhile, the Bits and Deets article should be deleted as an unreliable blog that scrapes personal info and aggregates it as SEO bait. The rest of the sources appear to be her own work or WP:INTERVIEWs. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:Interviews: "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." The multiple interviews listed were done by highly reputable outlets, including the New York Times and NPR. The interviews were presented as investigative journalism with the interview material often interspersed with the interviewer's own analysis and thoughts. Please review the interviews. She meets criteria for WP:NAUTHOR as there are multiple reviews of her book, her body of work, as it encompasses her previous columns and essays.Mwinog2777 (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The NYT interview is a podcast interview with Ezra Klein - a classic Q&A primary source interview with no editorial interpolation and no "investigative journalism". The so-called "NPR" interview is actually a PBS interview (these are not the same outlet) and again, it is a Q&A interview with Demsas. These are primary sources and do not count toward notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, mixed up PBS and NPR, my bad. But, disagree, both interviews had in-depth comments by interviewers, particularly the Ezra Klein, even with only a cursory glance.~~~ Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Took out original ref. 2 and added another re high school attended. Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Jessica Sarah Flaum (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)
Article has sources but not a single one treats the subject other than passing mentions of her as a member of a cast. A further search reveals only primary sources and a raft of social media entries. Fails both points of WP:NACTOR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fails both points of WP:NACTOR." according to the nominator? What points? How does she fail them if her roles are significant and the productions, notable? -Mushy Yank. 15:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Farouk Yousif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is only one secondary source on the subject which is below the minimum set in the notability guidelines for people set out in WP:BIO. Abolishedtemple (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeffrey Gitomer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am not sure if he is notable. Most of sources seem to be either primary or only tangentially related to him. I am unsure whether he meets WP:CREATIVE; points 3 and 4 are relevant. I am not sure if the attention he got was critical and whether his work has been covered in enough periodical articles. (I see [27], but not much more.) Even if The Little Red Book of Selling had made him notable, he would seem to be a bit too BLP1E-ish, as the rest of the coverage is more-or-less trivial or primary. Janhrach (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I see plenty of good sources. I remember the incident that lead to his being banned from the airline, so BLP1E doesn't apply. There are issues with the article, but they can be resolved through ordinary editing. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: Do you think he meets points 3 or 4 of WP:CREATIVE? I did not express that well, but WP:CREATIVE was intended to be the main point of my nom. I am willing to withdraw this nom if there is a convincing argument that he does. Janhrach (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think that he meets factor #3 as having written several related books. Bearian (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, but it also says that:
In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);
- I don't see
multiple independent periodical articles or reviews , but I haven't really done a thorough search. Like I have written, I have found [28], but the other articles I have found were blogs (or similar), not articles from periodicals. Janhrach (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (may return with !vote) This is a typical promotional article for someone whose main skill is promoting. He writes those books a friend of mine calls "business porn": which promise great wealth not unlike that of megachurch leaders. I removed some irrelevant promotional statements, but there are undoubtedly more. I am not sure that the speaking awards (e.g. "Certified Speaking Professional (CSP) Award") are of value because the organization appears to be a speakers' bureau. Two of the book awards (IPPY) are indeed awards but he is among other winners, in one case one of 66. A fairly snide article in Time magazine was used for one "cute" quote but ignored 4 paragraphs of negative review of his work. (I fixed some of that.) The reviews by Jack Covert seem to be in a personal blog, albeit a pretty ambitious one. His books have sold many copies, and I can see some presence in library collections. I confess that I have little regard for this category of output, along with all of the self-help books. I just thought I should be honest about my prejudice. Lamona (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He has had best-selling books although I do not find the two NY Times pages that are listed here. I do find a 2003 NYT best seller list for "paperback advice" books. It seems odd that an older list turns up in a search on his name but the two newer ones listed here do not. I cannot find anything that is independent to fill in his bio, other than being banned by an airline for bad behavior. The link to 800ceoread is a blog post on a book sales site. As I note above the various positive quotes were cherry-picked. Given the degree of PROMO and the lack of independent sources I tend to have doubts about the sources on the article that I cannot find. Lamona (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can only see various promotional interviews [29], that link is the best, but it's still not helpful as a Forbes contributor piece. Gbooks and Gscholar are only copies of his various books. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|
FA
A
GA
