- Robert Rosen (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)
Cannot find much anything notable in google search. The current sourcing on article is shakey and not WP:RELIABLE as well. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Kyra Belan (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 an artist, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NARTIST. The attempted notability claim here is that her art has been exhibited, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- notability on that basis doesn't derive from the list of gallery shows, it derives from the use of reliable source coverage and analysis about the gallery shows, such as reviews of her shows by professional art critics in newspapers or magazines or books to establish that the shows were seen as significant by somebody other than her own public relations agent. But this is referenced entirely to sources self-published by Belan herself and/or the affiliated galleries, with absolutely not one reliable or GNG-building source shown at all. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access than I've got to archived US media coverage can find more than I've been able to, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The nomination is detailed and accurate. In an online BEFORE search, I was unable to verify any of the museum permanent collections except for what her resume says on her own website. Mostly what I found while searching was user-submitted content or things she had written herself or blog/social media mentions. No reviews in notable art publications that would be expected of a notable artist, and most of the exhibition venues are pay-to-play. The subject of the article does not meet GNG, NARTIST, nor ANYBIO. Netherzone (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dan Ouellette (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)
Lack of Notability as proposed by another user. Creating discussion here Dac04 (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick Sullivan (author) (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)
Something is going on with Sullivans notability; either he's barely notable, or he's not notable at all. The sources in the article are questionable at best, the sources found on Google/DuckDuckGo similarly leave something to be desired. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Terry Mixon (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 subject fails to meet WP:NAUTHOR. A search for information on the subject, or his books, shows minimal results and no noteworthy reviews or coverage, failing WP:SIGCOV. The tone is overall promotional and relies entirely on primary sources. Vegantics (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Vegantics (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Vegantics (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Military, and Spaceflight. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Looking at his webpage, his books seemed like they're primarily published through Amazon, which doesn't bode well for notability. His podcast was a finalist for an award, but I can't find other information. Ping if anything is found. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- per nomination. Nothing to indicate that this individual is notable.Ratnahastin (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Kingsley Okonkwo (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)
An article about a "family life and relationship coach, TV personality, and author" sourced entirely to shady pieces. While most of the publications are reliable on their own, the pieces sourced to are either unreliable, of the subject's opinion, run of the mill coverages or vanispamcruft. It's either the subject is publishing their opinion or it's an unreliable "things you need to know about X" piece. Nothing to confer inherent notability here either. Fails WP:GNG over all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Jordan Halliday (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 of article is not notable, sources cited show that they were sent to jail for a contempt of court charge and a misdemeanor picketing charge. Article is very WP:PROMO and not WP:NPOV. I did WP:BEFORE and he mentioned briefly in a three books one of them is a published that only publishes material on veganism and animal rights. The mentions were not in-depth from what I could tell. There is a section about his writing but none of the material would qualify under WP:NAUTHOR Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also article was PRODed so that's why I brought it here to AfD. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Animal, Crime, Politics, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was considering bringing this article to AfD for the same reasons. Mccapra (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is shocking how much of this article is cited to self-published and social media sources like Tumblr, Myspace, Facebook, etc. A cursory search on Google Scholar doesn't show any significant coverage in reliable sources, with most mentions being passing references in lists of sentences against animal rights and environmentalist activists. Perhaps there's a redirect target, but I'm not seeing one right now. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @AnimalRightsArchivist, can you share the sources here that you mentioned in User talk:Explicit#Request to Reconsider the Deletion of the Jordan Halliday Wikipedia Article? Editors will be looking for the three best reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover the subject in depth, i.e., academic and professional journalist sources, no blogs, user-generated content. czar 12:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @AnimalRightsArchivist if you think there are some materials that are offline that would be helpful we could also send this article to draft which would give you some time to gather everything needed. For example I use the Internet Archive for a lot of sourcing but it's been offline for a few days, but you also might know of sources in magazines or books that aren't available online. I know that some of the books I noticed his name in were from really small presses so they might not have everything scanned online. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for linking us together @Czar. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Akhtar Usman (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 BLP was created in the main namespace and later draftified by Maliner. The creator then submitted it for review, but later unilaterally moved the BLP back to the main namespace, to avoid AFC review process. So I feel compelled to take this to AFD so the community can decide whether it should remain or be deleted. IMO, it fails both GNG and NAUTHOR, as none of the works are notable enough. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yusra Amjad (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 is an interview, and this is a one-line coverage. There are a few other mentions and self-authored articles, but there is no independent coverage about her. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Daisuke Tsuda (YouTuber) (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:NPEOPLE Paradoctor (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. Paradoctor (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Appears to fail the notability guidelines for WP:NPEOPLE. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr.Tsuda is a prominent figure in Japan's internet scene, with over 20 years of experience. From the early days of Twitter Japan's service, he has engaged in various activities as a "media activist(a term he coined)", creating the buzzword "tsuda-ru". He served as a forum committee member for Asahi Shimbun, one of Japan's leading quality media outlets, from 2015 to 2019, and in 2019, he was the artistic director for the Aichi Triennale, an arts festival organized by Aichi Prefecture, establishing himself as a significant presence in the public discourse. His activities have been recognized by public institutions, having been appointed as a member of various government councils and positions in the aforementioned Aichi Prefecture events. Since 2020, he has shifted his focus to his self-established YouTube channel, "POLITAS TV", where he operates as a political opinion YouTuber, engaging in a range of discourse activities. Therefore, he should not be deleted. MihariHarukaze (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Please point to the independent sources that show him being "a prominent figure in Japan's internet scene". Geschichte (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Follower Count on X (formerly Twitter): As of October 9, 2024, Tsuda's X account has 1.466 million followers, ranking among the top influencers in Japan. For comparison, the Prime Minister of Japan, Shigeru Ishiba, has 418,000 followers (Shigeru Ishiba X account), and the left-wing journalist Isoko Mochizuki, known as the model for the Netflix global series "The Journalist", has 319,000 followers (Isoko Mochizuki X account). This shows that Tsuda is one of Japan’s leading left-wing influencers (Daisuke Tsuda X account).
- Official Profile: According to a 2017 profile published by the public relations department of Aichi Prefecture, Tsuda has been active as an internet expert since the 2000s and has appeared in various mass media outlets. He has authored several books on the internet and has held positions as a professor at higher education institutions and as a member of various government committees (Aichi Prefecture PR Document).
- Asahi Shimbun Opinion Committee Member: Tsuda served as a member of the opinion committee for Asahi Shimbun, one of Japan's leading quality media outlets, highlighting his recognition in the world of public discourse (Asahi Shimbun Daisuke Tsuda Opinion).
- Mention in Ryukyu Shimpo: In 2018, Tsuda was listed as one of the "famous people (著名人)" in an article by Ryukyu Shimpo, Okinawa’s leading regional newspaper, indicating his influence is acknowledged even in regional media (Ryukyu Shimpo).
- Artistic Director of Aichi Triennale: In 2019, Tsuda served as the artistic director of the Aichi Triennale, an arts festival hosted by Aichi Prefecture. This event was sponsored by global corporations headquartered in Aichi Prefecture, such as Toyota Motor Corporation, further demonstrating Tsuda's public activities and societal recognition. (Aichi Prefecture Document, Triennale Report)
- This evidence shows that Tsuda is not only an expert on internet issues but also a well-known figure with influence across multiple fields. MihariHarukaze (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, have you read WP:NPEOPLE? If not, please do now. While you're at it, you may find Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia? instructive.
- BTW, that "Official Profile" you mentioned? That's a one-page chronological list of Tsuda's contributions, basically what you'd find as part of a CV. That's not significant coverage in accord with NPEOPLE. Paradoctor (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Selected as a Young Global Leader (2013): In 2013, Tsuda was selected as one of the “Young Global Leaders Honourees” by the World Economic Forum in Davos. (The selection list is available here)
- Appeared in FOX News (2010): In June 2010, Tsuda appeared as an expert in an Associated Press's article titled "Twitter a hit in Japan as 'mumbling' tweeters give micro-blogging a distinctly Japanese flavor", which was featured on FOX News. (The FOX News article is available here)
- Controversy at Aichi Triennale 2019: In 2019, Tsuda served as the artistic director of Aichi Triennale 2019, which featured works such as a piece that involved burning an image of Emperor Hirohito and a statue symbolizing "comfort women". This exhibition sparked nationwide protests, with critics labeling it "disrespectful" toward the Emperor. The controversy received extensive media coverage, and Takashi Kawamura, the Mayor of Nagoya, staged a sit-in protest in opposition to the exhibition's content. The matter was also discussed in the Japanese parliament, leading to a prolonged national debate. Tsuda faced widespread criticism from various sectors. (NHK article, Mainichi article)
- Keynote Speech at "Critics in Residence @KYOTO EXPERIMENT 2024": On October 8, 2024, Tsuda delivered the keynote speech at the "Critics in Residence @KYOTO EXPERIMENT 2024”, hosted by the Delegation of the European Union to Japan. The event's introduction describes him as "widely known for his critical writing about recent shifts in the Japanese and international media environment as well as for establishing his own platforms for independent journalism".
- Cited in Google Scholar: A search for "Daisuke Tsuda Media Journalism" on Google Scholar reveals numerous academic papers citing Tsuda, showcasing his influence in the field of media and journalism. (Google Scholar search results)
- Appearances on NHK Programs: A search for "津田大介" of NHK’s program database reveals that Tsuda has frequently appeared as an expert on various programs. (NHK Archives search results)
- Mentions in CiNii: A search for "津田大介" on CiNii, the academic database operated by Japan's National Institute of Informatics, shows several articles related to media, internet, and journalism that mention Tsuda, aside from mentions of researchers with the same name. (CiNii Research search results)
- Featured in Major Japanese Newspapers: A search for "津田大介" in Japan's three major newspapers (The Asahi Shimbun, The Nikkei, and Sankei News) reveals that Tsuda has appeared in numerous articles, excluding those concerning a Dentsu employee with the same name. (The Asahi Shimbun search results, The Nikkei search results, Sankei News search results)
- MihariHarukaze (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I tired a .jp website search, nothing comes up. This in a Korean paper [18] briefly mentions this person. Likely more in Japanese sources? I don't know. Oaktree b (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In today's Asahi Shimbun Digital article titled "How did you view the party leaders' debate before the snap dissolution? With Daisuke Tsuda and Seiko Mimaki (スピード解散前の党首討論、どう見た? 津田大介さんと三牧聖子さん)", Tsuda appears as one of the experts. While there are differing opinions about Tsuda’s political views and activities, it is undeniable that he is a well-known public figure. MihariHarukaze (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We require articles about him, not just him speaking on a particular subject, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NPEOPLE:
"Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary. Paradoctor (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- (Reading the Wind) "If You Want to Exhibit the Comfort Woman Statue" - Editor-in-Chief Masato Inui (Source: Sankei Shimbun, August 6, 2019) Link to article
- Event Exhibiting Comfort Woman Statue in Aichi: Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga States "We Will Carefully Examine the Facts and Respond Appropriately" (Source: Sankei Shimbun, August 2, 2019) Link to article
- Daisuke Tsuda Apologizes: "The Situation Exceeded Our Expectations. I Take Full Responsibility." (Source: Asahi Shimbun, August 3, 2019) Link to article
- The Year of Survival for News Apps: What Will Determine the Winners and Losers (Source: The Nikkei, January 9, 2015) Link to article
- "No System in Place to Prevent the Director’s Judgment Errors" – Final Report on the Aichi Triennale (Source: The Nikkei, December 18, 2019) Link to article
- MihariHarukaze (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephen Harrison (author) (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)
As much as I think Harrison's writing about Wikipedia is insightful, I simply don't think he passes WP:NJOURNALIST. He's not really been the subject of significant coverage. I don't think interviews or reviews of his books in student newspapers (Student Life) are sigcov. The Fix interview might be significant coverage, but I am unfamiliar with the publication. 1A is a podcast interview, which I don't think counts for notability. The Salon, Slate and HuffPost links are just to his journalism and obviously don't count. The New America link is the description of an event that Harrison was participating in, and I don't think its sigcov either. The WashU entry is a "look what one of our alumni is up to" post and therefore it's not independent or sigcov. The Yahoo interview is part of the Yahoo for Creators program, which has an unclear level of editorial control from Yahoo itself, and may be published with little editorial oversight like WP:FORBESCON, but I'm not sure, and I think its status as significant coverage is questionable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Kate Conger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
not notable person; I've read all the references and found no one that would address the subject independently and with a big attention. NYTIMES has its own announcement that it fairly nor deep, nor independent as they announced that Kate joined them. Qab Bi Av (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- She's the co-author of a newly released book that addresses Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter that itself has been covered by CNN, Washington Post, MSNBC. She and co-author Ryan Mac have appeared on multiple TV outlets to promote their work. Her work as a technology beat reporter speaks for itself. Chammyboy (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Easy keep, [19] and [20]. This, in addition to everything else, is at notability Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: User:Qab Bi Av, please review the guidelines at WP:BEFORE - before nominating an article for deletion, you should not just check the current sources but also "search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" and "try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page". Agree with User:Oaktree b that WP:AUTHOR is the relevant standard, and that she meets criteria #3 - her recent book is the "primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", including a starred review in Kirkus, Washington Post, The Guardian, another review in The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, and The New Statesman. She also meets criteria #1 - her work as a journalist is widely cited. There are a lot of Google Books results for her name. In Google Scholar, searching for her shows a significant number of citations to her articles (examples: 188 citations, 51, 56). Dreamyshade (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject passes WP:NAUTHOR with their new book, I've added two reviews one from the LA Times and the other from the Guardian. Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This is a pretty easy keep - Conger's been a New York Times reporter for years with controversial and popular articles such as [24] and [25]. In terms of WP:NOTABILITY, she was "She was the first to publish the controversial memo from the then-Google employee James Damore on perceived gender differences."[26][27]. That work was highly cited for the Google Memo. In addition, her work is on syllabi at Stanford University[28] and City University of New York[29]. RubyEmpress (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP User:Qab Bi Av EASY KEEP. Chammyboy (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I would argue that yes, she is a notable person. She is a published author and prominent journalist. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- List of mahoran writers (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)
Unreliable sources, and nearly all of the individuals on this list are not notable. Plasticwonder (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yihua Zheng (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)
Nothing to indicate that WP:NPROF is met, nor WP:BASIC. A WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing. Was draftified for a chance to develop it, but instead it was moved back to mainspace with no changes. bonadea contributions talk 17:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence at all of notability. Deb (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see high-enough citation counts for WP:PROF#C1. Most of the sources are deadlinks; the "new breed", IEEE Xplore, and "Space Physics and Space Weather Scientist" ones are live, but non-independent (the first and third were written by her employer and the second is just a self-written author profile). So we do not have the independent and in-depth coverage needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, China, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Her name is too common,and someone else has got the Google Scholar entry. She is starting to get some attention with moderately cited papers, and counting by hand I make her h-factor to be 15-17 in a medium citation area. That is not quite enough for me, it is WP:TOOSOON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mary Childs (journalist) (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)
Does not meet WP:BASIC. The New York Times source, a book review, is the only secondary and independent source and it doesn't quite show notability for the book – and not at all for its author. bonadea contributions talk 17:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bob Connolly (Canadian film director) (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)
Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker, not properly referencing any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers. The attempted notability claim here is that his work exists, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- we would need to see some evidence of distinction, such as notable awards and/or WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about him and his work in media and/or books. But this is referenced entirely to primary sources self-published by people or organizations directly affiliated with the statements they're referencing, which is not support for notability, and the article claims absolutely nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable without better sourcing for it than this. Further, there are no inbound links here from any other page in Wikipedia but the disambiguation page at Bob Connolly, and this appears to be a conflict of interest as the creator (who created it in 2013 and has occasionally returned to edit the article as recently as August 2024) appears to have self-identified as Bob Connolly in past posts to Talk:Lee Aaron, but even people who do properly pass our notability and sourcing standards still aren't entitled to write or curate their own articles themselves. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Joan_Murray_(art_historian) (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 page was created by the subject, in an extremely self-laudatory tone that has since partially been repaired.
The sources are also extremely poor. The subject's coverage in the sources is either A. Not significant (i.e. the National Post article that literally just has a single line about her, the Macleans article that has merely 3 sentences about her book, or the Edmonton Journal article that reviews many books and only mentions Murray's books for a few paragraphs) B. Not reliable (not editorially neutral as in the example of the U of T award announcements) C. Not secondary (i.e. the multiple databases linked) D. Independent of the subject (three of the sources are authored by the subject, including her personal website).
The only sources that remain are a couple of decades-old newspaper clippings that support only a few sentences of the article.
It is clear that there aren't sufficient sources to write a fleshed-out article about her, and the only reason the article exists at all is because it was created by the subject herself with virtually no sources. It is obvious that the article was written with first-hand knowledge, only for the sources to try and retroactively justify what was written, when in fact very little of what is written in the article is contained in the sources.
Based on this, I propose deletion of the article. Andrew6111 (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Unless anyone can prove the content of the article is completely fabricated, she's obviously going to pass our notability guidelines: she's in the Royal Society of Canada, she has the Order of Ontario, and she's written a pile of books. I can go digging for sources later, but this one is really, really clear on its face. -- asilvering (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Have to dig a bit, but she seems to be the go-to for Thom Thompson biographies/knowlege. [30], [31], [32]. This is one of her papers [33] and a few book reviews for works she's published [34], [35]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a book review for "A Treasury of Tom Thompson" [36], if it helps. Oaktree b (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Clearly notable, has multiple books which have reviews on both Google Scholar and Newspaper.com Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It is true that this was a COI creation (autobiography) which is strongly frowned upon but not forbidden, however the subject is indeed notable, and the article should be retained because it has encyclopedic and historical value. I helped to clean up some of the more obvious indications of COI/AUTOBIO like puffery, and also some copyvios, close paraphrasing, and original research, however it was quite clear to me during clean up and in a BEFORE search that Murray is notable per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC, and based on the awards and honors she has received, also meets WP:ANYBIO. The sourcing can be improved but that is not a reason to delete. Netherzone (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This one seems like a pretty obvious choice. You can't just go making a page for yourself just because you feel like it, especially to promote your own books. Ninjafusion (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Insufficient independent coverage in secondary sources to justify notability. Significant and in-depth secondary coverage is a requirement of GNG and this doesn't meet the bar. Coverage is either very shallow (i.e., only a couple sentences is wider article), primary, or clearly not neutral. Gbaby99 (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear as more discussion rolls in, I am not questioning her notability here. I am questioning the sources. No matter her awards or books, there are extremely few reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. There are essentially 3 book reviews plus a newspaper clipping that pass that bar. I tried re-writing the article only using the information in those articles, which can serve as an alternative to deletion, but it was rolled back pending this AfD. Andrew6111 (talk)
- Keep: No argument that the origins of the page are dubious, but the COI has been addressed. I note that the editors with conflicts have not touched the page in over a year. I am weighing in here with my perspective as an editor with in depth knowledge of Canadian art and art history to note that can be a challenge to find secondary source writing about curators, particularly in Canada. Doesn't mean they're not notable. Doesn't mean that there's a benefit to stripping out citations from the article, either - I can't see that as an improvement. the artchivist (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Asilvering.--Ipigott (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep entry about notable subject ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't see stripping out citations that violate Wikipedia's standards of sourcing as an improvement? There are articles that are plainly trivial mentions, there are subject-authored sources, there are sources that fail verification, there are sources that are editorially biased. Those are unacceptable. Andrew6111 (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Harish S. Mehta (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 is a WP:PROMO, fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. WP:NOTRESUME. Charlie (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Charlie (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:subject has significant coverage to meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO and the company, NASSCOM they founded is notable Tesleemah (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC) 05:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tesleemah At the moment, there are no reliable sources on Google News that covers him significantly, and independently. You are welcome to update the page and make it qualify as per WP:HEYMAN. But, please avoid using interviews or self-quotations. Charlie (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You could have updated the page if you agree it could be improved to meet WP:HEYMANTesleemah (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, you were not able to comprehend my statement. Charlie (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Tesleemah, for good or ill, the burden falls on editors wanting to Keep the article to bring reliable sources to the article or to the AFD discussion. Just saying that good sources exist carries no weight at all if you don't provide evidence of what they are. Other editors are not responsible for finding evidence to support your argument. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright @Liz Tesleemah (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Gujarat, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Vitthal Ramji Shinde (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)
Promotional. The references don't add to the notability Gauravs 51 (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: At the time of nomination, the article was partially hijacked to be about someone from Nigeria rather than the actual Indian subject. I get the impression that the nominator is challenging the notability of the correct subject as well (even that has been tagged as promotional since 2022), but I wanted to note the even-more-promotional hijacking — which I have reverted — that might have prompted the AfD. (I have no opinion or further comment.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, Hinduism, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A quick google books search [37] shows numerous sources. No indication of WP:BEFORE from the nominator. I see no issue with notability here. ResonantDistortion 09:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep book length biographies of the subject (eg M. S. Gore "Vitthal Ramji Shinde, an Assessment of His Contributions" Tata Institute of Social Sciences, 1990). AGF regarding the nomination; "hijacking" explanation seems plausible. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Shalini Govil-Pai (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 individual. Refbombed primary sourced spam that screams of UPE. Lacks independent coverage about her. Awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Article can be converted into stub as the profile is notable in terms of a C-tech level Google and Android personnel at a significant position. Chris.lee auth (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Chris.lee auth (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As can be assessed through the WP:N guidelines and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, these are some major third party reliable platforms that mention Shalini as a potential figure in tech industry.
- 1. https://events.variety.com/EntertainmentTechnology/speaker/861637/shalini-govil-pai
- 2. https://variety.com/2022/digital/entertainment-industry/ariety-winter-entertainment-summit-industry-future-1235162396/
- 3. https://markets.ft.com/data/announce/detail?dockey=1323-16608055-43IJTLORKTH168VQH8G4GJ9HI6
- 4. https://www.thewrap.com/ai-debate-thegrill-2024-google-fox-usc/
- 5. https://news.engr.psu.edu/2022/2022-oea-shalini-govil-pai.aspx
- 6. https://www.psu.edu/news/engineering/story/eleven-alumni-receive-college-engineerings-highest-honor
- 7. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/seven-prominent-indian-origin-it-industry-women-in-us/shalini-govil-pai/slideshow/20459472.cms
- Maverickbl (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Maverickbl, it's rather remarkable that your 23rd edit in less than a week as a Wikipedia user is to an AfD discussion! It's not common for new users to find their way here that quickly. That said, you do not appear to understand how the sourcing requirements work for GNG.
- Variety is not covering Govil-Pai independently, it's promoting one of its own events at which she spoke.
- The Financial Times article is not actual journalism by the FT; it's a required public posting from YouGov and is thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.
- As with Variety, The Wrap is promoting one of its events, not providing independent coverage.
- Penn State is not an independent source; Govil-Pai is an alumna and they are promoting her affiliation with them through this award.
- The Economic Times article is a single two-paragraph mention of Govil-Pai in a list of other people. Setting aside the WP:NEWSORGINDIA problems, it's certainly not WP:SIGCOV of Govil-Pai.
- Hope this helps. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Swamini Brahmaprajnananda Saraswati (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 of this BLP does not meet WP:NBIO, WP:NAUTHOR, nor the WP:GNG. The article was drafted by someone who has a suspect COI but the author has been banned for sockpuppetry, notably for removing maintenance tags. An IP user on my talk page has acknowledged that there isn't even very much published information on the subject. Combined with my BEFORE, I'm not seeing anything that meets our notability requirements for this article that appears to be masquerading as an advertisement. Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I’d like to add my voice in favor of keeping Swamini Brahmaprajnananda Saraswati’s page. Her influence spans across continents, and her teachings on Vedanta have touched the lives of so many people, myself included. While the page might need some edits (and we are working on that), the information is valuable and represents someone who is genuinely notable in the spiritual community. A lot of us are actively contributing to improve the page to meet Wikipedia’s standards, and removing it now would erase a key resource that many find helpful in discovering a true Vedanta guru. I hope this article can be preserved and refined, not deleted. [added this earlier in the talk section] 212.138.196.2 (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This person is notable for her scholarly research in the field of psychology. She is at the forefront identifying similarities/dissimilarities between Western psychology and psychological principles and psychology inherent in classic Indian texts such as the Bhagavad Gita. Her soon to be published PhD dissertation addresses this topic in a unique way. A similar person who does have a Wikipedia page is Professor Rambachan. It is important for Wikipedia to present balanced opinions on major topics such as psychology.Leaving her page in place will allow for contrasting views and opinions from the dominant existing framework.Eoddleifson (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC) — Eoddleifson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I respectfully oppose the deletion of this page for the following reasons:
- Notability: Swamini Brahmaprajnananda Saraswati holds a significant position in the spiritual community and has made contributions that are noteworthy within her field. She is a respected figure in the Parampara, and her work, including published writings and teachings, is relevant to a wide audience. Her influence goes beyond individual students and impacts the larger community of spiritual seekers in India and internationally.
- Presence of Reliable Sources: While the page may need further citations, there are multiple reliable sources that can validate her notability. These sources include books, publications, and notable mentions in relevant forums. Her contributions to spiritual teachings and involvement in community services have been acknowledged in respected publications. We will continue improving the citations to comply with Wikipedia's verifiability and notability guidelines.
- As an example, her work can be seen in comparison with other Swamis and Swaminis in the Parampara who have established Wikipedia pages (e.g., Swamini Atmaprajnananda Saraswati).
- Additionally, published materials such as her books and teachings, and references to her in newspapers and online platforms, validate her presence and importance in the field of spiritual education.
- Ongoing Efforts to Improve the Page: The page has already been edited to align with Wikipedia's guidelines, including improvements made to ensure neutrality and adherence to notability criteria. We are open to further editing to meet any specific concerns raised by editors. This includes adding more reliable secondary sources and ensuring that the content follows a neutral point of view.
- I request that this page be given more time for improvements and not be deleted hastily. I believe that with the support of the community, we can ensure that this page meets Wikipedia’s standards. 50.245.102.135 (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Arguments actually based in policy would be quite helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear, strongly vote to keep the page. On the notability criterion
- a. She has additions to research on psychology and Vedanta. Her papers are are published in various offline and online journals. Link - https://www.academia.edu/38993865
- b. Her authored and published book on Vedanta has helped multiple students/seekers with raving reviews. Book link - https://amzn.in/d/5V1rdGC
- c. She recently was honoured with a doctorate degree (PhD) and her study research thesis is up for publication into a book.
- d. She was recently invited by Rick Archer as well for a freewheeling conversation at the acclaimed BATGAP podcast where only select spirituality awakened people are invited. Link - https://youtube.com/watch?v=pgVMzyIpVfQ
- Strongly advise to keep the page for many people who benefit from her works. 2.48.241.175 (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I don't find anything in Gscholar, this person doesn't pass academic notability. There are some mentions in GBooks by they talk about the teachings than about the individual... The only green source per Source Highlighter is 16 in the Hindu. Beyond that, there isn't much left for sourcing in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dejan Crnomarković (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)
Rejected draft. The included sources are of poor quality, and I couldn't find any others on Google. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Lilia Tarawa (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 only notable in regards to Gloriavale. Most of the stuff not in regards to Gloriavale are from promotional pieces and Tarawa herself. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Most of the sources are neither reliable nor independent. They are full of primary sources written by the subject or from unreliable blogs. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's enough here to show GNG. She's written a book that Martin van Beynen has called "bestselling". It created a lot of publicity, for example, John Campbell interviewed her for 10 min on Radio New Zealand. She gets keynote speaking slots and, whilst that's nothing unusual, it is unusual when Stuff reports on that. She's been invited to give a talk at TEDxChristchurch and it takes quite something to get invited to TEDx. The pieces by Kurt Bayer (NZHerald; based in Christchurch), Eleanor Black (Stuff), and Now to Love (which belongs to Are Media) go into plenty enough depth to fulfil the criteria of three independent reliable sources. And all those sources are in the article already. All up, that's an easy keep. Schwede66 04:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The Waikato Times piece is a promotional piece for the business awards. The Now to Love piece is just her interview with Women's Daily. The other Stuff piece is also a promotional piece.
- This is the same for most of the refs, they're either promo pieces or interviews about Gloriavale. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep plenty of media coverage from reliable outlets here to establish GNG. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a lot of media coverage but it is promotional/non-independent.
- Refs 1-4 are Tarawa herself, they shouldn't be used in the article except in limited aboutself uses, let alone go to notability.
- Ref 5, supplied piece from the festival she appeared at.
- Ref 6, women's day interview
- Ref 7 is about Cooper's conviction and just drops a promotion for her book in it... which is odd. Bit of coverage here but not much and it is still in relation to Gloriavale.
- Ref 8 same coverage but more blatantly promotional this time
- Refs 9 and 10 have the exact same wording as refs 7 and 8 which makes me believe this is some promotional thing sent out to papers, that or they just simply copied the Herald, either way the refs adds nothing to notability.
- Ref 11 is a promotional piece.
- Ref 12 is a promotional interview
- Ref 13 is an interview
- Ref 14 is another interview that involves promoting the book
- Refs 15-16 are reprints of Herald refs mentioned earlier
- Ref 17 uses same wording as the other promotional pieces
- Ref 18 is a promotional interview
- Ref 19 is a promotional interview from women's day and the same ref as 6.
- Ref 20 isn't promotional or an interview but very brief coverage (3 lines) as part of her grandfather's death
- Ref 21 is an interview
- Ref 22 is from Tarawa herself
- Ref 23 is a promotional piece for the Matamata business awards
- Ref 24 is a broken url but it is a very brief interview
- Refs 25-27 are interviews
- Ref 28 is promotional
- Ref 29 opinion piece and it provides little coverage anyhow
- Ref 30 is brief coverage of the book
- Ref 31 is dead but appears to be a blog from an unreliable source
- Ref 32 is about someone else's death
- Ref 33 is the exact same as ref 32.
- Ref 34 is the same as 9, 9 is presumably a reprint of it. Contains the exact same sentences used in the other promotional pieces
- Ref 35 is about Gloriavale but suddenly just drops in the same promotional content about Tarawa's book seen before.
- Ref 36 is a radio interview, not even an RS.
- Ref 37 is a podcast interview.
- Ref 38 is a promotional piece for some event she was invited to
- Ref 39 is another piece on Gloriavale that just suddenly includes the same promotional content as else where, it is really odd and I cannot see a reason for it other than being sponsored/paid for it
- So yes, there is a lot of media coverage, but little of it is independent, most of it is from the same source, and plenty of it is promotional. The fact that two identical articles are used as a reference right after each other just looks like COI/Paid editing with refbombing so it looks notable. The user who wrote most of this article is now blocked for copyvios but from looking at his contributions I think he may have been a paid editor. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Schwede66.-Gadfium (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, or maybe easier, rescope (retitle) the article to represent coverage of her book. [On reflection, “delete” doesn’t accurately represent my opinion, and I am neutral. 23:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)] None of the sources appear to be doing any fact-checking, and are covering her story as though it were independent reporting, so functionally what they are covering is her story, and most closely her book. Ultimately, media coverage of her herself most resembles something like coverage WP:VICTIM, where as an individual she isn’t that notable, but for the fact that she was the centre of some event, and then wrote it all down and sold the story. Reading that guideline: Outside of her book, or her story, obviously there isn’t some higher-level event-centred article to incorporate her into, and so if we are to just keep the article as is (not an absolutely awful outcome, per my “weak” !vote), her testimony, which should have lead to an article about her own life and experiences, just becomes a page about her. Not optimal, given how much we have to rely on her as primary sourcing, but there is clearly secondary reporting on her talking about her story/book. — HTGS (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Jason Emer (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)
1. It was moved from draft space to article space before it was reviewed and made live by the creator of the page
2. It was moved to draft space by other editors due to promotional tone, it seemed as it was written by someone closely connected to the subject
3. It was proposed for deletion and the final decision was to keep. However, the keep voters: 1 was a new account created just for this debate only (seems like it and it was an open IP, one was an editor banned for sock-puppetry)
4. There is someone constantly removing a section that is a bit negative about the subject
All this makes me believe that this page is being managed by someone closely connected to the subject. Additionally, i don't believe the subject is notable and most of the references are PRs and he is constantly self-promoting on the internet.
WikiProCreate (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 17. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 14:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Appears to be a celebrity plastic surgeon [38], [39], [40]. I'm not sure any of these show notability. Discussion in AfD last time was also questioning the Academic notability, noting that 1000 citations was rather low for his field. I don't see that much has changed since the last AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: He's been investigated by a few regulatory bodies [41], which doesn't affect notability. This information has been added/removed, suggesting this page is being actively curated by editors, likely for promo purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, California, Illinois, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|