Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,450,020 edits
Line 8: Line 8:
==Authors==
==Authors==
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moises Lino e Silva (3rd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Brown (author)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Brown (author)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fred_Bronson}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fred_Bronson}}

Revision as of 14:47, 23 June 2023

Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Authors. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Authors|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Authors. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

For the general policy on the inclusion of individual people in Wikipedia, see WP:BIO.


Authors

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 delete‎. The title will also be protected against further re-creation due to multiple previous deletions and the apparent abuse of multiple accounts in the process. RL0919 (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moises Lino e Silva

AfDs for this article:
Moises Lino e Silva (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 article is almost entirely based on a single primary source (a book the author published). A Google search yields social media and college profiles, and the book that our article mentions. Doesn't seem to agree with WP:N. Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article has been built since 2018. The author is an important academic in his field. He has delivered talks and had his work reviewed in the most prestigious institutions around the world. See some examples below:
Here Moises Lino e Silva can be seen in dialogue with the very famous theorist Jack Halberstam: https://www.socialdifference.columbia.edu/events-1/2023/5/25/queer-aqui-together-in-hard-times-rio-de-janeiro
MASP is the most prestigous museum of art in Brazil: https://masp.org.br/palestras/arte-religiao-e-ecologia-na-floresta-sagrada-de-oxum-nigeria
Talk at the oldest Swedish university: https://www.engagingvulnerability.se/seminars-spring2023/
Talk at the one of the most prestigious universities in the UK: https://www.instagram.com/p/CrA_y4PO8fv/?img_index=1
Otherwise, he is the author of several other works and articles, including some in partnership with Harvard University: https://www.routledge.com/Freedom-in-Practice-Governance-Autonomy-and-Liberty-in-the-Everyday/Silva-Wardle/p/book/9780367873325 2804:7F7:A140:8A63:B0D4:4990:FB2:EC63 (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/event/sacred-groves-secret-parks-orisha-landscapes-in-brazil-and-west-africa/
A recent article in the general Brazilian press highlights the importance of his work: https://queer.ig.com.br/2023-04-19/como-e-ser-lgbtqia--nas-favelas.html 2804:7F7:A140:8A63:B0D4:4990:FB2:EC63 (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The University of Chicago Press is among the most prestigious academic presses in the world in anthropology. 2804:7F7:A140:8A63:B0D4:4990:FB2:EC63 (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The book in question has been reviewed by DRCLAS/Harvard: https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/a-review-of-minoritarian-liberalism-a-travesti-life-in-a-brazilian-favela/ 2804:7F7:A140:8A63:B0D4:4990:FB2:EC63 (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your arguments are mostly not based on the actual applicable policies and guidelines, namely WP:N and WP:NACADEMIC. I will address them one by one:
  • The age of the article is not relevant for determining notability.
  • YouTube is WP:UGC and not a suitable source for establishing notability. This is also a WP:PRIMARY source.
  • The MASP source does not provide in-depth coverage of the individual, it only lists him as the speaker at an event. Arguably also WP:PRIMARY.
  • The same applies for the EV source.
  • Instagram is WP:UGC and not appropriate for establishing notability.
  • "Partnership with Harvard University" does not establish notability; notability is not WP:INHERITED by association. The same applies to association with the University of Chicago Press.
  • The Queer IG article does not cover Lino e Silva in depth, but only tangentially to its primary topic. See also WP:SIGCOV to read about significant coverage.
  • A book review does not establish notability per se, especially because it is unclear how much editorial oversight and fact-checking they are subject to. However, I agree that this is at least something.
Actualcpscm (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SAPIENS Magazine has published his research: https://www.sapiens.org/culture/minoritarian-liberalism/


Delete. The prevailing sentiment in the comments above seems to be that this is a highly influential scholar, someone who has conducted impactful research. That may be the case, but we seem to be forgetting something important: this impact needs to be demonstrated through coverage in reliable secondary sources. WP:NACADEMIC criterion 1 does list academic impact as establishing notability, but it must be "demonstrated by independent reliable sources." None of the sources we have seen so far fulfil this requirement. Intuitively, it does seem that this researcher has received some attention, but that needs to be backed up by reliable sources. As long as the arguments for notability of this subject are based on hypothetical fulfilment of WP:NACADEMIC derived from editor interpretation and opinion, as opposed to independent sources, notability is not established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actualcpscm (talk • contribs)

Keep. This is a noteworthy academic. I wish we could foster younger intellectuals, Latino academics, and from the Global South. Moises Lino e Silva seems to be among them. I wish our community would be more constructive in this case. Instead of deletion, we could work together to make this article stronger. For example, I just found another review of the author's main book:

https://allegralaboratory.net/minoritarian-liberalism-a-travesti-life-in-a-brazilian-favela/
I also found a review of the author's book "Freedom in Practice" in the JRAI (the most prestigious anthropology journal in the UK):
https://www.academia.edu/44956086/Parisolis_Review_of_Freedom_in_Practice_Governance_Autonomy_and_Liberty_in_the_Everyday_ Gdohgsd (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC) — Gdohgsd (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
  • Delete. No pass yet of WP:Prof on tiny GS cites for this adjunt (not full) professor. Maybe in ten years time: Salt until then.Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    This information is not accurate. Professor adjunto is the equivalent of Assistant or Associate Professor with tenure in the USA. Once again, there is a bias here against Latin American scholars. Please, re-consider it. Gdohgsd (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC) — Gdohgsd (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
    The point wasn‘t tenure or lack thereof, but the fact that this isn‘t a full professorship, not to mention a named chair as described in NACADEMIC. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or if kept we must trim the promotional pull quotes and bad sources. Of the listed reviews for Minoritarian Liberalism, Gangwar appears to be a personal blog of a grad student, the Jarrin ReVista review appears reliable, jornalbairrosnet may be reliable, cultura930 appears reliable but not very in-depth, and I'm skeptical of the reliability of queer.ig.com and gay.blog.br. The publisher's own site is definitely not independent or reliable for promotional quotes about its own book. So that's one good review (ReVista) and a lot of maybes or worse. The listed but not linked review for Freedom in Practice is doi:10.1111/1467-9655.13089; it is reliable, but I didn't see any others, and the book is apparently a conference proceedings, co-edited with Huon Wardle, not an authored work. With one in-depth reliable review for one book, and one reliable review for an edited collection, this is below my threshold for WP:AUTHOR notability. The fact that there is only one authored book in play makes it unlikely that we would have enough even if more reviews for those books could be shown reliable and in-depth. And there seems no sign of any other WP:PROF-related notability. If we could find enough reliably published and in-depth reviews of Minoritarian Liberalism (not necessarily in English) we might instead consider having an article on the book and redirecting to it, but I'm not convinced that we have enough yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to say this, but I'm not sure you understand how academia works in terms of notability.

There was a vote from Mles2022 here, but it has been removed following WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Gdohgsd. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a valuable article about a Brazilian author and scholar who has published a single-authored book in English with a leading peer-reviewed academic press in the United States (University of Chicago Press). His book has also been translated into Portuguese. Moises Lino e Silva has also co-edited an anthology published with another leading English-language academic press (Routledge). The Wikipedia article on Moises Lino e Silva is well written and informative and all of the information is accurate. It can be improved by adding sections.--Lawrlafo (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria. The merits of an article on the academic will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow.
      1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
      2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
      3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
      4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
      5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
      6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
      7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
      8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
      Gdohgsd (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC) — Gdohgsd (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
  • I was asking Lawrlafo. But there is no sign whatsoever that the subject meets any of the criteria of NPROF. I am uncertain what Lawrlafo was suggesting for notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject clearly meets the first criteria of NPROF, that being "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." This is demonstrated by the prestige of the peer-reviewed publications (appearing with University of Chicago Press and Routledge), the fact that the most recent book has been translated into Portuguese and the publication covered by the Brazilian press, and by the reviews and media coverage the books have received internationally (United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Brazil), including in peer-reviewed journals. The reviews and media coverage are fully identified in the references of the article.--Lawrlafo (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Peer-review publications are not independent sources for the purposes of establishing notability of their authors. Translation of a book is a weird one to point out; lots of books are translated, it doesn't have to mean anything for notability of their authors. The problem of the reviews is as Russ Woodroofe mentioned: if anything, they establish notability of the specific work they are concerned with, not its author. SIGCOV of a book is not SIGCOV of its author. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have continued to expand the article, integrating sources regarding the visibility the scholar is achieving (for example, appearing on television), being invited to visiting professorship at Harvard University in the Fall 2023, and increasing media coverage of his work. The scholar's impact in Brazil and internationally is based on his publications but also transcends the publications.--Lawrlafo (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comments above. Lawrlafo (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Arguments this meets WP:NPROF criterion 1 are clearly incorrect. Per Russ Woodroofe, the subject might meet WP:NAUTHOR but for lack of evidence of reviews. At this point notability is not established. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Don't let the presence of sockpuppets in this AFD obscure the fact that there has been a lot of changes to this article since it was originally nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per David Eppstein. Also salt. This is the third recreation of this article. It's a obvious case of WP:SPAM.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly contest and fully disagree with the claim that this article is a case of WP:SPAM. As I have indicated above, this is an extremely well researched article on a person who has clearly met WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. Lino e Silva's concept of "minoritarian liberalism" is an important original scholarly contribution as recognized in the endorsements of the book, its publication with a leading peer-reviewed academic press in the United States, the reviews the book has received in numerous independent reliable sources, the print and media interviews with the author, the translation of the book into Portuguese, and the significant media coverage of the translation in Brazil. The visibility and institutional recognition the author has received transcends his first two published books (Freedom in Practice and Minoritarian Liberalism) and now encompasses a new research project on Nigeria. There are no compelling reasons to delete this article on lack of notability for a person who has already made a major impact to the fields of queer studies, Brazilian (and, more broadly, Latin American and Caribbean) studies, and social sciences, as documented in numerous independent reliable sources in English and Portuguese.----Lawrlafo (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Liz that there has been a lot of positive changes to this article since it was originally nominated. It has been completely rewritten using a vast amount of impressive references. It now meets at least two of the necessary conditions for academic notability: 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources; 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:6591:47ED:3074:2E1D:9A28:821C (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC) — 2804:14C:6591:47ED:3074:2E1D:9A28:821C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment The IP repeats claims made above that the subject meets NPROF criterion 1. I remain firm in my view this is not so. Their Scopus profile is here: [2] 8 documents, 20 citations, and an h index of 2 is about as far short of meeting criterion 1 as could be. This is not a notable academic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that the Humanities and Social Sciences do not follow the same logic as the Natural Sciences in terms of notability. A quantitative measure of citations alone is not enough to decide anything. If you need numbers, I just read something remarkable earlier in this thread:Minoritarian Liberalism is available in more than 140 different libraries around the world: https://www.worldcat.org/title/1298388876 and Freedom in Practice is available in 115 different libraries: https://www.worldcat.org/title/964527538 Given everything I've researched so far, this is a notable scholar in the Humanities and Social Sciences. 2804:14C:6591:47ED:25C7:14D1:AF84:30BD (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)— 2804:14C:6591:47ED:25C7:14D1:AF84:30BD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    It is true that the humanities generally have very low citation rates. However, we cannot use the absence of citations as evidence of notability. Instead, in the humanities we usually go by book reviews rather than journal citations. However, as analyzed above, that falls short in this case as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant if the humanities have different citation patterns to the sciences because we always compare like with like: physics with physics, philosophy with philosophy but never physics with philosophy. The subject's citation record is inadequate even for the humanities. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2023 (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.
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 redirect‎ to Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Brown (author)

Kenneth Brown (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)

Fails WP:GNG, no SIGCOV beside passing mentions of his kerfuffle with Linux and MINIX in 2004. He wrote Samidzat, an overall non-influential, discredited, and forgotten book that caused a bit of controversy in its day and not much else. Definitively fails WP:BLP1E. 〜 Festucalex • talk 22:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Festucalex: These articles have more than mentions, they are specifically about him, not as biographies but about his claim regarding Linux. One is titled "Ken Brown’s corporate-funded FUD" so it is indeed about him. That said, if all of this could logically be included in the Samizdat article then that article will need to be more about him. Lamona (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona: The Samidzat article should definitely not be about him. Again, this event is literally the only, single, solitary thing even remotely notable about him, and that's what the articles are talking about. The book is notable due to the controversy it caused, but he himself isn't notable according to our WP:BLP1E guidelines. 〜 Festucalex • talk 22:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how the book can be notable but the person who wrote it is not. All of the hoopla is about his ideas; the book didn't write itself. Lamona (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona: See WP:INHERIT. The topic that actually has SIGCOV is the book, not the author. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Festucalex: No where is it said that this author "inherits" notability from his book - that makes it sound like the book existed independently of him. As I said, the book did not write itself; he is the author and the book contains his thoughts. The coverage of the book is coverage of a person's thoughts. If anything, I would keep the article about him and merge the contents of the article on the book. Lamona (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely backwards from how WP:INHERIT works - David Gerard (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 6 July 2023 (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.
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! 07:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bronson

Fred Bronson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no sources.. there are dead links.. one of which is archived but it leads to some archive of a personal page that has nothing of substance. This person is not mentioned anywhere. The template for needing more sourced was added 16 years ago.. I think there has been plenty of time to fix the article. There is no fixing it. Nominating for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireandflames2 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a rather prolific journalist/writer, you get many, many hits on columns in Billboard, Variety and a few books he's written, which are quoted by other stories, such as this [3] in American Songwriter. More than likely as notable for being a senior writer at Billboard. Oaktree b (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's also said to be a notable chart journalist in an NPR article. [4] and his "Billboard Book of Number One Charts" seems to have gone through five editions since the 1980s [5], implying it's widely used as a reference work. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:47, 29 June 2023 (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.
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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Caldiero

Sara Caldiero (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 poet, not reliably sourced as passing notability criteria for writers. The article literally just says that she exists without even trying to show any evidence that she has any meaningful notability claims (e.g. noteworthy literary awards, etc.), and its sole "source" is an online bookstore, which is not support for notability at all.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to deep American resources (literary journals, etc.) than I've got can find stronger WP:GNG-worthy coverage about than I've been able to locate on the google, but "the availability of her books in an online bookstore proves that she exists" is not enough for a Wikipedia article in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2023 (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.
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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emile Benoit (writer)

Emile Benoit (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)

Vanity page, no mention of this "critically acclaimed" philosopher's work anywhere. The book reviews at the bottom are from what appear to be pay-for-review sites, so this article also does not meet WP:AUTHOR. - car chasm (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2023 (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.
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! 19:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Shindler

Colin Shindler (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:PROF and lacks WP:RS. Conducted WP:BEFORE, but it's not that more sources will inherently push the article to keep; the subject is not notable as an academic. Longhornsg (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2023 (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.
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.‎ ~Anachronist (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Carlson

Nicholas Carlson (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)

Proposing at AfD per suggestion from Sdkb (talk · contribs). Subject is not notable, per WP:BIO. Could not find RS that cover the subject in a substantive context that are not created by the company he works for or an interview subject has given. Article was initially created by a user with a WP:PAID COI. The recent "ripping" event, while it earned coverage, does not make the subject any more notable. Longhornsg (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We have several sources here that are actually about Insider and not Carlson. We also have some book reviews. Neither builds the case for notability here because notability is not inherited. What's left are interviews or stuff publisher by Insider, which aren't independent. - MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:18, 5 July 2023 (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.
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 delete‎. ✗plicit 12:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish MacDonald (author)

Hamish MacDonald (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)

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Could not find any significant coverage for him. No major awards and only links to one article 2006 in Scotland. LibStar (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Prob Delete - it is hard to find sources that meet the WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR when the person concerned is mostly known for self-publishing books. Also there appear to be several other people with the same name which complicates searching for sources. With regard to the comments above; Goodreads is not a RS. Bookseller catalogues do not count towards notability. Self published blogs are not independent, so I think we can dismiss all of those. Possibly The Skinny counts towards the GNG, but we would need to look a bit deeper into it. JMWt (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ETA - even if we decide The Skinny is a RS, it would be a bit weird if a very negative two paragraph review was the only ref which tipped the notability of this subject! JMWt (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, as the newly located sources have been dismissed as user-generated content and blogs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I did find some intriguing mentions of this author NY Times, Smart Cities. I only found these, however, because I searched on his name and the book title "Finitude" because there are other folks with his same name who are more well-known. The one substantial review is the Taipei Times article which is already in the article. I didn't find anything significant while searching on his other book titles. His books are all self-published and AFAIK haven't gained press attention other than those few I mention. Lamona (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2023 (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.
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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Rahm Cook

Christina Rahm Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks all actual notability, sources are press releases, paid-for articles, passing mentions, not independent, sale listings, ... This may look like an independent good source, but it is the "magazine" from Elysian, a luxury brand which organised the very show they are reporting on, so not an independent source after all. Fram (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2023 (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.
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. Okay, I see a consensus to Keep this article for now. Any future "refocusing", article move or redirection that accompanied the "Keeps", I turn over to interested editors to handle. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Dyck

Jonathan Dyck (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 per ANYbio; no deep reliable independent coverage; McNally Robinson Award is good, but not a guarantee for being included into Wikipedia. Edit.pdf (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and refocus the article to be about the book, Shelterbelts per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The author is largely known for his book. The coverage in reliable sources is largely about the book rather than about the author.

    Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. "The best Canadian comics of 2022". CBC.ca. 2022-12-12. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

      The article notes: "Shelterbelts tells the story of a Mennonite community breaking open, as traditional beliefs and modern values collide. The schisms in the community reach a turning point when a non-denominational mega-church opens on the edge of the rural village. Shelterbelts weaves together scenes from the community — a pastor and his queer daughter contend with lost parish members, a librarian writes prescriptive notes in books for her patrons and young activists fight with a farmer over pipeline construction on his land."

      The article further notes: "Jonathan Dyck is a cartoonist from Winnipeg. He has received several provincial prizes for his illustrations, including a silver medal at the 2021 Alberta Magazine Awards and the Manuela Dias Book Design and Illustration Award at the 2018 Manitoba Book Awards."

    2. Mlynek, Alex (2022-05-02). "'Shelterbelts' explores how a rural Manitoba Mennonite community wrestles with change". Broadview. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

      The article notes: "Set in a rural Mennonite community in southern Manitoba, Shelterbelts is the debut graphic novel by illustrator and designer Jonathan Dyck. Now based in Winnipeg, Dyck grew up as a pastor’s kid in the largely Mennonite city of Winkler, Man., and his fiction draws on this background with empathy and insight. ... Dyck’s storytelling is superb, and through his sensitivity and eye for detail, often conveyed wordlessly through his thoughtful drawings, he fills in a picture of life in this community."

    3. Roeschley, Annabeth (2022-11-15). "Jonathan Dyck's queer Mennonite graphic novel: Shelterbelts is a quiet ode to rural life that honors what is good and confronts what is not". The Christian Century. Vol. 139, no. 19. pp. 105+. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

      The review notes: "Shelterbelts is a quiet ode to rural Mennonite life that feels right—not because it is praise, but because it is honest. Dyck’s novel is a mirror and a prism, a provocation and a balm. It honors what is good, and it confronts what is not. This book bears witness to a profound yet ordinary hospitality toward the neighbor, to the kind of social fabric and relational economy found in less populated places. "

    4. "Shelterbelts". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 269, no. 16. 2022-04-18. p. 61. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

      The review notes: "Dyck wows with his ability to convey unmistakable emotions and personalities in lightly detailed character drawings. Flashbacks nestled inside outer panels create an unusual, but rewarding, swerve within rigid panel layouts. Fans of Craig Thompson’s Blankets will welcome this nuanced portrait of faith and community."

    5. Noe, Matthew (2022-06-01). "Shelterbelts". Booklist. Vol. 118, no. 19–20. p. 56. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19 – via Gale.

      The review notes: "While faith is front and center, Dyck also forces readers to confront the history of setder colonialism, with one Metis character challenging claims of land ownership while protesting ou pipelines. The combination of wide-view landscapes and careful attention to each character's facial and bodily expressions make it easy for the reader to imagine themselves inside the world of the story. A poignant, expressive comic that will appeal to fans of Blankets (2003), by Craig Thompson."

    6. Goodwillie, Ian. "Historical conditions clash with the present in Mennonite-driven graphic short stories. Jonathan Dyck's fictional Manitoba town comes to life through interconnected tales". Prairie Books Now. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

      The review notes: "The Mennonite influence in Manitoba runs deep, and that’s reflected in Shelterbelts by illustrator and cartoonist Jonathan Dyck. This collection of graphic short stories, which were originally published as individual comics, weaves together a narrative set in a fictional town that feels quite familiar."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shelterbelts to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get other opinions on refocusing the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See previous relisting comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Cunard's suggestion to keep/refocus, presuming that includes a move/redirect, given the sourcing provided. (As well as the fact that that specific book won the award). Other coverage of the author is interviews and such, so doesn't suggest notability outside of the book. —siroχo 06:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Cunard offer a lot of very good reasons on why the BLP meets WP:NBIO and GNG. Batmanthe8th (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2023 (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.
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! 05:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MaryLou Driedger

MaryLou Driedger (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 per ANYbio Edit.pdf (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    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.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. Klassen-Wiebe, Nicolien (2021-06-07). "Children's book tells Mennonite immigration adventure" (PDF). Canadian Mennonite. Vol. 25, no. 12. p. 23. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

      The article notes: "When MaryLou Driedger uncovered a forgotten family story, she knew she had to write about it. What followed was Lost on the Prairie, her first novel for middle-school readers, published by Heritage House on May 28. ... The book is inspired by Driedger’s own grandfather, Peter Schmidt. Her great-grandparents, along with a large wave of Mennonites, emigrated from Kansas to Saskatchewan at the turn of the last century. Journeying by train, Driedger’s grandfather and his brothers were each assigned to a boxcar in which to watch the livestock and belongings. ... Driedger comes to the research and writing process with a lot of experience. Originally from Steinbach, Man., and a member of Bethel Mennonite Church in Winnipeg, she has written for children’s curricula like Jubilee and Shine, and contributed to The Mennonite Mirror magazine and the Winnipeg Free Press. She has been a columnist for 36 years at The Carillon, Steinbach’s local paper. When she retired from teaching, she decided to start writing for children."

    2. Foster, Janice (2021-06-25). "Lost on the Prairie". Canadian Review of Materials. 27 (41). Manitoba Library Association. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

      The review notes: "Lost on the Prairie, by MaryLou Driedger, was inspired by the disappearance of the Winnipeg author’s grandfather en route to Saskatchewan when his boxcar was detached. With no other details available, Driedger has constructed this mystery journey. Adding credibility to the story is her extensive research of actual people and events of that time period, including the use of family members names, Peter Schmidt, Herman, Alvin and Annie, even the horses’ names Prince and Gypsy. Extensive research of sites and events during that time period that are referenced in the book add accuracy to the story."

    3. Kent, Trilby. "Sixties Girl". Quill & Quire. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

      The review notes: "Despite the rudimentary structure, Driedger’s self-contained chapters – inspired by her own childhood – are well crafted and effective. For all the talk of bullying, there’s less tension in Will’s storyline. He, Aneesh, and Emmaline are consistently polite, articulate, and well-behaved middle-schoolers, and what little tension arises between them is, ultimately, easily resolved. Their dialogue, and some conversations in Laura’s sections, can also tend toward the expository and slightly forced (such as when a couple of kids discuss the poet Emily Pauline Johnson)."

    4. Sumner, Chris (2021-07-08). "MaryLou Driedger Talks About Her Book "Lost On The Prairie"". PembinaValleyOnline. Golden West Broadcasting. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

      The article notes: "MaryLou Driedger has been writing for a very LONG time, in fact, you may know she was a columnist for The Carillon newspaper based in Steinbach for over 35 years, she's written for many publications and now, she's just completed a book!"

    5. MaryLou Driedger has been a columnist for The Carillon for 38 years and has contributed to the Winnipeg Free Press. Winnipeg Free Press and The Carillon articles:
      1. Norrie, Helen (2021-07-17). "Courage, resilience in boxcar boy's story". Winnipeg Free Press. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

        The review notes: "Local author MaryLou Driedger used her grandfather’s story to help her write Lost on the Prairie (Wandering Fox/Heritage House, 224 pages, $15, paperback). He was left behind in a disconnected boxcar as the family travelled from Kansas to Saskatchewan. ... Peter shows resourcefulness and courage as he faces numerous hazards and learns about places (including early Winnipeg) he never knew existed. Readers ages 8-12 will find excitement on every page as they trace Peter's journey north."

      2. Ross, Jordan (2021-05-22). "Prolific columnist pens first book". The Carillon. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

        The article notes: "If Manitoba’s own MaryLou Driedger keeps up her current pace, she might just give Chesterton a run for his money. Driedger, a veteran newspaper columnist and blogger, doesn’t struggle with writer’s block. ... Driedger has been a Carillon columnist for 36 years. She calculated she has produced about 1,500 columns to date. She has also contributed to the Winnipeg Free Press, and faithfully posts a new entry every morning on her blog, What Next? Not long after retiring from teaching in Hanover School Division, Driedger read a book that recommended retirees try something different."

      3. Longhurst, John (2021-06-14). "Letter discovery inspires tale of train troubles". Winnipeg Free Press. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

        The article notes: "A few years ago, MaryLou Driedger came across an old letter from her grandfather, Peter Schmidt. ... Driedger, a columnist for the Steinbach Carillon and a former faith page columnist at the Free Press, was intrigued. Her curiosity led her to write Lost on the Prairie, a new children’s book that will be launched online on June 16, 7 p.m. through McNally Robinson Booksellers."

      4. Ross, Jordan (2023-04-06). "Columnist's second novel delves into 1960s". The Carillon. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

        The article notes: "The twists and turns of the 1960s are the backdrop of MaryLou Driedger’s new novel, which whisks adolescent readers back to an era of rapid change with more than a few parallels to the present. ... That won’t surprise anyone who knows Driedger, a retired schoolteacher and self-described “write-aholic” who maintains a daily blog in addition to her Carillon column, Viewpoint, which has run for 38 years and counting."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow MaryLou Driedger to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2023 (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.
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 delete‎. Source and cute analysis seems compelling Spartaz Humbug! 02:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Griffin (psychologist)

Joe Griffin (psychologist) (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 finding anything to indicate that this Irish psychologist and self-help writer meets either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. He has published prolifically, but none of the refs support GNG. I found only one article which mentions him: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/helping-humanity-thrive/202303/why-we-dream.
I am not sure that my google-fu is in top gear today, so maybe I have missed something ... but so far this all looks to me like promotional stuff with non-RS refs. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I think. Griffin is widely credited and discussed as a co-founder of the Human Givens approach to psychotherapy, including by authors with no apparent promotional intent, e.g. here, which would seem to meet point 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. (I'll confess I had never heard of "Human Givens" until just now, but then again I am not a psychotherapist and it seems to be a somewhat influential thing about which whole books have been written.) -- Visviva (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If he is the founder of a viable branch of psychology, I do not find expected evidence. His works are barely cited (single digits) in Scholar. There are mentions (only a few) of his "invention" but little about him. I note that articles exist for his co-author, Ivan Tyrrell, about whom even fewer sources exist, and for the technique, Human givens, which appears to be well-sourced. A redirect from Givens (and, IMO, Tyrrell) to the article for the technique would suffice. Lamona (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a couple very brief reviews by the same community health nurse in Nursing Standard magazine (non-academic) of his books Freedom from Addiction and How to Lift Depression--Fast (these would count as one source, if at all), plus another review of the latter in another journal (Mental Health Practice) by the same publisher. There's also a first-person account (primary) in Independent Nurse magazine (non-academic) from a nurse who uses the human givens approach. There are also non-fiction books from Jessica Kingsley Publishers (publishes in Chinese medicine). But the majority of "academic" sources on the approach are from Human Givens Publishing (non-independent) or are in predatory or pseudoscientific journals like Psikiyatride Guncel Yaklasimlar (articles submitted through the predatory publisher ScopeMed), NeuroQuantology, . The ones that aren't are mostly uncited articles in very low-impact journals like Progress in Neurology and Psychiatry (IF 0.185), Mental Health Review Journal (IF 1.51), Educational and Child Psychology (IF 0.49), a lot of them by the same couple authors. Only 8 hits for "human givens therapy" in Scopus keywords, 25 overall. I'm concerned that this is a rather FRINGE method. JoelleJay (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep

Human Givens Therapy is an established therapy in the UK and Joe Griffin cowrote the book which developed the therapy "Human Givens: The New Approach to Emotional Health and Clear Thinking", which was reviewed by Psychology Today,[1]Starlighsky (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Skylighsky[reply]

@Starlighsky: There is an article for the Human givens therapy, which that Psychology Today article could be considered in support of. The article you link to does not give information on Griffin, and it is this latter which is needed so that Griffin can have an article on Wikipedia. If you think this Wikipedia article should be retained then you need to provide sources that are substantially about Griffin. Lamona (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK...Will do, thanks Starlighsky (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I edited what I wrote. Joe Griffin and Human Givens Therapy was extensive coverage on Google Scholar, because the therapy is cited quite often. Starlighsky (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapy-types/human-givens-therapy
I also looked at G-Scholar but do not see "extensive" coverage. It would be helpful if you could link to 3 or more of the sources you see there that you consider to be extensive. Note that non-scholarly resources, like this conference (which is held by the HG institute) aren't considered good sources. Also, if I may say so, it might be better if you would "lurk" here for a bit until you understand the AFD culture and the policies that feed into delete/keep decisions. Lamona (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2023 (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.
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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lenore Montanaro

Lenore Montanaro (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 reach the notability standard; WP:GNG. I found no widespread evidence of significant coverage by WP:RS. Most sources are primary, with a direct connection to the subject, or exclusively local. GuardianH (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While searching on Wikidata, I couldn't find any viaf associated with this person. Weird for a writer. It's like she never plublished something. Don't seem to have ennough evidence to establish her notability. --Fralambert (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This person is clearly an academic writer and is thus notable per Wiki's guidelines about notable persons. I found several pieces of her publications online, like here: https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol55/iss1/1/. She is also acknowledged in many independent secondary sources. She has received "a well-known and significant award or honor" and is "notably influential in the world" of animal law. This person also played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work: https://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/book_pdfs/00_animal_law_2nd_ed_front_matter_0.pdf. She is also an amputee lawyer and academic professor: https://cranstononline.com/stories/sa-montanaro,113347.
See this too: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/tortsource/2020/winter/valuation-companion-animals/?login. The guidelines for notability do not require a viaf and many writers do not have a viaf. We should keep this person, especially because she is the only leg amputee to graduate from the College of the Holy Cross: https://patch.com/rhode-island/northkingstown/challenge-accepted Literaturelife856 (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC) — Literaturelife856 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Literaturelife856 This is a non-sequitur, but the image you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons was removed as a copyvio violation. The image is the same one used on Montanaro's Linkedin page, yet you labeled it as your own work... If you have a close connection with the subject a relevant policy to look at is WP:Conflict of interest, where you need to declare your connection to the subject if you have one. GuardianH (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Citations fail to show notability, any reliable sources are WP:MILL. Created by and heavily edited by a WP:SPA. - Skipple ☎ 20:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which citations fail to show notability? I think that this person is notable. This person is an academic professor, top animal welfare lawyer, writer, and only leg amputee to graduate from the College of the Holy Cross. We should not delete this disabled lawyer. We can fix citations, but the article should not be deleted entirely.
https://law.rwu.edu/faculty/lenore-montanaro
https://www.animallawconference.org/lenore-montanaro/
https://www.lawline.com/lawyer/lenore-m-montanaro
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/tortsource/2020/winter/
https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol55/iss1/1/
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/international_law_news/iln-v48-no4.pdf Literaturelife856 (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She needs widespread coverage in reliable sources — not just passing mentions. She has written journal articles, but it doesn't seem that she has projected an influence over the field as a whole (i.e. Steven M. Wise) and her authorship of a few articles is relatively common. Doesn't seem she meets any aspect of WP:ACADEMIC at all from the sources provided. GuardianH (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I think my mother is notable, but that doesn't mean she is to anyone else other than me. I would recommend reviewing WP:GNG. Notability is established by having significant, in-depth coverage by third party, independent, and reliable sources. Everything you have stated makes her sound like a lovely person, but not particularly notable. - Skipple ☎ 04:05, 18 June 2023 (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.
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! 05:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Júlia Székely

Júlia Székely (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)

NN musician and writer. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:NAUTHOR. UtherSRG (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Women, and Hungary. UtherSRG (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have some familiarity with Hungarian music and the language, but via more targeted searches all I can find on Ms. Székely are basic directory entries that say little more than what is in this article. She studied with Bartók, found some work as a concert musician and piano instructor, wrote some books that appear to all be out of print. Unless an expert on both the language and classical music of Hungary can dig up some old but reliable sources, there is not much to work with here. Despite having a connection with one famous musician and getting some books published in her time, Ms. Székely seems to have been an honest but ordinary working person like everyone else, and therefore not notable enough for an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Doomsdayer520,
    Thank you for your research.
    I originally created this article 10 years ago after reading one of Székely's novels (in its French translation). I thought it odd that she didn't have an article on Wikipedia and wished to include her so that other people could be aware of her work. I had actually borrowed the book from a regular library in Paris, without looking for particularly old writers. This translation was published in 2005, which I find rather recent for an early 20th-century Hungarian writer.
    That being said, I don't feel I have sufficient knowledge of Hungarian culture to argue whether this person is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Enqueror (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Was unable to find anything, but the Wikilibrary is acting up. If new sources appear please ping me. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 08:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging per your request based on new sources below and requests for clearer consensus. —siroχo 08:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dr vulpes: An actual ping. UtherSRG (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO#3 and her her entry in the Magyar életrajzi lexikon (Hungarian Bibliographical Dictionary). I'm surprised it's so hard to find any information about this author. She's got about 50 publications listed at WorldCat, and many of them are widely held at libraries around the world, including at the British Library, the Library of Congress, Columbia University, and UCLA. This suggests (but does not prove) that her collective body of work is significant or well-known. I'm suspicious that, because she worked mainly in Hungarian and before the internet era, the necessary sources may be off-line and hard to find. pburka (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: It's not much, and I don't read Hungarian, but I think this 1978 newspaper has a brief review(?) of her biography of Beethoven. pburka (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes ANYBIO as listing in national biographical dictionary. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 12:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm willing to give it a pass, based on the Biographical Dictionary and the newspaper as above. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Hungarian page has a more precise history of her professional life, with a mention of first joining a symphony in 1929, some major productions that she was in, and then her transition to teaching and writing. It's not very well supported; as one example, the statement "her 1939 novel The Flying Mouse proved to be a great success" has no reliable source. Concerning the progress of this AfD, I already voted to delete but I have no dispute if things turn out otherwise. I simply don't find a dry list of someone's jobs to be very encyclopedic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—siroχo 07:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:ANYBIO is met, as explained above by User:pburka. CT55555(talk) 01:30, 7 July 2023 (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.
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! 07:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inés Marful

Inés Marful (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)

NN author - fails WP:AUTHOR UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised the same review in the article. I could find much else. scope_creepTalk

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep beyond on what we already know, also note that the work Lorca y sus dobles: interpretación psicoanalítica de la obra dramática y dibujística has 31 citations on google scholar. For a humanities non-english work this is a huge number for google scholar. —siroχo 06:58, 30 June 2023 (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.
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. Less Unless (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lunde

Paul Lunde (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 appear to meet WP:GNG; none of the provided citations offer independent coverage of Lunde, just works by Lunde. Searching the internet, Google Scholar, and my university library I was able to find two reviews of works by Lunde, [14] and [15], but which don't discuss Lunde himself or his role in the works at all. When considering the case for WP:NACADEMIC, both of the reviews I would describe as faint praise for the works, nor is there any evidence of a high h-index despite publishing extensively. One of Lunde's primary outlets has been Aramco World described as follows in an Indiana University paper [16]: As Aramco World approached its fiftieth anniversary in November 1999, a retrospective feature touted the cosmopolitan ethos of the publication in its very founding, as it supposedly emerged from Aramco's culturally sensitive priorities. Presuming a fundamental chasm between US Americans and Saudis, the magazine sought: "to bridge the natural but enormous cultural gaps between its expatriate, largely American, workers and their Saudi counterparts and hosts … "7 Founded in 1949 in New York, Aramco World was modeled after other contemporaneous US publications like Life and Saturday Evening Post.8 In 1964, it shifted its publication headquarters from New York to Beirut, where it remained until the beginning of the Lebanese Civil War in 1975.9...n the case of Aramco World, for example, tight Saudi control of the magazine's contents remained in place (as it does to this day), even though the magazine was being produced in Lebanon to, in part, present an ostensibly localized and authentic—rather than propagandistic—picture of the region.12; -- in other words, at best a general interest magazine, at worst a propaganda venture. In the absence of biographical sources about Lunde, I'm not seeing a case for notability. signed, Rosguill talk 04:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I agree, there are plenty of reviews of his work and the fact that his books were published by Penguin and other reputable publishers should be evidence enough of his scholarship. 131.111.5.176 (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input from experienced editors would be helpful…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:55, 17 June 2023 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natcha Thawesaengskulthai

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Authors&oldid=1161562120"