Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors

WP:DSAUTHOR

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:

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.
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

George Bernard Shaw: His Plays

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely unreferenced. Of minimal interest: the only links to this page are via the Shaw and Mencken templates at the end of the article. Tim riley talk 16:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tim riley talk 16:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without checking anything else, many reviews on Newspapers.com. Passes NBOOK on that front. Will check more later PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw this is a Keep vote PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reviewed in The San Francisco Call and Post (here), The Courier-Journal (here) and The Nation (here). This is sufficient for WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets NBOOK per reviews listed above. Toughpigs (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only are there no sources and lots of WP:OR, Mencken's biographies hardly mention it. WP:NBOOK states that coverage (such as reviews when the book came out) creates only a presumption of notability, but it is our task to decide whether the book is encyclopedically notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That can go for literally any topic. We can decide to delete an article for any reason, but there's no compelling extra reason to delete this article here when it passes NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it is entirely unreferenced and has much personal opinion in it. Tim riley talk 20:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was offensively opinionated so I removed that and now it's a sourced stub. It could be much longer if someone wanted to go and find more sources (and mine the existing ones, or read the book). But as is it is an ok stub. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's better, but if the purpose of AfD is to separate the wheat from the chaff, at least in Menken's WP wheat field, this stub is definitely chaff. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kelleher

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent coverage of this individual that I could find (some interviews, but interviews are primary sources and fail WP:SECONDARY, and self-published coverage). Article has been tagged as unsourced since January 2024. Jaguarnik (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Poetry. Jaguarnik (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sourcing found for a poet with this name, an obituary and stories about a drowning. I don't see critical reviews of any of the works listed either. Otherwise, article is all primary sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can prove to myself that his books exist (looking up in libraries), but that is about all. I can find issues of the Yale Review that list him as "michael kelleher is director of the Windham-Campbell Prizes". It turns out that is a position in the Beinecke library. But I find no biographical information about him. Lamona (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Reis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable as a musician, filmmaker or writer. A WP:BEFORE search in English and Portuguese turned up very little coverage in reliable sources, just primary sources, blogs and passing mentions in secondary sources. Some of Reis' family are apparently notable, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Bands and musicians, Women, and Portugal. Wikishovel (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I am submitting a request to retain the Wikipedia page for Ana Reis, as her work has significant cultural, artistic, and historical relevance that justifies her inclusion in Wikipedia. Ana Reis is a notable artist with unique contributions to the art world. Although there may be limited online information readily available about her, this should not detract from her established importance.

The scarcity of online references does not accurately reflect her accomplishments but rather relates to documented personal circumstances, which may have contributed to her underrepresentation in digital sources. (Redacted) These elements, though private, have affected the availability of Ana’s contributions and thus hindered the broader recognition she rightfully deserves.

Despite these challenges, Ana Reis’s contributions to the art community have resonated deeply with her peers, and her work has been recognized in several exhibitions, publications, and private collections. Her notability is rooted in her artistic achievements and the influence her work has had on contemporary art. I respectfully ask that these factors be taken into account when reviewing her page for retention.

Thank you for considering the broader context surrounding Ana Reis’s significance. Her page serves as a vital source for those interested in learning more about her unique contributions to art and culture. Sanguedereis (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine, but we need sourcing in reliable, neutral sources. That's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beside online sources what else is needed? Fellow artists can provide statements and testimonies as well as links to existing works can be provided. Where can these be sent or uploaded to? And is there any deadline for this?

Additionally please be aware person in question is under ongoing and systematic attacks, (Redacted). There are plenty of bona fide artists with scarce sources deemed not too reliable, and it's not positive either for person in question, to request further silencing and invisibility. That is in a way or another enabling and endorsing the abuse against them. Thank you. Sanguedereis (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be accusatory but this text reads to me like it was generated from a large language model. -1ctinus📝🗨 19:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That text is written manually in own words. Sanguedereis (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A book "awaiting publication" is not notable, this appears to be PROMO. There are hardly any sources to be found about this person when I look. Sourcing in the article isn't helpful either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally agree on PROMO. No substance, fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This case concerning Ana Reis's recognition isn’t due to any lack of relevance or a genuine artistic dimension but rather to complex life circumstances that have severely limited her access to fair opportunities and visibility. her background is marked by high-profile abusive influences and substantial evidences are available to prove that. She faced systemic obstacles that have stifled her career in ways that very few people experience. However, being very active from 2000 until 2026, both her network and collaborations show an artist with a substantial history of work,, including mention by utmostly respected musicologist who has noted her contributions. However, these connections haven’t shielded her from isolation and undue obscurity.

Due to aforementioned undue influences, she worked alone, with no fundings or grants, no publicity, no 'promos' whatsoever as someone mentioned above, no producers, no promotion machines. Over the years she struggled immensely to have valid and thorough media coverage for her work that deserves deeper considerations and study in its inner world of imagination and symbolism. Equally, aforementioned undue influence/s have occupied most her life keeping her, much against her will, away from her own professional and creative activities, under severe devaluation and micromanagement. This caused her to over the years lose reliable social networks, professional support, and public exposure. Her work and impact became underrepresented, often leaving her vulnerable to having her career and reputation questioned or undervalued, which cause rightful feeling of demoralization and injustice.

The controversial situations she has been denouncing touch a subject taboo, the cruelty of narcissistic mothers towards their daughters, who often become invisible and unheard under a stifling, toxic parent who wants all the spotlight and the daughter is left 'inexistant'. And that is also why it is so important to recognize her contributions and unique originality of her work, rather than allow further erasure. Evidences of her past collaborations and testimonials from many fellow artists over the years, are being requested and underway, as this may greatly help to an accurate acknowledgment of her creative works. Ana is worthy of a fair chance to be seen for her artistic contributions rather than being made invisible. What some have said in the remote past that 'the press ignored them' is on Wiki too and taken as fact, but that's an affirmation of absolute falsehood and doesn't correspond at all to real facts (Redacted), and it's thoroughly disappointing when a privileged person presents false complaints but does exactly the same they complain about, to who they should never sabotage the light they receive. Thank you. Sanguedereis (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Some comments in this discussion have been redacted as breaches of WP:BLP. Please do not post contentious but unsourced material about living persons. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I've nothing to add to the well worded rationale. JFHJr (㊟) 02:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As always, we are guided by what is out there in reliable sources, and this falls far short. Edwardx (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christie Tate

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm honestly not sure about this article; it's been speedily deleted in the past (I have alerted the previously deleting admin to its existence), and most of the sources deal with the book Tate wrote. Notability is not inherited. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Illinois, and Texas. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR with multiple reviews of multiple books. I am not clear why the nominator mentioned notability not being inherited here as there is no indication that Tate is related to anyone on Wikipedia. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Christie Tate meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for authors (WP:AUTHOR) through multiple lines of evidence:
1. Significant book success:
- "Group" was a New York Times bestseller
- Selected for Reese Witherspoon's Book Club, a major cultural platform
- Translated into 19 languages, showing international impact
- Received significant reviews in major publications (Washington Post, Chicago Tribune)
1. Multiple published works:
- Two traditionally published books ("Group" and "B.F.F.")
- Essays in major national publications (New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune)
- Winner of the New Ohio Review's 2019 nonfiction contest
1. Sustained media coverage:
- Featured profiles independent of book promotion
- Coverage in Harvard Crimson
- Significant coverage in Chicago Tribune beyond book reviews
- Subject of broader cultural discussions about memoir writing and privacy
1. Professional recognition:
- Her work has sparked discussions about memoir ethics and privacy in mainstream media
- Significant impact in the memoir genre, particularly regarding mental health and therapy
- Regular contributor to major national publications
These factors demonstrate sustained, independent coverage beyond mere publicity for her books, meeting Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Her impact on contemporary memoir writing and mental health discourse provides clear evidence of lasting cultural significance.

Note: The "notability is not inherited" comment seems misplaced as Tate's notability stands on her own merits as an author and public figure. Joeyghostman (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies criteria for WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Marcocanol (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Robert Watson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hello - recommending this article for deletion for the following reasons.

Seems like a promotional page by a very ocassional contributor to some industry news, with plenty of links to his own website (cited as a source) and references to prominent or notable collaberators who are all not listed on wikipedia.

Suspicious edits by 81.175.147.23 who appears to only be active on this page (this IP address is based in the same town as Mr Watson) as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DorianRichard1985 which also appears to be the subject, and created this article. There have been no meaningful edits except by these two contributors, who both appear to be Mr Watson.

This is a promotional page with poor source links, some unverifiable, created to promote the career of an ocassional opinion columnist. Does not meet Wikipedias standard for notability, nor source quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 November 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 November 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Arts, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No GS trace at all for "Michael Robert Watson", so either he publishes under a different name or his work has received no attention. The detailed education history without sources usually says the article was written by someone who is/knows the subject. Does anyone know if "ZerO books" is the same as Zero Books? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments below, I checked GS for "Mike Watson"; the highest-cited works I could find had 21 citations (Can the Left Learn to Meme?: Adorno, Video Gaming, and Stranger Things) and 13 citations (The Memeing of Mark Fisher: How the Frankfurt School Foresaw Capitalist Realism and What to Do About It), but I might well have missed something as there are so many other Mike Watsons; I don't think these citations would meet WP:PROF, but reviews should be sought to address potential notability under WP:AUTHOR. If the article is kept it needs to be moved to "Mike Watson ([disambiguator])". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern here is the article appears to be self-authored, with two key accounts in its creation having only ever edited this article (one IP, one logged in). This would be less of an issue if it was an especially noteworthy subject but at the moment Wiki runs risk of being a promotional page or 'find my articles online' site. Many many academic / media figures who are more prolific, many more citations, do not have wikipedia pages. Also there is some unsourced biographic information here. All in I think it should be deleted unless new high quality sources can be found and more credible evidence of Mr Watson's relevance / impact 85.68.25.118 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until the encyclopedia actually prohibits writing autobiographical content, rather than strongly discouraging it, suspicions that the article might be authored by the subject are not valid grounds for deletion. However, I've just put all four book titles into JSTOR and come up with nothing, so I'm not arguing for retention unless someone can show that WP:AUTHOR is met by reviews that JSTOR does not index, or GNG is met. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Indisputably they are one and the same. They have often used that stylising for many years and the content mentioned in this article would make it obvious anyway. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Espresso Addict: He publishes as "Mike Watson", hence all the references mentioning that name.
Yes, "ZerO books" = Zero Books (sometimes styled "Zer0 books").
(I don't have, as the Brits say, a dog in this fight. I chanced on the article because Mike Watson had a column in the London Guardian.)
Angusta (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Angusta: Ah, thanks, so it looks like he is this Mike Watson[1]. (The piece mentions a further book, by the way.) Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Steinberg (journalist and photographer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO, sources not appropriate for a biography. Writing and speaking about sex and sexuality does not in and of itself confer notability, 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Photography, and Sexuality and gender. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also fails WP:NWRITER and WP:NARTIST possible conflict of interest too, with editor saying they "do advocacy work for indie authors and creative commons artists" Theroadislong (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed COI in my comment below. Merely because I do advocacy work for authors on my monthly blogposts about indie authors has nothing to do with the issue. Also, would you prefer wikipedia articles about authors be written by editors without opinions about authors? Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree totally on fail of WP:NWRITER and WP:NARTIST (self published content and all) and also on potential of COI. Also now have Kneecap's 'Fine Art' back in my head. Sigh. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed COI issues in my longer comment below. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the self-published content issue already here. Robert J Nagle (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about the only kind of coverage I could find [2], I don't think we have enough to show notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is an interesting article I didn't see before. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who drafted the article. There is absolutely no COI here -- though I did email Steinberg about a few things and did encourage him to submit one of his photos to wikicommons. Also Steinberg informed me that a few years ago he had drafted a wikipedia article for himself – and he forwarded that draft to me. But I mostly ignored that. It was almost entirely unusable.

I consider myself somewhat of an expert in the field of writing about sexuality. Also, I have a background in indie publishing and have written a few author profiles for Wikipedia over the decades.

Here is my personal opinion about why this living person meet the criteria for notability.

1. He made an invaluable contribution to the pro-feminist men's movement in the 1980s and possibly 1990s. In the 1980s pornography was a hot political topic in the USA. Conservatives were arguing about it. Feminists were arguing for it and against it. In the meantime some pro-feminist men were having conferences, publishing books and anthologies. Steinberg was one of the pioneers of this movement.

2. Steinberg's photography book/anthology Erotic by Nature was groundbreaking in the 1980s -- and it is still in print today. It received widespread distribution through Bookpeople and the book itself sold the concept of erotic photography as a legitimate form of fine arts photography. The book was an attempt to put into practice the ideas and aesthetic of the men's movement who were confronting the issue of pornography -- offering this as an alternative.

3. He has been writing about sexuality, sexual politics and new forms of sexual expression for decades. Most of his articles were for (now defunct) weeklies, but some appeared in national magazines like Playboy. Many of these articles were open to new kinds of sexuality. He has also written a lot about hot-button topics like sex trafficking, transgender rights, mostly from the perspective of a "liberated male."

4. He has devoted the latter part of his life taking erotic photographs and showing them at various exhibits and erotic festivals. Unlike many fine arts photographers, Steinberg has taken photographs of nontraditional subjects, like older people, gays, disabled people, transgender. I have listed some critics who have reviewed/interpreted his aesthetic sensibility.

Now, let me put on my wiki hat for a bit.

That first point (pro-feminist men’s movement) is extremely hard to document and source. (Believe me, I tried). The only thing I could find was several anthologies on the subject which he contributed to and/or edited. https://www.nearbycafe.com/loveandlust/steinberg/erotic/about/index.html Ultimately I ended up not mentioning this part for the article. Steinberg mentions a few of the conferences he participated in some of his writings, but I can find next to nothing from secondary sources.

One problem is that unlike feminists (who often were academics and organized many events through their universities) many of these men's conferences were looser and definitely not-academic. They didn't think too much about recording these things for the historical record. Wiki has some articles about men's movements, Men's Rights Movement and Men in Feminism, but really very little about men's response to porn or how to reconcile porn with feminism from a man's point of view. (See the article on sex-positive feminism; it mentions a lot of female names but almost no one who is male!)Ironically, Steinberg is probably a leading figure for the men's pro-feminist movement and sex-positivity. How do I know this? On that page alone, I count at least 15 names of thinkers/activists/intellectuals (all of which have received wikipedia articles) who have explicitly praised Steinberg's writings! (Joanie Blank, mentioned in the article, was in fact the person who financed Erotic by Nature. One of the writers pictured in the article, Tristan Taormino, even invited Steinberg on a recent podcast).

I should ask: is there a double standard here? Why does Wikipedia have so many articles on feminist response to porn and female authors who have written about sex-positive feminism but almost no males?

Finally, longevity counts for something in publishing. Publications come and go; that is especially true for alternative newspapers and especially true for sex-oriented publications. Should wikipedia discount publications from the pre-digital era simply because they are unavailable? Steinberg is one of the few writers/columnists on sexual issues who has digitized many of his writings on sexuality from the 1980s and 1990s and put them online. Wikipedia readers should have the ability to know that people like this actually existed -- and that his archive of writings from that time period exist and remain accessible.

By refusing to acknowledge the importance of contributions of people like David Steinberg, Wikipedia editors are removing bits of history from the public. I have done my best to draft an article on a somewhat sensitive subject in accordance with Wiki's policies. Frankly, I fail to understand why notability would even be a problem here. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to step back for now. But I wanted to reiterate about COI that I have NEVER done paid editing for any wiki article subject and never received remuneration for anything I have done at Wikipedia. I expect to receive no sort of benefit (financial or otherwise) from Steinberg as a result of writing this article, and none was promised to me. My ebook publishing company (Personville Press) doesn't have any interest in publishing any of Steinberg's works although I admit I am extremely fond of his writings. My contact with the subject, as stated in my above statement, was minimal and mainly to check up on dates and verify some things. Robert J Nagle (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought of one more thing -- that maybe is self-evident. The article itself mentions that Steinberg was designated as " Erotic Photographer of the Year" in 2010 by Leydig Trust (which sponsors the Sexual Freedom Awards). The Sexual Freedom Awards has its own wikipedia page; I guess that means wikipedia has already rated these awards as notable. In the article I mentioned that the Seattle Erotic Art Festival has given Steinberg the honorary title, "Master of Erotic Art" for "impactful photography (which) focuses on capturing the diversity of our human sexuality by showcasing a broad range of people. From the SEAF website itself, it says, "The Masters of Erotic Art program showcases artists who have made meaningful contributions to the history and development of erotic art." These are two separate well-known organizations in the field of the erotic arts which have recognized Steinberg's contribution to the field. [3]

These properly sourced details were mentioned in paragraph 2 of the article, so I assume that the other editors saw this already. I have provided other justifications about notability in the previous longer comment. But frankly, I don't know just those two award designations don't confer notability. Robert J Nagle (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need sourcing to back up these claims, "because, trust me" isn't quite the level of sourcing we need. That's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a general statement which does not apply to this article. I think everything in the article is properly sourced. Robert J Nagle (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is enough here to close as Delete but I wanted to allow some time to respond to the argument of the article creator. They claim the sources are sufficient so a source review would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Ref 1 Salon.com. is an interview, not independent

Ref 2 Sexual Freedom Awards is a primary source
Ref 3 Seattle Erotic Art Festival. is a primary source
Ref 4 Eros During Times of Social Change is an interview not independent
Ref 5 is a primary source written by Steinberg

Ref 6 is a commercial link to purchase his book

Ref7 can’t access this but a foreword is unlikely to be significant coverage
Ref 8 Nearbycafe.com. his own words, primary source
Ref 9 ditto
Ref 10 ditto
Ref 11 ditto
Ref 12 ditto
Ref 13 ditto
Ref 14 interview
Ref 15 interview
Ref 16 Nearbycafe.com. his own words, primary source

Theroadislong (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two things regarding primary sources.

Ref 6 links to public statements made by several other notable people about Steinberg and specifically his book which appeared on the promotional material related to the book (which are copied on the author's own website).You can easily view it in these same quotes in the opening pages for the Kindle ebook. Based on my experience as a publisher, it is very rare that people are misquoted in blurbs and other promotional material. Publishers take these things very seriously; they can get sued! Whether these statements are sufficient to establish notability -- I'll let others decide. What's significant is that a lot of people -- several of which are already on wikipedia -- have made statements about this person's writings.

With regard to interviews, it's a pretty standard way for a journalist to write about any author. Often the preface by the interviewer will try to contextualize a writer's contributions (that was particularly true in the Salon article). (Ref 1) Wiki specifically allows the use the self-published sources as long as 5 conditions are met See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves and as I mentioned before, some well-vetted articles on authors on Wikipedia make use of actual quotes by the author often. One time I counted the number of times author John Updike was quoted in the wiki article about him, I think the number was 18. Robert J Nagle (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Hartley (British writer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has zero independent sources that provide any nontrivial content about the article subject. Most of it is just blog posts he made or articles he wrote. The rest discusses that he was elected to local government as a district councilor. The BBC covered one of his opponents. Here's the only text the BBC wrote about the article subject: Mr Humphries is contending the Droitwich Central ward against John Hartley of the Conservative Party and Chas Murray of the Liberal Democrats.

I have looked, but cannot find better sourcing.

This article topic does not meet either WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:NPOLITICIAN and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that the response of the article creator was to blank this AFD and most of the article. MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally proposed deletion and none of the subsequent edits have addressed my concerns about WP:GNG. Orange sticker (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Turing test#Tolkien test per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wylie-Kellermann

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Christianity, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His books have been reviewed in major publications. He is also well known as an activist. See coverage in this article in the Guardian: No water for poor people: the nine Americans who risked jail to seek justice Thriley (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. In addition to the sources in the article, here are a couple book reviews from SAGE: [4] and [5]. Best.4meter4 (talk)
Keep: Would seem to pass AUTHOR with the reviews given above, needs a bit of a rewrite though. Oaktree b (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Breathnach-Banwait

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe she meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO more broadly. 1 hit in google news and nothing in google books which is surprising for a writer. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Ireland, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and augment. Part of the issue with the author is that it can be difficult to meet WP:AUTHOR when her working language is Irish, and that doesn't Google so well. I'll also point to her article in the Irish Language Wikipedia, which has clearly met inclusion criteria there. Yes - different wiki, different rules, but still ... - Alison ^talk 04:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books actually does have quite a few hits, BTW - Alison ^talk 05:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Which of the google books hits would be WP:SIGCOV? LibStar (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing sufficient independent RS to show that the notability criteria have been met. JMWt (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Her works have been included in anthologies [6], and some analysis here [7] and here [8]. There's some coverage in Gaelic (?) sources if you limit it to .ie websites, but I can't tell what qualifies as a RS in that language. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This also seems to be a RS [9], hosted on a WordPress site, but it's an online magazine with an editorial board and such. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oaktree b I ran into that one as well but it turns out that she is part of the "Editorial collective" so it may not be considered independent. Then again, I can't imagine that there are many Gaelic speakers in Australia who aren't part of that collective. This is a tough one due to the minority language. Lamona (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was the one who got the article up in the first place, but I tend to agree now that more references are needed, as discussed above. As for notability, a significant problem for writers in Irish is that few reviews are available in English, though I would regard her as a poet worthy of inclusion on her own merits. If the consensus was that the article should be deleted, I would accept that, and see if I could come up with something new and improved. Colin Ryan (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The RTE and Irish Times are reliable sources. With a bit more sleuthing, we could find a third good source for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At one point I attempted to create a page for an author whose book An Edge of the Forest won a few significant awards in the 1960s. The page was rejected on the basis that although there was notable coverage of the book, any coverage of the author was incidental and thus failed WP:AUTHOR. In this case, applying the same rationale, I can not see that the author meets WP:AUTHOR. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I still am seeing No consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per User:Colin Ryan with hopes that they can locate some independent sources, perhaps through the Irish press. Lamona (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authors proposed deletions

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