|
- Shana Muldoon Zappa (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)
Notable only for who she is related to. No evidence of notability in her own right. WP:NOTINHERITED WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Faheem Abdullah (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:MUSICBIO lacks significant independent coverage and does not establish notability as a music composer or singer. EditorTimes (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related AfD discussions. EditorTimes (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The first nomination–which ended in deletion–was only a month ago, and not too long before this recreation, a draft at Draft:Faheem Abdullah (with different content and from what appears to be a different user, but the same subject) was rejected on sight (not even declined) citing the last AfD. I have no direct opinion on the current article itself, but I would advise that any deletion here be accompanied by some salt–this seems to be another one of those subjects that will just keep coming back no matter how many rejections and deletions take place, and how much is changed to escape G4. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Poetry, and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - and salt - Nothing has changed since the last deletion discussion. Being that the creator of the first article edited the userpage of the second creator, I'd say the accounts are related as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Salt until someday when he becomes more notable by earning it. The participants in the first AfD one month ago nailed the reasons for the musician's lack of notability, and nothing has changed since then. I also recommend an investigation of the accounts that are trying to force this guy onto Wikipedia. Good luck to him as he gets started. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The nominator has since been blocked indefinitely as a likely-compromised sock (not necessarily related to any possible sockfarms tied to creating the article). The presence of "delete and salt" opinions might keep this going, though (especially since the concerns here would probably result in a quick renomination if this were to be closed). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Salt - The previously deleted article was met with unsourced contributions and promotional prose from confirmed socks. A major contributor to the previous article was a suspected UPE. A recreation without any significant changes gives a clear indication of where this is coming from. In both cases, the subject does not meet WP:GNG. Retro music11 (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Courtesy pinging @Svartner , ScottyNolan and @BhikhariInformer, who were part of the previous AFD discussion. Retro music11 (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and SALT – Per above and previous AfD. Svartner (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and SALT - It's still the same. Not meets WP:NMUSICIAN with all those interviews and puff pieces. Thanks for the ping btw. BhikhariInformer (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and SALT what BhikhariInformer said. ScottyNolan (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Liza Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article subject requests deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. See ticket:2026041710013658 or ask at Wikipedia:VRT_noticeboard about the ticket. Further, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Tagged for notability and other issues since June 2025. Geoff | Who, me? 18:14, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per nom. Aneirinn (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, and United States of America. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:58, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Indiana and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - she's not a public figure. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We have reviews only for a single book, borderline enough for WP:AUTHOR that I think we should respect the deletion request. If this case arose through some other kind of deletion request we could make an article on the book and then redirect to it, but given the request we should probably not redirect even if we have an article on the book. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per subject request (not public figure). No evaluation of notability or lack of. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- José Luis Mejía (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 hasn't had any sources since it was written, and generally does not meet notability guidelines Kozak391 (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Marc J. Gregson (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 and is unfinished. There are no sources, and empty sections. If notability can be proven, it should be moved to Draft space and completed before publishing. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Se7enNationArmy2024. I am currently gathering more editors to aid me in creating this page and making it look as professional as possible. I propose that within one week if the page remains the same quality as it does, I will remove it from the public until it achieves that quality. I am very new to editing on Wikipedia, especially with creating an entire page, and therefore I do not have the ability to do so myself. If there is a way I can edit with other users while in the article's "draft" stage, please let me know. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Wikishocka. Wikishocka (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This AfD comes across as quite harsh to me. This is clearly a work in progress, you could have draftified from the get-go instead of sending this new editor's work to AfD. Give the fellow a chance. MediaKyle (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]Draftify: This probably shouldn't have been created in mainspace first, but I think it is bad form to bring an article that is still being expanded to AfD less than an hour after it was created. This person likely meets WP:NAUTHOR per MediaKyle's sources. MidnightMayhem (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article has been improved. No need to draftify as GNG is met now. MidnightMayhem (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I have added some book reviews, and I think that there are sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Some other sources too thanks to MediaKyle; no reason that the article cannot just be improved in article space. Unsolicited advice to creating editor User:Wikishocka - in future, it's probably best to gather your sources first and compose in draftspace, and only publish as an article once notability and content are obvious. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you SunloungerFrog and MediaKyle for contributing to this article. I will continue to find more sources and information. And yes, I will make a note for the future to gather more sources before publicizing the page. Once again, I very much appreciate your help. Wikishocka (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Struck previous !vote, draftifying is no longer necessary. MediaKyle (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Fionn Petch (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 unsourced (the "Bio" reference is for somebody else). His site claims he won a couple of translation awards of uncertain notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Scotland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Language, Germany, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. No SIGCOV in RS. References are mainly his own site [9], the publishing house where he works [10], an non-notable interview [11], a contribution in
non-notable magazines [12] [13] and similar others. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion on deletion: the article and sourcing are woeful, but the Valle-Inclán Prize and the magazines Granta and Words Without Borders are definitely notable. Moscow Mule (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - poorly sourced; two citations are not enough for a BLP. This is a very basic issue. The burden for a BLP is on the creator. It must be deleted if it has less than three good sources, period. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Preetha Krishna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject don't have significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most sources cited are either affiliated with the subject, Profiles, passing mentions, or paid articles(ANI). Kimumuhi (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection. The article has 31 references. Amongst those are TheEdge Malayasia, The Chalk Board Mag, Hans News Service, TimesNow News, The Hans India, The Hollywood Reporter, TED, Options, Naver.com Japan, The Times of India, Penguin Books Australia, Huffingtonpost, ANI News, ED Times, Business News, Gobal Prime News, Sports Mint, Business Standard India, The Hindu, Indian Kanoon, Atria Books and Simon and Schuster. Strong keeep. --Gereon K. (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Gereon K. This article has the bones, it just needs the meat. JTZegers (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some major sources detailed analysis: 1. The Edge Malaysia, interview, 2. References No. 2 Podcast, 3. The Hans India, interview, 4. HuffPost, author profile, 5. The Hans India, promotional article, 6. Hollywood Reporter, passing mentioned, 7. The Edge Malaysia, interview, 8. ANI, paid article, 9. ED Times, Brand Voice, paid article, 10. Business News This Week, Page not found and Unreliable source, 11.globalprimenews.com, Unreliable source Kimumuhi (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Further input required. The keep votes are highly assertive and the source analysis suggests the policy is against the sources. More input would help. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:36, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Leonard Buschel (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 nominating this article for deletion because it fails WP:N (Notability). Following an audit of the page, I have removed significant portions of unsourced content, unverified celebrity connections, and citations that point to dead links or unreliable/unrelated sites (including an Indonesian gambling site). The remaining content consists primarily of routine biographical details that do not meet the criteria for a stand-alone encyclopedic entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash Edition (talk • contribs) 15:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Pennsylvania. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The non-signing nominator is a paid editor and has a relevant conflict of interest, partially disclosed at User:Ash Edition. Note comments at Talk:Leonard Buschel and User talk:Ash Edition. Recent article editing has been a shambles so I think this nomination should be closed and the article edited responsibly. Thincat (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for the 'shambles' of the recent edits; as a new editor, I was attempting to clean up fraudulent sources and triggered the automated filters. However, my audit reveals that the issues with this article go beyond simple cleanup. For example, citation #5 (Tim Cheney bio) is used to support a business transaction claim, yet the source makes no mention of the subject or the festival. Given the widespread 'failed verification' across nearly every source, I believe this subject fails WP:N and WP:V entirely. Editing cannot fix a lack of basic notability. Ash Edition (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2026 (UTC)"[reply]
- I haven't started to consider the notability of the subject yet. I expect there were WP:BLP violations that you have removed. Thank you. You have been asked to disclose who your client is[16] but I can't find where you have done this. Thincat (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Procedural close could be considered. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I now see the nominator/article editor has disclosed their client.[17] Thank you again. My detective skills are vestigial so I will not follow up on this. The references are sufficient for showing notability so I would normally !vote keep but if the subject requested deletion by WP:BIODELETE I would be happy for the article to be removed. If on the other hand, entirely hypothetically, the client was in a dispute with the subject I would oppose deletion. Thincat (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Bo Bo Thant Zin (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 assume that winning first prize in a competition organised by CRPH is not enough to make the subject notable. The article is also not yet ready to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, as it still lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Htanaungg (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Literature, and Myanmar. Htanaungg (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails NAUTHOR, GNG, or ANYBIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. There was unresolved confusion about the book, Stars Not Free from Darkness or Stars that cannot escape the darkness, along with Little Umbrellas in the Rain, neither of which appear to have attracted much attention. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Yogi Aaron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. His book did not garner enough recognition over the years to be considered notable. MitYehor (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I have not seen what makes them pass or even get close to passing WP:GNG from the listed sources. Primary sources (contributor pieces) and the others neither discuss the article's subject nor their book(s), only yoga in general is discussed. Santa Saana (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Shyam Mohan K (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)
Limited references. Not meeting WP:NBIO. - The9Man Talk 11:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Both WP:A7 & WP:G15 apply. No need for a full discussion, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 14:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Shyam Mohan (born 19 November 1962) is an Indian Telugu journalist, cartoonist, documentary filmmaker, and author. He is best known for his acclaimed book Jana Gana Mana Telangana, a collection of field reports highlighting rural deprivation in Telangana.
- He founded the Rural Media YouTube channel in 2015, a digital platform dedicated to amplifying the voices of India’s most marginalized communities. Through powerful ground-level storytelling across more than 120 remote villages, his work has exposed critical gaps in rural development and contributed to real-world change and policy responses. Kasyap (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- added more references Kasyap (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Louis Bulaong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This author had two books with Wikipedia articles which were recently deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escapist Dream and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otaku Girl). His other three titles don't seem notable either. As a result, the subject no longer appears to meet WP:NAUTHOR (specifically: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work ), nor WP:GNG. Astaire (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- My phrasing had abbreviated the situation: WP:N says "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page,..." Which turned around means if we can write a whole (i.e. non-stubby) encyclopedic article based on multiple reliable sources, then we have fulfilled the purpose of WP:N (i.e. that topic is notable). Thanks to you and the other participants for taking a closer look at the sources. I'll reconsider/take another look when that discussion has progressed further. Daranios (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Some of the sources seem a little suspect but Ezine, Voice Media Group, AirTract, BookNotification all contribute to GNG. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 13:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Ezine [18] is clearly a spam blog; the related articles are all nonsense about IT certifications.
- Voice Media Group [19], as I mentioned at the previous AFD, is a WP:UGC platform; it's not reliable.
- I don't see any "AirTract" source in the article.
- Book Notification [20] is entirely about the author's book; there is no coverage of the author hiimself.
- Astaire (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @Astaire: Thinking more towards merge/redirect than keep now, that would leave the RMN News, which I cannot verify myself but seems a legitimate source of news? And possibly Pinas which I cannot quite evaluate. Daranios (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because the author's books weren't deemed notable by themselves doesn't by itself mean, despite what was stated above, that the author suddenly "no longer appears to meet WP:NAUTHOR." In this case, there are enough reliable citations and info in the article to prove the author meets notability guidelines. In addition, there are scholarly articles showing that this author is very notable among the Waray people (for example, see this source).> --SouthernNights (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to delete. Thanks to everyone who took part in discussions in this AfD. Based on what people shared here and additional research on my own, I no longer believe the subject meets notability guidelines. In particular, many of the citations are very questionable.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete none of these sources are reliable at all. He does not pass NAUTHOR and does not meet GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would really like to recommend that people proceed with caution when considering the sourcing in the article. One thing I noticed while looking at the sourcing for Otaku Girl was that the article contained a lot of big claims, however the sourcing didn't back them up. For example, the RMN source was used to back up a claim (in Otaku Girl) that it was one of the best of its type for the year. However a look at the source showed that it was quoting a single person who was not speaking on behalf of any organization. It's being similarly misused here, as the journalist said nothing about him being "one of the most successful Filipino-Waray writers". He said that the book was on an Amazon bestseller list and got some reviews. The catch here is that we have no idea what bestseller list it was on or if it was on one at all. It could be that it was in an extremely niche genre where it's super easy to manipulate the rankings. That's part of the reason why Amazon lists aren't usable to establish notability. The source also reads a bit like a press release, since the main gist is to let people know that you can buy it on Amazon. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I did a long rundown of the sourcing. Almost all of it is unusable for notability giving purposes. Only two appear to be usable. One of them is a very short article that is misrepresented in the article and kind of comes across a bit like a press release. The other is a newspaper article, however we'd need to be able to show that Pinas is a reliable source. What makes me lean towards delete here is the misrepresenting of sourcing paired with the general lack of chatter about him online. A lot of it just appears to be stuff that he paid or asked someone to write, which goes against the claims of him being popular. Shoot, one of the first results for him is this reddit thread where someone mentions that the author has been trying to promote himself online, including on Wikipedia. Maybe there's more coverage in him in another language, but the general lack of chatter and other sourcing makes me seriously doubt it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- On a side note, since it does look like this was an attempt at spamming themselves on Wikipedia, we'll probably want to clean him out of the other articles he's mentioned in as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:48, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed a couple of instances where it was extremely obvious spamming of the name along with overly puffed up claims. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:52, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - highly questionable sourcing, and I agree with ReaderofthePack that this is likely stealth promo/UPE. ScalarFactor (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Minimal merge and redirect to, I guess, Philippine literature in English#Contemporary Writers as WP:Alternative to deletion. The impression of advertisement is worrying, but ordinary claims only require weak sourcing, and coverage within an article on a broader topic is not directly subject to notability concerns. So I think an inclusion without puffery at that target is warranted based on RMS, University of Southern Mindanao and primary sources. Daranios (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced if his inclusion would be WP:DUE weight, given the lack of third party WP:SIGCOV. ScalarFactor (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any alright sourcing for even that? Also, due weight. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Within the relatively specialized intersection at the target of Phillipine, contemporary writers, producing in English, I do think Bulaong's inclusion without puffery is WP:DUE. The target has been asking for references for a long time, and I believe having Bualong there with RMS as a secondary source is an improvement among the many unlinked unreferenced entries there. Daranios (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, the non notables from that section should probably be removed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No critical reviews found in RS; writing non-notable books isn't notable for our purposes, that serves as PROMO. There isn't enough here to show this individual meets AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The books are not notable. PROMO. Same source probably has also added quotes from these books on en Wikiquote which should also get Vfd. GrimRob (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Lakshman Chandra Saren (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)
AI generated short article that also fails WP:GNG, The only sources I could find is an article that mentions him just once by The Hindu, and his Instagram account with a whopping 193 followers. The author who created it, User:R Ashwani Banjan Murmu, who left English Wikipedia just last week, also has about 20 other articles that are obvious LLM copy pastes. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Suspected AI-generated articles, and India. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: He has won the Sahitya Academy Award for children's literature. That meets the #1 criterion of WP:ANYBIO. There hasn't been any case where a Sahitya Academy Award winner couldn't save his/her page (At least from what I remember). LLM issues (not very significant though) can be addressed through editing. BhikhariInformer (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Has there been a discussion about this somewhere? There has been a spree of LLM-generated articles about Sahitya Academy Award-winners created by the same user as created this article, see Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard#User:R Ashwani Banjan Murmu. I PRODed Sobha Nath Beshra yesterday - although he "only" won a translation prize, so was not an author. So if winning one of these awards fulfils WP:ANYBIO they're all notable, although they also all need heavy editing. Lijil (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm personally not aware if there has been a discussion, specifically regarding the Sahitya Academy Award. But in line with the #1 criterion of ANYBIO, I have noticed that AFDs end in "Keep" just because he/she has won the Sahitya Academy Award (2nd highest award in India for Literature) or the Jnanpith Award (highest award in India for Literature). So, I have seen these being considered as significant honours and hence, voted accordingly.
- Personally, I think the highest and second highest awards for Literature in any country are significant honors, and enough to meet the #1 criterion of ANYBIO. But since a discussion has been opened, it's all the better since we can now have a written document about it's acceptance. BhikhariInformer (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per NEWLLM and the nom. No comment on the notability or inclusion of the subject itself. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Winning the Sahitya Academy Award satisfies the very first criteria under WP:ANYBIO, namely "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor." Yes, the article needs a lot of work but notability is established.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per @ロドリゲス恭子. Almost all of his articles fall under WP:A7. With a lack of reliable sourcing coverage, it'll be extremely hard to do any WP:TNT. As @LEvalyn explained in User:LEvalyn/You don't need AfD to TNT an LLM, LLM articles should only be AFDed as a last resort effort. With not enough nobility, this is a last resort effort in my opinion.
- CostalCal (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe Philpott (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 redirected this page to Rubyhorse; page creator reverted. I do not see a credible claim to independent notability' Seeking a broader consensus. TheLongTone (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe Philpott has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources covering the release of his memoir "All Roads Lead to Where You Are," which discusses his life, career, and creative work beyond Rubyhorse.
- This constitutes independent coverage of Philpott as a primary subject, not merely as a member of a band. Additional media appearances and interviews surrounding the memoir further demonstrate notability.
- Per Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, this level of coverage supports a standalone article, and I am continuing to improve sourcing to reflect this. WistahHoney508 (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if his memoir has received WP:SIGCOV there could be an article about the book but that doesn't automatically make the author notable. Lijil (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete via TNT - he seems to be notable, but unfortunately, this article is drained in AI that it's better off starting over. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been written in an encyclopedic style consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. If a different format or tone is required, I would appreciate an example so I can revise it accordingly. Thank you. WistahHoney508 (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I just made revisions that are, hopefully, correct. I'm learning how to write for Wikipedia. WistahHoney508 (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- If he seems to be notable, and the language in the article has been revised, would you reconsider your vote? WistahHoney508 (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I think his memoir + his song + his band White Horse Guitar Club have enough coverage for notability (with caveat that the first two subjects doesn't seem to have in depth reviews and most articles are heavily based on Philpott's quotes). White Horse Guitar Club doesn't seem to be notable and info about it can be expanded on Philott's page under career. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:18, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my decision to redirect to Rubyhorse: My initial argument was based on the sources about his memoir and second band, but memoir sources seemed off (as if written in response to a press release, not in response to reading the book itself). Now given further thoughts from Lamona I would discard the memoir sources. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: the sources about his memoir: Independent.ie and Cork Independent are established publications with editorial oversight, and the pieces appear to be standard coverage of a new release rather than direct reproductions of a press release. The RTÉ Radio segment, while an interview, discusses both the memoir and his broader career, which gives it some contextual value beyond simple promotion. WistahHoney508 (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added a reference -- RTÉ published an excerpt from his memoir. That’s a bit different from an interview or announcement and shows editorial interest in the memoir itself. WistahHoney508 (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: the article has a whole raft of sources showing WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBASIC. Taghdtaighde (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Delete With a few exceptions the sources are about the bands he was in and not him. There are statements that seem to come out of his book, but his book is problematic. The memoir (as listed on Amazon) is self-published as Kindle ebook. I couldn't find it listed in any libraries, nor, oddly, amazon.ie. (Also checked nat'l lib Ireland which would presumably have copyright deposit - zip.) The Cork Independent claims the book is available at Waterstones and Hodges Figgis but I searched in each and it was not listed. That link I just gave ends in "/?utm_source=chatgpt.com". I don't think there are suitable independent sources - that is, ones that get their information from anyone but him. Lamona (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- The memoir itself isn’t being used to establish notability -- it’s included as part of his career, and the section is supported by independent coverage (Irish Independent, RTÉ, Hot Press, etc.), not the book itself. More broadly, the article isn’t based solely on self-published or self-sourced material. There is independent media coverage of both his work with Rubyhorse and his later projects, including his memoir and music. I agree that strengthening coverage focused directly on Philpott as an individual (rather than primarily through the band) would improve the article, and I’m working on that. But it’s not accurate to say that all sourcing traces back to him or that only self-published material is being used. Note the URL you mentioned has been corrected. WistahHoney508 (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Rubyhorse per WP:BANDMEMBER (his second group is too large and not notable). It appears that the only claim to notability independent of the band is his memoirs, which was not properly reviewed. This, together with what looks like AI-written responses in this AfD and concerns expressed above regarding the same issue in the article, convinces me that this shouldn't remain as a standalone article. Kelob2678 (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- I can assure you that my responses were not generated by AI. I wrote them with Wikipedia’s guidelines in mind --keeping the tone neutral, factual, and not emotional. The article itself was revised because it was flagged as being “too well-written,” which raised concerns about AI involvement.
- I did correct the URL I had included, which came from an AI-assisted search (similar to using Google), as I was trying to add additional references based on the editors’ feedback.
- I have made every effort to follow Wikipedia guidelines. WistahHoney508 (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Rubyhorse. The delete !votes have offered no compelling reason as to why this is not an acceptable ATD. I suggest the author try again through Articles for Creation at a later date. Sorry you had to go through this. MediaKyle (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The subject passes WP:GNG in his own right. The memoir itself might not count towards his notability, but the significant coverage devoted to it by the several of respected independent sources that are in evidence does. It would be odd if they didn't mention Rubyhorse but the coverage doesn't come through the band and centres on Philpott. The Irish Examiner[27][28], The Irish Independent[29], The Ticket / The Irish Times[30], The Cork Independent[31], Evening Echo[32], and Hot Press[33], have all decided to dedicate non-trivial coverage to a work by this individual.
- He has released at least one song as an independent artist that got national airplay.[34][35][36]
- The fact that he has been a member of not one but multiple bands which are notable separately[37][38] should also weigh. The article is thoroughly cited. Taghdtaighde (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, co-founding Music in Community and his other activity in that section is independent of his bands Taghdtaighde (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- David Murphy (Irish 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)
The article relies heavily on primary and affiliated sources, including the subject’s own website and directory-style listings such as Irish Writers Online and the Munster Literature Centre. These sources are not independent and therefore cannot establish notability.
While a mention in The Irish Times is cited, a single instance of coverage does not satisfy WP:SIGCOV.
Much of the sourcing consists of:
- Basic listings or biographical directories
- Publisher or promotional material
- Primary/self-published content
Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Murphy (Irish writer).
While he has participated in literary activities and received at least one award, this alone is insufficient without corresponding independent coverage. The article currently reads as a collection of verifiable facts rather than evidence of encyclopedic significance. Rudshoyes (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland and Authors. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Most of the sourcing is primary (written by the subject), and that's about all I find. Murphy seems to write quite a bit, but I don't see any book reviews or articles directly about him, that we could use to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Some more sources have been added recently.
- The subject's notability for inclusion in an encyclopaedia is indicated by his inclusion in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (currently this article's second reference, the joint most-used citation). Further indications that he satisfies WP:SIGCOV include the Irish Times article about his memoir mentioned above, three independent references (now included) to his work being featured by the national broadcaster, and verifiable references for appearances including the culture section of the independent Limerick Post. The external links now include two short reviews of one of his novels. Being a founder editor of a (Notable) long-running publication should also be a point in favour of inclusion.
- Perhaps this is a separate issue, but I also think that at least some directory-style sources should be viewed as at minimum somewhat independent. The likes of the Munster Literature Centre (or for that matter the Internet Speculative Fiction Database) are not owned by or in a commercial relationship with the subject and they are not obliged to publish text provided to them if they think it is misleading or if they think the writer in question is not sufficiently notable. For this reason, though I agree their independence may be less than that of a completely separate publication, their attestation should not be written off completely. If there is a better place to discuss this point I would be grateful for a link to it. Taghdtaighde (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Comment:Taking updates into account, the article clearly demonstrates notability.
- It contains multiple independent, reliable sources demonstrating that his work has been featured on a national level, repeatedly, among others (see § Career, third-last paragraph),
- plus several independent reviews of the subject's work, beyond what has so far been acknowledged by commenters urging deletion (see § External links)
- He is also the subject of his own article in another trustworthy encyclopaedia, which is used to substantiate many parts of this article.
- Taken together, this collection of reliable, independent, published, secondary sources which cover the subject significantly or entirely, makes it hard to argue against including the article, by virtue of WP:NBASIC alone.
- In addition, he also passes on the more specific grounds of WP:NAUTHOR criterion 3, since he played a major role in creating the significant periodical Albedo One, which has also been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews as well as separate encyclopaedic inclusion.
- The remaining objections in the nominator's post relate to the perceived quality of the article which should be discussed outside of the deletion process. Taghdtaighde (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Absolutely woeful sourcing. Of the 13 sources, most are profile pages, event listings, and own sources. The only reliable source - The Limerick Post - simply mentions that he has published a new book and names his previous books. The subject's own books are the source of two "reviews". There is no indication that subject meets GNG. Mme Maigret (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Kelob2678 and others - the entry in the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction weighs as a source, works are reviewed, Albedo One is a significant matter. The person has clearly made a material contribution to a cultural field in his country. At least one more good general source would be ideal, but deletion would be too strong a measure. Quality of article does need work, that strikes a reader clearly, but that is not a policy-based reason for deletion. SeoR (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The SFE entry is a solid source, and there's enough other material out there to show that the spirit of NAUTHOR is met. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Comment: This article which had been soft deleted should have been restored as a draft and put through AfC. This doesn't meet the requirements for WP:GNG. The overhyped entry in Encyclopedia of Science Fiction that many of you keep referring does not contain significant coverage so it's not clear why you keep raising it unless you're suggesting it counts as presumed nobility. Also if he has an entry in ESF and Wikidata, he doesn't need an entry in Wikipedia, WP:WWIN. I would have also suggested that @Taghdtaighde create a page for the subject on Irish Wikipedia where the requirements are likely less stringent. The fact that he has no page there is also indication of his lack of notability. Mme Maigret (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mme Maigret After the article was restored as a draft I removed content I couldn't find a source for and claims substantiated only by his own website, as well as adding new sources and other improvements. Nobody else has said anything about AfC so far so after leaving a comment in its talk page and waiting for comment I restored it manually.
- WPLGNG is unclear and there doesn't seem to be an article on it. Can you explain what it is or provide a link?
- To say an encyclopaedia article, even a comparatively short one, dedicated to somebody does not cover them significantly is a strange claim. It satisfies WP:SIGCOV since no original research was necessary to extract the content. It is also far from a trivial mention, containing biographical information as well as information about many of his works, showing why they are of critical interest. In addition, information about him is contained in 2 other articles in the same encyclopaedia (seemingly by different contributors too), now integrated into this article, e.g. that Albedo One which Murphy jointly founded and co-edited for two decades was "one of the more cosmopolitan sf Print Magazines [...] bravely exploring the more oppressed areas of the world and bringing hope through solidarity or perseverance" [40].
- Notability is further demonstrated by the multiple independent, reliable sources in evidence. Those already integrated include 2 pages on the national public service broadcaster's website and one on that of Books Ireland Magazine testifying to 3 separate instances of him being featured on the national stage ([41][42][43]), all of which were added before this AfD's first relisting. The reviews in the § External links ar not from his own books as you state but seem to be from The Irish Independent, Chronicle: SF, Fantasy & Horror's Monthly Trade Journal, and SFF Chronicles among others.
- The last three sentences in your comment make me wonder if there's a joke I'm not getting. First you say his being covered in another online encyclopaedia is grounds to exclude a subject from Wikipedia instead of evidence of notability, then imply an article needs to exist on another language's Wikipedia before it can be created in the English one. A stretch is putting it mildly.
- You haven't addressed the fact that he also passes WP:NAUTHOR criterion 3, by virtue of Albedo One alone besides his other reviewed work (see its lengthy ESF article). Taghdtaighde (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
| Source
|
Reliable source?
|
Independent?
|
Significant coverage?
|
Notes
|
| Encylopedia of Science Fiction (ESF) entry
|
Apparently
|
Yes
|
No
|
Short bio, list of works, external links, 224 words
|
| RTÉ poetry program interview
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Broken link; interview, primary source
|
| Irish Writers Online profile page
|
Marginal
|
Unknown
|
No
|
68 words
|
| Interview on Bob Nielson blog
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Interview
|
| Damnation Books profile page
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
81 words
|
| ESF magazine mention
|
Apparently
|
Yes
|
No
|
28 words; same source as above
|
| Munster Literature Centre profile (archived)
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
205 words; directory-style
|
| ESF magazine (2 further mentions)
|
Apparently
|
Yes
|
No
|
Minor mentions; same source as above
|
| Books Ireland magazine event listing
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Event listing
|
| RTÉ programme (poem reading by subject)
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Primary source
|
| RTÉ programme (different poem reading by subject)
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Primary source
|
| Stinging Fly profile page
|
Unlikely
|
Unknown
|
No
|
47 words
|
| Locus Journal - contents page
|
Likely
|
Likely
|
No
|
Publication listing only. Suggest issue contains his poetry; not a secondary source
|
| Limerick Post
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
64 words; event listing
|
| Mountshannon Arts
|
No
|
Unknown
|
No
|
Event listing
|
| RTÉ programme
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Broken link; doesn't link to relevant content. Likely primary source.
|
- Mme Maigret (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Other disagreements aside, 200+ words is sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree that the Encyclopedia of SF is sigcov - they don't take in just anything. Procedurally, I would counter two notions - the fact that someone has an entry in something else online does not mean that they "don't need an article here" - that, and the notion that presence in Wikidata in any way obviates an article - seem quite odd ideas. At least one of the RTE interviews does contain RTE-researched information, as usual for such things, and so it is not just PRIMARY. I fully agree that more good sources are desirable but think the article has a solid enough base to work on. SeoR (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sources demonstrated in this AfD show a pass of NAUTHOR. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
|
FA
A
GA
General
Directories and reports
Culture and the arts
Geographical
History and society
Science, technology
Wikipedia assistance