|
- Matthias Hollwich (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)
Nonnotable architect. --Altenmann >talk 01:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hans Bøchmann Melchior (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 NACADEMIC. No sources found on Google Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Jens Hoffmann (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 the subject of this article and am requesting a courtesy deletion. The only notable aspect to my career in terms of wide in-depth press coverage is only one event, and no other coverage reveals substantial public interest in my career - the rest are run of the mill sources or passing mentions. There has been a banner at the top of the page for seven years asking for additional citations for verification, and none have come forward that changed its status. I would ask for the community to delete my page, which I had no hand in creating. JHHM (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2025 (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/2025 March 13. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 00:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Arts, Theatre, Germany, England, Costa Rica, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I mean, I wouldn't want something describing a sexual harassment online, guilty or not. Seems to be enough written about the individual as a curator [20], nothing in the Getty ULAN [21] Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Wrote a rather extensive book on the curation process "Curating from Z to A", although I see no book reviews, for it, appears to have had an extensive career with several notable art institutions. As explained above, the sexual harassment items are not something one would want to be kept online, but I see no reason to delete the article otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Book reviews here [22], [23] and was the subject of a magazine article here [24]. The Seawall one is perhaps not as good quality as the other two though. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also three reviews of Show Time: The 50 Most Influential Exhibitions of Contemporary Art at JSTOR 24242321, [25], and [26], one of Curating from A to Z [27] (to which Z to A is the sequel), one of Life in your head [28], etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Article is generally well written and sourced. Appreciate the nominator being transparent. Boredintheevening (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Charu Chandra Bandyopadhyay (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)
Insufficient Sources. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Ansuman Bhagat (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)
Repost of material previously salted at Ansuman Bhagat. Was tagged A7 and declined, then draftified and undone so WP:DRAFTOBJECT now applies and we need a AfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Jharkhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I declined WP:A7 here because of a claim of significance, "Best Writer Award for the year 2022"; I should not have done so, as it seems that claim was not a credible one – the awarding institution is an online publish-on-demand company. The "books" listed in WorldCat are self-published through another such company, Authors Tree Publishing (incorrectly listed in Worldcat as "Author Tree Publishing"). I don't read Hindi, but can see no indication here of notability of any kind. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In case this page was kept, kindly rename the page to Ansuman Bhagat. The current title includes an unnecessary disambiguation. Thanks and no opinion on the AFD. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly, the author of this has created two articles, both on subjects with heavy socking in the past, albeit by different farms. But now that they're GLOCKed, I guess there's no longer any need to figure out which, if either, farm this author belongs to. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Jerusalem Demsas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Lacks direct and in-depth coverage in independent secondary sources. Self-auhtored articles are not enough to prove her notability. Gheus (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:
- Multiple references show significant, not trivial, coverage in independent secondary sources, discussing her early life (references 1-5), professional career and her views and contributions to the discussion of the housing crisis. An important notability factor (WP:AUTHOR) relies on the following: The person's work (or works) has won significant critical attention. Her book has received has significant critical attention, including book reviews in major sites including Vox and Bloomberg News (ref 9), which stated that Demsas "has distinguished herself within the supply-side camp." References 8 & 9 show she is "known for originating a significant new concept," further enhancing her notability per WP:NAUTHOR. Her work has led to multiple high profile interviews, including on Bloomberg (ref. 9), NPR (ref. 11) and Ezra Klein's NYTimes interview (ref. 12), indicating her work has had significant attention. Included in the article were her opinions on the housing crisis; there is no Wikipedia injunction against discussing a subject's views. There is no Wikipedia injunction against using the subject's self-authored published works in reputable publications to verify the information presented. The references discussed above were used to verify Demsas' views, not to establish notability. And, only 4/18 references even fall within that purview. In brief: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (Wikipedia:Notability (people)). The article meets all criteria.
- I note that the first reviewer (Ipigott]) did not see a problem with this article, and later removed a tag stating that this article may not achieve notability, claiming that "del tag - no longer applicable." Mwinog2777 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This was because additional pertinent work had been carried out on the article.--Ipigott (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Ruth Ben-Ghiat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No named chair or anything for WP:NPROF. The current "named" position is a temporary visting role not a faculty role as expected for NPROF. None of the sources here are independent, reliable, and providing significant coverage of her. The RS use her opinion on Trump but that does not make her notable. Czarking0 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also note that the top editor to the page has been blocked for sockpuppeting. User:JmsDoug Czarking0 (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Politics, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The nomination points out only that she does not meet one very specific WP:PROF criterion, #C5. But notability need not achieved through meeting that criterion when others are available. In this case, she has many published reviews of her books, easily passing both WP:AUTHOR and (because they are in-depth independent reliable sources about her work) WP:GNG. As for "top editor" JmsDoug: that editor's contributions were limited to the infobox and the paragraph about the visiting position at the University of Hawaii. The article creation itself was long ago by someone else. So the suggestion that this is a foundationally tainted article turns out to be, if not disingenous, then at least spectacularly false. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not only talk about [[WP:NPROF]. I specifically stated why she does not meet WP:GNG. I just reread WP:AUTHOR and I am not seeing how she passes that either. if not disingenous, then at least spectacularly false Dude seriously? I googled for additional sources about her and I do not see any that are sig cov, independent, reliable. Czarking0 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- None so blind as will not see.
- But to lead you more directly to what you have not seen: WP:AUTHOR 4(c) "The person's work (or works) has ... won significant critical attention". WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
- The many published reviews constitute both "significant critical attention" and "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". They are indeed about the subject in the sense that they are entirely about the subject's work, the thing she is notable for, just as we would expect significant coverage of an athlete to be about their athletic accomplishments or significant coverage of a musician to be about their musical performances. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There are enough reviews about her works that meets NAUTHOR. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - and I'd say a speedy one at that. Several books with multiple reviews in reliable independent sources means that she passes WP:AUTHOR, and her citation record [29] looks strong as well (five papers with over a hundred citations, the top one with over 800 citations and an h-index of 21), almost certainly meeting WP:PROF#1. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok this one probably changes my mind. Czarking0 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, WP:HEY, and WP:BEFORE. I deprodded the proposed nomination, because doing so would have been controversial at a time when we don't need any more, and because of clear notability. She is well-known as The expert on Fascism in the United States today: a simple Google search will reveal that. She earned tenure as a full professor at one of the world's top universities, New York University, where it's very difficult to get tenure. David Eppstein has patiently added evidence of author notability to the article. When nominating a scholar, you need also to look at Google Scholar. Bearian (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The subject seems to be publicly notable enough, based on a basic Google search and independent news coverage like this. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per NAUTHOR. Thanks for adding the references to reviews, David Eppstein. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article only canvasses her early life and education. While her bio doesn't disclose notability, her publications might. Suggest note on talk page and tag(s) to allow the article to be revised with an aim to discussing her career and the impact of her work. ash (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Having spoken with experts in Authoritarianism, I would like to add (BLP violation removed) CounterDolus (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost forgot... (BLP violation removed) CounterDolus (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome to Wikipedia @CounterDolus! I'm sure that the points you make will be welcome in the article if they are backed up by reliable, independent, published sources. I wouldn't say that they constitute grounds for deletion though. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note also CounterDolus that Wikipedia policy on WP:Biographies of living people apply to talk pages as well as entries. These claims require reliable sources or should be removed. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That should be easy enough to provide.
- Thank you. CounterDolus (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you still haven’t done so, I have removed the unsourced claims. You may add any back that you can provide a reliable source for. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Jessica Sarah Flaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article has sources but not a single one treats the subject other than passing mentions of her as a member of a cast. A further search reveals only primary sources and a raft of social media entries. Fails both points of WP:NACTOR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fails both points of WP:NACTOR." according to the nominator? What points? How does she fail them if her roles are significant and the productions, notable? -Mushy Yank. 15:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Ullekh NP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Journalism. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Ullekh NP has at least two books that have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources: Mad About Cuba ([30]) and Kannur: Inside India's Bloodiest Revenge Politics ([31], [32]). As such, the author meets WP:NAUTHOR#3. Ping me for questions/comments. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Meets NAUTHOR. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As the original contributor, removed the peacock details that crept in the time of construction. Y Eko Log (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep though barely. Technically, he's the author of three notable books (though neither of these books was a best-seller, far from it afaik) so he just passes the WP:NAUTHOR bar. Y Eko Log created the articles on the author and his three books, so there's a walled garden concern. In its current form, the article's tone is fine and I've removed the {{peacock}} cleanup tag. Pichpich (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- William Green (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)
I can't see that any of the citations serve to establish notability TheLongTone (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi TheLongTone - thank you for your long work on Wikipedia. I did not receive any sort of compensation for this article, but I probably should have disclosed that the subject was known to me as a friend-of-a-friend sort of thing. I thought based on the coverage in mainstream US media (Washington Post, Business Insider, Bank Rate) that the subject met notability requirements, and tried to write the article as well sourced and neutral as I could. I'll accept the decision of this page. 37and7 (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Written in good faith but with a massive COI the sources are either primary, the subject's own web site, or articles written by the subject in the course of his employment as a journalist. Searches do not turn up any other RS with significant coverage. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the only possible deep coverage is one review, which is not significant coverage. I routinely disclose conflicts of interest, whether in my user space, on the talk page of the article (for example, Talk:Mark Zaid), or the AfD (for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James M. Durant III). Bearian (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Great writer but much has not been written about him. I’m willing to change my !vote if some credible sources are found. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Gervais (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)
Previously deleted and salted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gervais * Pppery * it has begun... 00:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Psychology. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Michael Gervais meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a notable psychologist specializing in high-performance mindset training. He has been featured in major publications like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Forbes, demonstrating significant coverage in reliable sources. As co-founder of Compete to Create and a consultant for elite athletes and organizations, his work has had a substantial impact. His podcast, Finding Mastery, further establishes his influence in the field. Given the depth of coverage and professional significance, he meets Wikipedia’s notability standards. Mercurydry (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and note to closer: the title Michael Gervais is WP:SALTED to admin only. So in case, this was kept, kindly move the page (for non-admins, kindly make a request on WP:RM/T) to the said title as this current title includes unnessesary disambiguator. Thanks and no opinion on the AFD. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Farouk Yousif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is only one secondary source on the subject which is below the minimum set in the notability guidelines for people set out in WP:BIO. Abolishedtemple (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Jean Boudriot (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)
Lacking in real sources for WP:BIO, and no reviews that I can find for his book, Le vaisseau de 74 canons, for WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : The Fr Wiki article is only a list of national catalogue listings used a sourcing and a list of books. The sourcing is even worse than what's here... I can only find this review of one of his books [33]. I don't see enough sourcing to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep This review in the Naval War College journal (?, I'm not sure if it's a magazine or a formal academic jouranl) seems to help this person pass AUTHOR [34]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm Aktham (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 don't think this person is notable enough. I couldn't find enough reliable sources to prove its notability. فيصل (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Qatar. فيصل (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Of all nation-states, Qatar has the lowest proportion of women biographies: under 8%, according to humaniki. It feels like there's some WP:Systemic bias here, which was why I created the page. Dsp13 (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have found and added several sources, which are overviews of Arab women writers and literature, tertiary sources rather than secondary. The content within them about this writer is short, but the fact that they include her, and the way they write about her writing, leads me to think that secondary sources exist. The last source currently in the article, at magazine.jouhina.com, is unfortunately a deadlink and not archived (as far as I have been able to find). From what I can see on the Wayback Machine of other articles in that magazine, it would have included critique of her writing, by the author of the article and others, and biographical detail, and would certainly count as SIGCOV. Perhaps a WP editor will have access to it offline. I have tried googling her Arabic name (I do not read or speak Arabic!), and there is one source the title of which translates as Writers from the Arabian Gulf, with the content described as "Arab authors; women Arab authors; Persian Gulf countries; biography." Even if I could read Arabic, only a snippet view is available on Google Books, but if anyone has access to أدباء وأديبات من الخليج العربي offline, it may also be useful. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an closed 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 no consensus. —Anonymous 13:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Jeffrey Gitomer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am not sure if he is notable. Most of sources seem to be either primary or only tangentially related to him. I am unsure whether he meets WP:CREATIVE; points 3 and 4 are relevant. I am not sure if the attention he got was critical and whether his work has been covered in enough periodical articles. (I see [35], but not much more.) Even if The Little Red Book of Selling had made him notable, he would seem to be a bit too BLP1E-ish, as the rest of the coverage is more-or-less trivial or primary. Janhrach (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I see plenty of good sources. I remember the incident that lead to his being banned from the airline, so BLP1E doesn't apply. There are issues with the article, but they can be resolved through ordinary editing. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: Do you think he meets points 3 or 4 of WP:CREATIVE? I did not express that well, but WP:CREATIVE was intended to be the main point of my nom. I am willing to withdraw this nom if there is a convincing argument that he does. Janhrach (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think that he meets factor #3 as having written several related books. Bearian (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, but it also says that:
In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);
- I don't see
multiple independent periodical articles or reviews , but I haven't really done a thorough search. Like I have written, I have found [36], but the other articles I have found were blogs (or similar), not articles from periodicals. Janhrach (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (may return with !vote) This is a typical promotional article for someone whose main skill is promoting. He writes those books a friend of mine calls "business porn": which promise great wealth not unlike that of megachurch leaders. I removed some irrelevant promotional statements, but there are undoubtedly more. I am not sure that the speaking awards (e.g. "Certified Speaking Professional (CSP) Award") are of value because the organization appears to be a speakers' bureau. Two of the book awards (IPPY) are indeed awards but he is among other winners, in one case one of 66. A fairly snide article in Time magazine was used for one "cute" quote but ignored 4 paragraphs of negative review of his work. (I fixed some of that.) The reviews by Jack Covert seem to be in a personal blog, albeit a pretty ambitious one. His books have sold many copies, and I can see some presence in library collections. I confess that I have little regard for this category of output, along with all of the self-help books. I just thought I should be honest about my prejudice. Lamona (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Don Libes (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 does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, because there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Most references are primary or technical sources rather than in-depth third-party discussions of Don Libes himself. The article reads more like a CV than an appropriate Wiki biography Neurorocker (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Computing, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak delete. The nominator has not fully understood the notability criteria for academics, WP:NPROF, and it appears has also not done a detailed WP:Before. Understandable since they are relatively new, but still not the best. That aside I cannot find enough citations of his papers to convince me that he passes WP:NPROF#C1. There are some reviews of his books, so there is some WP:NAUTHOR contribution. I could not find his CV, which may be available to DOE or NIST personnel. Hence I don't know about awards. I lean delete, unconvincingly. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: for policy based input please. A Google Scholar page cannot be used to prove or disprove notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked for biographical sources, and there just aren't any. This person's software is documented, not least by this person. ☺ But this person xyrself is not. Which is why the article gives almost half its length to expect and in the other half has claims that I cannot source. For example, the claim to being first to port a piece of software is not sourceable. The original paper is silent on whether it was the first, and no-one else appears to have recorded it as such since. I cannot find a source that doesn't come from Wikipedia that records this person doing this at all, the available sourcing on this person's work being that poor.
In fact, only people named Don Libes have written about Don Libes, everywhere. Excluding books where the author is Don Libes outright, I found a CRC Press book with a potted biography that looked promising, until I saw "Prepared by Don Libes." at the foot of the text. The person who wrote what Wikipedia now has is Donlibes (talk · contribs), replacing a much shorter article — which was, it transpires, written by Don Libes, since it was copied from xyr NIST autobiography (Don Libes BIO at the Wayback Machine (archived 2007-05-02)) with first-person pronouns replaced by third person. It is impossible, as we can see, for anyone to write a biography if one isn't one of these Don Libeses, which isn't how Wikipedia works. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Rajlukshmee Debee Bhattacharya (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)
Apart from the cited links, I couldn't find much info on the web supporting notability. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added some info and a reference, and will continue looking for more. Like Eddie891, I think having an obit in Indian Literature and being described as "a major voice in Indian poetry and women's writing" in My Birth Was Not In Vain: Selected Poems by Seven Bengali Women are good indications that she is notable and that there is more coverage. She published many poems in Bengali, and there is likely to be coverage in Bengali language sources (not Bengali Wikipedia), and other languages of the subcontinent. Frustratingly, many of the English language sources which come up in a Google Books source are snippet view only. I hope someone with access to relevant hardcopy sources will add more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|
FA
A
GA
