|
- Jon Kiper (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 article was previously deleted last December because Kiper was deemed non-notable. An editor re-created the page today on the basis that Kiper was included in a single poll, which doesn't really address the fundamental lack of notability and is a perfect example of WP:ROTM campaign coverage (if you even consider it coverage). They also added 5 new sources: a press release from Kiper's website, three clearly WP:ROTM news articles (one just says he filed to run and the other two are about candidate forums he appeared at), and the aforementioned poll. I don't see how any of this overrides the finding of the previous deletion discussion. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Politicians, Food and drink, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Still a delete, it's all stories about what he wants to do if elected, nothing of which is any different than any other candidate's articles when they run. This is simple news reporting. A favorability poll isn't really notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or draftify: Article reads like an advert, and subject doesn't look notable enough. —Mjks28 (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Marco Magnani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not particularly relevant as an essayist, nor as a lecturer. Excellent career, no doubt, but rather in the normal range. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Economics, Singapore, Italy, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The page needs cleanup as it's written like an advertisement, but the books have quite some coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR:
Broc (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Some profiles in the press (although mixed with interviews, not sure if they would contribute to WP:GNG: [16][17] and some more coverage of Il grande scollamento [18] Broc (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Jonathan Pageau (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 about a non-notable religious leader and speaker. Fails WP:GNG. Sources are self-published and opinion piece. No actual WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, France, and Canada. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Religion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment we can agree that Jonathan Pageau is not world famous. At all. However within a specialist sphere of religious communities interested in orthodox and catholic art, as seen by treatments in various religious journals, the artist has received significant coverage. Hence the artist's thought and work is discussed in the following reliable sources:
- And there are also primary sources that have been used in the current iteration of the article, but they are not needed to establish notability, rather they seem to be used for descriptive statements of facts. I believe from the above sources that it's established the subject is notable, albeit within a very particular field of endeavour. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- One perspective is clear: while Pageau's outlook is primarily religious, much of what he has done is applicable to secular art as well. It is erroneous to characterize his impact as only 'religious' (personally, I find such characterization as typical of the non-NPOV shown by people hostile to religion).
- I found the concluding pages of his Snow White and the Widow Queen - a non-religious text, I might add - to be clever and original. More books in this series of fairy tales are still to be published.
- Yes, I can see where people might conclude that WP:TOOSOON might apply, but he already has a substantial published body of work - well, more substantial than my four unpublished books (ha!). Also, he has been interviewed over and over by and collaborated with people judged to be notable such as Jordan Peterson, Robert Barron, Paul Kingsnorth, and Gavin Ashenden: they think he is notable.
- Thank you for listening. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice to have you join in the discussion @Tfdavisatsnetnet - I know you're strongly interested in this topic. To be fair to the administrators looking at the discussion here, they will only be interested in whether the subject of the article is notable, as seen by good secondary sources. However, you do make a valuable point here, in that known writers write about the subject at hand, so Rod Dreher writes about Jonathan Pageau and Robert Barron talks about (and talks with) Jonathan Pageau and Paul Kingsnorth writes about Jonathan Pageau, all of which would indicate, to me, that there is substantial coverage of the subject (while not being exactly world famous). MatthewDalhousie (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it comes down to: do YouTube videos count as much as printed material? If so, then Jonathan Pageau IS notable, despite the fact that the sources are primary and not secondary. Again, personally I find him to be far more notable than many others. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think you need to point youtube videos. More relevant to point to places where known thinkers are writing about Jonathan Pageau, which certainly includes:
- I don't there's an article by Jordan Peterson where he describes the significance of Pageau's work to him, but of course he does co-author a paper with Pageau here, which alone makes him significant, given that Peterson is notable. Still, ultimately, what makes Pageau notable is that he has received coverage from reliable sources in the area of religion like Christianity Today. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Marzieh Sotoudeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. The attempted notability claim here, that she won a literary award, would be fine if the article were sourced properly, but is not "inherently" notable without sourcing -- an award has to itself be a notable award in the first place before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so an award claim cannot clinch inclusion without sourcing for it. But I had to remove the citation that was present here as it led to a squatted page that tried to make me download a virus rather than anything that verified any literary awards, and that left the article completely unsourced — and going by its URL it looks to have been a primary source, not a reliable or GNG-building one, even before it got squatted.
Meanwhile, the award she purportedly won does not have a Wikipedia article at all, and instead substitutes a link to the biography of the other unrelated writer the award was named for, which is not in and of itself proof that the award is a notable one.
On a WP:BEFORE search, meanwhile, the closest thing to an acceptable source I found was one book review on a WordPress blog -- and even if I were to overlook the fact that it's WordPress, I just can't overlook the even bigger issue with it: this article was created in 2011 by an editor with the username Mohammad Rajabpur, while that WordPress review was written in 2020 with a bylined author credit of Mohammad Rajabpur, strongly implying the possibility of conflict of interest editing by a friend or colleague. And I can otherwise confirm that she's never had any WP:GNG-worthy coverage in Canada at all, as her name brings up absolutely nothing in either ProQuest or Newspapers.com.
Since I cannot read Farsi, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to Iranian media than I've got can find evidence that she's had GNG-worthy coverage in Iran, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have any sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Claude Bédard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of a textbook translator, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for translators. The strongest notability claim here, that he won a private internal award from a trade association, is not an automatic notability freebie without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing -- but the only attempt at "referencing" here is one of his books metaverifying its own existence, which is not the kind of sourcing we need to see.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this. And we're much stricter on referencing articles properly than we were 20 years ago, so the fact that this was kept in an AFD discussion in 2005 is not definitive, especially since even some of the keep arguments at the time called for improvement that the article never saw. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This is a common name in Quebec and Canada, so I find hits on all types of individuals with this name. Nothing about this person in particular... The one source in the article is primary. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Lars Bern (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 of persistent issues that have not been addressed despite discussions on the talk page. The main concerns include:
- **POV (Point of View) Issues**: The article heavily reflects the claims and views of the biographed person without sufficient neutral coverage.
- **Lack of Reliable Sources**: The content relies predominantly on sources that do not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards.
- **Notability Concerns**: The subject does not meet the general notability guideline as the article lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources.
- **Content Focus**: The article focuses more on claims made by the person rather than providing a balanced biographical account, which is a core requirement for biographical articles on Wikipedia.
These issues combined lead to the conclusion that the article may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form.
Looking into the bibliography at least four of them seems to be self-published, or published on "print-on-demand" publishing companys."Recito":
"Recito is an innovative publisher specializing in small print runs and making the publishing world accessible to authors. We work closely with our authors to create wonderful books, and because we are experts in small print runs, we can test the market with each book without having to predict the future or risk mistakenly rejecting a manuscript." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franke1281 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Rob Heppler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable person. Article created promotionally. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The only RS is the Christian Science Monitor and it's about a Mr. Spar, not about this person. I don't find mentions of this footwear designer. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Radio, Television, Fashion, Internet, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This person does not meet WP criteria WP:NARTIST, nor for a journalist WP:NJOURNALIST nor as a business person WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. A before-search finds only social media, user-submitted content, and a couple primary sources. Originally created as a promotional autobiography. Netherzone (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Uri Gordon (anarchist) (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, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO and lacks WP:SIGCOV. The sources here, as well as those found in a WP:BEFORE search, are primary in that they consist mainly of interviews and self-published works by the article subject. No in-depth, third party articles by reliable publications would be found. As an editor commented on the article Talk page, appearance in other language Wikis is not among criteria for evaluating notability for the English Wikipedia. Geoff | Who, me? 16:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politics, Israel, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (not yet a !vote): his Google Scholar profile [20] shows three publications with triple-digit citation counts; this sounds strong to me but how does it compare to others in similar topics? I found and added to the article three published reviews (in academic journals from mainstream publishers) of his book Anarchy alive!, but I didn't find reviews for his other books Routledge Handbook of Radical Politics, Six Zionist Essays, Hier und jetzt: anarchistische Praxis und Theorie (maybe a translation of Anarchy alive!?), and Anarchists Against the Wall: Direct Action and Solidarity with the Palestinian Popular Struggle. Another review of at least a second book would be needed for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a wee note that Six Zionist Essays was written by a different Uri Gordon. — LittleDwangs (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Confusing. Thanks for the correction. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I also found a couple of reviews of Anarchists Against the Wall, one in Fifth Estate (Spring/Summer 2014, Vol. 49 Issue 1, p34-35) and one in Social Movement Studies (May 2016, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p335-338). — LittleDwangs (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1, WP:AUTHOR, and the additional reliably-published reviews found by LittleDwangs, which I have found links for and added to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I found the arguments by David Eppstein convincing.Whizkin (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per WP:PROF#C1 as discussed by David. --hroest 17:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:AUTHOR by sources indicated above. gidonb (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:PROF#C1, WP:AUTHOR as above — LittleDwangs (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Anarchy Alive! There is no extended reliable, secondary source coverage of note about the author himself, discounting passing mentions and interviews (which are primary sources). The most that has been written about him are the academic reviews of his book Anarchy Alive which are already in that dedicated article, as they're more about the book than the author. That Anarchists Against the Wall has one academic review (not counting Fifth Estate, which is a partisan periodical) does not bring us any more closer to being able to write a dedicated biography that does justice to Gordon. The standard here is to cover the author within his book article, if he's better known for that book than for any other thing. czar 01:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Judith Sewell Wright (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)
Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Mdann52 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Law. Mdann52 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I don't find book reviews, so not passing AUTHOR. No mentions in media that i can find, what's now used for sourcing in the article is primary or linked to paper sources that I can't locate online. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If you need reviews for the books, they are in the Amazon postings of the books. I may not be a Wikipedia expert, but I do know that Judith has, in fact, written these books. If you want to look her up as an author in general: https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3AJudith+Wright+EdD&s=relevancerank&text=Judith+Wright+EdD&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1
- Does that somehow not qualify? I do not understand. KreftMM (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @KreftMM: By "reviews" we normally mean articles discussing books and covering them in depth, not just reviews on shopping sites. Mdann52 (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for that feedback. It will help me in other regards - however, I am no longer working on Judith's Wikipedia page in any regard. KreftMM (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. in WP:AUTHOR, one of the criteria for notability is that 'The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique'. It looks to me like Wright is either the originator of the concept of soft addiction or at the very least a leading author on the topic. Also, I can find book reviews- I am not sure where you were looking.Spiralwidget (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2024
- @Spiralwidget: I note the soft addiction thing - but I don't know if it's a "significant new" concept, as the concept seemed to be known and studied under the name "behaviour addition" from before her time (and the article redirects there now) - however with that being the only claim to notability, I didn't think it met the bar. Mdann52 (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(UTC) EDIT: I have to review this as instead a Comment. I could not find reviews outside of Amazon Books and she seems to receive remarkably little attention by major publications.
- Reviews are available on the books in every place they are available for purchase. I can also provide additional book reviews, as well as sources for where she has been in the media. Such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlE0y5gYH1I, https://www.grandmagazine.com/2018/03/transformational-learning-age/, https://beta.prx.org/stories/94668, https://blacktortoisepress.com/tag/oprah-winfrey-show/
- I'll admit that I don't know what types of sources are preferred on Wikipedia, but I can assure you I can provide the right kind if you educate me. KreftMM (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not too knowledgeable either, but per WP:RSPRIMARY, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over others. Procyon117 (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Illinois, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wright's coining of soft addiction, per WP:AUTHOR, makes her notable. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR, according soft addiction.--Mooon FR (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I refined my search to "Judith Wright" + soft addictions, and found multiple sources through ProQuest and Newspapers.com and through Google that verify she did coin the term. Sacramento Bee, Sac Bee continued, Orlando Sentinel, author, Judith Wright, coined the term "soft addictions" more than 12 years ago, Judith Wright, who labeled the phenomenon more than a decade ago, a term she coined several years ago, so she appears to meet WP:AUTHOR#2. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per sources provided by Isaidnoway, WP:AUTHOR#2 is satisfied. Sal2100 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless an editor can provide references to reliable, fully independent sources that devote significant coverage to Sewell Wright. Sources brought forward are passing mentions of her, and quotations from her, generated by the marketing campaigns for her books. Sources that call her a "life coach and lifestyles expert" are clearly parroting her self promotional activities. Yes, she coined the phrase "soft addiction" but that refers to a psychiatric condition and she has no known formal training in psychiatry or psychology or psychotherapy or counseling or anything relevant. As for Amazon reviews, they are worthless for establishing notability since Amazon is in the business of selling almost everything including non-notable books by non-notable authors, as in this case. She is definitely not a "leading author" on Behavioral addiction. Many of the leading authors are in the reference section of that well-referenced article, and she is not among them. Cullen328 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per reasons given by Cullen328, at least for now. No editor has yet provided examples of significant coverage of "soft addiction" in fully independent non-promotional venues/outlets. As far as I can tell, all the links to news clippings above are associated with Wright's books, interviews directly with Wright, promotions of her seminars, or all three. SunTunnels (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although the article needs an update, it certainly meets the notability criteria. Bexaendos (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bexaendos, please point out reliable sources completely independent of Sewell Wright that devote significant coverage to Sewell Wright. Cullen328 (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Era Tak (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:NBIO. Current references are mostly primary or from YouTube. There are a couple to Amar Ujala, but they don't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV. There doesn't seem to be much improvement in terms of references when compared to the previous afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Era Tak. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination, still not yet notable per WP:CREATIVE. Couldn't find SIGCOV in RS in English or Hindi (इरा टाक) - apart from what's cited here already all I could find was a typical WP:NEWSORGINDIA softball interview on News 18. Wikishovel (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. The article seems to be more promotional. Ciudatul (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Poor unreliable sources on the page. Page reads as publicity WP:PROMO. Fails notability with no significant achievement or influence notable by the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Agree with others that this is a poorly ref-bombed WP:PROMO. No significant coverage. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Vladimir Anisimoff (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)
Appears to be built on no reliable/secondary/independent sources and I'm unable to find any myself. Aza24 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Science. Aza24 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Philosophy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Russian Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article for this person, but it has articles on other people with this name who might be notable by English Wikipedia standards. See ru:Анисимов, Владимир Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, though the article was created 10 years ago, there are zero reliable sources not connected to Anisimoff himself, and I can't find any in Russian. Artem.G (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Weak Keep if the article can provide reliable sources (per WP:RS), and be re-written to read like an advert (WP:NOTADVERT). If not, delete. —Mjks28 (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have gone through the article and reworded a lot of it to sound less biased and impartial. It would be appreciated if other editors could go through and help make it neutral. Mjks28 (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your efforts, but these neutrality issues aren't really a concern for AFD. As you mention, it's the sources that are the defining factor here. Aza24 (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- G. B. Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cunard. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sources by Cunard only prove that this is a case of WP:BLP1E; person known only for writing misleading attack pieces on Gandhi. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The books were published and received coverage over a several year period so that isn't "one event". PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any "reviews" that would make him notable and in any case, it does not change the fact that per WP:BLP1E, we need to assess that "how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources", and this subject fails that. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E. Cursory search does not show anything different. Azuredivay (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We shouldn't push to delete material merely because we disagree with it; the question is whether it is notable. The two related AfDs on two of his books Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination have turned up possibly as many as six in-depth reliable reviews for the first book and three for the second, well over my threshold for WP:AUTHOR. These are mainstream sources (and point out the fringe and partisan nature of the books) so the requirement of WP:FRINGE for mainstream coverage is met. He may be a partisan conspiracy theorist and he may be incorrect on all points; per FRINGE, that raises a higher bar, that we use mainstream and not fringe sources to cover him, but I think that bar is met. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Only 2 sources provided above includes a database of many non-notable authors and a 20 years old random coverage from Colorado's The Gazette, a local daily. None of this establishes WP:GNG, let alone gaining significant coverage from the expert sources of this field. Orientls (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking duplicate "delete" comment. Cunard (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable fringe writer. Agletarang (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: G. B. Singh received 820 words of coverage in Gale's reference work Contemporary Authors. The Wikipedia article for Contemporary Authors cites a Texas State Library book for the statement "The work is a standard in libraries and has been honored by the American Library Association as a distinguished reference title."
G. B. Singh received a 1,760-word profile in The Gazette (Colorado Springs). The Gazette is a respected regional newspaper that won Pulitzer Prizes in 1990 and 2014. Colorado Springs is the second-most populous city in the state of Colorado, and the 39th-most-populous city in the United States. The two sources were published five years apart. WP:BLP1E does not apply to an author who has received this level of coverage. WP:BLP1E does not apply because neither "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" nor "The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" apply. G. B. Singh clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Katherine Salant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:MILL journalist, does not fulfill WP:NJOURNALIST criteria. Broc (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Broc (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Enough coverage of her books to pass AUTHOR [21], [22], [23] Oaktree b (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Carl Faingold (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've cleaned this article up a bit but after looking for additional information to add more substance, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. He's certainly had his name attached to many published papers, but they are pretty niche in content and many co-authors don't have their own pages. Looking at the page history, it appears that this may have been initially authored by a student or someone associated with him. Most recently, an IP user copy/pasted a numbered list of his papers but started at "112" which makes me think it came from somewhere else, but I can't find where. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NPROF#1. On GS I see at least 12 publications in GS with 100+ citations which is generally beyond the bar required to clear #1. Scopus lists him at an h-index of 44 with 10 publications with 100+ citations and Scopus is generally more conservative than GS. So based on this it seems like a pretty clear cut case for NPROF#1. --hroest 10:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a pretty gross misreading of WP: NPROF. It says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Nowhere does it say that h-index, citation count, or publication count is a factor for establishing notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Author of quite a few books and peer-reviewed studies, but I don't find critical review of his books, nor any indication of the academic notability needed here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] - Delete: Fails WP: N. I can't find any sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahmed Zitouni (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 does not meet the notability requirement NBV2010 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted as an uninvolved admin in my individual capacity, per WP:NACD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I believe the book and the paper listed above show that NAUTHOR 1, 3, and 4c have been met, in addition to the GNG. Any one of these would be enough to keep. The full text of the paper Cortador cited can be found here. Toadspike [Talk] 08:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cocobb8 In light of the sources provided by Mccapra and Cortador, would you consider there to be
sufficient coverage to justify notability per WP:NAUTHOR ? Toadspike [Talk] 08:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just searched Google Scholar for "Ahmed Zitouni" and found this, which looks like an old review of one of his novels, and this book, which has a whole chapter on three authors, one of whom is Zitouni, starting on page 131. Toadspike [Talk] 08:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Toadspike, I would, yes! Thanks for the ping, not sure how I had missed those sources! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 11:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Troy Stetina (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 nominated this before but it was closed as no consensus since there were no other participates. Same reasoning as before applies: fails WP:MUSICBIO and quite promotional. Can’t find any in-depth sources on the subject. The cited Washington Post article [24] is about the subject’s father, Wayne Stetina. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Indiana, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strong Delete. I suggest that, if nobody comes to support it, it should be considered as a prod. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]- Delete. This subject is not notable enough for an article. Qflib (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. To be notable through publishing works on how to play guitar, we would need in-depth published reviews of those works, and I don't see them. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Weak Keep on a hunch (i.e., easily overruled). Coverage is basically blog and genre-magazine style, which needs a lot to add up to notability, but there is a lot out there (even discounting some that seem more like PR/Press-release interview type). Head of department (conservatories often don't have traditional academic ranks) but of a small department. Each part of his career adds up to slightly less than the relevant notability guideline, but together they peek just over the edge for me. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Any non-blog, non-PR sources you would like to share? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He is well known in the guitar community and among musicians for his instruction releases. The problem is that this article is poorly sourced so I can see why it attracts a deletion nom. I know that his Left-Handed Guitar: The Complete Method by Stetina, Troy (2001) is quite popular. Yes of course, it takes more than good sales. His Fretboard Mastery was very popular too. He's had articles about him in various guitar mags both paper and online. The Guitarist magazine March 1993 is one. He had article beside Dominic Miller and Tony Zemaitis as you can see. The Guitar Noise website which is a huge go-to source for axmen and axeladies refers to Stetina as an "internationally recognized guitarist and music educator". There's others too but I don't want to get too caught up with this one. Further info below
* This is from the magazine, Modern Drummer, September 1993 - Page 106 SPEED AND THRASH METAL DRUM METHOD by Troy Stetina and Charlie Busher.
* And there's an article by Stetina published in Guitar One, Volume 9, No 2 February 2006 - Page 176 RETURN OF THE SHRED Come Together Two Essential Hybrid Scales
There's more but searching gets flooded with the dozens of releases he has had put out. Karl Twist (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two books on Amazon have about 200 reviews each. This one is ranked 16,000+ in Music Instruction & Study. By no stretch of the imagination are these "popular" books and they don't contribute to notability.
- Is this an article he wrote?
- 1) The Guitar Noise website seems to be just a group blog about how to play the guitar. 2) The link you gave is just him responding to someone else's comment. That "internationally recognized" line is a promotional line he wrote himself (as per his own website).
- The two articles in Modern Drummer and Guitar one are articles written by Stetina not articles about Stetina. They don't contribute to notability. You would need to find in-depth articles about Stetina.
- Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the Amazon books have more reviews than releases by so-called main-stream artists. They do appear to be quite popular! And I wasn't trying to use them as proof of notability. Just to give an idea of what the guy's exposure is. Somebody in Germany must have heard of him, there's a German Wikipedia article (needs work) See here.
Forget the Guitar Noise one, that wasn't the one I meant to put in. Sorry. It was another online music news source. I have to try and remember. There was also a reliable source good size review on that I thought I had put in but for the life of me it's vanished. I went back though the page history and it isn't there. Maybe I thought I did. Perhaps it was on notepad, and I closed it before I had edited it in. It was similar to the Fret 12 review but not related to the sale of the product. The Modern Drummer (if it isn't about him) and Guitar One still show his profile. They are well-respected and notable publications. Well, there's no article page for Guitar One yet. The articles below are relaible,
- OnMilwaukee, Apr 07, 2005 - Despite impressive resume, Stetina lacks name recognition at home By Bobby Tanzilo
- Metal Shock Finland, October 13, 2011 - Interview with TROY STETINA: Music truly is the world’s best hope to cross borders, cross cultures and show humanity what we have in common. Interview by Mohsen Fayyazi
- Maximum Ink Madison's music magazine, September 2012 - Second Soul
AN INTERVIEW WITH TROY STETINA OF SECOND SOUL BY MIKE HUBERTY
- Guitariste Metal, 3 Octobre 2014 - Troy Stetina interview
And these below are helpful,
- The Journal Times, Sep 25, 2013 - Center Stage /Oversoulss /5-19 - By Loreen Mohr
- The Journal Times, - Center Stage/Oversoulss - By Loreen Mohr
Easily notable! He's had a huge influence on a good amount of major notable guitarists. I can find more but I have been drawn into this as I do sometimes and have neglected other stuff.
Thanks
- Karl Twist (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but almost all of those sources are interviews with the subject. Interviews are considered primary sources and they don’t contribute to notability. The only non-interview source in there is the Journal Times article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello again Dr. Swag Lord . Well actually the first part of the OnMilwaukee article is not interview. The subject was researched (as it's the normal procedure) before the interview was conducted. And if considered primary, it's not like it's from the subject's own site anyway. Yes, I understand that primary sources and sources related to the subject themselves cannot be used to support content in a page. By that's not what we're looking at. We're looking at the status of the subject and the reliable sources that support the assertion that he is a notable person. The Maximum Ink is similar. Well, the first 196 worlds / 15 sentences (not including the title) are about him and not by him. The interview is secondary. There are two Journal Times articles. Then there's the Modern Drummer article by Matt Pieken about his book-cd combo, Speed and Thrash Metal Drum Method that he did with Charlie Bushor. It's about his work, not written by him.
Going on what user Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert said earlier with "together they peek just over the edge", well with what I've come up with, the interviews by respected news sources etc., his contributions to major music magazines etc., collectively they well and truly sit on top of the table. And the Modern Drummer review proves it more. And this below, a C&P of what I edited into the article page, According to La Scena Musicale, Stetina was booked along with Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, and Jonathan Kreisberg to appear at the Wilson Center Guitar Competition & Festival which ran from August 13 to 15, 2015, at the Sharon Lynne Wilson Center for the Arts. La Scena Musicale, 3 August 2015 - International Guitar Legends Headlining Wilson Center Guitar Competition & Festival: 2015 Artists include Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, Jonathan Kreisberg, Troy Stetina It's obvious when Stetina is mentioned in the same headline such as these premier artists, he's well and widely known in various fields and notable. His volume of work speaks for itself, especially when artists such as Mark Tremonti, Michael Angelo Batio, Bill Peck, and Eric Friedman appear on Troy Stetina: The Sound and the Story etc. etc.. For him not to be notable would be an exception to the rule.
- Karl Twist (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The Modern Drummer article is a short review of one of Stetina’s books. It has no in-depth content of the subject’s life or activities.
- Please note, the article in La Scena Musicale is an example of WP:SPONSORED content. At the bottom of the article it states: “LSM Newswire is La Scena's Newswire service. Organizations can post a press release on our website for a fee. See the media kit at our advertising page at https://myscena.org/advertising”. Since that is an ad paid for by the band it is not RS and does not add to notability.
- You say there’s two Journal Times articles, but you linked to the same one twice.
- Please take a look at WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because the subject has been associated with notable individuals does not make him notable himself.
- Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- On a further note, “metalshockfinland.com” and “guitariste-metal.fris” are certainly not RSs (obviously blog sources). Also, Maximum Ink seems WP:QS at best. There’s no published editorial board, no published editorial policies. Additionally, it’s quite suspicious that the article links to the Wikipedia page of Tony Stetina and links to places where you can purchase Stetina’s CD (seems pretty promotional to me). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the Modern Drummer review isn't what I would call short. It's an acceptable size. It's not supposed to be about an "in-depth content of the subject’s life or activities". It's a review of his work.
- Ok if one of them such as La Scena Musicale is an example of WP:SPONSORED content. There's enough of the other! And as I mentioned with Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert saying "but together they peek just over the edge for me", I go further and say there's enough reliable stuff to sit him on top of the table!
- Sorry my bad about the Journal Times. Yes, it was one article. There was the additional updated page.
- Well the WP:NOTINHERITED would be the card to pull out if there were no other good supporting info about him. But thankfully there is! The point I made about him being associated with notable individuals was that he is regarded as prominent.
- “metalshockfinland.com” and “guitariste-metal.fris” are possibly blog type in format. But the first one has been used to reference around fifty+ pages here, (most of them about heavy metal no surprise) and is a respected source of info.
- Nothing suspicious or promotional about the German page for Troy Stetina. Because he's been so prolific with his published works, the searches get flooded with them and for someone who has German as a first language and English as second, this is how a page would be likely to add up. I'm not going to make any assertions about lazy editing because I'm not going to judge an editor's ability. I'd just go with the language thing.
Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well since the topic of this article is Troy Stetina, the Modern Dummer review fails WP:SIGCOV. There’s no material about Stetina specifically. If you really think metal shock Finland is an RS, then I think I’ll open up a discussion on RSN. Also, I never mentioned the German Wikipedia page—I was referencing the Maximum Ink article that has a link at the bottom directing us to Stetina’s en WP page. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I opened a RSN discussion on the above source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#metalshockfinland Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The Modern Drummer article doesn't fail anything! It's just a good review of a release of his. A review in a well-respected publication. Actually, you said earlier (18:29, 11 June 2024) that it was written by him. It was actually written by Matt Pieken. And actually, I believe that somewhere here someone said that there were no reviews of his work. Well there's the Matt Pieken review in Modern Drummer and another which I have to re-find. Incidentally, Pieken has done reviews for artists such as Jane's Addiction. And OK, minus one Metal Shock by Mohsen Fayyazi if it be so. Well, we still have good enough on him to support the Keep status.
Yes, I see that you've opened an RSN discussion on Metal Shock. OK, what can I say. The fact that Stetina has written for two of the two of the biggest selling guitar mags is additional proof of his status. He was employed by Guitar One and wrote for Guitar World. Just a quick grab of the Ozwinds site where it says, "Go inside the mind of one of the most accomplished guitar instructors in history", you said something previously that this was copied from his website. Well, perhaps one or two others may have done this, or he has copied on to his website what has been said about him. Most to the majority of sites refer to him as something similar, I guess this is because this is what he is! To tell the truth I'm not that keen on heavy metal or this type of music. I had heard of Stetina in the past but didn't know that much about him. If I didn't think he was notable I would have just gone for a re-direct or maybe wouldn't have bothered at all. Karl Twist (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don’t think where he was employed or what magazines he written for are relevant for notability. Do you have any other sources to share? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin, Even though I believe there's enough on Troy Stetina to warrant a keep, could I ask please that if the consensus eventually leans towards a deletion, you might consider redirecting rather than deleting? There are a number of possibilities. One would be Mark Tremonti who has a historical and ongoing musical association with Stetina. There was already a mention of him there on the page. I have also done a bit more. There's other content that would eventually go in there as per the normal growth of an article. This is regardless of a deletion or not. If in the event of a deletion consideration, that would probably be the best. Perhaps if the Guitar One article was created, that would be another one as Stetina was involved with the magazine for some time as a writer and contributor. Then there could be his brothers Dale and Wayne where a paragraph could be. They're only stubs at the moment. With a re-direct, the history can be preserved which IMO is always a good thing.
I would like to do more to fix the subject's page as it is a mess. Sadly, my time is limited and I am neglecting other things. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus yet and different assessments of the existing sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep as there is enough coverage in total including prose part of interviews, and a review for a narrow pass of WP:GNG. Also Ultimate Guitar is listed as a reliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources although the particular reference is possibly a press release so doesn't help, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews don’t count towards GNG as they are a primary source. Also Ultimate Guitar is only reliable for “articles written by the "UG Team" (list of staff writers) or any writer with reliable credentials elsewhere.” As you stated, the reference is likely a press release. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi again Dr. Swag Lord, your created document isn't an official guide to follow! Also, it isn't accurate!
- Actually, the OnMilwaukee Interview that you mention (properly named:"Despite impressive resume, Stetina lacks name recognition at home" By Bobby Tanzilo) is an article-interview combo. The article part is sufficient to support the page.
- The Maximum Ink Interview (Properly named:"Second Soul
- AN INTERVIEW WITH TROY STETINA OF SECOND SOUL" BY MIKE HUBERTY ) is an article and interview combo. The article section is sufficient to support the page
- The La Seine Musicale wasn't sponsored by the band. If sponsored as you say as per "LSM Newswire is La Scena's Newswire service. Organizations can post a press release on our website for a fee.", which band as you say?? Was it Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, or Jonathan Kreisberg?
- The Metal Shock Finland, October 13, 2011 interview is an interview yes. It has been used around 50 plus times here to reference articles. I'm not putting it forth as a supporter for the page.
- I'm trying to find the article that goes with this eBay photo of Troy Stetina. The photographer was George P. Koshollek and it is date-stamped FR DEC 5 1986 as per on the back. The cut-out stub says "Roll over, Beethoven. Here comes Troy Stetina" and has -Sentinel photo beside it. Could it be from the Milwaukee Sentinel?
I even more stand by what I said that Stetina is a notable subject. His being a writer for two of the largest guitar mags in the US as well as holding guitar clinics in events that have internationally known prestigious artists is just one aspect. Many others ... etc. etc. etc. Below is an interesting indicator from Jstor,
- BOOK CHAPTER
But That Doesn’t Help Me on Guitar!: Unraveling the Myth of the
Self-Taught Metal Guitarist
Kevin EbertFrom: Connecting Metal to Culture: Unity in Disparity, Intellect (2017)
Edition: 1...and Heavy Metal Lead Guitar Vol. 1&2 by Troy Stetina are two such examples. Also noteworthy is his 1991,
Speed Mechanics for Lead Guitar In an interview with Guitariste Métal, Stetina was asked about his sales figure
he replied: Speed Mechanics for Lead Guitar is the biggest seller now. Maybe 300,000... Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Elnur Aslanov (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)
- Keep - The article has many sources, enough for Wikipedia:GNG, even searching for him unloads possible sources.
- TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I somehow didn't catch when I first sorted this that {{subst:afd2}} does not appear to have been implemented here, leaving the AfD header incomplete. I have fixed this. (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Romy Tiongco (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 does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Philippines, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think the two programmes on the BBC all about him and the first of these and its report his on him were what led me to start this page and think him notable enough - perhaps via general notability rather than as a politician per se. A political activist, NGO worker and then politician (Msrasnw (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment - maybe you should find more sources, only 2 out of the 7 sources work.
- TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are 2 "working" sources, that should be enough for WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the sources is a video source which does not work anymore, is one source okay? TheNuggeteer (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Our "policy" on this is WP:LINKROT, and it being dead should not be taken against the article, more so if the reference is more than a decade old.
- So no, your premise of this article having just one source doesn't hold. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I did a WP:BEFORE search outside of the sources in the article and can't find anything which suggests to me that the article passes WP:GNG. The non-working links do not necessarily suggest there was secondary coverage of him, either - the magazine just has a wordpress site and the BBC radio bit is an interview, which are not secondary. SportingFlyer T·C 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Zack Cooper (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'd originally PROD'ed this, that was removed. Bringing it to AfD as I still don't think the sources support notability. I was and am unable to find sourcing about this individual, only things they've written. Unsure if this would pass academic notability or notability for business people. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. This scholar of international affairs has a good GS record that passes WP:Prof#C1 and has published notable books. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete I don't find anything independent about him. In terms of publications, if you do a scholar search on "Zack Cooper" you get high hits but it is someone else - someone who writes about hospitals. If you add "Japan" to the search you get cites in the single to very low double digits. There's the same confusion in WorldCat books, but this Zack Cooper's books are found again in the single digits. (In VIAF he's "Cooper, Zack ‡c (Researcher in security studies)". With the 2 keep !votes above I wonder if this name confusion wasn't noticed. Lamona (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Click on the scholar link above which differentiates between the two Zack Coopers. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Thanks, I overlooked that. I still don't think he meets NPROF. His H-index is not high, in almost all of his publications he's one of 3 or 4 authors. I see no indication that meets: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I don't see awards. For AUTH we have " is known for originating a significant new concept," "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Just being an author or co-author of articles is not enough. I don't see that he is someone known for furthering a body of knowledge. Lamona (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It is certainly a borderline case. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] - Delete for a guideline like NPROF there has to be a sub-heading under which he is said to qualify. With respect to @Xxanthippe I don't see how this person passes under #1 -- the article makes no assertion he's recognized for significant impact by others in his discipline. No other heading seems to apply - he's not been a named chair professor or top academic institution leader, there's no assertion his publications have had significant impact, no evidence of impact outside of academia (meeting with a foreign official is a good start, but just a start), etc. Oblivy (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at the scholar link, which I admit does not indicate outstanding citations. What do you think of it? I think that this BLP is borderline and might be argued to be a case of [WP:Too soon]]. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't see a google scholar link. Can you provide links, or just explain what you think demonstrates notability? Note that WP:TOOSOON is grounds for deletion, such as for a recent news story or someone who has received what could be temporary notability. Oblivy (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- On my screen the scholar link is 6.3 inches above this text. It will work if you click it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- So you just wanted want me to click on the google scholar link on the nomination template and do my own searches? I do that anyway before voting -- it seems he's written a number of papers with a low citation count which is pretty close to irrelevant for notability IMHO. Oblivy (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per WP:NPROF#1. clearly a borderline case in a field (international relations) that does have a decent number of citations. Per GS he has 3 papers with 100+ citations which is generally enough to pass the bar even in biomedicine so I feel we should apply equal criteria here. Per his books, they all seem to be as editor which does not generally count for much and only one has a single review [25] so WP:NAUTHOR doesnt apply here. --hroest 10:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ... I have been taking a look at the publication record of Cooper (via Google Scholar), as this is one of the main elements of contention. The first listed publication (2015 with Lim in Security Studies) could be labeled ‘significant’ or ‘influential’, I believe, and it should be attributed equally to Lim and Cooper. Publications with Green and Hicks most likely took place while Cooper was a fellow at CSIS and should not be used to attribute notability to Cooper’s publication record. The publication with Yarhi-Milo (2016 in International Security) should, in my opinion, be largely attributed to Yarhi-Milo as first author and a senior scientist. Below these in the list one gets into teens of citations rather than 100 or more, and none really standout as particularly impactful at casual glance. With respect to those where Cooper is first or only author:
- with Poling, 2019 Foreign Policy, the citation pattern suggest this is a time-bound article with limited long term significance
- with Shearer, 2017 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the citation pattern is indicative of continuing interest, but the number of citations is low.
- 2018 Center for Strategic and International Studies, this is a CSIS report and likely only internally peer reviewed before publication.
...and so on. My thinking is that Cooper is too early in his career to have become ‘notable’ in the sense we use here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion as to whether this individual passes WP:NPROF's subject-specific criteria would be helpful in achieving a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
FA
A
GA
