This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Authors. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Authors|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Authors. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
No evidence of notability, warning has been in place for over 7 years. I cannot find sources to indicate notability has been attained since the last nomination in 2011, which was closed as no consensus. glman (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Rather prolific author and is talked about a ton in the religious media, but a distinct lack of book reviews in "mainstream" media (for lack of a better word). This [1] review in religious media is typical... Some scattered mentions here [2]or[3]. We'd need more of these last two types of sources for this to have a chance to be notable here. Was hoping this would pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Academic without a significant publication record or major awards. While he has written two textbooks, notability of them is unclear with only one review. In any case, even if the book is notable the author does not have to be. Page was moved to draft following NPR; editor rejected draftification and moved back to main without attempting to prove notability. Hence time for AfD.Ldm1954 (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject holds a named chair at Pomona College, but I am unconvinced that Pomona is a "major institution of higher education and research" in the sense of WP:NPROF C5. It is difficult to disambiguate this Thomas Moore from the many others of the same name for citations. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The specific criteria notes at NPROF state that Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Pomona is one of the most selective higher education institutions in the U.S., so it unambiguously meets that standard. Sdkbtalk14:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, NPROF is for impact in the larger field. The Pomona press release [4] certainly makes it sound like this endowed chair is essentially a high-powered university-wide teaching award. So I am unconvinced by NPROF C5. I will think about the NAUTHOR case you make below. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The press release focuses on teaching because Pomona is a liberal arts college and liberal arts colleges emphasize teaching over research. But authoring a popular textbook is certainly impact on the field (academia's bias toward research over pedagogy notwithstanding).
In any case, the NPROF C5 discussion is now moot given that the additional sources XOR'easter has found (two reviews of his other book in peer-reviewed academic journals, plus a fourth academic source with SIGCOV of Six Ideas) make the NAUTHOR case pretty unimpeachable. Sdkbtalk18:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are paths to notability both under WP:NPROF #5 and under WP:NAUTHOR #3, either one of which would be sufficient. For NPROF, he holds an endowed chair indicating a significant level of academic achievement, having previously been a full-tenured professor.[1] For NAUTHOR — The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews — Moore is the author of Six Ideas that Shaped Physics, which has been the subject of multiple reviews in peer-reviewed academic journals.[2][3][4] Contrary to the nominator's assertion that I rejected draftification without attempting to prove notability, I communicated with them about NPROF and then more recently added the three reviews, which they may have missed in stating that there is only one review. Their comment that these would count only toward notability of the book and not Moore is a misunderstanding of NAUTHOR, per a plain reading of the guideline text. Sdkbtalk15:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, reviews of a book can count towards the notability of an author (what else should an author be known for, other than their books? their stroganoff recipe?). However, authors are generally not seen as notable unless there are multiple reviews of multiple books apiece. An author with only one book is typically seen as a person known for only one thing, in which case it makes more sense to write an article about the book instead. There are exceptions, of course. Someone who writes a book that becomes one of the standard texts used in nearly every university course on a topic would be argued to meet WP:PROF#C4, even if none of their other accomplishments stand out. Jackson would be notable just for writing Jackson. XOR'easter (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having done a literature search for substantial, reliably-published reviews of his textbooks, I believe that WP:AUTHOR is met. (In addition to the references I added, there is also [5], which I wasn't quite sure how to incorporate; it's more about the work that led up to the Six Ideas book than the book itself.) I don't think that Moore is at the level where the book is known by his last name, which roughly speaking is the kind of status that would meet WP:PROF#C4, and I have no opinion about the WP:PROF#C5 case, but neither of those is necessary here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom; the 4 sources in the current version are not reliable news agencies but are likely paid placement. He seems to have been involved with a blockchain project called SingularDAO; I don't see any good sources related to that either. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the nominator for the first creation and my review still stands. No coverage since that time can be considered reliable enough to show notability. Based on the willingness to push this down Wikipedia's throat, would recommend SALTING or we will likely wind right back here in a few months. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Wikipedia Library lists 375 entries either about or mentioning him, including book reviews and an entry about him in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies. Easily meets our notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You pointed out one extensive biography but the rest are as you say ("indicate"). We need in-depth coverage and not just mentions. Is there something other than the first reference that is in-depth?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You appear unwilling to examine sources yourself, however, the onus is on you to demonstrate why the sources I've mentioned do not satisfy the GNG/BIO. Please note WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Moreover, he can be accorded presumed notability due to NPOL. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why the pointed comments. It is as if I just came along and randomly recommended a page for deletion. I did a BEFORE and read through your links above. Mentions do not add up to notability. If you are unwilling to point out in-depth coverage, there is nothing else I can review. As far as conduct, keep in mind this is a discussion, not an argument. Please keep it corrigible. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you find this pointed, I apologise, but you have not addressed the responses to the nomination. Please address the P&G issues raised (BASIC, NEXIST, NPOL) and note the Indian Express archive where there is extensive SIGCOV reporting of Chockalingam. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did address those, just obviously not to your satisfaction. And at this point, your aggressiveness is not something I am about to entertain further. I will let the AfD play out as it will.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per points raised by Goldsztajn, which shows the subject meets notability guidelines. And as a general comment, I'm not sure why this AfD was started only three hours after the article was created. Would have been nice to first ask the editor who created the article to address any concerns before going straight to AfD. --SouthernNights (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I was opting for Delete as the page has poor to unreliable to unverifiable sources on the page but in light of sources on the subject's achievement by Goldsztajn, that still shows trivial coverage on the subject, I think Draftify is needed to improve the page with significant indepth coverage on the subject instead of trivial, passing coverage and entries in the sources. As of now, page fails WP:GNG and needs improvement with WP:SIGCOV in reliable and verifiable sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be specific; which sources are "poor", "unreliable" and "unverifiable"? The three sources I analysed present in the article fit none of those descriptions. NB: WP:NEXIST. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The three sources mentioned in my keep !vote above....and, FWIW, you've asked me a question, without replying to mine. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those three sources are on the page and neither one has indepth coverage on the subject. What three you analyzed on the page? Now because you said you analysed three sources on the page, you shortlisted the reliability yourself so I thought it is helpful for me to go over those specfic three if you would have mentioned. RangersRus (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dinamani is not a secondary independent source (subject was editor here). Sahapedia is a non-profit organization source with passing comments. Madras musings is poor with passing comments on the subject. Google book short stories (fiction) is unreliable and fails verification. Google book "in those days there was no coffee" fails verification. Pdf file by Srinivas is poor with only a passing comment (the comment also begins with "it is said that....) and the page directly copied the line from the pdf file. The last google source Tamil prose after Bharathi has no significant coverage either and all it says "Chockalingam published his magazine, Gandhi, again at a very cheap price (quarter ana). Later, he became the editor of the Dinamani. He had the skill to express ideas emotionally and with youthful verve in lively Tamil." Its same repeated on all other sources that he became editor of the Dhimani. No significant and indepth coverage on his biography, work as journalist and to be even notable as freedom fighter. RangersRus (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He died more than 50 years ago; it's not as if he exercises any control over Dinamani. Being a non-profit has no bearing on reliability. BIO, NEXIST, NPOL all indicate the thresholds for notability which are firmly established here. Best to let others express their views. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have access to Google Books? On page 144, it talks about his taking over the editorship of Dhinamani and how he increased readership. Pages 146 and 148 are not visible to me, page 157 contains a footnote discussing him starting Vandemataram in 1931, his arrest for civil disobedience, the effect on the newspaper and him starting as editor at Dhinamani in 1935. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for indepth coverage on the subject as journalist, writer and freedom fighter like the lead says but I am just finding passing comments. You said "Chockalingam is discussed in four pages (144, 146, 148, 157)" but you are not able to verify page 146 and 148. I was able to check 144 and 157 and there is no discussion of indepth coverage here but passing comments. Page 144 says "Chockalingam Pillai became the editor of the Dinamani in 1935. Under his editorship the paper's circulation increased to 11,000 in 1936." Page 157 says "Chockalingam Pillai started the Vandemataram in 21 September, 1931. He was arrested for his active part in civil disobedience. Due to his inability to pay security the paper ceased publication security." These do not help with the coverage needed on a journalist, writer and freedom fighter. Is there any indepth coverage on him as freedom fighter? RangersRus (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does there need to be indepth coverage of him as a freedom fighter? He already clearly satisfies NPOL and BIO. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any significant indepth coverage on his biography in the sources and now you mentioned politician that is no where referred on the page with no sources either. RangersRus (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was evaluating what was on the page. Source about on page 46 has an entry only and no WP:SIGCOV as politician. I will have others say on all this discussion. RangersRus (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In regards to the discussion above, per the notability guidelines for people "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." It appears there is in-depth coverage of Chockalingam but most of that isn't in English (here's an example of such a book). However, there is still plenty of coverage in English to prove notability, especially by combining reliable sources per the above guideline. For example, I just added a citation to the article from The Guardian which said Chockalingam was a "pioneering Tamil journalist," while the Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature described him as one of the most important nationalist journalists in Tamil. --SouthernNights (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all pages from 1930s but do not see "extensive coverage of Chockalingam's role in journalism, Tamil language promotion, politics and the Freedom Movement." RangersRus (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable political candidate and author who made himself a Wikipedia page. Of the 6 articles cited on the page: 1 is the candidate list on the Alaska Divison of Elections website; one is a WP:ROTM article from Anchorage Daily News which has 1 sentence about Claesson; 1 is a page on "glamourgirlsofthesilverscreen.com" on which the only mention of Claesson is the inclusion of his book in a "recommended books" list; 1 is an article he wrote; 1 is a press release; and the final is a Los Angeles Times article by "Lawrence Graner" apparently written about him. Strangely enough, this article can't be found online, despite the fact that it was published in May 2023; the link in the citation leads to a paywalled Newspapers.com page, and I can't find any evidence that anyone by the name Lawrence Graner has ever written for the LA Times. Regardless, I don't think these cited articles are enough to determine notability; I can't find anything better on Google, and he doesn't seem to have any other claim to notability. I'd support a redirectto2024 United States House of Representatives election in Alaska. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BottleOfChocolateMilk has an extensive history of deleting Wikipedia pages of politicians or political topics in which the views don't align with his. If you look on his Wikipedia 'talk' page, he's had complaints dating back to 2016. Samuelrclaesson (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is sourced just fine. If bottleofchocolatemilk wants to improve Wikipedia, there are a lot of pages with no sources and misinformation that he can focus on. SpookyGhostMouth0 (talk) 05:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of Wikipedia is to spread knowledge, not to delete biographies of individuals who have opinions that you disagree with. The article shouldn't be deleted. In response to one of the comments on here, I do see that there are some reporters online who accuse BottleofChocolateMilk of being a political operative. While I don't know if the allegations are accurate, it does deserve some investigating: https://www.politicalcortadito.com/2024/02/18/manny-cid-wikipedia-page-questioned/1.177.147.29 (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you bothered doing "investigating" for yourself, Mr. IP user who is definitely not Samuel Claesson, you'd find that the page talked about in that article was deleted after numerous editors agreed that Manny Cid is not notable. The fact that you're spreading clearly bogus allegations from a random blogger shows how little credibility you have. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like it should be deleted to me. You shouldn't classify something or somebody as 'non-notable' because you're unfamiliar with them. 1.177.147.27 (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in addition, your staatement about www.glamourgirlsofthesilverscreen.com not mentioning him as being the nephew of Dennis Crosby is inaccurate. I just looked at the page and it clearly states it. Please examine these pages before flagging them. 1.177.147.29 (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, my mistake. There is indeed a single sentence on that page mentioning that Samuel Claesson accepted an award on someone's behalf. I fail to see how that helps prove he's notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As shown above, Samuel Claesson seems to have made multiple Wikipedia accounts to flood this discussion. He also left a threatening message on my talk page accusing me of being paid to delete Wikipedia accounts. His proof is a Facebook post from some random person who admits they "have no evidence of this." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few things:
1. I didn't make multiple accounts. That's a lie.
2. I didn't leave a threatening message. That's a lie.
3. There is a lot more evidence that he's being paid to do this stuff, including an article that someone else posted a link to above. There are similar allegations made against him by moderators on his 'talk' page.
4. I'd advise people to look at BottleOfChocolateMilk's 'talk' page and see the countless allegations of fraud, unprofessionalism, and bias that he has.
5. I'm under the impression that BottleOfChocolateMilk doesn't have any authority or power in his life, so he's using Wikipedia as an outlet to feel powerful. The purpose of Wikipedia -and I've made a lot of articles- is to provide knowledge, not to boost someone's ego and compensate for their insecurities. I don't hate BottleOfChocolateMilk, but I certainly pity him. Samuelrclaesson (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol, "someone else" posted the link. Sure. Please do us a favor and summarize the "evidence" in that article (there isn't any). If there's "a lot more evidence" then surely you should be able to produce something. Or you could just keep threatening to tell the admins on me, which would probably result in you getting banned, not me. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never "threatened to tell the admins" anything. If you're gonna threaten to get me banned, you should at least be truthful. I merely said that your 'talk' page has dozens of complaints from editors about your conduct. Samuelrclaesson (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Fails WP:NPOL and search shows no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. I think an SPI may also be warranted here; I agree it should be taken to ANI first though, which I may do soon if no one else does. On a bit of an unrelated note the content creator also seems to have made several other CoI creations. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to AllTheUsernamesAreInUse... He's only chiming in because he's colluding with BottleOfChocolateMilk. If you see BottleOfChocolateMilk's 'talk' page, he and AllTheUsernamesAreInUse joke about being paid by a politician to edit Wikipedia. I'll be submitting information to ANI tonight about this, as this is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to be managed... long-time donors like myself hate seeing wannabe vigilantes like the two aforementioned individuals using Wikipedia as a way to give themselves authority and accomplishment that they lack in the real world. Samuelrclaesson (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The secret is out...Mary Peltola paid me to make this deletion discussion. I also got paid to start the 41 other deletion discussions I've created on Wikipedia. It's not much, but it's honest work. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Colluding", lol...and yes, it's a running joke between us because it didn't happen in real life. And ouch, "to give themselves accomplishment that they lack in the real world", be careful about personal attacks there. But yes, submit it to ANI, that would be a sensible course of action; I've little interest in arguing here. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Samuelrclaesson should not have created Samuel Claesson is indisputable. But what I'm also seeing, are more serious allegations towards this editor. ANI requires evidence and diffs, not just accusations like we see on this page. BottleOfChocolateMilk you've made a lot of accusations, not the least of which is socking - i.e. creating multiple accounts. WP:AN/I is the place to sort this out, and where something can be done about any violations mentioned above. Longhornsg , if you believe the editor should be banned, then do something about it - don't just complain. Wikipedia:Banning policy will tell you how to put that process in motion. — Maile (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His books appear to be self-published but that would be ok if there were reliably published reviews of them. I couldn't find any. The sources in the article now include a book review, but of someone else's book and mentioning Ferris only in passing. The only in-depth source that we have is a local-news obituary, appearing to be a family-written obituary rather than a work of independent journalism. That's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you telling me that the book Métis and the Medicine Line: Creating a Border and Dividing a People, with the author listed as Michel Hogue on the cover, is really by Kade Ferris? Because that is the book whose review I was referring to. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Right. I clocked that the first time I read your comment, but the second time I read it, I read it the other way. I can add the other book reviews (of his book) and also quote from at least one other book I found. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see that the review in American Indian Children's Literature got removed from the article as a source. I am adding it back. While the site itself could be construed as a blog, the reason this particular blog qualifies as a reliable source per WP:BLOGS, is that it is produced by Debbie Reese, who is an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I expanded it to include more about the impact of his tribal history preservation work and the impact that has on reservations, ND and MN educational standards and added information about his mapping skills. oncamera (talk page)08:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His written work as an author and oral traditions that he embedded within his maps, blogs, and recorded videos for the state of North Dakota established notability. He was a respected tribal historian and elder knowledge keeper and professional work reflects that. oncamera (talk page)21:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been puffed up with some 30 footnotes, most of which do not seem to be the sort of in-depth independent and reliably-published coverage of the subject that could be used to pass WP:GNG. Of the ones that actually mention Ferris or his works in their title, "Kade Ferris's Gift" is an interview (not usually counted as independent), the Red Lake Nation News obituary reads like a family-written obituary (not independent), the Mendoza book review is in a blog (not reliably published), Teachings of Our Elders is by him not about him, and Archaeologist presents has no depth of coverage of Ferris. Perhaps, per WP:THREE, advocates of keeping the article could save us the effort of similarly evaluating all 30 of the footnotes and point us to three sources that are actually in-depth, independent, and reliably-published? I'm looking for a small number of high-quality sources, at most three, not many low-quality sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This article was already extremely well cited, but I added an infobox and a little bit more. His notability stems from his tribal historic preservation work which is interdisciplinary (history, anthropology, archaeology, policy making, language advocacy, etc.) Yuchitown (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please address the discussion above about lack of high-quality sourcing, rather than merely asserting that "This article was already extremely well cited" when clearly it isn't? It has many sources but that misses the point. We need a small number of high-quality sources, and continuing to add larger numbers of low-quality sources only makes notability harder to discern by hiding the good sources in a big pile of dross. It would be better to remove both the low-quality sources and the material sourced to them so that we can focus on the essentials. The sources you added (his own dissertation and a web page about someone else that mentions him in passing) do not contribute to notability according to Wikipedia's standards for notability, which are not based on the work the subject might have done but rather on the depth of coverage of the subject in sources that are independent of him and meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate the suggestion that tribal newspapers are "low-quality sources." Like I wrote, his notability is based on being a THPO, so it's interdisciplinary. He was not just a writer. While several pieces (Red Lake Nation News, Minnesota Native News) focus on him specifically, even if these didn't exist, Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. He has contributed "part of the enduring historical record" of the Métis people. Yuchitown (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tribal newspapers are as reliable as any other newspaper. But when a local newspaper (tribal or not) runs an obituary that reads like the sort of obituary written by a family member to announce a death, rather than the kind of obituary that major newspapers write themselves when famous people die, it doesn't count much towards notability. For one thing, if it is indeed written by family, it is not an independent source. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.... even if these didn't exist, Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". He has contributed "part of the enduring historical record" of the Métis people. Yuchitown (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So much a part of the enduring historical record that the only Wikilink to him from any other article is a an unsourced sentence about him in an article about a village in Lebanon, stating that he is also of Lebanese descent, something that appears nowhere in the Kade Ferris article itself? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's an issue to you, you can help expand topics on Turtle Mountain, the Ojibwe or Metis history and credit/wikilink his article from those edits. Wikipedia needs more editors in that area. oncamera (talk page)10:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think the Métis have an interesting history that deserves to be better-known, but I have no special expertise in that area, and I have even less knowledge of Turtle Mountain or the Ojibwe.
Incidentally, I can find no evidence that Kade Ferris had any connection to Lebanon, outside of a few unreliable web sources. I have removed the link to him from the Lebanese village article. His mother was from Minnesota and his father was originally from the Turtle Mountain Reservation. I suspect his father, Albert Ferris, may have some notability as an artist. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just came across this AfD and don't entirely feel experienced enough with guidelines to vote either way, but I'd like to note that Ferris' work on map decolonization and geographic technologies (as THPO for the Red Lake Nation) was significant enough that he gave a full-fledged presentation at the Council for Minnesota Archaeology's 2023 annual conference, entitled "Creating a Virtual Database for Regional Tribal Resource Management and Consultation". I don't know if, for example, a program (with an abstract of his talk) from the conference (the most important one on Minnesota archaeology, as far as I know) would count towards GNG, but I do have such a document if uploading it somewhere could prove useful. Thanks. SunTunnels (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. None of the sources are about him. Sources (and much of the content) are about taitrs. Material on him is just resume type material. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to answer with respect to what you are seeing because there have been 104 edits to the article since I nominated this. But I did evaluate them at the time. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a lot was added after you nominated this, including several refs, but much of it was WP:PROMO, fluff, repetition, and stuff about the genre of theatre that, I think, has no direct relevance to D'Lima's career. I tried to reduce the promo, cruft, repetition and tangential stuff, but someone else should review the refs to see if they actually discuss Liima's life or career at all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Subject did receive an award Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism. Source 1 is a book review, source 2 is a blog, source 3 has a passing comment made by the subject himself, source 4 is a review by subject himself, source 5 is a bio written by subject himself, source 6 is more on bio written by subject himself, source 7 is a link to Ramnath Goenka Award and source 8 is a book written by subject himself. Many unreliable and primary sources here. Draftify would be an option to improve the page with secondary independent sources and remove primary sources like the reviews by the subject himself and the interview with the subject.RangersRus (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOI makes it under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I still do not find his books a significant monument or been a substantial part of a significant exhibition or won wide significant critical attention by well known peers and critics in secondary independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOI falling under NEWSORGINDIA is an interpretation that I respect but with which I disagree in this case (not great journalism but not simply unreliable). The fact that the author of the book is one of the film critics of the Hindustan Times also indicates the article in the TOI should be rather independent.-- -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank: The article from TOI doesn't look like a review at all; it seems more like a promotional piece or an announcement. Additionally, the article was published by PTI. I don't think he meets WP:AUTHOR. GrabUp - Talk16:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note about the Times of India: The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I should have mentioned that I hapeen to have been the creator of this page many years back. I actually didn't even remember I was the one who created it, as I've created numerous pages for notable Indian film critics. As someone who has worked on Indian cinema-related articles, I can attest to the relevance of his reviews on dozens of film articles, including several FAs. Him being an author as well as the winner of a notable award only consolidates my position. Shahid • Talk2me18:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are considered primary non-independent source. Independent sources helps to fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. If you use interviews as source for any statement made by the subject then the subject's statements needs to be cited with secondary independent source as well. Wikipedia:Independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not convinced that he meets any notability criteria. He fails WP:ANYBIO, as the award is not exclusive, with more than 20 people receiving it. Receiving the award first or last does not make it exceptional or add to notability. Regarding WP:AUTHOR, The Times of India is not a review, merely a short promotional or announcement piece with no author, published by the Press Trust of India (PTI), therefore, it does not meet WP:AUTHOR criteria. The person does not meet the General Notability Guideline, which is already known. Also, I don't understand how interviews with celebrities establish notability. GrabUp - Talk09:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer. Keep votes are more focused on the subject's notability because of an award (not national award) but there is no argument on the unreliability of the sources on the page that are blogs, interviews with no secondary sources as attribution and self written reviews by the subject himself and part of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Two keep votes consider him notable but have no argument as to why and the two other keep vote (including the creator of the page) do not have opinion on the argument about the page and the unreliable sources that fails WP:GNG. I think the page is at best Delete but Draftify is also an option if there is any scope of improvement with secondary independent reliable sources. If this page stays a keep, then likely it opens a Pandora box to use unreliable sources like blogs and interviews and self published reviews on other pages or newly generated pages. RangersRus (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don’t understand why they are not providing good arguments for their Keep votes. It looks like @Atlantic306 is just here to go along with the majority. The question raises because how can he call it a ‘national award’? Additionally, they are posting low effort delete votes and not giving any counterarguments, which raises some questions in my mind. GrabUp - Talk02:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK and US a national award means it relates to the scope of a whole country not that it is given by the government. For example the Oscars and Grammy Awards are national awards that are given by private organisations, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zero references to establish notability. After searching, found other people of same name, but no comprehensive, in-depth coverage of this specific person. PROD removed 27 June 2024; PROD reverted 27 October 2022; PROD on 27 October 2022; Created on 27 August 2014. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!15:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Azerbajani article gives 1 reference: "Tamxil Ziyəddinoğlu, "Hafiz Baxış-80". Bütöv Azərbaycan qəzeti, №36(168), 17-23 oktyabr 2012-ci il." This appears to be an article in a reasonable news source. I can't find it but I think he may have significant coverage. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strike my vote first. I do not believe those interviews are primary sources in the first place since it addresses the subject person's company and the trade industry as a whole, so I did not identify them as PS per WP:IV. But I had no idea that the Forbes India interview is sponsored content, and I agree that paid advertorials should be considered non-independent. My rationale was mostly based on the two interviews, but with one deemed non-independent and one with disputed views, I no longer possess a strong rationale to go for keep. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul）14:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I conducted another round of searching but did not find any other usable sources. Thanks to S0091 for pointing out that the Forbes and Fortune sources are non-independent paid advertorials, which I had overlooked. A single GQ interview is not sufficient for passing GNG. Changing my !vote to Delete. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul）13:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: none of the sources contribute to WP:GNG as they are either primary such as press releases or interviews, trivial coverage or not reliable such as the Huff Post which was written by a contributor rather than staff. S0091 (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the new sources presented by the IP user and added to the article by DXdy FX. Irish Tech News and AI For Developing Countries Forum are not reliable sources. The Business Insider and Yahoo Finance sources are press releases about the subject person's company, not even about the person himself. I can still only see one usable GQ source I have previously founded in this discussion, and do not think it would be sufficient to pass GNG. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul）14:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any independent reliable sources with coverage of Campbell. As one of teams of people, he is credited on multiple notable role-playing games. I think it's stretching NAUTHOR #3 beyond the intent of that SNG to consider every person who is credited on those games as inherently notable. (#3: "...has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work") I cannot find any reviews of any of those games that call out Campbell's contributions. Schazjmd(talk)14:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fully get how annoying White Wolf Publishing's approach to book credits has been, over the years - by crediting the contributions of everyone involved, they often don't end up attributing authorship clearly to anyone.
Weak keep also : Not sure why there are profiles, but there appear to be Il Sole 24 Ore covering his return from America, il Fatto Quotidiano covering Italy 2030, what appears to be a book review I'm not sure of the independence of. Along with another book review, these are the only independent reliable sources the book has. Given a couple news stories about him and a number of sources on his books, it seems reasonable to write a short article. He seems to be notable for maybe the Italy 2030 project and his popular books?
Given the large number of sources, I wonder if it's possible to show they pass Wikipedia:Notability_(books)? That would pretty much resolve this debate, because this article would obviously contain the books. And given he has his own news sources, it seems reasonable to also discuss him.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at: