Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors

WP:DSAUTHOR

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Authors. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Authors|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Authors. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

For the general policy on the inclusion of individual people in Wikipedia, see WP:BIO.

Authors

Max McCalman

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

Article is cited entirely to primary and self-published sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Food and drink, Brazil, Arkansas, Kentucky, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinando Scala

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC, and WP:AUTHOR. Google Search/Books/Scholar don't provide any significant coverage in independent sources. The tone is slightly promotional and unbalanced per WP:TOOMUCH, with clear WP:NOTCV issues and possible WP:COI editing. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maryann Ridini Spencer

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

Don't see evidence she meets WP:GNG, no significant RS coverage. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Journalism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, Theatre, Advertising, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Whyte III

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

Sources only mention the subject in passing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, New York, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources come up in Google News or Google Books; fails WP:NBIO. Notability aside, the whole article is promotional to the point of not being worth keeping. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Rodríguez Villegas

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. No significant new events since 2016 deletion. — Moriwen (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- There are many articles like this that should be deleted and no one is arguing for them to be deleted. There are biographies of athletes, new actors in the same situation and no one is suggesting deleting them. I don't think it should be deleted. The person has very good sources and the writing is different now than when it was first deleted.

There are relevant works such as new novels and contributions from academic works so I don't think it should be deleted. Yovanmartinez (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Architecture. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Jackson

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

Lacking in sources and claims of notability since forever. Cabayi (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Film, and Business. Cabayi (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO. I have removed the IMDB external link, as Wikipedia blocked it as a security risk. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much PROMO, article reads like a LinkedIn or a book bio. Speaking at conferences isn't notable and the rest is too niche to be covered in wikipedia; appears to make informational videos about a variety of subjects, but not quite rising to the notability we need to see. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sancho de Londoño

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

Has no sources and is a new page. Not only that, its a stub and therefore should be deleted. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 22:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator did not follow WP:BEFORE. See es:Sancho_de_Londoño, which is sourced to a 72 page historical monograph on the subject, and web sources like [1]. We don't delete articles because they are new or stubs. Jfire (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Military, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The nomination advances no valid deletion rationale. First, notability depends on whether sources exist, not whether they happen to be included in the article currently. Second, being a new page just means that the page is new. If being a new page were valid grounds for deletion, we'd never get anywhere, would we? Third, likewise, being a stub just means that it's a stub. Finally, very trivial checks (the Spanish-language version, Google Scholar) find what appear to be plenty of viable sources; in such cases, the burden is on the nominator to show why those sources aren't usable. XOR'easter (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Viable stub and disappointing that the editor didn't expand it. Also, January 2015 is "new" now? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject appears to pass WP:NBIO through Spanish-language sources. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Carson

AfDs for this article:

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

There have already been two deletion discussions about this article in the past, so I was initially hesitant to open this. However, since the last discussion in 2015, the article collapsed from a long-winded ramble about various concepts the subject discussed (cited largely to the subject himself or other self-published sources)[2] into what is now a stub.

I tried looking around for more sources to expand it, but I found little-to-no actual information about Carson as a person. What I did find were largely reviews and analyses of his main major work "Studies in Mutualist Economics", with only passing references to his other works without any real detail.

From what I've seen, there is very little to write about for a biographical article about the subject himself, so I think this might not pass the notability guidelines for people. I do think his work "Studies in Mutualist Economics" has received enough attention for its own article (per the notability guidelines on books), but this might be another case where an author is not independently notable of their single notable work. Grnrchst (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Economics, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I simply do not see secondary coverage about him in a before search, and the keep rationales made in previous discussions don't actually convince me he's otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 16:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Libertarianism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Yue🌙 09:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where has "Studies in Mutualist Economics" received significant reviews/discussion? If there was enough reliable sourcing for a dedicated article then it would make a good redirect target, but I don't see the reviews. czar 12:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mutualism (economic theory)#Contemporary developments where Carson's work is mentioned and his name is a relevant search term. If that article didn't mention Wilbur's paragraph on Carson I was going to recommend adding it. Carson is associated with the contemporary mutualist tradition so even if there isn't enough coverage for a dedicated biography, the section on contemporary mutualism should suffice. czar 12:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Smith (Vicar of Great Paxton)

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

No evidence this individual passes WP:NBIO, WP:GNG. No pass on WP:NAUTHOR either; there's a published response to Smith's polemic on Quakerism but nothing else verifiable. (The Bockett letter does not appear to have been published and thus would not count as a review.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Christianity, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again not finding anything about him except for a short blurb of the same book you mentioned on the Quaker archives of Canada. ❤History Theorist❤ 00:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of cricket writers

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

This list does nothing that Category:Cricket writers doesn't do as well, plus the category is much more complete. Furthermore, looking at Category:Lists of writers and Lists of writers, I don't see lists for any other sport. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I.m.o. since there is the Category:Cricket writers this list is not really necessary. Lotje (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Lists of people, and Cricket. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Wareham Leonard

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

This author does not appear to be a notable person. 🄻 🄰 00:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and New Zealand. 🄻 🄰 00:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe 52 Men meets WP:NBOOK, with reviews in Landfall [3], Kirkus Reviews [4], Los Angeles Review of Books [5], and New Zealand Books [6]. The Missoulian (of all places) did a capsule review [7]. New Zealand Books also capsule reviewed Miss Me a Lot Of [8]. Maybe someone else can locate an additional review of Miss Me a Lot Of or an author profile -- I think that would unambiguously clear the WP:NAUTHOR bar. Jfire (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the WP:AUTHOR of a significant or well-known body of work. 52 Men is definitely notable, and Since You Ask was reviewed by The NZ Herald and The Rain Taxi Review of Books and won the prestigious James Jones First Novel Award. pburka (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Gârz

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

First, let’s deal with the Nobel Prize nomination. For starters, any one of thousands of people can nominate anyone else, so a nomination by itself doesn’t mean much. Second, I really doubt the “G. Floran” on page 3 is our man Gârz. For one, he didn’t even begin publishing until the early 1990s, and the nomination is from 1974. For another, Eugène Ionesco, the nominator, was a diehard opponent of the Romanian Communist regime — while at the very period of the nomination, our man Gârz was a faithful acolyte of the regime, serving as a loyal officer in its secret police. So unless this was an elaborate Absurdist joke, Ionesco did not nominate an unknown apparatchik for the world’s most prestigious literary award.

Second, let’s quickly dispense with this. Anyone can publish anything on academia.edu. Unless we have evidence that this piece appeared in a peer-reviewed journal or similarly prestigious publication, it’s not quotable.

Finally, let’s have a look at the three remaining sources. For starters, they appear in a magazine nobody has heard of. I know this isn’t the most scientific way to measure such things, but it has under 800 Facebook likes; by contrast, the leading Romanian popular history magazine has 656,000. It’s basically a one-man show revolving around its founder, who occasionally writes articles, together with some of his friends. Our man Gârz (who, by the way, died three years ago, as one of the links attests) was basically a second-rate spy with third-rate opinions, such as: “I came into the world in that ancient land of Transylvania, where words like ‘fatherland’ and ‘ancestor’ are learned together with ‘mother’”; or “No American politician since 1950 has entered the White House without the approval of the military-industrial complex”.

In sum, far from being a contender for the Nobel, our man Gârz, once he got around to writing in his late 50s, was the author of a series of dubious books published with obscure houses. Aside from three articles in an utterly marginal magazine, he never garnered any attention from anyone, certainly not from respectable outfits. There is no reason we should keep around his biography. — Biruitorul ^Talk 16:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I respectfully accede to the speedy deletion of the article. Thank you! JB Hoang Tam 2 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Leon-Chisen

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

No independent sigcov to establish notability. Search hits are either self-published or routine references to her book. Jdcooper (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Plenty of passing mentions, but no solid reliable sources with significant coverage to establish notability. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, and Medicine. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Annmarie Hanlon

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

Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. — Moriwen (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Prof#C1 in a high-cited area. Not enough for GNG. It would have been helpful if the nominator had given more results of their WP:Before search. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Meets notability criteria #4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

According to World Cat the digital marketing textbook is available in 197 libraries. Translation into Greek is unusual (and I imagine this requires a lot of effort) which further indicates its impact. Teacher2019 (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The author is one of a small group of female authors of business textbooks - see https://www.ft.com/content/beb77be1-f735-45e9-82cb-ec834eb39565 which takes you to https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/joe.karaganis2705/viz/BusinessSchoolTeaching/Dashboard1 Teacher2019 (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG. There is an attempt to meet ACADEMIC criterion 7(a) with her quotes in media organizations, but these are relatively few (and multiple of them in deprecated/unreliable outlets per WP:RSP), so I don't see a pass there. Her H-index of 10 is on the low side for someone at her career level and in her field. As for the claim that she meets criterion 4, there's no evidence that having a book in 197 libraries is unusually high or significant (I doubt it is given the literally tens of thousands of higher education institutions there are worldwide), and there's no evidence that translation of a book into another language is notable, particularly in an era of machine-assisted translation. I'm confused by the FT and Tableau sources offered above, neither of which mention Hanlon at all. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting points.
- She joined academia relatively recently, so it's not surprising the H index is 10. The longer you've worked in academia, the higher the index.
- The book was translated into Greek by scholars, not machines.
- The FT and Tableau sources serve to show the volume of female / male authors in this area. Over 90% are male.
Teacher2019 (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added two reviews of her books, but am thus far not able to find more. These may help her meet WP:AUTHOR, but more reviews would be needed. DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shirish Kumar Maurya

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

Sources are unreliable and consist of passing mentions. The subject fails WP:GNG due to the lack of multiple significant coverages and fails WP:AUTHOR as no multiple reviews of their books have been found. GrabUp - Talk 18:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. Taabii (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Eisend

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

Many publications and extensive promotional content, but likely not notable Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Cinder painter (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.: with 13,000 citations and an h-index of 59, subject meets C1 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with caveats. It needs a lot of work to cut out the ~~pain~~ paid contributions, but AfD isn't the place for that. Just an aside: if he paid for it, he was ripped off. Clearly passes the Prof Test as noted above; also full chair at a good university. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm McDonald (academic)

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

Extensive promotional content, marketing professor not notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Cinder painter (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Marketing professor is first to pull marketing stunt" is not really a case for notability. The more likely path would seem to be WP:AUTHOR through reviews of his books. I found 1 1/3 reviews [9] [10] but I don't think it's quite enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a badly constructed page which is surprising in some ways for a marketing BLP. I did find a claim that his book was a bestseller plus some other stuff here and here, but it is not quite enough to be convincing. Since this page has been around as a weak stub for many years I think deletion is appropriate. If a new editor wants to write a better version they should submit that to AfC. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Izin Akioya

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

The subject does not seem notable enough to meets WP:GNG or WP:SNG as there's limited information about her achievement or works. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely nothing makes this pass WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass any notability Ibjaja055 (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional crap. She doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC and her companies and book aren't notable.Ynsfial (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails WP:GNG; sources are promotional and not independent. Moopaz (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Sayers

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG, average non-notable local politician TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep The New Zealand politics task force agreed many years ago that three types of New Zealand politicians have inherent notability, namely legislative councillors, MPs, and Auckland councillors. The latter group was included because as their councillors represent way more people than any electorate MP does. Needless to say, Auckland councillors thus get a lot of media coverage.
Delete unless somebody can actually add the kind of content and sourcing it takes to properly establish the notability of a city councillor. The New Zealand task force doesn't get to carve out its own special New Zealand-specific exemptions from notability criteria — in any country, city councillors can keep articles that are reliably sourced and feature substantive content about the person's political impact (specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their work had on the development of the city, and on and so forth), but in no country are city councillors ever exempted from the article having to be a lot more than just a bunch of primary sourced election results. So this could be kept if somebody's actually willing to put some effort into improving it, but its current state of substance and sourcing is not adequate at all. I'll grant that Auckland is a large and prominent enough city that such improvement may very well be possible, which is why I left that open for an "I could be persuaded to change my mind" proviso, but there's no automatic presumption of notability for a city councillor in the absence of such content and sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only independent article that provides coverage of the person that I could find is this: [11]

It doesn't matter what some Wikiproject taskforce agreed upon nor can you snow keep when you are the only one voting keep, GNG/NBIO is what matters here. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, Bearcat and Traumnovelle. Classic case of trying to clear a notability bar which is less a limbo bar and more of a stick lying on the ground. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seán Ó Catháin

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

Nonnotable Irish scribe --Altenmann >talk 18:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER. While I have found/confirmed/added a number of sources to the article, none deal with the subject in any meaningful depth. To the extent that the only biographical information at all is a somewhat "throw away" comment in a piece by historian Nollaig Ó Muraíle - where he gives a very rough age (60ish) as of 1724. Otherwise the only "claim to fame" is that the subject was involved in transcribing someone else's work. While being able to read/write/copy someone else's work was probably far more significant (in the 1720s) than it might now be in the 21st century, absent other biographical coverage, it isn't enough to meet WP:NWRITER. Which, among other things, expect that someone would have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant [..] or collective body of work". (Transcribing two works by Seathrún Céitinn isn't a "major role in co-creating a significant [..] body of work"....) Guliolopez (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mícheál Ó Ceallaigh

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

Nonnotable Irish scribe --Altenmann >talk 18:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER. The only source in the article (which is pretty much the only one that I can find) only deals with the subject in passing. Barely mentioned once. A single "name drop". On page 631. Where he is given as having transcribed (written out) works by Antoine Ó Raifteiri. Simply transcribing someone else's work isn't enough to meet WP:NWRITER. And the lack of any biographical information (which we'd expect to find for a 19th century writer compared to -say- writers from even the 18th or 17th centuries) means that WP:GNG isn't met. Even the article itself states that the subject is "only known for very few manuscripts". This is, with respect, yet another of these "absolutely every passing mention I find will be reflected in a stand-alone biographical title (no matter what)" from this article's creator. Guliolopez (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pádhraic Ó Comáin

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

Nonnotable Irish scribe. --Altenmann >talk 18:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NWRITER and WP:GNG. In terms of WP:NWRITER, the body and sources (the only ones seemingly available) simply confirm that the subject transcribed the works of other people. Which isn't sufficient for notability under that guideline. In terms of WP:GNG, there is no evidence that the person has been the subject of material/biographical coverage (as a subject in his own right). Certainly I cannot find any (and it's not like the subject lived in prehistory or even the early modern period, where biographical information on people would have been scant; If the subject was well-known through the end of the late 19th century, surely there would be some biographical coverage? The subject was active c. 1880. The same period as Oscar Wilde and Bram Stoker and Sheridan Le Fanu and George Bernard Shaw - not the depths of prehistory...) Guliolopez (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan S Sultan

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

The subject fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics or professionals. I cannot find independent, reliable coverage about their work or achievements Cinder painter (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychiatry, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. New to this. What is required for independent reliable coverage? I see links to edu and gov websites and NBC news. Please help me understand what our criteria is. I am deeply interested in supporting wiki. Infoseeker89 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Director position at a large institution is not enough for WP:PROF#C6 (head of whole institution) nor #C5 (a step above full professor, such as distinguished professor). Psych is a high-citation field so the double-digit citation counts I found on Google Scholar do not appear to be enough for #C1. No other evidence for notability is apparent. Infoseeker89, you appear to be asking the wrong question, "how can I get this person to appear notable". The correct question for this discussion is "is this person already notable by our standards, or not", and sadly, it looks like the answer is not. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as expressed clearly above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: As per the comment of David Eppstein. Taabii (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per David Eppstein. The subject is an assistant professor, thus he is not tenured. We almost never find that non-tenured professors are notable. We are not an electronic portfolio for tenure review. FWIW, I didn't get tenure. Bearian (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Ramzan Ali Miya

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

Non-notable writer. No RS found. Taabii (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Nepal. Taabii (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Whilst there is over 400,000 Nepalis in Qatar, the vast majority are migrant workers and not permanent residents. Since Qatar only grants permanent residency to about 100 people a year, the percent of Nepali permanent residents could be as low as 0.025% of that. So being president of the Nepal-Qatar Friendship Association does not seem to be a good enough claim to notability. Sahaib (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kasturi Murali Krishna

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

The article wasn't notable and not passed on the criteria of WP:GNG, and the cite was a IMDB which is not reliable sources. Royiswariii Talk! 14:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Royiswariii Talk! 14:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Telangana. Wikishovel (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete No citations, page isn't ok for main Wiki. Taksoh17 (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user came back from a year's absence to add badly written replies to 6 AFDs in a row. Geschichte (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not yet notable per WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG, with no significant coverage found in reliable sources in English (Kasturi Murali Krishna or Kasturi Muralikrishna) or Telugu (కస్తూరి మురళీకృష్ణ), just passing mentions and social media. Wikishovel (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kasturi Murali Krishna is one of the noted contemporary writer in Telugu Language at present. Article on his name is suitable to be placed in english wikipedia. Ofcourse I am searching for reliable sources for references which may took some time. Moreover this article is available in Telugu wikipedia since 2014 and didnot considered for deletion by any administrators. స్వరలాసిక (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be considered there as well if more sources are not found Geschichte (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a notable writer, no reliable sources found even after searching on Google. Taabii (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - winning some made up in one day awards for "prolific" but ultimately run of the mill writer. As noted by many editors, infomercials have taken over previously responsible media there, so sourcing about authors in India just verifies existence, but does not constitute significant coverage. On a personal note, I feel sorry for any writer or journalist in a country that routinely censors even the most anodyne material. Bearian (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Ciocan

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

BLP with no indication of notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pass of WP:Prof#C1 in a very low-cited field. May pass WP:Prof#C8 with a rather recent journal. The nominator has been on a deletion spree today. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC #8. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the case for WP:PROF#C8 as founding co-editor-in-chief of a notable journal is clearest, but he also has a weak case for WP:AUTHOR through multiple published book reviews [12] [13] [14]. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tabish Khan (art critic)

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

Biography of an art critic that fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources in article are limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCE WP:INTERVIEWS, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in media coverage of other topics, primary source bios and other non-independent sources. WP:BEFORE search turns up lots of his own writing but no independent WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Visual arts, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the writer is known within the contemporary art scene in the UK and is currently active suggesting there may be more additions to the page in future. While I agree that searching for the author turns up lots of his own writing, a look at other art critics, writers and journalists with Wikipedia entries returns similar results. In terms of independent coverage, this article does include links to notable outlets that have sought his views on art stories and artworks. Suggestions for improvement rather than deletion may be a better course of action. Londoneditor284 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — Londoneditor284 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep these are good points. It would be a diservice to Wikipedia if well-known critics were expunged Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although this person is mostly only known within the contemporary British art scene, they have contributed numerous articles, interviews, and features in multiple outlets and have been quoted in many sources (as can be seen from the citations). They are clearly significant enough within their own field to warrant keeping this article. Any suggestions to improve the article would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.218.212 (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — 80.45.218.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Izno (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations in sources are not enough to demonstrate notability (except in a limited case for certain academics), and authoring articles isn't either. What SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources can you offer? Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me do some digging and get back to you. The nature of the subject (someone who writes about other people's artwork for a living) makes it difficult by definition to have many SIGCOV sources. I feel this should be taken into account? 80.45.218.212 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel this way, that's a great discussion topic for WP:VILLAGEPUMP, not for a discussion where we can't change policy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Could Dclemens1971 help in finding any better sources for this person/article? I've looked at pages for other critics too but can't seem to see how they fit the criteria if we are super-strict with SIGCOV Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Please strike your second !vote; editors are only allowed one !vote in an AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the entire point of the WP:BEFORE search (which I did) was to find qualifying sources, and I didn't find them. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"[A] search turns up lots of his own writing but no independent [sources]" - isn't this exactly what we should expect though? Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's what we should expect from a person who's not notable, I suppose. And as already mentioned, please strike through your duplicative !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. Taabii (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this AFD discussion. Since there are several strong Keep arguments, I'm giving this discussion a little more time for supporters to locate RS that provide SIGCOV. If nothing appears, then I assume this article will be headed towards deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moliere Dimanche

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche

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

This is a copy of Draft:Moe Dimanche which the creator of both articles, User:NovembersHeartbeat, submitted to Articles for Creation back in September. This user has now made a new article, Moliere Dimanche, to bypass the AfC process, and redirected Moe Dimanche to lead back to this article. I have suspicions about WP:COI that I have expressed on NovembersHeartbeat's talk page (Dimanche is running to be Governor of Florida, which provides a clear motivation). NovembersHeartbeat also created Dimanche v. Brown for a legal case Dimanche was prominent within, and I am now also considering this for deletion. I would like some external advice on whether any of these articles pass WP:GNG as I am not well versed on American legal stuff like this. Spiralwidget (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement: My contributions to Wikipedia have been neutral, informative, and edited by Admins. I like editing on Wikipedia because I like spreading knowledge. My contributions include the Federal Magistrates Act, the JUDGES Act, and I'm currently putting together a page on the concept of Unsettled Law. These are topics that serve public interest and make people wiser, and why people rely on wikipedia more than any other source of enlightenment. This user SpiralWidget on the other hand has had his pages deleted because he abandoned them for 6 months. I take the spread of knowledge seriously, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.

Redirects and Related Articles: The user SpiralWidget says he has conflict of interest concerns, which were addressed when he first started editing the page Moe Dimanche. I think his primary reason for nominating the article for deletion is because it is a duplicate page. However, the wikipedia deletion policy specifically says

"If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand."

But SpiralWidget moved the redirect page anyway because he wanted a formal discussion. The redirect Moe Dimanche was created to aid navigation for users searching under this common nickname. As for Dimanche v. Brown, it is a separate topic with its own independent notability, as demonstrated by coverage in legal publications and its significance in state-level jurisprudence. These articles serve distinct purposes and are appropriately created. 2. Conflict of Interest: I have no personal or professional connection to Moliere Dimanche. The article was written to document a notable public figure in compliance with Wikipedia’s WP:COI and WP:NPOV guidelines. This was already explained to SpiralWidget, even though I do not owe him an explanation. I came across Mr. Dimanche's YouTube videos after a judge in my city reopened a death investigation into a death of an inmate at a local prison. The only videos I could find on that inmate were done by Mr. Dimanche's Youtube channel and I learned more about him and asked why there wasn't a wikipedia page about him. So I decided to do it, as I began to follow what was going on with him. I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I hope my contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Crime, Law, Haiti, United States of America, and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This wall of text isn't going to advance your case. Please don't accuse other editors of vandalism without evidence. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marginally Keep While I share suspicions that this is self-promotion by the primary contributor or meatpuppetry by the subject, I find that this does meet the general criteria for inclusion. Though not all the detail is necessary, the case cited does lend credence to the idea that the case and the subject of the case is notable enough; the precedent set is not nontrivial. Given the numerous local sources (admittedly probably pushing their own agenda), I think it marginally meets the threshold for inclusion. I would strongly advise User:NovembersHeartbeat to back off for a few days and likewise recant/strike his remarks about "vandalism". This is not "your" article. It is open to anyone to edit and improve within our guidelines. Buffs (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal keep When I first came across this draft in AfC, I refrained from reviewing as the notability seemed marginal–it could've gone both ways. However, I do feel that there are some significant coverage of him as an artist, but this article needs to be ridden of fluff and promotion. [15] I also found this book by Nicole R. Fleetwood that discusses his art in detail. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democrates

For a concise explanation of the case for deletion of this article, see User:Twozenhauer's response to User:Liz below.

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

I humbly submit that this article may safely be either taken down, merged, or changed to a redirect. Its principal claim to notability, I believe, is the occasional misattribution of Democritus’s sayings or likeness to one Democrates.

With regard to the former, according to our article on Democritus, Diels and Kranz attribute these sayings to Democritus, and this article repeats this attribution. As for the likeness, it can hardly be denied that the bust in the picture is stamped “Democrates,” and, indeed, the Wedgwood Museum’s website seems to list the very piece here under that name; that Museum’s website is hardly informative. Now, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a similar piece also stamped “Democrates” but clearly catalogued as “Democritus.” Did someone at the Wedgwood company repeatedly make the same mistake? This hardly seems unlikely to me, but what say my fellow editors?

I do confess that the likeness is unlike some of those we have for Democritus, as that in the Villa of the Papyri, but it is hardly unlike his representation in numerous other portraits. Indeed, the painting by Coypel, loath as we may be to accept the authenticity of so modern a vision, seems based on an old tradition; a cursory search will, I believe, at worst, reveal to anyone conflicting traditions of his appearance with, nonetheless, a bias towards that seen in the Wedgwood bust. A worker at the company might have repeatedly made the mistake of labeling the likeness "Democrates", but did Coypel, who predates it, mistake with "Démocrite"? And many other artists in the tradition of the “laughing” or “smiling philosopher”?

That he was the founder of the basic concepts of democracy is obvious nonsense. (Among other considerations, were he a contemporary of Apollonius of Tyana, he would have lived centuries after the heyday of Athenian democracy!)

Mind you, Democrates is not an invalid Greek name. There is Democrates of Aphidna, and it is also attested to in, e.g., this article about Euripides, this work of the theologian Sepulveda, and, as I gather, a genus of beetles. Indeed, Livy apparently states that a Democrates led the Tarentines at the Battle of Sapriportis, but, although the name on that article links to the page about the supposed philosopher, their biographies could hardly agree. Furthermore, the name appears on the list of Druze prophets on this page, but I can find no citations to that effect. (This last, in particular, might make me suspect a hoax, though I make no such formal accusation here!)

Even if the Democrates article gave dates significantly after the laughing philosopher, they would not account for the difference in dates between the Tarentine commander and the Druze prophet, and, even if they did, they would not account for the article’s lack of biographical detail, unless a military command and posthumous religious veneration do not qualify as notable!

But, forgive me: I understand that those links need not really enter into the argument; they were, no doubt, added in good faith, or, at least, the one from the Tarentine commander to the supposed philosopher was.

Also, regarding biographical detail, the noted epistle of Apollonius seems to me suspect as a citation, for, as we have said, Democrates is a genuine Greek name, and the mere existence of an Apollonian contemporary by that name hardly justifies the rest of the article. (Also, in fact, it is epistle 96, not 88, but that may be beside the point!)

What harm would be done by noting more fully the occasional attributions to Democrates on Democritus’s article and changing Democrates’s to a redirect to Democritus? Or perhaps a disambiguation page could disambiguate things: a link to Democrates of Ephidna, a link to Sepulveda, a link to and a note on Democritus, and a note about the military commander. Pleased to take further part in the debate but better able to leave the question to more sage considerations than my own, I am sincerely yours, Twozenhauer (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, History, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Golden Sentences/ Golden Maxims of Democrates? This seems to be attributed to him even if nothing else is? I think the disputed historicity is clearly displayed in the article, so as it stands I am happy to keep, maybe with more commentary on historicity?Spiralwidget (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Spiralwidget: Thank you for your consideration of this matter! But even considering the Golden Sentences, I am in favor of one of the options I have mentioned above. Near as I can tell, the article’s best quality is its statement that “many scholars argue that these maxims all originate from an original collection of sayings of Democritus”; granted, as the article goes on to say, “others believe that there was a different little-known Democrates whose name became confused with the much better-known Democritus.”

But with regard to the former statement, I refer my fellow editors also to this article by a scholar named Searby, which I quote here:

“The two most important sources for the ethical fragments of Democritus are Stobaeus' Anthology and the so-called ‘golden maxims of Democrates’ (a much discussed misnomer). Through a careful comparison, [the scholar Gerlach] confirms Lortzing's conclusion that Stobaeus utilized a collection of Democritus' maxims nearly identical with the pseudo-Democrates collection, which, for [Gerlach], has the methodological consequence of making Stobaeus an indirect witness to that tradition, complicated by the thematic rearrangement in the Stobaean anthology.” (emphasis mine)

But, truth be told, I have not found a tremendous amount of discussion per se; scholars seem by-and-large in agreement about “pseudo-Democrates”. Another confident attribution of the sayings to Democritus is this somewhat older piece by M. L. West.

I do not have access to the Democrates article’s cited The Atomists, Leucippus and Democritus (though it is mentioned in the Searby review cited above), but, in the article’s defense, I could advance this notice from 1925, which seems to present the attribution of Democrates to Democritus as somewhat new; but, even if I did so, I would have, at best, to advance merger of the Democrates article with that of Democrates of Aphidna: the noted dissertation by Philippson is a refutation of one Laue’s dissertation from 1921, in which the latter scholar, according to this contemporary report, advanced Democrates of Aphidna as the author of the sayings, which were apparently already widely attributed to Democritus. The report speaks of the same Philippson paper thus:

“Philippson is led to discuss the authenticity, character, and transmission of the ethical precepts of Democritus in reviewing H. Laue's dissertation . . . Laue's main contention is that the collection of precepts bearing the name of Democrates is not to be ascribed to Democritus, but to the Attic orator of that name from Aphidna. On this basis Laue tries to distinguish the style and content of the Democrates maxims from what he considers to be the genuine sayings of Democritus. Philippson points out that thirty-one precepts of the Democrates collection appear also in Stobaeus, and probably more were contained in the lost eclogues. Therefore the testimony of the Stobaeus MSS., which show the frequent occurrence of Democrates for Democritus, although the latter predominates, makes it highly probable that the author of the sayings in the above collection was Democritus. Moreover Lortzing has shown that Stobaeus obtained his Democritus precepts from the same source from which the Democrates collection was derived . . . . “ (emphases mine)

So, I submit that note of the conflicting attributions might be made on the articles for both Democritus and Democrates of Aphidna; Democrates as we have it may, I believe, be deleted or changed to a redirect, but hardly stand as it is: at very least, he is not the only Democrates, and his article’s title should not suggest that he is the standout holder of that name!

This is more by way of a postscript: Is it not also curious that the note at the beginning of the article calls him a first-century philosopher? His supposed correspondence with Apollonius would place him then, but the article goes on to say that his Ionic dialect is evidence of composition at “a very early period”; but then his possible contemporaneity with Julius Caesar seems to bring him closer to the first-century (but B. C.!) date. But this could be fixed even were the article retained. Twozenhauer (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Twozenhauer, can you cut down your deletion rationale for this article to two short paragraphs and "hat" the rest of your comments in case anyone wants to read them? Because I don't anticipate any editors with the patience to wade through your entire statements here. Please be concise in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- User:Liz, Certainly; thank you for your interest! Pardon my prolixity and my ignorance of “hats”; will the note I have placed suffice? §Scholars seem generally in agreement that the works of the supposed Democrates are in fact to be attributed to the well-known Democritus. Confusion of the names was not uncommon long ago, nor has it abated. The article as written relies upon a very few scraps of biographical detail, some conflicting and all doubtful, including its basic premise that Democrates is the author of the Golden Sayings or Sentences. Indeed, even those who question Democritus’s well-evidenced and widely-accepted authorship have only this premise on which to build a biography of a man who probably did not exist as such. The lone ready exception is a scholar who gives authorship of the Sayings to Democrates of Aphidna, who has an article with us. §I submit that the article on "Democrates" be deleted or changed to a disambiguation page: Pseudo-Democrates, the scholarly moniker by which the uncertain author of the Sayings is sometimes called, could be among the bullets; Democritus, too, with Democrates noted as a probable misspelling; Democrates of Aphidna could make another. On the articles for the latter two, a note about possible authorship of the Sayings could easily be slipped in. Twozenhauer (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the historicity of Democrates and authorship of his Golden Sayings are the subject of debate, that alone makes this a valid topic for coverage on Wikipedia. While some scholars attribute this work to Democritus, or to a different Democrates, others evidently do not. A sentence from the original article on which this one was based says that the identification of Democrates with Democritus is a mistake resulting from confusion between similar names. Is it? Wikipedia can cover the debate, but shouldn't be taking sides. Even if Democrates could be convincingly shown to be a phantom—which this article certainly does not do—the long discussion over whether he existed would still be worthy of coverage, and presumably under this title, since it would be a significant digression for a single work of Democritus. P Aculeius (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. I'm considering giving out barnstars to any experienced editors willing to assess all of the commentary here. Thank you!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you! Now, by way of replying to User:P Aculeius:

Thank you for your comment, and thank you especially for finding the link to Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. But I quite agree that the topic deserves to be covered here, and I believe your points about attribution are significantly addressed above. I do see your point about digression, though I still believe the controversy should be briefly addressed on Democritus and Democrates of Aphidna, perhaps with one or two of the citations above, e.g. from West or Searby, &c., as well as Smith. Also, the venerable source whose link you have fixed actually lists the orator from Aphidna first under his name! So, would I be wrong to persist in arguing that this Democrates, at least, should not be the bearer of an article simply so titled? Twozenhauer (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The DGRBM lists all persons named Democrates together, but on Wikipedia article titling works a little differently. Where there is "natural disambiguation", there is no need to decide which of two or three articles is the "primary topic". While we could make "Democrates" a disambiguation page pointing to this Democrates, Democrates of Aphidna, other Democratetes who don't have articles, and persons with similar names (the various persons named Democritus being the obvious examples), the normal title to do so under would be "Democrates (disambiguation)". Leaving this Democrates and Democrates of Aphidna the only obvious targets for "Democrates". And between the two of them, a pair of hatnotes would be simpler. I think that this article should be left here, with a hatnote leading to Democrates of Aphidna and perhaps also a disambiguation page along the lines I just mentioned. P Aculeius (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Krishna Bantawa

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV as per Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!}. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Hong Kong, and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rahmatula786,

I hope this message finds you well.

Thank you for raising concerns about the article on Ram Krishna Bantawa. I firmly believe the article meets the requirements outlined in Wikipedia’s WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV guidelines. Below is an explanation supporting this assertion:

Notability as an Author (WP:NAUTHOR):

Ram Krishna Bantawa is a recognized author and lyricist in Nepali literature. He is known for his novel Saghan Tuwanlo (Shrill Mist) and novel Amalai Chithi (Letter to Mother-whose English translation is forthcoming.) His work has made a significant cultural impact, particularly within the Nepali community.
His lyrics and songs are available on platforms such as YouTube.
Saghan Tuwanlo is included in the curriculum of Tribhuvan University, highlighting its academic and cultural significance.His novels address meaningful societal issues such as women’s rights, untouchability, and Sati Pratha (the practice of widow immolation), further emphasizing his contributions to literature and social discourse.

Significant Coverage (WP:SIGCOV):

Independent and reliable media outlets, including Kantipur, Annapurna Post, and various Hong Kong-based Nepali newspapers, have provided coverage of Bantawa’s work. This demonstrates his influence in Nepali literature and music.
He has been featured in interviews and podcasts that delve into his life, literary contributions, and societal impact, providing further evidence of significant independent coverage.
Bantawa has received several awards and certificates from reputable organizations, including:Nepalese Literary Academy Hong Kong , Heavenly Path Hong Kong , Charu Sahitya Pratisthan , Hong Kong Nepalese Federation , Lyricist Association of Nepal

The article references independent and verifiable sources that discuss Ram Krishna Bantawa’s work in detail. Taken collectively, these factors satisfy the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia under WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV.

If additional information or sources are required to further support this assertion and enhance the article, I would be happy to assist.

Best regards, Rasilshrestha (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you know the person very well so you are aware of so many information. When i search on internet , I hardly find anything of significance covered in reputable media outlet about him .

regarding references, plz go through all the references, and let me know if a single source in reputable Nepali media from NPOV meeting WP criteria. If your have such sources plz put it here other than what you have kept in references. Plz note that sources in reference are not of significance. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rahmatula786,

Thank you for your message. I want to clarify that I do not personally know the person. The information I’ve provided is based solely on my research.

I understand your concerns regarding the importance of meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria. Unfortunately, there is limited online information due to the lack of archived articles in Nepali media. However, I have collected pictures of old newspaper articles about the author, including coverage from Nepali Hong Kong newspapers during a book launch press meet.

I believe the article is written from a neutral point of view. While I cannot attach the offline sources here, I’d be happy to share them via email. Additionally, I can provide relevant YouTube(https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Ram+Krishna+Bantawa) links of his Songs, Interviews. Please let me know how you’d like to proceed.

I look forward to your guidance and support, as I am currently gathering resources and information for my next article of Nepali Singer "Kuma Sagar" . Your insights will be invaluable in helping me refine my work. Please let me know how best to proceed.

Best Regards, Rasilshrestha (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia's guidelines, contributors are discouraged from writing about individuals they personally know to maintain neutrality and avoid conflicts of interest. I can assure you that I have no personal connection with, nor do I know, the author.

In my case, I refrained from including details about the author's awards and certificates, as I was unsure about their accuracy and could not verify them through reliable sources all i had were photographs of certificates and some mentions in newspapers. However, I conducted thorough research and included information about the author's books, song lyrics, and album, as these are well-documented and publicly available.

I can provide you with ISBN of the books they were published through Sajha Publications and ASIA 2000 Ltd. Also you can search in youtube for his songs and interviews. I can additionally provide you with offline sources(Newspaper Articles, Magazines) relating to the author. Rasilshrestha (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there appears to be some sourcing not available easily online (the "surface" of the Internet). I'm going for a dive. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched under three different names for this author and his book, Shrill Mist. I also reached out to a Nepalese friend. I've come up with zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

Thank you for letting me know.I am actively working on gathering reliable links and additional information to support it. I’ll share them in refrence of the article.

The reason your friend might not have found information about the novel could be because it is an older work, first published in 2008. The author is not as widely recognized as prominent Nepali literary figures like Parijat, Laxmi Prasad Devkota, or Bhanubhakta Acharya, whose biographies are included in school curriculum. Additionally, the novel hasn’t been published online, limiting its accessibility to a broader audience. However, I’ve heard that the author’s new book is being published or translated into English, which might bring more attention to their work.

It’s also worth noting that the author has spent a significant amount of time outside Nepal, particularly in Hong Kong. If you search for his name on YouTube, you’ll find his songs, which might provide some additional context.

For now, I can provide the ISBN number of the book or any other available details. I’m actively working on finding more reliable sources and digging through news archives to provide further information Rasilshrestha (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I have posted the photos of news archive i have clicked (Ram Krishna Bantawa News Articles : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive) in archive.org Rasilshrestha (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the link to external site as Ram Krishna Bantawa News Archive. Rasilshrestha (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is an unbolded Keep here and a previous visit to AFD which means that Soft Deletion is not an option. It usually all comes down to sources so a source analysis of what is present in the article would be helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

Ref 1 : non neutral source ( media with no reputation has review of some book not a notable work , no findings on search on internet )

Ref 2 & 3 - not active link, neither found on google

Ref 4 - not at all a media of even minor entity

Ref 5&6 - he attends book inauguration program ( that’s all . Just his name mentioned)

Ref 7. Controversial piece about some legal issues being taken. Doesn’t support the article in any sense.

Rest sources - all are either repetition of above news or your tube material or some small contributions not covered in any genuine source. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John B. Lee

(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. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show certain specific markers of achievement supported by WP:GNG-worthy third-party coverage about them in media and books -- but this article is completely unreferenced, and is not making any strong notability claims.
The main attempts at notability claims are that he's been municipal poet laureate of a small city, which isn't an automatic notability freebie without sourcing for it, and that he's been a recipient of various minor and/or unspecified literary awards that aren't highly prominent enough to confer instant inclusion freebies without sourcing for them. An award has to be notable in its own right before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so notability doesn't derive from the presence of the word "award" (or sticking the word "prestigious" in front of it) in the article text, it derives from the quality of the sourcing you can show to demonstrate that the award is a sufficiently notable and/or prestigious one in the first place.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on his sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has a substantial entry in Canadian Poetry Online, published by the University of Toronto Libraries, along with some of his poems. There are numerous reviews in the Canadian Book Review Annual, a Globe and Mail review, a review in the journal Essays on Canadian Writing, and he is in the book Five Canadian Poets: Analytical Essays on, James Deahl, John B. Lee, Don Gutteridge, Glen Sorestad, A. F. Moritz. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:NAUTHOR per Clarityfiend. More sources: [16], [17], [18]. Jfire (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Faid

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

Reliable sources mentioning Faid only mention him for a single thing: his theory that Mikhail Gorbachev is the Antichrist, for which he received the satirical Ig Nobel Prize. Here are three such sources; note that the third has merely a passing mention:

Levine, Art (June 4, 1988). "THE DEVIL IN GORBACHEV". Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 5, 2022. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
Abrahams, Marc (May 10, 2004). "Devilish digits". The Guardian. Archived from the original on August 8, 2022. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
Whisker, Daniel (July 2012). "Apocalyptic Rhetoric on the American Religious Right: Quasi-Charisma and Anti-Charisma". Max Weber Studies. 12 (2): 159–184 – via JSTOR. The periodic modification of the specific signs of prophetic fulfilment is a key feature of the discourse: no-one now presents Mikhail Gorbachev as a potential Antichrist, as did Robert Faid in 1988 (Faid 1988), or the Native Americans as Antichrist's army, as did Cotton Mather in 1693 (Boyer 1992).

In its current state, the article contains information far beyond this single thing. This information is either completely unsourced or copied verbatim, in what I assume is a copyright violation, from Faid's obituary on Legacy.com, an unreliable source which hosts user-generated content and nonsensically claims that Faid "held the honor of being in the top ten nuclear scientists until 1975".

In my opinion, this single thing for which Faid is known is not enough to make him notable. Instead, this information, along with the three sources above, would be better suited as a part of a different article, perhaps List of conspiracy theories § Antichrist or Faid's entry at List of Ig Nobel Prize winners § 1993. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk – edits) 22:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk – edits) 22:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to List of Ig Nobel Prize winners § 1993. Also add more info in the target page about his Antichrist theories, the one thing reliable sources confirm about him.

JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, Christianity, Engineering, Maryland, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The entire Biography section was all but a direct copy from his 2008 Baltimore Sun obituary - and has been since April 2009. I've removed the copyvio text and RD1'd the article history. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion, although I'm not opposed to a redirect. Bearian (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Savage

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

This article on science fiction author Marshall Savage seems to fall short of WP's general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) for inclusion. To the extent that this author is notable, it is for his book, The Millennial Project which has its own WP article, and for founding the First Millennial Foundation, which is covered in the book's article. The body of this article is without references and is filled with minute autobiographical-type details. This article has had January 2024 {{BLP sources}} and {{original research}} tags for almost a year now. Dotyoyo (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dotyoyo (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything that can be sourced and is worth covering to The Millenial Project - couldn't find anything of substance that wasn't covering the book Iostn (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything worth merging into The Millenial Project, but others might find something worthy. The section called Writing career mentions an article he wrote, and a couple of incomplete projects he's worked on. But these are all unsourced and, IMO, non-notable. Dotyoyo (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The Millenial Project is not an existing article so it can't be a Merge target article. Any other arguments for what should happen with this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Millennial Project (note the correct spelling is with two ns). Though the subject may be notable, the vast majority of the article is unsourced and I don't see any sourced content worth merging. If sources are found, the redirect can be reverted. Jfire (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tulika Mehrotra

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

Do not pass WP:AUTHOR or even WP:BASIC ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Uttar Pradesh, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a book review from Vogue India and an article from The Hindu on her books. Not too familiar with the English-language media landscape throughout India, but I think there's a good chance there is sufficient coverage that would make this pass WP:NAUTHOR (e.g., book reviews), especially considering the books were published by Penguin (one of the Big Five publishers). Bridget (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bridget Thank you for your efforts. I also conducted a search for relevant sources initially, but I did not find them to meet the notability criteria. Both sources are primarily interview-based descriptions. The piece in Vogue India is a one-time article by Ridhima Sud, and the The Hindu article also revolves around an interview. Neither of these, on their own, can establish notability. While publishing with Penguin is a significant accomplishment, it alone does not satisfy the notability requirements according to Wikipedia's standards. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 15:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR, interviews are not RS. Deriannt (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the interview / article format and whether or not the article contains facts vetted by a reliable source and observations that were independent of the subject. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a reference for her job (chief digital officer) and her marriage. I doubt they will make much difference. I'm not casting a vote on this one. Knitsey (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the additional work done on this article, I don't believe it qualifies for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is starting to look a lot better than when it was first nominated. Is anyone able to access the Business India article (or provide an archived link to it? Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The improvements and added sources persuade me of notability. Also, I always think about this comment from WP:INTERVIEWS: "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." Rublamb (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Authors proposed deletions

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