- David S. Feldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No independent source which discuss in depth about subject, fails WP:GNG, doesn’t received any prestigious award. TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Antik Mahmud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence or claim of notability. None of the sources provide the in-depth coverage needed for GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mick Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This was WP:BLAR'd to Socialist Alternative (Australia)#History, but is not mentioned in the target and the redirect was taken to RFD. The discussion called for it to be listed here. I'm listing this because I closed the RFD; I have not otherwise investigated the subject. asilvering (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Australia. asilvering (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd like to point out that Mick Armstrong was mentioned in the target when the redirect was created. He was only removed from that article a minute before the redirect was listed for discussion, for not being mentioned in the target... The removal (and deletion) may turn out to be perfectly justified (I have no insight into and no opinion about this matter), but I find the reason "not mentioned in target" strange when the reason for this is that the user has removed it themselves moments earlier, and then doesn't disclose that they did this. Renerpho (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- With the original state of the Socialist Alternative (Australia) article (before the removal of that paragraph, and more so when the redirect was created in 2020), that redirect looks sensible to me. The relevant paragraph was tagged as needing citations since June 2024; and as I said, removing it may be the right choice. But it wasn't an unreasonable target for the redirect based on what it looked like at the time. Renerpho (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think once the material was removed though (as failing WP:V) at that point the redirect being discussed was valid. TarnishedPathtalk 06:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TarnishedPath: Yes, and maybe others will be more lenient. WP:CHALLENGE is clear that you had every right to remove it. That doesn't mean that the timing wasn't unfortunate, and that this wasn't important. I would have preferred either an upfront mention that you removed it ("I have just removed this as failing WP:V, and believe the redirect should be deleted because it's no longer mentioned in the target"), or to leave it and include it in the discussion ("I plan to remove this unsourced information from the target, at which point the subject will no longer be mentioned in the target"). This gives users the opportunity to form an opinion if sources exist (the talk page exists if there's more to know). It's a matter of transparency: When I see an argument like "not mentioned in the target", my impression is that this is because the two are unrelated, and the redirect was unreasonable. I feel misled when important background about the article's history is hidden from me. Renerpho (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll keep that in mind for future reference. TarnishedPathtalk 08:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Thanks for pointing it out in this AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Austudy Five has just been Prodded. I found a cite that Mick Armstrong was one of the 5 in a few seconds, a better cite would still be valuable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Yoginder Sikand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG, Several articles authored by the subject are frequently cited as references; however, they have yet to receive significant mainstream media coverage (WP:SIGCOV). Jannatulbaqi (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Authors. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no independent sources to establish notability, mainly are self published, fails WP:GNG. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I find several reviews of the books [8][9][10][11], also [12] (but I'm not sure of the reliability of the last source). I think it's enough for WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Priyamvad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem to be notable. I'm unable to find any coverage. Fails WP:BIO. --Ratekreel (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sibylle Eschapasse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is sourced to blogs and the UN's website. As far as I'm aware working for the UN does not form part of any alternative notability criteria and the primary sources cited here don't cover this subject in any significant depth and don't support WP:ANYBIO 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 10:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Meer Abdul Wahid Bilgrami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable person. The article shows zero evidence of notability. Sayful Islam (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Jamila Musayeva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The sources cited in the article do not meet WP:SIGCOV. They include blogs, Medium posts, interviews, and primarily passing mentions. The article from The Caspian Post appears promotional or sponsored to me, and we also lack consensus on its reliability. Even if we ignore that, a single article cannot establish notability for the subject. I searched for more reliable sources with significant coverage but was unable to find any, only passing mentions similar to what is already in the article. The subject also fails to meet WP:AUTHOR, as their books have not been reviewed by multiple reliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I’m an author of this article. I’m willing to respond to every argument.
- Before publishing the article, I have read WP:AUTHOR (Wikipedia’s Notability Guideline, section "Creative professionals"). According to this section, a person is notable if "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". My article meets this criterion, because of following reasons: (1) First of all, Musayeva is interviewed and/or cited as an expert by the mainstream media mentioned in the article (Bussiness Insider, Newsweek, Fox News and others). This means that these big media companies recognize her position as an authority on the subject. (2) Secondly, she is a YouTuber with over million of subscribers and over 40 million views of her videos, which are big numbers, especially given the fact that etiquette is not a common interest. This establishes her as one of the most popular/successful etiquette experts in the world. Isn’t that enough to claim she is notable?
- (3) Moreover, the article is about her, not about her books.
- I have used multiple secondary and independent sources, mostly interviews with her (which is understandable, because the interviews with a creative person are often the most fruitful source about their lives and achievements). Half of the sources are mainstream media outlets such as Fox News, Daily Mail and WFLA-TV.
- I didn’t include any self-published source.
- I have used two sources published by the subject of the article, which is permitted. There is no doubt to the authenticy of these sources, as they were published on the official page of the subject of the article. Moreover, the article is not based primarily on such sources (there are only two).
- I tried my best to meet the Wikipedia's Guidelines.
- I will be taking care of the article. She is getting more and more recognition from the media every year. There will be more sources coming in the near future. I will be updating the article and bettering it. But please don't delete my work. Mlody1312 (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mlody1312: If you want to work on this article, draftification can be done. However, interviews, sources claiming the subject as an expert, and view numbers alone do not make the subject notable. What’s your opinion on draftification? Please let me know. GrabUp - Talk 09:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have worked on this article for almost two weeks in my draftspace and for now there is no more information that can be added to the article. I tried my best to make the article as informative as it was possible, in order to give the readers a full understanding of who the described person is.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals
- According to the Wikipedia's Notability (People) Guideline, Jamila falls into the section/category of "Creative professionals". This particular section "applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals" (exact quote).
- She belongs to this category, because she is not only an author of books, but also a videoblogger/a YouTuber.
- In the next passage the criteria of notability are listed, and it says that the person is notable when "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" (exact quote).
- The subject of the article meets this criteria. She is regarded as an important figure, i.e. an authority on etiquette. She is cited by multiple media outlets and invited to television. She gets media coverage for what she does professionally.
- Moving on to the next point, of course view numbers on YouTube is not the only thing contributing to her notability, but is definitely an important one. There is a whole category in Wikipedia dedicated to YouTubers. I think having over 1 million subscribers and over 40 million views is big enough to be included into "YouTubers" category. There are subjects that have smaller numbers and still are included. Examples are: James Frederick, Matt Baume or RinRin Doll.
- I feel like my article is criticised quite harshly, especially in comparison to other articles from similar categories. For example:
- • Thomas_Farley (manners expert) (almost no linking to sources)
- • Mary Killen (small number of sources)
- • John Morgan (etiquette expert) (small number of sources)
- • Judith Martin (here we have some interviews with the subject used as sources as well, and it seems like it doesn’t bother anyone; interviews with the subjects are really fruitful sources of information about such individuals)
- Your statement about "primarily passing mentions" is not wholly fair, it diminishes her media presence to some extent. In the sources I gave she is asked for her opinions and suggestions as an expert and is cited as such. Most of these sources are full-talk interviews, and in others, her answers take up much of the space.
- As she is getting more media recognition every month, more media coverage is coming in anytime soon. I will be happy to expand and improve this article. Please don’t delete my work. Mlody1312 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As you said, ‘As she is getting more media recognition every month, more media coverage is likely to come soon. I will be happy to expand and improve this article. Please don’t delete my work.’ That’s why I proposed draftification. If significant coverage comes in the future, then it can be submitted for AfC review. Currently, I don’t believe the article meets notability. The additional criteria you’re quoting do not inherently make a subject notable, as it says: ‘People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.’ GrabUp - Talk 15:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mlody1312: Also, please avoid WP:WHATABOUT arguments. If you believe those articles do not meet notability guidelines, you can start a discussion. GrabUp - Talk 15:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for using WP:WHATABOUT arguments. I stand my ground when it comes to other arguments, included those on notability. I already gave my reasons and arguments for keeping this article, and I guess that’s all I could do. Maybe let’s wait for other users to join the discussion. Mlody1312 (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above indicates TOOSOON. Not notable at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I don't find any book reviews, so likely doesn't pass AUTHOR. The sources used are either red as non-RS or orange (iffy) per Source Highlighter. My search only brings up where to buy the book and primary sources. I don't see anything we can use to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There are reader reviews on goodreads and amazon. But anyway, this article is not about her books. The books are just one of many elements that make up the whole article. If I were going to write an article about any of her books, then requiring more reviews would be justified. Mlody1312 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- User ratings mean nothing to us. If you can find two or more critical reviews of any of her books from reliable secondary sources, she will meet the criteria for WP:AUTHOR. GrabUp - Talk 07:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sources used are not the best, especially LinkedIn. If a profile was done that wasn't just the interview, it could meet notability, but I don't think it meets it in the current state. As the author of this page has said, she is getting more media attention as the months pass, so at some point, she will have a New Yorker or some other news/magazine profile done. When that happens, the page could come back up (with the removal of not great sources and an overall better flow). Bpuddin (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#LinkedIn
- In accordance with this section of the guideline, using LinkedIn is permitted "as self-published, primary sources, but only if they can be authenticated as belonging to the subject", which they are in case of my article. Mlody1312 (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-published and primary sources do not help establish notability at all. GrabUp - Talk 07:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability, in this case, is established by the fact that mainstream media outlets recognize her position as an authority on the topic of etiquette; she is interviewed and cited as an expert; she gets media coverage for what she does professionally.
- LinkedIn can be used "As a reliable source sometimes. LinkedIn pages may be used as self-published, primary sources, but only if they can be authenticated as belonging to the subject." (exact quote)
- They are proven authentic, because they were posted on the offical page of the subject. Mlody1312 (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The Perennial website page also states for LinkedIn, "Common Issues - Wikipedia is not a directory of any subject's complete web presence, and links to social networking sites (other than official links) are discouraged...As a reliable source, LinkedIn is problematic in the same ways as MySpace, Facebook, etc. as self-published and unverifiable, unreliable content."
- The overall problem I find with the page is the use of not reliable sources that are just conversations with Ms. Musayeva or are her own websites. Like LinkendIn, the Authority Magazine interview, the Wonder Woman Mag interview, Melissa Ambrosini interview, The British Protocol Academy source, Unconventional Life - Podcast, the Caspian Post article, the MITH Q&A, I AM CEO Podcast, Mail Online, and jamilamusayeva.com are all not fact checked or sourced articles, which is the overwhelming majority of this page.
- I still believe the page should be deleted and can be republished if there are better sourced news articles/profiles done.
- - Bpuddin (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The creator has canvassed 15 editors asking for help. Their message to me, at least, was neutral and transparent and I don't think they could have assumed that I would !vote keep, so I haven't recused myself. My gut feel is that the subject of the article is determined to raise their profile, hence appearing as a guest on several podcasts cited in the article. Given this new editor is an WP:SPA I am going to assume that this is an undeclared paid piece. I have expanded about half of the references in the article to tag which ones are interviews as part of my review of their content. I have not come across any content in those references that indicates notability. Everything I've read or heard are interviews, or her expressing her opinions, rather than WP:INDEPTH, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY coverage by WP:RELIABLE sources about her. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but these accusations are ridiculous. I have a Wikipedia account since 2019. I never created any article before because I had no need to. I'm just an appreciator of Ms. Musayeva's work, one of her viewers, and that's why I wanted to create an article about her. Mlody1312 (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mlody1312 I'm, puzzled: what led you to create an account on 24 November 2019 (as I see you did) but then not to make any edits at all until this month? PamD 12:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As I already said, I had no need to. Why does it bother you so much? Mlody1312 (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I just don't understand why anyone would trouble to create an account unless they intended to start editing there and then: you "had no need" to create the account. PamD 16:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry, it wasn't a trouble. Mlody1312 (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mlody1312 What source do you have for her date of birth? It may be in one of the many references, but please save me the time of reading through them all by adding a reference to show that it is available in a reliable independent published source. Thanks. PamD 12:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- She has made posts related to her birthday on Instagram.
- Not every biographical article has a reference to a birth date, even though the birth date is known. And since it is known, I don't see why not to add this information. Mlody1312 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I've removed the birth date but replaced it with an approximate one from the statement that she was 31 in the Mekhdi ref. "It is known" is not an adequate source. PamD 16:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulations, you have changed the correct information to the incorrect one. I've told you my source, it's her Instagram. Literally 10 seconds of searching in Google:
- https://www.instagram.com/jamila_musayeva/p/C9sGJWguyvi/?img_index=1 Mlody1312 (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- https://www.google.com/search?q=+jamila+musayeva+celebrating+33&sca_esv=6298c17d4a9e2aad&rlz=1C1CHBD_plPL1067PL1067&sxsrf=ADLYWIJKBP1opZEg0zH1u8zP72Iz_AtcbA%3A1729356746129&ei=yuMTZ4zCB4XOwPAPr5qruAg&ved=0ahUKEwiMz6v085qJAxUFJxAIHS_NCocQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=+jamila+musayeva+celebrating+33&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHyBqYW1pbGEgbXVzYXlldmEgY2VsZWJyYXRpbmcgMzMyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBBAhGBUyBBAhGBVI3S5QzRFYii5wAngBkAEAmAF7oAHQDaoBBDIuMTS4AQPIAQD4AQGYAhKgAsQOwgIKEAAYsAMY1gQYR8ICChAjGIAEGCcYigXCAgQQIxgnwgIFEC4YgATCAgYQABgHGB7CAgUQABiABMICFBAuGIAEGJcFGNwEGN4EGOAE2AEBwgIIEAAYgAQYywHCAgYQABgWGB7CAggQABiABBiiBMICBxAhGKABGAqYAwCIBgGQBgS6BgYIARABGBSSBwQzLjE1oAerTg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp Mlody1312 (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I reverted it, because claiming that instagram isn't valid in this case is ridiculous, it's like claiming that she herself doesn't know when was she born. Mlody1312 (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And I reverted because Wikipedia does not include unsourced content on living people PamD 20:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll delete age data then. And when it comes to the clarification of certification, it is literally clarified in the article, in the "early life" section. Your addition is unjustified. Mlody1312 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And also, WP:INSTAGRAM "The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject." Mlody1312 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Atmaprajnananda Saraswati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Expired but declined PROD as it was previously deleted. Result of the previous deletion discussion at an alternative title was delete. I still think the subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and the WP:GNG. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thabiso Sikwane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Trivial Article that does not comply with WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. According to WP:BIO's additional criteria nor with WP:DIRECTOR Pitille02 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough reliable sources on the article demonstrate notability. Jeanette Fiery Red Haired Martin (dime?) 19:00, 14 October, 2024 b(ITC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 14. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 19:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Radio, and South Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Subject has received moderate attention after their passing (and prior). She headlined multiple secondary reliable publications. A simple Google search is enough. dxneo (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She passes WP:SIGCOV quite well. Here are some sources [13], [14], [15], [16]
- Tau Corvi (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sources in the article are either eulogizing her or gossiping about her personal life, and a BEFORE Google search turned up similar results with DJ Fresh dominating most of the headlines. There's no significant independent coverage of Sikwane's actual career. This is reflected in the article having been created nearly two months ago after her death (which alone does not automatically establish notability) but currently still a stub with next to no content. Is she known more for her media work, or her relationship with DJ Fresh? 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 03:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrea Perego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:GNG. Usually I would try harder to search for Italian-language sources in my WP:BEFORE search, but indications are strong that the subject isn't notable. He doesn't have an identifier in VIAF. His most-reviewed book on GoodReads has 7 ratings. Despite being described as a journalist, he doesn't seem to have any articles in MuckRack (The ones found seem to belong to the energy engineer). There's a 2019 interview in a non-notable blog. Daask (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Jessica Reed Kraus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. This is also a second nomination. You might want to want check here [17] Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, Entertainment, Politics, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I am opposing deletion. Jacques Hendrik van Zyl (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC) — Jacques Hendrik van Zyl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep: References 2 and 4 should be enough to establish notability, as both are significant and RS. Would be nice to trim the article down to its essentials, as it's vaguely promotional and contains too many quotes. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try and patch this up today with this feedback. NPOV is something I feel is a weak spot for my writing. (NB: ref 2 refers to the WSJ, and ref 4 refers to Semafor, if the reference ordering changes.) SWinxy (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as author. Kraus got a feature in the WSJ plus two profiles: in Semafor and, just today, in Mother Jones. She had two articles on her in The Independent and in Business Insider back in 2022. These should surely establish notability. SWinxy (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WeirdNAnnoyed and SWinxy. Sourcing satisfies WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Jason Hennessey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The only reference in the article is Business Insider profile for Everspark, the company he founded. That source however, is just a blurb from Everspark itself. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everspark. Whpq (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your feedback regarding the article. While I understand your concern about notability, I believe this page has enough reliable coverage to merit its existence on Wikipedia. The Business Insider profile provides insight into Everspark, and while it may have some promotional aspects, it serves as a starting point for understanding the company’s significance.
- To strengthen the article further, I will look for additional independent sources to enhance its credibility and improve the overall tone. Your input is valuable, and I'm committed to making this page meet Wikipedia's standards. Aliumair435 (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above reply came up as 100% AI-written on gptzero.me. Left guide (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Kingsley Okonkwo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An article about a "family life and relationship coach, TV personality, and author" sourced entirely to shady pieces. While most of the publications are reliable on their own, the pieces sourced to are either unreliable, of the subject's opinion, run of the mill coverages or vanispamcruft. It's either the subject is publishing their opinion or it's an unreliable "things you need to know about X" piece. Nothing to confer inherent notability here either. Fails WP:GNG over all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Akhtar Usman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The BLP was created in the main namespace and later draftified by Maliner. The creator then submitted it for review, but later unilaterally moved the BLP back to the main namespace, to avoid AFC review process. So I feel compelled to take this to AFD so the community can decide whether it should remain or be deleted. IMO, it fails both GNG and NAUTHOR, as none of the works are notable enough. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Likely to be contested, so let's get a more firm outcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Daisuke Tsuda (YouTuber) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NPEOPLE Paradoctor (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. Paradoctor (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Appears to fail the notability guidelines for WP:NPEOPLE. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr.Tsuda is a prominent figure in Japan's internet scene, with over 20 years of experience. From the early days of Twitter Japan's service, he has engaged in various activities as a "media activist(a term he coined)", creating the buzzword "tsuda-ru". He served as a forum committee member for Asahi Shimbun, one of Japan's leading quality media outlets, from 2015 to 2019, and in 2019, he was the artistic director for the Aichi Triennale, an arts festival organized by Aichi Prefecture, establishing himself as a significant presence in the public discourse. His activities have been recognized by public institutions, having been appointed as a member of various government councils and positions in the aforementioned Aichi Prefecture events. Since 2020, he has shifted his focus to his self-established YouTube channel, "POLITAS TV", where he operates as a political opinion YouTuber, engaging in a range of discourse activities. Therefore, he should not be deleted. MihariHarukaze (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Please point to the independent sources that show him being "a prominent figure in Japan's internet scene". Geschichte (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Follower Count on X (formerly Twitter): As of October 9, 2024, Tsuda's X account has 1.466 million followers, ranking among the top influencers in Japan. For comparison, the Prime Minister of Japan, Shigeru Ishiba, has 418,000 followers (Shigeru Ishiba X account), and the left-wing journalist Isoko Mochizuki, known as the model for the Netflix global series "The Journalist", has 319,000 followers (Isoko Mochizuki X account). This shows that Tsuda is one of Japan’s leading left-wing influencers (Daisuke Tsuda X account).
- Official Profile: According to a 2017 profile published by the public relations department of Aichi Prefecture, Tsuda has been active as an internet expert since the 2000s and has appeared in various mass media outlets. He has authored several books on the internet and has held positions as a professor at higher education institutions and as a member of various government committees (Aichi Prefecture PR Document).
- Asahi Shimbun Opinion Committee Member: Tsuda served as a member of the opinion committee for Asahi Shimbun, one of Japan's leading quality media outlets, highlighting his recognition in the world of public discourse (Asahi Shimbun Daisuke Tsuda Opinion).
- Mention in Ryukyu Shimpo: In 2018, Tsuda was listed as one of the "famous people (著名人)" in an article by Ryukyu Shimpo, Okinawa’s leading regional newspaper, indicating his influence is acknowledged even in regional media (Ryukyu Shimpo).
- Artistic Director of Aichi Triennale: In 2019, Tsuda served as the artistic director of the Aichi Triennale, an arts festival hosted by Aichi Prefecture. This event was sponsored by global corporations headquartered in Aichi Prefecture, such as Toyota Motor Corporation, further demonstrating Tsuda's public activities and societal recognition. (Aichi Prefecture Document, Triennale Report)
- This evidence shows that Tsuda is not only an expert on internet issues but also a well-known figure with influence across multiple fields. MihariHarukaze (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, have you read WP:NPEOPLE? If not, please do now. While you're at it, you may find Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia? instructive.
- BTW, that "Official Profile" you mentioned? That's a one-page chronological list of Tsuda's contributions, basically what you'd find as part of a CV. That's not significant coverage in accord with NPEOPLE. Paradoctor (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Selected as a Young Global Leader (2013): In 2013, Tsuda was selected as one of the “Young Global Leaders Honourees” by the World Economic Forum in Davos. (The selection list is available here)
- Appeared in FOX News (2010): In June 2010, Tsuda appeared as an expert in an Associated Press's article titled "Twitter a hit in Japan as 'mumbling' tweeters give micro-blogging a distinctly Japanese flavor", which was featured on FOX News. (The FOX News article is available here)
- Controversy at Aichi Triennale 2019: In 2019, Tsuda served as the artistic director of Aichi Triennale 2019, which featured works such as a piece that involved burning an image of Emperor Hirohito and a statue symbolizing "comfort women". This exhibition sparked nationwide protests, with critics labeling it "disrespectful" toward the Emperor. The controversy received extensive media coverage, and Takashi Kawamura, the Mayor of Nagoya, staged a sit-in protest in opposition to the exhibition's content. The matter was also discussed in the Japanese parliament, leading to a prolonged national debate. Tsuda faced widespread criticism from various sectors. (NHK article, Mainichi article)
- Keynote Speech at "Critics in Residence @KYOTO EXPERIMENT 2024": On October 8, 2024, Tsuda delivered the keynote speech at the "Critics in Residence @KYOTO EXPERIMENT 2024”, hosted by the Delegation of the European Union to Japan. The event's introduction describes him as "widely known for his critical writing about recent shifts in the Japanese and international media environment as well as for establishing his own platforms for independent journalism".
- Cited in Google Scholar: A search for "Daisuke Tsuda Media Journalism" on Google Scholar reveals numerous academic papers citing Tsuda, showcasing his influence in the field of media and journalism. (Google Scholar search results)
- Appearances on NHK Programs: A search for "津田大介" of NHK’s program database reveals that Tsuda has frequently appeared as an expert on various programs. (NHK Archives search results)
- Mentions in CiNii: A search for "津田大介" on CiNii, the academic database operated by Japan's National Institute of Informatics, shows several articles related to media, internet, and journalism that mention Tsuda, aside from mentions of researchers with the same name. (CiNii Research search results)
- Featured in Major Japanese Newspapers: A search for "津田大介" in Japan's three major newspapers (The Asahi Shimbun, The Nikkei, and Sankei News) reveals that Tsuda has appeared in numerous articles, excluding those concerning a Dentsu employee with the same name. (The Asahi Shimbun search results, The Nikkei search results, Sankei News search results)
- MihariHarukaze (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I tired a .jp website search, nothing comes up. This in a Korean paper [18] briefly mentions this person. Likely more in Japanese sources? I don't know. Oaktree b (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In today's Asahi Shimbun Digital article titled "How did you view the party leaders' debate before the snap dissolution? With Daisuke Tsuda and Seiko Mimaki (スピード解散前の党首討論、どう見た? 津田大介さんと三牧聖子さん)", Tsuda appears as one of the experts. While there are differing opinions about Tsuda’s political views and activities, it is undeniable that he is a well-known public figure. MihariHarukaze (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We require articles about him, not just him speaking on a particular subject, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NPEOPLE:
"Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary. Paradoctor (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- (Reading the Wind) "If You Want to Exhibit the Comfort Woman Statue" - Editor-in-Chief Masato Inui (Source: Sankei Shimbun, August 6, 2019) Link to article
- Event Exhibiting Comfort Woman Statue in Aichi: Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga States "We Will Carefully Examine the Facts and Respond Appropriately" (Source: Sankei Shimbun, August 2, 2019) Link to article
- Daisuke Tsuda Apologizes: "The Situation Exceeded Our Expectations. I Take Full Responsibility." (Source: Asahi Shimbun, August 3, 2019) Link to article
- The Year of Survival for News Apps: What Will Determine the Winners and Losers (Source: The Nikkei, January 9, 2015) Link to article
- "No System in Place to Prevent the Director’s Judgment Errors" – Final Report on the Aichi Triennale (Source: The Nikkei, December 18, 2019) Link to article
- MihariHarukaze (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these articles with the exception of the short third one only features the name ("津田大介") a single time. E.g. the last article is about the "After Freedom of Expression?" exhibition and mentions the guy once as a director. It does not provide in-depth coverage of him. Cortador (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we get a review of the sources brought to this discussion. It would have been helpful if there had been a more comprehensive deletion nomination statement that demonstrated a BEFORE had been done instead of just a policy acronym which doesn't explain much at all. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NPEOPLE, and article only has 2 references. Babysharkboss2!! (I spread pro-Weezer propaganda) 14:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^ https://www.pref.aichi.jp/soshiki/bunka/2017071801.html
^ a b c “津田大介公式サイト | プロフィール”. 2020年8月20日閲覧。
^ “津田大介さんらが"ヤング・グローバル・リーダー"に--世界経済フォーラム”. マイナビニュース (2013年3月14日). 2023年3月21日閲覧。
^ Inc, Aetas. “津田大介の“本性”を見た!――ジャーナリスト津田大介氏がゲストの「ゲーマーはもっと経営者を目指すべき!」第13回”. www.4gamer.net. 2019年8月1日閲覧。
^ 【津田大介】どんな仕事も初回は断らない。自分に課した辛いルールが広げた仕事の幅|VENTURE FOR JAPAN|note
^ “津田大介公式サイト | プロフィール”. 2021年1月10日閲覧。
^ “世の中の大きな変わり目を経験した若者が、将来社会を変革していく”. www.univcoop.or.jp. www.univcoop.or.jp (2021年7月19日). 2023年8月8日閲覧。
^ “津田大介「ウェブで政治を動かす!」書評 新しい民主主義を作るために”. book.asahi.com. book.asahi.com (2012年12月2日). 2023年8月8日閲覧。
^ 津田大介ツイッター2011年5月3日2022年10月26日閲覧
^ a b “津田大介さん”. すぎなみ学倶楽部 (2014年1月14日). 2021年6月18日閲覧。
^ 上田市の上田染谷丘高校を昭和38年に卒業した同級生が青木村で同級会!
^ 添田隆典 (2019年5月26日). “<家族のこと話そう>闘う両親に影響受け ジャーナリスト・津田大介さん”. 東京新聞. オリジナルの2021年5月11日時点におけるアーカイブ。 2021年3月2日閲覧。
^ 朝日新聞2013年1月31日(木曜日)「おやじのせなか」理想追い思想押しつけず(津田大介さん)
^ “大手メディアでなく「赤旗」がスクープ連発はなぜ?/FMラジオ番組 小木曽編集局長語る”. www.jcp.or.jp. 2022年5月30日閲覧。
^ a b Inc, Aetas. “津田大介の“本性”を見た!――ジャーナリスト津田大介氏がゲストの「ゲーマーはもっと経営者を目指すべき!」第13回”. www.4gamer.net. 2019年8月1日閲覧。
^ 『現代用語の基礎知識 2010』 p.1225
^ a b 藤崎麻里. “「tsudaる」が生まれた日 誰も報じない審議会…中継が始まった”. withnews.jp. 2022年5月30日閲覧。
^ 津田大介『情報の呼吸法』「第1章 情報は行動を引き起こすためにある」p.19
^ “津田大介さん、あいちトリエンナーレの芸術監督に就任へ”. 朝日新聞. 2017年12月12日時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。2017年7月19日閲覧。
^ a b “『あいちトリエンナーレ』芸術監督に津田大介 「新しい芸術監督像を期待」”. CINRA.NET. 2019年8月1日閲覧。
^ “日本社会の「タブー」東京で展示”. ハンギョレ新聞 (2015年1月18日). 2020年8月17日閲覧。
^ “【主張】企画展再開 ヘイト批判に答えがない”. 産経新聞. (2019年10月9日)
^ “愛知芸術祭アドバイザー東浩紀氏が辞意「善後策提案採用されず」”. 産経新聞. (2019年8月14日). オリジナルの2021年4月20日時点におけるアーカイブ。 2022年5月30日閲覧。
^ 佐藤直子、稲垣太郎「こちら特捜部 『表現の不自由展』中止の衝撃(上) 脅迫に屈する『悪しき前例』 市長や政権 攻撃あおる 芸術監督・津田大介氏『文化に対する暴力テロ事件』」『東京新聞』2019年8月6日付朝刊、特報1面、22頁。
^ “「不自由展」監督 津田氏登壇シンポ中止へ 神戸市、抗議相次ぎ”. 東京新聞. (2019年8月9日) 2021年6月18日閲覧。
^ 『中日新聞』2020年8月26日付朝刊、二社、28面、「大村知事リコール 署名集めスタート 高須氏代表の団体」。
^ “リコール署名妨害と高須院長 映画評論家らを告発”. 共同通信. (2020年9月1日). オリジナルの2020年9月1日時点におけるアーカイブ。 2021年2月28日閲覧。
^ “高須氏らが愛知県を提訴 あいちトリエンナーレめぐり”. 朝日新聞. (2020年12月22日) 2021年2月24日閲覧。
^ 『中日新聞』2020年11月8日付朝刊、二社、26面、「大村知事リコール 高須氏が活動終了 病状悪化で」。
^ “愛知知事リコール署名「83%に不正の疑い」 県選管が調査結果、刑事告発も検討”. 毎日新聞. 2021年2月16日閲覧。
^ 津田大介 Twitter 2020年11月7日 午後9:41
^ “高須院長 津田氏に「謝罪遅れたら法廷」「癌で弱っていると思ってなめるな」”. デイリースポーツ. (2020年11月8日) 2020年11月11日閲覧。
^ “愛知県知事解職請求に係る署名簿の調査の取りまとめ状況について” (PDF). 愛知県選挙管理委員会 (2021年2月1日). 2021年2月25日閲覧。
^ “知事リコール署名は83%無効 愛知県選管が不正疑い告発検討”. 中日新聞. (2021年2月2日) 2021年2月25日閲覧。
^ “署名偽造容疑で田中孝博事務局長ら4人を逮捕、全容解明へ 愛知県知事リコール不正”. (2021年5月19日) 2021年9月9日閲覧。
^ 「不自由展」をめぐるネット右派の論理と背理――アートとサブカルとの対立をめぐって/伊藤昌亮 - SYNODOS
^ “知事リコール署名めぐりジャーナリスト津田氏、香山氏ら4人書類送検 愛知県警:中京テレビNEWS”. 中京テレビNEWS. 2021年9月9日時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。2021年9月9日閲覧。
^ “愛知リコール署名巡り津田大介氏ら書類送検 県警、起訴求めぬ意見か”. 朝日新聞DIGITAL. 2022年6月26日閲覧。
^ “リコール署名偽造、捜査に一区切り 元市議ら7人不起訴”. 朝日新聞. (2022年3月17日) 2024年3月5日閲覧。
^ “「ダウンロード違法化」で報告書まとまる iPod課金は「合意できず」”. ITmedia NEWS (2008年12月16日). 2022年5月30日閲覧。
^ 新サイト「ポリタス」で政治を可視化する!編集長・津田大介氏に使い方と狙いを聞いた ダイヤモンド・オンライン 2013年7月18日
^ 「津田大介プロフィール」 津田大介公式サイト
^ 「津田大介」 幻冬舎
^ “津田大介さん、あいちトリエンナーレの芸術監督に就任へ”. 朝日新聞. 2017年12月12日時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。2017年7月19日閲覧。
^ “津田大介とジョー横溝が仕掛ける前代未聞のトークフェス『RONDAN FES 2024 in IZU』の全貌”. Rooftop (2024年8月1日). 2024年8月30日閲覧。
^ 週刊朝日 2019年3月1日号
^ プレス民主2014年3月22日 【提言】「ネットを活用し、新しい政治のうねりを」津田大介氏
^ Independent Web Journal2013年4月3日 【IWJブログ:反差別訴える市民、排外デモ隊を終始包囲】
^ ウートピ2014年6月27日 【都議会ヤジ事件】津田大介氏や蓮舫議員も参加 ネットで署名を行った市民100人が集まり今後の対策を議論
^ 弁護士ドットコム2014年6月26日 津田大介氏「セクハラヤジは日本の恥」「変わるきっかけに」イベントで意識変革訴える
^ 流行語大賞 鳥越俊太郎氏と津田大介氏、「保育園落ちた日本死ね」のトップテン入りに「賛成」産経新聞
^ "河野談話は俺じゃない!" 外務大臣に起用された河野太郎氏の人となりは 2017年08月04日 abema news
^ “https://twitter.com/tsuda/status/1456172429886181383”. Twitter. 2021年11月6日閲覧。
^ “https://twitter.com/tsuda/status/1456172434273361927”. Twitter. 2021年11月6日閲覧。
^ “津田大介、女性共演者の「トイレの音と匂いを想像」発言で大炎上!!(2017/08/17 徳間書店「アサジョ」)”. アサジョ. 2021年11月18日閲覧。
^ “津田大介氏、不都合な真実”. Togetter. 2021年10月8日閲覧。
^ “https://twitter.com/tsuda/status/1359076627460747267”. Twitter. 2021年10月8日閲覧。
^ “報道ヨミトキMONDAY #14”. ポリタスTV (2021年7月5日). 2021年7月6日閲覧。
^ 津田大介 - オリコンTV出演情報
|
Left guide (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Twitter posts aren't helpful for notability purposes. The rest aren't even hotlinked, so I don't know what you want us to do with them. We don't speak the language. This is a wall of text that really does nothing for this discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I second that. It should be put in a collapsed template. This discussion was already bloated enough, by replies from Mihari Harukaze who unfortunately can't distinguish between a source about the subject, a source mentioning the subject and a source from the subject. Geschichte (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ja.wiki references collapsed per above suggestion. Left guide (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephen Harrison (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As much as I think Harrison's writing about Wikipedia is insightful, I simply don't think he passes WP:NJOURNALIST. He's not really been the subject of significant coverage. I don't think interviews or reviews of his books in student newspapers (Student Life) are sigcov. The Fix interview might be significant coverage, but I am unfamiliar with the publication. 1A is a podcast interview, which I don't think counts for notability. The Salon, Slate and HuffPost links are just to his journalism and obviously don't count. The New America link is the description of an event that Harrison was participating in, and I don't think its sigcov either. The WashU entry is a "look what one of our alumni is up to" post and therefore it's not independent or sigcov. The Yahoo interview is part of the Yahoo for Creators program, which has an unclear level of editorial control from Yahoo itself, and may be published with little editorial oversight like WP:FORBESCON, but I'm not sure, and I think its status as significant coverage is questionable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I mostly agree with Oaktree above. Simply having published a book is definitely not enough to meet point 3 of WP:NCREATIVE, especially when that book's coverage has been pretty minimal. Going through the article's sources - author pages don't establish anything, the Yahoo article is misleading as it's aggregated from a Substack, and I would not consider alumni magazines to be sufficiently WP:INDEPENDENT. There may eventually be enough coverage for an article on his book, but it doesn't seem like there's enough here for an article on him. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 02:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Regrettably (I think he's one of best WP-journalists around) I can't disagree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This [21] might be considered a partial GNG-point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify per WP:ATD as it's possibly just a bit WP:TOOSOON. Continue adding coverage to the article as it is published, such as book reviews and author profiles. If no one updates for six months, it will get deleted. But if sufficient sources are added, it can get moved back into mainspace. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bob Connolly (Canadian film director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker, not properly referencing any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers. The attempted notability claim here is that his work exists, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- we would need to see some evidence of distinction, such as notable awards and/or WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about him and his work in media and/or books. But this is referenced entirely to primary sources self-published by people or organizations directly affiliated with the statements they're referencing, which is not support for notability, and the article claims absolutely nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable without better sourcing for it than this. Further, there are no inbound links here from any other page in Wikipedia but the disambiguation page at Bob Connolly, and this appears to be a conflict of interest as the creator (who created it in 2013 and has occasionally returned to edit the article as recently as August 2024) appears to have self-identified as Bob Connolly in past posts to Talk:Lee Aaron, but even people who do properly pass our notability and sourcing standards still aren't entitled to write or curate their own articles themselves. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Harish S. Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is a WP:PROMO, fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. WP:NOTRESUME. Charlie (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Charlie (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:subject has significant coverage to meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO and the company, NASSCOM they founded is notable Tesleemah (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC) 05:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tesleemah At the moment, there are no reliable sources on Google News that covers him significantly, and independently. You are welcome to update the page and make it qualify as per WP:HEYMAN. But, please avoid using interviews or self-quotations. Charlie (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You could have updated the page if you agree it could be improved to meet WP:HEYMANTesleemah (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, you were not able to comprehend my statement. Charlie (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Tesleemah, for good or ill, the burden falls on editors wanting to Keep the article to bring reliable sources to the article or to the AFD discussion. Just saying that good sources exist carries no weight at all if you don't provide evidence of what they are. Other editors are not responsible for finding evidence to support your argument. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright @Liz Tesleemah (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Gujarat, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:NBIO, there's no significant coverage about him or his life in the cited sources, most of them infact are about the organisation he founded. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He co-founded NASSCOM (about which we have an article) with half a dozen or six dozen others. He wrote a book. The book was well received, and we have an article on it. He is apparently a somewhat-known name in India, anyway, but for the purposes of his article, he does not seem to pass GNG, as the coverage I've found tends to be either in-passing mentions or non-independent. The article itself is quite dreadful, as it happens, but it's not worth trying to repair his resumé at his current level of demonstrated notability. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 08:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dejan Crnomarković (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rejected draft. The included sources are of poor quality, and I couldn't find any others on Google. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. A lot of work has gone into this article since its nomination, can we get a review here? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Lilia Tarawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP1E only notable in regards to Gloriavale. Most of the stuff not in regards to Gloriavale are from promotional pieces and Tarawa herself. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Most of the sources are neither reliable nor independent. They are full of primary sources written by the subject or from unreliable blogs. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's enough here to show GNG. She's written a book that Martin van Beynen has called "bestselling". It created a lot of publicity, for example, John Campbell interviewed her for 10 min on Radio New Zealand. She gets keynote speaking slots and, whilst that's nothing unusual, it is unusual when Stuff reports on that. She's been invited to give a talk at TEDxChristchurch and it takes quite something to get invited to TEDx. The pieces by Kurt Bayer (NZHerald; based in Christchurch), Eleanor Black (Stuff), and Now to Love (which belongs to Are Media) go into plenty enough depth to fulfil the criteria of three independent reliable sources. And all those sources are in the article already. All up, that's an easy keep. Schwede66 04:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The Waikato Times piece is a promotional piece for the business awards. The Now to Love piece is just her interview with Women's Daily. The other Stuff piece is also a promotional piece.
- This is the same for most of the refs, they're either promo pieces or interviews about Gloriavale. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep plenty of media coverage from reliable outlets here to establish GNG. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a lot of media coverage but it is promotional/non-independent.
- Refs 1-4 are Tarawa herself, they shouldn't be used in the article except in limited aboutself uses, let alone go to notability.
- Ref 5, supplied piece from the festival she appeared at.
- Ref 6, women's day interview
- Ref 7 is about Cooper's conviction and just drops a promotion for her book in it... which is odd. Bit of coverage here but not much and it is still in relation to Gloriavale.
- Ref 8 same coverage but more blatantly promotional this time
- Refs 9 and 10 have the exact same wording as refs 7 and 8 which makes me believe this is some promotional thing sent out to papers, that or they just simply copied the Herald, either way the refs adds nothing to notability.
- Ref 11 is a promotional piece.
- Ref 12 is a promotional interview
- Ref 13 is an interview
- Ref 14 is another interview that involves promoting the book
- Refs 15-16 are reprints of Herald refs mentioned earlier
- Ref 17 uses same wording as the other promotional pieces
- Ref 18 is a promotional interview
- Ref 19 is a promotional interview from women's day and the same ref as 6.
- Ref 20 isn't promotional or an interview but very brief coverage (3 lines) as part of her grandfather's death
- Ref 21 is an interview
- Ref 22 is from Tarawa herself
- Ref 23 is a promotional piece for the Matamata business awards
- Ref 24 is a broken url but it is a very brief interview
- Refs 25-27 are interviews
- Ref 28 is promotional
- Ref 29 opinion piece and it provides little coverage anyhow
- Ref 30 is brief coverage of the book
- Ref 31 is dead but appears to be a blog from an unreliable source
- Ref 32 is about someone else's death
- Ref 33 is the exact same as ref 32.
- Ref 34 is the same as 9, 9 is presumably a reprint of it. Contains the exact same sentences used in the other promotional pieces
- Ref 35 is about Gloriavale but suddenly just drops in the same promotional content about Tarawa's book seen before.
- Ref 36 is a radio interview, not even an RS.
- Ref 37 is a podcast interview.
- Ref 38 is a promotional piece for some event she was invited to
- Ref 39 is another piece on Gloriavale that just suddenly includes the same promotional content as else where, it is really odd and I cannot see a reason for it other than being sponsored/paid for it
- So yes, there is a lot of media coverage, but little of it is independent, most of it is from the same source, and plenty of it is promotional. The fact that two identical articles are used as a reference right after each other just looks like COI/Paid editing with refbombing so it looks notable. The user who wrote most of this article is now blocked for copyvios but from looking at his contributions I think he may have been a paid editor. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Schwede66.-Gadfium (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, or maybe easier, rescope (retitle) the article to represent coverage of her book. [On reflection, “delete” doesn’t accurately represent my opinion, and I am neutral. 23:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)] None of the sources appear to be doing any fact-checking, and are covering her story as though it were independent reporting, so functionally what they are covering is her story, and most closely her book. Ultimately, media coverage of her herself most resembles something like coverage WP:VICTIM, where as an individual she isn’t that notable, but for the fact that she was the centre of some event, and then wrote it all down and sold the story. Reading that guideline: Outside of her book, or her story, obviously there isn’t some higher-level event-centred article to incorporate her into, and so if we are to just keep the article as is (not an absolutely awful outcome, per my “weak” !vote), her testimony, which should have lead to an article about her own life and experiences, just becomes a page about her. Not optimal, given how much we have to rely on her as primary sourcing, but there is clearly secondary reporting on her talking about her story/book. — HTGS (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there consensus to delete or not? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very promotional, nothing relevant apart from being a speaker. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Striking sock !vote. Daniel (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:VICTIM. Since an article about the Gloriavale Christian Community already exists, there's no need for a separate one about one of the victims. The references are also questionable: too many primary and promotional sources. DesiMoore (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : This is about her book, in a RS [22], but the rest of the coverage doesn't come in RS, so I'm not sure we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep also a review here [23], should meet AUTHOR with two book reviews in RS, on different continents. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the review...? It is an extract from the book written by Tarawa herself. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, wrong link. It's discussed here [24]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's discussed here, not at length [25], this is a good review also [26]. With the Herald and the NZ Review of Books, that should be AUTHOR notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the book is notable but I still see an issue with a lack of independent/non-promotional sources to be able to write an article about the subject. An article about the book with a basic ABOUTSELF about Tarawa might be better. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- New Zealand is a rather small media market, other than the Guardian, it's all local coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You've got the two book reviews that talk about the person and the ton of secondary coverage, we can build an article about this person with that. She's a notable author with a decently reviewed book and a story about her life can be built. AUTHOR doesn't have a two book minimum requirement, once you're notable, you're notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'ton of secondary coverage' is largely all promotional pieces with many just quoting the same press-release they've been given. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- which is fine once notability has been established, that's how we flesh out articles. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you're not suggesting that the promotional pieces should be used as sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As proof she's spoken at TedX and that she's on a book tour, they're fine. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|