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

Petre Luscalov

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Lacks SIGCOV in independent sources; I searched Google News and ProQuest. However, he contributed a screenplay to the 1981 film "Fiul munților", which is potentially notable. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Romania. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He had an article on rowiki, but it was deleted in 2012 by CSD A1. Fiul munților (the book version) and Iubire interzisă (another book by him) are both in the Library of Congress, but the links on the page don't seem to work for me. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 13:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Lund

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. No significant and reliable coverage of this author or the book mentioned in the article. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 02:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator:

Keep – I believe the article on Sabrina Lund should be kept. It meets the criteria under WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG — she's a published novelist with real-world literary engagement and multiple independent sources discussing her work in depth.

There are three detailed reviews from reliable, editorially independent sources:

BookLife (via Publishers Weekly) called her novel "a thunderous crescendo and shocking ending," and praised the pacing and anticipation for future works.
Review Tales discussed deeper themes like power, corruption, and emotional realism: "The novel masterfully explores the complexity of power—how it can corrupt, liberate, or destroy."
Readers’ Favorite gave a strong endorsement too: "A must-read that oozes with romantic appeal... will, beyond all doubt, entice fans of historical and political thrillers."

On top of that, she’s been invited to speak at Portsmouth BookFest in 2026 and has a signing scheduled at Cobbett Road Library, part of Southampton Libraries, in summer 2025. Those are both independent, public literary events.

The article has been improved recently with clearer structure, citations, and a cleaned-up tone. It’s factual, neutral, and verifiable — and I think it clearly passes notability for a contemporary author.

Happy to help improve it further if needed, but I don't think deletion is the right call here.

Michael Psaila (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are not considered reliable because they cannot be easily verified. And they definitely cannot count toward notability. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 04:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator:

Thanks for your feedback. I wanted to clarify an error and reinforce the basis for notability.

The citation for the BookLife review was mistakenly pointing to a Goodreads mirror. This has now been corrected — it links directly to the full editorial review hosted on BookLife.com, which is an editorial arm of Publishers Weekly. These reviews are professionally written and subject to editorial oversight. By Wikipedia standards, this qualifies as a reliable, independent source offering non-trivial coverage.

Per WP:AUTHOR, a writer is presumed notable if they receive multiple, independent reviews that go beyond trivial mention — especially from reliable sources. Between:

- The BookLife (Publishers Weekly) review

- The in-depth critique from Review Tales

- The full-length independent analysis from Readers’ Favorite

...there is substantial, critical third-party coverage of Sabrina Lund’s work.

In addition, she was featured on two independent UK radio stations — Awaaz FM and Fiesta FM — in publicly available interviews that discussed both her book and broader authorial perspective. These interviews offer additional evidence of notability and coverage by independent media.

Happy to keep improving the article if needed. But in its current form, I believe it clearly meets the criteria under WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG.

Michael Psaila (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the reviews are professionally written does not matter if the reviews are not neutral. Sources have to conform to the neutral point of view policy. The source you pointed out, BookLife.com [1], describes Sabrina Lund's book as follows: This is a rich depiction of the lives of 18th century England’s high society, as well as a thoughtful study on the hunger for power that drives many to destruction... This is not neutral writing. jeyranmain.com and readersfavorite.com suffer the same problem too. jeyranmain.com [2] describes the book as follows: Consequence of Power: Isabella’s Season by Sabrina Lund is a captivating historical fiction novel that immerses readers in the opulence and intrigue of 18th-century London... And readersfavorite.com [3] writes: This intriguing historical novel intertwines a beautiful tapestry of social interpretation, suspense, and romance. Sabrina Lund masterfully explores the intricacies of...

These claims of rich, captivating, intriguing writing are, one, not neutral, and, two, not verifiable. All together, these make the reviews unreliable sources to based Sabrina Lund's notability on. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 10:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does a review have to be neutral if it's in a RS? Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Denmark, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, based on dodgy sourcing, it is nothing but promotion for a non-notable author by a SPA with an undeclared COI. Googling "Sabrina Lund Michael Psaila" gives joint hits. Editor should be warned on top of the delete. Ostalgia (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Maybe one good review per the discussion above, but I don't see any others. Gscholar and Gnews are bring up nothing. Gsearch only brings up the various places to buy the books. I don't see author notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Feichthaler

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. WP:ROTM lawyer doing his job. Poor referencing despite multiple AFC reviews. Full of WP:CITEKILL Is WP:ADMASQ 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Politicians, and Florida. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The article was moved to mainspace by its main author, not a reviewer. Subject is not notable for the reasons already outlined in the AFC comments; it should be returned to draftspace. Anerdw (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify due to dreadful state of sourcing (I identified and removed 6 or 7 references that failed verification, and there's WP:REFBOMBing); WP:SPA editor likely has a WP:COI. May not pass WP:NPOL. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I see no prospect of this becoming a viable article. Notability is not shown or even indicated. --bonadea contributions talk 10:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bonadea. This was rejected at AfC multiple times and is WP:REFBOMBEd out the wazoo-including 10+ self-cites & 5 that are election results from Lee County (at least one is the same results listed under different titles). I don't see the point in draftifying especially given it was rejected as a draft seven times over the past year and the SPA still tried to unilaterally move it into the mainspace. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett James

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this BLP about an actor, and moved two external links to references in the article. These are only mentions of his name in credits, however, and I have not found significant coverage to add. He does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST. He has been a producer on films which have won awards, and has won a stage award, the ADA Award, but these don't appear to be notable awards, and I can't find significant coverage of him in the context of them. The refs before I added two were to IMDb, Wikipedia, and two film festivals, which does not meet WP:THREE. Article has been tagged with notability concerns since 2017. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, Theatre, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not finding anything - most of his roles are smaller and less likely to gain mention in sourcing. I was trying to find coverage for his theatrical performances, but I'm not finding much there either. With the awards, it looks like those were "best film" type awards for movies he produced. However the issue with awards as producer is that it's harder to establish their role in the production. Some producers are extremely involved and important to the final product, whereas others aren't really "hands on" with the production outside of funding and initial work. Of course then we have to look at whether or not the awards are notable enough to meet NCREATIVE/NACTOR either partially (count towards but not enough on its own to keep) or fully (enough on its own). I've always thought a good rule of thumb is to see if the awards website lists the producer. If so, then it could be usable (assuming the award is notable), if not it likely isn't.

In any case, with the awards, two of them are known vanity awards (Accolade Competition, Impact Docs Award). Nashville Film Festival and the Beverly Hill Film Festival look like wins from them would probably be usable. Tacoma Film Festival is smaller, but probably OK. The other wins are questionable as far as notability goes and the others are nominations so it's irrelevant whether they are notable or not - none of them are at the level where a nomination would be considered noteworthy. That's limited to things like the Oscars.

I guess the question here is whether or not his producing role was large enough for him to inherit notability from the movies in a similar way that one would as an actor or director. Executive producer credits would probably count, but the generic producer credit is where there's pause. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple of theater reviews. Only three though, which is technically enough I guess to pass NACTOR. I think between that and the kind of nebulous producer notability, that might be enough to keep. I'm not 100% so I am not making an argument for or against at the moment. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

László Kelemen

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

Sources were created by László Kelemen. Two are the same and one is his lawfirm. How is this notable? Earth605 (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as not notable. I couldn't find a single independent source. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ubong Essien CSP

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

Bypassing WP:AFC twice, no indication of any notability in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Nigeria. Theroadislong (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Simple copy and paste from draftspace — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 13:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure vanispamcruftisement with no evidence of notability, not in the draft and not to be found by searching. (I reckon this is G11'able, but also happy to let the discussion run its course if preferred.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of secondary coverage of notability, even if there were, there is no worthwhile content to preserve in the face of TNT. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobby Cohn I love the idea of perverse content! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent it has been 1 0 days since I have made a spelling mistake. I've updated my response for clarity.Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Vanity piece. WP:ADMASQ 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fact that I had to remove creator Thekkagram (talk · contribs)'s response to the nomination from the article itself is, on top of the already-mentioned issues, an strong indicator that this does not come (or have any realistic chance of coming) anywhere near meeting any policy or guideline, much less the GNG. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frida Ghitis

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

Badly formatted, is of no relevance or notability, reads like a CV rather than a Wikipedia page. Scientelensia (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only bring up articles or opinion pieces written by this person, nothing about them... I suppose if more book reviews are found, could have a chance at AUTHOR, but I couldn't find any. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, Canada, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omri Ceren

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

Fails WP:NBIO (and WP:NPOL and WP:NAUTHOR). Non-notable mid-level staff member in the U.S. Congress. There simply aren't enough reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:NBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Israel, United States of America, and Texas. Longhornsg (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, California, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Rayhan ad-Din

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

This article fails to meet the notability guidelines as outlined in WP:N. The subject is not the focus of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The few mentions that do exist are passing and do not provide the depth of material necessary to support a standalone article. Most of the sources cited are either not about the subject or use it only as a brief example without substantial analysis or dedicated discussion. Given the lack of notability and meaningful coverage, the article does not justify its own space. Deletion or merging into a broader, more relevant topic (if applicable) would be more appropriate. Retaining it in its current state risks violating Wikipedia’s standards. Jaunpurzada (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 14, Bangladesh, India and Islam. Jaunpurzada (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Islam, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ujawal Jha

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined at AFC but moved to mainspace, fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Nepal. Theroadislong (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's comments. — tony ^:) 16:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Politicians. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAs per nomination. No significant media coverage. WikiMentor01 (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify- as ATD if SIGCOV can actually be found to support it, as my searches so far shows subject does have potential, as getting lots of hits discussing about him and his works but tends to be promotional in tone and so far lacks SIGCOV. Lorraine Crane (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, fails WP:BASIC, NPOL criteria. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lyn Ray

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

Subject requests deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE in ticket:2025061110007843 VRT ticket. Identity has been verified. Sources are also too less for WP:NAUTHOR in any case. I think we can consider the subject's request for deletion, since they have not been highly covered in reliable independent sources. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arkansas and Louisiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Sources are also too less for WP:NAUTHOR in any case" is not true, neither is "not been highly covered in reliable independent sources". Since I refuted the claims in the deprod statement, I hadn't expected to see them repeated here. My reasoning was that Ray has a whopping 23 reviews on Kirkus Reviews alone, [4] inferring that there are more via other outlets. This is coverage in reliable independent sources. Seems like a prolific, widely read and indeed profiled author. Perhaps we can omit the biographical details and listify it as a bibliography. The works/body of work are unquestionably notable. Geschichte (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte inferring that there are more via other outlets: I do not think that is a great argument though. As far as I know, that is one of the very few websites that have these in depth significant reviews. (please ping on reply) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bunnypranav's statements above are misleading and I question the effort that was made in reaching the conclusions. There are also several reviews here, at least five more in Publishers' Weekly, some in New York Times, made an appearance on the NYT top 10 bestseller list for children etc. The author has a homepage with an autobiographical account, etc. Geschichte (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the subject's request. If they are notable, they're not so notable that we have to keep the article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Schleip

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

Insufficiently notable per WP:NPROF. While the subject does get a text box at doi:10.1126/science.318.5854.1234 this is not enough. Other sources are unreliable and/or being used as a coatrack for questionable biomedical content. Bon courage (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
lean keep he is a full professor at TUM, one of the leading German research Universities and his GS profile looks quite decent with an h index of 42 and a total of 18 articles with 100+ citations. Also there is a (short) profile in this Science article. --hroest 13:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The User:Bon_courage who added this deletion notice is a paid pharma editor who's targeting this page because I'm working on edits for Rolfing. If you look at the Talk:Robert_Schleip there's already been a healthy discussion and was ruled against. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on content, not contributors. Your !vote will be ignored by the closer for having no basis in policy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Biology, and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. H-index of 42 appears to pass WP:NPROF#C1. In this situation (where the article is WP:PROFRINGE but passes notability), I think we're supposed to keep the article and clean it up rather than deleting it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 29 references listed. Incredible amount of other sources if you click on publications indexed by Google Scholar listed under External Links. And on it goes. — Maile (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under NPROF with almost 5K cites since 2020. His books are less impressive (some published through less than stellar publishers), but his academic articles leave little doubt. Lamona (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Lamere

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

Lack of independant notability. Most refs are about Alan Vega. TheLongTone (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Liz Lamere was and is a major creator of music over the past twenty years as well as a key producer of her own work as well as Alan Vega's work. She has been a part of and mentor in a critical movement in music since the mid-1980s. Laurakdcwiki (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And we have no sources that talk about her beyond brief mentions, your statement is not supported by the sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Liz Lamere clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability standards as a musician, producer, and author with significant, sustained coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, including Rolling Stone, The New York Times, Pitchfork, and Magnet Magazine. Her career spans over three decades, during which she co-produced three posthumous Alan Vega albums — It, Mutator, and Insurrection — all covered in major media outlets. Lamere has released two solo albums on In The Red Records and co-authored Infinite Dreams: The Life of Alan Vega, a professionally published biography featuring a foreword by Bruce Springsteen. Her work has received independent attention beyond her association with Vega, and the article is supported by 17 citations from high-quality sources. This is clearly more than trivial or incidental notability. Cannery Row (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed that all the reliable sources are about Alan Vega?TheLongTone (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify which of the sources are more than trivial, as the only mention her name in passing. You'll need more than these to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough coverage on her own accord to set her apart from Alan Vega connection--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that two of the above opinions are of very new editors and the third, also a new editor, is the page creator. Call me suspicious, but....I'm suspicious,TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLongTone Why do you say "the third, also a new editor, is the page creator"? The page was created by Cannery Row (talk · contribs), who has been creating and editing music articles since 2010. PamD 08:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, maybe you're assuming that a red-linked editor is always new. No, some just prefer to keep a low profile. PamD 08:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources 2 and 4 are interviews with Liz, the rest are about her spouse. None of these are extensive coverage, most only mention her in passing. None of these are helpful. I don't see coverage about this person either. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much of the cited coverage is indeed in the context of Alan Vega, however this reliable source is very clear that Lamere was not simply his spouse, but rather "his frequent collaborator" so provided creative input in her own right. Another example in Pitchfork magazine where the subject clearly has co-recording credit on Mutator. The subject has released two solo albums which have received coverage in independent sources, such as Gale A810819644. Furthermore the book she co-authored has received reliable critical attention, for example [5]. Multiple sources with non-trivial coverage of the subject and her works; enough in my view for a WP:BASIC/WP:MUSICBIO pass. ResonantDis_tortion 08:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of sourcing about her albums and book. An article like this (ref 17 at the moment) is about her and her album, not him, even though he gets a mention in the title ("Liz Lamere Alan Vega's Longtime Collaborator Announces Debut Album"). PamD 08:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment These so-called reliable sources lok pretty niche to me.TheLongTone (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources may be debatable/unassessed; but Record Collector, BrooklynVegan, and Pitchfork (magazine) are all listed reliable at WP:RSMUSIC. And certainly the Library Journal appears to meet RS criteria. ResonantDis_tortion 16:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: — Liz Lamere meets notability criteria based on her own professional achievements. She has released two solo albums on the respected label *In The Red Records*, both of which received independent press coverage. In 2024, she co-authored a professionally published biography, *Infinite Dreams: The Life of Alan Vega*, which received critical attention and a foreword by Bruce Springsteen. Her solo work and authorship have been covered in major media outlets including *Rolling Stone*, and she was personally interviewed by *The New York Times* in both 2017 and 2023. This establishes significant independent coverage beyond her association with Alan Vega. Additionally, her three-decade collaboration with Vega — during which she performed most of the electronic instrumentation on his albums, co-wrote songs, co-produced, toured extensively, and managed his career — is itself notable and should not be dismissed simply because many articles focus on Vega. Her creative contributions were integral to their joint work and form part of a documented career spanning more than 30 years. --99.42.1.246 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Liz Lamere’s co-authorship of the approximately 400-page hardcover biography, Infinite Dreams: The Life of Alan Vega, constitutes a significant literary achievement that deepens historical understanding of one of underground music’s most influential figures. Professionally published and introduced by Bruce Springsteen, the book offers rare primary insight into Vega’s legacy while highlighting Lamere’s own role as a cultural documentarian and creative peer. Her position as biographer and archivist is distinct from, yet informed by, her decades of musical collaboration with Vega. The book has received critical attention in national outlets, including an interview with The New York Times, reinforcing her notability beyond association. Lamere has also performed on numerous albums throughout the 1990s and released two internationally distributed solo records in 2022 and 2024, available both digitally and on vinyl. These were supported by solo tours in the U.S. and Europe, along with media appearances on radio and podcasts focused on her original work. Lamere’s combined contributions as a musician, author, and public voice underscore her notability, as does her enduring influence as a role model for emerging women artists in music. --2A0D:E487:118F:661A:3939:96C1:D3D6:1590 (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Lewis

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

Subject was previously weakly deleted in 2010 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lewis (philosopher) (3rd nomination). Since then they have apparently published a book with some reviews, but on the face of it the article still seems to fall short of notability for an academic. BD2412 T 20:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. BD2412 T 20:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep since the last time this was up he's gone from Associate Professor at a flagship state university to full professor at an Ivy. His H-Index has gone from 10 to 18 according to Google scholar and he's continuing to publish in top journals (and book chapters with top presses). The book has been cited quite a bit and by our notability standards, if we think he's not notable, the article should be redirected to the book title and an article on the book created. Jahaza (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that the book itself is notable. BD2412 T 00:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - A bit WP:OTHERSTUFFy, but if this is notable... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - @The Bushranger: Really it isn't, but the AfD on it closed as no consensus. BD2412 T 14:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, England, California, Florida, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. A good citation presence in a low cited area. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral on the article. The citation record is borderline for WP:PROF#C1 (although maybe strong for philosophy) and one book isn't enough for me for WP:AUTHOR. But the book is definitely notable: the article currently lists three reviews (Sebens, Shaw, and Garcia) and I found three more: : Valia Allori, Philosophy of Science, JSTOR 26551953; Ben Novak, The Review of Metaphysics, JSTOR 44806993; Alyssa Ney, Metascience, doi:10.1007/s11016-017-0232-8. With six in-depth independent reliable sources it passes WP:GNG. If the biography is deemed non-notable, it would still be possible to have an article on the book and redirect to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The topic appears notable. The prior deletion is somewhat antiquated. However, I still cannot observe a substantial enhancement in coverage regarding the subject CresiaBilli (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the last 2010 AfD has had a book published by Oxford University Press and moved from associate professor at a good regional university to full professor at Dartmouth, with good citation numbers for a low-citation field. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear why all of that would make the subject notable, other than the citation numbers, which (as David Eppstein mentioned above) seem borderline, at least to me. Can you refer to any other criterion of Wikipedia:NPROF that you believe this subject meets? Because one book wouldn't be enough, generally. Qflib (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Qflib: from WP:NPROF "The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?" -- generally speaking, receiving tenure and esp. full professorship at an Ivy League institution happens because someone is clearly more notable or more accomplished than the average researcher in a field. Maybe you don't like this argument, but it is a commonly used criterion. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn’t convince me, but since the subject is borderline on C1 I won’t oppose keeping the article. Qflib (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above, I note that his article-length works aren't just cited in passing; his work has started some long-standing conversations in the philosophy of science. See, e.g., the opening line of this paper. Here and here are papers in that conversation where Lewis's name is literally the first thing that appears in the abstract. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of this has made it into the article. BD2412 T 18:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So? Now that it's been pointed out someone can add it. But it's often not worth it to add things to the article when it's being considered for deletion, because then the work gets deleted if it gets deleted. Jahaza (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that to the casual reader of this article, nothing indicates the encyclopedic importance of this subject beyond that of the average professor with a book under their belt. BD2412 T 19:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a problem with the article as written, not with the notability of the subject. Jahaza (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - his philosophical monograph has a couple hundred citations in google scholar, and also three book reviews, which are both *technically* qualifying for the bare minimum of WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. I wouldn't personally nominate something like this for AfD, but I also don't think the project would be any worse off if we didn't have this page or the probably 3000 other alive-during-wikipedia philosophy professors of roughly equal notability. Psychastes (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. "Keep but I really wish we had a broader discussion as a community about how we're running a vanity service for middling academics" Psychastes (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I would love to see a discussion to clarify NPROF since we seem to be all over the map. In the end I fear we are introducing prejudice to this category of articles. Lamona (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Javier Ponce Herrera

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

Non-notable biography. The article is currently a brief puffery about the subject's work in spiritual/self-healing, sourced to one newspaper advertisement for his trademarked version of spiritual healing. However, when trying to find if sources exist for Ponce, I found quite a bit of coverage; however, it's almost all WP:BLPCRIME so might not establish notability for the encyclopedia: a tabloid(?) article about a 2021 allegation of Ponce leading a cult masked by his healing work^[1] followed by quite a bit of coverage in what appears to be reliable sources of the government taking the allegations seriously and conducting an investigation^[2]^[3] including in some American media^[4] followed by coverage of Ponce's denial of the allegations in Mexican^[5] and American^[6] media. However, I can't tell if there's lasting coverage of this allegation: the most recent information, a 2025 tabloid(?) article, describes por supuestos antecedentes penales de Ricardo Ponce,^[7] translating to "Ricardo Ponce's alleged criminal record". Without a conviction, including any of this would probably run afoul of WP:BLPCRIME although a case could be made that the spread to international news might make it notable nonetheless. I'd welcome an editor with better knowledge of Spanish to chime in on the sourcing here. Also worth noting that an article on Ponce has been repeatedly deleted for notability from the Spanish Wikipedia.

References

^ "La youtuber Maire Wink acusó a Ricardo Ponce de crear una secta y abusar sexualmente de mujeres". Infobae (in Spanish). 2021-05-29. Archived from the original on 2021-05-30.
^ Martinez, Rafael (2021-06-03). "Catean hotel en Bacalar tras denuncias de abuso sexual en contra de Ricardo Ponce". El Sol de México (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2025-06-12.
^ "Indagan denuncias de abuso contra gurú Ricardo Ponce en Quintana Roo". El Siglo de Torreón (in Spanish). 2021-06-03. Archived from the original on 2024-05-04.
^ Pérez, Jazive (2021-06-03). "Del paraíso al infierno del abuso sexual: Revelaciones en un grupo de autosanación en México" (in Spanish). KVEA. Archived from the original on 2021-06-04.
^ Omar Fierro, Juan (2021-06-14). "Ricardo Ponce, el 'gurú de la autosanación', pide no ser crucificado tras denuncia de abuso sexual". Proceso (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2021-06-14.
^
- "Expareja de Ricardo Ponce responde a las acusaciones de abuso sexual en contra del conferencista". Hoy Día (in Spanish). Telemundo. 2021-06-08. Archived from the original on 2021-06-08.
- "Ricardo Ponce se defiende de las acusaciones de abuso sexual y dice que son 'un montaje'". Hoy Día (in Spanish). 2021-10-15. Telemundo. Archived from the original on 2025-06-12.
^ Chávez M, Javier (2025-02-05). "Marianne Gonzaga: ¿Quién es la influencer que fue detenida por apuñalar a la novia de su ex pareja?". Milenio (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2025-02-06.

Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Crime, Spirituality, Medicine, and Mexico. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 17:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know little of Afd, but the sole reference ("First human being to scientifically prove the ability to self-heal", indeed -- same article twice, and the second iteration is 404) reeks of a paid newspaper insert. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources included in this AFD are reliable sources. The sources in the article appear to be sponsored content as they were written (even one has a "branded content" caption): "La Hekalogía®, "ciencia del poder sanador interior"..." Why would a newspaper add a registered trademark symbol if it weren't being paid by the trademark owner? El Heraldo is archived here. Both shouldn't be considered as reliable here because of that as they fail WP:RSMED as they make the questionable assertion that Hekalogía "demonstrated 'progressive chakra alignment, improved coherence in brain waves, and an increase in the body’s energy field'", in a study that have not been published or peer reviewed. Regarding the sexual abuse accusations, he won his case, so the sources will unduly focus on something that didn't happen. If es.wiki didn't accept this 5 times, and they have a lot of trash, then, why would we? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion or advertising. See WP:NOTPROMO. Both citations, one of which is now dead, are promoting a 22 June "presentation" in Mexico City for "Hekalogica". One article mentions research conducted by University of Zulia being published, but this is not cited. If academic works about this person exist, then those sources should be cited directly, not mentioned in passing in an advertisement that passes itself off as news. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is promo. I see very little substance here in terms of notability. Maybe in future.BabbaQ (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rogat Loeb

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

Article only contains 1 source and makes lots of uncited claims. Not finding coverage to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, California, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicated to the wikipedia editor who originally asked some questions on the site, it was created by a fan. I then added some updates, for instance It said I was writing regularly for Huffington Post. They published maybe 100 articles, but I'm not currently writing so I changed it to past tense. Part of the challenges is that I left writing for 12 years to run two nonprofits I founded where I wasn't able to write political pieces without making them politically vulnerable. So there are a ton of articles about me if you search "Paul Rogat Loeb" in Google or another search engine. But not all of them have the updated information because most are before 2012. So I could go through various statements in the wikisource and add links, but it would be time consuming. And there aren't public numbers on say how many copies I've sold, though there are probably articles among those for instance covering my lectures, that mention how many were sold at that time the articles were written.

So that's why I linked to the website.

Can you suggest how best to proceed without spending endless hours, like searching every publication and creating a separate link? I really value Wikipedia and would like to have that listing remain.

Thanks Paul Rogat Loeb PaulLoeb (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did some edits and added a dozen sources and can add more later. As mentioned I took a break from public writing to run two nonprofits where I couldn't write, so most of the articles on my are older. But if you do a search a ton will come up and I can add a few more PaulLoeb (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of the 13 sources in the article, source 4 and 5 are listings of the book for sale thus not WP:RS, source 6 is a pr news source of the award listing thus not SIGCOV, sources 3, 7 and 9 are interviews thus not independent, source 8 is a short paragraph in huffpost about him as a contibutor thus not independent, sources 10 and 11 arethe subject giving tedtalks thus not independent RS, source 12 is a paragraph in an about us page for one of the non profits the subject has founded thus not independent RS and source 13 doesn't mention them at all. Source 1 I haven't got access to, but of the remaining source NONE are sigcov in independent RS. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I'm not a wikipedia expert. I'm a journalist who's written for almost every newspaper in the US. As mentioned, a fan created the listing years ago. I then added some updates. I'm trying to link to credible sources, but after spending three hours trying to come up with the most salient links to satisfy your standards, I'm totally confused. I've done two Tedx talks, so I linked directly to the talks, which were posted by Tedx, not by me. How else am I supposed to verify that? I added links to to radio interviews on major stations and Networks like NPR. They're posted by the stations and networks, not by me.

I searched Nautilus for their year by year postings of awards (their current site awards listings only go back two years), and found it on their PR wire that they released that year. It's an official announcement by an official group of their award, so seems legitimate. I spent 12 years running nonprofits that I founded, so I linked to their archived webpages that showed me as the founder. How else should I show that?

AARP Bulletin has the the largest circulation of any magazine in the US, so I linked to an interview they did with me (they also published a book expert I could link to). Studs Terkel was one the most famous interviewers for decades so I linked to one of the four interviews I did with him on various books. At the time I wrote for Huffington Post it was one of the top 50 websites in the world, so I linked to the articles I wrote for them. I linked to my publishers which are major publishers.

I spent three hours trying to come up with the most credible links and really don't understand what I'm supposed to do to fix this besides becoming a Wikipedia expert. Is a newspaper feature on me that gives background plus interviews me better than one that just interviews me? Should I local add stories about my visiting campuses or lecturing? I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I feel like I tried in good faith to meet the requests for citations with highly credible sources and somehow every one of them is being dismissed.

I'm happy to try and fix this, but this response is very frustrating. PaulLoeb (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not considered independent for determining WP:Notability and tedtalks by you even posted on tedtalks youtube account are still not independent as they are you giving talks. OUr articles must summarise significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject (in this case articles about you) in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Interviews/talks by you and organisational listings for organisations you have worked for/with are primary sources thus do not contribute to WP:Notability. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand discarding coverage by some of the largest media outlets in America, including the single largest-circulation magazine (AARP Bulletin) , major newspapers, and major broadcast outlets like C-SPAN and NPR . They covered the book through print or broadcast interviews because that's how they cover political nonfiction. Unless a publication does a profile where they don't interview me, I don't understand what other kinds of coverage would even exist that I could link to. I've not added links to reviews, of which there are many, because that would be self-promotion, although if you go to my www.paulloeb.org website you'll see the breadth of coverage.

In terms of "Significant" coverage, I just Googled "Paul Rogat Loeb." and it came up with 170 cases of coverage. Some are just bookstore listings, but that doesn't include all the coverage where I didn't use my middle name Rogat and am referenced just as Paul Loeb. It also doesn't include the majority of my coverage in the 1980s and 1990s, which didn't get digitalized in ways that pop up on searches. For instance in your bio, @WCQuidditch mentions the John Seigenthaler Wikipedia hoax. Seigenthaler actually interviewed me for his nationally syndicated PBS show three times and was a wonderful man, but it doesn't come up in the searches, because they didn't digitally archive them.

You can do the same search and see the results,

The search did turn up an Encyclopedia.com entry, although most of it is at least 25 years out of date.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/loeb-paul-rogat-1952

If there's something useful I can do to easily correct the profile (I didn't create the initial version, just updated and made a couple corrections, leaving the original text unless it was wrong, I'm happy to do it, but I'd need to get clear directions. PaulLoeb (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, you made reference to a "newspaper feature on me that gives background..." If you have links for articles of that sort, that would be the sort of coverage that could be helpful. I was hoping you might have such articles linked on your website, but didn't find any. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for the constructive suggestion.

Part of the challenge is that i stopped writing to run two election related nonprofits that I founded from 2012 to 2022 where I had to be completely politically neutral so stopped writing and doing interviews. So most interviews and profiles are older and seem not to be digitized. I looked through some paper clips in my files and then searched for the interviews from Atlanta Journal Constitution, San Francisco Chronicle, Dallas Morning News and Philadelphia Inquirer. But just couldn't find any links, although as mentioned, i found the ones from the AARP interview, C-Span, and NPR, plus the TedX talks.

There's is a bio from WGBH which is a major PBS station

https://www.wgbh.org/people/paul-loeb?utm_source=chatgpt.com

There are some old reviews, like this from the New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/19/books/village-activists.html

Or old articles like this from Los Angeles Times

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-jan-14-me-54036-story.html

I do have links to one I wrote last week that got syndicated and picked up by Miami Herald, Minnesota Star Tribune and nearly 30 other papers, and could add some of these, but not sure that fits because they'd be considered primary sources.

https://www.pressreader.com/similar/281706915634354

https://www.startribune.com/opinion

Really appreciate your trying to solve this but it does seem that the longer profiles just weren't digitized. PaulLoeb (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was astonished to discover that this article had been nominated for deletion - as opposed to being in need of cleanup & better sourcing - because Paul Rogat Loeb supposedly doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY.

I have known about Paul Loeb and his work for a many years, and simply put, there is no question whatsoever as to his very real notability in the realm of civic engagement and social activism. Along with a great many other listeners, I heard him on public radio stations many times back in the 1980s & 90s. (And yes, I own one of his books.)

But you don't have to take my word for it. Paul and his work are very well known and highly regarded by any number of luminaries, such as Bill Moyers, Jonathan Kozol, Kurt Vonnegut, and Susan Sontag - who said that he was "a national treasure." Moreover, he was interviewed no less than FOUR times over the years by the reknowned oral historian Studs Terkel for his long-form radio program. And it's no accident that the AARP magazine turned to Mr. Loeb for an article titled "The Change Agent - Interview With Paul Rogat Loeb".

Furthermore, it's not just liberal-minded folks who endorse his efforts that regard him as a major figure in that realm. The conservative National Association of Scholars has also taken note of his endeavors, in a 2018 article titled "Paul Loeb's Campus Takeover".

In short, it seems to me that, even without the kind of profiles we would like to be able to link to, Paul Loeb clearly meets the standard for Notability as outlined right up front at WP:AUTHOR: "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers..." Anomalous+0 (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the examples I've cited are only the tip of the iceberg, as it were. They serve to illustrate the wide esteem for Paul Loeb and his work, which is reflected in the many hundreds of times he has been invited to speak and give presentations at colleges around the country, as well as the countless radio interviews he has given over the years. The underlying basis for all of that, of course, is his body of written work, from his five books to the hundreds of articles he has written for a wide range of publications.

I also want to say that I am well aware that the article as it stands is clearly in need of cleanup in various respects in order to bring it into greater alignment with Wikipedia expectations for biographies. That, however, is an entirely separate issue from the question of notability. Anomalous+0 (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Ali Karim

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

Pundit whose article is primarily sourced to pieces written by themself, and is really only known for WP:ONEEVENT – the controversial filing a report for sedition against the Chief Minister Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 13:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 13:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT and the subject is the author of several of the sources cited - that makes the sources more of primary sources than independent secondary sources. Patre23 (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. He's 22 years old. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Self written articles can't be considered for establishing notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a case of a badly written article, not notability. The person is notable enough and is cited by many sources, and it was the article writer's fault for using primary sources. We should instead improve the article, not delete it. If we were to refer to WP:GNG, it says that a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As I will mention below, the person in question has significant coverage in the media over the course of time, and they come from reliable sources independent of the subject (newspaper and television). The person is not only known for one event, and WP:ONEEVENT is therefore not applicable. Although the article talks about his police report, he is actually more known for his analysis, which is found both on newspaper and television. These, however, are hard to cite due to the inaccessibility of Malaysian media online, such as TV reports not being entirely well documented. The person being 22 does not mean that it is too soon, as WP:TOOSOON refers to something that is still too early to anticipate. The person, as mentioned, is an established writer and political analyst in Malaysia, and has even been referred to by television for election analysis along with notable domestic radio stations such as IKIMfm, aside from his weekly newspaper writings. The reason why the article is considered self-citing, as it is citing his analytic works on Utusan Malaysia, the oldest living newspaper in Malaysia which is well-established and reputable. We can see that most of the citation is to refer to the time he started writing, or certain things like his personal information which is part of information included at the end of newspaper articles where they write the biography of the author. What we should do as editors is to help improve the page's quality, not remove pages entirely just because it's in a messy state. EmpHaziqR (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jayshree Misra Tripathi

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

This article does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR the specific notability guidelines and the sources cited in this article are not considered as WP:SIG. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Poetry, and India. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Odisha. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have added reviews of her work, though the 2025 book is an edited book so it accounts less towards notability. I also revised the page and removed citations that were non-notable mentions of Tripathi. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom there is nothing to demonstarte subject's notability. Fails WP:GNG. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nagamani Srinath

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Winning an award does not grant inherent notability. Sources are mainly WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Music, and Indiana. CNMall41 (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - per nom. SachinSwami (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nomination Destinyokhiria (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award is really "the highest Indian recognition given to people in the field of performing arts.", then this loks like notability. PamD 15:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that she has an article in Telugu Wikipedia - I have merged her two records in Wikidata, so it now shows as a link from the en.wiki article. PamD 15:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Wikidata merge. I understand your contention but do not believe notability is inherent for simply winning an award. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 OK, looking at WP:MUSICBIO, criteria 7 and 8 appear to be met, unless you consider that 8 only applies to western popular music. PamD 19:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think something on the level the award is being claimed to be would fall under that criteria so Western/India would have no bearing. What I am saying is that even with an award, we still need significant coverage. Just winning an award does not guarantee notability. It even specifically says "may" be notable under that criteria. The sources we have are pour such as this (presented in the comment below) which is clearly unreliable as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- In addition to the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award, Nagamani Srinath was also honored with the Rajyotsava Award in 1998, the second-highest civilian honor conferred by the Karnataka Government[6]. Furthermore, according to an article published in The New Indian Express on June 22, 2015, she was awarded the Sangita Kala Acharya Award by the Madras Music Academy, Chennai, for her outstanding contributions to the field of Carnatic music[7].-SachinSwami (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to this source she has won some other notable awards such as Karnataka Kalashree. Also she has significant coverage in The Hindu and Deccan Herald.Afstromen (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Afstromen, all the sources I included don’t fully support the claim; they are all weak. Mentioning an award alone isn’t enough; you need sources that clearly reference Nagamani Srinath’s work, like a review. For example, in Akaal: The Unconquered, when I checked, all the sources you added were weak. Later, I searched and added 5 reviews in the Reception section, which are sufficient to fully support the film and pass WP:GNG. Though the rules for films and individuals differ, reviews clearly referencing the work are sufficient for support. (I have no intention of misleading editors, so I apologize.) SachinSwami (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Afstromen: you duplicated one of the sources which could indicate you did not look closely enough at them to see they are mainly routine announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Are you talking about The Hindu article or both?Afstromen (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You listed the DH twice in your comment. Both the DH and The Hindu are her giving the information by the way. Interviews and all content provided by her so not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh No, I listed the source initially to point the awards. It was not my intention to list it twice or to give the impression that the sources were different. Afstromen (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that now. Thanks for the explanation. I still maintain that neither of those are independent. I would also think if she won the "highest award" as claimed, there would be more than just NEWSORGINDIA and a few interview type references. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shantanu Naidu

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

Fails to establish notability independent of his association with Ratan Tata, per WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, and WP:INHERITED.

His startups do not meet WP:NCORP due to modest scale and event-specific reporting, and the book lacks significant critical reviews or awards to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Zuck28 (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, India, and Maharashtra. Zuck28 (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zuck28, Before taking any abrupt or random action, always ensure proper research is done and all sources are thoroughly verified. Acting without accurate information can lead to serious consequences and misunderstandings. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can see numerous siginificant coverage on reliable sources like this: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and there are many more in line. Easily passes WP:GNG. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Vinod Sharma

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

Subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for a standalone article under Wp:GNG, Wp:BIO or Wp:ACADEMIC.

While Sharma is associated with a Guinness World Record for the largest memory lesson (2018), there is insufficient significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources to establish notability. Zuck28 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Science, Medicine, and India. Zuck28 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete none of these sources are WP:SIGCOV that I can see, they are short blurbs (even those that I could translate from Hindi). A world record by itself does not confer notability especially as these can be essentially purchased. Clearly doesnt pass WP:NPROF. --hroest 18:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear! @Hannes Röst, No, Guinness World Records titles cannot be purchased. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 19:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they can, pretty much. They're a marketing gimmick from a novelty publisher. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How ? Any reference or Discussion available ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 09:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the criticism is that you can make up some really niche record like "most 10W light bulbs lit at the same time" and pay for the items to be delivered and get the people from Guinness in to confirm the record and bam you have yourself a record. AFAIK the Guinness people dont care what the record is as long as it can be verifiable and can be broken by someone else and you pay a fee (see for example this recent record for most glass bottles trapped with a Slinky in 1 minute). --hroest 13:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's own article about the Guinness Book explains, in polite terms, how it's a racket. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets notability guidelines under WP:GNG and WP:BIO according to sources. The subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 19:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the evaluations by the nominator and by hroest. This is an advertisement and should be removed as such. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Support nom; does not muster WP:GNG as there's no significant coverage about the individual in reliable sources WeWake (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets WP:GNG according to reliable sources.World-5 14:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Tschuggnall

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

Refbombed promotion for non notable musician. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has drummed with a lot of projects but lacks independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Austria, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient significant coverage that satisfies GNG requirements to show the subject's notability as a musician. CresiaBilli (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:SOURCESEXIST. You have not identified any actual coverage. One of multiple throw away boilerplate !votes recently from this individual. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refrain from duplicating your identical content beneath all my votes and comments.CresiaBilli (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: so far, i don't see the significant coverage in indepentent sources to pass gng, at least with what is currently cited in the article. Tschuggnall seems to have co-written a textbook; finding a lot of websites to buy it online, but no in-depth coverage about him. I'll try to find more sources the next days. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Facebook, his own website, blogs, and sources about other people don't contribute to notability. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: wasn't able to find independent wp:sigcov of him; almost every piece of online coverage is either passing mentions or not independent. I couldn't assess this paywalled source. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Asur

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

Language problems may be why I can’t identify sources, but I’ve never before seen an article with entries in multiple language Wikipedias none of which are sourced, and I also note a number of self-published books. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article should definitely not have been created directly in mainspace in this condition; it's completely unsourced, and I can't find any third-party sources on Google either. Needs to be either deleted or moved to draft where the creator can work on it. Bishonen | tålk 21:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC there is at least one institute for the preservation or recovery of the Asturian language. It may be worth looking there for support. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
: Academy of the Asturian Language, Asur is a member. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I have found and added some sources, dating from 1986 to 2025 - easy to find by searching Google Scholar or Google Books. I do not read Spanish (or Asturian), so would need to copy and paste more into Google Translate in order to add more info and refs to the article - but there is certainly scholarly writing about his writing, so he meets WP:AUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Keep All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Shah Israil

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

This article fails to meet the notability guidelines as outlined in WP:N. The subject is not the focus of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The few mentions that do exist are passing and do not provide the depth of material necessary to support a standalone article. Most of the sources cited are either not about the subject or use it only as a brief example without substantial analysis or dedicated discussion. Given the lack of notability and meaningful coverage, the article does not justify its own space. Deletion or merging into a broader, more relevant topic (if applicable) would be more appropriate. Retaining it in its current state risks violating Wikipedia’s standards. Jaunpurzada (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 23, Bangladesh, India and Islam. Jaunpurzada (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jaunpurzada (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both the context and sourcing doesn't explain why he's notable. Where are the reviews of his works? Where are the compendiums or other collections? Bearian (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sylhetis#Other languages. The deepest source is a single paragraph, half of which is about who he was descended from, about his uncle, and about one of his sons. The remainder is just two sentences: "[Syed Israil] was a sufi saint well known for his high proficiency in Arabic and Persian. He was also known as the Malek-ul-Ulama, well-versed in both Arabic and Persian: he wrote Madanul Fauaed in Persian in 914 Hijri." The other sources manage to cover the same ground in one sentence each. Because of the absence of significant coverage, this shouldn't be a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not sure why this dropped off the log, primarily procedural relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only gets a passing mention in Banglapedia, the comprehensive national encyclopaedia.

Authors proposed deletions

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

[Infobae_2021_allegation-1] "La youtuber Maire Wink acusó a Ricardo Ponce de crear una secta y abusar sexualmente de mujeres". Infobae (in Spanish). 2021-05-29. Archived from the original on 2021-05-30.

[Martinez_2021_investigation-2] Martinez, Rafael (2021-06-03). "Catean hotel en Bacalar tras denuncias de abuso sexual en contra de Ricardo Ponce". El Sol de México (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2025-06-12.

[Siglo_2021_investigation-3] "Indagan denuncias de abuso contra gurú Ricardo Ponce en Quintana Roo". El Siglo de Torreón (in Spanish). 2021-06-03. Archived from the original on 2024-05-04.

[Pérez_2021_investigation-4] Pérez, Jazive (2021-06-03). "Del paraíso al infierno del abuso sexual: Revelaciones en un grupo de autosanación en México" (in Spanish). KVEA. Archived from the original on 2021-06-04.

[Proceso_2021_response-5] Omar Fierro, Juan (2021-06-14). "Ricardo Ponce, el 'gurú de la autosanación', pide no ser crucificado tras denuncia de abuso sexual". Proceso (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2021-06-14.

[Telemundo_2021_response-6] 
"Expareja de Ricardo Ponce responde a las acusaciones de abuso sexual en contra del conferencista". Hoy Día (in Spanish). Telemundo. 2021-06-08. Archived from the original on 2021-06-08.
"Ricardo Ponce se defiende de las acusaciones de abuso sexual y dice que son 'un montaje'". Hoy Día (in Spanish). 2021-10-15. Telemundo. Archived from the original on 2025-06-12.

[7] "Expareja de Ricardo Ponce responde a las acusaciones de abuso sexual en contra del conferencista". Hoy Día (in Spanish). Telemundo. 2021-06-08. Archived from the original on 2021-06-08.

[8] "Ricardo Ponce se defiende de las acusaciones de abuso sexual y dice que son 'un montaje'". Hoy Día (in Spanish). 2021-10-15. Telemundo. Archived from the original on 2025-06-12.

[Chávez_2025-7] Chávez M, Javier (2025-02-05). "Marianne Gonzaga: ¿Quién es la influencer que fue detenida por apuñalar a la novia de su ex pareja?". Milenio (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2025-02-06.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]