Gpedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Gpedia: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.
  2. 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Authors.
Further information
For further information see Gpedia'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 Gpedia, see WP:BIO.


Authors

Robert Alonso

Robert Alonso (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Subject fails WP:GNG and both WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. The article was created by a single purpose account (Nonitamater), and despite recent changes, it is still heavily reliant on self-published sources, including Alonso's webpage (https://robertalonsopresenta.com) and YouTube.

He appears to be most notable for being the owner of the Daktari Ranch in Venezuela, which already has an article on its own Daktari Ranch affair; any notable content not included already there can be merged, and this article should be deleted per WP:ONEEVENT. Despite writing some books, his works don't appear to have independent coverage or received any award, and after running in a municipality election, he himself admits having received only three votes.

After the Early life section, the article proceeds to include a huge COATRACK of the 2004 and 2014 protests in Venezuela, the aforementioned Daktari Ranch affair and the presidential crisis. Besides that, the only mentions regarding Alonso are only statements and positions.

The only sources that I can find about him are mostly passing mentions. The rest of the reliable sources in the article are about the coatrack events previously mentioned.

It should also be mentioned that one of the images uploaded in Commons by the editor is titled "1993 Caballo apoloosa que murió en Daktari y tuvimos que descuartizarlo para sacarlo 3.jpg" (1993 apoloosa horse that died in Daktari and we had to quarter it to get it out 3.jpg), which suggests that it can have a close connection with the subject and a potential conflict of interest, something of which they have already been warned about in their talk page. See also: Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Daktari Ranch

NoonIcarus (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment After filing this AfD I noticed that this biography had already been deleted in 2011 after a PROD expired (Roberto Alonso) for the following reason: "This person is simply a political dissident who was the subject of a single article in a local alternative newsweekly, and thus he fails to meet the basic criteria set forth in WP:Notability (people)". Theses issues remain to this day. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Taking a cursory look, it doesn't appear the subject is notable enough. Tame (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Guido Henkel

Guido Henkel (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Lots of red flags for a WP:SELFPROMO article. Littered with puffed up accomplishments and suspiciously specific and unsourced biographic details---an editor named "Guidoman" pops in often to announce new developments in Mr. Henkel's life. In terms of sourcing, it's a mix of self-published/primary sources, secondary sources confirming the existence of products he's worked on with only minimal (if any) mentions of him, and unverifiable dead links. I do not think they amount to significant coverage. The relevant guideline is WP:CREATIVE. Out of the four possible criteria, he could only possibly qualify under #3, "played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work". He has a lot of credits over a long career, that's not in doubt, but I don't see any sources that establish him as a central figure in the creation of those works. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hm. WP:AUTHOR => "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
In the works list that Axem Titanium left I see eight notable games he worked on, at least three more are notable but don't have an article in en:WP yet (but in de:WP, with good sources), and with just one Google search I found sources for two of the games Axem Titanium deleted from the list.
What's this AfD about? Quality issues? That's the way to deal with quality issues? Weird. Kind regards, Grueslayer 11:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I am not contesting that the subject is credited on notable games. I am asserting that his contributions do not constitute the "major role" that WP:CREATIVE requires. One can have a minor role in creating as many games as you like but so long as those roles are minor, they do not confer notability. To the extent that sources refer to him in the context of game development, it is not in his capacity as a creative. Obviously, this AFD is about deleting an article on (what I believe is) a non-notable subject, otherwise I would have used one of many alternatives to deletion. Your insinuation otherwise is frankly uncalled for. Axem Titanium (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I beg you pardon? That actually made me curious and I gave the games list a quick look (Mobygames only...) to see if he played a minor role somewhere. That is indeed the case, for Jagged Alliance he "only" did the music, and The Oath should be deleted from the list (only credited for the manual). But otherwise? Producer or designer. What could be more major? Kind regards, Grueslayer 12:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, one of many designers or programmers who worked on these games. Usually the director or lead designer is the one we label the "major role". Video game producer is not principally a creative role---it's more like a product manager who manages and allocates resources on a project. Axem Titanium (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I find it appalling that such obviously biased comments as "it is not in his capacity", "puffed up accomplishments", "suspiciously specific" and "pops in often to announce new developments in Mr. Henkel's life" were used in this supposedly-neutral discussion about the deletion of a Gpedia article. I do not doubt that user Guidoman is the subject himself (causing a COI), but one should remain neutral and polite in discussing any person or article. Merely because one edits one's own Gpedia article does not make the topic of an article less important. Putting someone down (in such a condescending manner as noted above) is not a way to intelligently and neutrally review an article. The article could certainly use a re-write and better sourcing, but I see no puffery anywhere. I simply see a lot of facts put into sentences. There is no flaunting or bragging of any irrational or embellished accomplishments (the word "puffery" is far too often used on Gpedia to degrade a topic in review). I believe that if this article is to reviewed, it should be on the basis of lack of proper sourcing. There are better ways to deal with articles lacking proper sourcing than deleting them.
Things of Note:
  • There are 98 results matched for the exact term "Guido Henkel" on the Internet Archive's printed text archive (mostly video game magazines), spanning from 1988 to 2021. Upon quick glance, one article from Computer Gaming World precisely states "Guido Henkel, designer of the Realms of Arkania series", while another in Next Generation lists him as the director of Planescape: Torment (contradicting Axem Titanium's comment about "not being in his capacity" and not holding "principally creative roles"). These archival entries should all be reviewed and taken into consideration as proper sources before the article can be determined for deletion.
  • First of all, half the hits in this search are false positives to a 19th century Count "Guido Henkel von Donnersmarck", so those are obviously not relevant. Our Guido is a designer of Realms of Arkania, more accurately one of several programmers on various entries in the series. The Next Generation result is actually from an advertisement that parodies a movie poster. It's not actually reporting from the magazine. In fact, no one is credited as director for Planescape Torment and Guido is credited as one of two producers. Chris Avellone, as writer and lead designer, is widely considered by reliable sources to be the main creative force behind Planescape. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Henkel is mentioned several times over the years in articles of notable newspaper. It appears that he was interviewed (though not in length) or quoted a number of times with regards to his website DVDreviews.com between 1999 and 2002. Have a quick look on Newspapers.com.
  • I don't have a subscription to Newspapers.com so I can't actually see the results here. If you do, please share. Importantly, it would need to be significant coverage of DVDreviews.com itself that establishes notability of the website, not merely reprinting reviews from the website. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Looking up "Guido Henkel" (in quotes) in Google and Google News also reveals a large number of interviews and feature articles published on both notable and reliable online sources. I do not think that "non-notable" applies given these results.
  • Google News turns up 28 results. I can't speak to the non-English ones but the remainder are previews of a Kickstarter game that never came out and a few articles that amount to trivia about how he's actually the guy on the cover of Planescape. I don't see these qualifying under WP:CREATIVE#3. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There are also reliable sources that confirm that he was a guest speaker at major conventions like Game Developers Conference and Fangoria's Weekend of Horrors. It is not within the aim of these conferences to invite non-notable guest speakers, as their goal is to attract the largest possible audience. These simply need better sourcing.
  • I verified the former but I actually can't verify the latter at all. Regardless, "convention speaker" is not in any notability guideline that I'm aware of. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
--OrangeZestAir (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know where you got the impression that AFD is a place for neutrality. Editors obviously come here arguing for a position either for or against deletion. WP:NPOV is a policy that applies to article content, not discussions. COI editing does not automatically make the subject less important but it does mean that any claim to notability made in the offending text must be scrutinized to a greater degree than it otherwise would with the presumption that it has been puffed up. I responded to your bullet points above in-line. Also, buddy, did you log into the wrong account? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


Keep. Artist is prolific at the very least in the video game industry since the 1980s. As pointed out above, the subject has been featured and interviewed in many reliable and notable sources. Here are my own findings. All signs point to a keep.

  • 5-page interview with Atari Magazin (1988) about his company and the development of Hellowoon and Ooze Link
  • 2-page interview with Aktueller Software Markt Magazine (1988) about his work in the game design industry Link
  • interview with Power Play Magazine (1991) about his work at Attic Link
  • 2-page feature in Aktueller Software Markt Magazine (1992) about him and his company Attic Link
  • 3-page interview in PC Joker Magazine (1992) about his development of video games and his company Attic Link
  • 2-page feature article in Power Play Magazine (1992) about him and the video games he developed Link
  • feature article in PC Games (1993) covering his career and company Attic Link
  • 2-page feature in Aktueller Software Markt Magazine (1994) about him and his video game developing company Attic Link
  • 2-page feature in Amiga Joker Magazine (1995) about him and his company Attic Link
  • 7-page interview with Power Play Magazine (1996) covering his contributions as a video game designer and developer, his company Attic and his musical career Link
  • feature article in PC Player (1998) Link
  • 2-page interview with GameWeek Magazine (1999) Link
  • 3-page interview with Joystick Magazine (1999) covering his many contributions to the gaming world since the 1980s Link
  • interview with PC Player (1999) Link
  • 2-page feature in PC Joker Magazine (1999) covering his contribution to the development of Planscape: Torment Link
  • interview with PC Games (1999) Link
  • a feature with Chicago Tribune (1999) about his new company DVDReview.com and Easter eggs on DVDs (Henkel's name is mentioned 14 times). Link
  • interview with IGN (2001) about several of his companies and video game development Link
  • listed in the official Game Developers Conference pamphlet/event program as a guest speaker (2004) Link
  • interview with Atari Legend (2006) covering his many contributions in early video game designs and the companies he was part of Link
  • 3-page interview with PC Games (2007) Link
  • 5-page interview with DSA-Game (2007) about his work in the video game industry Link
  • interivew with Die Nordland Trilogie (2007) about his early days in the video game industry Link
  • interview with Geeks of Doom (2011) that discusses many of his author and video game contributions Link
  • interview with RPG Codex (2012) focusing on his contributions to Reals of Arkania Link
  • interview with The Nerd Cave (2013) covering Realms of Arkania: Blade of Destiny and Neverwinter Nights and more Link
  • interview with Rock Paper Shotgun (2013) covering his contributions to Realms Of Arkania, Planescape: Torment and Deathfire: Ruins Of Nethermore Link
  • interview with SlimGamer (2013) covering his development of Deatfhire: Ruins of Nethermore Link
  • 2-part interview with Ink-Wrapped (2014) covering his contributions as an author Link Link
  • interview with Licht Spielplatz (2014) about his development of Spirit of Adventure and more Link
  • interview with Videospiel Geschichten (2017) covering his work at Attic and Thalion Link
  • interview with Elektro Spieler (2019) covering a vast number of topics including his contributions in the video game industry Link
  • a feature article on Gamers Global (2019) about some of his contribution to the video game industry Link

--Fallingintospring (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Nate Ruegger

Nate Ruegger (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 · NYT · WP Library)

No indication of nobility, no decent sources found in WP:BEFORE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Benyamin Rezaei Khaligh

Benyamin Rezaei Khaligh (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Not an A7 due to claims of book authorship and I have no native access to whatever there is in the given sources, so I'll bring this here. It's probably worth pointing out that the second paragraph in the "Early life" section is almost exactly what you get when putting the first paragraph of this article into Google Translate. The rest should be obvious by the time the text goes from third to first person. AngryHarpytalk 08:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Muntasir Mahdi

Muntasir Mahdi (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Highly promotional article about a non-notable author. Fails notability guidelines. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Keep Although the nominator got the impression of the subject being only an author, the main emphasis isn't on his writing tho. If you check the sources, they emphasize on his entrepreneurial sides and startups. The subject has got coverage from independent major dailies, magazines/publications, which lead to meeting WP:BASIC. Also, I'm not sure which parts are promotional tho, if specifically pointed, they can be rewritten.Tame (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't feel capable to judge the quality of the sources as I don't speak the language, a cursory glance doesn't seem to support keeping it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Oaktree b, You can always use translator (Googles chrome extension is a good way to get basic idea about foreign sources.) The sources used, except 1 IMO (BD Sarabela) are non-controversial, independent, major Bengali media outlets, which support to pass GNG. Tame (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I can see how the article may seem promotional, as all the english google search results for the subjects name are primarily business based. However there are numerous cited articles regarding the subject from valid publications. This one is from Anannya a bio and future projects interview. This one is him opening an IT college intended to help lower classes in his hometown, its from Kaler Kantho a legit pub. This one can be argued to be a promotional interview where he talks about his achievements and current business, but then again its an interview with a business person and the publication is legit Janakantha. To me it fits our notability requirements. I don't read bengali so I translated them using https://lingvanex.com/english-to-bengali it doesn't have character limit like google translate.
PS I think it should definitely be expanded with info pulled out from these sources.Rybkovich (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment@Rybkovich Please take a look at my comment evaluating the sources and reconsider your vote.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment@User:Vinegarymass911 I agree with you re a lot of the content being promotional. But at the same there is meat - the college and the books. If people buy the books that's notable, if a guy established a college that gives scholarships and is creating opportunity for young people, that's notable. There could be more, I think the creator should have an opportunity to expand instead of being shot down the same day the article is created. If I spoke Bengali I would look further into the books to see if they really are best sellers, same with getting more info re the college - is it legit? are people really getting scholarships? Unfortunately I don't. But there is a way to find out - see if there is more significant info added. Creating content is work and takes a lot of time, its personal and at the same time very fulfilling as you're creating it for others. It can be crushing when others are convinced that it should be deleted, even if you know that they are not against you and are instead doing what they feel is best for wikipedia. I know this personally. Per his profile the author seems like a genuine contributor and has done a lot for our project. Hence I feel he should be given an opportunity to put more work into his project. Rybkovich (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete There is nothing notable about this person. --SVTCobra 03:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @SVTCobra, Did u check the sources? Can you rebut any of them? If so, how come? This might need a rewrite, but fo shizz the person is a notable entrepreneur and business person. Tame (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Being someone who is able to read Bengali, I must say, although weird, but the person has got some independent, significant coverage from major, reliable newspapers and magazines. I agree with Rybkovich, the article indeed seems promo, but I think it might need a rewrite, and new info should be added, not delete it.103.109.56.38 (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Please bear in mind before leaving a vote that, all sources not-necessarily have to be in English. See:WP:NONENG. From what I've observed, most editors' attitude towards foreign sources are not appropriate. They just take a cursory look, and don't bother translating, and evaluate the article only based on the sources available in EN language. (Some even do not check the sources at all). Obviously there are exceptions, one example could be user Rybkovich. Tame (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment- Most of the sources about him, and not his company, are interviews and feel like Native advertising; not impossible for someone in marketing. Take this source and that; one has this line (Actually, there was a click in me. Although I started studying CSE, I always talked to people. But that is not possible in CSE. All my life I have been shouting 'I will be an engineer, I will be an engineer' but was that really my passion? Am I really moving towards my dream?) and the other has ("Actually, there was a click in me. Although I started studying CSE, I always talked to people. But that is not possible in CSE. Was it really my passion to shout 'I will be an engineer, I will be an engineer' all my life? Am I really moving towards my dream? ). Translated by Google. Six of the sources (7-12) are based on a press release about his company being launched. The Risingbd source seems reliable but then has this line (Muntasir Mahdi started his marketing career about seven and a half years ago. During this time he has been pushed a thousand times. Never got point amount support from anyone. Even after hearing the bitter words of thousands of people, he has come so far today. Some people are currently working on marketing in Bangladesh; He is one of them.) and again this line ( "Actually, there was a click in me. Although I started studying CSE, I always talked to people. But that is not possible in CSE. Was it really my passion to shout 'I will be an engineer, I will be an engineer' all my life? Am I really moving towards my dream? ). Source 19 is his podcast and source 17 is GoodReads. And source 16 is just a government list of books at the book fair. Source 18 has this line ( "Actually, there was a click in me. Although I started studying CSE, I always talked to people. But that is not possible in CSE. Was it really my passion to shout 'I will be an engineer, I will be an engineer' all my life? Am I really moving towards my dream?). Source 13 to 15 are press releases on his book being at the fair. It may seem like he has a wide coverage but in reality, he does not. I am impressed but not surprised given that he is a marketing specialist.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Vinegarymass911, You pointed out very specific PS materials, and kudos to you for it. But they concurrently contains independent coverage. While some of the articles do contain interviews, but they are partially, not for their entirety. -- Tame (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    No, they certainly do not.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per Vinegarymass911's analysis. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Farid Hotaki

Farid Hotaki (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 · NYT · WP Library)

This appears to be a non-notable person. All sources are either affiliated, passing mentions, or non-RS. Publisher is a vanity press. valereee (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Marianna Olszewski

Marianna Olszewski (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Another pure advertisement and possible G11. DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

slip of the mouse DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Whatever it is, it's not an advertisement. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete GNG requires in depth coverage of a person in reliable sources, not just a few short mentions here or there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find anything much about her other than mentions in articles about some off-shore banking scandals. That's not enough. Lamona (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Angela Garcia Combs

Angela Garcia Combs (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:FILMMAKER. Other than the lack of subject specific coverage, I don't think having made a film that has been reviewed by blogs and a screenplay that is in a library is enough to establish notability. BriefEdits (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Jess Loren

Jess Loren (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails NBIO - lacks SIGCOV in third party sources. Also apparent UPE. KH-1 (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Rusly Almaliky

Rusly Almaliky (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 · NYT · WP Library)

An unknown person in his country, and the article was deleted in the Arabic wikipedia version through the deletion discussion.(Please see hereFareeq Almayoofee (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

A. Aneesh

A. Aneesh (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 · NYT · WP Library)

This is a quite promotional article is about a professor. Most major additions have been from a series of single purpose accounts. The article makes several claims of notability - however they are all unsourced. In fact, of the cited sources, the only independent ones do not mention Aneesh. I have looked and I haven't found any decent sourcing. The article mentions a grant from the McArthur Foundation, but please note that it is not one of the selective MacArthur Fellowships AKA 'Genius grants' that might qualify for WP:NPROF #2. It is asserted that 'his work is taught in many universities around the world' but no evidence for this is cited. H-index is 11, nothing special. The article has carried a notability tag for 11 years, so it is time to deal with this one. I believe that this article meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NPROF and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Leslie William Bills

Leslie William Bills (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Insignificant author, most of his works were self published. Mvqr (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Kumud Das

Kumud Das (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Not a notable journalist to be in Gpedia. No such independent and reliable citations. Moreover, the veteran journalist Kumud Das' (This-> https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toireporter/author-Kumud-Das-479222214.cms) name similarates with this Wiki person - hence, I appeal for a thorough investigation. - Arunudoy (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete Journalists are hard to evaluate. But like any other one in WP:CREATIVE, their work needs to be discussed. If we can find critical reception of their published work, this can take a 180 degree turn. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

attention wiki admins Mr. Dhruba Jyoti Deka, (user:Arunudoy), an editor at Times of Assam, is the guy behind such nominations. He has personal issues with a large number of people, which is why he is nominating such article. I live in Shillong and I know him. I can't edit without sign up, so signed up to say this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scobserv (talkcontribs) 06:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Please use your signature with four ~ here. Regards - Arunudoy (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Dear Scobserv, putting such allegation against me will prove nothing, but you have compelled me to do a Google search about Mr. Deka as you mentioned, and I have found several person with the same name. However, I have figured out the mentioned Dhruba Jyoti Deka and found a few from Google search. But, even if I and him, what makes it different for doing as per Gpedia rules? My dear friend, have I asked you why you just signed up today and this is the only edit by you? Nope. As per Gpedia policy, you have the right to vote as Keep or Delete on AfD nomination. But fighting and using allegations are against Gpedia policy. Though you made an allegation against me as someone you probably hate or dislike, I would like to invite you to vote for KEEP or DELETE for a consensus. That is what Gpedia is about. Moreover, you are also welcome to expand the subject page with reliable and neutral sources. Regards -Arunudoy (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sarmistha Pritam

Sarmistha Pritam (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Lack of notability. All news are about her illness. An illness is not source, specially when the illness is not very rare. - Arunudoy (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment I have no objection on Keep. I just nominated for a few citations that led WP:GNG issue. I would love if editors expand the subject with more reliable and third party sources. Cheers -Arunudoy (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Leonard G. G. Ramsey

Leonard G. G. Ramsey (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 · NYT · WP Library)

The one source here is a primary source, and is a public death database. I am not even sure if it has enough information to indicate the linked death is for the same person. My search was able to come up with a few mentions in sources to the works he published, but no reviews, no true coverage of him in a biographical sense, and so few mentions of his work deeply embedded in notes in long books, that there is little prospect. His name does appear in [1], but in a list where they are literally just listing names, they are not even listing dates. These are evidently huge, multi-page sections by nationality and beyond listing the names they say nothing of what these people wrote. It is a database, but one of the most useless databases I have ever seen, since other than the fact that the people included are in some sense "writers" and if you scroll through enough pages you will find the nationality listing, it tells you nothing. It also does not appear to be a reliable source. I see nothing substantial to show notability. Being editor of a publication that is not notable or impactful is not a pass on notability grounds. and being a published writer, or in some ways more a compiler of huge lists of things, in and of itself is not enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - Not even a claim of notability in the article, technically this could be speedied as an A7. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • keep as he has an entry in UK Who's Who https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U168363 Piecesofuk (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have usually accepted the English Who's Who for purposes of notability . And he was editor of very important magazine.The Connoisseur (magazine), unaccountably not linked in the article. (until Idid it a minute or two ago( The article can probably be expanded. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be very helpful if someone included a the Whos Who article as a reference. For what it is worth the link above when I click on it just tells me I do not have access.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    I've added the UK Who's Who reference, I'm sure Who's Who used to be available for free from the Gpedia Library, looks like it's by application only at the moment, if you're in the UK your local library may offer free access. Also I've found that he is generally known as "L. G. G. Ramsey" when searching online. Piecesofuk (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Rizi Timane

Rizi Timane (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Refs are either primary, SPS, shops or non-RS. Fails WP:BIO, WP:ANYBIO. scope_creepTalk 15:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Mark A. Sammut

Mark A. Sammut (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Article was already listed for PROD, see this [2].

The approved consensus is that the subject edited the current article extensively and unproved to be notable. See discussion on Gpedia talk:WikiProject Malta Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 14:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Krishna Dharma

Krishna Dharma (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. No major awards or achievement. He has written a few translations of Indian mythology books, but none of them seem to be notable. There are a few book reviews, other sources are self published, dependent and connected with ISKCON. In previous AfD, it was claimed that his books have been translated to other languages. First those are translations of the original Indian work. Secondly those translations serve as propaganda material for ISKCON, which funds their printing. It cannot be taken as a sign of notability. Venkat TL (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Sivarama Swami

Sivarama Swami (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 · NYT · WP Library)

All ISKCON preachers are not notable. There is no major work or post. Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO. Sources are dependent and connected with ISKCON. (similar to Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Hanumatpresaka Swami) Venkat TL (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

A few more here: [13], [14], [15]. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Draftify There may be enough here of notability outside the cult. But it is written in an overpersonal `plk style, and needs extensive editing. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC) .
I agree the article is a mess. I'm happy to spend some time on it. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment: @Dāsānudāsa: thanks for working on this, it's a huge transformation from the article that was originally nominated for AfD. There are still some basic facts in this biography that are not cited to WP:RS though - one of the footnotes cites hu-wiki. Is it possible to clear these up? I did not do a terribly in-depth check but I'm surprised that I've come up empty on this and a quick check on the publisher that is responsible for most of his books (I was looking to see if we could get a WP:AUTHOR pass). I'm surprised to find so little for a national order of merit winner, but I'm truly out of my depth with Magyar so I can't really help here. -- asilvering (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, @Asilvering: it was really only a quick pass to get rid of some of the puffery. When I get time, I'll go over it more thoroughly to add in some of the RS I've listed above. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Took me a while to get access to JSTOR paper you linked. Very disappointed to see that Link [6] has only 2 passing mentions, first line saying that (1) he is ISKCON guru and (2) he teaches Cow protection (citing ISKCON literature and SivaramaSwami website). Link [7] has 2 passing mentions that he found a valley and named it a pilgrim place (citing ISKCON literature.). Link [8] again has 2 passing mentions, citing ISKCON literature. If you are going to share any more link then also share why you feel it is worth looking into. Let's respect each others time. User:Asilvering an Order of 7, awarded on Philanthropy will not make the subject pass WP:ANYBIO.Venkat TL (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
"Why [I] feel it is worth looking into" is because I think there's a difference between people like Hanumatpresaka Swami and the principal of Radhadesh (I can't remember the name), who are known only to ISKCON members, and those like Sivarama (and Radhanath, etc.), who are huge on social media, mentioned in the literature as being leaders in a notable religious movement, and have generally crossed over into mainstream notability. I respect your time, of course, and have supported your AfDs of those people and things who are clearly not notable. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hertz Nazaire

Hertz Nazaire (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 · NYT · WP Library)

does not meet criteria for visual artists -- no works in museums, no substantial coverage DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Bill O'Hanlon

Bill O'Hanlon (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Not demonstrably notable as the subject of any reliable, secondary sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - Zero evidence of notability. Article was PRODed in 2013, but no improvement since. Article has a history of poorly sourced puffery. Sundayclose (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Source Search: Starting with google news... not a lot here.
    • [16] - Alaska Public Media interview about counseling with him as subject matter expert. Possibly notable?
    • [17] - "Honorable Mention" in a songwriting lyric contest (not notable).
    • [18] Mentioned as an exemplar of "clinicians with well-honed active-empathic listening skills and a razor-sharp solution-oriented psychotherapy approach", but only a mention, nothing in depth. Possibly notable?
    • https://www.g**dtherapy.org/blog/warning-signs-of-bad-therapy/ (blacklisted) A user comment here states that Hanlon has been on the Oprah Winfrey show. (Not using this as a source, but as a jumping off point to suggest looking for the Oprah episode...)
Now for google scholar... well, it looks like he's written a number of books that come up here. "Solution-oriented therapy for chronic and severe mental illness", "Shifting contexts: The generation of effective psychotherapy", "Even from a broken web: Brief, respectful solution-oriented therapy for sexual abuse and trauma" just to start naming a few, but the list seems to go on extensively. It also appears that Hanlon is well cited by other authors.
I went into this search thinking I was going to !vote delete, but now I'm leaning keep. Fieari (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment: "Solution-oriented X" is a classic example of an over-used corporate marketing buzz phrase. For me, on the contrary, this points me in the direction of what coverage there is being based on relentless self-promotion (which aligns with what @Sundayclose noted about poorly sourced puffery). The third example is definitely trivial. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Contrary to his claim, he didn't develop solution-oriented therapy. It had already been developed and widely used. He just tweaked it a little, gave his version a name, and then wrote a book that really had nothing new in it. More self-promotional puffery. Therapists like that are a dime a dozen; they have little, if any, scientific research to back up their ideas. They write pop psychology books, and publishers are more than happy to make a few dollars selling them. And they manage to get on talk shows, or even host little viewed shows. Being on Oprah by itself doesn't make someone notable. One thing this guy is really good at: promoting himself. But that doesn't make him notable. Sundayclose (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The truthfulness of his claims is less interesting to me than the fact that he seems to be fairly well cited by other academic authors. Liars can be notable, after all, and self promotion can lead to being noticed, which can make them notable, even if maybe they shouldn't be. Fieari (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I see a lot of primary material, not a lot of secondary. This is the best item I've found, but unfortunately the "implications" are behind the paywall, so hard to assess for WP:ACADEMIC impact. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Who are these "academic authors" who cite him? University professors and researchers? His name shows up twice on psycnet.apa.org. Both are reviews of one of his books. One review is negative. The other one is mixed. No citations in peer-reviewed journal articles. Hardly a compelling case for academic scholarship. Sundayclose (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep, two scholarly reviews of his books (even if negative) seem like significant coverage to me. Rusalkii (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Rusalkii: Which are the two you are referring to? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I meant the two Sundayclose mentioned, I haven't actually looked at them myself. If I misinterpreted them then I strike my keep. Rusalkii (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sundayclose @Rusalkii: Looking at the various psycnet.apa.org mentions, it appears all are book reviews, i.e.: none are papers citing Bill O'Hanlon on the basis of research done. It would appear that in terms of WP:ACADEMIC, his contributions would appear either negligible or lacking noteworthiness. I suppose the only outstanding question is whether the reviews qualify him as a writer, but most of his books seem to simply get just the single, almost obligatory review from an industry publisher. Evidence of widespread review and commentary appears to be lacking, so I'm not convinced WP:AUTHOR applies either. There appears to be no single standout or seminal work upon which laurels can be rested. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

He's a writer, a pop psychology writer. There is no evidence of any academic scholarship on his part or of citations to him in peer-reviewed journals. I've written a book, and it was published and sold. But it was based more on my experiences working in mental health, not true academic scholarship (even though I'm well-trained in that), and that doesn't qualify me as a notable writer, scholar, or mental health practitioner. Like O'Hanlon, my book got a few reviews, but nothing of much substance. Getting a review or two for a pop psychology book does not rise to the level of notability. I would be embarrassed if someone tried to create a Gpedia article for me because I am not notable by Gpedia's standards and there would be suspicion of self-promotion. The only difference between O'Hanlon and hundreds of other people like me is that he has devoted much of his life to self-promotion. His bio fails general, academic, and creative professional biography guidelines. Sundayclose (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete based in large part on Sundayclose's well written assessment of the situation here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Erick Simpson (MSP)

Erick Simpson (MSP) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Businessman/author does not seem to meet WP:ANYBIO- lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep, a notable individual with some significant contributions to MSP and a founder of notable institute. There is a lot of significant coverage in MSP publications and has been recognized for his contributions. Some sources I found: [19], [20], [21]. Modafferi (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

KANTO – National Agent Data

KANTO – National Agent Data (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 · NYT · WP Library)

No evidence of notability found for this. Can perhaps be redirected to National Library of Finland if people think that is useful? Otherwise deletion seems best. Fram (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The KANTO – National Agent Data page was requested so I do not understand why you would immediately need to delete it. Deletion does not seem appropriate for the moment. This page is important giving additional background information to the Wikidata item KANTO (Q104089764) and the wikidata property KANTO ID (P8980). On the page tHere are links to external pages providing addtional information which was not copied to Gpedia. If additional content is required it is possible to do. Please, end the deletion process and approve the page. Saarik (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested by whom? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
it was an anonymous request Saarik (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a true need for the Finnish KANTO page, since it is an authority ID that is widely used on pages of Finnish publishers (see, for instance Erik_Allardt in Finnish (Suomi)). It would seem appropriate to have a similar item in English especially because there are people in Finland whose Finnish is not as good as their English. (Reetakuu)

  • Redirect Based on a rather brief an informal search for sources (the name makes this difficult to search for, as it has more common meanings in both English and Finnish), I don't think this is going to pass WP:GNG. I'd suggest merging this into National Library of Finland for now. Note how many other authority files e.g. in Authority control#Examples also simply link to libraries. Later, if sufficient independent coverage materializes, a dedicated article might then be split off. I'd be happy to change my !vote to keep, though, if someone can point out independent coverage. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The Kanto page is very similar in status and content as the corresponding database page of the German National library Integrated Authority File which was used as an example in creation of the Kanto page. If that page is ok, then the Kanto page should be, too. That page has existed since 2012 and is not much longer, either.
If similarities of the name is an issue, the title could be finaf which is the official code name for KANTO registered by LOC similar to "gnd" for the Gemeinsame Normdatei. If deletion is still supported, this content should be included in the National library page, and then a redirect added Saarik (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
"Other stuff exists" does not hold much weight in AfD discussions: there's plenty of content in Gpedia and some is bound to be less than stellar. For GND in specific, I completely agree that the en-wiki page is far from great. The de-wiki page de:Gemeinsame Normdatei has a lot more references, even if it too seems to be lacking in the independent-coverage department. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
wow, this is really amazing. How can you even require to have many references to a new page which is just created??? The gemeimsame Normdate page has existed almost 10 years so of course it has references. Saarik (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
you seem to misunderstand. A page should not even be created unless there are 3rd party references to the subject of the page. We're not alking about references to the page itself, but the subject. When it doesn't, the material is best included in an existing article,and there's a good one for the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: pinging DGG, since you're an librarian by profession and you know the true value of an authority file. Your assessment/opinion/vote will have a weightage over here. - Hatchens (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The other possibility, which could be pursued atmthe sametime, is to turn the list of national authority lists into a combination article. There will be the same problem in trying to make articles on most of them.

DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment I did a slightly more comprehensive search of Finnish language academic resources than in my original comment above, and there are a few Finnish language publications that have passing mentions of KANTO, e.g. [1][2]. But these are indeed very passing. The first one states that they used KANTO data in constructing another thing, and the second has a passing mention that translates along the lines of "Work on ontologies has continued in the National Library of Finland. For example, Finto's new KANTO ontology covers the authoritative names of the agents relating to materiel published in Finland, produced during the description of the national bibliography, including the authors of musical materiel" (the original Finnish sentence is either extremely confusing or has some mistake in it, I can't quite tell). A general list of national authority files sounds reasonable, so I'd also be happy with that as an alternative. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Hyvönen, Eero, et al. "Parlamenttisampo: eduskunnan aineistojen linkitetyn avoimen datan palvelu ja sen käyttömahdollisuudet." Informaatiotutkimus 40.3 (2021): 216-244.
  2. ^ Hyvönen, Eero. "Sammon taontaa semanttisessa webissä (Forging Sampos on the Semantic Web)." Tekniikan Waiheita (2021).

Melekwe Anthony E.

Melekwe Anthony E. (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Spam, not a single reliable source showing the notability (though poems were indeed published in some of the sources). Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The 'living breathing human being' aspect is in no way relevant Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree. The author is a famous Writer well published in newspapers, magazines and has edited many works across Nigeria. I myself was required to read one of them for an exam last year. I really hope we are not nominating this article to be deleted because he is Nigerian and we feel it's not relevant. Tombarks
@Tombarks, you have just casted a egregious aspersion not only to Ymblanter but against the entire collaborative project. Please see WP:AGF and WP:ATA. Celestina007 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Celestina007, If it seems that way, I apologise. That was and still isn't the intention. But Gpedia clearly states that a topic is considered Notable Enough to have its own article so long it does not go against the "What Gpedia is not" policy and the general notability guidelines (GNG), all of which this article does not go against.
  • Keep - This same policy also states and I quote "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity." The very three concepts sort after before this enquiry begun and yet bare no guarantee for the deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombarks (talkcontribs) > You can’t !vote more than once. Celestina007 (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC) > You can't keep deleting votes because they do not align with yours.
    Second vote of the creator of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • don't delete, this is tricky and let us be civil. But even Ymblanter said the guy has published poems. That sounds reliable to me. blocked WP:SOCK Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete- I agree with Celestina007. VincentGod11 (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    Previous concerns regarding this article have been resolved.Tombarks (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    Third vote of the same user--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    The above is not a vote. Your counting is inaccurate. Tombarks (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    It is perfectly accurate. It was your third vote at the time I left my comment. Your behavior at this page suggests WP:NOTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    I could accuse you of the same per WP:DISRUPTIVE. You insist on discrediting every vote that doesn't align with yours.Tombarks (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: per the reason provided above by Tombarks. There have been significant improvements to the article since this discussion began. Anthonyjmel (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    Fourth edit of this user--Ymblanter (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    How do you mean? Anthonyjmel (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Sabri Kaliç

Sabri Kaliç (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Does not meet WP:GNG. REFBOMB with book selling sites. Kadıköylü (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Torsten Haß

Torsten Haß (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Not relevant, autobiography. Heanor (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep: Concerning the notability accusation: (1) Torsten Haß "has created […] a significant or well-known work" (WP:AUTHOR) of German language librarianship, the Bibliotheken für Dummies. Cf. possessions of Bibliotheken für Dummies in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, WorldCat, part of the first external link in the Torsten Haß article. --- (2) Bibliotheken für Dummies has been "the primary subject of […] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (WP:AUTHOR), but the text passage concerning reviews was deleted 22:38, 8 October 2021‎ by MrsSnoozyTurtle because of promo concerns. --- (3) Additional coverage of Torsten Haß plus Bibliotheken für Dummies e.g. in the following German language library journals: Bibliotheksdienst 55(2021),p.934; Bibliotheksdienst 54(2020),p.943; BuB 72(2020),p.611; Die Bücherei (archdiocese Cologne) 2019, issue12, p.3; Bibliotheken heute (LBZ RLP: library center of Rhineland-Palatinate) 2020, issue3, p.127. Some of this articles were mentioned and hyperlinked in the WP article Bibliotheken für Dummies; this article was nominated by MrsSnoozyTurtle for speedy deletion 6:30 26 September 2021 and deleted 11:00 26 September 2021 because of promo concerns… And in my opinion it doesn’t make sense to mention this coverages in the Torsten Haß article, if there is someone that equates promo with mentioning sources… --- (4) The WP article Bibliotheken für Dummies also had references that Bibliotheken für Dummies is "the subject of instruction at two or more […] colleges, universities" (WP:BKCRIT)… But in my opinion it doesn’t make sense to mention this in the Torsten Haß article, if there is someone that equates promo with mentioning sources… ++++ Concerning the autobiography accusation: (1) The COI tag was by Deb. If you look at the talks, Deb asked user th0815 (<2% of the contributions to the article = "major contributor to this article"???) in his user talk if he was Torsten Haß, th0815 admitted it and proposed to delete his 2%. Deb denied. I (= major contributor to this article) was not asked the same/similar/any questions. Strange. --- (2) Specific text passages with a non-neutral POV (if existing) were not mentioned. In my opinion, th0815 should have deleted his passages, he proposed to do so, but he wasn’t allowed: "don't edit the article in future", Deb stated in the user talk th0815. --- (3) If I would be a German author, I would make an article in the German WP. Would make more sense, wouldn’t it? ++++ Concerning the comment by AleatoryPonderings: In my opinion, cross-wiki spam made months later should play no role in this discussion about notability and autobiography. Otherwise malicious users could plan cross-wiki spam to harm any older article in an AfD discussion. --Immanuel Giel (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable. Not a single newspaper article, interview, or mention can be found that isn't derivative of the many wiki articles recently created. The single not self-published work, a title in the "...for Dummies" series, is neither "well-known" nor "significant". I was going to quote its sales rank on Amazon here. But, as it turns out, Amazon(.de) doesn't even have it in its catalogue, not even used. The spam campaign referenced above also leaves a bad taste. And while a policy of deleting articles for that reason would allow malicious use as mentioned above, there is no reason to believe that to be the case here. K. Oblique 03:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Only commenting (because COI, as I’ve learned): No articles? Some of them were mentioned by Immanuel Giel, and these articles are not derivative of the cross-wiki spam (most or all of them were published before the cross-wiki spam); most of them you can google. No sales rank? Of cause not: because of the publishers jubilee a Second edition was already published, for free, in the web, in 2021. You can google it… -- th0815 09:42, 16 January 2022 (CET)
    • Comment no.2 (COI): I forgot: The last copies of the printed first edition (2019) are for free, if one contacts the publisher. Would be stupid to pay for a first edition copy (and stupid to try a sell by the publisher, by amazon or someone else). And the second edition (2021) is published only as a free pdf because of the publishers jubilee, so there can be no amazon data set. -- th0815 11:50, 16 January 2022 (CET)
    • Comment no.3 (COI): By the way: Is "bad taste" an argument? -- th0815 15:03, 16 January 2022 (CET)
  • 'I just now removed he material that belongso nly in a cv, such as a full list of his book reviews and his fiction , which seems to have very little distribution. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete It's noteworthy that the eWPs in which thereare \not an article, are the French, German, and Italian. I think the reason is their selectivity. I don't think we want to show we're worse than they are. . DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Comment (COI): As far as I know, "notability is not established because another wiki has a page on the subject" (quote from https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Notability; maybe one might find something similiar in the English language WP). Th0815 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Comment no.2 (COI): Found it in en.wikipedia.org!: "On the other hand, the fact that there are no interwikis does not mean that the article should be deleted." WP:OTHERLANGS Th0815 (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • If you try to edit AfD discussions, you can read the sentence: "All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements." And, well, except Immanuel Giel (who in his user talk stoically stated about another delete: "Let it be") until now my person seems to be the only user who tries to do something like citing guidelines/essays (if I find them ;-)... Except one user, who uses Amazon ranking as an argument (smells like "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (for example, Google hits or Alexa ranking)" – WP:INVALIDBIO) to refute a library possessions argument pro keep… I'm curious about the decision. But not curious enough to wait for the decision and therefore go to bed later today. Good night! Th0815 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Consensus proposal: Modify and keep, to shorten the discussion: a new text version (1) based on the changes made by DGG (see above, 19:13, 16 January 2022), --- (2) inserting the text passage concerning reviews (line 20, deleted 22:38, 8 October 2021‎ by MrsSnoozyTurtle) as a last paragraph into the section "Carreer as an author" (to address MrsSnoozyTurtles promo concern a little bit and act according above mentioned "the primary subject of […] reviews" (WP:AUTHOR)), --- (3) deleting the non-fictional works in the intro, because they are not mentioned in the DGG-version of the article anymore, --- (4) deleting the infobox made by the COI user th0815, --- (5) deleting the COI tag because of "4", --- (6) deleting the empty "See also" left over by DGG, --- (7) deleting the header "non-fictional works", because fictional works are not mentioned anymore in the DGG-version of the article, --- (8) changing the header "Works" to "Works (selection)", because fictional works are not mentioned anymore in the DGG-version of the article, --- (9) finally, in the Edit Summary: referring on the AfD-keep-Consensus found on January Xth; otherwise (1)-(8) have to be listed, in my opinion +++ Alas, I should not do it: In my interpretation, user Deb has warned me not to change anything in this article (Deb: "preclude […] you from editing ", 19:55, 1 December 2021); she/he has warned me not in my user talk, but in the user talk of COI user th0815. Strange… Immanuel Giel (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Additional remark @delete opinion 16 January 2022 UTC (COI): Even if "no articles" meant online articles and even if one would not able to google it – it would be no valid argument, I think: "There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Offline sources are just as legitimate as those that are accessible to everyone online." (WP:PAPERONLY) Th0815 (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment @consensus proposal 18 January 2022 (COI): According WP:WTRMT no.7 it is ″strongly″ recommended ″that the tagging editor initiate[s] a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so […] and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed.“ The tagging editor hasn't initiated a discussion. So, the COI tag can to be removed anyway, I think. Th0815 (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: does not satisfy the general notability guideline. I also believe the subject does not satisfy the notability guideline for creative professionals. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Connirae Andreas (2nd nomination)

Hank Kunneman

Hank Kunneman (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 · NYT · WP Library)

This was tagged for speedy deletion a few hours ago, and since then I've been looking at it in the CSD queue trying to decide if A7 actually applies or not (and by the fact no other admin has deleted it, I assume they've all been in the same quandary). To me, the fact that it's taking this long to decide means it's not unambiguously inappropriate for Gpedia and thus WP:A7 doesn't apply, so here we are. It's right on the borderline; the sources are all very poor quality and a quick WP:BEFORE search turns up a lot of passing mentions and froth in blogs, but nothing obvious I can see that's usable as a Gpedia source. As a contentious BLP, this isn't a page we should be keeping unless and until reliable sources can be found.  ‑ Iridescent 09:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  ‑ Iridescent 09:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions.  ‑ Iridescent 09:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment The major source used in this article is Right Wing Watch. As an established non-profit with a history of reporting in this area I believed them to be a reliable source. Is this not the case? Or is it only the more "blogish"/casual sources in this article that are the problem? (Forgive my ignorance as I'm just getting my feet wet in editing Gpedia. I am certainly interested in improving the quality of this article, for its sake and the sake of learning for future articles.) Jimsorzo (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I know nothing of the individual and thus take no specific view on him. However, Right Wing Watch sounds like a politically motivated website that is set up to attack people like the subject. If so, this is a POV source, however accurate in its content; meaning that this is in nature an ATTACK article. Having said that, I find some of the the views reported obnoxious, but that is merely my POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment I tagged this article for speedy deletion because the subject seemed notorious but not notable. I think a discussion here at an AFD is more appropriate than speedy deletion and want to thank Iridescent for starting this discussion. As it stands today, it looks like this will be relisted at least once more and might be headed towards a "soft delete". Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Yuck Christianity Today [22], Patheos [23] (Which is as far as I can tell a curated blogspace), Eternity News [24] which appears reasonable, all provide coverage of this guy's pro-Trump prophecy and its aftermath. Is he notable? Probably. He's certainly getting a lot of namedrops for his brand of Christianity-as-politics. Do we really need to have an article on him? Um... I'm unconvinced. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Jan Gyllenbok

Jan Gyllenbok (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadıköylü (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The article on Swedish Gpedia seems to be about a different person. Their books are about business inspiration, word use, and presentation, nothing to do with Historical Metrology. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree. This seems to be a mixup of two different people with the same name. I've had some contact over the years with the person described in the Swedish article and I don't think that he has anything at all to do with metrology. /FredrikT (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  • weak Keep. Judging from worldcat, he's the major international authority on the subject--his main work is over 100 libraries, and there's nothing at all comparable besides reprints of older books. This is not a field where we can expect even the greatest expert to be frequently cited. So he is clearly the most influential scholar in the subject. It does raise the question of how far we should narrow "the subject" down in the humanities, The alternative would be to redirect to Historical metrology, where both he and hiswork are already mentioned. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Leaning keep per excellent points by DGG. I would generally think that a person who is overwhelmingly the single most prominent published authority on a field that is itself notable would themselves by notable. BD2412 T 03:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, yes, DGG is right. The book is published by a very reputable mainstream publisher (Springer), and it's available in multiple formats at a very reasonable price for its size, which is another rough and informal measure of its status. Historical metrology looks at first sight like a geeky little backwater, but it underpins all those historical questions where we need to know how big something was, how much of something someone had; it's actually a hugely important bit of infrastructure for historical studies. So we owe it to our readers to make them aware of the people who have been important in building this foundation. Not the strongest of keeps, but a very reasonable one (with no ill-feeling to the nominator, these things are worth discussing). Elemimele (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Did some quick searches - oddly, there is NO RS establishing his notability, but as per DGG (thank you!), he does appear to be an expert in his field, as established by his large 3 volume encyclopedia (widely referenced and held in libraries). Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Allan Maraynes

Allan Maraynes (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Appears to be an autobiography; no significant coverage from any reliable sources; sources are mostly just mentions or stories written by the subject. Awards listed appear to be mostly (if not all) awards for teams, and many aren't particularly notable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 02:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO. The Peabodies, Duponts, Overseas Press Clubs, and Murrows are all notable awards and any one of them would meet ANYBIO #1. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 05:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Enrique Dans

Enrique Dans (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Would have prodded, but already been deleted once through AfD. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 01:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 04:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete None of the criteria of WP:NPROF appear to apply. The closest is the claim that this person's blog has won awards but on closer inspection, one was a nomination and the other was a newspaper's "Best of" list. The sources necessary to comply with any other SNG or the GNG also appear to be lacking based on the article sources and searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Munaf Kapadia

Munaf Kapadia (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:ANYBIO, largely WP:SELFPROMOTIONAL sources. Dan arndt (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Gogoi, Angarika (2020-06-30). "He Quit Google to Sell Samosas. Today, His Fans Include Movie Stars!". The Better India. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article provides biographical background about the subject: "He pursued a BBA degree in Marketing from Narsee Monjee College of Commerce and Economics in Mumbai from 2006-2009. Soon after, he finished an MBA degree from Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies. Fresh out of college in 2011, Munaf worked with Wrigley’s as a management trainee and became one of the few area Managers in the country."

    2. Khan, Shazma (2017-07-18). "The man who quits Google to sell samosas". Business Recorder. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "Munaf Kapadia, who decided to turn his mother’s recipe into a brand, is a 28-year-old Muslim residing in Mumbai, India. An MBA graduate, Munaf got a job offer from Google after working for a few years in India. ... Quitting his job at Google, Munaf started ‘The Bohri Kitchen’ in India with the idea of keeping his mother Nafisa busy. ... This is not a regular restaurant, it had gained so much popularity that the restaurant is one of the favorites among renowned Indian celebrities including Rani Mukerjee and Farah Khan."

    3. Pillai, Pooja (2018-05-06). "Families in Food: Mother's Recipe. How a son is taking his mother's delectable Bohri dishes to Mumbai homes". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "Kapadia, 29, who was then working at Google, emailed his friends asking if anyone would pay for a traditional Bohri meal at his house in Colaba. The email got circulated and soon he had his first customer who brought her friends for a meal at his place."

    4. Pratap, Rashmi (2018-03-10). "Come home to food". Business Line. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "And it is planning about positioning that has helped Munaf. TBK is a brand well known through social media. It is on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, and Munaf actively updates his contacts on TBK’s menu as well as future plans on various media. The increase in visibility and demand led him to open a kitchen in Worli from where he supplies Bohri food for delivery."

    5. Lazarus, Susanna Myrtle (2015-10-08). "Plating up a meaty meal". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "The Kapadias are a typical Bohri family who love their food, and with Nafisa being a great cook, Munaf had been toying with the idea of showcasing her talent and his community’s food for a few years. One morning, while he asked her his ritual question, it struck him that what sounded so normal to him might sound exotic to anyone who doesn’t know about their food. ... This was 10 months ago, and in the short period since, their popularity has soared. Bringing their food and concept outside Mumbai for the first time, TBK has collaborated with Ashvita Bistro to bring the same experience to Chennai this weekend, with lunch and dinner menus."

    6. Makhijani, Vishnu (2021-05-02). "Up close and Personal Munaf Kapadia: The Bohri Kitchen Story". The Shillong Times. Indo-Asian News Service. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "Munaf Kapadia, founder of the hugely successful The Bohri Kitchen that in five years, hosted close to 4,000 home diners on weekends and at its peak in 2019 was delivering 1,000 biryanis a day across Mumbai, writes in “How I Quit Google To Sell Samosas” (HarperCollins)."

    7. Mathai, Anjuly (2021-05-02). "Munaf Kapadia: From selling ads at Google to selling samosas at The Bohri Kitchen". The Week. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "The guy who quit Google to sell samosas has now written a book titled… yep, you guessed it: How I Quit Google to Sell Samosas. Munaf Kapadia’s story of starting The Bohri Kitchen (TBK)—a unique home-dining experience designed around the culinary traditions of the Dawoodi Bohra community—is the stuff of social media lore. That is because Kapadia, 31, a former account strategist at Google, not only has an engaging story to tell, but he is also great at selling his story."

    8. Borah, Jahnabee (2021-04-29). "Selling samosas in a pandemic: Munaf Kapadia, founder of The Bohri Kitchen, traces his entrepreneurial journey in a new book". Mint. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article provides biographical background about the subject: "Kapadia, who belongs to the Bohri Muslim community, and his mother began offering home-cooked meal experiences to guests in 2014."

    9. "Munaf Kapadia details his extraordinary journey from Google to Bohra food in new book". ThePrint. 2021-04-06. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article provides biographical background about the subject: "Kapadia completed his MBA from Mumbai’s Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies and worked for four years as an Account Strategist at Google India before establishing ‘The Bohri Kitchen’ in 2014."

    10. Pandya-Wagh, Kinjal (2017-10-09). "'I quit Google and launched a business with my mum'". BBC Online. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "Munaf Kapadia runs a successful 'pop up' restaurant at his family's home in Mumbai. His mother also works as head chef."

    11. Kumar, Sanjay (2017-08-18). "Munaf Kapadia: A Google exec who became a samosa seller". Arab News. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "His parents were initially apprehensive, but they started supporting him once he and TBK started getting attention from the media and Bollywood. ... Popular names in the Mumbai film industry, such as directors Farah Khan and Ashutosh Gowarikar, started visiting his home."

    12. Shenoy, Sonali (2017-06-16). "Munaf Kapadia wants to take Bohri cuisine from Mumbai to Manhattan". Indulge (The New Indian Express). Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "What started out as a weekend project inviting people home to try his mother’s food in 2014, has fast expanded into a business model with a delivery kitchen and catering business. So much so that Munaf decided to leave his job at Google where he handled a $10 million portfolio to sell mutton kheema samosas instead."

    13. Sawant, Anagha (2020-03-07). "For this MBA graduate mom's cooking skills helped build a Rs 4 crore turnover eatery chain leaving a cushy job". The Weekend Leader. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "In one stroke Munaf Kapadia, a former Google employee, did four things. First, he exposed his mother’s culinary skills to the world. Second, he popularised his community’s Bohri cuisine in Mumbai, third, he gave foodies a go-to dining spot, and the fourth and best part - he made a lot of money out of all this."

    14. Nair, Priyanka (2017-06-08). "This MBA graduate quit his job at Google to sell mutton samosas". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-02. Retrieved 2021-05-02.

      The article notes: "In 2015, Munaf Kapadia, an MBA graduate who was working with Google, decided to keep his mother Nafisa away from daily soaps on TV by starting a food project. The Kapadias belong to the Bohri community, who are popular for their lip-smacking thaal (a platter that consists of everything from mutton samosas, nargis kebabs, dabba gosht, kaari chawal and much more)."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Munaf Kapadia to pass Gpedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Munaf Kapadia has received international coverage in the BBC and in Arab News. He received significant coverage in major Indian publications like Business Line, The Economic Times, The Hindu, The Indian Express, and Mint. He received sustained significant coverage in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2021.

    Regarding editors' comments about the article's being spam, I agree with KylieTastic (talk · contribs) at the previous AfD that "I don't see any reason to suspect COI here as the author has been around for almost four years and has created several articles India authors and their books." I reviewed the article and found it neutrally written.

    Regarding editors' comments at the previous AfD about the independence of the sources, the sources include quotes from the subject but there is also substantial commentary and reporting.

    Regarding editors' comments at the previous AfD about the article not demonstrating sufficient notability, per Gpedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Gpedia article. ... if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Gpedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."

    Cunard (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: I have been pinged as one who offered an opinion in the initial discussion which closed as No Consensus. I am grateful for the ping, the more so since I disagree. I note that Kapadia is eight months or so further forward in his business, but, despite Cunard's analysis of the references, am not yet persuaded this is other than WP:TOOSOON. I am disturbed by the retention of the Forbes Fie of Fum non RS reference. I still see him as "I see a decent hardworking chap, either WP:ROTM or WP:BLP1E at present" (quoting from the prior discussion)
    I do see coverage in RS, but of insufficient quality in my view to allow me to move from ROTM to Notable. I would opt for a soft delete because the door should be left wide open for future notability without the risk of immediate speedy deletion as a re-created article deleted at AfD. Equally, either a particular and special "thing" needs to render him notable, or a period of circa 12 months should elapse to see whether a natural notability has established for him. Fails WP:BIO / WP:NAUTHOR at present FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Pinged to respond, I note that the BBC and The Hindu sources are sufficient by themselves to meet GNG. All the rest of the debate about promotion (what business doesn't promote?) and non-independence of other sources are irrelevant: Major RS's including the BBC and The Hindu cover him in non-trivial detail. Arguments that he fails specific SNGs and/or is engaged in promotion are non-policy-based arguments. GNG is met, full stop. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete — please I do not see adequate WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources totally independent of the subject optimized, there are a few but i am sorry they aren’t sufficient. Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep I created it because I didn't (and don't) see how GNG isn't met. The person has been talked about in multiple, international, mainstream, reliable sources. And the coverage ranges back to 2015/2016, it's not like he appeared out of nowhere because of self-promotion in 2021. GNG is definitely met and notability has been established. Dial911 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Rename to either Nafisa Kapadia or The Bohri Kitchen The articles all begin and end with "my mother". What's covered in depth is the kitchen and the food, not the subject in the title. Sources aren't independent in my opinion, but with Hindu and BBC in there, it's futile to argue that. --Hemantha (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Changing to Delete because I was wrong to think Hindu and BBC can't be argued with. --hemantha (brief) 03:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete for what it is worth. The guy was an ex google Account strategist. All the references presented above are paid PR and nothing else. The reason the BBC picked it up, is it reached it threshold and had to reported on. It is far too soon to determine notability. The perceived notabilty of the article is being driven by a PR campaign. It seems to be something Gpedia and Gpedia editors are prone to. They simply can't seem to tell the difference between quality and poor references. They're is a base assumption that quantity means quality, and they're is an assumption that because the source is deemed to be RS, that somehow that makes it automatically good, which is fundamentally false. All these paper's accept advertising, in large amounts. It is their lifeblood and ensures their survival to report the real news. This isn't news. Its fake. The only exception here is the BBC, because it is government run, but even BBC when it sees a trend, must report on it. The company that Kapadia worked for, runs the most expansive and professional advertsing agency on the planet. All he would need to do, is turn around and ask a friend to advertise his book and business for him and that would be that. A mates help. Simple as that. The evidence is there, in the articles. They all look the same, they are essentially the same contents, reworded for different audiences but the same with same images. All of it was done to support the book release. It is classic PR advertising exercise, created using the advertising budget from HarperCollins. The very presence of so many stories about this person, opening a restuarant and then going to Harper Collins and saying I want to writ a book about it, is suspect. Aside from the curiosity factor of being an ex-google guy who opened a restuarant, which enough for story, there is nothing that not been done a thousand times before, in this year alone. It so common, particularly in the UK, it is well trodden path. It essentially about a man starting a busines and getting an article on Gpedia. It is so mediocre. scope_creepTalk 11:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I vote to keep the article. Gpedia's GNG guidelines have been more than met through the use of several reliable sources - The Hindu, BBC, The Economic Times, The Times of India, The Financial Express etc. Cunard has done a meticulous job of highlighting the various publications that have carried pieces on the achievements of the subject. Most importantly, since the self-promoting nature of the Gpedia page is under question, the earliest sources cited appear to date back to 2015. The subject has been written about in various publications, for various reasons (fundraising, entrepreneurship, mental health) across a span of at least 5 years before the book was launched in April 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krunchykookie (talkcontribs) 18:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
User is a WP:SPA. scope_creepTalk 20:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can sympathize with the idea that at least some of the coverage might be a well deployed publicity stunt, and I share the annoyance over Gpedia as a repository of such publicity stunts (and an active part) by wealthy and/or arrogant people. That being said, at some point, once that stunt has reached the BBC and others, things get tricky. We created notability guidelines that are hard for pure stunts to get through, but inevitably some really, really good ones will check all the boxes on paper. That seems to be happening here. I'd certainly keep an eye on the article in the future to make sure it doesn't just become a free billboard, but as it stands, it does seem to meet the SIGCOV threshold. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 16:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep All this article needs is extensive cleanup. This should perhaps be rewritten. The subject is independently subject to several reliable sources and has been discussed in much detail. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete essentially advertising. That's a violation of NOTADVOCACY, a basic principle, and much more important to our survival than the notability guideline. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per DGG. I'd like o add that had somebody tagged this for speedy deletion as spam (G11), I'd have deleted it without thinking twice. --Randykitty (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: The version of the article when nominated for deletion on 29 December 2021 was short and neutrally written:

    Munaf Kapadia is an Indian author and entrepreneur. He founded The Bohri Kitchen, an experiential dining concept in Bombay with his mother Nafisa Kapadia.[1][2] Kapadia won Grilled[3] reality series,(Fox Life) in 2017 and subsequently raised a round of seed funding for The Bohri Kitchen.[4][5] He was a 2017 finalist of Forbes 30 Under 30 India list,[6]

    Book

    Kapadia's book How I Quit Google to Sell Samosas[7] published in April 2021 by Harper Collins tells the story of how he quit his job at Google India to turn a weekend food pop-up into a successful food delivery venture.[8][9][10]

    Positivepeace (talk · contribs) added a lot of information and sources to the article. Much this material is promotionally written. A lot of it adds good biographical information about the subject which is why I have not reverted their changes. I am fine if any other editor thinks the changes make the article so promotional that they should be reverted.

    G11 does not apply because Gpedia:Criteria for speedy deletion notes, "A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible." Supporting deletion of this article because promotional content was added in the middle of the AfD is a very weak reason for deletion. It would give incentive to bad actors who could make an article so promotional that editors would support deletion (I am not saying that is Positivepeace's intention here). There is a neutral version of the article to revert to if necessary.

    Cunard (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment: I agree here with Cunard (talk · contribs) as I created the article keeping in mind the tone. It changed over time and may now look promotional but that shouldn't be the reason for its deletion, and definitely not G11. I hope Randykitty (talk · contribs) said that figuratively, because if they really would have deleted it without thinking twice, well... Dial911 (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I do agree that the references seem a bit off, but I am persuaded to weakly keep this based off the sustained (there are spikes of coverage that could be PR, but there's enough coverage outside of those spikes) and international coverage of this person. There is also a bit of coverage of his restaurant from Lonely Planet. To note, I highly suspect Postivepeace is UPE/COI, and if this resolves to a keep their changes likely need much scrutiny. Jumpytoo Talk 11:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Laxminarayan Payodhi

<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Deletion_sorting%2FAuthors">here</a> and attribution parties <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Authors&amp;action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="https://www.gpedia.com/terms-of-use.php">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>