Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors

WP:DSAUTHOR

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

Authors

Vincent Czyz

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

I am nominating this article for deletion under wikipedia's notability guidelines.

This article appears to be a PR piece commissioned by the author themselves, or their literary agency. Just a few hours after the first edit, the author made an edit, followed by a long series of edits by the single originating account. The article included some awards which the author paid in order to receive. Anapophenic (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Jersey. – robertsky (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was a WP:BEFORE done? Easily passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV. Chapter 23 of Shorter Views: Queer Thoughts & the Politics of the Paraliterary by Samuel R. Delany (2011, Wesleyan University Press) is devoted to a lengthy analysis/discussion of Cyzc's Adrifit in A Vanishing City. Book reviews in independent secondary WP:RS: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]. Other WP:RS: [11], [12] Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough reviews in article and above to meet WP:AUTHOR. Not seeing anything particularly unusual in the edit history. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Taylor Jr.

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

No sigcov, no evidence of notability, insufficient sourcing since its creation. Promotional article. Jdcooper (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Minnesota, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is one piece of WP:RS I could locate: [13], but that is it. I will wait to give an opinion in case someone else comes forward with more sources.4meter4 (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Virtually uncited. Kablammo (talk) 10:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Murphy (author)

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

Notability. All that I can see reeks of promotional content or PR guff. TheLongTone (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Promotional, and sources don't meet WP:RS - Alison ^talk 17:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clear cut. The sources in the article (and those available elsewhere) do not establish notability. Many are trivial (like the link to muckrack or a profile on a webmasters association website). And the rest are clearly associated with the subject or orgs with which the subject has an association. The text is (as a result) promotional. And asserts ZERO indication of notability (Writing a self-published book, having a degree in English, being a self-declared(?) "expert" and a "webmaster" doesn't add up to notability). The undisclosed WP:PAID overtones are also very hard to ignore. Guliolopez (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. very pomotional. Spleodrach (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Le Fave

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

Subject is not notable; fails WP:GNG. I did a WP:BEFORE search, as well as searched through the Internet Archive book search and ProQuest, and found nothing but trivial mentions of her name, and her own works. The only thing I've found that could be considered "significant" coverage is the short bio page from Image (journal) that is already in the External links section [14] (And the same page live on the web [15]) However, according to that page, she published her poems in that publication, making that source not independent of the subject. GranCavallo (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Poetry. GranCavallo (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can find absolutely nothing aside from the links you've put, and Amazon. Procyon117 (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahbub Morshed

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

Not seeing significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. Additionally, their books are not notable, thereby failing to meet WP:AUTHOR. GrabUp - Talk 08:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 08:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Journalism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is the current Managing Director and Chief Editor of Bangladesh's national news agency. He has been working as a journalist since 2006 and has held various roles in many of the country's top newspapers and media. In addition, he has published 12 books, most of which are bestsellers in Bangladesh and India, particularly within the Bengali community. He is also a pioneer of the Bengali blogging community, having started as a blogger and author in 2005. His articles are available on Bengali Wikipedia. The page may need some improvements, deleting it is not the best option. Thank you. Normoddev (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he’s not a journalist per se, but (at best) a mid-level manager at a "state-run national news agency." Bearian (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hall (publisher)

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

Nearly all of the listed sources seem to be connected to the subject. No indication of notability, and additional searching found nothing. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self published author, can't find any sources to back up claims of being "best selling" according to WSJ or USA today. WP:PROMO, not notable. Orange sticker (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Jeglic

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

Reviewed for NPP. Entirely cited to passing mentions and things written by the topic of the article. She is the co-author of two books which may or may not be notable, but I don't think that's a large enough body of work to pass WP:NAUTHOR. NACADEMIC is hard for me to understand all the subtleties of, as I don't know what a good or bad h-index is in psychology, so she might pass there but I am not sure. If she does pass NACADEMIC it needs to be far less promotional. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Women. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep, not my area. Her GS profile is [16]. This states an h-index of 52 which is, I believe, considered good in most fields. There is a healthy citation profile with three papers with >200 citations, and a further fifteen with >100 citations, none of which appear heavily co-authored. She's top of the GS topic "Sexual Violence Prevention", for whatever that's worth (it doesn't seem a commonly used tag.) The co-edited books with Springer tend to support that she is considered an expert in those areas. Agree the article needs considerable work cutting out promotion. For what it's worth the creator is enrolled in an educational programme, so it appears to be a good-faith first attempt from someone unconnected with the subject. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict How many authors count as "heavily co-authored"? All of the papers she has written appear to be coauthored. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's usually used to talk about massively co-authored papers eg in physics where everyone who ever touched the apparatus is listed (hundreds, sometimes thousands). Most modern research papers across many subjects have in the region of 5–8 authors, but this is highly subject dependent. ETA The last time I recall it being used outside the physics field was in reference to [17] which has 33 authors; in such cases it would generally only be counted if the subject were one of the first few authors, or the final one, or was indicated as the corresponding author. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well I wish what is a sign of a pass for NACADEMIC was clearer to people who aren’t in that field, then PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Espresso Addict. The GS citation is enough to meet WP:PROF#4.Shoerack (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Fernandez

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

The book she was the co-author of appears to be close to being notable, but given it's only one she does not quite pass NAUTHOR as there aren't any independent sources on her. If someone wants to flip the article around to being on the book (provided there are more sources for that) then that might be an option but I'm not sure there are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Fashion, United States of America, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee J. Slavutin

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

Created by a single purpose editor so possible promotion or autobio. A search for sources in google news and google books yielded nothing in depth. Mainly 1 line mentions in google books, this source "The Sid Kess Approach - Page 82" seems the only decent one. But fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, Australia, and New York. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Has about three papers that come up in Gscholar, not much of anything else really, mentioned here [18]. Doesn't seem to have made much notability for our purposes here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support nomination rationale. Mekomo (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saudamini Mishra

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

Article lacking WP:GNG and WP:BIO . Nxcrypto Message 17:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Authors. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 17:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- she has been featured on reliable sources. Like

https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/beauty-and-brains-as-never-seen-before-in-the-genius-of-the-bestselling-autho r-and-artist-saudamini-mishra-aka-dhi-who-has-mastered-her-art-and-the-selling-of-it-to-change-lives-121030901304_1.html and https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/saudamini-mishra-changing-lives-with-the-most-intellectual-stories-1201118011 79_1.html and https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/author-saudamini-mishra-releases-her-fifth-bestselling-book-dhi-s-law-of-nine-archety pes-of-dhi-s-transformation-series-1985264-2022-08-08 and https://thedailyguardian.com/i-wanted-lives-to-be-changed-saudamini/ . 3 sourcs is enough for notability.Stromeee (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sources don't work (linking errors). You might need to fix them. Procyon117 (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no serious third party coverage as far as I can tell.-KH-1 (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - infomercials have taken over previously responsible media there, so sourcing about the arts in India (outside of pop culture like Bollywood films) is difficult. Bearian (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any serious sources. Fails GNG as an artist, writer, and (pseudo)scientist Hermann Heilner Giebenrath (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Feinswog

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

Delete – article has no substantive references, and my WP:BEFORE turned up no decent independent secondary sources to establish or support the subject’s notability with respect to WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR. He does run https://volleyballmag.com/ which is cited in some 50+ Wikipedia articles, and if that is sufficient for notability, I would happily rescind my recommendation to delete. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find one book review for HoopDaddy [19], which isn't enough to pass AUTHOR. Rest of the sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cohen (writer)

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

WP:PROMO, not a pass for WP:BASIC. No reliable source in the article, nor ones I could find online searching for "Michael Cohen"+"UFO" to try to avoid all the references to Trump's personal lawyer, gives significant coverage to Michael Cohen. Instead they only cover his paranormal/aliens output and give him a trivial mention (e.g., in this piece, "Those who smell a hoax point to several suspicious aspects of the video, including the fact that the man who posted the piece, a paranormal enthusiast named Michael Cohen, has been involved with several other videos of UFOs and other phenomena that are of questionable authenticity.").

That UFO Digest and similar are not reliable sources hardly needs explaining. FOARP (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Australia. FOARP (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. 162 etc. (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:FRINGE. In 2024, everyone knows that we don’t publish these sorts of stories. Bearian (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Bernard Shaw: His Plays

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

Entirely unreferenced. Of minimal interest: the only links to this page are via the Shaw and Mencken templates at the end of the article. Tim riley talk 16:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tim riley talk 16:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without checking anything else, many reviews on Newspapers.com. Passes NBOOK on that front. Will check more later PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw this is a Keep vote PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reviewed in The San Francisco Call and Post (here), The Courier-Journal (here) and The Nation (here). This is sufficient for WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets NBOOK per reviews listed above. Toughpigs (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only are there no sources and lots of WP:OR, Mencken's biographies hardly mention it. WP:NBOOK states that coverage (such as reviews when the book came out) creates only a presumption of notability, but it is our task to decide whether the book is encyclopedically notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That can go for literally any topic. We can decide to delete an article for any reason, but there's no compelling extra reason to delete this article here when it passes NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it is entirely unreferenced and has much personal opinion in it. Tim riley talk 20:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was offensively opinionated so I removed that and now it's a sourced stub. It could be much longer if someone wanted to go and find more sources (and mine the existing ones, or read the book). But as is it is an ok stub. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's better, but if the purpose of AfD is to separate the wheat from the chaff, at least in Menken's WP wheat field, this stub is definitely chaff. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we are supposed to delete stubs that can improve at AfD I sure missed the memo.

And in any case this has much improved since then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Three reviews in minor papers from 1906 really isn't sufficient pass NBOOK. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three reviews from newspapers now would be enough to pass, so why not? NBOOK needs two non trivial (or short) reviews. Unless it's on some fringe theory that's been since disproven to where it's impossible to cover it with the contemporary sources without violating our other policies, it does very much count. This book is about literary criticism. I figured there was much more anyway, and as seen below there was. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep. I am inclined to agree with Ssilvers, and SchroCat quantifies this. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep with many thanks to ReaderofthePack. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have to agree with PARAKANYAA in that this does pass NBOOK. If a source is considered to be something reliable that could give notability, it doesn't really matter how major or minor the source is - all that matters is that it could give notability. To that end, these sources do accomplish that and give notability, so the book technically passes NBOOK at this point. What we should be looking at would be the following:

Is there enough out there to flesh this book out beyond a stub?
Does the existing sourcing give off a strong enough suggestion that more sourcing is available, just not readily available on the internet?

The first is one I'm still trying to answer, but the second question is the one I'm more concerned with because answering that would give me a more clear answer to the first question. And so far, the answer seems to be that there is more out there - it's just not readily available on the internet or at least isn't coming up easily in searches. For example, this news source mentions it as one of the two books that put Mencken on the map, so to speak, and that it also helped make Shaw more of a household name. Then there's this 2002 review of a biography on Mencken. It mentions much of the same - that it helped put both authors on the map - the review also mentions a bit of the biographer's literary criticism of Mencken's Shaw book. So there's more out there - we just have to dig for it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)

This book by Oxford University Press mentions that there were many reviews, further bolstering my belief that there's more coverage out there - it just isn't easy to locate, either because of how generic this title is or because it's just not available on the internet. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, SchroCat, Gog the Mild - what is your opinion on the article now - I've greatly expanded the article. I've started looking for sourcing using just "George Bernard Shaw" and "Mencken" - this has helped immensely. It seems that when places do cover Mencken on Shaw, they are almost always discussing the book itself.

As far as outlets go, this source mentions that outlets that reviews the book include the Boston Globe, New York Times, San Francisco Bulletin, Brooklyn Eagle, Baltimore Sun, New York Post, and The Nation; the last outlet seems to have done a rather extensive review. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go to work now, but I'll try to expand this more later. I want to check the academic/scholarly paper databases - the amount of times books discussed or mentioned this book, I think there's likely to be quite a bit out there that I could easily find. There's definitely more out there not as easily locatable, but it does exist. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ReaderofthePack's work on it; there now seem to be plenty of sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK per sources provided in this discussion.4meter4 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Robert Watson

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

Hello - recommending this article for deletion for the following reasons.

Seems like a promotional page by a very ocassional contributor to some industry news, with plenty of links to his own website (cited as a source) and references to prominent or notable collaberators who are all not listed on wikipedia.

Suspicious edits by 81.175.147.23 who appears to only be active on this page (this IP address is based in the same town as Mr Watson) as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DorianRichard1985 which also appears to be the subject, and created this article. There have been no meaningful edits except by these two contributors, who both appear to be Mr Watson.

This is a promotional page with poor source links, some unverifiable, created to promote the career of an ocassional opinion columnist. Does not meet Wikipedias standard for notability, nor source quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Arts, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No GS trace at all for "Michael Robert Watson", so either he publishes under a different name or his work has received no attention. The detailed education history without sources usually says the article was written by someone who is/knows the subject. Does anyone know if "ZerO books" is the same as Zero Books? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments below, I checked GS for "Mike Watson"; the highest-cited works I could find had 21 citations (Can the Left Learn to Meme?: Adorno, Video Gaming, and Stranger Things) and 13 citations (The Memeing of Mark Fisher: How the Frankfurt School Foresaw Capitalist Realism and What to Do About It), but I might well have missed something as there are so many other Mike Watsons; I don't think these citations would meet WP:PROF, but reviews should be sought to address potential notability under WP:AUTHOR. If the article is kept it needs to be moved to "Mike Watson ([disambiguator])". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern here is the article appears to be self-authored, with two key accounts in its creation having only ever edited this article (one IP, one logged in). This would be less of an issue if it was an especially noteworthy subject but at the moment Wiki runs risk of being a promotional page or 'find my articles online' site. Many many academic / media figures who are more prolific, many more citations, do not have wikipedia pages. Also there is some unsourced biographic information here. All in I think it should be deleted unless new high quality sources can be found and more credible evidence of Mr Watson's relevance / impact 85.68.25.118 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until the encyclopedia actually prohibits writing autobiographical content, rather than strongly discouraging it, suspicions that the article might be authored by the subject are not valid grounds for deletion. However, I've just put all four book titles into JSTOR and come up with nothing, so I'm not arguing for retention unless someone can show that WP:AUTHOR is met by reviews that JSTOR does not index, or GNG is met. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Indisputably they are one and the same. They have often used that stylising for many years and the content mentioned in this article would make it obvious anyway. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Espresso Addict: He publishes as "Mike Watson", hence all the references mentioning that name.
Yes, "ZerO books" = Zero Books (sometimes styled "Zer0 books").
(I don't have, as the Brits say, a dog in this fight. I chanced on the article because Mike Watson had a column in the London Guardian.)
Angusta (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Angusta: Ah, thanks, so it looks like he is this Mike Watson[20]. (The piece mentions a further book, by the way.) Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gosh everyone seems to be dancing on the fence here and it's as clear a fail as GNG as I've seen for a while. "Watson completed his PhD thesis at Goldsmiths College, University of London, in the department of Visual Cultures, under the supervision of Alex Duttmann, moderated by Howard Caygill and Peter Hallward." Oh the loving detail! Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Steinberg (journalist and photographer)

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO, sources not appropriate for a biography. Writing and speaking about sex and sexuality does not in and of itself confer notability, 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Photography, and Sexuality and gender. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also fails WP:NWRITER and WP:NARTIST possible conflict of interest too, with editor saying they "do advocacy work for indie authors and creative commons artists" Theroadislong (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed COI in my comment below. Merely because I do advocacy work for authors on my monthly blogposts about indie authors has nothing to do with the issue. Also, would you prefer wikipedia articles about authors be written by editors without opinions about authors? Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree totally on fail of WP:NWRITER and WP:NARTIST (self published content and all) and also on potential of COI. Also now have Kneecap's 'Fine Art' back in my head. Sigh. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed COI issues in my longer comment below. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the self-published content issue already here. Robert J Nagle (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about the only kind of coverage I could find [21], I don't think we have enough to show notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is an interesting article I didn't see before. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who drafted the article. There is absolutely no COI here -- though I did email Steinberg about a few things and did encourage him to submit one of his photos to wikicommons. Also Steinberg informed me that a few years ago he had drafted a wikipedia article for himself – and he forwarded that draft to me. But I mostly ignored that. It was almost entirely unusable.

I consider myself somewhat of an expert in the field of writing about sexuality. Also, I have a background in indie publishing and have written a few author profiles for Wikipedia over the decades.

Here is my personal opinion about why this living person meet the criteria for notability.

1. He made an invaluable contribution to the pro-feminist men's movement in the 1980s and possibly 1990s. In the 1980s pornography was a hot political topic in the USA. Conservatives were arguing about it. Feminists were arguing for it and against it. In the meantime some pro-feminist men were having conferences, publishing books and anthologies. Steinberg was one of the pioneers of this movement.

2. Steinberg's photography book/anthology Erotic by Nature was groundbreaking in the 1980s -- and it is still in print today. It received widespread distribution through Bookpeople and the book itself sold the concept of erotic photography as a legitimate form of fine arts photography. The book was an attempt to put into practice the ideas and aesthetic of the men's movement who were confronting the issue of pornography -- offering this as an alternative.

3. He has been writing about sexuality, sexual politics and new forms of sexual expression for decades. Most of his articles were for (now defunct) weeklies, but some appeared in national magazines like Playboy. Many of these articles were open to new kinds of sexuality. He has also written a lot about hot-button topics like sex trafficking, transgender rights, mostly from the perspective of a "liberated male."

4. He has devoted the latter part of his life taking erotic photographs and showing them at various exhibits and erotic festivals. Unlike many fine arts photographers, Steinberg has taken photographs of nontraditional subjects, like older people, gays, disabled people, transgender. I have listed some critics who have reviewed/interpreted his aesthetic sensibility.

Now, let me put on my wiki hat for a bit.

That first point (pro-feminist men’s movement) is extremely hard to document and source. (Believe me, I tried). The only thing I could find was several anthologies on the subject which he contributed to and/or edited. https://www.nearbycafe.com/loveandlust/steinberg/erotic/about/index.html Ultimately I ended up not mentioning this part for the article. Steinberg mentions a few of the conferences he participated in some of his writings, but I can find next to nothing from secondary sources.

One problem is that unlike feminists (who often were academics and organized many events through their universities) many of these men's conferences were looser and definitely not-academic. They didn't think too much about recording these things for the historical record. Wiki has some articles about men's movements, Men's Rights Movement and Men in Feminism, but really very little about men's response to porn or how to reconcile porn with feminism from a man's point of view. (See the article on sex-positive feminism; it mentions a lot of female names but almost no one who is male!)Ironically, Steinberg is probably a leading figure for the men's pro-feminist movement and sex-positivity. How do I know this? On that page alone, I count at least 15 names of thinkers/activists/intellectuals (all of which have received wikipedia articles) who have explicitly praised Steinberg's writings! (Joanie Blank, mentioned in the article, was in fact the person who financed Erotic by Nature. One of the writers pictured in the article, Tristan Taormino, even invited Steinberg on a recent podcast).

I should ask: is there a double standard here? Why does Wikipedia have so many articles on feminist response to porn and female authors who have written about sex-positive feminism but almost no males?

Finally, longevity counts for something in publishing. Publications come and go; that is especially true for alternative newspapers and especially true for sex-oriented publications. Should wikipedia discount publications from the pre-digital era simply because they are unavailable? Steinberg is one of the few writers/columnists on sexual issues who has digitized many of his writings on sexuality from the 1980s and 1990s and put them online. Wikipedia readers should have the ability to know that people like this actually existed -- and that his archive of writings from that time period exist and remain accessible.

By refusing to acknowledge the importance of contributions of people like David Steinberg, Wikipedia editors are removing bits of history from the public. I have done my best to draft an article on a somewhat sensitive subject in accordance with Wiki's policies. Frankly, I fail to understand why notability would even be a problem here. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to step back for now. But I wanted to reiterate about COI that I have NEVER done paid editing for any wiki article subject and never received remuneration for anything I have done at Wikipedia. I expect to receive no sort of benefit (financial or otherwise) from Steinberg as a result of writing this article, and none was promised to me. My ebook publishing company (Personville Press) doesn't have any interest in publishing any of Steinberg's works although I admit I am extremely fond of his writings. My contact with the subject, as stated in my above statement, was minimal and mainly to check up on dates and verify some things. Robert J Nagle (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought of one more thing -- that maybe is self-evident. The article itself mentions that Steinberg was designated as " Erotic Photographer of the Year" in 2010 by Leydig Trust (which sponsors the Sexual Freedom Awards). The Sexual Freedom Awards has its own wikipedia page; I guess that means wikipedia has already rated these awards as notable. In the article I mentioned that the Seattle Erotic Art Festival has given Steinberg the honorary title, "Master of Erotic Art" for "impactful photography (which) focuses on capturing the diversity of our human sexuality by showcasing a broad range of people. From the SEAF website itself, it says, "The Masters of Erotic Art program showcases artists who have made meaningful contributions to the history and development of erotic art." These are two separate well-known organizations in the field of the erotic arts which have recognized Steinberg's contribution to the field. [22]

These properly sourced details were mentioned in paragraph 2 of the article, so I assume that the other editors saw this already. I have provided other justifications about notability in the previous longer comment. But frankly, I don't know just those two award designations don't confer notability. Robert J Nagle (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need sourcing to back up these claims, "because, trust me" isn't quite the level of sourcing we need. That's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a general statement which does not apply to this article. I think everything in the article is properly sourced. Robert J Nagle (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is enough here to close as Delete but I wanted to allow some time to respond to the argument of the article creator. They claim the sources are sufficient so a source review would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Ref 1 Salon.com. is an interview, not independent

Ref 2 Sexual Freedom Awards is a primary source
Ref 3 Seattle Erotic Art Festival. is a primary source
Ref 4 Eros During Times of Social Change is an interview not independent
Ref 5 is a primary source written by Steinberg

Ref 6 is a commercial link to purchase his book

Ref7 can’t access this but a foreword is unlikely to be significant coverage
Ref 8 Nearbycafe.com. his own words, primary source
Ref 9 ditto
Ref 10 ditto
Ref 11 ditto
Ref 12 ditto
Ref 13 ditto
Ref 14 interview
Ref 15 interview
Ref 16 Nearbycafe.com. his own words, primary source

Theroadislong (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two things regarding primary sources.

Ref 6 links to public statements made by several other notable people about Steinberg and specifically his book which appeared on the promotional material related to the book (which are copied on the author's own website).You can easily view it in these same quotes in the opening pages for the Kindle ebook. Based on my experience as a publisher, it is very rare that people are misquoted in blurbs and other promotional material. Publishers take these things very seriously; they can get sued! Whether these statements are sufficient to establish notability -- I'll let others decide. What's significant is that a lot of people -- several of which are already on wikipedia -- have made statements about this person's writings.

With regard to interviews, it's a pretty standard way for a journalist to write about any author. Often the preface by the interviewer will try to contextualize a writer's contributions (that was particularly true in the Salon article). (Ref 1) Wiki specifically allows the use the self-published sources as long as 5 conditions are met See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves and as I mentioned before, some well-vetted articles on authors on Wikipedia make use of actual quotes by the author often. One time I counted the number of times author John Updike was quoted in the wiki article about him, I think the number was 18. Robert J Nagle (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert J Nagle, we're not worried about people being misquoted when their statements are being used in blurbs and promo material. We're concerned because they are blurbs and promo material. We don't base notability on these types of thing because they're not independent. (See WP:INDEPENDENT.) -- asilvering (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Breathnach-Banwait

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

I don't believe she meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO more broadly. 1 hit in google news and nothing in google books which is surprising for a writer. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Ireland, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and augment. Part of the issue with the author is that it can be difficult to meet WP:AUTHOR when her working language is Irish, and that doesn't Google so well. I'll also point to her article in the Irish Language Wikipedia, which has clearly met inclusion criteria there. Yes - different wiki, different rules, but still ... - Alison ^talk 04:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books actually does have quite a few hits, BTW - Alison ^talk 05:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Which of the google books hits would be WP:SIGCOV? LibStar (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing sufficient independent RS to show that the notability criteria have been met. JMWt (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Her works have been included in anthologies [23], and some analysis here [24] and here [25]. There's some coverage in Gaelic (?) sources if you limit it to .ie websites, but I can't tell what qualifies as a RS in that language. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This also seems to be a RS [26], hosted on a WordPress site, but it's an online magazine with an editorial board and such. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oaktree b I ran into that one as well but it turns out that she is part of the "Editorial collective" so it may not be considered independent. Then again, I can't imagine that there are many Gaelic speakers in Australia who aren't part of that collective. This is a tough one due to the minority language. Lamona (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was the one who got the article up in the first place, but I tend to agree now that more references are needed, as discussed above. As for notability, a significant problem for writers in Irish is that few reviews are available in English, though I would regard her as a poet worthy of inclusion on her own merits. If the consensus was that the article should be deleted, I would accept that, and see if I could come up with something new and improved. Colin Ryan (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The RTE and Irish Times are reliable sources. With a bit more sleuthing, we could find a third good source for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At one point I attempted to create a page for an author whose book An Edge of the Forest won a few significant awards in the 1960s. The page was rejected on the basis that although there was notable coverage of the book, any coverage of the author was incidental and thus failed WP:AUTHOR. In this case, applying the same rationale, I can not see that the author meets WP:AUTHOR. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I still am seeing No consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per User:Colin Ryan with hopes that they can locate some independent sources, perhaps through the Irish press. Lamona (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Spinifex&Sand is right that when an author has only one notable work, and the coverage is of that work rather than the author, we typically have an article just on the notable work. But when there are multiple notable works, NAUTHOR#3 does actually allow notability to be inherited for an author bio, if there is coverage of their "collective body of work". After some digging I think I see two WP:NBOOK candidates:

Dánta Póca [27][28]
Ó Chréanna Eile / From Other Earths [29][30]

And two books that don't meet NBOOK but do have one review (so a second would pass NBOOK):

Ar Thóir Gach Ní [31]
Cnámha Scoilte / Split Bones [32]

I also found this profile in The Irish Scene, which suggests notability, and this interview which does not but could be useful in fleshing out the article if kept. I have a hard time getting excited about only 2 NBOOKs as a "collective body of work", but I think some would consider that sufficient. I lean keep because I think the profiles in the Irish Times, Anglo&Celtic Australia Magazine, and now The Irish Scene together squeak by for GNG. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for a better consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authors proposed deletions

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