|
- Julie Szego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a case of WP:BLP1E, the subject is only notable for their sacking from The Age. The rest of the sourcing that I've found, both in the article and through searches, is either not independent or not in-depth. I've considered the possibility that they might pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC and I don't see that either is the case. TarnishedPathtalk 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Edgar Smith (poet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article on a poet and novelist, and cannot find significant coverage to add. I did find this in Booklife, but am not sure it is a reliable source. Some or all of his books are self-published, which wouldn't be a problem if there are multiple reviews in independent, reliable sources, but I can't find evidence of that. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO. I have reverted from a much longer version, here, but that was no better sourced and I don't see anything there to contribute to notability. Tacyarg (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the books have been self-published. True. Some have not. How is that a problem? There are enough articles and inclusions in numerous magazines and anthologies, as well as evidence of book fairs and literary events to justify the article. Not relating to the level of success of an author based on your definition of success should never be a reason for deletion. 47.185.0.198 (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE For your consideration, I have added several links attesting to the relevance and commitment to culture and literature of author Edgar Smith. I hope this helps. Kevlarcovered (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Jean-Marc Rives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. The sourcing is very weak, and I haven't been able to find anything better. The great majority of the edits have been made by the WP:SPA User:RJMarco, which from the name seems to be the guy himself. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Authors, Arts, Morocco, and France. ZyphorianNexus Talk 01:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree with nominator's reasoning, the lack of WP:RS is especially concerning as it is also a BLP. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Draft I think it should be drafted. He has won a lot of awards including the order of merit - Ordre des Palmes académiques which is major civilian award which likely makes him notable. The art as well, if they can be proved to be a museum or permanent collection would pass WP:NARTIST. There is lot potentially if it could be proven. There is lots more. The article itself is a mess and needs a significant copyedit and it also needs sourced. Some time in draft would give that space. If there is not enough coverage I could stubify it. scope_creepTalk 09:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a recipient of the Palmes académiques is not likely at all to make someone notable. More than 6,000 people receive this medal each year, and it used to be almost two times more until a few years ago. BilletsMauves€500 13:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- (weak) Keep: significant coverage in a reliable and independent media outlet, addressing the subject in depth and directly (3 articles) https://actu.fr/normandie/bernay_27056/jean-marc-rives-expose-a-leveil-normand_54969366.html https://actu.fr/normandie/bernay_27056/sur-murs-leveil-paysages-jean-marc-rives_9291390.html https://actu.fr/normandie/ferrieres-saint-hilaire_27239/eure-ce-peintre-international-sort-un-livre-pour-apprendre-a-dessiner_60960106.html + (not really independent nor in depth) https://www.paris-normandie.fr/id521597/article/2024-05-11/dedicace-de-jean-marc-rives-la-fabrique-de-la-risle-de-beaumont-le-roger A drastic cleanup is due, though. -Mushy Yank. 09:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Christer Holloman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Entirely promotional Amigao (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Mario Schäfer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of a writer and unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or politicians. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their books exist, and unelected candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates: the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and the notability test for writers is the reception of third-party attention being paid to their books, such as literary awards and reviews by professional literary critics in WP:GNG-worthy real media.
But this just states that he exists, and sources its content entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage or analysis about his work.
It also warrants note that even though he's German, and thus an article on the German Wikipedia would be expected to exist if he were genuinely notable enough for Wikipedia, the only interlang actually present here is in Portuguese, and cites absolutely no GNG-worthy sourcing that could be moved over here to salvage this either -- while even the Wikidata entry suggests that attempts to create articles about him in the Spanish and Romanian Wikipedias have previously been deleted on those Wikipedias for notability reasons, whereas no article about him has ever existed in the German Wikipedia at all. So even the Portuguese article exists only because the Portuguese administrators haven't caught and deleted it yet, rather than because he's got any kind of genuine claim to notability. (Does anybody here have enough Portuguese to take it to their AFD?)
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Simon M. Kirby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn’t seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC. signed, SpringProof talk 00:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. signed, SpringProof talk 00:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Evo-psych is a high-citation field but still I think his citation counts [20] are enough for WP:PROF#C1. He holds a personal chair at the University of Edinburgh, possibly enough for #C5. He is a Fellow of the British Academy [21], a clear pass of #C3. And multiple reviews of multiple books [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] give him another case for notability through WP:AUTHOR. I don't know what WP:BEFORE the nominator tried to produce this WP:VAGUEWAVE towards our notability guidelines but it wasn't enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above. Nominator deserves a trout for this inept nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep: Meets WP:NACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR per above. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Language, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears to hold an established chair rather than a personal chair, so meets WP:NACADEMIC #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Unambiguously passes NPROF C3 via his Academia Europaea membership, and I would agree that he passes C1 and C5 as well. Botterweg (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Marcus Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. There is no secondary source coverage of this individual. Cites his own self published works, sites, social media as a source. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexander Matthews (playwright) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be non-notable. Created by one of an army of socks. All sources are affiliated, bare mentions, interviews, blogs, or appear to be created from press releases. Google news search only pulled up similar. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Neither of the two books mentioned seem to be noteworthy enough to help a WP:AUTHOR case (JSTOR searches for reviews came up with zip). The sources about the plays are too superficial and/or unreliably published to make a case for notability as a playwright. The Physics Essays journal where he published "The Universe Has No Beginning? Doubts About The Big Bang Theory" is a haven for crackpots; publishing there isn't anything to be proud of. Merely writing things isn't enough for notability, and being reduced to writing for Physics Essays is a sign that you are not influential. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaron Louis Tordini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable author article, which somebody claiming to be the subject has been editing Orange Mike | Talk 05:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Nadia Shahram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR
No significant independent coverage of subject or CAMW organization she is associated with. Found one write-up in a small alumni magazine from 2005 (http://media.wix.com/ugd/ba8d3a_69ce4f04eab549e8992314f78621c089.pdf). There are a few sentences in larger papers like Fox from 2011 (https://www.foxnews.com/us/jury-convicts-new-york-tv-executive-of-beheading-wife) but doubt it rises to level of notability since they are not specifically about subject. No significant coverage located for book or minor awards. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul Mango (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Some cited sources here, such as Ballotpedia, this, and this WP:FORBESCON piece do not contribute to GNG, nor does the book that he authored. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Health and fitness, Military, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Even after excluding non-RSs, there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Coverage includes his recent death, his involvement with the transition for the second Trump presidency, Operation Warp Speed and his book about it (two reviews of which are cited in the article), and his Pennsylvania gubernatorial run.
- Jfire (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Mango's work on Warp Speed is mentioned in books on the subject, including Brendan Borrell's First Shots (along with his Esquire article excerpt https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a37990781/covid-vaccine-development-race/). There's also a National Review review of his OWS memoir (https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/07/the-lessons-of-operation-warp-speed/ accessible at https://archive.is/dLu4A). Obituaries that mention his Warp Speed work are at Politico, Stat News, Fierce Biotech, and Forbes. 2600:4808:60D5:6D00:CD9C:1348:D858:85CF (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- Mr. Beat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have marked this article for deletion. While I'm a big fan of Mr. Beat's work, and would ideally like this article kept, I don't think that he passes WP:GNG right now. All of the non-social media sources are local sources, or not reliable at all, indicating that he has little to no national significance. Beat is a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL content creator; achieving 1 million subscribers is a much less notable feat than it was even 10 years ago. I completed a WP:BEFORE search but I couldn't find anything meaningful that wasn't already in the article. I don't see a WP:NAUTHOR pass either, since he's released only two books, and each only has one local review. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:4D29:6661:1D4E:6058 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, History, Politics, Economics, Geography, Kansas, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I have little to add beyond the nominator's honest and thorough rationale. The article appears to have a lot of sources but most point toward the guy's own posts. He has a little notice from local newspapers but not enough to support an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG yet, but the BEFORE search is hard since it's all of his videos. SportingFlyer T·C 03:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been some keep !votes below, so I just want to make clear that I really only see up to one GNG-qualifying source in the article, which is a local publication's review of his book. My BEFORE search brought up only his own content or promotional sources. He has received some local coverage which is mostly promotional. It's not impossible there's better coverage, but most of the sources in the article are Youtube links or Twitter links. SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mr. Beat has coverage in local press, which counts towards Mr. Beat being a notable figure. Additionally, this coverage is more than many YouTubers who have pages on here receive. NesserWiki (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Mr. Beat is one of the more famous/notable YouTube historians on the site. If he was less notable, I may be in favor of deletion but this is not the case. Lertaheiko (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep basically what everyone else above who has said keep said. Daemonspudguy (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that something that only receives local coverage is automatically not notable. There are thousands of high schools, library systems and people with Wikipedia articles that will probably only ever receive local coverage, but a reliable, independent secondary source with significant coverage counts towards notability whether its a tiny news station or the BBC. Pointing to subscriber count as evidence of non-notability is about as useful as pointing to it as evidence of notability. (I will note that Mr. Beat posted a screenshot of this discussion to Bluesky (which is how I got here) but not in a WP:Canvassing manner probably with good intentions, but it's definitely become a WP:Canvassing issue regardless). Edit: Given that the nominator has clarified their justification for the deletion, I went through the sources again, and I feel like there's one source that definitely counts toward notability, the aforementioned Lawrence Journal article, and one source that might count towards notability, a sorta review of his SCOTUS book which includes some commentary beyond just the interview component with Mr. Beat. If we're following WP:THREE, then I would probably suggest Draftify given that he seems about one source off from notability. Based5290 :3 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the very definition of canvassing... SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Linking to or posting a a discussion is not in itself canvassing. Canvassing needs to be done with the intention of influencing the outcome. Given that the text of the post is just self-deprecating humor, I highly doubt that intention exists. Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Source Lertaheiko (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with what the above editors have said. Local news coverage counts just the same as major outlets in terms of notability. As popular Internet personalities become more prevalent and the mainstream press becomes more separated from Internet culture, we as Wikipedia editors must reckon with the fact that a notable person might not always be covered in the mainstream press. So, if we keep on using big coverage in the press as being "notable", we end up with archaic standards that will most likely miss out on notable people in the future.
- All that being said, however, when comparing Mr. Beat to others, he unquestionably surpasses the requirements for being notable enough to have his own Wiki page. LizardDoggos (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am the IP editor who initially nominated this for deletion, and I'm surprised at the sudden burst of canvassing votes here. They should all be discarded for the purposes of determining consensus; consisting of a mixture of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and claiming I'm trying to discredit local sources: my point is that they are all WP:ROUTINE coverage of him. Doing stuff like local talks about his books, where he mostly does the speaking instead of it being about him doesn't amount to notability here. We need sources that discuss him specifically, simple as that. The only good source here is the Lawrence Journal, and a single article doesn't surpass the WP:THREE sources generally needed to clear the bar of notability. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:2081:789F:4237:C594 (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP Mr. Beat is a relevant topic and a very prominent YouTuber with tons of credible sources about him, and CLEARLY it should be kept. Skcin7 (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JUSTNOTABLE? 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:D9D2:6AAD:B5E6:512F (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Just not enough coverage for notability... I don't find very many RS, [31] is one, but I don't consider it enough. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Found this from the same source. Probably leaning draftify. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: or draftify, per Oaktree. (yes, I'm here from the tweet.) charlotte 👸♥ 02:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I decided to look into the local coverage of the subject a bit more closely, since there have been statements that it's been largely promotional. While some of them do seem that way, such as the Lawrence Times article about a book discussion, this is hardly the only source. He has had an extended interview on KQTV[1], a television station in St. Joseph, Missouri, which is in the Kansas City area. To reference what the nominator was saying about the local sources not being great because they are routine, I would like to add that this interview does not appear directly connected with any planned event, such as a book release or announcement. I do not believe this counts as routine. His interview with KCUR-FM would also fall under this, since it is a reliable, third-party, independent secondary source that is also not simply announcing an event or product, but is an actual interview; while the written portion of the article is more about that, the actual interview delves much deeper. I will acknowledge that this article is a bit short, but I cannot in good faith agree that this article should be deleted. I think he does fulfill the GNG, and my vote is for it to be kept. ~Junedude433(talk) 20:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews are not secondary sources. SportingFlyer T·C 20:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is worth noting that Mr Beat posted this page onto his twitter yesterday with the caption “I am printing this off and putting it on my wall to motivate me for the rest of my life”, likely prompting the influx of people to comment keep. IP should be aware of this and prevent heavy bias in favor of keeping. (Hell, he may be reading this very comment right now, in which case I’m sorry that your wiki page may be deleted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B14C:3B7F:ECFA:A361:729B:73A2 (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Stefan Swanepoel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Promo for a business exec. PzizzleD (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael De Medeiros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet neither of Wikipedia's notability or sourcing guidelines OhNoKaren (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Jayant Kashyap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual. A lot of the sources are unreliable or primary. Doesn't meet WP:NBASIC and the creator of the article appears to have a COI. Frost 00:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi! Do credible peer-reviewed sources (or those managed by editors) over a period of time (at least since 2017) like The Poetry Society (UK), The Bombay Literary Magazine, Poetry Magazine, etc. count? As it is, one of his poems has been handed out in schools in the UK as part of a UK Dept for Education project. The same poem was presented at COP26, the United Nations Climate Conference, in 2021. His work is also known in the UK, with his forthcoming pamphlet having created somewhat of a buzz. Through The Poetry Society's partnership with the University of Hertfordshire to support their MA Animation students in producing animated films, one of Kashyap's poems was made into a short film. Several other videos of his poetry readings have also appeared on YouTube through different organisations. I'm curious—would any of this not count?
- Jayant KA$HYAP (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi! To clarify, things like "created a buzz" can't really be measured objectively – while it is a bi counter-intuitive, what we call "notability" is closer to "whether there is enough independent material to write an article" than to "how famous the person is". However, peer-reviewed sources commenting on him or his body of work would definitely count for notability. I haven't looked at them individually, but that is indeed very promising. The poetry readings aren't necessarily useful, as they would still be primary sources and wouldn't give more information than "X read this person's poem", except if there is significant commentary/analysis on the poems. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi! As mentioned before, I've made sure to use statements from different websites, such as where work is reviewed and not just published, with comments from editors of journals, or people who review his work. I suppose this will increase once Kashyap's new pamphlet is out (probably around May) but until then, there are a considerable amount of sources, including news articles and press releases, that have made a mention.
- Also, since it is not an autobiography, nor am I connected to the subject of the article, I'm removing the autobiography tag from the top of the page. I removed one other tag, which mentioned a lack of backlinks(?) to this page –- this I did after finding links (for this page) to several other pages. Please do let me know if there's been an issue! Also, I intend to add more discussion about the subject from a few more sources I've found. Could you please review in, say 24 hours, with the point in mind that there'll still be some material to add? Thank you!
- GreenBlast4 (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see notability yet. Two pamphlets and a zine, published by small non-notable presses, that's not enough for notability. In addition, much of the content (as the nominator and others saw) lacks proper sourcing. Like, this is supposed to verify that one of the subject's poems was nominated for an award--but this is a website that publishes one of the subject's poems, and the note about the nomination no doubt came from the author, before we even get to the notability of the award, "Sundress Publication’s Best of the Net", there's the question of a. why isn't there better sourcing and b. is a nomination for this worth mentioning in the first place. And that can be repeated for many of the factoids and instances of namedropping in the article. So, "His third pamphlet, Notes on Burials, won the Poetry Business New Poets Prize in 2024, judged by the poet Holly Hopkins"--yes, but who is Holly Hopkins, and how is that Poetry Business Award (the author's writing of the article notwithstanding) a notable award contributing to notability? Drmies (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I understand, being nominated for both the Pushcart Prize and the Best of the Net is something big in the poetry world. People like Amitav Ghosh have won Pushcart Prizes, and there are more than a few famous poets I've read (and could name) who've been included in the BotN anthology. I remember seeing a blog post mentioning the same, and tried retrieving it best as I could – however, since you mentioned, here's a twitter/x link (from a different journal) nominated Kashyap's name: https://x.com/AtlasAndAlice/status/1707414323545493536. And oh, the magazine you noted: https://x.com/Briefly_Zine/status/1576968035248009217. As for the Poetry Business award, here's the Poetry Business article you could take a look at – I understand they're a big name in the UK, and the current UK Poet Laureate and the previous one were both first published by the said press. Friend, I understand you're making efforts to keep Wikipedia as reliable as one can, and I thank you for asking the right questions, and I understand the bit about notability. I'm still curious though that while many pages/articles with much less information are kept up, how is this one not good enough compared to those? Thanks again! GreenBlast4 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Lack of Wp:SIGCOV in Wp:RS. And the creator’s username indicates possible COI. Zuck28 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per above reasoning. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello! I've already made efforts to explain that there is no COI, and I'd request you to believe that. This may be supported by the fact that I tend to add to pages in this area extensively. While I do not imply that I cannot be wrong at any point since the creation of the page, and during the editing process (following which edits have been made – truth is this was my first article for Wikipedia that I've written from scratch, and it took me a while learning) I do wish to assure you that I've taken steps to add details extensively and without bias. I've written about other people whose focus is the same topic as Kashyap's, and I've done my best to be as objective as possible there too. In all of the cases, I rely heavily on extensively published sources, and cross-check all of my added data to ensure a lack of errors. For example, very recently, he's been shortlisted for the TFA Awards CWE which is a competition of repute in India, with coverage by The Hindu, etc. and I've checked all links available to add the same. After the final list is released, I'll be updating the same with improved/correct citations. GreenBlast4 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I haven’t been able to do a full search, but it looks like there’s some secondary coverage here. No hits in Newspapers.com though. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! I've made sure that there is, and I'm active on this page since the deletion warning. I'll be adding more details as soon as I'm able to find them. I suspect one of the awards will have a press release, and that will lead to further increase in secondary sources. Also, the article link you've added is publicly available through google books. There are a few other secondary links cited— this, here, and here's a press release – extracted from here. I'm hopeful the first page I began working on won't go to waste, and I'm very happy to take any suggestions that improve the article. GreenBlast4 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- press release are considered primary sources only.
- Zuck28 (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh! I'm sorry about that. But I can assure you that the prize I'm talking about – their winners and shortlistees have always been named in news articles with considerable coverage. Small examples: one, two and three. I'll add to things accordingly, and only in a legitimate manner. GreenBlast4 (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter Hyman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced BLP. Tagged for sourcing issues since 2019. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree that the subject is unlikely to pass WP:GNG, but I think they probably pass WP:AUTHOR for their book The Reluctant Metrosexual: Dispatches from an Almost Hip Life. I found reviews in the New York Times [32] and the Washington Post [33], and there are several other usable reviews referenced here [34] although frustratingly I wasn't able to find any of those originals from 2004. Their book is also cited or mentioned in probably a dozen academic books and journal articles, although admittedly not in any great detail. Together I think that's probably enough for a WP:AUTHOR pass. MCE89 (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; there is a pass of WP:AUTHOR per MCE89 with multiple full-length reviews of his book in reliable, independent sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. @Dclemens1971 and MCE89 I would feel a lot better about this if those sources had biographical content but they don't other than perfunctory coverage. The sources are about the book rather than the author. Fundamentally we don't have materials supporting a biography page. Given that it is only a single work, wouldn't this be better repurposed into an article on that one book? This would seem to be a better approach per the spirit of WP:Verifiability. We could always recreate a page on the author if and when a second notable work is created by the subject. We really can only create articles based on the available sources. Otherwise we are fundamentally allowing an unsourced BLP article page which I thought was a big no no on wikipedia.4meter4 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NCREATIVE is clear that "
Such a person is notable if:... 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 multiple independent periodical articles or reviews... " There's no requirement for biographical content in such reviews. Biographical content can be added from other sources, but the test of notability is met by what MCE89 identified. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dclemens1971 I get that, but that is not the cogent policy here. WP:BLPSOURCES external to notability policy but equally important is at play here. We could literally blank the page at present because its unsourced under WP:BURDEN and WP:BLPSOURCES policy. That's a problem relevant to AFD that goes beyond notability criteria. At some level we have to consider the practical application of all of our policies. Not just WP:SNG language. Policies don't exist in a vacuum.4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Go ahead and blank the page in that case; that's a content issue. AfD isn't for content issues, it's for notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Dclemens1971 To do so in the middle of an AFD would be WP:DISRUPTIVE editing and WP:POINTY. Further, this is a BLP policy issue which falls under criteria 9 of WP:DEL-REASON so your assertion that notability policy is the only relevant policy at AFD is false. Deleting under a WP:BLPSOURCES failure rationale is perfectly acceptable under criteria 9. One can meet an SNG but still be deleted if it fails a WP:DEL-REASON criteria external to a notability issue.4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The book is notable, but the author isn't since one needs multiple notable works to demonstrate NCREATIVE, but since this information would be on said article anyway, I could convert it into an article on the book if that is what people wish. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Please show where NCREATIVE requires multiple notable works? Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted for further discussion on possibility of converting to an article on the book
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources found by MCE89, meets WP:AUTHOR per multiple independent reviews of the book. On the fence about renaming the article though. Procyon117 (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Seán Ó Catháin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nonnotable Irish scribe --Altenmann >talk 18:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER. While I have found/confirmed/added a number of sources to the article, none deal with the subject in any meaningful depth. To the extent that the only biographical information at all is a somewhat "throw away" comment in a piece by historian Nollaig Ó Muraíle - where he gives a very rough age (60ish) as of 1724. Otherwise the only "claim to fame" is that the subject was involved in transcribing someone else's work. While being able to read/write/copy someone else's work was probably far more significant (in the 1720s) than it might now be in the 21st century, absent other biographical coverage, it isn't enough to meet WP:NWRITER. Which, among other things, expect that someone would have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant [..] or collective body of work". (Transcribing two works by Seathrún Céitinn isn't a "major role in co-creating a significant [..] body of work"....) Guliolopez (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've soft-deleted the other two but given the additional sources that turned up in this case, I'll relist this one in the hopes there's anything else. Has anyone checked Irish-language sources? Also, the relevant standard for a scribe would be WP:NARTIST.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: mentioned as a "scribe who left a vivid impression of his life and personality" (with analysis of his work, more than 1 page) in The Irish Classical Self: Poets and Poor Scholars in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, also see Galway: History & Society - Page 192; + coverage on the page. Notable and verifiable. More sources exist. Please do better BEFORES when you nominate historical personalities. -Mushy Yank. 16:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As well as the sources in the article, and the source found by Mushy Yank, a search of Google Books shows at least 3 other sources about this scribe (2 books and a journal), which only have snippet views and would thus need access to a hard copy to include as references. One source gives his address, which is more than is in the article now. The statement by one source that he "left a vivid impression of his life and personality" suggests that the first sentence in the current article is misleading. I think that, with the 7 sources identified so far, he would meet WP:BASIC, at least, and probably WP:CREATIVE, having transcribed two manuscripts and authored one. (The article Seathrún Céitinn gives a reason why scribes were important in early 17th century Ireland; perhaps that still applied in the early 18th century.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. asilvering (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Tabish Khan (art critic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of an art critic that fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources in article are limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCE WP:INTERVIEWS, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in media coverage of other topics, primary source bios and other non-independent sources. WP:BEFORE search turns up lots of his own writing but no independent WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the writer is known within the contemporary art scene in the UK and is currently active suggesting there may be more additions to the page in future. While I agree that searching for the author turns up lots of his own writing, a look at other art critics, writers and journalists with Wikipedia entries returns similar results. In terms of independent coverage, this article does include links to notable outlets that have sought his views on art stories and artworks. Suggestions for improvement rather than deletion may be a better course of action. Londoneditor284 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — Londoneditor284 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep these are good points. It would be a diservice to Wikipedia if well-known critics were expunged Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although this person is mostly only known within the contemporary British art scene, they have contributed numerous articles, interviews, and features in multiple outlets and have been quoted in many sources (as can be seen from the citations). They are clearly significant enough within their own field to warrant keeping this article. Any suggestions to improve the article would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.218.212 (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — 80.45.218.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Izno (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Quotations in sources are not enough to demonstrate notability (except in a limited case for certain academics), and authoring articles isn't either. What SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources can you offer? Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me do some digging and get back to you. The nature of the subject (someone who writes about other people's artwork for a living) makes it difficult by definition to have many SIGCOV sources. I feel this should be taken into account? 80.45.218.212 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel this way, that's a great discussion topic for WP:VILLAGEPUMP, not for a discussion where we can't change policy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could Dclemens1971 help in finding any better sources for this person/article? I've looked at pages for other critics too but can't seem to see how they fit the criteria if we are super-strict with SIGCOV Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
- Please strike your second !vote; editors are only allowed one !vote in an AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, the entire point of the WP:BEFORE search (which I did) was to find qualifying sources, and I didn't find them. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "[A] search turns up lots of his own writing but no independent [sources]" - isn't this exactly what we should expect though? Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It's what we should expect from a person who's not notable, I suppose. And as already mentioned, please strike through your duplicative !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: As per the nomination. Taabii (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this AFD discussion. Since there are several strong Keep arguments, I'm giving this discussion a little more time for supporters to locate RS that provide SIGCOV. If nothing appears, then I assume this article will be headed towards deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like more references have been added linking to interviews on BBC Radio London, a 'talking head' spot on a BBC documentary, and a reference from the Royal Academy of Arts. I think this person is notable enough for Wikipedia. I will find more references too. Likeabutterfly (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember: interviews are primary sources and mentions are not WP:SIGCOV to meet the applicable guidelines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been adding some more references and a good point was raised about WP:SIGCOV so I've looked at other notable UK based art critics - Jonathan Jones, Adrian Searle, Alastair Sooke, Mark Hudson and Waldemar Janusczak are the ones I could find who have Wikipedia entries. In all of the above I found they are all heavily reliant on WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. It's unclear to me how a practising art critic, or more broadly a journalist, can be eligible for a Wikipedia entry without heavily relying on WP:PRIMARYSOURCE? I did try to find whether this has been discussed on forums elsewhere within Wikipedia but I wasn't able to. I appreciate I'm relatively new here so happy to be directed to a relevant discussion if it's already been had. Londoneditor284 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- One relevant discussion is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; we don't base arguments at AfD on the existence of other potentially policy-violating pages that haven't been nominated yet. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for sharing that helpful discussion and I agree we shouldn't base arguments at AfD on the existence of other potentially policy-violating pages that haven't been nominated yet. However, the critics in my last comment are among the most notable art critics in the UK and if the bar for WP:SIGCOV is set so high that no UK-based art critic would be eligible for a Wikipedia entry then that would appear excessive given the UK has a significant art scene and critics play an important part in it. Londoneditor284 (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Really good points @Londoneditor284. Likeabutterfly (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Since several sources have been added, I'll put in a source assessment table below. I am concerned that several of the sources added do not mention Khan at all; there appears to an effort at WP:SYNTH here. Regardless, we still have zero qualifying sources toward GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to discuss new source analysis table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] - Delete. I looked at all the sources mentioned in the analysis table above (except the long video interviews), and agree with the assessment. https://cerihand.com/tabish-khan/ might have just a little bit of secondary coverage, but it's self-published and the part that's secondary isn't SIGCOV. Also, https://studiowest.art/exhibitions/17-now-introducing-2022-an-exhibition-of-shortlisted-artists-from-the-now/ isn't available, but its archived version does mention Tabish Khan, although only as a passing mention in a non-independent source. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Ram Krishna Bantawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV as per Safari ScribeEdits! Talk!. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Rahmatula786,
- I hope this message finds you well.
- Thank you for raising concerns about the article on Ram Krishna Bantawa. I firmly believe the article meets the requirements outlined in Wikipedia’s WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV guidelines. Below is an explanation supporting this assertion:
- Notability as an Author (WP:NAUTHOR):
- Ram Krishna Bantawa is a recognized author and lyricist in Nepali literature. He is known for his novel Saghan Tuwanlo (Shrill Mist) and novel Amalai Chithi (Letter to Mother-whose English translation is forthcoming.) His work has made a significant cultural impact, particularly within the Nepali community.
- His lyrics and songs are available on platforms such as YouTube.
- Saghan Tuwanlo is included in the curriculum of Tribhuvan University, highlighting its academic and cultural significance.His novels address meaningful societal issues such as women’s rights, untouchability, and Sati Pratha (the practice of widow immolation), further emphasizing his contributions to literature and social discourse.
- Significant Coverage (WP:SIGCOV):
- Independent and reliable media outlets, including Kantipur, Annapurna Post, and various Hong Kong-based Nepali newspapers, have provided coverage of Bantawa’s work. This demonstrates his influence in Nepali literature and music.
- He has been featured in interviews and podcasts that delve into his life, literary contributions, and societal impact, providing further evidence of significant independent coverage.
- Bantawa has received several awards and certificates from reputable organizations, including:Nepalese Literary Academy Hong Kong , Heavenly Path Hong Kong , Charu Sahitya Pratisthan , Hong Kong Nepalese Federation , Lyricist Association of Nepal
- The article references independent and verifiable sources that discuss Ram Krishna Bantawa’s work in detail. Taken collectively, these factors satisfy the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia under WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV.
- If additional information or sources are required to further support this assertion and enhance the article, I would be happy to assist.
- Best regards, Rasilshrestha (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel you know the person very well so you are aware of so many information. When i search on internet , I hardly find anything of significance covered in reputable media outlet about him .
- regarding references, plz go through all the references, and let me know if a single source in reputable Nepali media from NPOV meeting WP criteria. If your have such sources plz put it here other than what you have kept in references. Plz note that sources in reference are not of significance. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Rahmatula786,
- Thank you for your message. I want to clarify that I do not personally know the person. The information I’ve provided is based solely on my research.
- I understand your concerns regarding the importance of meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria. Unfortunately, there is limited online information due to the lack of archived articles in Nepali media. However, I have collected pictures of old newspaper articles about the author, including coverage from Nepali Hong Kong newspapers during a book launch press meet.
- I believe the article is written from a neutral point of view. While I cannot attach the offline sources here, I’d be happy to share them via email. Additionally, I can provide relevant YouTube(https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Ram+Krishna+Bantawa) links of his Songs, Interviews. Please let me know how you’d like to proceed.
- I look forward to your guidance and support, as I am currently gathering resources and information for my next article of Nepali Singer "Kuma Sagar" . Your insights will be invaluable in helping me refine my work. Please let me know how best to proceed.
- Best Regards, Rasilshrestha (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wikipedia's guidelines, contributors are discouraged from writing about individuals they personally know to maintain neutrality and avoid conflicts of interest. I can assure you that I have no personal connection with, nor do I know, the author.
- In my case, I refrained from including details about the author's awards and certificates, as I was unsure about their accuracy and could not verify them through reliable sources all i had were photographs of certificates and some mentions in newspapers. However, I conducted thorough research and included information about the author's books, song lyrics, and album, as these are well-documented and publicly available.
- I can provide you with ISBN of the books they were published through Sajha Publications and ASIA 2000 Ltd. Also you can search in youtube for his songs and interviews. I can additionally provide you with offline sources(Newspaper Articles, Magazines) relating to the author. Rasilshrestha (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there appears to be some sourcing not available easily online (the "surface" of the Internet). I'm going for a dive. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I searched under three different names for this author and his book, Shrill Mist. I also reached out to a Nepalese friend. I've come up with zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello,
- Thank you for letting me know.I am actively working on gathering reliable links and additional information to support it. I’ll share them in refrence of the article.
- The reason your friend might not have found information about the novel could be because it is an older work, first published in 2008. The author is not as widely recognized as prominent Nepali literary figures like Parijat, Laxmi Prasad Devkota, or Bhanubhakta Acharya, whose biographies are included in school curriculum. Additionally, the novel hasn’t been published online, limiting its accessibility to a broader audience. However, I’ve heard that the author’s new book is being published or translated into English, which might bring more attention to their work.
- It’s also worth noting that the author has spent a significant amount of time outside Nepal, particularly in Hong Kong. If you search for his name on YouTube, you’ll find his songs, which might provide some additional context.
- For now, I can provide the ISBN number of the book or any other available details. I’m actively working on finding more reliable sources and digging through news archives to provide further information Rasilshrestha (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- My friend is old, like me, represents Nepal to Worec, and reads voraciously. Bearian (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello.
- I have posted the photos of news archive i have clicked (Ram Krishna Bantawa News Articles : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive) in archive.org Rasilshrestha (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the link to external site as Ram Krishna Bantawa News Archive. Rasilshrestha (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is an unbolded Keep here and a previous visit to AFD which means that Soft Deletion is not an option. It usually all comes down to sources so a source analysis of what is present in the article would be helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1 : non neutral source ( media with no reputation has review of some book not a notable work , no findings on search on internet )
Ref 2 & 3 - not active link, neither found on google
Ref 4 - not at all a media of even minor entity
Ref 5&6 - he attends book inauguration program ( that’s all . Just his name mentioned)
Ref 7. Controversial piece about some legal issues being taken. Doesn’t support the article in any sense.
Rest sources - all are either repetition of above news or your tube material or some small contributions not covered in any genuine source. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added Ram Krishna Bantawa News Archive in external Links. They consist of photographs from old newspaper(offline Source). Rasilshrestha (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- From what i heard, his book "Aamalai Chitthi" is currently being translated and is expected to be published soon. Once it becomes available, I believe I will be able to provide you with more relevant online sources for further reference. Rasilshrestha (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as there is now clear evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources newspapers as shown in the news archive link mentioned above in the external links section of the article. Passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - COI - looking at the Archies i wonder how so much personal info (like old newspapers copies) and he is planning to make an English version of some book , can be gathered unless editor knows and have approach with the subject. Recent update in the article also describes the same thing. Nothing but a Desperate attempt.Rahmatula786 (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello,
- I appreciate your concern, but as I mentioned earlier, I have photographs of offline sources that I have used for my research. Regarding the English translation, it is based on news related to Aamalai Chitthi (https://annapurnapost.com/story/451773/), where the translator Devi Panthi has spoken about it.
- I assure you, this is not a desperate attempt, If it were, I would have included additional details of the author. Instead, my article focuses primarily on the subject's songs, novels, and books that he has written. For example, I have read Shrill Mist and am currently reading another work. The song I referenced is also publicly available on YouTube.
- Thank you for understanding, and I hope this clarifies any confusion. Rasilshrestha (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- How did u get all photographs , newspaper cuts , u kept in archives. What kind of research ur doing on him, can u clarify. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I collected photographs from various sources, including a news archive where old newspapers are stacked. Unfortunately, I couldn’t obtain any materials from Gorkhapatra, as they dont allow. Some of the newspapers I used were already in my possession at home, while others were gathered during my visit to a book launch event.
- The event was held to celebrate the author’s return from Hong Kong and his book launch. It featured displays of certificates for his awards and documents with official letterheads. However, I chose not to mention these certificates or documents in my article, as I wasn’t entirely certain about their authenticity or relevance Rasilshrestha (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you are related with him, how come you find or keen to find those stuff. Have you ever done such efforts to make any other article in Wikipedia. So far i can see , you are here just to make this article. If ur a genuine editor. You might have participated in various other articles, agenda . Did you understand it now. U have altogether 63 edits and almost all for this article only since May 5. That clearly shows what you are looking for . I guess u will come with some other explanations. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello,
- Thank you for your concern. I’m currently a student in my final year, and I have a deep interest in Nepali literature, arts, and culture, especially Newar traditions and history, as I am a Newar myself. I also enjoy learning about historical topics and sharing knowledge.
- I want to clarify that I am not connected to the author mentioned in the article, nor am I being paid for my contributions. If this were a paid effort, I believe the author would have hired someone more experienced than me. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I am still learning and this article has been my starting point.
- I plan to work on more articles in the future and am currently gathering resources for my next article as i have already mentioned earlier. Regarding the current article, my intent has been to present information in a neutral tone. If I were biased or paid, my contributions would likely reflect that, but I have strived to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines.
- Wikipedia encourages contributors to improve content where they can, and I believe my contributions are consistent with this principle.
- While it’s true that I haven’t contributed extensively to other articles yet, everyone starts somewhere. My current focus on this article does not diminish my genuine intention to support Wikipedia’s mission of providing accurate, unbiased information.
- If you have specific concerns about my edits, I’d be happy to discuss and address them transparently. I value constructive feedback and aim to contribute positively to the platform. Rasilshrestha (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Your explanation doesn’t justify how you gathered all those photos and newspapers pieces put in archives . Anyway i leave it for now. And want to see how other editors put their views. Rahmatula786 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello,
- I respect your concerns and your efforts to make Wikipedia a reliable and comprehensive source of information for everyone. As a newcomer, I would greatly value your feedback on how I can improve my article. Could you please guide me on how to make it more effective? Also, do you think there are any changes I should consider?
- Thank you for your time and assistance in advance. I truly appreciate your support and feedback. Rasilshrestha (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Seems offline sources are available as provided in [35]. The same source mentions that his book is included in the Tribhuvan University curriculum. Also suggest the original editor to add the list of awards with sources.nirmal (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comment. I will surely be working on making changes to the article and add list of awards received by the author. Rasilshrestha (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot read Nepali but it looks like the GNG has been met here. Bearian, some sources have been added since your !vote, so I am pinging you in case you would like to re-assess. Toadspike [Talk] 10:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, he insulted an older woman and dismissed her ability to read. Last time I checked, that's a grave taboo, the sort of thing that makes your Hajura'āmā box your ear. I'm done with this Sealioning. Bearian (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I sincerely apologize if my previous message came across as disrespectful. That was never my intention. I truly appreciate your friend's representation of Nepal at WOREC and admire her love for reading. If she’s interested, I’d be happy to lend her a book by the author. I only have two books with me one is the english translation of Saghan Tuwanlo and the other one is Aamalai Chitthi.
- I’m new to Wikipedia and still learning how things work. I plan to write another article soon, perhaps about a Nepalese singer or a temple in my hometown. Once again, I apologize if I caused any offense and hope to move forward respectfully. Rasilshrestha (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The consensus is almost around the corner.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sealioning aside, the offline sources are available and they seem to be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I'm also mindful of WP:NOBITE, so I will assume good faith on the part of Rasilshrestha.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you.
- I am currently dedicating my time to working on a new article while contributing to Wikipedia during my free time. I plan to publish the article within the next three to four months and would greatly appreciate your guidance, support, and constructive feedback throughout this process.
- Additionally, I would like to inquire about incorporating offline sources, such as old newspaper articles that are not available online. Should I upload these resources to the Internet Archive, as I did with this article, or are there alternative methods?
- Thank you. Rasilshrestha (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|
FA
A
GA
![[35]](https://ia600609.us.archive.org/30/items/20240930-120248/20240331_160729.jpg){kind=link}