|
- Ghulam Rasool Saeedi (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)
So earlier today, I moved this bio to the draft NS because I didn't find the subject WP:N enough. However, the creator Youknowwhoistheman moved it back to the main NS without any discussion. So, I think it's reasonable to nom. it for deletion. From what I can tell, the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or even AUTHOR. Plus, this piece is just a Letter to the editor, so one should simply ignore it when establishing GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Thanks for noticing, I think that before putting any new article in draft, it should be given time. So that it can be properly prepared. You put it in draft in a very short time without thinking. Secondly, always try to improve an article before putting it on deletion, rather than nominating it for deletion.
Now coming to the point, is this article really not passing the general notability of Wikipedia, WP:GNG? So, I think you should have done a little more in-depth study. If you search his name in Urdu and English, you will find mention of him in hundreds of books. And there are hundreds of books in which he is mentioned, but he has not come in the world of internet. Which is absolutely right according to Wikipedia policy, for more information you can read WP:Offline.
Yes, it definitely seems to me that the way you put the article in draft in a hurry, it seems as if you have some personal enmity with him.
Thanks, take care! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Youknowwhoistheman, It's strange that everyone thinks I have some sort of agenda or personal enmity with them. Rest assured, I don't have any personal issues with the subject. He's deceased—may he RIP. Tbh, I didn't want to nominate this for deletion. I wanted to give this bio a chance, which is why I draftified it instead of AfD'g it. However, you moved it back to the main NS - leaving me no other option but to bring it here. So you need to avoid WP:ATA and prove that he either meets GNG or AUTHOR. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah sure, it is left to other editors to decide. again, thanks you! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep. Meets Wikipedia's notability standards. There is an entry about this person in The Pakistan National Bibliography book from 1975 -- having a subject listed in a national book of biographies is always a good indicator of notability. Second, a Google Scholar search turns up his name referenced in a number of works. Finally, the citations provided in the article appear to be solid overall and support notability. --SouthernNights (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Saeed Reza Khoshshans (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)
Subject does not qualify under WP:GNG, as the sources (both in article and in BEFORE search) appear to be affiliated with the author, press releases, or trivial mentions. (One source might qualify, but we need multiple.) The subject also does not meet the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NWRITER. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bronwyn Labrum (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:AUTHOR. No inherent notability in the roles she held. LibStar (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, History, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep just barely. The Stuff profile and Wanganui Chronicle article establish some notability. I'm not sure if WP:AUTHOR is the only criteria that applies here, as she has been a curator and researcher at multiple museums and universities, most notably Te Papa which is the New Zealand national museum. To me, this establishes notability as an academic. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- How does she meet WP:NACADEMIC? LibStar (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bronwyn Holloway-Smith (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:ARTIST and WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete due to lack of secondary sourcing. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because the sources do not establish notability as per WP:ARTIST. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article needs some work but the subject is definitely notable. TheSwamphen (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Craig_Considine_(academic) (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 am unconvinced that the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines for academics. The article subject is a teaching professor with limited research output. Their research has not made a significant impact in their scholarly field (they seem to publish introductions for popular presses, published reviews of their other work is critical). They have not recieved a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national/internationl level. They are not an elected member of a highly selective/prestigious society. The subject does not hold a distinguished professor position or appointment at a major institution, nor have they been named chair or equivalent. The subject has not held a highest-level administrative appointment. The person appears not to have made a signifcant impact outside of academia in their academic capacity, where they are quoted in publications it is usually promotional material for one of their porjects. The subject has not been editor/EiC of a major/well-established academic journal. Other contextual clues indicate that this page exists purely as a promotional platform for the subject. There is very little activity on this page other than IP editors vandalizing the page to introduce promotional content, and then other editors removing or clarifying these edits. The creator of this page has since been banned for their promotional activities. I mean to disrespect to the subject of this article, but I struggle to see how they meet the criteria or need for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your platform and visibility as a junior academic, but I would suggest that this is much better accomplished through a personal website and social media channels. Having a cursory glance at the department the article subject belongs to, there are many far more senior scholars among his colleagues who are not similarly represented on this site. After spending significant time trying to improve this page, I doubt that with the available material it will rise to the level of inclusion. I welcome other editors' feedback and perspectives if I have been too harsh in my judgement. Boredintheevening (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- (correcting typo: line read "I mean no disrespect", not "I mean to disrespect") Boredintheevening (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Christianity, Islam, Ireland, England, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthew Levitt (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)
Originally created by some pro-Israeli sock puppet in 2008 that has since been perma-banned? Very sporadic updates since then. Cannot find any independent secondary sources (Washington Institute is main source of all the info, his employer, and is also a pro-Israeli thinktank?), and this reads more like some kinda WP:RESUME than anything else. I cannot think of any good way to salvage this without useful secondary and independent sources. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 22:30, 27 May 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 May 27. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Terrorism, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:Prof#c1 on GS cites. Also WP:Author for books on counter-terrorism. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC). Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- all the sources saying he is an important figure in counterterrorism are from his own books or the thinktank he is a part of User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The books alone are not enough but I found and added plenty of reviews (11 for 3 books), giving him a pass of WP:AUTHOR. I agree that there is also a case for WP:PROF#C1. The nominator's interjection of politics into the rationale for deletion is also troublesome. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you for edits and review citations.
- i didnt see matthew levitts citation count actually, kinda agree on wp:prof 1 now that he is notable, so i kinda change to weak keep maybe. not sure about wp:author.
- pointing out the politics is not troubling i think. his page reads very much like a wp:resume and does not indicate that the think tank he works at has been identified by both nytimes and others as both founded by aipac, run with money from aipac donors, and very much proisraeli.
- much of his work reflects this bias (i found his article by seeing folks uncritically cite his work as bedrock truth on wikipedia pushing that muslim brotherhood/hamas had infiltrated many if not most muslim orgs)
- much of it still reads like a wp:resume i think, especially as article takes significant amount of info from the thinktank. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- also for future help in determining the notability of these types of articles, how did you find such book reviews?
- honestly asking, the first few page of google search when i was looking were all just his own work or the think tank, didnt know where else to search or find other sources and would love new ways to find sources for articles User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I found many of them using a JSTOR advanced search with his name as a quoted string, checking the box restricting the search results to reviews. With that as a base, I filled in some more searching Google Scholar for works whose titles included the title of the book. E.g. search string intitle:"Hezbollah: The Global Footprint of Lebanon's Party of God". —David Eppstein (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Michel Pontremoli (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:BASIC C F A 💬 02:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment could you elaborate on why none of the sources meet BASIC in your opinion? FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sridharan Madhusudhanan (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)
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Marked for notability concerns since 2018. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Louis Hänni (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)
Only sources provided are a primary source and obituary in a local news outlet of a minor town. Search does not indicate any further coverage. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. No indication works have achieved level of significance to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, essentially per nom. Appears to have been a local history enthusiast, but a far cry from satisfying WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Nsk92 (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Meritt North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an actress and writer, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for actresses or writers. The main notability claim on the table here is that her work exists, which is not automatic grounds for an article -- the notability test doesn't hinge on doing stuff per se, it hinges on the amount of third-party coverage and analysis that has or hasn't been paid to the stuff she did in WP:GNG-worthy sources like media or books.
But this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- audiobook narration and writing credits sourced to the works' presence on online bookstores, acting credits sourced to her own self-published acting résumé, volunteer work sourced to the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, and I've already stripped a good half-dozen citations to IMDb on the grounds of IMDb not being a reliable source -- with not a whit of GNG-building coverage about her in reliable sources shown at all.
You don't make a writer notable by sourcing her books to Amazon as evidence that they exist, you make a writer notable by sourcing her books to reviews of the books by professional literary critics in newspapers or magazines as evidence that they got significant attention. You don't make an actress notable by sourcing her acting roles to IMDb or her own résumé, you make an actress notable by sourcing her acting roles to reviews of the films or television shows that singled her performance out for third-party analysis. And on and so forth.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Bearcat,
- I appreciate the opportunity to address the concerns raised about the citations supporting the role of Krystle Minkoff as an actress. It is important to ensure that the information on Wikipedia is both accurate and verifiable.
- Regarding the citations numbered 12-17, I would like to emphasize that these sources are independently verified and adequately support her credited role as an actress under her given legal name, Krystle Minkoff. These credits are also reflected on IMDb, which follows strict guidelines for crediting individuals in the entertainment industry.
- It is important to note that the aim should be to enhance the quality of information on Wikipedia, not to indiscriminately nominate entire articles for deletion due to issues with specific sections or titles. Each piece of information should be evaluated on its own merits and improved where necessary.
- There are numerous citations that document her work as an actress, voice actress, and author under both Meritt North and Krystle Minkoff. These sources collectively substantiate her contributions and career, aligning with Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and notability.
- I hope this clarifies the situation, and I am open to working collaboratively to address any specific concerns you may have to ensure the information remains reliable and well-documented.
- Best regards,
- ScorpioKLM Mooresklm2016 (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is room for improvement or a few items that you absolutely insist must be removed, let's work together to resolve them. I don't think that just because you may take issue with one or a couple items, that the entire page is not useful, informational, and in the public interest.
- ScorpioKLM Mooresklm2016 (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Again: we are not looking for simple verification that she had acting roles. The notability test for an actress is not passed by listing acting roles, it's passed by showing evidence that people without a vested interest in her career (namely journalists and film critics) have assessed her performances as being significant enough to analyze in prose. Such as reviews of the films or television shows which singled her performances out for attention, or journalist-written news articles profiling her. The notability test for a Wikipedia article is not "did stuff", it's "had independent third-party attention and analysis bestowed upon the stuff that she did by people who weren't just being paid to publicize her". So establishing notability as an actress doesn't hinge on her own résumé, or IMDB: it hinges on showing that her work as an actress has made her a subject that journalists cover as newsworthy in sources independent of herself. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there isn't any secondary sources which are good enough to make her notable. OhHaiMark (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Bearcat, how about deleting the title of actress and the acting credits table.
Would this suit you?
ScorpioKLM
- No, that wouldn't "suit" me, because you haven't properly established her notability as a writer or audiobook narrator either. Those work the same way: her notability for either of those things is not established by citing her work to itself as proof that it exists, and still requires literary critics to establish her books as significant by reviewing them in newspapers, magazines or literary journals.
No matter what occupation a person works in, they always still have to be shown to have WP:GNG-worthy coverage about it in reliable sources independent of their own public relations materials, and you simply haven't used any GNG-worthy sourcing to support this article at all. So the problem isn't resolved just by taking acting roles out of the article, because you haven't properly sourced her writing or narration work either. The whole article is badly sourced, not just the acting section alone. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
|
|
Bearcat, I respectfully disagree with your statement that we haven't properly established Krystle Minkoff's notability as a writer or audiobook narrator. Let me explain why I believe the proof is in the citations provided:
Multiple Independent Sources: The citations we’ve included are from multiple independent sources, not just self-references or public relations materials. These sources include reputable databases, industry publications, and media outlets that adhere to strict verification standards.
Industry Standards and Recognition: As a writer and audiobook narrator, Krystle Minkoff/Meritt North has received recognition within the industry. While you emphasize the need for literary critics to review her books, the notability can also be established through awards, nominations, and notable projects she has been a part of. These are documented in the citations provided.
Audiobook Narration: The role of an audiobook narrator is inherently significant within the literary and entertainment industries. Notability in this field is often established through the body of work and collaborations with well-known authors and publishers. Minkoff/North's work is verifiably documented through these collaborations, which are detailed in the citations.
WP
Compliance: We have adhered to Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines (WP
). The sources used to support her notability are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage about her work. These are not mere mentions but in-depth articles and features that highlight her contributions and impact.
Proof in Citations: The citations include reviews, interviews, and articles from established media and literary platforms. These are GNG-worthy sources that validate her achievements and establish her as a notable figure in both writing and audiobook narration.
Removing references to her acting roles does not diminish the verifiable and well-documented evidence of her contributions as a writer and audiobook narrator. The proof is in the detailed and independent citations that have been meticulously provided to support her notability in these fields.
I believe that a comprehensive evaluation of the sources will reveal that the criteria for notability are indeed met, and Krystle Minkoff's diverse career merits recognition across her various roles.
I highly disagree. Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North have been cited over 90 times by various websites, online newspapers, journals, and magazines crediting her for all of her audiobook narrations.
However, in order for IMDb to credit officially, it has to be reviewed and approved by IMDb, casting directors, directors, and other actors. It is up for scrutiny by all and goes through a lengthy period of scrutinization before being attributed a final credit. There are 3 titles to which Meritt aka Krystle Minkoff and credited by such, has this blue official IMDb credit. Just a consideration.
Here is the strict incliusion of credits criteria that must be met on IMDb. https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/filmography-credits/imdb-credit-eligibility-faq/GXMWNMB8LQCZYFH8?ref_=helpart_nav_10#
What do you mean by "eligible"?
A. As stated above, the first and most important thing is to have received a credit on the title. There are a few additional requirements -- we normally only list people who were credited in the original version of a title. For films, this means we'll only list people credited in the initial original theatrical release; for TV titles, it means people credited when the show first aired.
B. When a title is announced or in production and is added to the database, our editors will normally start accepting credits for it. These credits, as per the disclaimer on the page, are always subject to change and can be removed at any time. When the title is actually released (or about to be released) and credits are finalized by the production, our editors routinely compare our listing with the actual on-screen credits and delete any entries that cannot be verified or do not match. If you used to be listed on a title and your credit has disappeared, it means our editors could not verify its accuracy during one of these routine checks.
C. There are 4 credits that have been verified by IMDb.
2017
Reelz Murder Made Me Famous | 2 Episodes
Patron & Mother
2017
John Gotti | Season 3, Episode 8
Steak House Patron
2017
David Koresh | Season 3, Episode 7
Mother
2016
Queen of the South (TV series) | 4 episodes
Campaign Supporter
E. The title of "Actress" should remain associated with Krystle Minkoff due to her significant and well-documented career as a Voice Actress. Here are several key points supporting this stance:
Extensive Experience: Krystle Minkoff has an extensive body of work as a Voice Actress, which inherently falls under the broader category of acting. Voice acting requires a diverse set of skills similar to those needed for on-screen acting, such as character development, emotional expression, and vocal control.
Notable Roles: Her roles as a Voice Actress have been notable and influential within the industry. These roles contribute to her overall recognition as an actress, as voice acting is a respected and integral part of the entertainment field.
Published Credits: There are numerous publications and sources that document her work as a Voice Actress. These sources include her credited roles on platforms such as IMDb, which adhere to strict guidelines for verifying the legitimacy of professional credits.
Industry Standards: In the entertainment industry, individuals who perform voice acting are commonly referred to as actors or actresses. This standard industry terminology reflects the comprehensive nature of their work, encompassing all forms of acting, whether it be on-screen or voice-over.
Verifiability and Notability: The information regarding her career as a Voice Actress is verifiable through multiple independent sources, fulfilling Wikipedia’s criteria for notability. This substantiates her professional title as an actress, encompassing her voice acting achievements.
Removing the title of "Actress" would not only undermine her substantial contributions to the field of voice acting but also misrepresent the comprehensive nature of her career. Therefore, it is both accurate and appropriate to maintain the title of "Actress" to reflect her extensive and notable experience in the industry.
Kindly review and advise.
ScorpioKLM
Bearcat, I respectfully disagree with your statement that we haven't properly established Krystle Minkoff's notability as a writer or audiobook narrator. Let me explain why I believe the proof is in the citations provided:
Multiple Independent Sources: The citations we’ve included are from multiple independent sources, not just self-references or public relations materials. These sources include reputable databases, industry publications, and media outlets that adhere to strict verification standards.
Industry Standards and Recognition: As a writer and audiobook narrator, Krystle Minkoff has received recognition within the industry. While you emphasize the need for literary critics to review her books, the notability can also be established through awards, nominations, and notable projects she has been a part of. These are documented in the citations provided.
Audiobook Narration: The role of an audiobook narrator is inherently significant within the literary and entertainment industries. Notability in this field is often established through the body of work and collaborations with well-known authors and publishers. Minkoff’s work is verifiably documented through these collaborations, which are detailed in the citations.
WP
Compliance: We have adhered to Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines (WP
). The sources used to support her notability are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage about her work. These are not mere mentions but in-depth articles and features that highlight her contributions and impact.
Proof in Citations: The citations include reviews, interviews, and articles from established media and literary platforms. These are GNG-worthy sources that validate her achievements and establish her as a notable figure in both writing and audiobook narration.
Removing references to her acting roles does not diminish the verifiable and well-documented evidence of her contributions as a writer and audiobook narrator. The proof is in the detailed and independent citations that have been meticulously provided to support her notability in these fields.
I believe that a comprehensive evaluation of the sources will reveal that the criteria for notability are indeed met, and Krystle Minkoff's diverse career merits recognition across her various roles.
I highly disagree. Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North have been cited over 90 times by various websites, online newspapers, journals, and magazines crediting her for all of her audiobook narrations.
In addition: When a title on IMDb is announced or in production and is added to the database, thier editors will normally start accepting credits for it. These credits, as per the disclaimer on the page, are always subject to change and can be removed at any time. When the title is actually released (or about to be released) and credits are finalized by the production, our editors routinely compare our listing with the actual on-screen credits and delete any entries that cannot be verified or do not match. If you used to be listed on a title and your credit has disappeared, it means our editors could not verify its accuracy during one of these routine checks.
D. There are 4 credits that have been verified by IMDb.
2017
Reelz Murder Made Me Famous | 2 Episodes
Patron & Mother
2017
John Gotti | Season 3, Episode 8
Steak House Patron
2017
David Koresh | Season 3, Episode 7
Mother
2016
Queen of the South (TV series) | 4 episodes
Campaign Supporter
E. The title of "Actress" should remain associated with Krystle Minkoff due to her significant and well-documented career as a Voice Actress. Here are several key points supporting this stance:
Extensive Experience: Krystle Minkoff has an extensive body of work as a Voice Actress, which inherently falls under the broader category of acting. Voice acting requires a diverse set of skills similar to those needed for on-screen acting, such as character development, emotional expression, and vocal control.
Notable Roles: Her roles as a Voice Actress have been notable and influential within the industry. These roles contribute to her overall recognition as an actress, as voice acting is a respected and integral part of the entertainment field.
Published Credits: There are numerous publications and sources that document her work as a Voice Actress. These sources include her credited roles on platforms such as IMDb, which adhere to strict guidelines for verifying the legitimacy of professional credits.
Industry Standards: In the entertainment industry, individuals who perform voice acting are commonly referred to as actors or actresses. This standard industry terminology reflects the comprehensive nature of their work, encompassing all forms of acting, whether it be on-screen or voice-over.
Verifiability and Notability: The information regarding her career as a Voice Actress is verifiable through multiple independent sources, fulfilling Wikipedia’s criteria for notability. This substantiates her professional title as an actress, encompassing her voice acting achievements.
Removing the title of "Actress" would not only undermine her substantial contributions to the field of voice acting but also misrepresent the comprehensive nature of her career. Therefore, it is both accurate and appropriate to maintain the title of "Actress" to reflect her extensive and notable experience in the industry.
Review policy at this URL: https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/filmography-credits/imdb-credit-eligibility-faq/GXMWNMB8LQCZYFH8?ref_=helpart_nav_10#
Kindly review and advise.
ScorpioKLM
Here is a full list of all of platforms her audiobooks are verified published at and credited to her as both Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North. You cannot dispute her notability as an audiobook narrator.
Cites for Audiobook Narrator:
https://www.storytel.com/in/narrators/meritt-north-525444
https://play.google.com/store/audiobooks/details/Murder_to_the_Max_Witches_of_Keyhole_Lake_Book_2?id=AQAAAEBMSh8KQM&hl=en_IN&gl=IN
https://www.booktopia.com.au/murder-to-the-max-meritt-north/audiobook/9781987150421.html
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/audiobook/moonshine-valentine
https://tantor.com/narrator/meritt-north.html
https://www.audible.com/author/Meritt-North/B01M3YNGSB
https://www.audible.com/search?keywords=meritt+North&skip_spell_correction=true&ref_pageloadid=not_applicable&ref=a_search_t3_noResReversionUrl&pf_rd_p=7a98be95-bbf9-496e-a68c-79ce2c792da5&pf_rd_r=W5AQ8S259PFJWH9HB8CB&pageLoadId=rbqvivlTWdN7xXYc&ref_plink=not_applicable&creativeId=85146ce4-11f8-4d13-a628-fae19c79acaa
https://www.audiofilemagazine.com/audiobookindustry/meritt-north/
https://www.audiobooks.com/browse/narrator/290347/browse/bookclubs/13/Sci-Fi-and-Fantasy-Audiobook-Club
https://nextory.com/se-en/narrator/meritt-north-776316
https://library2go.overdrive.com/library2go-94-111/content/media/4578862
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/jarods-heart-elise-manion/1122395364
https://www.overdrive.com/creators/1811412/tegan-maher
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/moonshine-valentine-tegan-maher/1131877202
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/list/mystery-thriller-audiobooks-9-99-or-less/sIjyvZtfms0HgQjU4Thsmg
https://libro.fm/audiobooks/9781987192872-cruise-ship-caper
https://www.chirpbooks.com/audiobooks/murder-of-the-month-by-tegan-maher
https://www.audiobooks.com/audiobook/20-dating-advice-for-women-the-secrets-most-men-dont-want-you-to-know/323130
https://open.spotify.com/show/5sHA37R3rNqqTTCZbKLMyn
https://www.storytel.com/tv/books/the-heartsong-cowboy-488808
- What part of you do not establish a person's notability by citing her work to itself as proof that it exists, and have to establish notability by citing her work to THIRD-PARTY MEDIA COVERAGE AND ANALYSIS ABOUT IT are you having trouble understanding? Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously disregarding all of the media formats, platforms, publications, audiobook production companies, websites, and audiobook resellers citations that prove her notability as an established voice actress. Here are the cites again. I emplore you to review each one.
Cites for Audiobook Narrator:
https://www.storytel.com/in/narrators/meritt-north-525444
https://play.google.com/store/audiobooks/details/Murder_to_the_Max_Witches_of_Keyhole_Lake_Book_2?id=AQAAAEBMSh8KQM&hl=en_IN&gl=IN
https://www.booktopia.com.au/murder-to-the-max-meritt-north/audiobook/9781987150421.html
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/audiobook/moonshine-valentine
https://tantor.com/narrator/meritt-north.html
https://www.audible.com/author/Meritt-North/B01M3YNGSB
https://www.audible.com/search?keywords=meritt+North&skip_spell_correction=true&ref_pageloadid=not_applicable&ref=a_search_t3_noResReversionUrl&pf_rd_p=7a98be95-bbf9-496e-a68c-79ce2c792da5&pf_rd_r=W5AQ8S259PFJWH9HB8CB&pageLoadId=rbqvivlTWdN7xXYc&ref_plink=not_applicable&creativeId=85146ce4-11f8-4d13-a628-fae19c79acaa
https://www.audiofilemagazine.com/audiobookindustry/meritt-north/
https://www.audiobooks.com/browse/narrator/290347/browse/bookclubs/13/Sci-Fi-and-Fantasy-Audiobook-Club
https://nextory.com/se-en/narrator/meritt-north-776316
https://library2go.overdrive.com/library2go-94-111/content/media/4578862
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/jarods-heart-elise-manion/1122395364
https://www.overdrive.com/creators/1811412/tegan-maher
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/moonshine-valentine-tegan-maher/1131877202
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/list/mystery-thriller-audiobooks-9-99-or-less/sIjyvZtfms0HgQjU4Thsmg
https://libro.fm/audiobooks/9781987192872-cruise-ship-caper
https://www.chirpbooks.com/audiobooks/murder-of-the-month-by-tegan-maher
https://www.audiobooks.com/audiobook/20-dating-advice-for-women-the-secrets-most-men-dont-want-you-to-know/323130
https://open.spotify.com/show/5sHA37R3rNqqTTCZbKLMyn
https://www.storytel.com/tv/books/the-heartsong-cowboy-488808
____________________________________________________
I truly appreciate your dedication to maintaining the high standards of Wikipedia, and I believe the existing citations do indeed establish her notability.
Multiple Independent Sources: The citations provided come from various independent and reputable sources, not just self-references or promotional materials. These include industry publications, reputable databases, and media outlets known for their strict verification standards. These sources collectively affirm her contributions and impact in the fields of writing and audiobook narration.
Industry Standards and Recognition: As a writer and audiobook narrator, Krystle Minkoff has received significant recognition within her industry. Her work has been acknowledged through awards, nominations, and notable projects. These achievements are documented in the citations provided, demonstrating her industry impact.
Audiobook Narration: The field of audiobook narration is a respected and integral part of the literary and entertainment industries. Minkoff's collaborations with well-known authors and publishers further establish her credibility. The citations detail these collaborations and highlight her extensive body of work, which is an essential aspect of her notability.
Compliance with WP
- We have adhered to Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines (WP
).
The sources supporting her notability are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage of her work. These sources go beyond mere mentions, offering in-depth articles and features that highlight her contributions and achievements.
Proof in Citations: The citations include a wide range of reviews and articles from established media and literary platforms.
These are GNG-worthy sources that validate her achievements and establish her as a notable figure in both writing and audiobook narration.
Removing references to her acting roles does not diminish the well-documented evidence of her contributions as a writer and audiobook narrator. The detailed and independent citations provided substantiate her notability in these fields.
In addition, IMDb’s rigorous process for verifying credits further supports her legitimacy in these roles. For example, her verified acting credits include roles in "Murder Made Me Famous," "John Gotti," "David Koresh," and "Queen of the South." These credits reflect her significant involvement in the industry.
The title of "Actress" should remain associated with Krystle Minkoff due to her extensive and notable career as a Voice Actress. Voice acting requires a diverse set of skills similar to on-screen acting, and her notable roles have been influential within the industry. Her work is documented by credible sources, including IMDb, which adheres to strict verification guidelines.
I believe a thorough evaluation of the sources will reveal that Krystle Minkoff's and Meritt North's career merits recognition across her various roles. Her contributions to the fields of writing and audiobook narration are clearly well documented here and significant.
I invite you to review the comprehensive list of platforms where her audiobooks are verified and credited to her, both as Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North. These platforms include Barnes & Noble, Storytel, Google Play, Booktopia, Kobo, Tantor Audio, Audible, AudioFile Magazine, and many more. Each of these sources supports her notability as an audiobook narrator, which cannot be disputed.
Thank you for considering this perspective, and I look forward to your thoughts on how we can further ensure the accuracy and completeness of this article.
Best regards,
ScorpioKLM
In response to this "establish notability by citing her work to THIRD-PARTY MEDIA COVERAGE AND ANALYSIS ABOUT IT". I have cited to third-party media coverage and analysis about it. Please re-review the citations sent above.
Kindest Wishes,
ScorpioKLM
|
- No, you have not cited third-party media coverage and analysis about it, you're citing her own work's presence as titles for sale in online bookstores. Again: you do not establish a writer's notability by citing her work to its own presence on Amazon or Audible or Kobo or Booktopia or Overdrive; you establish a writer's notability by citing it to journalists and/or literary critics independently reviewing her work in a newspaper, magazine or literary journal. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - We can't use literally everything proffered above by ScorpioKLM (online storefront/connexion to subject), and the same rationale applies to almost every source in the article itself, with those that aren't merchants/her publishers being content-free profiles or stuff she wrote under the "Krystle Minkoff" moniker. None of the lot is usable in any way, shape, or form. ScorpioKLM, we don't cite IMDb because multiple discussions over the years in re their verification and fact-checking (i.e. their editorial oversight) have concluded it's a joke. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the article is sourced to primary sources. I can find no coverage at all to substantiate inclusion of this biography on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Despite the wall of words, notability is not established. Mccapra (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In addition to the above, there's statements like "Meritt North had a successful 20-year career in sleep medicine prior to her career in the entertainment industry" - her entertainment career began in 2016 when she would have been 33. One link in her bibliography (Journal of Sleep Disorders & Therapy) is flagged as an unreliable source. Orange sticker (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Admin comment I've p-blocked Mooresklm2016 from here & the article to allow discussion to continue uninterrupted. They have made a sufficient case for closer to take it on board when assessing the discussion. Star Mississippi 14:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: per G11. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above comments - obviously promotional and inadequate third-party coverage. HarukaAmaranth 01:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not satisfy the GNG; no SIGCOV RS available. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Along with everyone else I couldn't find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. WP:GNG isn't met. TarnishedPathtalk 06:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Timbo's Rule 14. "Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't." (March 2012) — tim /// Carrite (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul Chantler (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)
These sources cover the subject only in relation to his death, nothing more, as per my WP:BEFORE. Therefore, the article fails WP:BLP1E, which states, "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
Breakdown of cited sources:
- 1: https://podcastingtoday.co.uk/one-of-the-founders-of-podcast-radio-paul-chantler-has-died/ (Single Event fails WP:BLP1E)
- 2: https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1883531/BBC-radio-executive-Paul-Chantler-dead (Single Event fails WP:BLP1E)
- 3: https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/17547788.bbc-wiltshire-celebrates-30th-birthday-three-decades-first-broadcast-1989/ (Interview type article, no coverage of the subject)
- 3: https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/tributes-paid-to-radio-exec-and-friend-of-premier-paul-chantler (Again single event tributes Fails WP:BLP1E)
- 4: https://radiotoday.co.uk/2024/03/friends-and-colleagues-pay-tribute-to-radio-executive-and-entrepreneur-paul-chantler/ (Fails WP:BLP1E)
- 5: https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/tributes-paid-after-death-of-influential-uk-radio-executive-304320/ (Again a single event fails WP:BLP1E). GrabUp - Talk 12:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. GrabUp - Talk 12:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I may be missing something, but these obit articles have been published as a result of his death - but it is *not* the event of his death that is the reason why the papers find this person notable enough to publish the article. For example one source states "He was one of radio’s most respected and popular characters". Evidently the coverage is not in the context of a single event. I do not see how WP:BLP1E applies. ResonantDistortion 16:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ResonantDistortion, WP:BLP1E simply mentions “Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.” These sources are published in context of a single event which is his death! It is simple as that. You said “but it is *not* the event of his death that is the reason why the papers find this person notable enough to publish the article.” If you really think he is notable then cite some reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject. But these sources are just in the context of his death. GrabUp - Talk 16:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Grabup - no - it really is not that simple. You appear to be arguing a blanket statement that obituaries do not count towards notability. If I was to die tomorrow of a fairly common disease, I can assure you I would not get an editorial obituary in any publication. None of the cited obit coverage is published because the actual event of the subjects death is particularly newsworthy, but because of the accomplishments of the subject during the rather more sustained period of their life. There is an interesting discussion here which I suggest you review, [8], which includes a quote by the author of BLP1E, @Jclemens, that "but in no way, shape, or form is an obituary one event". For the record, I have no opinion on the notability of the subject nor the reliability of the sources - I am rather challenging the blanket assumption that (editorial) obituaries do not count towards notability. ResonantDistortion 02:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the sources mentioned above, except one, are citing RadioToday’s report; they are not reporting independently. Additionally, the sources are filled with statements from connected individuals, tributes, and similar content. Do these types of obituaries count towards notability? The first source appears unreliable to me, as it lacks editorial details. Other sources are just repeating what others are saying. GrabUp - Talk 03:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with User:Grabup - the articles mainly say what a wonderful guy he was, but do not give the kind of information that would support notability. I noticed that some of the articles mentioned that he had co-authored a book (but none gave a title). I cannot find any publication by him nor his name in the biggest name authority file. Lamona (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Rajan Simkhada (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)
It reflects poorly on us to host blatant spam like this. I went in to clean it up but couldn't find sources to support a Wikipedia biography. Most links are dead but those that I could access didn't support the claims or cover him in any depth. The is WP:UPE spam and the subject fails WP:GNG. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Abhirup Dhar (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 of the sources besides https://www.firstpost.com/art-and-culture/abhirup-dhar-probes-the-paranormal-in-new-book-ghost-hunter-gaurav-tiwari-9969841.html show notability. We need atleast 3 such sources to justify inclusion. Sohom (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Riksundar Banerjee (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)
Failing all criteria of WP:NBIO, publishing articles and non notable books not fulfils WP:GNG Pinakpani (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The subject fails to meet WP:GNG as there is no in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources. However, the subject's book titled "The Book of India Ghosts" may meet WP:AUTHOR criterion number 3, which requires multiple reviews of books to establish notability. There are two reviews available for that particular book, one from The Hindu and one from The Hindu BusinessLine. Both reviews are from different publications and authors. GrabUp - Talk 18:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The author's work has not made a significant monument, or won significant critical attention. One of his book "The book of India Ghosts", got a review from hindu.com but this cannot be considered the criteria needed to pass WP:AUTHOR because the work needs to be widely cited by peers or successors. RangersRus (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @RangersRus: WP:AUTHOR’s third criterion states: “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 are two reviews from The Hindu and The Hindu BusinessLine from different authors. I think this is sufficient to meet the third criteria, as multiple reviews from independent sources are available. There are other criteria, but if a subject meets any of them, then it can be presumed to be notable. GrabUp - Talk 15:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Marilyn I. Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant coverage. May be notable, but insufficient sources for an article. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Authors, Women, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Donating money to a university and getting something named after you in return (the Marilyn I Walker School of Fine and Performing Arts at Brock University) is not cause for notability, unless it leads to in-depth independent coverage, and even then it would be only one event. I found one published review of her one book [9] calling it a failure in meeting the purpose of its title, and useless for scholarship, but maybe nice as a coffee table book. Negativity aside, one review of one book isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR.
- Note: there is another person with a similar name who meets WP:PROF#C1; we have a separate article on her, Marilyn Walker. I found this discussion via the academics and educators deletion sorting list, but beyond her donation to a university Marilyn I. Walker does not appear to have been an academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/question - is this a case where a redirect is more appropriate? The Brock University article has a section on the Marilyn I. Walker School of Fine and Performing Arts. Almost all the coverage in newspapers.com talks about the building of the school. I imagine people will look up her name in that context, and a redirect to the section on the Brock University article would be useful. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and I can't find independent secondary coverage about her. Contributor892z (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter Shapiro (journalist) (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)
Journalist falls short of WP:NBIO and WP:GNG tests; no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of him separate from his own writing and coverage of his books. (His book "Turn the Beat Around" would likely pass WP:NBOOK if an article were created on it, but Shapiro's notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from it.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Music. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning towards keep on the subject of this article. I disagree with the nominators assessment here - particularly as the applicable guideline is WP:AUTHOR, where independent coverage of the author's work is sufficient to evidence notability; WP:INHERITED does not apply. I have found and added several independent citations to the article, including a number of RS book reviews and RS articles stating the importance of the works of Shapiro. As such I !vote to keep this article per WP:AUTHOR#3: 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. Article could really use expansion however. Per WP:NOPAGE I also recommend a single central article on the author and his works, rather than multiple articles on the books themselves.
- I recommend Modulations: A History of Electronic Music is redirected to Shapiro if the result of this AfD is to keep. ResonantDistortion 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate you adding reviews links to the article. I disagree with you on the eligibility for WP:AUTHOR #3. While the author has created a couple of independently notable works, none of the reviews or sources describe the significance of his body of work; they are about individual works. While I agree that Modulations and Turn the Beat Around are notable, I don't think there are any sources to describe them as "significant" nor do any sources discuss them in the context of Shapiro's body of work. Considering that the only available sources are reviews of individual works, the notability should go to the works themselves. Furthermore, the reviews provide virtually no WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, which would leave this article a WP:PERMASTUB without verifiable biographical information. The absence of significant coverage points toward delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But there is enough coverage to write a non-stub article on Shapiro that is focused on his works. Frankly I find the sourcing on Modulations: A History of Electronic Music to be limited - it struggles to meet notability guidelines and it should be merged and redirected to the parent article Modulations: Cinema for the Ear, as a section in that page. As for WP:AUTHOR#3 - I am struggling to follow the above logic as the guidelines clearly do not require secondary coverage of the works as a body; a single book suffices. In this case we have at minimum one fully notable work and several more works with RS secondary coverage over a WP:SUSTAINED period, and the best place to manage this would be the single article on the author. To support this with an example, His 2005 book, The Rough Guide to Hip-Hop, has reliable sources both recommending it and stating it is important; but this is likely not enough for a standalone article, so the author article is the next best place. (Note - given the age of some of the books - we can very likely presume that offline coverage exists beyond a standard search engine). ResonantDistortion 16:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's what I question on criterion 3: is his work "significant and well-known"? I agree the one book meets the standard of "notable," but "significant and well-known" is different, if undefined. I find it difficult to understand how someone's work could be significant and well-known and the author of them remain sufficiently unknown that there are no reliable sources to validate even birth date or country of origin. (Sources disagree about whether Shapiro is American or British.) I'd be OK with a redirect of this page to an article for Turn the Beat Around if one were to be created, but without anything significant coverage I'm defaulting to WP:COMMONSENSE for a situation in which we can't really construct a biography. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we are going to disagree on this one. Given there are a number of reliable sources dedicated to the subjects' other books, but are not sufficiently SIGCOV in and of themselves to create several separate articles for each, the best option (per my version of WP:COMMONSENSE!) would be the other way round: Turn the Beat Around: The Secret History of Disco should redirect to Peter Shapiro (journalist) so we have a single page for all his works. ResonantDistortion 02:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - With the addition of new sources, I don't see any particular concern with notability. Shankargb (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. To elucidate why I think the (many) book reviews of Shapiro's work don't constitute WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, here's what the sigcov policy states: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Right now, the article as it stands is just a few sentences, hardly any about Shapiro himself and about his work, and the sourcing doesn't really permit anything further to be written. As noted above, we don't even have the most basic information about his life. Thus my argument that the books are notable but that the author is not. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Scott Pomfret (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)
Clearly and blatantly promotional. Reads like a resume. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Finance, Law, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: A few obituaries (not about this person) are all I find; this reads like a Linkedin biography. Nothing notable, simply a working lawyer. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not notable as a lawyer. If notable at all, this would be as a gay-catholic author. And then the article would need work. That part was already implied above. Rather than taking a clear position, providing my partial findings to those commenting after me. gidonb (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Christianity. gidonb (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Paasch (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:PROMO article creator wordlessly moved back from draftspace with no substantial coverage BrigadierG (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:PROMO 104.7.152.180 (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Khan Shein Kunwar (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)
Was nominated for AfD before, closed as soft delete, and then restored. Clearly does not meet notability guidelines; the only source is a dead link. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- added the reliable source about the author. https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/detail/faaslon-ka-safar-khan-sheen-kunwar-ebooks/ Nurain 2007 (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- added the reliable source about the author. https://www.rekhta.org/ebooks/detail/faaslon-ka-safar-khan-sheen-kunwar-ebooks/ Nurain 2007 (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not meeting notability for authors; the one source used in the article isn't helpful. I can't find any sort of discussion in a RS. This was deleted on the 8th of May. I'd likely SALT as well. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If I had to remove all the unsourced content on the page, only the title would be left on the page. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2024 (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.
- Ahsan Akbar (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)
Based on the previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Devil's Thumbprint, I still do not think this passes WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. There is not enough SIGCOV in RSs to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agree with the nominator. - AlbeitPK (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Clearly notable. Not just as a poet/columnist, but also as a successful cultural producer/entrepreneur whose literary festival is the biggest of its kind in one of the world's largest countries (at least three times bigger than the UK by population). Anglophones may or may not be aware of it, but that is utterly irrelevant to the Bangladesh-based popularity of Dhaka LitFest. --Peripatetic (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete References appear to be not about him, notability not established; unclear why his role in Dhaka LitFest meets notability thresholds. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Orhan Dragaš (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article has a serious lack of WP:RS, which is why I have doubts about notability. There are only five links, and the last one is the website of his own organization, International Security Institute. HPfan4 (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Vikrant Adams (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:NPOL, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Can’t see them passing any of these. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] - Delete per nom 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter Wuteh Vakunta (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 professor. I can't find a Google Scholar for him; ResearchGate indicates he's only been cited 22 times (which seems too low to meet WP:NPROF). A search for sources only turns up profiles for him and sites hawking his books. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.Although he does not seem to satisfy WP:NPROF, subject may possibly satisfy WP:AUTHOR (C3). I do see a few reviews of published works; not sure if there is enough, though. Qflib (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Lya Stern (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 article is mainly a resume. Most of the sources in the article consist of dead links from websites that are related to Lya Stern; the rest of the sources either have brief mentions of her or don't mention her at all. After doing a Google search to see if there were sources that could be added to the article, the only significant coverage I found of her was from a website that listed Wikipedia as a source. The rest of the information I found was from her YouTube channel and mentions of her from her students. As a result, she doesn't met WP:GNG or WP:NBLP. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Romania, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One source via Newspapers.com goes into some depth. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (Weak) - There is a big gap in WP on instrumental performers who have created the American musical/movie music scene, and in general the encyclopedia is too quick to delete (especially for women and minority performers), but here I think the AfD is correct. The Baltimore Sun article gives a bit of notability, but the other sources do not. A blurb on the back of one's teacher's independently published book is not enough. There needs to be more and I could not find anything that led to more than what a local performing teacher would have. Glad to be proven wrong. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is a staff written bio at AllMusic here and an album review here to go with the detailed Baltimore Sun article linked earlier by Hameltion. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What does Eudice Shapiro have to do with the subject of this article? That Tired TarantulaBurrow 23:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just agreeing with That Tired Tarantula above -- @Atlantic306 you have linked to reviews for a different musician. If Lya Stern had an Allmusic staff bio, that would be relevant, but I could not find one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that, have struck my vote and comment. In my defence the erroneous AllMusic bio is the first reference in the article but I should have noticed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Unzela Khan (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)
It appears the subject doesn't meet the WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR, as their works don't seem noteworthy enough. The press coverage in WP:RS also not significant or in depth enough, so fails to meet WP:GNG. Does not satisfy WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the article is not noteworthy.
- Crosji (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Or better to be moved to the draft Kotebeet (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I disagree with the nominator. A British Muslim Awards recipient is already qualified for a Wikipedia entry per WP:ANYBIO and from the article was cited to a reliable source per WP:RS. Also, as a journalist of a notable newspaper or TV which she was for Huffpost give us assurance of passing WP:JOURNALIST. She also wrote a book which is notable enough to qualify WP:NAUTHOR. What's then needed for an article? Not being braid doesn't mean it came be a standalone article. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Courtesy ping to @Saqib, @Crosji, and @Kotebeet for the argument per se. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I so saw so may PR but was able to get reliable ones. See here and here. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- SafariScribe, I'm curious about how she meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria simply for working at Huffpost. The policy doesn't say anything like this. Additionally, is writing just one book sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- One book which is reviewed by reliable sources is considered as notable. But may not require a article. However, we usually have problem when journalists wrote about others as few or less writing about them, in other way, winning an award for such excellence in media is part of both ANYBIO and JOURNALISM. While these are additional criteria, the article generally meets our general notability guidelines where being cited to reliable sources, verifiable and significantly covered per WP:SIGCOV. Even as there isn't any fact for such, a redirect should have served better not only when she won a major award and a book mistake reviewed. Let's be truthful herein and ignore certain additional essays. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, because the article raises concerns regarding its credibility due to several factors: 1) Excessive Referencing: With only six sentences, the presence of ten references seems disproportionate. This abundance of citations may suggest an attempt to over-validate the content rather than provide genuine support for the points made. 2) Questionable Contributor: The primary contributor, "User:Kotebeet," [contributed approximately 80% of the content], is no longer active on the platform. This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor.--Crosji (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Crosji, you are wrong here. I disagree that an AFD process requires the author except in major cases like undisclosed WP:UPE or thereabout. I am asking you do look at the article by our process of inclusion; WP:GNG. If you have any issue with the creator, then face them. I can't find any argument you're making besides you vote says "not noteworthy". Meaning? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Crosji, also there is no issue of WP:REFBOMB here. I don't seem to understand your statement
This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor, when a creator doesn't require anything on whether to delete an article or keep them. However, this is a process and you can't vote twice. Do remove any of the votes. Thanks! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Focus on policy, not issues that can be addressed via editing and Crosji, please strike your duplicate vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
FA
A
GA
