Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors

WP:DSAUTHOR

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

Authors

Mohammed Ramzan Ali Miya

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

Non-notable writer. No RS found. Taabii (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Nepal. Taabii (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Whilst there is over 400,000 Nepalis in Qatar, the vast majority are migrant workers and not permanent residents. Since Qatar only grants permanent residency to about 100 people a year, the percent of Nepali permanent residents could be as low as 0.025% of that. So being president of the Nepal-Qatar Friendship Association does not seem to be a good enough claim to notability. Sahaib (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kasturi Murali Krishna

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

The article wasn't notable and not passed on the criteria of WP:GNG, and the cite was a IMDB which is not reliable sources. Royiswariii Talk! 14:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Royiswariii Talk! 14:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Telangana. Wikishovel (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete No citations, page isn't ok for main Wiki. Taksoh17 (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user came back from a year's absence to add badly written replies to 6 AFDs in a row. Geschichte (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not yet notable per WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG, with no significant coverage found in reliable sources in English (Kasturi Murali Krishna or Kasturi Muralikrishna) or Telugu (కస్తూరి మురళీకృష్ణ), just passing mentions and social media. Wikishovel (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kasturi Murali Krishna is one of the noted contemporary writer in Telugu Language at present. Article on his name is suitable to be placed in english wikipedia. Ofcourse I am searching for reliable sources for references which may took some time. Moreover this article is available in Telugu wikipedia since 2014 and didnot considered for deletion by any administrators. స్వరలాసిక (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be considered there as well if more sources are not found Geschichte (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Ciocan

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

BLP with no indication of notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pass of WP:Prof#C1 in a very low-cited field. May pass WP:Prof#C8 with a rather recent journal. The nominator has been on a deletion spree today. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC #8. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the case for WP:PROF#C8 as founding co-editor-in-chief of a notable journal is clearest, but he also has a weak case for WP:AUTHOR through multiple published book reviews [1] [2] [3]. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tabish Khan (art critic)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Visual arts, and England. 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)[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]

Alexandre Réis

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

Non notable businessman. Most of the sources in this article are about a Brazilian musician called Alee, born in Bahia, not about the Angolan businessman Alexandre Réis, who this article says was born in Luanda. The only article that talks about Reis is this one [4], which seems too promotional. It also looks like the creator of this article has been checkuser blocked on ptwiki. Badbluebus (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Authors, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, and Angola. Badbluebus (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article creator (and four other sock accounts that have edited it) have been indefinitely blocked: see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/3ydepartment. The AFD has to continue though, as it's ineligible for db-banned, and probably ineligible for db-spam. Wikishovel (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: per nom + COI + Fake referencing FuzzyMagma (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moliere Dimanche

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche

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

This is a copy of Draft:Moe Dimanche which the creator of both articles, User:NovembersHeartbeat, submitted to Articles for Creation back in September. This user has now made a new article, Moliere Dimanche, to bypass the AfC process, and redirected Moe Dimanche to lead back to this article. I have suspicions about WP:COI that I have expressed on NovembersHeartbeat's talk page (Dimanche is running to be Governor of Florida, which provides a clear motivation). NovembersHeartbeat also created Dimanche v. Brown for a legal case Dimanche was prominent within, and I am now also considering this for deletion. I would like some external advice on whether any of these articles pass WP:GNG as I am not well versed on American legal stuff like this. Spiralwidget (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement: My contributions to Wikipedia have been neutral, informative, and edited by Admins. I like editing on Wikipedia because I like spreading knowledge. My contributions include the Federal Magistrates Act, the JUDGES Act, and I'm currently putting together a page on the concept of Unsettled Law. These are topics that serve public interest and make people wiser, and why people rely on wikipedia more than any other source of enlightenment. This user SpiralWidget on the other hand has had his pages deleted because he abandoned them for 6 months. I take the spread of knowledge seriously, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.

Redirects and Related Articles: The user SpiralWidget says he has conflict of interest concerns, which were addressed when he first started editing the page Moe Dimanche. I think his primary reason for nominating the article for deletion is because it is a duplicate page. However, the wikipedia deletion policy specifically says

"If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand."

But SpiralWidget moved the redirect page anyway because he wanted a formal discussion. The redirect Moe Dimanche was created to aid navigation for users searching under this common nickname. As for Dimanche v. Brown, it is a separate topic with its own independent notability, as demonstrated by coverage in legal publications and its significance in state-level jurisprudence. These articles serve distinct purposes and are appropriately created. 2. Conflict of Interest: I have no personal or professional connection to Moliere Dimanche. The article was written to document a notable public figure in compliance with Wikipedia’s WP:COI and WP:NPOV guidelines. This was already explained to SpiralWidget, even though I do not owe him an explanation. I came across Mr. Dimanche's YouTube videos after a judge in my city reopened a death investigation into a death of an inmate at a local prison. The only videos I could find on that inmate were done by Mr. Dimanche's Youtube channel and I learned more about him and asked why there wasn't a wikipedia page about him. So I decided to do it, as I began to follow what was going on with him. I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I hope my contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Crime, Law, Haiti, United States of America, and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This wall of text isn't going to advance your case. Please don't accuse other editors of vandalism without evidence. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marginally Keep While I share suspicions that this is self-promotion by the primary contributor or meatpuppetry by the subject, I find that this does meet the general criteria for inclusion. Though not all the detail is necessary, the case cited does lend credence to the idea that the case and the subject of the case is notable enough; the precedent set is not nontrivial. Given the numerous local sources (admittedly probably pushing their own agenda), I think it marginally meets the threshold for inclusion. I would strongly advise User:NovembersHeartbeat to back off for a few days and likewise recant/strike his remarks about "vandalism". This is not "your" article. It is open to anyone to edit and improve within our guidelines. Buffs (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal keep When I first came across this draft in AfC, I refrained from reviewing as the notability seemed marginal–it could've gone both ways. However, I do feel that there are some significant coverage of him as an artist, but this article needs to be ridden of fluff and promotion. [5] I also found this book by Nicole R. Fleetwood that discusses his art in detail. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Kidder

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

This article doesn't have enough coverage in multiple reliable sources. As a result, it fails to satisfy WP:SIGCOV and WP:AUTHOR TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads as a resume and fails to establish notability and references are almost all self-published. Marleeashton (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: having written some books and started two non-notable companies is not a claim to notability. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 09:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources provide significant coverage, failing GNG (NAUTHOR in case). ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 12:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democrates

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

I humbly submit that this article may safely be either taken down, merged, or changed to a redirect. Its principal claim to notability, I believe, is the occasional misattribution of Democritus’s sayings or likeness to one Democrates.

With regard to the former, according to our article on Democritus, Diels and Kranz attribute these sayings to Democritus, and this article repeats this attribution. As for the likeness, it can hardly be denied that the bust in the picture is stamped “Democrates,” and, indeed, the Wedgwood Museum’s website seems to list the very piece here under that name; that Museum’s website is hardly informative. Now, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a similar piece also stamped “Democrates” but clearly catalogued as “Democritus.” Did someone at the Wedgwood company repeatedly make the same mistake? This hardly seems unlikely to me, but what say my fellow editors?

I do confess that the likeness is unlike some of those we have for Democritus, as that in the Villa of the Papyri, but it is hardly unlike his representation in numerous other portraits. Indeed, the painting by Coypel, loath as we may be to accept the authenticity of so modern a vision, seems based on an old tradition; a cursory search will, I believe, at worst, reveal to anyone conflicting traditions of his appearance with, nonetheless, a bias towards that seen in the Wedgwood bust. A worker at the company might have repeatedly made the mistake of labeling the likeness "Democrates", but did Coypel, who predates it, mistake with "Démocrite"? And many other artists in the tradition of the “laughing” or “smiling philosopher”?

That he was the founder of the basic concepts of democracy is obvious nonsense. (Among other consideration, were he a contemporary of Apollonius of Tyana, he would have lived centuries after the heyday of Athenian democracy!)

Mind you, Democrates is not an invalid Greek name. There is Democrates of Aphidna, and it is also attested to in, e.g., this article about Euripides, this work of the theologian Sepulveda, and, as I gather, a genus of beetles. Indeed, Livy apparently states that a Democrates led the Tarentines at the Battle of Sapriportis, but, although the name on that article links to the page about the supposed philosopher, their biographies could hardly agree. Furthermore, the name appears on the list of Druze prophets on this page, but I can find no citations to that effect. (This last, in particular, might make me suspect a hoax, though I make no such formal accusation here!)

Even if the Democrates article gave dates significantly after the laughing philosopher, they would not account for the difference in dates between the Tarentine commander and the Druze prophet, and, even if they did, they would not account for the article’s lack of biographical detail, unless a military command and posthumous religious veneration do not qualify as notable!

But, forgive me: I understand that those links need not really enter into the argument; they were, no doubt, added in good faith, or, at least, the one from the Tarentine commander to the supposed philosopher was.

Also, regarding biographical detail, the noted epistle of Apollonius seems to me suspect as a citation, for, as we have said, Democrates is a genuine Greek name, and the mere existence of an Apollonian contemporary by that name hardly justifies the rest of the article. (Also, in fact, it is epistle 96, not 88, but that may be beside the point!)

What harm would be done by noting more fully the occasional attributions to Democrates on Democritus’s article and changing Democrates’s to a redirect to Democritus? Or perhaps a disambiguation page could disambiguate things: a link to Democrates of Ephidna, a link to Sepulveda, a link to and a note on Democritus, and a note about the military commander. Pleased to take further part in the debate but better able to leave the question to more sage considerations than my own, I am sincerely yours, Twozenhauer (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, History, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Golden Sentences/ Golden Maxims of Democrates? This seems to be attributed to him even if nothing else is? I think the disputed historicity is clearly displayed in the article, so as it stands I am happy to keep, maybe with more commentary on historicity?Spiralwidget (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Spiralwidget: Thank you for your consideration of this matter! But even considering the Golden Sentences, I am in favor of one of the options I have mentioned above. Near as I can tell, the article’s best quality is its statement that “many scholars argue that these maxims all originate from an original collection of sayings of Democritus”; granted, as the article goes on to say, “others believe that there was a different little-known Democrates whose name became confused with the much better-known Democritus.”

But with regard to the former statement, I refer my fellow editors also to this article by a scholar named Searby, which I quote here:

“The two most important sources for the ethical fragments of Democritus are Stobaeus' Anthology and the so-called ‘golden maxims of Democrates’ (a much discussed misnomer). Through a careful comparison, [the scholar Gerlach] confirms Lortzing's conclusion that Stobaeus utilized a collection of Democritus' maxims nearly identical with the pseudo-Democrates collection, which, for [Gerlach], has the methodological consequence of making Stobaeus an indirect witness to that tradition, complicated by the thematic rearrangement in the Stobaean anthology.” (emphasis mine)

But, truth be told, I have not found a tremendous amount of discussion per se; scholars seem by-and-large in agreement about “pseudo-Democrates”. Another confident attribution of the sayings to Democritus is this somewhat older piece by M. L. West.

I do not have access to the Democrates article’s cited The Atomists, Leucippus and Democritus (though it is mentioned in the Searby review cited above), but, in the article’s defense, I could advance this notice from 1925, which seems to present the attribution of Democrates to Democritus as somewhat new; but, even if I did so, I would have, at best, to advance merger of the Democrates article with that of Democrates of Aphidna: the noted dissertation by Philippson is a refutation of one Laue’s dissertation from 1921, in which the latter scholar, according to this contemporary report, advanced Democrates of Aphidna as the author of the sayings, which were apparently already widely attributed to Democritus. The report speaks of the same Philippson paper thus:

“Philippson is led to discuss the authenticity, character, and transmission of the ethical precepts of Democritus in reviewing H. Laue's dissertation . . . Laue's main contention is that the collection of precepts bearing the name of Democrates is not to be ascribed to Democritus, but to the Attic orator of that name from Aphidna. On this basis Laue tries to distinguish the style and content of the Democrates maxims from what he considers to be the genuine sayings of Democritus. Philippson points out that thirty-one precepts of the Democrates collection appear also in Stobaeus, and probably more were contained in the lost eclogues. Therefore the testimony of the Stobaeus MSS., which show the frequent occurrence of Democrates for Democritus, although the latter predominates, makes it highly probable that the author of the sayings in the above collection was Democritus. Moreover Lortzing has shown that Stobaeus obtained his Democritus precepts from the same source from which the Democrates collection was derived . . . . “ (emphases mine)

So, I submit that note of the conflicting attributions might be made on the articles for both Democritus and Democrates of Aphidna; Democrates as we have it may, I believe, be deleted or changed to a redirect, but hardly stand as it is: at very least, he is not the only Democrates, and his article’s title should not suggest that he is the standout holder of that name!

This is more by way of a postscript: Is it not also curious that the note at the beginning of the article calls him a first-century philosopher? His supposed correspondence with Apollonius would place him then, but the article goes on to say that his Ionic dialect is evidence of composition at “a very early period”; but then his possible contemporaneity with Julius Caesar seems to bring him closer to the first-century (but B. C.!) date. But this could be fixed even were the article retained. Twozenhauer (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thalison Lanoa

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

Subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Sahaib (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rayah Kitule

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

There is no mention in any source about this person, like at all. The article was PROD'ed but it was denied FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, and Tanzania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It was a BLP prod (twice) not a prod. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find any sourcing about this person; only social media shows up. Blog posts used as sourcing don't help the article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all I found were mirrors and social media that have not been updated in years. Does not meet ANYBIO or GNG. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amirhossein Rezaeian

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

Can't be deleted via WP:A7 due to publishing a book but I don't see a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. Searches in Persian (امیرحسین رضائیان) don't yield any significant coverage in WP:RS. Being a masters student in engineering and speaking three languages doesn't make him inherently notable. This is also up for deletion in fa.wiki. A WP:SNOW delete would be an ideal outcome. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Engineering, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Couldn't find any SIGCOV and I can't find anything about their book, so seems highly unlikely that they could meet WP:NAUTHOR. Seems to have done some cool projects, but nothing out of the ordinary for a Master's student in electrical engineering and nothing that could count towards notability. MCE89 (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The mere act of publishing a book in Iran does not confer fame or notability. This individual has not demonstrated any substantial contributions that would warrant a Wikipedia entry. It’s important to note that articles related to this person have been created and deleted multiple times on Persian Wikipedia: fa:امیرحسین رضائیان, fa:Amirhossein Rezaeian, and fa:امیر حسین رضائیان (the latter is currently under a speedy deletion request). --NameGame (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Krishna Bantawa

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV as per Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!}. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Hong Kong, and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:38, 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]

Dr. Nawa Raj Subba

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nawa Raj Subba

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

Not meeting WP:BLP. Not a single in depth coverage of the subject in any neutral source. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Authors, Poetry, and Nepal. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: There has been no independent news media coverage or reliable sources about this person since the article was created in 2009 and salted in 2017. Subject does not pass GNG or NBIO Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG guidelines. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. He has published stuff buy nobody seems to have cited it. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NBIO. Salt, based on repeated attempts to create the article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julian R. Day

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

I am unable to find any news articles or publications about Julian R. Day (though it was hard to filter out results for the Julian day). This is a similar situation to User:Allykmac's other article, Graeme Brosnan (AfD here).

Almost all the citations are primary sources, ie. company/conference bios written by Day himself; the sole secondary source, "How $115 led to over 200 court appearances", is a review of his book on someone's personal blog. I don't believe Julian Day meets notability requirements. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Computing, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a bit of local news-y coverage of his charitable initiatives, but it's pretty weak and I don't think any of it could be considered SIGCOV [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. I don't think he comes close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. MCE89 (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Berry

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

Promotional and created by a user who has only edited this article. 🄻 🄰 17:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 🄻 🄰 17:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Radio, and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE — Article fails WP:GNG. While the subject is described as a bestselling author and entrepreneur, the references primarily consist of self-published materials (Goodreads) or promotional sources (espeakers.com) and press releases (Agility PR Solutions Newsroom). None of the cited sources provide in-depth, independent analysis of the subject's life or work.

Claims of “bestselling” status lack verification from independent and reliable sources and appear to rely on press releases, see: WP:RS. Subject also fails Wikipedia:AUTHOR. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 18:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John B. Lee

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show certain specific markers of achievement supported by WP:GNG-worthy third-party coverage about them in media and books -- but this article is completely unreferenced, and is not making any strong notability claims.
The main attempts at notability claims are that he's been municipal poet laureate of a small city, which isn't an automatic notability freebie without sourcing for it, and that he's been a recipient of various minor and/or unspecified literary awards that aren't highly prominent enough to confer instant inclusion freebies without sourcing for them. An award has to be notable in its own right before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so notability doesn't derive from the presence of the word "award" (or sticking the word "prestigious" in front of it) in the article text, it derives from the quality of the sourcing you can show to demonstrate that the award is a sufficiently notable and/or prestigious one in the first place.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on his sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Faid

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

Reliable sources mentioning Faid only mention him for a single thing: his theory that Mikhail Gorbachev is the Antichrist, for which he received the satirical Ig Nobel Prize. Here are three such sources; note that the third has merely a passing mention:

Levine, Art (June 4, 1988). "THE DEVIL IN GORBACHEV". Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 5, 2022. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
Abrahams, Marc (May 10, 2004). "Devilish digits". The Guardian. Archived from the original on August 8, 2022. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
Whisker, Daniel (July 2012). "Apocalyptic Rhetoric on the American Religious Right: Quasi-Charisma and Anti-Charisma". Max Weber Studies. 12 (2): 159–184 – via JSTOR. The periodic modification of the specific signs of prophetic fulfilment is a key feature of the discourse: no-one now presents Mikhail Gorbachev as a potential Antichrist, as did Robert Faid in 1988 (Faid 1988), or the Native Americans as Antichrist's army, as did Cotton Mather in 1693 (Boyer 1992).

In its current state, the article contains information far beyond this single thing. This information is either completely unsourced or copied verbatim, in what I assume is a copyright violation, from Faid's obituary on Legacy.com, an unreliable source which hosts user-generated content and nonsensically claims that Faid "held the honor of being in the top ten nuclear scientists until 1975".

In my opinion, this single thing for which Faid is known is not enough to make him notable. Instead, this information, along with the three sources above, would be better suited as a part of a different article, perhaps List of conspiracy theories § Antichrist or Faid's entry at List of Ig Nobel Prize winners § 1993. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk – edits) 22:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk – edits) 22:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to List of Ig Nobel Prize winners § 1993. Also add more info in the target page about his Antichrist theories, the one thing reliable sources confirm about him.

JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, Christianity, Engineering, Maryland, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The entire Biography section was all but a direct copy from his 2008 Baltimore Sun obituary - and has been since April 2009. I've removed the copyvio text and RD1'd the article history. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion, although I'm not opposed to a redirect. Bearian (talk) 02:39, 4 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. Owen× ☎ 13:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Brosnan

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

I believe Graeme Brosnan fails the WP:GNG criteria as there is almost no coverage of him that I can find. The majority of the article is unsourced self-promotion; the sources and links that are listed are either dead, do not mention him, or are citations of his own books.

Additionally, there is WP:COI from (I assume) Brosnan himself, editing under User:Brosnan.g.

This is my first nomination of an article for deletion - if I've done something wrong, procedurally or otherwise, please let me know. Iiii I I I (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G11.

The description of G11 reads:

This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.

As the text currently stands it is indeed exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as an encyclopedia article. I mean, this sample in the lead paragraph speaks for itself (and has not a single reference, naturally):

Commissioned by law firms and major insurance companies to prepare and write reports on forensic investigations Graeme started his own company, Brosnans Investigation Services which was tremendously successful and he continues his involvement with the company to this day.

Of course, the text could plausibly be replaced with a more neutral-sounding article, given that this version from 2012 wasn't nearly as bad. However, the G11 description says that this is preferred if the subject is notable, which he is obviously not. I can hardly find any mention of his name in any secondary source, let alone a source in-depth and reliable enough to satisfy WP:GNG. It's equally impossible to justify WP:AUTHOR by any of the four criteria listed there.

It's really unfortunate that this stuff has been live for anyone on the Internet to read for more than a decade. --Richard Yin (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had no luck finding anything in secondary sources, and seems highly unlikely that he meets WP:AUTHOR from what I could find. If not speedy delete, then definitely delete. MCE89 (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found some reviews of his plays, e.g. [11], [12], [13], and a book review [14], but I can't find multiple independent reviews for anything, so doesn't yet meet WP:NAUTHOR. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:34, 1 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.

Marshall Savage

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

This article on science fiction author Marshall Savage seems to fall short of WP's general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) for inclusion. To the extent that this author is notable, it is for his book, The Millennial Project which has its own WP article, and for founding the First Millennial Foundation, which is covered in the book's article. The body of this article is without references and is filled with minute autobiographical-type details. This article has had January 2024 {{BLP sources}} and {{original research}} tags for almost a year now. Dotyoyo (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dotyoyo (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything that can be sourced and is worth covering to The Millenial Project - couldn't find anything of substance that wasn't covering the book Iostn (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything worth merging into The Millenial Project, but others might find something worthy. The section called Writing career mentions an article he wrote, and a couple of incomplete projects he's worked on. But these are all unsourced and, IMO, non-notable. Dotyoyo (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The Millenial Project is not an existing article so it can't be a Merge target article. Any other arguments for what should happen with this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Millennial Project (note the correct spelling is with two ns). Though the subject may be notable, the vast majority of the article is unsourced and I don't see any sourced content worth merging. If sources are found, the redirect can be reverted. Jfire (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory J. Blotnick

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

It's unclear to me why this man's fraud conviction makes him notable. There were many people who committed PPP fraud and while large, his is not the largest or most well reported. I see a smattering of reporting, of the routine kind of reporting you usually see that is rewritten SEC or DOJ press releases.

Furthermore, I don't see how he is notable for his finance activities prior to his conviction.

This article seems to promote the man in a strange kind of way. I am concerned about the potential COI nature of this articles creation as well, because the Wikidata item for this page/person, Gregory Blotnick (Q131440997) is being actively edited by wikidata:User:Gregory J. Blotnick so shortly after creation. William Graham ^talk 05:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, and Finance. William Graham ^talk 05:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wish that fraud and misprision, my two least favorite crimes, were crimes that would automatically make a perpetrator notable, but that has not been consensus since 2007. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it can be edited to remove some sources and info but after seeing sources such as, The Palm Beach Post, Business Insider, www.justice.gov, Dealbreaker, which are already cited on Wikipedia for multiple notable entities, the page can be kept. It also passes general criteria of notability as per WP:GNG. I can help editing. NatalieTT (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article gained full notoriety, as it is an important case with a properly licensed work. It is not a template. It appears to comply with WP:GNG. so keep. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC) WP:BOLD strikeout as a suspected sockpuppet of Alon9393. Geschichte (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are articles about him in reliable sources like Bloomberg, Newsweek, Miami Herald, NJ and National Law Review.Kwftnlf (talk) 05:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability guidelines. Firecat93 (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While his case is covered in reliable sources, they mostly seem to be somewhat routine, nothing to me that really stands out. Quite a few sources are out there reporting on it, but I'm not sure if the content is enough for a keep. Procyon117 (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One count of wire fraud and one count of money laundering are minor crimes. Multiple counts on each would make more him more notable. He's not the FTX guy with multiple charges against him, this isn't Enron... Oaktree b (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of this so-called “notability” is really just sensationalized coverage of the individual’s criminal activity. I agree with the nominator and Oaktree b that this page should not remain on Wikipedia.50.39.138.50 (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tulika Mehrotra

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

Do not pass WP:AUTHOR or even WP:BASIC ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Uttar Pradesh, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a book review from Vogue India and an article from The Hindu on her books. Not too familiar with the English-language media landscape throughout India, but I think there's a good chance there is sufficient coverage that would make this pass WP:NAUTHOR (e.g., book reviews), especially considering the books were published by Penguin (one of the Big Five publishers). Bridget (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bridget Thank you for your efforts. I also conducted a search for relevant sources initially, but I did not find them to meet the notability criteria. Both sources are primarily interview-based descriptions. The piece in Vogue India is a one-time article by Ridhima Sud, and the The Hindu article also revolves around an interview. Neither of these, on their own, can establish notability. While publishing with Penguin is a significant accomplishment, it alone does not satisfy the notability requirements according to Wikipedia's standards. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 15:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR, interviews are not RS. Deriannt (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the interview / article format and whether or not the article contains facts vetted by a reliable source and observations that were independent of the subject. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a reference for her job (chief digital officer) and her marriage. I doubt they will make much difference. I'm not casting a vote on this one. Knitsey (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the additional work done on this article, I don't believe it qualifies for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is starting to look a lot better than when it was first nominated. Is anyone able to access the Business India article (or provide an archived link to it? Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Authors proposed deletions

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