Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Journalism

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Journalism. 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|Journalism|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Journalism.

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Journalism/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Journalism[edit]

Arthur Sweetser[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and has no particular claim to notability. JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPNews personalities[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ESPNews. There are no grouping sources on the subject, but the WP:NAVIGATION purposes are still there, so the ATD is better at the main. Conyo14 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to ESPNews per WP:ATD. A list that is useful being a category but not as a list, which is entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of SportsCenter anchors and reporters; unsourced and the target articles generally describe people as SportsCenter hosts rather than being specifically associated with ESPNews. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hunt (journalist)[edit]

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

Heavily embellished promotional bio created by an SPA, with no actual in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources. Except for nigeriasportsnews.com, which appears to be a puff piece, none of the sources refbombed in the article are actually about the subject—only tangential mentions from issues he has been involved in. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and Thailand. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Jamiebuba, who recently accepted the draft at AfC. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Environment, Internet, California, Florida, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alinur Velidedeoğlu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 19:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, and Turkey. Kadı Message 19:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to share my analysis about the sources provided by Fram in the 1st nomination.

Haberler.com and Gecce.com are unreliable websites, we do not use it as Turkish users in trwiki. Second link is from Hürriyet Kelebek, the article is about his divorce with his wife, magazine news, do not contribute to notability. Capital.com.tr website gives information about his explanations, do not meet independence criteria. In conclusion, most of the links are magazine news which do not contribute to notability. Kind regards, Kadı Message 19:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danialle Karmanos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Routine coverage and awards; no reliable sources. Likely not meeting ANYBIO BoraVoro (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Some coverage of her philanthropy [1], [2], [3]. Sources 2 and 3 I've listed are more about a yoga program she founded, perhaps create the article and redirect there or to the Children's Hospital in Detroit? Oaktree b (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Journalism, Health and fitness, Education, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, but the sources and article don't look notable in my eyes. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 14:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Shapiro (journalist)[edit]

(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.~~ ResonantDis_tortion 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). ResonantDis_tortion 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. ResonantDis_tortion 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on whether WP:AUTHOR is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ : I've also found this [4], but it also appears on the article author's (Howard Blas') website. I suppose it's a RS Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: and this in Variety [5] Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this article refers to a different Peter Shapiro (concert promoter) - who also writes books on the music business. Which makes source finding doubly tricky! ResonantDis_tortion 05:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I find no coverage for this individual, sources I'd identified are for a different person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investigate Europe[edit]

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

None of the sources that mention the subject cover it in depth, so fails the WP:SIRS test, and so fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Organizations, and Europe. UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As AFC reviewer, I'm a keep here. The article probably needs a bit of work, but it does appear to meet WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals on the surface, and appears to have been used and cited in a number of different reliable publication, as well as received coverage in various non-English sources, mainly French and Germans (see fr:Investigate_Europe for some more examples of this). I think that WP:GNG is met in this instance. Mdann52 (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyazzat Tanysbay[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO / WP:JOURNALIST BoraVoro (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Journalism, and Kazakhstan. Skynxnex (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks unquestionably notable to me. Geschichte (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree on notability.JoeNMLC (talk) 14:53, 29 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!} 22:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An article that meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:JOURNALIST. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Mbotela[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NJOURNALIST / WP:ANYBIO. BoraVoro (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Kenya. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to pass notability, sources 6 and 11 are the best. I also found this [6] and [7]. The last one I posted seems to suggest political notability as well. Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 21 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!} 07:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Procedural keep per meeting at least some credible and keep...able input. There can be sources since the article somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source per WP:RS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Orzech[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Artur Orzech

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

Seems to be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL reality show host. Fails WP:GNG. 178.164.179.49 (talk) 06:43, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which reality show? He did not nor does he currently host a reality show. He is an accomplished artist and journalist with very wide recognition in Poland and pretty cult following because of his hosting of the Eurovision transmissions. I wholeheartedly disagree with RUNOFTHEMILL label. 84.188.101.102 (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well-known Polish presenter and Eurovision Song Contest long-running commentator having commentated 26 contests. If we consider this RUNOFTHEMILL, we will need also to consider Peter Urban (presenter), José Luis Uribarri, José María Íñigo and many other well-known Eurovision Song Contest commentators' articles for deletion. Qcumber (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Well-known" is not a valid reason for deletion. And don't do the Pokemon test. - 178.164.179.49 (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, sir/madam, please, be polite. And explain me what does it mean "pokemon test". And if we need to consider this article for deletion, why don't we need to consider for deletion the articles I mentioned above then?

Thanks! Qcumber (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that the article is not expanded enough. Because of this 2021 events take the most part of the article. It's not good. The label prompts that someone will at least take the information from Polish Wiki. But I agree with 84.188.101.102 - I don't think that there is a srong reason to delete the article with RUNOFTHEMILL . Qcumber (talk) 02:00, 15 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!} 23:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Source in the article are routine mill entertainment news, promo, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth by independent reliable sources. BEFORE found similar, but nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 15:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appears to be a well-known Polish journalist, and his references to music broadcasters and cited content appear to be verified.Sanwalniazik (talk) — Sanwalniazik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak keep. Could find more and better sources than on e.g. Fredrik Renander or Amun Abdullahi.Atlassian (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's focus on existing sourcs that establish notability, not on a subject's reputation or notoriety.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick googling showed many sources: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16].

As well as article collections with and about him [17], [18], etc. Atlassian (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider myself competent to evaluate their quality, but taken on face value, the Polish Wikipedia version of this page appears more thoroughly referenced. Lubal (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously passes GNG per sources on our WP page and Polish page, which also include a printed encyclopedia, more is easily findable via Google (see Atlassian examples above). The RUNOFTHEMILL label seems like an excuse to ignore the coverage and not provide an adequate deletion rationale, and describing the subject as a 'reality show host' shows that the IP (who has since made a lot of questionable edits) didn't even bother to read the page, let alone do a minimal WP: BEFORE. --Cavarrone 07:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First thoughts: this article in its current form is rather lopsided to focus on the "dismissal" and reads more like a news article about that occurrence rather than being a biography about Orzech. After review: other editors are correct in pointing out that the sources used here (and actually in the Polish Wiki as well) are passing mentions that he served as commentator, mainly for Eurovision. While at first I was impressed with the size of the Polish Wiki page and the idea that perhaps his bio was more developed there, it is in fact just a prose version of a list of times he'd provided commentary or hosted a program; more like a resume than a biographical overview. The provided sources do not go into any depth about the positions to establish his notability; the sources are instead about the events he was part of. Overall, I do not believe that the subject meets GNG and NBIO. Grk1011 (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per coverage which are extensive. Per sourcing which are third party and reliable. Overall I would say WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would concur with Grk1011's assessment of the article. The parts on his background and career at TVP are wholly unsourced, and background is also wholly unsourced on the Polish article. Even within the Polish article, which would be the main start for improving this article, it reads more like a CV/resume than an article, and there are large chunks which are unsourced and thus fails WP:VERIFY. WP:BLP, and specifically WP:BLPRS, means that we have to have sources for any information which is potentially challengeable, which would result in cause for the the first two paragraphs to be likely for removal. Taking that aside, we then have an article which is exclusively about the subject's issues with TVP management and the resultant removal from TVP and return following the change in government; having an article with only this means it would fail on WP:SIGCOV. In general I don't believe even with the sourcing available on the Polish Wikipedia or mentioned here that there is enough verifiable referencing to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He is important enough that his departure from TVP in 2021 was covered by Polish newspaper of reknown, Gazeta Wyborcza, [19], and said article even included a (very short, yes) paragraph about his background (earlier career). Considering other sources present, I think the notability is here, sufficient if not impressive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unzela Khan[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Pakistan, and United Kingdom. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:33, 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 Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @Saqib, @Crosji, and @Kotebeet for the argument per se. Safari Scribe^{Edits! 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 Scribe^{Edits! 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 Scribe^{Edits! 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 Scribe^{Edits! 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 Scribe^{Edits! 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]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Paul Ingles (via WP:PROD on 22 January 2024)