|
- Rob Heppler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable person. Article created promotionally. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Uri Gordon (anarchist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO and lacks WP:SIGCOV. The sources here, as well as those found in a WP:BEFORE search, are primary in that they consist mainly of interviews and self-published works by the article subject. No in-depth, third party articles by reliable publications would be found. As an editor commented on the article Talk page, appearance in other language Wikis is not among criteria for evaluating notability for the English Wikipedia. Geoff | Who, me? 16:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politics, Israel, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (not yet a !vote): his Google Scholar profile [8] shows three publications with triple-digit citation counts; this sounds strong to me but how does it compare to others in similar topics? I found and added to the article three published reviews (in academic journals from mainstream publishers) of his book Anarchy alive!, but I didn't find reviews for his other books Routledge Handbook of Radical Politics, Six Zionist Essays, Hier und jetzt: anarchistische Praxis und Theorie (maybe a translation of Anarchy alive!?), and Anarchists Against the Wall: Direct Action and Solidarity with the Palestinian Popular Struggle. Another review of at least a second book would be needed for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a wee note that Six Zionist Essays was written by a different Uri Gordon. — LittleDwangs (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Confusing. Thanks for the correction. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I also found a couple of reviews of Anarchists Against the Wall, one in Fifth Estate (Spring/Summer 2014, Vol. 49 Issue 1, p34-35) and one in Social Movement Studies (May 2016, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p335-338). — LittleDwangs (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Judith Sewell Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Mdann52 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Law. Mdann52 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I don't find book reviews, so not passing AUTHOR. No mentions in media that i can find, what's now used for sourcing in the article is primary or linked to paper sources that I can't locate online. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If you need reviews for the books, they are in the Amazon postings of the books. I may not be a Wikipedia expert, but I do know that Judith has, in fact, written these books. If you want to look her up as an author in general: https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3AJudith+Wright+EdD&s=relevancerank&text=Judith+Wright+EdD&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1
- Does that somehow not qualify? I do not understand. KreftMM (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @KreftMM: By "reviews" we normally mean articles discussing books and covering them in depth, not just reviews on shopping sites. Mdann52 (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for that feedback. It will help me in other regards - however, I am no longer working on Judith's Wikipedia page in any regard. KreftMM (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. in WP:AUTHOR, one of the criteria for notability is that 'The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique'. It looks to me like Wright is either the originator of the concept of soft addiction or at the very least a leading author on the topic. Also, I can find book reviews- I am not sure where you were looking.Spiralwidget (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2024
- @Spiralwidget: I note the soft addiction thing - but I don't know if it's a "significant new" concept, as the concept seemed to be known and studied under the name "behaviour addition" from before her time (and the article redirects there now) - however with that being the only claim to notability, I didn't think it met the bar. Mdann52 (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(UTC) EDIT: I have to review this as instead a Comment. I could not find reviews outside of Amazon Books and she seems to receive remarkably little attention by major publications.
- Reviews are available on the books in every place they are available for purchase. I can also provide additional book reviews, as well as sources for where she has been in the media. Such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlE0y5gYH1I, https://www.grandmagazine.com/2018/03/transformational-learning-age/, https://beta.prx.org/stories/94668, https://blacktortoisepress.com/tag/oprah-winfrey-show/
- I'll admit that I don't know what types of sources are preferred on Wikipedia, but I can assure you I can provide the right kind if you educate me. KreftMM (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not too knowledgeable either, but per WP:RSPRIMARY, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over others. Procyon117 (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Illinois, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wright's coining of soft addiction, per WP:AUTHOR, makes her notable. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR, according soft addiction.--Mooon FR (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I refined my search to "Judith Wright" + soft addictions, and found multiple sources through ProQuest and Newspapers.com and through Google that verify she did coin the term. Sacramento Bee, Sac Bee continued, Orlando Sentinel, author, Judith Wright, coined the term "soft addictions" more than 12 years ago, Judith Wright, who labeled the phenomenon more than a decade ago, a term she coined several years ago, so she appears to meet WP:AUTHOR#2. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per sources provided by Isaidnoway, WP:AUTHOR#2 is satisfied. Sal2100 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Era Tak (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:NBIO. Current references are mostly primary or from YouTube. There are a couple to Amar Ujala, but they don't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV. There doesn't seem to be much improvement in terms of references when compared to the previous afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Era Tak. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination, still not yet notable per WP:CREATIVE. Couldn't find SIGCOV in RS in English or Hindi (इरा टाक) - apart from what's cited here already all I could find was a typical WP:NEWSORGINDIA softball interview on News 18. Wikishovel (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. The article seems to be more promotional. Ciudatul (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Poor unreliable sources on the page. Page reads as publicity WP:PROMO. Fails notability with no significant achievement or influence notable by the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Vladimir Anisimoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be built on no reliable/secondary/independent sources and I'm unable to find any myself. Aza24 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Science. Aza24 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Philosophy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Russian Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article for this person, but it has articles on other people with this name who might be notable by English Wikipedia standards. See ru:Анисимов, Владимир Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, though the article was created 10 years ago, there are zero reliable sources not connected to Anisimoff himself, and I can't find any in Russian. Artem.G (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- G. B. Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cunard. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sources by Cunard only prove that this is a case of WP:BLP1E; person known only for writing misleading attack pieces on Gandhi. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The books were published and received coverage over a several year period so that isn't "one event". PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E. Cursory search does not show anything different. Azuredivay (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We shouldn't push to delete material merely because we disagree with it; the question is whether it is notable. The two related AfDs on two of his books Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination have turned up possibly as many as six in-depth reliable reviews for the first book and three for the second, well over my threshold for WP:AUTHOR. These are mainstream sources (and point out the fringe and partisan nature of the books) so the requirement of WP:FRINGE for mainstream coverage is met. He may be a partisan conspiracy theorist and he may be incorrect on all points; per FRINGE, that raises a higher bar, that we use mainstream and not fringe sources to cover him, but I think that bar is met. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Katherine Salant (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:MILL journalist, does not fulfill WP:NJOURNALIST criteria. Broc (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Broc (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Enough coverage of her books to pass AUTHOR [9], [10], [11] Oaktree b (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Carl Faingold (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've cleaned this article up a bit but after looking for additional information to add more substance, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. He's certainly had his name attached to many published papers, but they are pretty niche in content and many co-authors don't have their own pages. Looking at the page history, it appears that this may have been initially authored by a student or someone associated with him. Most recently, an IP user copy/pasted a numbered list of his papers but started at "112" which makes me think it came from somewhere else, but I can't find where. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NPROF#1. On GS I see at least 12 publications in GS with 100+ citations which is generally beyond the bar required to clear #1. Scopus lists him at an h-index of 44 with 10 publications with 100+ citations and Scopus is generally more conservative than GS. So based on this it seems like a pretty clear cut case for NPROF#1. --hroest 10:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Author of quite a few books and peer-reviewed studies, but I don't find critical review of his books, nor any indication of the academic notability needed here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 17 June 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy Byrd (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)
Newer article created in March 2024; sourced ok enough, but the information doesn't seem to be related to the subject very much. I can strip away that blatently unrelated information, but I'm not able to find much on this guy to warrant even a stub afterwards. He's got an OK social media following, but doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Lindsey40186 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, he doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. I think it is best to delete this article. Johnmarkdyer (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn. And I removed massive sections, seconding Lindsey40186's concern. - Altenmann >talk 19:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can only find podcasts or various videos about this individual, nothing we can use for notability. Seems that after the non-RS are taken out, we're left with a stub, simply confirming he exists... Nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with the above editors. This appears to be an easy call to delete, even after the initial edit and cleanup. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The main category for this one would be nauthor, but the books do not seem to have had a wide audience (e.g. listed as #30K in the religious and spiritual category on Amazon, #300K in Christianity). One book seems to have an independent publisher ("Destiny Image") but the other (2 volume) seems to be published by the organization Fire and Fragrance which he is associated with. Lamona (talk) 19:55, 17 June 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.
- Ahmed Zitouni (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 does not meet the notability requirement NBV2010 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Kirk Lynn (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 subject appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. JFHJr (㊟) 22:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep here, but a weak one, following some rework. I've added some sources and reworked the article. I think there is a narrow claim to notability, his first book seems to have received a fair amount of coverage in some reliable sources (and been made into a film, unfortunately most of the coverage of that seems to be focused on the actor, not the film, so I've left that out), as well as some of his play work. Others may disagree, but I think he's just over the line. Mdann52 (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak-ish delete I think it's close but not quite GNG. He has written one book that was reviewed in major local newspapers. He has written and adapted plays in that same locality. In 2020 his book was adapted to the film as a short. (I don't find much about it at IMDB) That's about it. At this point I think he is a fish in a pond, but not beyond it. Lamona (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Troy Stetina (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 nominated this before but it was closed as no consensus since there were no other participates. Same reasoning as before applies: fails WP:MUSICBIO and quite promotional. Can’t find any in-depth sources on the subject. The cited Washington Post article [13] is about the subject’s father, Wayne Stetina. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Indiana, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strong Delete. I suggest that, if nobody comes to support it, it should be considered as a prod. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]- Delete. This subject is not notable enough for an article. Qflib (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. To be notable through publishing works on how to play guitar, we would need in-depth published reviews of those works, and I don't see them. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Weak Keep on a hunch (i.e., easily overruled). Coverage is basically blog and genre-magazine style, which needs a lot to add up to notability, but there is a lot out there (even discounting some that seem more like PR/Press-release interview type). Head of department (conservatories often don't have traditional academic ranks) but of a small department. Each part of his career adds up to slightly less than the relevant notability guideline, but together they peek just over the edge for me. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Any non-blog, non-PR sources you would like to share? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He is well known in the guitar community and among musicians for his instruction releases. The problem is that this article is poorly sourced so I can see why it attracts a deletion nom. I know that his Left-Handed Guitar: The Complete Method by Stetina, Troy (2001) is quite popular. Yes of course, it takes more than good sales. His Fretboard Mastery was very popular too. He's had articles about him in various guitar mags both paper and online. The Guitarist magazine March 1993 is one. He had article beside Dominic Miller and Tony Zemaitis as you can see. The Guitar Noise website which is a huge go-to source for axmen and axeladies refers to Stetina as an "internationally recognized guitarist and music educator". There's others too but I don't want to get too caught up with this one. Further info below
* This is from the magazine, Modern Drummer, September 1993 - Page 106 SPEED AND THRASH METAL DRUM METHOD by Troy Stetina and Charlie Busher.
* And there's an article by Stetina published in Guitar One, Volume 9, No 2 February 2006 - Page 176 RETURN OF THE SHRED Come Together Two Essential Hybrid Scales
There's more but searching gets flooded with the dozens of releases he has had put out. Karl Twist (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two books on Amazon have about 200 reviews each. This one is ranked 16,000+ in Music Instruction & Study. By no stretch of the imagination are these "popular" books and they don't contribute to notability.
- Is this an article he wrote?
- 1) The Guitar Noise website seems to be just a group blog about how to play the guitar. 2) The link you gave is just him responding to someone else's comment. That "internationally recognized" line is a promotional line he wrote himself (as per his own website).
- The two articles in Modern Drummer and Guitar one are articles written by Stetina not articles about Stetina. They don't contribute to notability. You would need to find in-depth articles about Stetina.
- Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the Amazon books have more reviews than releases by so-called main-stream artists. They do appear to be quite popular! And I wasn't trying to use them as proof of notability. Just to give an idea of what the guy's exposure is. Somebody in Germany must have heard of him, there's a German Wikipedia article (needs work) See here.
Forget the Guitar Noise one, that wasn't the one I meant to put in. Sorry. It was another online music news source. I have to try and remember. There was also a reliable source good size review on that I thought I had put in but for the life of me it's vanished. I went back though the page history and it isn't there. Maybe I thought I did. Perhaps it was on notepad, and I closed it before I had edited it in. It was similar to the Fret 12 review but not related to the sale of the product. The Modern Drummer (if it isn't about him) and Guitar One still show his profile. They are well-respected and notable publications. Well, there's no article page for Guitar One yet. The articles below are relaible,
- OnMilwaukee, Apr 07, 2005 - Despite impressive resume, Stetina lacks name recognition at home By Bobby Tanzilo
- Metal Shock Finland, October 13, 2011 - Interview with TROY STETINA: Music truly is the world’s best hope to cross borders, cross cultures and show humanity what we have in common. Interview by Mohsen Fayyazi
- Maximum Ink Madison's music magazine, September 2012 - Second Soul
AN INTERVIEW WITH TROY STETINA OF SECOND SOUL BY MIKE HUBERTY
- Guitariste Metal, 3 Octobre 2014 - Troy Stetina interview
And these below are helpful,
- The Journal Times, Sep 25, 2013 - Center Stage /Oversoulss /5-19 - By Loreen Mohr
- The Journal Times, - Center Stage/Oversoulss - By Loreen Mohr
Easily notable! He's had a huge influence on a good amount of major notable guitarists. I can find more but I have been drawn into this as I do sometimes and have neglected other stuff.
Thanks
- Karl Twist (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but almost all of those sources are interviews with the subject. Interviews are considered primary sources and they don’t contribute to notability. The only non-interview source in there is the Journal Times article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello again Dr. Swag Lord . Well actually the first part of the OnMilwaukee article is not interview. The subject was researched (as it's the normal procedure) before the interview was conducted. And if considered primary, it's not like it's from the subject's own site anyway. Yes, I understand that primary sources and sources related to the subject themselves cannot be used to support content in a page. By that's not what we're looking at. We're looking at the status of the subject and the reliable sources that support the assertion that he is a notable person. The Maximum Ink is similar. Well, the first 196 worlds / 15 sentences (not including the title) are about him and not by him. The interview is secondary. There are two Journal Times articles. Then there's the Modern Drummer article by Matt Pieken about his book-cd combo, Speed and Thrash Metal Drum Method that he did with Charlie Bushor. It's about his work, not written by him.
Going on what user Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert said earlier with "together they peek just over the edge", well with what I've come up with, the interviews by respected news sources etc., his contributions to major music magazines etc., collectively they well and truly sit on top of the table. And the Modern Drummer review proves it more. And this below, a C&P of what I edited into the article page, According to La Scena Musicale, Stetina was booked along with Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, and Jonathan Kreisberg to appear at the Wilson Center Guitar Competition & Festival which ran from August 13 to 15, 2015, at the Sharon Lynne Wilson Center for the Arts. La Scena Musicale, 3 August 2015 - International Guitar Legends Headlining Wilson Center Guitar Competition & Festival: 2015 Artists include Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, Jonathan Kreisberg, Troy Stetina It's obvious when Stetina is mentioned in the same headline such as these premier artists, he's well and widely known in various fields and notable. His volume of work speaks for itself, especially when artists such as Mark Tremonti, Michael Angelo Batio, Bill Peck, and Eric Friedman appear on Troy Stetina: The Sound and the Story etc. etc.. For him not to be notable would be an exception to the rule.
- Karl Twist (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The Modern Drummer article is a short review of one of Stetina’s books. It has no in-depth content of the subject’s life or activities.
- Please note, the article in La Scena Musicale is an example of WP:SPONSORED content. At the bottom of the article it states: “LSM Newswire is La Scena's Newswire service. Organizations can post a press release on our website for a fee. See the media kit at our advertising page at https://myscena.org/advertising”. Since that is an ad paid for by the band it is not RS and does not add to notability.
- You say there’s two Journal Times articles, but you linked to the same one twice.
- Please take a look at WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because the subject has been associated with notable individuals does not make him notable himself.
- Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- On a further note, “metalshockfinland.com” and “guitariste-metal.fris” are certainly not RSs (obviously blog sources). Also, Maximum Ink seems WP:QS at best. There’s no published editorial board, no published editorial policies. Additionally, it’s quite suspicious that the article links to the Wikipedia page of Tony Stetina and links to places where you can purchase Stetina’s CD (seems pretty promotional to me). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the Modern Drummer review isn't what I would call short. It's an acceptable size. It's not supposed to be about an "in-depth content of the subject’s life or activities". It's a review of his work.
- Ok if one of them such as La Scena Musicale is an example of WP:SPONSORED content. There's enough of the other! And as I mentioned with Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert saying "but together they peek just over the edge for me", I go further and say there's enough reliable stuff to sit him on top of the table!
- Sorry my bad about the Journal Times. Yes, it was one article. There was the additional updated page.
- Well the WP:NOTINHERITED would be the card to pull out if there were no other good supporting info about him. But thankfully there is! The point I made about him being associated with notable individuals was that he is regarded as prominent.
- “metalshockfinland.com” and “guitariste-metal.fris” are possibly blog type in format. But the first one has been used to reference around fifty+ pages here, (most of them about heavy metal no surprise) and is a respected source of info.
- Nothing suspicious or promotional about the German page for Troy Stetina. Because he's been so prolific with his published works, the searches get flooded with them and for someone who has German as a first language and English as second, this is how a page would be likely to add up. I'm not going to make any assertions about lazy editing because I'm not going to judge an editor's ability. I'd just go with the language thing.
Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well since the topic of this article is Troy Stetina, the Modern Dummer review fails WP:SIGCOV. There’s no material about Stetina specifically. If you really think metal shock Finland is an RS, then I think I’ll open up a discussion on RSN. Also, I never mentioned the German Wikipedia page—I was referencing the Maximum Ink article that has a link at the bottom directing us to Stetina’s en WP page. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I opened a RSN discussion on the above source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#metalshockfinland Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The Modern Drummer article doesn't fail anything! It's just a good review of a release of his. A review in a well-respected publication. Actually, you said earlier (18:29, 11 June 2024) that it was written by him. It was actually written by Matt Pieken. And actually, I believe that somewhere here someone said that there were no reviews of his work. Well there's the Matt Pieken review in Modern Drummer and another which I have to re-find. Incidentally, Pieken has done reviews for artists such as Jane's Addiction. And OK, minus one Metal Shock by Mohsen Fayyazi if it be so. Well, we still have good enough on him to support the Keep status.
Yes, I see that you've opened an RSN discussion on Metal Shock. OK, what can I say. The fact that Stetina has written for two of the two of the biggest selling guitar mags is additional proof of his status. He was employed by Guitar One and wrote for Guitar World. Just a quick grab of the Ozwinds site where it says, "Go inside the mind of one of the most accomplished guitar instructors in history", you said something previously that this was copied from his website. Well, perhaps one or two others may have done this, or he has copied on to his website what has been said about him. Most to the majority of sites refer to him as something similar, I guess this is because this is what he is! To tell the truth I'm not that keen on heavy metal or this type of music. I had heard of Stetina in the past but didn't know that much about him. If I didn't think he was notable I would have just gone for a re-direct or maybe wouldn't have bothered at all. Karl Twist (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don’t think where he was employed or what magazines he written for are relevant for notability. Do you have any other sources to share? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin, Even though I believe there's enough on Troy Stetina to warrant a keep, could I ask please that if the consensus eventually leans towards a deletion, you might consider redirecting rather than deleting? There are a number of possibilities. One would be Mark Tremonti who has a historical and ongoing musical association with Stetina. There was already a mention of him there on the page. I have also done a bit more. There's other content that would eventually go in there as per the normal growth of an article. This is regardless of a deletion or not. If in the event of a deletion consideration, that would probably be the best. Perhaps if the Guitar One article was created, that would be another one as Stetina was involved with the magazine for some time as a writer and contributor. Then there could be his brothers Dale and Wayne where a paragraph could be. They're only stubs at the moment. With a re-direct, the history can be preserved which IMO is always a good thing.
I would like to do more to fix the subject's page as it is a mess. Sadly, my time is limited and I am neglecting other things. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus yet and different assessments of the existing sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep as there is enough coverage in total including prose part of interviews, and a review for a narrow pass of WP:GNG. Also Ultimate Guitar is listed as a reliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources although the particular reference is possibly a press release so doesn't help, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews don’t count towards GNG as they are a primary source. Also Ultimate Guitar is only reliable for “articles written by the "UG Team" (list of staff writers) or any writer with reliable credentials elsewhere.” As you stated, the reference is likely a press release. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi again Dr. Swag Lord, your created document isn't an official guide to follow! Also, it isn't accurate!
- Actually, the OnMilwaukee Interview that you mention (properly named:"Despite impressive resume, Stetina lacks name recognition at home" By Bobby Tanzilo) is an article-interview combo. The article part is sufficient to support the page.
- The Maximum Ink Interview (Properly named:"Second Soul
- AN INTERVIEW WITH TROY STETINA OF SECOND SOUL" BY MIKE HUBERTY ) is an article and interview combo. The article section is sufficient to support the page
- The La Seine Musicale wasn't sponsored by the band. If sponsored as you say as per "LSM Newswire is La Scena's Newswire service. Organizations can post a press release on our website for a fee.", which band as you say?? Was it Leo Kottke, Antoine Dufour, Ana Vidovic, or Jonathan Kreisberg?
- The Metal Shock Finland, October 13, 2011 interview is an interview yes. It has been used around 50 plus times here to reference articles. I'm not putting it forth as a supporter for the page.
- I'm trying to find the article that goes with this eBay photo of Troy Stetina. The photographer was George P. Koshollek and it is date-stamped FR DEC 5 1986 as per on the back. The cut-out stub says "Roll over, Beethoven. Here comes Troy Stetina" and has -Sentinel photo beside it. Could it be from the Milwaukee Sentinel?
I even more stand by what I said that Stetina is a notable subject. His being a writer for two of the largest guitar mags in the US as well as holding guitar clinics in events that have internationally known prestigious artists is just one aspect. Many others ... etc. etc. etc. Below is an interesting indicator from Jstor,
- BOOK CHAPTER
But That Doesn’t Help Me on Guitar!: Unraveling the Myth of the
Self-Taught Metal Guitarist
Kevin EbertFrom: Connecting Metal to Culture: Unity in Disparity, Intellect (2017)
Edition: 1...and Heavy Metal Lead Guitar Vol. 1&2 by Troy Stetina are two such examples. Also noteworthy is his 1991,
Speed Mechanics for Lead Guitar In an interview with Guitariste Métal, Stetina was asked about his sales figure
he replied: Speed Mechanics for Lead Guitar is the biggest seller now. Maybe 300,000... Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Elnur Aslanov (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)
- Keep - The article has many sources, enough for Wikipedia:GNG, even searching for him unloads possible sources.
- TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I somehow didn't catch when I first sorted this that {{subst:afd2}} does not appear to have been implemented here, leaving the AfD header incomplete. I have fixed this. (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Romy Tiongco (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 does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Philippines, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think the two programmes on the BBC all about him and the first of these and its report his on him were what led me to start this page and think him notable enough - perhaps via general notability rather than as a politician per se. A political activist, NGO worker and then politician (Msrasnw (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment - maybe you should find more sources, only 2 out of the 7 sources work.
- TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are 2 "working" sources, that should be enough for WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the sources is a video source which does not work anymore, is one source okay? TheNuggeteer (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Our "policy" on this is WP:LINKROT, and it being dead should not be taken against the article, more so if the reference is more than a decade old.
- So no, your premise of this article having just one source doesn't hold. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I did a WP:BEFORE search outside of the sources in the article and can't find anything which suggests to me that the article passes WP:GNG. The non-working links do not necessarily suggest there was secondary coverage of him, either - the magazine just has a wordpress site and the BBC radio bit is an interview, which are not secondary. SportingFlyer T·C 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Zack Cooper (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'd originally PROD'ed this, that was removed. Bringing it to AfD as I still don't think the sources support notability. I was and am unable to find sourcing about this individual, only things they've written. Unsure if this would pass academic notability or notability for business people. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. This scholar of international affairs has a good GS record that passes WP:Prof#C1 and has published notable books. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete I don't find anything independent about him. In terms of publications, if you do a scholar search on "Zack Cooper" you get high hits but it is someone else - someone who writes about hospitals. If you add "Japan" to the search you get cites in the single to very low double digits. There's the same confusion in WorldCat books, but this Zack Cooper's books are found again in the single digits. (In VIAF he's "Cooper, Zack ‡c (Researcher in security studies)". With the 2 keep !votes above I wonder if this name confusion wasn't noticed. Lamona (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Click on the scholar link above which differentiates between the two Zack Coopers. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Thanks, I overlooked that. I still don't think he meets NPROF. His H-index is not high, in almost all of his publications he's one of 3 or 4 authors. I see no indication that meets: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I don't see awards. For AUTH we have " is known for originating a significant new concept," "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Just being an author or co-author of articles is not enough. I don't see that he is someone known for furthering a body of knowledge. Lamona (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It is certainly a borderline case. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] - Delete for a guideline like NPROF there has to be a sub-heading under which he is said to qualify. With respect to @Xxanthippe I don't see how this person passes under #1 -- the article makes no assertion he's recognized for significant impact by others in his discipline. No other heading seems to apply - he's not been a named chair professor or top academic institution leader, there's no assertion his publications have had significant impact, no evidence of impact outside of academia (meeting with a foreign official is a good start, but just a start), etc. Oblivy (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at the scholar link, which I admit does not indicate outstanding citations. What do you think of it? I think that this BLP is borderline and might be argued to be a case of [WP:Too soon]]. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't see a google scholar link. Can you provide links, or just explain what you think demonstrates notability? Note that WP:TOOSOON is grounds for deletion, such as for a recent news story or someone who has received what could be temporary notability. Oblivy (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- On my screen the scholar link is 6.3 inches above this text. It will work if you click it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- So you just wanted want me to click on the google scholar link on the nomination template and do my own searches? I do that anyway before voting -- it seems he's written a number of papers with a low citation count which is pretty close to irrelevant for notability IMHO. Oblivy (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per WP:NPROF#1. clearly a borderline case in a field (international relations) that does have a decent number of citations. Per GS he has 3 papers with 100+ citations which is generally enough to pass the bar even in biomedicine so I feel we should apply equal criteria here. Per his books, they all seem to be as editor which does not generally count for much and only one has a single review [14] so WP:NAUTHOR doesnt apply here. --hroest 10:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ... I have been taking a look at the publication record of Cooper (via Google Scholar), as this is one of the main elements of contention. The first listed publication (2015 with Lim in Security Studies) could be labeled ‘significant’ or ‘influential’, I believe, and it should be attributed equally to Lim and Cooper. Publications with Green and Hicks most likely took place while Cooper was a fellow at CSIS and should not be used to attribute notability to Cooper’s publication record. The publication with Yarhi-Milo (2016 in International Security) should, in my opinion, be largely attributed to Yarhi-Milo as first author and a senior scientist. Below these in the list one gets into teens of citations rather than 100 or more, and none really standout as particularly impactful at casual glance. With respect to those where Cooper is first or only author:
- with Poling, 2019 Foreign Policy, the citation pattern suggest this is a time-bound article with limited long term significance
- with Shearer, 2017 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the citation pattern is indicative of continuing interest, but the number of citations is low.
- 2018 Center for Strategic and International Studies, this is a CSIS report and likely only internally peer reviewed before publication.
...and so on. My thinking is that Cooper is too early in his career to have become ‘notable’ in the sense we use here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion as to whether this individual passes WP:NPROF's subject-specific criteria would be helpful in achieving a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Muhammad Abdul Malek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a single source used in this article is reliable which can establish notability of the person. - AlbeitPK (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet (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 subject fails WP:GNG because only insubstantial coverage is indicated in articles that are all topically about her spouse, or published by her own school. She fails WP:GNG today and is unlikely to garner more substantial coverage in the future due to her being so dead. JFHJr (㊟) 05:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, Poetry, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have added in reviews of two of her publications. She wrote under the name Elizabeth Young, which makes searching for discussions of her work a challenge. I suspect there is more coverage of her work, but it requires sifting through articles about similar people. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I find reviews for multiple books. I also added back some of the text that had been removed prior to the AFD nomination. While this text needs citations (and is now marked as such), it is useful to know in order to find the sources needed. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- keep as meeting WP:BASIC. This is not an easy pass -- her books have a relatively low citation count but she has had an impact. Old London Churches seems to have been regarded as a significant work and has been cited quite a bit in the context of for conservation efforts received a number of reviews which are not available online. She got obituaries in the Independent and Telegraph which I think counts for a lot. Here are the sources I think taken together are sufficient:
- this book review[15]
- this obit in the Independent[16]
- this obituary in the Telegraph [17]
- minimal discussion about her in her husband's biography [18]
- this obituary, albeit in a low-circulation paper[19]
- this entry showing that her papers are now held under supervision of the UK national archives[20]
- One note: immediately prior to bringing this AfD the nominator removed more than 4K of text from the article including removing her extensive biography. I'm not sure how that is justified - surely if the books exist they are sources, although whether they count for notability may be another matter. I wholly agree with @DaffodilOcean's decision to reinstate them, and to identify additional cites. Oblivy (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Scott Fox (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be overly promotional and shows no sign of meeting WP:GNG due to lack of RS. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 03:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Vortex - We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion. Great timing as I have been meaning to hopefully update it. The info is old and not entirely accurate as it was written by fans of my books years ago. Can u share any guidance on how we can improve its "notability" to meet Wikipedia standards? Also what is "RS"? You're probably a volunteer so thanks for all the work you do for the Wikipedia community. Scott Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Scott. Please read this link WP:GNG for the general standards to meet "notability". On Wikipedia, RS stands for "reliable sources". For authors, this commonly includes reviews of your books. None of the sources cited on the article are WP:RS because they are just raw interviews of you, only mention you briefly (see WP:GNG for more info) or are written by Forbes contributors (see this link WP:FORBES for info on deciding what Forbes articles count as RS).
- Also, yes, like many editors on Wikipedia, I am a volunteer and edit as a hobby :) — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mention: @Nelsonave21 — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, I'm concerned about you saying "We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion." Just a head's up — if you got an email about this, please be aware that scammers have targeted people whose articles have been deleted or flagged for deletion before (WP:SCAM), offering to restore it or something similar. Most, if not all, of these offers are fradulent. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 09:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Vortex: thank you for this detailed reply. This is super helpful. We will work on it. What is the best way to submit or update? Is there a timeline? Thanks again, including for the accurate warning about the (likely scammy) deletion email we received. Nelsonave21 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nelsonave21: Please see WP:AFD, particularly this line:
If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search [for] reliable sources so that the article meets notability guidelines. AfD discussion like this one are kept open for at least seven days before a decision is made (multiple editors have to give their opinions first before a decision about the consensus can be made, so this discussion will probably go on for longer).
In your case, editing the article yourself would be COI editing, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. However, you can find examples of reliable sources about you or your books and post it here, on this AfD, to prove the article meets WP:GNG. This would prevent deletion. Again, most RS for authors takes the form of book reviews in newspapers, magazines, or periodicals.
If this AfD is closed with consensus to delete the article, the article can be recreated if and only if it satisfies WP:GNG. In this case, I recommend the AfC process, which involves writing a draft article and submitting it for review. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've not reviewed the article yet, but while it is normal for an AFD discussion to be closed within a week or a month, don't worry too much about that, you can usually get an admin to restore the contents as a draft or by email if you'd like to work on it. "Deletion" is not generally irreversible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The USA Today won't open, the rest are non-RS per Cite Highlighter. Unfortunately, I don't see book reviews, nor much of anything for this person. No notability found, does not pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Oaktree, Alpha3031, Vortex3427 and other editors - thanks very much for the followup on this.
- We have gathered 100+ links referring to my work supporting startup entrepreneurs over the years, including dozens of book reviews, speaking appearances, and podcasts. We will narrow those down to the more significant ones.
- What's the best way to share those links? I know you are volunteers and don't want to burden you, so how can we help best? (Happy to draft a rewrite of the current page for your review but not sure that's allowed.)
- Also, many of the bigger name book reviews were from my first book back in 2006-8. It was a pioneering work in the development of Web 2.0 entrepreneurship. We have jpgs and some PDFs of those articles from outlets like the Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, Toronto Globe & Mail, Orange County Register etc. but unfortunately the old URLs are mostly 404 by now. How best to share those?
- Similarly - my books have been translated into many languages around the world. That seems to show they are "notable" also in other languages. We found links to some of those (Turkish, Polish, Vietnamese) but other editions (like Russian and Japanese) are not discoverable via English search engines. We do have screen shots of the cover art, though. Can we share those, too?
- Thanks for your help learning how Wikipedia works. I have donated repeatedly in the past but never gotten into the nuts & bolts of it like this.
- Scott
- p.s. I'm currently working on 2 new books to help startup founders, esp under-represented female, minority, and non-US entrepreneurs. Thank you all for your time. Hopefully we can keep my page alive so its available during those book launches next year. Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nelsonave21: Yes, please share the PDFs here. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 00:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, will do. How do we share PDFs here, though? There's no attachments tool in the toolbar.
- Thanks. Nelsonave21 (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nelsonave21: You'd have to upload it on another website and share the links here. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 08:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After scouring the internet for any possible sources, I've found two book reviews and one article that I believe would count towards notability. I've also found four more book reviews, but I'm unsure if the coverage is significant enough to count. Leaving them here for a more experienced editor to assess. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 09:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi again - thanks for your guidance here. And for finding those additional sources. You found coverage I've never seen before!
- Below is a list of URLs that are still active online that include some of the coverage of my books and work.
- We have also put up a Google Drive folder here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1j0KUxFYUl4A5qAo3-sKwzr-Z4MBIBIZI?usp=sharing That contains a couple of dozen more press clippings, major market book reviews, foreign book covers, etc. for publicity that has since fallen offline.
- If these are helpful, we easily have a lot more from my almost 20 years of serving entrepreneurs if you'd like to see it.
- Hopefully that's the right idea for sources.
- Please LMK how we can help if we can? It looks like a fair bit of work to parse through those and assign them properly into an article, etc. The article needs updating anyway and we'd be happy to assist.
- Thanks again very much for your work here.
- Scott
- https://antrepreneur.uci.edu/2023/08/07/uci-antrepreneur-center-joins-forces-with-the-oc-startup-council-to-empower-student-entrepreneurs/
- https://www.engine.is/news/startupseverywhere-orange-county-calif
- https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/click-millionaires-work-less-live-more-internet-business-you-love
- https://alliancesocal.org/news/2024/03/01/preparing-founders-for-success-and-connections-at-happy-hour-in-irvine/
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO6JdpN17P8
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericwagner/2012/09/04/click-millionaires-7-secrets-to-less-work-and-more-life/
- https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13132762-click-millionaires
- https://www.eofire.com/podcast/scott-fox-of-click-millionaires-interview-with-john-lee-dumas-of-entrepreneur-on-fire-2/
- https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58917442-e-riches-2-0
- https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/108552513-internet-zenginleri
- https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44557823-click-millionaires-czyli-internetowi-milionerzy-e-biznes-na-twoich-zasad
- https://www.beckman-foundation.org/latest-news/irvine-tech-week/
- https://www.revolv3.com/resources/what-makes-orange-county-the-hottest-hub-for-startups-today
- https://www.socalentrepreneurship.org/scce-24
- https://www.operatepod.com/e/scott-fox-orange-county-startup-council/
- https://www.cakeequity.com/podcasts/how-to-raise-first-rounds-scott-fox
- https://startupgamechanger.org/speakers/scott-fox/ Nelsonave21 (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we have any editors willing to look through some of these references brought up in this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] - Keep. Article as is is too promotional but the book reviews presented by Vortex look good. He passes WP:NAUTHOR, his works themselves appear to have been sufficiently reviewed enough for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also additional reviews of his work on Newspapers.com. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Tan Yinglan (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)
Factors do not appear to have meaningfully changed since the prior discussion. He's an active businessperson, and Insignia Ventures Partners may be notable but he does not appear so as an author. Star Mississippi 01:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone want to assess the sources offered by the IP editor?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] - Comment here's a start on assessing the newly identified sources:
- Oblivy (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
FA
A
GA
