Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors

C'Katcha

C'Katcha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of a writer and actor, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for writers or actors. As written, the notability claim here is that he exists and won an award, which aren't automatic notability freebies if the article contains no real substance about his career and isn't sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG -- but the referencing here is almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, and the only footnote that seems potentially reliable is a fairly short blurb that isn't substantive enough to magically vault him over GNG all by itself if it's the only secondary source in the mix.
As well, it warrants note that this was created in draft, and then immediately moved into mainspace by its creator without a proper WP:AFC review.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from needing stronger and more reliable sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Ivory Coast. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Robin Raven

Robin Raven (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)

From a search, I see bylines in multiple publications, but I don't see any significant coverage that would meet WP:GNG. I don't see books or writing that would fit in WP:AUTHOR/WP:NJOURNALIST. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 21:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Journalism. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 21:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Travel and tourism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: there are the faintest indications that this is the same subject as one whose article was deleted in the first nomination from 2007, but very, very little material in the current article overlaps at all with anything that could possibly have been in that iteration. (No opinion on the current article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Alabama and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep. I have rewritten the article conservatively to remove weaker event/promo material and focus on published works and reception. I agree that many available sources are primary or only verify basic facts, but the subject has multiple commercially published books and at least one solid independent professional review, from Library Journal, with additional weaker review-style coverage for another book.

This may not be the strongest author article, but the current version is no longer just a collection of bylines or publisher bios. Given the independent book-review coverage and the possibility of further reviews in library/book-review databases, I think deletion is premature. --☆☆☆ interstellarpoliceman ☆☆☆ 23:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - I added the notability tag. Doesn’t fulfil WP:NAUTHOR which requires at least two books with at least two proper reviews each. She only has one review of one book. The page creator agrees, see their comment here: User_talk:TaskManager#h-Ways_to_improve_Robin_Raven-20260502193200. Lijil (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Sami Tallberg

Sami Tallberg (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 personally see no reason for this article to exist. It provides no encyclopaedic value, and in its original state, was created as a promotional, debatably still being one. I really tried to edit this article into something a couple months back, but this one's just kind of nothing, to be honest. I also believe the article uses no articles that are generally considered "reliable". I believe this article is eligible for deletion per WP:AFD. Gato1260 (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Gato1260 (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Food and drink, and Finland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources establishing notability.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} ~2026-33772-15 (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Pavlina Osta

Pavlina Osta (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; I did some searching and was not able to find much significant coverage in reliable sources.

Admittedly, this is not my area of expertise, so I would appreciate if other editors could find additional sources and improve the article if possible.

I would also like to note that the page appears to be edited by the subject herself (@OstaLaVista13:, @Pavlinaosta1:), and has been previously deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavlina Osta Joeykai (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, News media, Radio, and Conservatism. Joeykai (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Article needs work, but she's been getting newspaper coverage from a young age. , , , . Along with coverage of her TV career this looks like a GNG pass to me. , , . Jfire (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: in its current form, the article has been tagged as a potential GNG failure since 2023. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:44, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Journalism, Dance, Television, Internet, Michigan, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – The sources presented so far do not clearly demonstrate the depth of independent coverage required by WP:GNG. Routine career coverage and local news mentions are insufficient to establish notability absent substantial secondary-source treatment. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Eileen Gibb

Eileen Gibb (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)

Author whose work is not necessarily very reliable notable. Apart from the sources already cited I could not find any more book/news/website mentions of her except categoric pages about her and her books. I will post a source table soon. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 10:50, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Transportation, United Kingdom, and England. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 10:50, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

More information No., Name ...

Source list

No.	Name	Reliable?	Shows notability?
1	Holland (2014)	N	N (blog page, non RS)
2	Sunday Mercury (2012)	Y	N No evidence this article is about her, but the wiki page suggests it is
3	Herald Express (1970)	Y	Y
4	Herald Express (1972)	Y	? (Cannot access but title of the article suggests no SIGCOV)
5	Railway Modeller (1961)	Y	? (Cannot access but probably a tick)
6	Emerson (2016)	Y	N (Very unlikely to have any sigcov)
7	Garnett (2005)	Y	? (Cannot access)
8	Catalogue record – Worldcat	Y	N (categoric entry)
9	Billy The Bus; No. 2 Billy Goes Exploring By Eileen Gibb	N	N (Primary source written by her)
10	Billy the Bus series of books	N	N (Primary source written by her)
11	Sammy Rhymes series of books	N	N (Primary source written by her)

Close

• Note: I acknowledge this article was created as an ATD, but I think it still fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR as her works aren't necessarily individually notable. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 11:01, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, subject not independently notable. ApwCow 11:00, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Link to previous AfD, for convenience. No opinion on the article as it now stands. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 15:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Actually, I've just checked sources 3 and 4 in the table, and neither is WP:SIGCOV. 3 mentions that she is the wife of the Dart Valley Railway's owner, and that she wrote the Sammy the Shunter series. 4 mentions again that she's the wife of the railway owner and that she officially opened a restored carriage. In both she only appears in one paragraph. I supported keeping this last time on the assumption that sources are found, and sadly it doesn't seem they have been. So, with regret, delete per JacobTheRox. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 15:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. Located The Bookseller 1976 article, identified in previous discussion. Definitely RS; though modest in length, but it does establish that StS remained very popular and the Sammy the Shunter Bumper Book was being republished; the individual book series had by then been through 20–30 reprints each, and sales had exceeded two million. Does that get us to a tipping point? - Davidships (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Addendum. What does the OP mean by Author whose work is not necessarily very reliable? Surely it's not the reliability of her work which is in question. Perhaps "notable" was meant. - Davidships (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I meant notable. I mean, they are nice books, but nowhere near notable enough for her authorship to be inherited. Thanks for picking up on that. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 22:27, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Put that way re WP:INHERITED, I take your point. But, mindful of the history of this article, with more-or-less agreement at each review that two articles could not be viable, the tipping point I actually had in mind was that between the author or the book-series. - Davidships (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: additional sources confirm enough notability of the series and the author to justify one article (with incoming redirects of course). PamD 23:39, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I undertook a deep copy edit, removing unsourced and unverifiable content, removing content sourced to a blog, and adding reliable sources. However, I was unable to find a source that provides significant coverage of Gibb. Based on discussions on the article’s talkpage, several other editors were also unsuccessful in finding such a source. Nevertheless, given the popularity of this book series in several countries, I feel strongly that such a source exists. However, it will probably prove notability for the books, rather than the author, who is not even mentioned in advertisements for the books. Ironically, the article about the books was merged here, under the assumption that the author would be more notable than her works. If someone has access to 1950s and 1960s book review journals, we could probably get the sources needed to move this back to an article about the books (The books were reviewed in several publications, unfortunately still in snippet form in Google Books). Otherwise, it pains me to say that this does not meet notability and should be deleted. Rublamb (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do that. I have restored the mention of the frequent reprinting of the individual volumes, which indicates that they had maintainrd their popularity, and that the complete series was probably kept continually available throughout its first 20 years or so.

I don't think that anyone has yet turned up the piece in the New Yorker (Vol.51, p24), which looked promising. Who can help with that? - Davidships (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I've asked at WT:NYC for assistance with that. Mjroots (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I can help with that! It's a piece called "Wales Ho" from the 19 January 1976 edition of the magazine, which is an account of a trip to Wales that features the Ffestiniog Railway. The books and their author are mentioned at two points:

• For sale in the station: Festiniog pillowcases and "Sammy the Shunter," by Eileen Gibb, about a switch engine. (This is followed by a 41-word, five-sentence quote from one of the books, all in brackets.)
• Gangs of schoolboys, accompanied by a master, do maintenance work on the right of way, and other volunteers rebuild carriages, fire up the engines, sell "Sammy the Shunter" books, make bulletin boards for the stations, and in general do whatever has to be done to augment the small permanent paid staff.

YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 21:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Dipak Giri

Dipak Giri (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 and likely fails WP:AUTHOR / WP:PROF. Most references are routine book reviews, interviews, primary/self-affiliated sources, or repeated coverage from a single outlet (The Hans India), which do not provide the significant independent coverage required to establish notability. Concerns also exist regarding the quality and depth of the coverage, with some sourcing appearing promotional and potentially AI-assisted rather than substantial independent journalism. The article also contains a promotional tone and relies heavily on non-independent sourcing. Siniha (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related AfD discussions. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 11:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The subject of this article is notable enough for the inclusion in Wikipedia as per notability guidelines. Three reliable sources are enough to establish the notability. Besides The Hans India, you should also consider other sources where the subject appears in this article. There are sources like Zee News, Wilderness House Literary Review, Journal of Comparative Literature and Aesthetics and Muse India. I think you should consider on reviews of his works more than interviews or author features published in the Newspaper or any other sources. The subject appears in many nonprofit reputable journals so far as reviews on his works are concerned. Two reviews of the subject even appears in Contemporary Voice of Dalit, a well repute journal published by sage publishing. I think you should focus more on works done by the subject and the reviews on those works. I have found your charges totally groundless. First, most references are routine book reviews. How can you judge those reviews are routine based?

Secondly, you have charged that most reviews are interviews. But there is only one interview out of twenty four references.

Thirdly, you have charged that there are primary/self-affiliated sources but how? Most of the sources are independent and have no relation with the subject. You should justify before charging against the subject.

Fourthly, you have charged repeated coverage from a single outlet The Hans India. Yes, the subject has appeared in this newspaper but you should not ignore the other sources I have already discussed above. They are also independent from the subject and reliable enough to be considered about the notability of any subject.

You have also charged the quality and the depth of the coverage with some sourcing that appear to you promotional, potentially AI assisted and promotional but how? You have not explained. It's not desirable to charge against the subject of an article only with its face value as it seems to you; rather you should go deeper at the time of reviewing an article and tagging with suggestion for deletion. Three genuine and reliable sources are enough for the notability and the subject covers more than three such sources. So, I request you to remove this tag from the article instead of furthering the discussion of deletion which I think groundless. ~2026-31898-02 (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not sure what the nom means by "routine book reviews". Book reviews in reliable sources (whether extraordinary or routine) absolutely count for WP:NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, same here. The phrase "routine book reviews" has also made me puzzled. The charges are groundless. ~2026-31898-02 (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This failed review and has been recreated, by someone with an obvious COI. Deb (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Your statement is vague and indistinct. What do you mean by 'the failed review' and 'someone with an obvious COI'. How are you sure? Explain in details. Rohit1976 (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of LGBTQ+ studies-related AfD discussions. pburka (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• weak keep: Prolific author, but hard to find reviews in RS. in a journal, this appears to have an editorial board, so I'd use it as a source. Barely confirms notability as an author. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry to interrupt you, what do you mean by 'RS'? You have mentioned two references. Both references are book reviews. I don't understand how they appear to you to be editorial board. Rohit1976 (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  "RS" is short for reliable sources. Book reviews are a typical way of establishing the notability of an author. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for explaining 'RS'. But sources to me are reliable. They are independent as well as notable. No where seems to me that they are not reliable. These sources also have found space in Wikipedia for notability and reliability. ~2026-31898-02 (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I also agree with 2026-31898-02 Rohit1976 (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep, passes WP:NAUTHOR, sources seem alright. "Routine book reviews" is an oxymoron. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not a wrestler here but somehow my fingers found this article and now here i am. First — User:~2026-31985-28 removed the {{{promo}}} hatnote of this article without participating in discussion. Then User:Rohit1976 cleared this article talk page, User:~2026-31898-02 brought it back like a hero, and User:Rohit1976 cleared it again. And simultaneously — simultaneously — the Wikipedia project discussion archive also got wiped. By the same user Rohit1976. I am looking at this very suspiciously right now. Second, this article is about a living academician, which is fine, but a PhD and a bibliography on the internet describes literally every academic alive. That is not notability, that is just having done the degree. The article is currently personal information plus a publication list, kind of CV and nothing else. By this logic every Harvard professor is owed an article and I think Wikipedia is not ready for that conversation. Thirdly, WP:RS/P. Ohh anyway, Abracadabra — and watch, some user might clean up this discussion too. — (i'm just, no i really drunk!!) ~ MaxA-Matrix 🗨 16:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I had cleared your question from the talk page because you asked there you did not know how this article had come in main space. Obviously after being reviewed by some senior editors, every editor should know about it. So, the questions seemed to me wrong and baseless and so I removed it. So, nothing here is suspicious. For your second doubt, please understand the subject is not just living academic and a PhD holder and a bibliography on the internet. The subject is notable enough. If you google properly, you will understand. Besides sources used in this article there are also so many other reliable sources too if one wishes to increase the list in the article. Your charge that this article is a cv is again wrong. The section 'works' has covered more than half of the section of this article with reliable and independent references. A cv comprises many other details which don't need references to validate notability which anyone can prepare for anyone. As per Wikipedia guidelines, the notability of a person is taken to be granted on reliable sources which this article already has so I think deletion will be violation of Wikipedia's policy. Rohit1976 (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Removing discussions from talk pages is generally frowned upon. This comment wasn't off-topic, so shouldn't have been removed. I advise you to restore the deleted section. pburka (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  I did not know at the time of removing the discussion from talk pages is against the policy of Wikipedia so I removed it because it seemed to me baseless. Now I'm thankful to you that you have made me realize my mistake. I have restored the deleted section. In this discussion, MaxA-Matrix brought a reference of a discussion held on blocking me for creating a draft on Dipak Giri. Yes, I created a draft at that time and I was at my learning stage so I did so many mistakes and I was blocked for six months. During this blocking period, I tried to learn how Wikipedia article is written as per advice given at the time of blocking and when my blocking period was over, I found my draft on Dipak Giri was deleted. So, I wrote a new article on Dipak Giri and thankfully it was reviewed and accepted. I became happy over success of my first article on Wikipedia over which I had long been trying to get accepted and also seeking advices from experienced editors. Fortunately Jéské Couriano helped me with fruitful suggestions and advices that I could finally create an article on Dipak Giri successfully. It gave a positive energy. No sooner had this article was accepted than I created another article on Bill Ashcroft (author), it was also accepted within a day. It energized me more. Then I created my user page and wished to become a permanent editor on Wikipedia working on more articles. After two articles were accepted, I started preparing my mind to contribute another something or some person notable with significant coverage to Wikipedia, then I found this tag of deletion on my first Wikipedia article. One should always consider the sentiment of a new editor before tagging such fallacious and erroneous charges because such charges sometimes bring demotivation to new editors who wish to contribute something new and original to Wikipedia. With this message, I don't have any intention to bring charges against any editor. I have just confessed what is true. Rohit1976 (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Rohit1976, looking at the editorial behaviour through secondary lenses, this appears to be a case of WP:COISELF. If this conclusion is wrong and the editing here is genuinely neutral and independent, then there should be no attachment issues with this article. A new editor can contribute across Wikipedia according to their interest to familiarise with the environment, rather than jumping into the war of defence of a single article. WP:DONTBITE may excuse the editorial pattern here, but every article undergoes continuous scrutiny under encyclopedia policy, and this one is no exception — it will either stand on its own merit or it will not. ~ MaxA-Matrix 🗨 14:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, I don't understand how I have looked at the editorial behaviour through secondary lenses that appear to you to be a case of WP:COISELF. I request you to clarify in details. Rohit1976 (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  As clarification warranted for WP:COISELF, I will take a direct approach:

  The article about Dipak Giri was first drafted by the subject himself under username @Dipakgiri84 in April 2019, but was deleted for the same reason this AfD was opened. He also uploaded a profile picture and signature at commons. In March 2022, he created another account, @Asimsanyal, and drafted the article again, which was again deleted due to abandonment.

  In November 2023, a third account, Rohit1976, drafted the article with identical content and uploaded a profile picture. When the image was nominated for deletion, the user stated that "I request to delete the image because this image was not taken by me; rather it was collected by someone so it's giving rise to copyright violation. I earnestly request you to delete this image. ... Mistakenly I claimed this image as my own. I request to delete this image. " in July 2026 — the same picture Dipak Giri uses on his own social media in lower quality. This pattern of reusing the subject's personal materials strongly suggests Rohit1976 is operating on behalf of, or is, the subject himself. Following repeated deletion and undeletion requests, Rohit1976 was blocked for 6 months in July 2025 for disruptive editing. The draft was ultimately deleted by Liz in January 2026 due to abandonment.

  After the block ended, Rohit1976 published the article directly in mainspace in February 2026, bypassing the draft review process. In March 2026, the same profile picture was re-uploaded by a new username, @Ahamed s, on Commons — continuing the same pattern. In May 2026, Rohit1976 attempted to erase associated logs - as i mentioned some instances in above thread. The editor @SZ8585 (renamed in May to User:SaTnamZIN), who assessed this article also abandoned in May following his NPP status issues. Similarly Rohit1976 created Dipak Giri's organization Creative Flight directly in mainspace, which was immediately deleted in June 2026. Temporary IP accounts have also been used on multiple occasions to advance the same objectives.

  Taken together — identical content, tone, wording across all accounts, repeated use of the subject's personal photos, creation of a related organization article, and the subject's own website mirroring the same information — the evidence strongly points to Dipakgiri84, Asimsanyal, Rohit1976 and some temporary ip account, all being/was operated by Dipak Giri himself. ~ MaxA-Matrix 🗨 18:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for this clarification. Also many thanks for studying all my activities from the beginning. Now I understand why my draft was rejected deliberately in spite of being the subject notable enough. I never felt relieved since I had started working on this draft. Now completely relieved knowing the reason. I'm grateful to you. Yes, all the user ids had been used by me. Sometimes I became fed up working on this draft because I was not understanding the reason. Now great relief! Yes, I started working on this draft using the user id Dipakgiri84 in the beginning because I thought the subject might know more than anyone about himself and I also thought Wikipedia permitted article only written by the subject because it might be more reliable as I have stated above. So, I started working with user id Dipakgiri84. I also thought the subject needed a photo and signature for proper validation of the profile as I had then studied some profiles and found signature there. I googled and found the photo of the subject which was uploaded and also collected signature from one of the contributors who had contributed to one of the books edited by the subject. Fortunately I knew him personally. He had collected a certificate of publication with signature from the subject and I prepared the draft but it was rejected. I still remember which you have not mentioned here. Then I discussed on Wikipedia why the draft was rejected and I was informed that I could not create draft for being subject of the draft. So, later I changed my user id and took another user id Asimsanyal. Now I remember as you have mentioned and created the draft but in due course of time I forgot the email id and also the user id used by me. So, I used another user id with another new email Rohit1976 but never changed this user id but still facing the problem of rejection of the draft Dipak Giri. Every time I saw the sentence of rejection written with notability and COI but I was not understanding that I had to click there and know more about rejection or I would have known earlier why the draft had been rejected deliberately. It was a great mistake on my part. I seek pardon to all those editors whom I offended. However, when I saw the tag of COI at the top of the draft with a link where it was advised to discuss further I tried to start discussion over rejection, though I did not know at that time how to start discussion. However, with some efforts, I became successful, then I was asked where I had found photo of the subject, I told the reviewer that it had been collected from some person whom I know and that person was known to the subject somehow. I did so because I did not wish to violate copy right by downloading photo from Internet without giving attribution to the creator. Yes, it was my mistake that in order to save myself from copyright infringement, I attributed myself as a creator of the photo. You did not mention about this discussion which was also held. Later I realised mistake and decided not to upload photo. As regards photo one of the editors during discussion suggested me to upload not by me but by some other user. Then I was blocked for 6 months with suggestions how to work on article cleaning COI and promotional languages. Then I started going deeper Wikipedia to understand its policies and guidelines, especially about notability and COI. When I understood well, I left the idea of working on the same draft as it was objected by the reviewers during rejection. I started a new article on the name space as I was confident that this time no issue arose. And I also used my mobile phone to upload the photo as I saw the photo was on Facebook profile page of Dipak Giri so that it won't be treated as offence as per Wikipedia policy. Social media photo does not fall under copy right infringement so far I know. I may be wrong. If you say my aim is to promote the subject and his organization Creative Flight. I never intended so. I had started editing before this organization was established by the subject. As this organization is crowded with many notable personalities and the subject himself being notable, my attention went there. Sorry, I never did all these things with bad intention; rather my purpose was to become an editor on Wikipedia and started with the subject as I know the subject very well for his works which he have been continuously working like many others who are his followers on social medias like Facebook, Academia and LinkedIn. All these mistakes are unintentional due to ignorance. Even I did not know that my all activities were archived on Wikipedia or I would have never removed them. I thought they were needless and so removed. However, now I'm so surprised that even my first id Dipakgiri84 is also there, though my activity on this id was comparatively so little, just opening and left it non-working forever. It's really praiseworthy that Wikipedia has made such software that every activity is detected. Now it's totally at the discretion of the editors and administrators whether they will forgive me or punish me but everyone has right to say in his defense. So, I have confessed here the fact because I'm challenged that I'm the subject DipaK Giri. Again I repeat my intention here is to become editor and not to hurt anybody or mistrusted by anybody. Sorry, if I unknowingly hurt anyone. Rohit1976 (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Strongly Keep: user: Siniha nominated this article for deletion with wrong intention and now has been blocked from editing to prevent abuse by user: Izno, one of the administrators on English Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not permit such kind of abusive intention.

~2026-31898-02 (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, I have no particular interest in this topic, so I will refrain from further discussion. Whatever I had to say regarding the article has already been stated above. What does give me pause, however, is the editorial dynamic surrounding it — particularly why new editors are involving with this article, especially given that certain users connected to this topic have already gone to arbitration over issues such as WP:SOCKPUPPET, WP:COI, and WP:BAN.

Who created the article, who nominated it for deletion, and who is participating in this discussion are merely contextual factors — not the deciding factor. The article should ultimately stand or fall on the strength of its sourcing and notability.

Having skimmed through its contents and the 24 references, I find myself without a strong objection either way in this AfD.

Pinging @Fylindfotberserk and @Jéské Couriano for their thoughts on the concerns raised here. ~ MaxA-Matrix 🗨 08:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Daniel Ichbiah

Daniel Ichbiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence that he passes WP:NAUTHOR. The frwiki version has slightly better sourcing, but nothing indicating that he passes the WP:GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and France. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Not a single reference can I find. No bestsellers, no official connection to people he writes books about. One of thousands of people who interviewed Bill Gates over the years, he writing a book based on some interviews he did, but I see no signs of it being notable. Not seeing any contact at all with the other subjects of his books. Most content was added by an IP address who edited no other articles . Dream Focus 10:56, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete No book reviews found, nothing to show a pass at AUTHOR. Fr wiki is simply primary sources, articles written by this person. Nothing we'd use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

There are some interviews of him in some old French magazines listed in the frwiki sources (e.g. ), but as interviews they don't indicate notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: I agree with the nominator. This is not the subject of WP:GNG level coverage, and doesn't pass WP:NAUTHOR, even considering the French language sources that currently appear on frwiki. This appears to be mostly a WP:RESUME of sorts. JFHJr (㊟) 02:18, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV and thus he fails WP:GNG. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Chandra Kafle

Chandra Kafle (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 content primarily serves promotional and commercial purposes and lacks significant independent contribution Endrabcwizart (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Endrabcwizart (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Internet, and Nepal. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 13:09, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

NOTE - chandra kafle follow User:Elison Pokhrel on instagram ^[1]

• Delete : Fails WP:GNG. The article lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and the sources cited are not considered reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Nepal/Sources. This subject was previously deleted after the author acknowledged that no additional reliable sources were available. The sourcing issues that led to the earlier deletion remain unresolved. Also notable is that the subject was previously presented as an author and musical artist, but within a few months the article has been substantially reframed without corresponding reliable sourcing to support a new claim of notability. i also request to merge previous version of edit history. Khagendra (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________

• Keep - Regarding the concerns raised by editor Khagendra, I would like to address them by grounding our discussion in established Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:UPDATING.

• Evidence of Notability and Quality over Quantity:

The article relies on high-quality, reputable reporting from national media outlet Ratopati^[1] and provincial leader Gandak News^[2]. Initially, Endrabcwizart says, The content primarily serves promotional and commercial purposes and lacks significant independent contribution. In accordance with Wikipedia’s standards, one or two high-quality independent sources are far superior to multiple trivial mentions. These sources clearly define the subject's field, specific work, and professional sector. The content of the article is strictly a factual reporting of the subject's professional contributions and documented work in the field of digital security. It is not intended for commercial promotion but serves as an encyclopedic record of the subject's achievements as documented by external, independent media.

It is critical to acknowledge that this article was recently reviewed and 'Patrolled' by an experienced reviewer, Jôhola, on May 3, 2026. In their official assessment, they explicitly stated: "Although this page has been previously deleted, I think it currently meets WP:GNG." Furthermore, the reviewer took the additional step of leaving a specific message on the article's Talk Page to document this positive assessment for future reviewers. By asserting that the article fails GNG, the nominator is effectively dismissing this formal evaluation and undermining the integrity of the New Page Review process. Ignoring this expert assessment and the documented feedback is contrary to the collaborative spirit and established procedures of Wikipedia.

• Rebutting the "GNG Fail" claim:

The argument that this article fails the General Notability Guideline (GNG) is effectively overruled by the recent patrol outcome. The detailed reporting in Ratopati and Gandak News provides the "significant coverage" required. Per Wikipedia’s policy (WP:GNG), when independent, reliable sources offer in-depth reporting on a subject, the notability threshold is met.

• Clarification on User Profile: Regarding the mention of Elison Pokhrel following Chandra Kafle, this reflects my personal interest in the subject's documented contributions to the digital security of public figures in the Nepali cricket sector. The motivation behind creating this article is solely my deep personal passion for cricket and its digital aspects, with no underlying commercial intent.
• Source Reliability and Media Credibility:

Khagendra’s reliance on WikiProject Nepal/Sources is misplaced; that list is a guideline, not a mandatory policy. Ratopati is a leading, established national news portal with high editorial credibility, and Gandak News is a dedicated regional outlet that maintains a prominent English portal, ensuring their reporting meets standard journalistic requirements. Both outlets exercise independent editorial control, which qualifies them as reliable sources under Wikipedia’s core policy (WP:RS).

• Addressing Previous Deletion and Current Status:

The argument referencing a previous deletion is irrelevant. "As stated in Wikipedia's guideline on Updating information, Wikipedia is not a static platform; it is designed for growth and updates.". The current version is fundamentally different from the past, supported by credible, independent national and regional based media coverage that establishes the subject's notability. Also,I welcome the suggestion to merge the article’s history to view its growth. Comparing the previous, less-sourced version with today’s well-documented iteration demonstrates significant progress. Discarding, verified article based on its past infancy runs counter to Wikipedia's evolutionary nature; we should recognize the current, improved content.

In light of the policy-backed evidence and the explicit confirmation from the patrolling reviewer :Jôhola, I kindly request that the community adheres to Wikipedia’s core policies of Notability and Verifiability by retaining this article.

Elison Pokhrel ^TALK 11:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

You have already voted "keep" once, please strike one of them. Khagendra (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• comment - After reviewing the entire discussion and the available sources, I note that the article creator has indicate potential conflict of interest under WP:COI. The author also argues that because the article was previously reviewed, it should not be subject to AfD. However, prior reviews do not prevent an article from being discussed at AfD, as articles may be reassessed at different times. The article does not appear to satisfy the requirements of WP:AUTHOR, nor does it demonstrate significant coverage required by WP:GNG. Based on the current version available, there seems to be some misunderstanding regarding how these notability guidelines are applied.

The article creator claims that Chandra Kafle qualifies under the author guideline. However, the guideline states: "This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals." The article itself does not provide significant independent coverage of the subject's work as an author, nor does it demonstrate notable literary, editorial, or other creative contributions supported by reliable secondary sources. The article primarily focuses on digital security assistance and social media verification activities. In my view, this does not establish notability under WP:BIO. The article mentions "his work in digital security and social media verification," but there is no evidence of significant contributions to the field of digital security, such as the development of widely adopted security systems, notable research, influential publications, major awareness programs, or innovations that have had a measurable impact.

Similarly, social media verification alone is not inherently notable. Verification badges are granted according to platform specific policies and, on some platforms, may be obtained through subscription services. Verification demonstrates authenticity rather than notable achievement. The sources provided do not show that the subject's involvement in obtaining verification for others has received significant independent coverage or represents a notable contribution recognized by reliable sources.

I am also concerned about the sourcing. Two of the cited news articles were published only six days apart, contain substantially similar content, and use the same photograph. Both articles largely focus on the same claim that certain public figures received Facebook verification through the subject's assistance. This appears closer to routine coverage or promotional content than the significant, independent coverage required to establish notability. A broader search does not appear to reveal substantial independent coverage of the subject.

For these reasons, I believe the article fails to meet the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:BIO, and the available sourcing does not demonstrate lasting Wikipedia significance.

Note: This article did not go through WP:AFC and was created directly in the mainspace. I would support giving the creator one final chance to improve the article. However, it should not be moved directly back to the mainspace. Instead, I suggest submitting it through the WP:AFC process for review first. It is not suitable for mainspace for now.Endrabcwizart (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - The subject meets WP:GNG through significant, non-routine national media coverage.The article has been expanded via news coverage and standards. Even both Ratopati & Gandak news have little bit some similarities regarding professional career, but I found news published on both media have different editorial Judgment listed news as Success Story which shows independent to subject ana also establishes WP:AUTHOR Via references (2,3,5) as listed in article. Having an official byline of Chandra kafle under a reputable publisher(setopati) provides clear evidence of editorial oversight and professional vetting, which is the cornerstone of meeting notability standards for authors. we know that Wikipedia’s standards, states:: one or two high-quality independent sources are far superior to multiple trivial mentions. These sources clearly define the subject's field, specific work, and professional sector. The content of the article is strictly a factual reporting of the subject's professional contributions. Lastly, Article is already on mainspace & while reviewing this article patrol editor already left message regarding this article meets criteria of WP:GNG and nomination of deletion be neglected. Nepalese Diaspora (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• The argument that subject meets WP:AUTHOR base solely on byline at setopati is not convincing.Having an article published under anyone's name doesnt satisfy WP:AUTHOR . Additionally the cited piece appears in Setopati's blog/contributor section which demonstrates authorship but Wikipedia's author notability guideline requires more than publication alone, such as significant independent commentary on the author's work, substantial impact in the field, or other criteria outlined at WP:AUTHOR. Therefore, the bylined blog article should not be treated as evidence to establish notability. The determination here should rest primarily on whether the available independent reliable sources provide significant coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG, which according to WikiProject Nepal/Sources fails by far, Also this source has disclaimer which says the article was translated using AI and could be inaccurate and this makes me question Ratopati's Reliability . Khagendra (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• comment- Note: I strongly suspect a pattern of Cabalism or Reciprocal Voting between(quid pro quo) User:Nepalese Diaspora and User:Elison Pokhrel.

- User:Nepalese Diaspora voted "Keep" on this AfD, which was created by User:Elison Pokhrel.

- Conversely, on the AfD for "Narayan Joshi" (created by Nepalese Diaspora), Elison Pokhrel also provided a "Keep" vote.

Beyond the exact same "quid pro quo" dynamic, both votes has similar conclusion ("writtern news by national-level news portals.") This highly synchronized behavior suggests a conflict of interest or potential sockpuppetry that warrants closer review. Endrabcwizart (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Eisner Award for Best Writer/Artist–Nonfiction

Eisner Award for Best Writer/Artist–Nonfiction (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 propose merging to Eisner Award for Best Writer because there is very little coverage of this award and it fits in the other page. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 11:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related AfD discussions. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 11:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Comics and animation, Awards, and United States of America. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 11:08, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

If you must merge it with another article, the one that makes the most sense is Eisner Award for Best Writer/Artist. Thematthewmurray (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge into Eisner Award for Best Writer/Artist per above. FaviFake (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Ly de Angeles

Ly de Angeles (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)

Possible autobiography, does not seem to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Unsuccessfully prodded and tagged in 2015 as potentially not meeting WP:NBIO. I'm not able to find any significant coverage; the Publishers Weekly review of Genesis includes no information about the author. Wracking ^talk! 03:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, the article was proposed for deletion twice in 2015: . Wracking ^talk! 03:32, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: this has been tagged as a potential NBIO failure since March 2015, the month of creation and immediately after the declined BLPPRODs. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete single source is to a review in a trade publication. Found a tabloid link (Metro) where she is asked about being a Pagan but no WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:NBIO. Majority of article written by two WP:SPAs so likely autobiography or WP:PROMO. Orange sticker (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• Weak delete: The article is in poor state. Publishers Weekly is a reliable source for books, and a review in it can contribute to meeting WP:NAUTHOR. I've found another review in Library Journal and a a review of a collection of essays she co-edited in The Pomegranate (an apparently peer-reviewed journal of pagan studies). I don't think there's enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR (and the fact that it's very difficult to track down information about the author herself in reliable sources probably attests to that). Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - poorly sourced; one citation is not enough for a BLP. I would be pushed to a weak delete if the reviews were added. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment the essay collection she co-edited does appear to have multiple reviews, so that is notable; however, a co-edited volume doesn't help much. I am finding some sources that discuss her but they don't discuss her a lot. There might be more. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete The page lacks significant coverage. The only active link associated with the page is a pay-per-view page link. I couldn't find any verifiable source information doesn't meet WP:GNG standards.

Rex Black

Rex Black (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)

None of the existing references in this article provide significant coverage in reliable, independent sources of this person. They are either self-published sources (Linked In), ones connected with him (interviews, pieces published by places he has worked or volunteered, speaker lists), or passing mentions. I have carried out WP:BEFORE, and added a review of one of his books, but I cannot find more coverage to add. I was surprised, and wonder if I have missed other coverage which would demonstrate that he meets WP:NAUTHOR; but as the article has been tagged with notability concerns since 2022, I thought best to bring it to the community. No obvious redirect target. The article only has two incoming links, and these both relate to a Rex Black who has stood as a political candidate; I can't find a reliable source to confirm that this is the same person. Tacyarg (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Computing, Software, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - we are not LinkedIn. This is lacking good sources, completely. It's almost a speedy delete. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Wilson Dobie Wilson

Wilson Dobie Wilson (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)

Nominated for deletion because the article currently does not prove subject's notability and I cannot find any sources that could be added to do this. Trotsk6 (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Scotland. Trotsk6 (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't find any analysis of his writings in Gscholar, there are some links to works penned by this individual. Nothing else otherwise to show notability. I don't see any scholarly notice of this person or their body of work. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep There is adequate sourcing available. I'll expand the stub if I get a chance, but proper WP:Before (or maybe better, a quick chat at my talk page) is generally a good idea. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC).
  
• Keep. Fellows of the Royal Society of Edinburgh are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Laura Goldberg

Laura Goldberg (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:NBIO - I see no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The references present in the article are all either affiliated with Goldberg and thus non-independent or independent sources that are not discussing Goldberg directly but rather the businesses she is involved with. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, and Australia. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 09:32, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I can't get past the poor formatting to focus on the actual content. I tried to fix it. Bearian (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 15:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom, lacking SIGCOV about the actual subject to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Durgabar Kayastha

Durgabar Kayastha (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 can't find any WP:SIGCOV of this guy at all. The article has been in its current state of barely intelligible English for 14 years and I seriously doubt anybody is going to come by and dump a ton of WP:RS to give this guy the notability he needs. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 09:41, 28 May 2026 (UTC) – I have struck the statement in light of the efforts put in by AluminiumWithAni to find sources, add them to the article and address its awful grammar, which have convinced me to change my stance to a keep. I'm choosing to let the AfD be properly closed instead of withdrawing per WP:WITHDRAW. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 12:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Assam. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 09:41, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. I found two sources that discuss this person in depth. The first one is an article in a journal claiming to be peer-reviewed (International Research Journal of Interdisciplinary & Multidisciplinary Studies), which would count towards notability if it isn't a predatory journal (which it very well could be; for one, the name is a bit suspicious). The second, New Light on History of Asamiya Literature (from the Earliest until Recent Times) Including an Account on Its Antecendents , is an academic book published in 1962 (his poems are discussed in pp. 126–128). A few paragraphs are dedicated to him in Early History of Kāmarupa (1933) (pp. 321–322). AluminiumWithAnI (talk • contribs) 10:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  International Research Journal of Interdisciplinary & Multidisciplinary Studies is from Scholar Publications, which is on Beall's List of potentially predatory journals and publishers so I think your suspicions are justified. M kuhner (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:FOOLSGOLD, on identifying predatory journals. Most articles with that nomenclature tend to be predatory so you are justified. The other two can work to an extent, for a weak keep Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Changing my vote to Keep. Having tossed out several articles in predatory journals (including the first article I linked in the previous comment), existing reliable coverage points to him being a somewhat significant figure in Assamese poetry. I went digging for more sources and found non-trivial mentions in (pp. 165–166), a PhD thesis (Das, L. (2023). "Gīts of Biyāh-gowā Ojāpāli: An Expository Study") published by Tezpur University, and (pp. 22, 51, 94; journal published by Springer Nature). Brief mentions include (pp. 220, 223); (p.92; textbook by the Government of Assam); (p.9; published by Springer Nature; this one notably names Durgabar as one of the most influential poets in panchali literature). AluminiumWithAnI (talk • contribs) 11:27, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

    Hm, there are certainly some sources here and I'm a bit softened up on it. There might be just enough here for an article, in the two last sources you posted in your first comment. The PhD thesis isn't in-depth coverage though; it mainly discusses other people's works in a genre called Durgābari gīt, named after the subject. It's at most 3 sentences dedicated to the subject.

    If these sources are added to the article I'd consider withdrawing the AfD. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 16:47, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

    Also nice work on digging these up. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 16:47, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

    Thanks for taking a closer look at the sources, I'll be adding the newly found information on the article shortly (might take a few days since I'm busy IRL), and maybe rewrite the existing sections since as you said the text is not very well-written. AluminiumWithAnI (talk • contribs) 23:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Incoherent, unclear, and confusing. Bearian (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:00, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep based on newly found sources (nice work!) and AluminiumWithAnI's plan to improve the text (also nice work!) M kuhner (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Regina Doman

Regina Doman (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)

Little significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Refs in the article are all dead links. Blackballnz (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: note that the first nomination from 2011 ended as "no consensus" at a time of lower inclusion standards than today (in a topic area–BLPs–that are supposed to have relatively high standards). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Delete - couldn't find much WP:RS coverage of the subject that was independent. Best I could find was an interview and coverage on "Catholic Mom.com". Fails WP:GNG Yojo98 (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete sadly concur that the sources here are not the in-depth coverage in reliable sources needed to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: A brief book review , and here Oaktree b (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• weak keep: Probably enough to show a pass at AUTHOR with the reviews above from various sources. Oaktree b (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per the sources identified above by Oaktree b, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: No evidence of notability under WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR (can't find any independent reviews of her books). To deal with the reviews surfaced above, this is a review of her Snow White book but the second link (TWL link for registered users) is a single paragraph mention of the book in a broader article, not a full review. This is a review of her Catholic Philosopher Chick book. NAUTHOR requires multiple reviews each of multiple works or of a body of work and that's not in evidence here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Multiple reviews of one book would suffice or we wouldn't have an article on Margaret Mitchell for example, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

But we don’t have multiple reviews of one book for Doman, and Margaret Mitchell qualifies under ANYBIO and GNG anyway. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oaktree b, can you add the sources you found to the article in context? Bearian (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  If we keep it, sure, not going to bother editing it when it's going bye-bye. Oaktree b (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jocelyn's dance ^talk 08:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Ryan Busse

Ryan Busse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Refs are interviews, results pages. scope_creep^Talk 21:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Politicians, Montana, and Nebraska. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The NYtimes article and the AP article include quotes but are not interviews. That seals GNG. The results pages confirm facts, but don't support GNG. I think his book and the story of him as a "reformed" gun advocate that is told in the sources could be used to expand the article. Lamona (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while unelected candidates get articles only if they can be shown to have preexisting notability for some other reason besides the candidacy per se. And since every candidate in every election everywhere can always show at least a smattering of campaign coverage, the existence of a smattering of campaign coverage does not automatically hand a candidate a special GNG-based exemption from NPOL — if that were how it worked, then NPOL itself would be completely meaningless and unenforceable, because no candidate would ever fail to be exempted from it.
  The amount of campaign coverage shown here, further, is not sufficient to claim that Busse should be seen as more special than other non-winning candidates, and this article is not showing any credible claim to preexisting notability outside of non-winning election campaigns. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:NBIO and WP:NPOL. The NYT profile is from 2021, predating his political career. He was also profiled in the Billings Gazette in 2022: . Other coverage relating to his book includes Financial Times and Billings Gazette. It's true that NPOL doesn't say that unelected candidates are notable just because they received some coverage -- it also doesn't say candidates are not notable just because they are not elected. We need to judge the prominence of the race and degree of coverage. A major party candidate in a state governor race is likely to have received substantial coverage, and Busse did. , , . Jfire (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Campaign coverage does not help to establish the permanent notability of an unelected candidate in and of itself — since every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, our entire consensus that candidates aren't automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles would be completely untenable if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt a candidate from NPOL, because literally every candidate in every election everywhere would always gain that exemption.
We're writing history here, not news, so the notability test doesn't just hinge on counting the number of media hits a person's name technically gets in the news cycle — it hinges on whether the context of what the person got coverage for passes the ten year test for enduring significance or not. But being an unelected candidate for office very nearly never passes that test, so campaign coverage does not establish or bolster the notability of an unelected candidate all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The coverage in the New York Times, Billings Gazette (two profiles, one front-page), and Financial Times is not campaign coverage. It occurred prior to his political candidacies. Jfire (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The ten year test is an essay, it is not policy or guideline, it is a personal interpretation. While some may support it, there is no community consensus that it can be used to refute the notability of subjects that satisfy the GNG. We don't get to make editorial judgements on what reliable sources choose to write about - that's original research. There is overwhelming community consensus that WP:NPOL provides for inclusion of office holders at state and federal levels worldwide; there is no consensus whatsover that an unelected candidate with significant coverage in reliable sources prior to their entry into electoral politics simply then has any and all material related to their subsequent political activity made null and void as a determinant for notability. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: He's running for 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Montana but results only come out in November 2026 so he has the potential to be notable if he wins. That said WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL so this article might be WP:TOOSOON. Conversely, it might be WP:TOOSOONTODELETE, and if he is a strong contender for the election, more reliable sources about him will be published in the coming months. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 19:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Montana#District 1. @Bearcat has made some sound arguments for deletion, which I agree with.

Some recent (and rare) exemptions where unelected candidates meet GNG but fail NPOL are Graham Platner, and Rebecca Cooke (politician) (which I wrote, and which was accepted at AfC).

I would encourage the creator of Busse's page to look at the source analysis that took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Platner. The sheer amount of substantial, in-depth coverage from every major news organization was compelling, but even then, the result was "no consensus". aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Also for reference: the closed nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Forstag, Busse's main opponent in the primary race. Similar sources, limited almost entirely to campaign coverage, page was redirected. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

not a notable person,delete ~2026-17538-09 (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

One issue is that Aaron Flint, who has ran in less elections and is on the state level less notable has a page without a nomination for deletion. CrazyMountainCreator (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Aaron Flint had a consensus to redirect in April. An editor expanded it after the June 2 election, I argue wrongly. I have started another discussion. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 06:00, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• @EaglesFan37, CrazyMountainCreator, and Ser!: notifying you as participants of the earlier AfD in March. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 05:27, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Montana#District 1: The last AfD was three months ago and the decision was to draftify. The article's sourcing has not changed since the last AfD. As before, I argue that the sources show that Busse's memoir Gunfight! is notable, but Busse himself is not. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 05:53, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  If the memoir is notable, then ipso facto either we have an article about the book or the author. Given the coverage in reliable sources and the foray into electoral politics, common sense would indicate that an article on the person is far more effective for readers. Leaving aside that the subject passes the GNG, since there's no article about the book, again, common sense would indicate it is reasonable to leave in place an already created article about the author. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect as above. Same issue applies from last time; two sources are WP:MILL election coverage, two are interviews that are more about his memoirs than the subject himself. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep passes the WP:GNG. Prior to entry into electoral politics, some examples: 2021 SIGCOV in Daily Montanan; 2021 SIGCOV in the New York Times; 2022 SIGCOV from Australian public radio. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 15:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: The NY Times is fine, this NPR item half interview half analysis like most NPR things. I think we have enough to show notability, a former gun industry insider that went to the "other side" Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delete – I don’t think this meets WP:GNG. Most of the coverage seems to be interviews or tied to his book and election campaigns, rather than sustained, in-depth independent coverage about him as a subject. Under WP:NPOL, running for office (especially unsuccessfully) doesn’t establish notability on its own unless there’s strong independent coverage, which isn't clearly present here.Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Lindsey Haley

Lindsey Haley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP. Refs are primary, 404, profiles. No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 21:15, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Poetry, California, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep based on what's available. Profiles and news features are acceptable, even if not the best; reliability is a spectrum. Bearian (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:20, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Oliver Phommavanh

Oliver Phommavanh (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:PERP for his criminal activity, article created soon after his sentencing. Also fails WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Crime, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --SatnaamIN (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASUKITE 02:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep – If he was only an offender, or only an author, I would agree, but it's the fact he is both that makes him notable in my view. Particularly as he targeted a young person. I think the sources are fine.Blackballnz (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  How does he meet WP:PERP or WP:AUTHOR? LibStar (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  When you get past the news of his offending, there are a number of earlier news reports, such as a profile in the Sydney Morning Herald (behind a paywall). He's also mentioned in a book called Australian Children's Authors. As for WP:PERP, the guidelines say "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." But he's not "known only in connection with a criminal event". If he had only committed the crimes, then he would likely not be notable (sadly, too many people doing that stuff). It's because of the link between the crimes and his work as a children's author that makes him notable (i.e. that's why the media is interested in reporting on him). Also, later on it says "the execution of the crime is unusual", and I think this is true for the same reason. Blackballnz (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 04:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)