Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion Sorting Project
Project page (talk) Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Authors. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

• To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):

• Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
• You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Authors}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
• There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

• Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
• You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Authors.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

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

Purge page cache

Watch this page

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

Contents 1 Authors 1.1 Bhaktivedanta Narayana 1.2 Murad Ali Shah Bukerai 1.3 Mark Jordan Legan 1.4 Jaume Marxuach i Flaquer 1.5 Kira Takenouchi 1.6 Yanichel Castillo 1.7 Rufus Griscom 1.8 David Madow 1.9 Allan Bonner 1.10 Gerasimos Kalogerakis 1.11 Ngarto Februana 1.12 Ed Biado 1.13 T.N. Baker 1.14 Mojtaba Pourmohsen 1.15 Tom Vallance (writer) 2 Authors Proposed deletions

[edit] Authors

[edit] Bhaktivedanta Narayana

Bhaktivedanta Narayana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable. The main reference for this article is provided from a chapter in a book on ISKCON called The Hare Krishna Movement. This chapter, "Routinization of Charisma," is just one chapter in this book - and it is about ISKCON and Bhaktivedanta Narayana is mentioned concerning his relationship with ISKCON (for a specific period of time). References on this gentleman's relationship to ISKCON are not enough to establish notablity as long as the subject himself remains non notable. Assocication with a notable subject does not confer notablity. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Subject is not notable. Previous discussion resulted in no consensus on whether to merge relevant info. Relevant information should be merged to appropriate articles. By himself, the subject is non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As a spiritual leader this guy is not notable. What has he done? Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It is rather abusive to open a new nomination four days after the last one closed as no consensus without making new arguments. The nomination argument here was made in the last discussion. Nothing has changed to merit a new nomination. GRBerry 04:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please assume good faith as my intention is not to be abusive. Also, I disagree with you as the reasoning for deletion has changed. The previous reasoning was, "Non notable religous leader. Part of non notable religious institute. Sources quetionable at best. Sources to establish notability are lacking entirely." The reasoning given above for the nomination has been specified to address the particular issues not addressed in the last discussion. This new discussion is a new chance to reach concensus. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You also argued "The references in which the subject is mentioned, aside from the self published ones, are concerned with the subject of ISKCON. These texts are about ISKCON. In passing, there is mention of Bhaktivedanta Narayana and his relationship with ISKCON. If these references are accepted as reliable sources, then I can see how a Redirect or a Merge to the ISKCON page might be more appropriate. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)", which is your argument now. Closing admins evaluate all the arguments; you are not making a new one here. GRBerry 13:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Bhaktvinode. Non notable spiritual leader. Culturalrevival (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per GRBerry. The previous AfD, by the same nominator, was closed only 4 days ago after more than 12 days of discussion. Give it a break for a few weeks at least. Nsk92 (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per GRBerry and Nsk92. The arguments and reasoning have not changed, nothing new which was not said at the last, very recent AfD.John Z (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note Per yesterday’s discussion… Three votes above are concerned with the process of deletion and are not immediately concerned with the subject’s notability. My intention in re-nominating this article is to attract more editors to this discussion – after a no consensus discussion. I apologize if I have offended any editor or caused any unnesessary harm, as this is not my intent. I will list this discussion in more deletion sorting pages that are relevant to hopefully include other editors. Also, I believe that future discussions should focus on the notability of the subject instead of voting on the process. This will assist editors in reaching a clear consensus on the notability of this subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Murad Ali Shah Bukerai

Murad Ali Shah Bukerai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Non-notable. Article is written by the subject. Very few reliable sources could be found. Obvious COI is present. It was prodded, and the subject removed it (in addition to removing the COI/Autobiography tags). CyberGhostface (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Article is indeed written by the subject or a relative of the subject here There are 32 hits on this topic but most sources don't seem to be independent reliable ones. Not enough WP:N. Artene50 (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Jordan Legan

Mark Jordan Legan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable writer, zero references. Rtphokie (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This is a 1.5 year old article on a personality with no WP:RS or WP:V sources. Artene50 (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jaume Marxuach i Flaquer

Jaume Marxuach i Flaquer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Also, I suspect a possible hoax. Only 49 Googles. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This article most definitely not a hoax.Marenach (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Article important within confines of its class 72.221.92.43 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No English references. Article on Catalan wikipedia exists but only has same reference. --Thetrick (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Calella. At least for now, then in the Calella article we can see if it's sourced.--T. Anthony (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kira Takenouchi

Kira Takenouchi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete. Non-notable author. All references I could find appear to be self-promotion by the subject and/or her publisher. Most of the editors for this article are single-purpose-accounts, editing only this article and the publisher's article, Yaoi house‎. (BTW, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaoi house). I kissed a girl with 13 fingers (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete same reasoning as with Yaoi house, above. Non-notable, borderline attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as attack page. The personal attacks are attached to a blog, not to a reliable source. I removed them and tagged for speedy deletion as an attack article, which it is. Let's not let this go on too long. --Blechnic (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• As with Yaoi house, speedy deletion is not appropriate as there are neutral versions. As with Yaoi house, Delete as lacking notability or verifiable, reliable sources. Little more than a vehicle for promotion of subject's works. Dlohcierekim 03:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 09:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  Where is the lack of context in this page? Is A1 really what you meant? This article cannot be speedy deleted Fritzpoll (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There's even an assertion of notability. I think the focus should be on attempting to find verifiable, reliable sources that show the subject meets notability requirements. If those can be found, we can keep the article. Cheers Dlohcierekim 13:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yanichel Castillo

Yanichel Castillo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self-published author with no third-party references in the article. Deleted twice before because the whole article was copied from the Jane Yolen article, but since the current version has some other stuff, the author could have just used that as a template (even though the claim that he's a "modern day Aesop" is still cut-and-pasted from the other article). The article claims he's won awards from the national scholastic press association, but their website has no mention of him (even though it lists all the award winners). Similarly, the article claims awards from the Miami Herald, but their online archive has no mention of him, and I can't find any other mentions of him online aside from self-submitted pr sites. Since nothing in the article is verifiable, or is verifiably false, it's better off gone (and even if it was all true, winning prices for student writers is a questionable claim of notability). - Bobet 19:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I agree. Congrats to Bobet for excellent research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Yanichel Castillo is a credible local author in Miami, Florida. His novel, Sounds, is available for sale online and in bookstores. Google list several PR releases for his novel and The Miami Herald has several published articles on him. The similarity between the Jane Yolen entry and the Yanichel Castillo are not enough to claim that it was copied. The columnist, Ana Mendendez, labeled Yanichel Castillo as the modern day teenage version of Aesop and "the future of American Literature", Mrs. Yolen got a different review from a different source. The information posted can be verified. I agree, there is no verification for the school awards being listed, however, that does not discredit the complete article or qualify for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.182.68 (talk • contribs)
  • You claim articles about him were published in the Miami Herald, yet Bobet already mention the Herald's online archive doesn't have a single mention of him. Mind explaining that? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - there are no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. If there's no sources backing the claims to noatability, there's nothing even to discuss. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete hoax that's sourced to non-existent articles and awards. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a hoax as the book exists [1] and the subject was editor of his high school newspaper [2], but there is no sign of the sort of coverage that would be enough for notability, and the book was published by vanity press lulu.com. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rufus Griscom

Rufus Griscom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

For starters, I think this could go under CSD.

1. It is very short
2. It is not notable (no secondary sources etc.)

I have a website, but not a Wikipedia article. StewieGriffin! • Talk 15:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

*Speedy Delete although being short isn't a reason for deletion the does not really assert notability or provide reliable 3rd party references for verifiability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Tag as unreferenced and stub, but I think the subject is clearly notable. Media Life Magazine. Random House (where it states, "Rufus Griscom left his job as an editor and director of new media in book publishing to cofound Nerve.com. His writing has appeared in Publishers Weekly, the Wall Street Journal, the Baltimore Sun, and other publications.") New York magazine. Wired. The New York Times. Tan | 39 15:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Is being the founder and CEO of a company automatic assertion of notability? If so than it doesn't meet the speedy criteria so I'm crossing my Speedy Delete out. Not sure enough about the criteria for author notability and such so abstaining until further discussion by others that know better than I. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:BIO and WP:N are the applicable policies here, and should probably be understood by anyone participating in this AfD. As this isn't a candidate for speedy deletion, I'm not sure how to interpret your responses. Per WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I personally think that being covered in the New York Times, among the other lesser sources I quoted above, is definitely an indication of notability. Perhaps I am misinterpreting your comments, and if so, I apologize for trying to "educate" you :-) Tan | 39 16:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment When I "voted" speedy delete the article met the criteria (from what I saw). I asked "Is being the founder and CEO of a company automatic assertion of notability" in order to clarify whether my initial reaction was incorrect. Obviously the article has undergone changes and therfore I removed my initial "vote". Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What sort of stub is this? Basically, why is he notable? Is it because he is now a CEO or because of his past work? The lead should clearly state what he is known for, but it wasn't clear to me if he should be sorted as a dotcom startup ceo (honestly, who isn't?) or as a publisher or something else. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability; could have been speedied. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 23:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Nerve (website), which he apparently co-founded and his claim to dubious WP:BIO notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allan Bonner

Allan Bonner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person, page reads as advertisment. CSD - spam not approved, although looking at User talk:Allanbonner, this page (or a similar one to it) has been speedied in the past. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, weak keep. At least one book he authored has multiple citations, and at least one reputable media outlet has used him as a pundit. The entry needs a serious NPOV injection, but the subject is notable. The problem will be finding reference material not too badly infected with spin. 9Nak (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you getting back to me so quickly and trying to resolve this issue.

I am not sure what "weak keep" means. The reason his book as multiple citations is due to information from other industry experts or quoting people such as Marx etc... Many reputable media outlets have used him as a pundit in fact he is on BNN tonight speaking about a current controversial matter. I am not sure what NPOV inhection means. And he has been referenced by many media outlets and notable people so I am not sure what "too badly infected with spin" refers to. Is there information that should be removed for this to get approved?

Thanks again you are very helpful. Sarah Sarahanders1712 (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:StephenBuxton"

• comment Explanations... Weak keep means that this person thinks the article shouldn't be deleted, but only just thinks that. NPOV Injection slang way of saying that the article is very biased, and needs rewriting with a Neutral Point Of View - see this guideline. Too badly infected with spin is referring to the sources - they are very heavily biased and putting a "positive spin" on the person. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, Sarah, this article is a vanity page written either by Mr. Bonner himself or people associated with him. It has been created in various forms in the past and has been repeatedly deleted. While I was the admin that declined to speedily delete it, I agree with what user 9Nak said about the issues. The article is not encyclopedic - it is really a promotion of Mr. Bonner, and needs to be rewritten to remove bias. Tan | 39 17:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself, thanks. I've trimmed back the article – so severely that it may now be an even better candidate for deletion. Can't find acceptable (non self-published) references to include most of the claims in the original; YMMV. 9Nak (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. It's been deleted several times already as a vanity article. Now that it's been stubified it's a different discussion, but I don't see any evidence of notability. BradV 21:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NN.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -- I usually try to see what I can do to save a notable page, but this page is not notable. If it was a vanity page before, and it's a one-sentence stub now that the POV content is gone, I really don't see a reason to keep it. Macduffman (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gerasimos Kalogerakis

Gerasimos Kalogerakis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article has been previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerasimos Kalogerakis. Article does not seem to show much notability. Captain panda 20:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. While it may be notable, I say delete until someone can write a decent one from scratch and see if that one can stand on it's feet. Rehevkor (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• delete, original research no assertion of notability, not notable.Myheartinchile (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete May be WP:OR; there is little WP:N or independent sources. Anyway, this article was deleted once before here Artene50 (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete although possibly notable there is no assertion of such in the article. There are no references for verifiability and I can't find anything significant to help improve the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ngarto Februana

Ngarto Februana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

An author of question notability. The primary author is User:Ngarto and thus likely has a conflict of interest. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. He may be notable, but this article is a classic case of conflict of interest. The only sources for biographical material appear to be self-published, and the article would thus fail WP:V. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Despite the unanimity of the discussion I have chosed to relist this because on the face of the article the subject is notable and COI is usually a reason to improve an article not delete it. Since consensus is supposed to relect policy I fell that wider input is required if we are to go ahead and delete this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mojtaba Pourmohsen

Mojtaba Pourmohsen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page was originally up for speedy deletion under A7, but I declined it because the article makes claims of notability. I think that this poet might be notable enough, because he appears to have won national journalism awards and has been connected to censorship practices in Iran. There aren't a lot of google hits, but many of them are in Arabic, so I can't read them. I did manage to find one article in English that mentions him. Overall, I'm ambivalent about this article. I stand by my declination of the speedy, but if the community decides that there just isn't enough out there about this guy, it should be deleted. Danaman5 (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment to add to above: I should also mention that I was searching for the romanization of his name in Google. If you searched for his name written in Arabic script, you would probably get more results. Unfortunately, I don't know Arabic.--Danaman5 (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• And I stand by my opinion it should be deleted, my reasoning behind that opinion can be found here.Shoombooly (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Or at least postpone the decision long enough to give anyone out there with relevant knowledge time to do a clean-up. If this was properly referenced then the notability issues might be addressed. But the article was only created in May and tagged in June, hardly seems time for people to take action to fix things before being deleted.Austin46 (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Vallance (writer)

Tom Vallance (writer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability, no directly referenced sources. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note discussion is red-linked from article, attempting to fix with this cmt. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Notability not even asserted, much less demonstrated. Qworty (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Identifying the subject of the article as a regular writer/columnist/reviewer for at least two major publications, as well as the author of two books in his journalistic area, is certainly an assertion of notability. While Vallance apparently did his most substantial work in the preWeb area, even a rudimentary Google search turns up, for example, a description of him as an "expert" in his field from reliable sources, eg [4]. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Fulfills notability criteria. Shovon (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep for The Enchantress Of Florence's reasons. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note:Since this discussion was never linked properly from the article I have relisted it for discussion. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 02:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 02:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable secondary sources describing the subject can be found. The current article appears to only be based on editor synthesis from primary sources. Whatever his achievements if they can't be verified by citing independent sources it will not be possible to write a neutral, original research free article about the subject. Guest9999 (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't find significant coverage on him. Every writer for a newspaper will have his name palstered throughout Google. But hits alone do not suffice for notability. There must be significant coverage of the article's subject, of which is lacking. Neither is being an "expert" considered notable for Wikipedia purposes. Every expert doesn't require an encyclopedia article written about him. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Woe betide those whose work hasn't been spidered by Gooogle! Anyway, Enchantress says it all. Article needs work, probably some very irritating and time-consuming work at a public library, but so do the vast majority our articles, or else we'd be Britannica. Ford MF (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Authors Proposed deletions

• Licia Troisi (via WP:PROD on 2007-12-25)

• Leidra Lawson (via WP:PROD on 2007-12-21)