The Arts and Entertainment Work Group is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality and importance
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs... Specific discipline portals are listed in that section.
William Ely Hill (1887-1962) - Illustrator, created artwork for the book covers for F. Scott Fitzgerald and had a regular entry in the New York tribune along with being published on numerous occasions.
The general outline and collection has been started, but if you would like to expand and organize a discipline, here's what you do. Right below the page heading for the discipline insert this: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Work groups/Division banner}} and save. This will put a rough outline together for you and then you can edit it to conform to your area. See Writers and critics below for an example. If your project grows large enough where it's taking up a good portion of this page, you should probably move it to a subpage of this page.
You might also want to make a Members section for people to join your specific area!
Any article related to this work group should be marked by adding |a&e-work-group=yes to the {{WPBiography}} project banner at the top of its talk page. This will automatically place it into Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles. Articles can be assessed for priority within this work group by using the |a&e-priority= parameter. See Template:WikiProject Biography/doc for detailed instructions on how to use the banner.
Jubileeclipman (talk·contribs) I am interested in taking on UK celebrities with articles that are stubs or otherwise non-standard. Entirely rewrote Fearne Cotton to raise standard and remove fansite tag. I am working on Holly Willoughby which was merely a list plus trivia. Will also work on musicians, all genre, living or dead.
Notability not established with significant sources. Prod removal claimed "artworks are usually accepted with one good source" – besides this being completely false, the single citation has only a single sentence on it and is not a good source toward GNG at all. The only sources I can find are routine data generic to any painting and no substantive coverage about the piece. Reywas92Talk13:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Portraits of the presidents: the National Portrait Gallery pp. 14-15 (p. 34): "The Missouri-born artist George Caleb Bingham painted the original version of this portrait in the spring of 1844 in his temporary hut-like studio situated at the bottom of Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Bingham would later gain much acclaim for his depictions of life on the transMississippi frontier. At the moment, however, he was an unproven quantity, and Adams’s willingness to sit for him stemmed largely from the fact that Bingham was sharing his studio with painter John Cranch, who was an Adams kinsman."
Portraits of John Quincy Adams and his wife (pp. 231-235): "The third example catalogued by Bloch (Fig. 100) is considerably different from the other two but undoubtedly derived from one of them. Adams is shown, turned slightly to his right and looking to the viewer's left." (And so on)
A Pioneer Preacher.St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 1910-12-11: "Of these the one of John Quincy Adams, president of the United States, is probably the most famous. It was painted on a slab of walnut wood."
the article should be expanded (I'm not an expert on painting but I may make a go at extending it sometime... looks like it's been expanded with different sources than I found). Skynxnex (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources used in the article come from multiple books and two different news organiations. In conjunction with others mentioned by Skynxnex, this article has enough coverage to meet notability. Demt1298 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at first glance she appears notable, but I will look deeper into the sources, as well as potential sources in a BEFORE search within the next few days before iVoting. It appears there are several SPA's who have worked on the article, however, that may or may not mean it's an autobio, which while strongly frowned upon, is not forbidden - if the person is notable. It may have influenced the neutrality of the article, so if it turns out that they meet notability criteria and the article is kept, it may need to be cleaned up. Netherzone (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this was my "last article before bed" AfD so I don't want to go down the complete rabbit hole it would take to make a definitive statement, but just from being adjacent to the poetry and translation world for a few years, the Pushcart prize is a big deal. It's not at the MacArthur/Oscar/Pulitzer level of presumed notability/speedy keep, but it's not a run-of-a-mill everyone pretty good has one at all. There are parts of the bio that probably don't help notability (the musical compositions have no publishers that would contribute to GNG or a music note), but the poetry looks more like it does -- Best American Poetry and the Pushcart anthology are quite heavy hitters. (If for some reason I don't get time to return to this, my gut is Keep). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)09:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding this professor and art critic notable per WP:Nacademic nor WP:NAUTHOR. The current sourcing consists of two press releases and a listing that is a simple name check. Part of a group of articles created to promote the "Empathic Movement". Netherzone (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'll bite, this article is probably not notable. The refbombing makes it really hard to assess the quality of the sources, but even then, it seems most coverage is either WP:ROUTINE or about the movement he founded, empathism. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Many of the sources are local, and many are written by followers/adherents/members of his so-called "cultural movement", Empathism, who have signed his "manifesto", therefore are not independent.
Delete - As I'm slogging through the 94 ref-bombed citations I am finding that many of these sources are user-submitted content, blogs, things written by his Empathism adherents and members, and some sources don't mention him at all. The article is bloated with content supported in this way, and I do not think it should remain in the encyclopedia, per WP:PROMO by the two now-blocked sockpuppets (see: [9] and [10]). Also WP:TNT, and WP:NOTADVERTISING may apply. Netherzone (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For full disclosure I was recently heavily involved in both the ANI thread and the SPI which resulted in the socks being blocked. However, I agree with the positions taken by Allan Nonymous and Netherzone above. The fact that the equivalent article was deleted on Italian Wikipedia on notability grounds is, I suspect, a relevant consideration here. Axad12 (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — maybe if this were started from scratch by impartial editors it could amount to something, but as things stand, it’s irremediably tainted by promotional spam. — BiruitorulTalk12:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not know what this editor(s) did so bad, but I think that this profile od Menotti Lerro, also born as a draft accepted, did not need spam to be encyclopedic. I see academic monographies dedicated to the Author. A lot of relevant articles "Poesia" international magazine more times since 2003 (therefore 17 years before his movement), and articles written by Roberto Carifi, Nuovi Argomenti main Italian literary magazine, Avvenire by Maurizio Cucchi who wrote also on La Stampa in 2006. The author developed Cilento Poetry Prize financed by Italian Ministry of Culture for 140.500 Euro (seems very relevant thing to me...), his prize, was written in the page, has been now given to the Nobel Prize Jon Fosse who did not adhere to the movement... Same in the Movement there is the other Nobel Prize Olga Tokarczuk but she did not receive the prize (so did not adhered for this...). His movement is published in Academic volume The Empathic Movement (CSP: 2023). The same movement started in 2020 while the prize started 2017 (therefore it is not true that Lerro was convincing authors giving them the prize... at the least no in the first 3 years and no Jon Fosse, because he did not adhered, who is pretty relevant author and example, I guess. The author taught in Universities and has 4 academic degrees (MA from UK and PhD) and he is author of both: academic and creative volumes (around 40). I really do not understand why he did not earn to be on the free encyclopedy... Maybe the editor(s) did mistake (I do not see the real reason for them, but you should maybe to be a bit more open about the author himself...Heremsun (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)— Heremsun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Heremsun, welcome, it's interesting that out of the blue on your very first edit of WP, you would find this AfD to make your very first edit. Please tell us how that coincidence occurred. You sound a bit familiar, have you other accounts? Netherzone (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a WP:TNT case right enough. I thought because he was poet but looked at a whole bunch of the references (not the whole first block though) and seems to be non-notable. Which is unfortunate really. If it wasn't empathism and the concerted effort to stuff it full of crap along with the several articles I came across mentioning the term during NPP sprint, I suspect there could be enough for a wee stub as a poet. These directed action gangs on here turn a lot of people off. Its unfortunate. scope_creepTalk10:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. It’s so poorly written, designed, formatted, and duplicative (especially references) that, even if an argument could be made that he’s notable, the article would have to be written from scratch. If the subject paid for this crap, then he was scammed. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the webcomics that are part of the alliance are notable, the alliance itself doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources; I was only able to find mentions. The article was previously kept at an AfD (well, VfD), but that was back in 2004 when standards were very different. toweli (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Besides a listing in the colofon of Webcomics (2005), I got nothing. The sources in the article aren't particularly reliable either, so there's nothing for us to say on Dumbrella I'm afraid. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit13:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the existing relying on a single source and vagueness issues (likely due to translation), the information in the article could easily be included onto the existing articles – DIN 1451, Austria (typeface), Tern (typeface) and Road signs in Austria – with the provision of sources, weakening the article's basis.
Deletion was objected, a merged was proposed instead. However, it is not possible to redirect one article to 3 others. Created a topic at WikiProject Typography over 4 months ago with no response. The article has no notability on its own, and is poorly written/explained. EthanL13 | talk22:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is covered in DIN 1451 in more detail than is here. Nothing in that article gives me the impression that a separate article on DIN 1451 Engschrift would be needed. I did search and Engschrift is always defined together with DIN 1451. Lamona (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion, Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to DIN 1451, by condensing the Austria section into a single sentence and placing it under DIN_1451#Usage_examples (this is sourced - the article's only source refers to this). There is certainly no justification for a standalone article, as the target article provides better coverage for every other aspect. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a disambiguation would be the way to go, given the several different types where the term is accepted as a variant, and the fact that it also represents the original German term for shorthand [11]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We now have several closure suggestions including Delete, Merge and Redirect with different target articles mentioned. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics
The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Related Projects
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts
Does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. Reasons given for notability are co-authoring books with husband. I understand it is difficult to know who is responsible for the written work in these circumstances, but I think co-authoring books that do not have their own article is a difficult justification for an article- I would suggest a merge with her Husband's article maybe (her husband is clearly notable as president of a learned body). I feel very bad about doing this, however, as obviously I do not want to underplay women's accomplishments in scientific fields. Spiralwidget (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She's mentioned quite a bit in Gscholar [12] for example, but I suspect it was due to the era in which she lived and gender bias that "minimized" her contributions for lack of a better term. The 50s and 60s was still early for female scientists to be taken as equals to males. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I sympathise with the proposer's dilemma. Although in Wikipedia terms "president of a learned body" gives us an easy basis for declaring someone notable, the lasting impact of this couple, and the real reason they're notable, is the anthropology they did, and their written output, not the husband's post. We cannot tease apart who contributed how much. Given that we don't know their relative contributions, deciding to put her contribution in an article with his name just feels too old-fashioned and patriarchal, as well as very arbitrary. Also, from a practical perspective, if we were to merge, her life prior to her marriage wouldn't fit well in her husband's article, giving too much weight to things that aren't directly about him; we'd have to consider moving the new merged article to "Felix Maxwell Keeling and Marie Margaret Keeling" or something like that, but then we'd need redirects anyway, so what's the point? "Keep" has the benefit of being a simple outcome to an inseparable duo. Elemimele (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the co-author of Elite Communication in Samoa and Taming Philippine Headhunters, both of which seem to be significant books (I'm seeing lots of published scholarly reviews online, despite the fact they were published a long time pre-internet), she surely meets WP:AUTHOR. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You should have followed your initial hunch: "I feel very bad about doing this". Back then, it was absolutely normal that a woman would publish together with her husband. Even if she was the major contributor, it would go out with the appearance that it was mainly the man's work. We should not be perpetuating this custom and either way, it's clear that they were both notable for their work in anthropology, even if it appears that he is the major author. Schwede6618:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Schwede66 and Josh Milburn and other arguments. Additionally the Pan-Pacific Women's Association was a redlink in the article due to a typo but is a significant organization. Major evidence comes from the article Oaktree found, "Applied Anthropology and Interwar Internationalism: Felix and Marie Keesing and the (White) Future of the ʻNativeʼ Pan-Pacific" -- when researchers are being the subject of others' academic articles, it's a very strong sign of WP:PROF passing. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)09:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP of a political scientist of doubtful notability. The only source that might get it over the line is the biographical dictionary of Georgia, but that looks more like an online Who’s Who rather than a DNB. Mccapra (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author of the article, so my voice doesn't count here, but since I was mentioned in the comments, I would like to share my thoughts. Firstly, Antsiferov is mentioned in several articles (for example, in relation to the State Duma elections and the case involving the Kremlin's attempt to sue him), both of which are quite high-profile and have been covered by many reputable media outlets. Secondly, he is the author of well-known textbooks in Russia, which are used by students at elite Russian universities (MGIMO, MSU). Madrugador88 (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In order for the textbooks to help towards Wikipedia:AUTHOR, they would need to be the subject of multiple independently published book reviews. For them to lead us to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), we'd need to see that they are being used by a large number of colleges and universities, with evidence for that (for example, if the publisher has put up a list of textbook adoptions). Qflib (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at first glance she appears notable, but I will look deeper into the sources, as well as potential sources in a BEFORE search within the next few days before iVoting. It appears there are several SPA's who have worked on the article, however, that may or may not mean it's an autobio, which while strongly frowned upon, is not forbidden - if the person is notable. It may have influenced the neutrality of the article, so if it turns out that they meet notability criteria and the article is kept, it may need to be cleaned up. Netherzone (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this was my "last article before bed" AfD so I don't want to go down the complete rabbit hole it would take to make a definitive statement, but just from being adjacent to the poetry and translation world for a few years, the Pushcart prize is a big deal. It's not at the MacArthur/Oscar/Pulitzer level of presumed notability/speedy keep, but it's not a run-of-a-mill everyone pretty good has one at all. There are parts of the bio that probably don't help notability (the musical compositions have no publishers that would contribute to GNG or a music note), but the poetry looks more like it does -- Best American Poetry and the Pushcart anthology are quite heavy hitters. (If for some reason I don't get time to return to this, my gut is Keep). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)09:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the sources are neither reliable nor independent. They are full of primary sources written by the subject or from unreliable blogs. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough here to show GNG. She's written a book that Martin van Beynen has called "bestselling". It created a lot of publicity, for example, John Campbell interviewed her for 10 min on Radio New Zealand. She gets keynote speaking slots and, whilst that's nothing unusual, it is unusual when Stuff reports on that. She's been invited to give a talk at TEDxChristchurch and it takes quite something to get invited to TEDx. The pieces by Kurt Bayer (NZHerald; based in Christchurch), Eleanor Black (Stuff), and Now to Love (which belongs to Are Media) go into plenty enough depth to fulfil the criteria of three independent reliable sources. And all those sources are in the article already. All up, that's an easy keep. Schwede6604:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Waikato Times piece is a promotional piece for the business awards. The Now to Love piece is just her interview with Women's Daily. The other Stuff piece is also a promotional piece.
Delete - not notable. If it is kept then "Rgs21" should clarify if they have any link to Ravi Guru Singh, the nickname of the article subject. Ttwaring (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - substantively this page has more citations and support than many other notability pages. Rgs21 may be on vacation or unavailable and the page should not hinge on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.114.12 (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost entirely self-published sources. A lawyer or writer is famous for writing; they are not notable for that. One can make yourself famous; to become notable requires other people writing about you. See WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I reviewed, the people writing about the subject include Marc Bain at the Business of Fashion (extensively), Divya Bhandari at the Hindu (extensively -- on the digital fashion and the future for India) -- articles are behind paywalls. To a lesser extent, the subject is written about and cited in other law.com articles on decentralized autonomous organizations, by the author Robert Schwinger, a prominent partner at Norton Rose Fulbright, an elite law firm. The Business of Fashion and the Hindu, are credible, reputable and independent sources. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.85.105.72 (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request for deletion of the Wikipedia article about Klaus Schnellenkamp due to lack of relevance according to the WP guidelines. These state that public reporting on the person in question must be independent of time or over a long period of time. However, there was only selective reporting, and this was done around 15 years ago. Hence the deletion request!KSW72 (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)KSWKSW72 (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a different person than Diane Hamilton, a business professor at Rowan University and the author of some reasonably well-cited works that otherwise look like they might fit the subject of this AfD ("A decision model for integration across the business curriculum in the 21st century", "Factors affecting student performance and satisfaction", and "Adding contextual specificity to the technology acceptance model"). The better-cited Diane Hamilton from Rowan was educated at Rowan, Drexel, and Temple [14] which doesn't match the education part of the nominated article. I also found several reviews of folklore music by our non-disambiguated Diane Hamilton. As for the Diane Hamilton whose article we are discussing, her books appear to be essentially self-published and I found no reviews. We do not have the citation record or other criteria needed for WP:PROF, none of the sources in the article are sufficiently reliable and independent to contribute to WP:GNG, and as discussed above the article is heavily promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a person that doesn't meet WP:GNG. The first source is a database result as well as unverifiable. The second sources was like that too. The third one, embt.org, is solely a tribute to another man called "Alberto", and has nothing to do with this article. Source 5 is undoubtedly unreliable, and source 6 is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE (because it's written by him, I would call it a WP:SELFPUB. ORCID isn't needful especially when citing as a biographical information. I don't know much about it, but it does appear like a user generated site. I was thinking how we can structure a person's research as academics always write many publications. On this aspect, there are many primary sources; books written by him, and thy are from source 9 to 11. Primary sources may be useful and good, but at the same time doesn't tell us how notable was that research. WA it reviewed by critics, did it appear on TV sites, e.t.c.
The subject's co-authored work, and his first book according to the article, doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK. This is applicable to the third (there was no mention of the second book). A Fellow of the American College of CHEST Physicians isn't notable per WP:NACADEMIC as the membership including non elected paid position is shown here. Same as the American Heart Association. Additionally, a letter of recommendation on someone doesn't show his notable that person is, and it isn't an award per WP:ANYBIO. This was accepted via AFC by me, for the sale of this AFD. The creator is likely a COI editor who has moved this page twice, and it has been draftified twice too. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!22:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ORCID's mean nothing with regards to notability. I have one, you can register for one, for free. We were encouraged at one point to register for one with our Wikipedia credentials... Not sure how useful it is, but it doesn't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tend to agree with the explanation above, doesn't seem to have gained recognition in the field yet due to the low citation index. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Based on the changes I have reported and the previous scientific material collected, I completely disagree with your opinion that the Roberto G. Carbone page is not worthy of being published on Wikipedia English.
By reading your criticisms and opinions, you are asked to evaluate the page according to the scientific criteria already adopted with other biographical pages of more or less famous scientists that I have taken as a comparison to evaluate the validity of the page and the sources cited by me.
Please remember that there are many sources from English scientific societies that cannot be considered unreliable. I would also like to point out that many of the secondary sources cannot be cited as they do not exist on the web but only physically in paper format (for example scientific magazines, local newspapers, independent information). I therefore ask you to let me know how I can possibly insert this additional data.
It is recommended to use international scientific criteria to evaluate the quality and scientific impact of the research carried out by Dr. Roberto G. Carbone with those who have the appropriate scientific requirements.
Last revision:
The English Wikipedia version is much more accurate than the Italian one. In detail, in the introduction I have added more accurate information regarding the scientific studies and the collaboration of Roberto G. Carbone's closest colleagues.
I added in the "Research" section the close collaboration with the Nobel Prize winner Prof. Renato Dulbecco in the physiology of lung cancer.
I added a quote with the photograph of the current president of the Royal Society Medicine who recommended that I write as a courtesy that Roberto G. Carbone is honored to be a member of the Royal Society Medicine.
Delete. Citation record does not look like a pass of WP:NPROF C1. Editorial board membership is WP:MILL, and does not contribute to notability. The fellowships in the Royal College and in CHEST appear to be based in large part on ability to pay, to be open to early career researchers, and in general not to be the kind of thing discussed by NPROF C3. Fellowship in American Heart Association failed WP:V. Little sign of GNG notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Russ Woodroofe's evaluation just above. In addition, the bit about the libraries that hold his 2009 book is just odd. So what if it's held "at MIT in Boston [sic]"? The MIT library system contains millions of books. That whole paragraph reads like trying to hype up a person without actually knowing what a successful academic career looks like. XOR'easter (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created as a draft which was declined twice and then moved to mainspace by the draft creator, who restored it to mainspace after it had been draftified again. I have cleaned it up pretty extensively and looked for better sources, but I can't see how WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG are met – it looks like a case of an up-and-coming writer who is not yet notable. The single possibly independent source in the article (other than all the sources that don't mention Dorneanu) gives me a warning so I have not assessed that, but one source would not be sufficient in any case. A WP:BEFORE search yields nothing. bonadeacontributionstalk12:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding this professor and art critic notable per WP:Nacademic nor WP:NAUTHOR. The current sourcing consists of two press releases and a listing that is a simple name check. Part of a group of articles created to promote the "Empathic Movement". Netherzone (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see a NY Post article with her as the main focus as well as a People article and a few others. Sure, this page is going to be brief but it's still notable enough to keep. Nweil (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on those. They do not establish notability. Have you seen WP:NYPOST? There is consensus the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting, especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the New York Post more reliable before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving the New York City Police Department. A 2024 RfC concluded that the New York Post is marginally reliable for entertainment coverage; see below. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not positive the subject of Tracey Collins falls under "politics". You said yourself she is a low-profile individual. I get that this is all tangentially related to politics but the tone of that article does not seem slanted or biased in a political way. I think the RfC does not apply here. Nweil (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the NY Post nor People would have published those if not for her relationship to Eric Adams, hence NOTINHERITED and the connection to NYC politics. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eric Adams. An article about a person is an article about a person, even if the motivation for writing the article was the person's relationship. NOTINHERITED isn't about discrediting sourcing about that person, but discrediting the idea that someone is automatically notable for their relationship. That said, there's just not enough sources about Collins directly to support WP:BIO at this point. Add to that the ongoing legal issues around Adams will likely mean this bio will run into WP:BLPCRIME issues, and I think it makes sense to just redirect here. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The mayor of New York City is the most prominent mayoral position in the United States. The spouse/partner of the mayor is treated like that of a state's governor. Have there been discussions about the notability of a governor's significant other? I would apply them to the First Lady of NYC if so. Thriley (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The significant others of Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg were not treated akin to first ladies of a state. De Blasio's wife, Chirlane McCray, has independent sourcing directly about her, not her husband. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The New York press has historically covered the First Lady of New York with the same interest as if she were the wife of the governor of New York State. Thriley (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, we don't see evidence of that with RS going into Collins as a person, just passing mentions in articles about Adams. McCray served in the role, Collins has avoided it, it would seem. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to guess, she has been deliberately low profile during his administration due to the concerns raised during the campaign. Thriley (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly off topic but can I request some eyes on this article [15] which the same author created 18 minutes before creating his own article. Google suggests some connection between author and subject. Axad12 (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added 17 reviews of his three books to the article, many of them reliably published in a mix of major newspapers and academic journals. There's easily enough for WP:AUTHOR here, even if we don't count the more-routine Publishers Weekly and Kirkus reviews. I don't know what the nominator tried but finding several of these took only plugging his name into Google News. As for formatting, see WP:DINC, but User:XOR'easter seems to have already done much of the necessary cleanup soon after the deletion nomination was made. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as we should not allow indiscriminate creation of autobiographies, we should not distort our content by letting the bad creation of an article on a notable subject prevent us from having an article on that subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'll bite, this article is probably not notable. The refbombing makes it really hard to assess the quality of the sources, but even then, it seems most coverage is either WP:ROUTINE or about the movement he founded, empathism. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Many of the sources are local, and many are written by followers/adherents/members of his so-called "cultural movement", Empathism, who have signed his "manifesto", therefore are not independent.
Delete - As I'm slogging through the 94 ref-bombed citations I am finding that many of these sources are user-submitted content, blogs, things written by his Empathism adherents and members, and some sources don't mention him at all. The article is bloated with content supported in this way, and I do not think it should remain in the encyclopedia, per WP:PROMO by the two now-blocked sockpuppets (see: [17] and [18]). Also WP:TNT, and WP:NOTADVERTISING may apply. Netherzone (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For full disclosure I was recently heavily involved in both the ANI thread and the SPI which resulted in the socks being blocked. However, I agree with the positions taken by Allan Nonymous and Netherzone above. The fact that the equivalent article was deleted on Italian Wikipedia on notability grounds is, I suspect, a relevant consideration here. Axad12 (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — maybe if this were started from scratch by impartial editors it could amount to something, but as things stand, it’s irremediably tainted by promotional spam. — BiruitorulTalk12:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not know what this editor(s) did so bad, but I think that this profile od Menotti Lerro, also born as a draft accepted, did not need spam to be encyclopedic. I see academic monographies dedicated to the Author. A lot of relevant articles "Poesia" international magazine more times since 2003 (therefore 17 years before his movement), and articles written by Roberto Carifi, Nuovi Argomenti main Italian literary magazine, Avvenire by Maurizio Cucchi who wrote also on La Stampa in 2006. The author developed Cilento Poetry Prize financed by Italian Ministry of Culture for 140.500 Euro (seems very relevant thing to me...), his prize, was written in the page, has been now given to the Nobel Prize Jon Fosse who did not adhere to the movement... Same in the Movement there is the other Nobel Prize Olga Tokarczuk but she did not receive the prize (so did not adhered for this...). His movement is published in Academic volume The Empathic Movement (CSP: 2023). The same movement started in 2020 while the prize started 2017 (therefore it is not true that Lerro was convincing authors giving them the prize... at the least no in the first 3 years and no Jon Fosse, because he did not adhered, who is pretty relevant author and example, I guess. The author taught in Universities and has 4 academic degrees (MA from UK and PhD) and he is author of both: academic and creative volumes (around 40). I really do not understand why he did not earn to be on the free encyclopedy... Maybe the editor(s) did mistake (I do not see the real reason for them, but you should maybe to be a bit more open about the author himself...Heremsun (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)— Heremsun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Heremsun, welcome, it's interesting that out of the blue on your very first edit of WP, you would find this AfD to make your very first edit. Please tell us how that coincidence occurred. You sound a bit familiar, have you other accounts? Netherzone (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a WP:TNT case right enough. I thought because he was poet but looked at a whole bunch of the references (not the whole first block though) and seems to be non-notable. Which is unfortunate really. If it wasn't empathism and the concerted effort to stuff it full of crap along with the several articles I came across mentioning the term during NPP sprint, I suspect there could be enough for a wee stub as a poet. These directed action gangs on here turn a lot of people off. Its unfortunate. scope_creepTalk10:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. It’s so poorly written, designed, formatted, and duplicative (especially references) that, even if an argument could be made that he’s notable, the article would have to be written from scratch. If the subject paid for this crap, then he was scammed. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Semi-advertorialized rticle about a city councillor, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, city councillors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence that they should be seen as special cases of significantly more nationalized notability than the norm -- but this is showing nothing of the sort, and instead is trending in the direction of trying to promote his post-council business as a mortgage agent, and is referenced entirely to the type of run of the mill local coverage that's merely expected to always exist for all city councillors in their local media, except for a single brief glancing namecheck of his existence in a national newspaper article about somebody else, which isn't support for notability and doesn't even support the sentence it's footnoting anyway. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more sourcing and substance than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly think a redirect to the hockey team is needed. Despite the article saying that he "is" the owner of the team, he actually only owned it for a few months in 2014 before selling it to other owners again, so I don't think owning a minor hockey league team for a brief time 10 years ago is enough to warrant a redirect: he's not a terribly likely search term on that basis per se, and in the incredibly unlikely event that somebody was searching for his name on that basis, the team's article would come up in the list of search results anyway. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE with only minor roles in various TV and music. I can't find any sources getting close to discussing him. This is just the latest iteration in attempts to promote him as a speaker going back to 2014 (I've already removed that). SmartSE (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Redirect or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit08:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep the two press sources in the article seem pretty good. There's also this, this, this, all from a quick and non extensive search. His books have several reviews on Gale and Proquest which help him pass WP:NAUTHOR/ Also many interviews with RS. A pretty decent article could be written here, IMO PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is Brad Farmer AM. I do not understand why or by who the wiki page relating to me is suggested to be deleted. How can I fix this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.145.11.26 (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a lot of IP nonsense in the history of this article, so while I agree with the IP's PROD, I think this merits an AFD. Farmer has been cited, but since OA isn't sufficient I don't see WP:BIO level coverage StarMississippi21:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have semi'ed the article due to the blanking, but not this discussion. If someone feels I should not have done so as nom, feel free to amend. StarMississippi00:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a vanity article for a little-known freelance writer. His only claim to fame is drawing widespread mockery and condemnation for his book about wearing blackface across the United States. Much more notable Canadian journalists do not have Wikipedia pages, and the achievements listed are negligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrashPandaMan (talk • contribs)
Keep - The person who nominated this article for deletion clearly has a personal issue with the subject, Sam Forster, who is obviously a notable public figure. Just because an author is controversial, like Sam Forster is, that doesn't mean a well-sourced article about him should be removed. Sam Forster seems like a fairly normal, likable journalist, who happened to create an avant-garde book, and it seems like he is being maliciously attacked here. Violetpennington (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The critique overlooks the broader context of Sam Forster's contributions to the public discourse. While it's true that not every writer or journalist gains widespread recognition overnight, dismissing someone's work solely based on their level of fame or controversial moments is short-sighted. Forster’s book, which has indeed sparked debate, addresses sensitive and complex issues, and the ensuing reactions—both positive and negative—demonstrate that his work has provoked meaningful conversations.
It's essential to recognize that public figures who challenge societal norms often face harsh criticism, but that doesn't diminish the value of their contributions. Many notable figures throughout history were initially met with ridicule before their work was acknowledged as significant. Forster's willingness to tackle uncomfortable topics is an important part of his role as a writer. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a platform that reflects public interest, and Forster's coverage there simply mirrors the fact that his work, controversial or not, has sparked significant public attention.
Additionally, comparing Forster to other Canadian journalists based on fame is a false equivalence. The presence or absence of a Wikipedia page is not a measure of a person’s accomplishments, nor does it negate the relevance of their work. It's important to focus on the substance of what a writer has contributed to discussions, rather than focusing on how well-known they are or how their work has been received in certain circles.
---
This approach emphasizes the importance of intellectual discourse, the value of confronting complex societal issues, and challenges the assumptions about fame equating to worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daves598 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The keep vote above by the blocked editor was entirely AI generated (according to gptzero.me), and on that basis should surely be entirely disregarded. Axad12 (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. We need some experienced editors to weigh in here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no legitimate argument for deleting this article. Sam Forster is clearly a notable figure who has been featured in many prominent media outlets. The fact that some people have criticized his work is not a reason to delete his page. Violetpennington (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - like it or not, a quick Proquest search for "Sam Forster" find no end of coverage for his ... for lack of a better word, “mochaface”. Nfitz (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google searches easily turn up hundreds of high-profile mentions. There are articles from Amnesty International, the UN, and various governments, and dozens of major newspapers that all mention him. Easily meets WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV criteria. For sects with that many media mentions, their founders and leaders would usually also be notable enough. There is also plenty of information about Hashem that would fit well into a standalone article. DjembeDrums (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Finding sources was really easy for this person, they have multiple books with multiple reviews, and numerous interviews. I removed a lot of the material that I couldn't find sources for other than her website and CV. Dr vulpes(Talk)03:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After rereading that I wanted to clarify that I'm not being snippy with @4meter4 I'm just so used to having to do deep dives into archives at AfD that this was a welcome change of pace. Dr vulpes(Talk)04:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a likely GNG failure. BLP written by the subject of the BLP. While the article has been improved over the years, the goals of our encyclopedia were so alien for the creator to not provide her date of birth. User:Dr_vulpes says there are multiple reviews. I did not see true reviews. Happy to be pointed to such, if in existence! I see articles about her books, in which she tells about these. Also interviews and passing mentions. The author is accessible - kudos to her - but it does not assist the independence of the sources. gidonb (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Her date of birth isn't available but her year of birth can be found in multiple databases. I've also added another review of her book. Dr vulpes(Talk)01:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. It was moved from draft space to article space before it was reviewed and made live by the creator of the page
2. It was moved to draft space by other editors due to promotional tone, it seemed as it was written by someone closely connected to the subject
3. It was proposed for deletion and the final decision was to keep. However, the keep voters: 1 was a new account created just for this debate only (seems like it and it was an open IP, one was an editor banned for sock-puppetry)
4. There is someone constantly removing a section that is a bit negative about the subject
All this makes me believe that this page is being managed by someone closely connected to the subject. Additionally, i don't believe the subject is notable and most of the references are PRs and he is constantly self-promoting on the internet.
WikiProCreate (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a celebrity plastic surgeon [23], [24], [25]. I'm not sure any of these show notability. Discussion in AfD last time was also questioning the Academic notability, noting that 1000 citations was rather low for his field. I don't see that much has changed since the last AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He's been investigated by a few regulatory bodies [26], which doesn't affect notability. This information has been added/removed, suggesting this page is being actively curated by editors, likely for promo purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit14:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a cookbook author and filmmaker, not reliably sourced as having a strong claim to passing notability criteria for either occupation. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in media independent of themselves -- but the only notability claim on offer here is that her work exists, and the article is referenced to one (deadlinked but recoverable) short blurb that isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's all she's got for GNG-worthy coverage, and one primary source that isn't support for notability at all. The article, further, has been tagged for needing more sources since 2011 without ever having better sources added, and a WP:BEFORE search came up dry as all I found in ProQuest was the blurb and a small handful of glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of events. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, reviews exist for Lickin' the Beaters 2 from Library Journal[27] and Vegetarian Journal[28], and there are two shorter reviews for the two Lickin' the Beaters cookbooks from Broken Pencil magazine [29][30]. Broken Pencil also has a good number of reviews on her zines, e.g., one for The Day I Stopped Being Punk[31]. There's also an interview with her in Joe Biel's Beyond the Music: How Punks are Saving the World with DIY Ethics, Skills, & Values (Microcosm Publishing) on pages 150–152. With more research, I think we could probably find more reviews of her works that would warrant inclusion of this article (per WP:NAUTHOR). Best, Bridget(talk)15:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a lot of reviews/mentions are before the internet existed as we know it. Broken Pencil reviewed all the zines, even some not listed on the wiki page. I've just found a Fascinating Folks from Broken Pencil (hopefully I'm doing this correctly, first time in one of these discussions... Maulydaft (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I "vote" Not to Delete. To the article I added an example of the HeartaCk column (magazine defunct), an inclusion of Fascinating Folks in Broken Pencil, an interview with Boardwalk Chocolates with T.O.F.U Magazine. Bitch Magazine also highlighted Fascinating Folks in an article but Bitch is also defunct. Maulydaft (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. None of the links in the article help establish notability. toweli (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a subjective opinion coming from a lack of awareness of Canada's television entertainment scene. Sebastian Cluer is one of the most well known and in-demand directors in his country, having directed, produced and developed many notable shows that have had massive success both in his home country and abroad. Lots of them are on airlines, including Still Standing, Bollywed, Property Brothers...and the list goes on. These along with receiving many nominations and wins, particularly with The Canadian Screen Awards, which are the country's equivalent to the Oscars and Golden Globes combined.
Sebastian was also instrumental in the success of the hugely popular and successful show Kenny vs. Spenny and has been appearing in commentaries alongside Kenny Hotz as of late.
Keep. Article does need improvement, but there are far too many Gemini Award and Canadian Screen Award nominations and victories listed here to deem him "non-notable" at all. That's top-level national awards, equivalent to Emmys and Oscars, which is a notability lock even if the sourcing still needs improvement, and the sourcing for that kind of stuff most certainly can be improved. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Is notable" and "delete" cannot coexist. Gemini Awards and Canadian Screen Awards are an inherent notability lock, meaning that every person with those awards on their mantle must be allowed to have a Wikipedia article. I'll grant that not everybody named in our Genie, Gemini and CSA articles already has an article yet, but everybody named in any of them must be allowed to have an article as soon as somebody gets around to it, and there can be no exceptions to that: it's a top-level national award that nails inherent notability to the wall right on its face per WP:ANYBIO's "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times", which means it's inherently notable enough that it locks notability down even if the sourcing is inadequate. The only legitimate grounds for deleting a Gemini/Genie/CSA winner would be if sourceability were completely nonexistent (e.g. a person whose article falsely claimed a nomination or win that they didn't really have). Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nominations suggest notability, but there just isn't enough coverage about him. I had to dig to even bring this up [32]. An interview that doesn't quite help notability. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]