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.
Not notable. During the Azovstal siege, a number of fighters' photos were published in international media because the facility was not accessible to the press. This does not give them notability in my view. The two main WP:RSs are the Euronews article and the Guardian article. In the latter, he is literally mentioned only for a photo credit, ergo not WP:SIGCOV. In the former, the main subject are the photos by him – it's not, in any meaningful sense, an article about him or even his photography but a way to show the photos, I therefore would not consider it coverage of him. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Fails WP:LISTN. A seemingly random list, missing many entries (even the very first one, from 1902, Christian IX). Abandoned since its inception in 2010, with hardly anyone interested in it (25 views in 90 days). Sourced to a general catalogue and the homepage of a stamp dealer for some reason. Fram (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep: I feel the list is useful as an end in itself, as one of the series [[8]] and as a useful indicator of possible wp:notables with redlinks needing pages eg: Jon Thorkelsson, Einar Bendiktsson and Ingibjörg Einarsdóttir. (I made the page long ago - to fit in with the series. But no worries if such pages are not needed/desired). (Msrasnw (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC))
Many similar pages have already been deleted, and many more are up for deletion. The article should really be able to stand on its own merits, and not as part of a list. Fram (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete the sourcing is not enough to show this topic has been covered adequately as a whole to justify a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete, very little sourcing or verifiability, as is the norm for all the "List of people on the postage stamps of X" lists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep: the people listed here, seem to be important people in Icelandic history and arts. Thus, this list is better curated than List of Icelanders. Bw --Orland (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment - Based on his article in Polish WP[9] and Ukranian WP,[10] it appears that notability exists. It would be great if an editor fluent in either language could have a look at the citations in those Wikipedias. He has a biography in this book:[11] and the other language articles have additional citations, unfortunately, I am not fluent in Polish or Ukranian. Netherzone (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree - I think there's gotta be some reason that this person is still on enwiki. Just confused why there's nothing else than the one sentence. Réunion (talk!) 23:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
My guess is that the person who created it intended to expand it (or hoped someone else would) but never got around to it. Netherzone (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. All sources except one include interviews with the subject which casts doubt on their independence. Promotional in tone. Fails WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 14:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep - A WP:BEFORE search shows many hits that support WP:GNG, Google Book search reveals a monograph on her work published by Phaidon Press: Faye Toogood: Drawing, Material, Sculpture, Landscape[12], and is in these books: Woman Made: Great Women Designers[13], Atlas of Interior Design[14]A Modern Way to Live: 5 Design Principles from The Modern House[15], Life Meets Art Inside the Homes of the World's Most Creative People, [16], The Modern House[17], By Design: The World's Best Contemporary Interior Designers[18]. She also meets WP:NARTIST as her work is included in the collections of several notable museums, Philadelphia Museum of Art[19], the High Museum of Art,[20], Corning Museum of Glass,[21], the National Gallery of Victoria, Melborne[22], Dallas Museum of Art,[23], the RISD Museum,[24], the Denver Museum of Art,[25]. Additionally she has exhibited her work at the Victoria and Albert Museum, the and many other notable museums. Obviously the article can be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep per @Netherzone:'s WP:HEY effort to add these RS to the article, which clearly establish GNG and NARTIST on several vectors. Well done. Theredproject (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep Can see enough reliable sources to be here. Owlf📪 18:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep added birth year with citation. clarified 2020 show. Added VIAF data to wikidata and linked. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep. In addition to the good reasons mentioned above, has a clear pass at criterion 4 of WP:ARTISTCT55555 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep per sources presented and clear pass of WP:ARTIST via inclusion of works in permanent collections. I also tend to agree that merely including interview elements does not invalidate a source that's published somewhere respectable, ie not known for writing articles for money. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
DeleteAskART might be notable and worth creating, but there's no evidence this book would meet any standards. I can find only limited information, mostly comprising mirrors and library listings, but none indicating it's well collected or cited. StarMississippi 15:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
doesn't appear to be a notable work of art, just got some minor attention for being removed. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Strong Keep Work of art has widespread political coverage. work was not created just to get attention but to bring attention to the gravity of the subject's crimes against humanity. And the artist Dmitry Iv is exhibited internationally.[1]Strattonsmith (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete - Not a notable work of public art, it received some press due to its removal, but this does not mean it meets our notability criteria. It has not had indepth coverage over an extended period of time. There are hundreds of thousands of works of public art out there and it seems that the coverage of this one is trivial, the citations seem to reflect be the same report covered by the New York Post (not a great source) and the last citation is a mirror of that as indicated at the bottom of the "article": This entry was posted in nypost.WP:DOGBITESMAN possibly WP:TOOSOON. As an event, it does not seem to have lasting significance, fails WP:LASTING. Netherzone (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment I think the coverage was more for the work's content than its' removal. That said perhaps it was too short an impact and maybe it will reappear, so perhaps right now it is too soon.Strattonsmith (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete I don't see "widespread political coverage" contrary to the claim above. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete. I follow art news, Ukraine news, and political news, but haven't heard about it anywhere other than here. (Not that whether I've heard of it is necessarily a sign of notability per se, just that it doesn't appear to have been that widely covered.)Jahaza (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Insufficient Secondary RS to establish N. T. E. Breitenbach is probably notable by virtue of his Rome Prize, though the article seems a bit looong for the scope of his career. Proverbidioms seems like it passes notability on its own b/c of its significant cultural impact. But this one seems like a stretch. A combo of WP:OR and a bit of belief that notability is inherited from Morrison. The creator/primary author of the article is a WP:SPA working on these three articles. Theredproject (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep, a 2010 article which has been improved over the years and seems well sourced. Jim Morrison collaborated on the painting and defined its contents and subjects, so this is not inherited web-centered notability (per nom link) but a genuine collaboration between two artists. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete seems well sourced is absurd. There is one on-line source, the website of the creator of the painting that is the subject of the article. The book by Silva has an ISBN number that yields not results, is not listed in worldcat and doesn't appear to be held in any libraries for us to consult. Davis does mention Breitenbach in Jim Morrison: Life, Death, Legend, on page 390: "He even had the album jacket in mind when he replied to a letter from a college art student, T.E. Breitenbach, who had sent Jim samples of his work ...". That is not well-sourced, that is very poorly sourced. This painting is in no collection and has not been the subject of independent, critical reviews. The only coverage it has received is in Wikipedia and Wikipedia clones. Vexations (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
The Davis quote continues past the ellipses and appears to be quoted in the article. I don't have the book, but if quoted correctly and not misrepresented in the article it would be a good source from a major Morrison bio. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
That's what ellipses are for: they indicate an omission. The complete text is:
"Around this time, Jim decided to record another solo poetry session. If the work sounded good, he told his friends, he could release a spoken word album. He spoke with movie composer Lalo Schifrin about providing orchestral settings for some of these poems. He even had the album jacket in mind when he replied to a letter from a college art student, T. E. Breitenbach, who had sent Jim samples of his work—clearly showing that Jim was actively and creatively engaged in the preproduction of the album". It goes on to say: "The letter was typed, probably by Jim’s secretary, Kathy Lisciandro, dated October 9, 1970. In it he asked Breitenbach to do a triptych, the left panel depicting “a radiant moonlit beach and an endless stream of naked young couples running silently along the water’s edge,” where “a tiny infant grins at the universe, and around his crib stand several ancient, old people.” In the center panel would be “a modern city or metropolis of the future at noon, insane with activity,” and the right panel “a view through a car windshield at night on a long straight desert highway.” These vivid scenes of death and rebirth were reflective of the new beginning Jim himself was seeking. Jim closed the letter by assuring Breitenbach that if he could create “something related to these themes” in the next five months, Jim would use it".
It continues: "Included with Jim’s letter were signed first editions of The New Creatures and An American Prayer. In this letter, Jim seems to have two recent poems in mind, “Vast Radiant Beach” and “Come, They Crooned, the Ancient Ones.” T. E. Breitenbach finished the triptych a few months later, in 1971, but was informed by Kathy that James Morrison had moved to France for a while."
In my view, and I actually made an effort to track down and read the sources, that is not a sufficient basis for an article about a painting that has generated no critical discourse at all. It is an insignificant work by an art student who received a letter from Jim Morrison suggesting that he (Breitenbach) could make something he (Morrison) might use. The painting might have some significance if Morrison ever saw the painting and decided to use it for an album cover, be he never did. Vexations (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. The full quote easily confirms the bio as a major reputable source for the page. Not an easy one to spin any other way - Morrison took the artist up on his offer and then described exactly what he wanted in the painting. This was an agreed-upon collab. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
He didn't the artist up on his offer, he left for France and didn't use it. Vexations (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
He, well, died in Paris? Pined for the fjords etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete or Merge into T. E. Breitenbach. On it's own there is not enough evidence to claim this is a notable painting, and I agree the sourcing is too weak to support GNG. Netherzone (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 15:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0(talk) 08:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete - per above - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry but just saying per above for a statement that is incorrect is WP:JUSTAVOTE. gidonb (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Keep Though the article is skimpy at present, and many Google hits are from galleries that deal in his works, based on consistent descriptions across various references, Tarkay seems to qualify as a notable figurative artist under the criteria at WP:ARTIST. I've long been under the impression that he was "famous" (which I know is not the same as notable). Does anyone know of non-promo sources for artists in general? —RCraig09 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NARTIST. His work has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Look again! There is more to WP:NARTIST than that! gidonb (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
OK Beyond ARTIST 1a also ARTIST 4c is met per article 1 above and [26]. gidonb (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Keep per above discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Commentgidonb Please translate critical review in Israel's "newspaper of record" into English and add as an inline citation to the article if is adds to notability. Your link out to "The Business of Being an Artist" has no page numbers. Ditto "Common Threads: Nine Widows' Journeys Through Love, Loss, and Healing". Alfred J. Harradine referring to Tarkay as as "the great Jewish painter" doesn't add any credibility as the book is not about the subject or even art. Again, the main source of this article a a press release issued by the controversial dealer Park West Gallery and it does does not establish notability. The article has not been improved in any way since the AfD. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The statements above and opinions below conflict with WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article The bold is in the source for very good reasons. So we will not disregard. The book "without page numbers" is a distinguished publication, distributed by Simon & Schuster. This may be their way to publish through Google Books or some other fashion. The argument sounds desperate. gidonb (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Delete enough time has passed since this was listed at AfD that if significant coverage in independent, reliable sources exists, those sources could have been added. Park West Gallery is not a reliable source. The sources that have been suggested, like the one in Haaretz from 1961 don't convince me as significant coverage. I did notice that he's mentioned in DuBoff, Leonard D. (2017). Art law cases and materials (Second ed.). New York. ISBN9781454887935. as possibly the only artist to ever use trade dress to protect his style from being emulated in Romm Art Creations Ltd. v. Simcha International, Inc. (Tarkay won) Unfortunately, what I do find more of is PR, like "The Ultimate Graphic Designer, Itzchak Tarkay, Leads the World's New Generation of Figurative Artists, and Will Appear at Opening Exhibit and Sale at Park West Gallery. Vexations (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Delete doesn't seem to be enough sourcing to pass WP:NARTISTUnbh (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Keep this WP:N artist. IZAK (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment Still no suitable sources have been identified that show WP:ARTIST, All sources used are promo. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Your statement STRONGLY conflicts with the sources brought above. Tarkay had EXTREMELY INDEPENDENT critical reviews in Israel's sole newspaper of record[27] and in the Gazith Art & Literary Journal[28], satisfying WP:ARTIST #4c. There are many more fine sources about him above, in discussions of his unique legal case, and in Israeli press (e.g.). Each should do their own research by WP:NEXIST. The very weak argument of the delete sayers here is your typical red herring argument. In despair, it keeps returning to the same references in the article that do not add to the notability of the artist but do not subtract from it either, while, in your case, shopping also in the many ways that one can satisfy WP:ARTIST. Reminding that there is absolutely no WP:BLP, WP:ARTIST, or WP:GNG concern. gidonb (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I have removed said references and put in some of the excellent WP:V, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:INDEPTH, WP:RS sources that exist, rendering all the delete votes above totally irrelevant. They refer to stuff that just doesn't exist. I still need to put in the ones from the legal case. All this is against policy because the analysis if a topic is notable should be by WP:NEXIST. Neither the nominator, nor the the folks who "voted" per nom followed the rules. gidonb (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Keep: Noted artist, belonging to a tradition and noted for influencing others. Although most ghits relate to ongoing art for sale, these sales are incidental to the story of this artist and his art, and being ten years deceased, it is not profitable commercialism. Wikipedia needs more coverage of art and the arts generally, not less. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Keep Long career as a professional artist, just about notable, if only for the court case. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment. This discussion is open already a long while and seems to be forgotten. No closure and no relisting since March 9. The keep supporters make a clear policy and guidelines-based case, based on WP:NARTIST #1a and #4c, the WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:INDEPTH, WP:RS. The delete supporters have made no policy and guidelines-based case. Their arguments are all over the place and are based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:HERRING, and clear violations of WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST, using such word as "seem" to mask the lack of serious research. I hope someone can close (or even relist) this, for a famous artist, unnecessary discussion. The most awkward argument was that great sources exist but there are in existence also lesser sources and therefore the article should be deleted. That is just not how notability works. gidonb (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep a professional artist and notable works, passes WP:ARTIST. Mahdiar86 (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment. It's now well over three months into this nomination. The keep sayers have a clear quality and quantity edge. Since March 7 nobody thought this should be deleted. It just happens that the article was cleaned from sources that do not count towards the GNG and good sources were added, indicating that many delete sayers just throw a quick look at the article and do not work by NEXIST or BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment with link. I maintain my 'keep' !vote, and add the following link, which I realize is from a gallery that sells Tarkay's work. I don't think that being from a gallery should automatically disqualify a reference.
Thank you, RCraig09! This specific link does not add to the notability but is fine for data reference. It's not a problem. So many other sources do speak to the notability of Tarkay! gidonb (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
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
Non notable businessman and philanthropist who has won a non notable prize and opened a cafe in a railway station. Sources are mostly either not independent or not reliable (I’m not sure about “Telegram”). Mccapra (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete - Appears to be involved with small businesses, small support organizations, etc. Award mentioned is part of a purchased book review service. Nothing here to indicate WP:GNG is met. Tony Fox(arf!) 21:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Non notable entrepreneur, writer. Other than some passing mentions/interview type news, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete per norm – Mehedi Abedin 20:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete - An article should speak for itself, and this article does not. There is nothing in this draft to indicate either general notability as a businessperson or notability as an author. The references have not been checked because there is no substantive claim for them to verify. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete; no notable business claims. Books seem non-notable. Award is as a best-seller for a small publishing house. Kuru(talk) 23:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The artilce about the work of renowned Indian writer and blogger Animesh Sharma. He belongs from a remote location in India and he is doing a remarkable job in the field of writing and blogging. His works are being considered for various notable awards. He is also working in the field Hindi blogging. His page is created as per wikipedia policy guidelines and page must be continued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aksdw (talk • contribs) 15:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Being considered does not mean having an award, and is not really relevant. Working in the field of Hindi blogging is not enough for notability. His origins are irrelevant. And no page ever 'must' be continued on Wikipedia. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete I only see examples of Sharma's work, there's little to no third party coverage of the person. -KH-1 (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Weak keep The coverage isn't a lot, but I think enough to keep:
She's mentioned three times in Muslims and the New Information and Communication Technologies: Notes from an Emerging and Infinite Field. (2014). Germany: Springer Netherlands.
Easy keep, on the face of it, Draft at the very least It is claimed that this lady is the deputy editor of the biggest newspaper in Egypt, which would make her the equivalent of someone like Joseph Kahn of the NYT, and nobody would doubt his right to be on Wikipedia, plus a prolific author and an artist who has had solo shows at recognised galleries like the Cairo Atelier (which should have an article whilst we're on the subject). The problems here are the usual ones with people from developing countries, they just have a lot less media of the kind that Wikipedia approves of leading to all sorts of biases in our coverage (hence Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias) of people from those countries, aside from our general coverage bias against women. This editor seems to be working in good faith to fix some of those biases, and should be encouraged. I imagine Mahfouz has good coverage in Arabic sources even if not in English (so I can't really help directly), and then you have the issues of different transliterations being possible - I've moved the article to Naglaa Mahfouz to match her Wikidata entry at wikidata:Q107056752 and the usage on the government fine art website. I know we're all busy and everything but given that this kind of article is likely to have systemic bias affecting easy referencing, surely the better approach would be to have some awareness of the systemic bias issues and move to draft rather than delete? To be honest, given that the editor concerned appears to be inexperienced but editing in good faith in an area where our coverage is poor, deletion rather than draft comes across IMO as rather WP:BITEY.
And just as an example of that inexperience, I encountered them because they were capitalising all the words in categories. You've got HotCat, which would fix those kinds of problems if you let it, but instead chose to delete all the categories and not replace them. At the very least in that situation I would try a HotCat "edit" to give it a chance to fix it rather than removal, particularly if you were going to leave the article completely uncategorised. Le Deluge (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep I agree with what Le Deluge said. One of my frustrations with Wikipedia are the frequent attempts to delete articles about people from outside the U.S.A. and Europe when the article subjects meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Yes, the article needs work but that's not a reason to delete it.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Sourced entirely with brand posts, outlook spotlight, press releases and other paid coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Balchandra Upendra (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator, the subject isn't notable. I have removed sources that are inadmissible. Nanpofira (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete The awards look valuable but in India, it is hard to judge if the person got the award because of merit or because of connections. If only the coverage had value! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep I looked a couple of news and Vaidehi Taman seems pretty notable. She honored by Government of Maharashtra. Passes WP:JOURNALIST. Zim Cout (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep The subject obviously meets Wikipedia guidelines based on her awards and work, with enough reliable sources to prove the notability --SouthernNights (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Not all state awards are notable. In this case, there's a little bit of WP:NOTYET about it and I respectfully disagree that she passes WP:JOURNALIST.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep I edited the article a bit and added in one of the sources above. She has two independent reviews of her book Sounds Like Crazy plus a bunch of other interest in sources that are debatable, so I didn't add them in (blogs, interviews) as the two independent reviews is enough to satisfy the minimum bar for WP:AUTHOR. It's not the strongest example as the reviews are not big, but I think it meets the minimum. CT55555 (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
LeaningKeep. The subject is not a fan fiction author. Her writing was published in professional Doctor Who outlets, and appears to have been predominantly nonfiction. She might be better known under the "Jackie Jenkins" pseudonym. Some of her writing has been collected and republished in Single White Who Fan: The Life & Times of Jackie Jenkins (Hirst Publishing; 2011) ISBN978-0-9566417-5-5 with a foreward by Gary Gillat and biographical material, which appears to be mainstream distributed and still in print. There is substantial critical commentary on both Jenkins & Bishop in [32]; also at [33]. Review here by Gary Gillatt (former editor of Doctor Who Magazine): [34]. Wikipedia Library is coming up with Matt Hills. Doctor Who's textual commemorators: Fandom, collective memory and the self-commodification of fanfac. Journal of Fandom Studies; Apr2014, Vol. 2 Issue 1, p31-51 (can't access); Tante, Dillie. cries & whispers. The Independent on Sunday March 30, 1997, p12 (paragraph); Barron, Lee. "Proto-electronica vs. martial marches: Doctor Who, Stingray, Thunderbirds and the music of 1960s' British sf television" In: Science Fiction Film and Television. Oct, 2010, Vol. 3 Issue 2, p239 (brief discussion). Google Books search for "Vanessa Bishop": [35] (half paragraph and several other possible hits not previewed); [36] (names Bishop as prominent female Doctor Who fan); [37] (paragraph with quotation); [38] (quotation; names Bishop as "long time Doctor Who reviewer"); [39] (quotation; also non-previewed page states she was co-editor of Skaro with further details); [40] (mention; plus several non-previewed hits); [41] (long quotation); [42] (no preview); and lots more Doctor Who related without preview. Google Books search for "Jackie Jenkins" [43] (long quotation); [44] (brief review); [45] (no preview, possibly article by her); and again lots more without preview. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep as per Espresso Addict. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep per Espresso Addict. Meets notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:NBIO. – Ploni (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
While the secondary sources and the article itself are not strong, based on WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes and WP:ANYBIO, Wray should still qualify. I should note I have a WP:COI as a paid consultant working for Wray, although I did not contribute to this article. A retired two-star Rear admiral (United States) of the United States Navy,[46] Wray had to be nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate (U.S.C. §601), as he was in 2007 [47] and 2010 [48] The most analogous policy is WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Politicians, for “Political figures not elected to public office”, which states that sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable, especially if they have had otherwise notable careers.” As with non-civilian presidential appointees, what these approximately 1200 Wikipedia-qualifying sub-cabinet officials have in common is the positions are nominated by the president of the United States and must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. [49] “Rear Admiral is the highest naval rank maintained during peacetime."[50] Wray served as president of the Board of Inspection and Survey,[51] which Congress established 1868 to inspect and assess the military readiness of all vessels in the Navy, reporting to the Secretary of the Navy. Wray also meets the award criteria for WP:ANYBIO for having “received a well-known and significant award or honor.” Wray won the Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit and Distinguished Service Medal. [52]. BC1278 (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Résumé-like WP:BLP of a historian and writer, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The notability claim here is essentially that he exists as a person who has written stuff and been appointed to boards and committees, none of which is an automatic notability freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage in media about that work -- but literally across the board, every single footnote here is to content self-published by organizations he's been directly affiliated with, which are not notability-building sources. And even on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that might not have googled, I found stuff written by him (which does not help to establish notability), and I found stuff which namechecked his existence as a provider of soundbite in articles about governors-general or Order of Canada recipients (which does not help to establish notability) -- but in terms of the type of coverage that does help to establish notability, namely coverage in which he is the subject that other people are writing or talking about, I found virtually nothing but a couple of stray hits in his own hometown media, which is not enough. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep They don't give you that many fellowships without something going on with your life. He's mentioned here in a discussion about his books:[53] and [54], he's discussed in this journal article here [55] and about 3 or 4 other journal discussions of his "hisorical interpretation" of things, his biography here: [56] and he was awarded the Order of Nova Scotia here: [57]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
You've misinterpreted most of those sources.
He's the author of both of the books you linked, not a subject of discussion in books by other people, so they aren't support for his notability — you don't make a writer notable by sourcing his books to themselves as proof that they exist, you make a writer notable by sourcing his books to third party critical analysis of the books by other people and/or independent verification that he won or was nominated for major literary awards for them.
The "biography" is a staff profile on the self-published website of an organization he's directly affiliated with, and thus isn't support for his notability as it isn't independent coverage.
And he wasn't awarded the Order of Nova Scotia, he was a staffer in the administrative office of the Order of Nova Scotia, so that's also a staff directory rather than a notability-assisting source.
The journal article is fine, but one of those isn't enough to pass WP:GNG all by itself if all of the other sourcing is still primary — a person needs a lot more than just one piece of media coverage to get over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Being cited as a provider of soundbite in pieces where he is not himself the subject of the piece does not aid in establishing notability either, so most of those still don't cut it. Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
This https://www.proquest.com/openview/081998d92bb83ebacdcc1fb4c19a550c/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=48438 discusses his work for a good 2-3 paragraphs and the CMAJ is a review of his book, those and the other "soundbites" as you call them add up to notability, do they not? For sure he's passed WP:AUTHOR criteria 3b with at least 2 critical reviews (the CMAJ and the proquest one I just showed for at least 3 paragraphs, the free view won't let me see more), and criteria 4 with more than enough recognition based on his body of work, with the ample amount of honorifics after his name as proof. Oaktree b (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Notability can only be established by sources in which he's the subject being discussed by other people, and never by sources in which he's a speaker discussing other things. And even for the few sources you've profferred that do meet that standard, it takes more than just two of those to pass it. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete This person has one book that is held in more than 700 Worldcat libraries. Others are in the 2-digits. Other than that, based on Google Scholar he falls short of NPROF even though at least one book comes out of a university press. I don't think he will meet NAUTH because he writes on very narrow academic topics. I find articles BY him in Ebscohost, and the occasional book review (e.g. Treble, P 2011, ‘Canadian Symbols of Authority: Maces, Chains and Rods of Office’, Maclean’s, vol. 124, no. 36, p. 74). I think the best way to honor this person would be to use his works as references in articles about his topics, generally the history of Canada and the whole royal history. Note, also, that although he received various "Jubilee" medals, the one I looked up was given to 46,000 people. If someone versed in UK honors can show that he is significant, I would like to hear that. Lamona (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I thing WP:GNG is the guideline to use here (and which the subject appears to fail) rather than WP:NACADEMIC. The subject is a management consultant with a degree, as most of them have, not a "philosopher". Phil Bridger (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Fair point. I agree that he seems to fail WP:GNG too in any case. –Ploni (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Meets neither academic nor general guidelines. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I'd also wager that User:DrKDP, User:Hubbardaie, and Douglas W. Hubbard are all one and the same. – Ploni (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete It is a bad sign when half the sources are by the subject, and it does not get better from there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I have always disclosed that HubbardAIE is the username of Doug Hubbard (me) in Wikipedia. The name clearly does not attempt to hide that. I have no idea who DrKDP is though and I'm not sure why you would assume otherwise. 2601:249:1180:AB30:2107:C4B5:D5E6:8A84 (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Doug Hubbard here. What is the actual metric for notability which is uniformly applied? For example, for an author, what would be sufficient to be notable? This might include number of books written/sold, universities using those books, independent professional certifications requiring those books, number of articles written including peer-reviewed, number of citations by other research sources, etc. 2601:249:1180:AB30:9CC7:CFA1:2960:BF5D (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete Nothing really in terms of referencing independent of the subject or WP:SIGCOV. The level of self-promotion might even merit a WP:TNT delete. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Doug Hubbard here again. My work in books and peer-reviewed articles and their influence is easily verified and open to the public for critical review. If you decide it is notable, then I'm sure there is plenty of publicly available information for a neutral, objective article. Of course, the standards of Wikipedia should be followed for all individuals. It would be helpful to know what the objective standard for notable would be (see my note above). Thanks for your consideration. 2601:249:1180:AB30:9CC7:CFA1:2960:BF5D (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Doug Hubbard Here. This is why I'm interested in the specific, measurable criteria. I've written four books translated into 5 other languages. The first book is required reading for Society of Actuaries exam prep. Over 170,000 copies have been sold. My books and articles, including peer-reviewed (IBM R&D Journal, The American Statistician, etc.) have been cited over 1400 times according to ResearchGate. I'm just wondering what the minimum number would be to meet the requirements of "widely cited" and what sources you use to count citations. 2601:249:1180:AB30:2091:681B:9D31:201C (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Doug Hubbard here (my apologies for not signing in but it's been years since I've touched any of this. I suppose I should reset my HubbardAIE password)
Looking at the previous nomination for deletion, I see that the "keep" votes were influence in part by the 800 citations just two of my books and the number of reviews of those books. I've written other books and the number of citations and reviews have only increased since then. Should there be more mentions of those sources directly on the page? I gather there would be COI issues if I added them myself during this process. 2601:249:1180:AB30:EC8E:AF3F:717C:76A3 (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I have always disclosed that HubbardAIE is the username of Doug Hubbard (me) in Wikipedia. The name clearly does not attempt to hide that. I have no idea who DrKDP is though and I'm not sure why you would assume otherwise. See additional responses to other votes. 2601:249:1180:AB30:EC8E:AF3F:717C:76A3 (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I have seen Hubbard's work cited by numerous commentators in online fora such as LinkedIn. He wrote a couple of articles for OR/MS Today and Analytics, non-archival publications of the Institute for Operations Research and Managements Sciences (INFORMS),m which have in turn been multiply cited in INFORMS and other publications and presentations. I don't follow the archival academic literature all that closely, but he is most certainly well known and highly regarded by practitioners of my acquaintance. I vote to keep his article.
--Doug Samuelson, President, InfoLogix, Inc., long-time Contributing Editor of OR/MS Today 96.241.11.99 (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
We actually co-authored two papers together. But it's good that someone who is a credible published researcher and who is actually familiar with the field has a vote. See my previous comments, especially about the "keep" votes in the 2018 deletion nomination. The reasons mentioned for "keep" votes (800 citations of just two of my books and large numbers of independent reviews) have only increased since then. 2601:249:1180:AB30:EC8E:AF3F:717C:76A3 (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:DISCUSSAFD also proposes not to participate in a nomination if "A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar." 2601:249:1180:AB30:EC8E:AF3F:717C:76A3 (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Found my old account. Will be using this now. Hubbardaie (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure but can I vote keep as long as I disclose WP:AVOIDCOI? If I misunderstood this rule, I'm sure reviewers can discount what I say, accordingly. I also disclose that I have co-authored two papers with Doug Samuelson, who voted recently. (I notice he didn't use the convention of the bold "keep" in his response, though.) This came up in a discussion we had about what constitutes "notable" regarding this nomination and he did this on his own. Now, regarding the point of the nomination, I will only say that participants should consider the arguments previous 2018 nomination for deletion. I've said this in replies to previous statements, but I'll repeat some points here under a proper account name. The 800 Google Scholar citations of two of my books mentioned in a "keep" vote in the 2018 nomination for deletion have now increased considerably. The first book, How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business, now has 1343 citations by itself. My second book, The Failure of Risk Management: Why It's Broken and How to Fix It, has another 1380 citations of its own. (I have two other books, but they are apparently not cited nearly as often as these first two.) That still leaves 2723 total citations of just these first two books, more than 3 times the number which apparently merited a keep vote in the 2018 nomination. Looking me up on researchgate.net, which caters a bit more to peer reviewed publications, will show over 1400 citations (I assume many are redundant of the 2723 mentioned above). The keep votes of the previous nomination also mention the large number of independent reviews. I'm not sure if the reviews they mention are from Amazon, Goodreads, or other independent sources, but whatever their source, the number of reviews has only grown since 2018. I notice that I appear in a few other Wiki pages if that matters. One is Probability Management, which specifically mentions the pseudo-random number generator I developed and how it is now part of the standard adopted by many simulation tools. Unfortunately, it appears that my name in that article is not made into an active link. If that's not enough, I can gather information about the other industry standards and graduate level courses that use my books and other articles I've written in peer-reviewed journals or various interviews in podcasts, etc. Having said that, I would, of course, concede to whatever the group judgement would be on this article. I believe Wikipedia is an important site and should uphold its standards. Hubbardaie (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep Doug is an authority on risk management and has made significant contribution to the global risk profession. Numerous presentations at the largest online risk management conference RISK AWARENESS WEEK 2020, 2021 and 2022 [59], [60], [61] and [62]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Riskacademy (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Full disclosure, Risk Academy has interviewed me. The founder organizes events and interviews thought leaders in risk management. Again, like Doug Samuelson, this is someone familiar with who is notable in this field. Many of the people who will have some influence in this field and are widely cited will know each other. Hubbardaie (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep This is Dr. Sam L. Savage, Executive Director of ProbabilityManagement.org, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit co-founded with Harry Markowitz, Nobel Laureate in Economics. The primary mission of the nonprofit is to develop standards for communicating uncertainty as data that obey both the laws of arithmetic and the laws of probability. Doug is broadly influential as an author, among decision makers who face uncertainty. For this reason, I asked him to write the foreword to my latest book, Chancification (Harry Markowitz wrote the foreword to my previous one, The Flaw of Averages). But more importantly, Doug has contributed vital technology to the discipline of probability management. His cross platform pseudo random number generator (https://www.probabilitymanagement.org/hdr), is a critical layer in the open SIPmath 3.0 technology stack. SIPmath 3.0, which couples Doug's generator to Tom Keelin's Metalog Distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalog_distribution) conveys uncertainties as JSON data structures, which may be interpreted in virtually any computer environment to reproduce the same stream of random variates to about 14 decimal places of accuracy. This open standard has already been adopted by Frontline Systems, a leading provider of spreadsheet analytics. The first generation (single seed version) of this generator has been in use in the SIPmath tools from the nonprofit since 2016. When used in Excel, unlike the RAND formula, which cannot yield repeatable results, the current HDR generator provides a multiple seed pseudo random number generator with a formula that fits in a single cell. When used in conjunction with either the Data Table command or the new Dynamic Arrays, it enables extremely fast interactive Monte Carlo simulation in native Excel without macros or add-ins. Furthermore it does well on the respected Dieharder random number test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diehard_tests). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrSamSavage (talk • contribs) 05:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Undisclosed COI: [63] –Ploni (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a musician and writer, not making any strong or properly referenced claim to passing either WP:NMUSIC or WP:NAUTHOR. The notability claim here is essentially that his work exists, which isn't an automatic notability freebie in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about it in the media, but the referencing is entirely to the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies or institutions. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of third-party coverage and analysis in actual GNG-worthy media. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete - as noted, there is proof here that the author exists, and that the author has published a couple of works and worked in theatre. Is there any indication that any of that is notable? Not that I can find. I found mentions of him in discussion of several musicals, but not in any great volume; I found a review of one book on a site that looked to be not terribly notable, but no real coverage of either he or his books. I can't find any proof that he meets any notability guidelines. Tony Fox(arf!) 18:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete - The citations are not adequate and it doesn't pass MUSICBIO or GNG.Samanthany (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Lacks quality book reviews to support his author claim. Also, the "Critical reception" or "Reception" section are generally used for books, not for authors. Besides that, most of the citations are WP:ADMASQ. High probability; the page is a WP:UPE by an WP:SPA . Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment. I've found some coverage of the series. One newspaper in particular fell all over themselves to cover quite a few of the series' books. However the coverage isn't so heavy that I feel super firm on this. I get the impression that there might have been more coverage, but I'm not 100% on that. My college's database picks up some hits from the NYT, but I can't view the articles to confirm if they're false hits or actually about the series. I figure I'll leave this up to the discussion to run how it will. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep per recent sourcing improvements, but consider renaming to Children of the Lion which isn't even a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this is a WP:NPROF pass, unless someone in theology has some good arguments otherwise? Does not pass WP:NAUTHOR - the one single-authored book (Wealth and Poverty) has at least three academic reviews, so it passes WP:NBOOK, but it's just the one. The only footnote is "Discussion with Dr. Washington, November 17, 2009." asilvering (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep -- The nature of the publishers indicates that his books are fully academic works. Tag for improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
For an arts subject, 95 citations is a high number. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@Peterkingiron I'm not sure what this comment is supposed to mean. It's not in dispute that he's an academic. It's in dispute that he meets WP:NPROF. -- asilvering (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Notability and cn-tagged since 2015. I don't see a WP:GNG pass when I look, but there are lots of things complicating the search: his books are in Hindi, he writes on marginalized topics (Dalit/Bahujan empowerment), and he doesn't speak English or work at a university. In principle, he could well be notable - can anyone find sources to prove it?
He's "Dusādha, Eca. Ela." in my library catalogue (at least, I think these are the same person), but that didn't help me find anything for WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK (to get WP:NAUTHOR). Leaving that in case it helps anyone else. asilvering (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment - Something seems "off" about this article. I had a look at some of the sourcing (not all) and the New York Times, International Herald Tribune, have zero record of him nor the author in their archives. The Los Angeles Times and others did not check out either. This might be a possible hoax or fake sources? I'll spend some time to look deeper into the sourcing before coming to any firm conclusions and !voting. Netherzone (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete - After conducting a WP:BEFORE search, it seems apparent that this person does not meet our notability requirements for WP:AUTHOR, WP:NARTIST, nor WP:GNG. I searched the databases of the newspapers and other publications that supposedly had coverage, but most of them showed no mention of this person at all, or were simple name checks or calendar listings. The permanent collection claim is false, as this too was a name check that he was in a show not a permanent collection. His books are mostly self-published. A Google search reveals only social media, a few press releases and wikipedia mirrors, a Newspapers.com search shows no in-depth SIGCOV. The sourcing is dubious and the article seems to be a PR effort, and as mentioned in the nomination a COI creation, (possible UPE). Netherzone (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete if nothing else, for the blatant falsification of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
After closely going through the article, I found almost all references to be from the community mirror site Jatland wiki. One reference of writer Robert Stein which has been quoted here doesn't give single mention of this personality. I am not convinced that this article meets WP:GNG including WP:N, WP:THREE. Considering all this situation, I think this is the best solution. RS6784 (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete This person appears to have been a government functionary in a not very important princely state. We do not have the sources to show notability. I also have to admit saying he was from Rajasthan seems odd when Rajasthan was not created for decades after his birth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I am not even convinced that he was any govt functionary at all in a princely state as no reference is provided for it. His only contribution seems writing some new claims for his community. RS6784 (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep -- He has a significnat body of publications, albeit apparently Adventist in character, which is not quite mainstream. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep exercising WP:AGF the article references a number of reliable sources offline including national newspapers, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep: Many sources are and can be found to support the article. Literally, almost no reason to delete. SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 03:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Article about a writer, not making any properly referenced notability claim per WP:AUTHOR. The fact that his work exists is not an "inherent" inclusion freebie in the absence of enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG, but there are no footnotes here at all. This was once deprodded on the grounds that WorldCat statistics show library holdings of his work, but that still isn't a notability freebie without GNG-worthy sourcing -- and the closest thing to a potential notability claim, a couple of specific colleges using his work as textbooks, has been tagged {{citation needed}} since 2009 without ever having a citation added, and still isn't "inherently" notable without the sourcing to properly support it regardless. Bearcat (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete Only hits are the books by the fellow himself, zero sources found outside of those. Pretty ladies on the cover, nothing notable. 15:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The article has been repeatedly vandalized, as I have pointed out before. I deny any COI and refuse to see any promotional material in the piece. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I have a different issue, most sources are not third-party sources about the journalist in particular but more like passing mentions. The one that goes into details is a blog post. I could see the article to be kept but sourcing needs to be improved considerably first. --Tone 16:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I did a bit of research into wiki articles about slovenian journalists and found there are far less third party sources included compared to article about PF listed for deletion. One example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonja_Merljak_Zdovc.
Firestar464 is constantly removing well sourced parts of the article. How can sourcing be improved in this case? Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I think you're referring to my first edit that restored the AfD notice, which you removed. I restored an earlier revision of the article, which unfortunately caused collateral damage. In that case, feel free to restore those parts. Cheers. Firestar464 (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I didn't remove the AfD notice. You removed sourced material. Why is that? Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
What is wrong with this particular part, that you keep removing? "Back in Slovenia, Frelih was accused of bias in her reporting, the allegation she dismissed by arguing that pro-Ukrainian view of the conflict was "over represented in Western media". In 2015 the case against Frelih was reviewed by Journalists' Ethics Council of Slovenia. The council ruled in Frelih's favour confirming in their official statement that Frelih's news coverage did not violate journalists' code of ethics.[1] Shortly after, Frelih's name and personal details appeared on the Myrotvorets website where she was called an "enemy of Ukraine". Slovenia's president Borut Pahor voiced concerns over journalists safety during his talks with ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko.[2]" Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
And what is wrong with this, that's also being removed constantly:
Awards=[edit]
For her article on Belarus youth struggling under the leadership of Alexander Lukashenko, Frelih received an award from Belarusian opposition organisation Belarus in Focus. She was named the best speaker of the World Schools Debating Championship 1998, held in Bukarest, Romania.
As I said, it wasn't intentional. It resulted from my reverts of your removals of AfD notices. Firestar464 (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I repeat: I didn't remove AfD notice. If it wasn't intentional, I will put this parts back. Let's see, if it stays this time. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
It looks like you removed the notice again. For the last time, please. stop. Firestar464 (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
No; does it matter at all? --Firestar464 (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
should the page be deleted? 46.208.254.153 (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
That's what we're discussing right now. You are allowed to make arguments for or against deletion. Firestar464 (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I would argue in favor of deletion purely on the basis that the page creator appears extremely emotionally invested in this page which to me indicates WP:COI. Much more detailed and includes details e.g. about subject's school than I would expect for a figure with such little notable coverage. However, it may merit a considerably shorter article if anyone is prepared to sift through mainstream Slovenian sources. Autumnotter (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
This has devolved into accusations.
I noticed a pattern: removing sourced parts connected to Ukraine and parts that present journalist in question as objective. For example: removing parts about her being critical towards Putin etc, award from Belarus opposition for her article on belarus dictatorship... I sense an agenda - presenting journo in question as pro-Kremlin. Feel free to do it, but not "generally regarded as pro-kremlin" style.
Can you explain what is "heavily promotional"? Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
it seems heavily promotional to me too WP:COI, I am reinstating edits that state the plain facts about accusations, while disregarding apparent attempts to deflect / defend subject from accusations of pro-Kremlin bias 46.208.254.153 (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I deny any COI and refuse to see any promotional material in the piece.
Back in Slovenia, Frelih was accused of bias in her reporting, the allegation she dismissed by arguing that pro-Ukrainian view of the conflict was "over represented in Western media". In 2015 the case against Frelih was reviewed by Journalists' Ethics Council of Slovenia. The council ruled in Frelih's favour confirming in their official statement that Frelih's news coverage did not violate journalists' code of ethics. Shortly after, Frelih's name and personal details appeared on the Myrotvorets website where she was called an "enemy of Ukraine". Slovenia's president Borut Pahor voiced concerns over journalists safety during his talks with ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko. Pro-Kremlin bias was established by whom? Any third party sources, please. You are clearly reinstating edits Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
reinstating edits without proper sourcing. Remove the article, if it bothers you that much, but don't pretend it's about sourcing. Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I also sense WP:COI. Are you affiliated with Myrotvorets? Andrea Rocchelli, an Italian journalist murdered by the Ukrainian army in 2014 during the Donbas war, has been filed on the site. In Rocchelli's file, on whose photo the Myrotvorets Center has applied the red writing superimposed "Liquidated", there is a note stating that the photojournalist was "cooperating with pro-Russian terrorist organizations" and that he had violated the border of state of Ukraine to enter the territory occupied by "Russian terrorist gangs".
In 2018, Svetlana Alexievich, Nobel Prize in Literature, received threats from local nationalists and had to cancel a meeting with readers in the Green Theater of the Ukrainian city of Odessa when her name was added to a list of "enemies of Ukraine" by the Myrotvorets for "propagating interethnic discord and manipulating information important for society". Irrevocabile tempus (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
In your zeal to show the subject of this article as pro-Kremlin you are using unsorced accusations and reinforcing factual errors, contrary to wikipedia own material:
Alexander Kofman was never self-proclaimed head of DPR, but the first foreign minister (EDIT FROM IP TO ADD: THAT YOU RECOGNISE HIM AS A MINISTER OF A UKRAINIAN REGION UNRECOGNISED BY THE REST OF THE WORLD IS PART OF THE PROBLEM): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alexander_Kofman.png
I think where the IP is coming from here is your suspiciously heavy emotional investment in the subject and editing, which is a hallmark of COI editors. However, accusations are accusations, and they certainly aren't helping here. This should be dropped. Firestar464 (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Are you sure the IP is not coming directly from the Kremlin? I agree about dropping accusations and sincerely hope you will finally stop inserting pro-Kremlin wherever and whenever it suits you. I hope you'll also stop using poorly disguised threats.I don't mind being dropped from editing and I don't mind one of my wiki articles being deleted, but I sincerely hope you are not planning to publish my address on Myrotvorec site? Do I really have to start playing hide and seek? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrevocabile tempus (talk • contribs) 05:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More input, less sniping please. Irrevocabile tempus I'm going to put a note on your talk, but please drop the accusations or you risk being blocked from this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 02:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Looks like the sole objections (limited sources/no sources found) have been addressed by User:MaryMO (AR), leaving, it appears to me, nothing to debate. BPK (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@BPK2 I looked at the sources added. I don't see any of them that are independent, reliable and have significant coverage. I also don't see enough for WP:NAUTHOR (there's one review [64] I found of one of his novels but that's all I could find in terms of non-blog reviews). The sources in the article right now that are not by Tom Crosshill himself either verify that he was nominated or got an award for one of his stories, are interviewing him about some financial topic. There's one interview with him about himself but interviews are not really independent and one WP:INTERVIEW by itself is not enough for WP:NBIO. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a writer and television personality, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for writers or television personalities. The referencing here consists almost entirely of primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as IMDb and YouTube videos and content self-published by his own employers, with the only semi-reliable source in the bunch being a university student newspaper that glancingly mentions the show Nemtin was on without ever mentioning Nemtin as an individual, thus not counting as a data point in support of his standalone notability. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. Second time this article has been AFD'd and still lacks coverage in RS/secondary sources. Megtetg34 (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP, referenced entirely to primary sources rather than reliable or notability-building media coverage, of a writer whose only stated claim of notability is having served as poet laureate of a midsized suburban city. This is not an "inherent" notability freebie that secures inclusion in Wikipedia in and of itself; it would be fine if there were genuinely solid sourcing and/or additional notability claims (e.g. notable literary awards), but the sourcing here is entirely to the self-published websites of organizations directly affiliated with the claims and/or social networking content on YouTube and Facebook, which aren't support for notability at all, and even on a ProQuest search for older coverage that wouldn't google, New Westminster's own community weekly hyperlocal is the only place I'm finding any hint of non-trivial coverage of her, with absolutely no evidence that she ever even got coverage from the major GNG-worthy daily newspapers in Greater Vancouver, let alone anything wider or more nationalized. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have any substantial media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete - there does not appear to be sufficient sourcing available to support WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:CREATIVE. On ProQuest, I found a 2012 New Westminster Record article "City's poet laureate puts spotlight on arts; Candice James has held poetry post since 2010" that includes independent content about her career in addition to quotes from her, and a 2013 announcement in the same publication for an upcoming event. There is also a short review for one of her works in Quill & Quire with some biographical content. Based on my searches in the WP Library databases I can access, online and at GScholar, I think we need more to support WP:N. Beccaynr (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Contested PROD; this BLP stub has been around since 2009 with little movement, development or sourcing. I've been hunting for references, and frankly can't turn much up. The Dana Award has been defunct for some time, and the archived reference to the Bridport Prize does not mention this subject. If anyone can turn up sources, great, but at this point I don't feel this subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. Tony Fox(arf!) 03:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment. I deprodded this in the hope that further sources might prove findable. The Bridport Prize source does in fact mention McDermott, but I agree that it isn't enough on its own. His author bio at Barnes & Noble[65] states that one of his stories is in 100 Notable Stories list in Best American Short Stories, but I can't find the details, and there's a long list of relatively minor awards for individual stories listed at the B&N page. Perhaps someone else will be more successful. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the notes; I've been browsing the Best American Short Stories lists, and it appears that the reference is to a "100 Other Distinguished Stories Of..." that appears to possibly be included in the anthology, with a list of stories the editor deems worthy of consideration. I mean, I'd love to have one of my pieces on a list like that, but I don't know that it does much for him notability-wise. Tony Fox(arf!) 05:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
FA
A
GA
WikiProject guides
Directories and summaries
Culture and the arts
Geographical
History and society
Science, technology
Wikipedia assistance
