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.
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
Fails WP:BASIC—functionally all coverage is related to a single book, The Fat Tail, that he co-authored with Ian Bremmer. He was a visiting professor at Columbia for a period of time, but now apparently works at UBS. Semantic Scholar profile shows no citations in over a decade; most of the other ones are related to the book. Article was created by a single-purpose account. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 21:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Fringe author (as is particularly obvious from an older version) of self-published, unreviewed books. No evidence of passing WP:AUTHOR or any other applicable notability guideline. I would have gone the PROD route, but one was added and removed over a decade ago, making the page technically ineligible (not that it's been improved in the interval). XOR'easter (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete: Per my concerns previously addressed on its talk page, I don't see independent reviews of his books and for various I can't even find items corresponding to the ISBN. This indicates failure to meet WP:BLPN. I found this more mainstream source: https://atlantajewishtimes.timesofisrael.com/rabbi-winston-shares-message-of-redemption/ but yes, that's what apocalyptic preachers do. For the original state of the article I would more say it was a religious sermon than only fringe (yet obviously not acceptable as-is in an encyclopedia article). —PaleoNeonate – 20:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
This one has me stumped. I'm unable to find any clear, non-WP online mentions of any of this person's listed writings, nor do any have entries in WorldCat or other library databases I've searched. Reference 2 is to issue 53 of Fortean Times, but that issue's table of contents contains no evidence of anything about Devot. I don't have access to the archives of The Times, so I can't check the apparent obituary cited in reference 1; but I'd appreciate any help in verifying it. Unless someone else can find coverage of this person in reliable sources, the article would appear to fail WP:GNG. Deor (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete - No substantial coverage. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:CREATIVE, the GNG, and any other standard I can imagine. The fact that it's a BLP makes it even worse. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Cuñado, The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments. Vexations (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment. Looking at Google Scholar,[1] I think the subject does not yet meet WP:PROF. However, as she has multiple books, the most relevant guideline seems to be WP:AUTHOR, which requires "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." There's one in German on Schatzkunst. Die Goldschmiede und Elfenbeinarbeiten aus österreichischen Schatzkammern des Hochmittelalters[2] but others would be useful. I will have a more careful look. I'd suggest that this AfD is held open as it has not been indexed in the most relevant deletion sorting fora, which might bring more reviewers. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Her WorldCat page[3] shows that her books are held in multiple libraries (1,200 library holdings in total), with four books held by >100 libraries: Wien und die Entwicklung der kunsthistorischen Methode (143 libraries), A short history of art in Vienna (129 libraries), Kunst des Mittelalters : eine Einführung von den Anfängen der christlichen Kunst bis zum Ende des Hochmittelalters (129 libraries) and Schatzkunst : die Goldschmiede- und Elfenbeinarbeiten aus österreichischen Schatzkammern des Hochmittelalters (101 libraries), and there are three more held by >50 libraries. Perhaps DGG could give an expert opinion here? Espresso Addict (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Library holdings, though not a formal criterion, can be a useful proxy in fields where citation analysis does not apply--and it dos not apply in these fields, because the density of publication is much lower in any areas relying on books. Given the extent to which Worldcat over-represents US library holdings, and relatively few US academic libraries collect to any substantial extent works other than in the English language, these figures are very substantial for works in German dealign with European topics. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment. I found and added to the article a second book review for Schatzkunst. There appears to exist a review of Die Pfarrkirche von Schöngrabern by Patrik Reuterswärd in a Norwegian journal in 1993, but I am having difficulty even finding the name of the journal — anyone else have better luck? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Found it!. So now we have three reviews of two books. Still pretty borderline by that measure of WP:AUTHOR, but getting closer. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Not notable either as an author or a business person. Creator has a single purpose account which suggests UPE and/or COI. RationalPuff (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:NOTRESUME, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:MILL. Wow, is this page a complete mess. I pride myself on rescuing messes (see my recent work at Viennese cuisine), but this is just a resume, and would take a huge amount of work. It's basically a resume, and in 2021, everybody knows we don't do that, so WP:AGF does not apply. He just hasn't done anything especially notable, and the awards he's won are equivalent to the little pieces of paper in my two portfolios. There's little coverage in reliable sources. I have to say it, but he's sort of run of the mill for a businessperson. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Journalist author who does not meet the criteria of WP:JOURNALIST. Almost entirely unsourced. Created by a possible WP:COI user. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable "alternative analysis" writer. All of the sources mention the subject in passing at best, except for an interview with a far-right magazine. Only claim to fame was editing a book by Anatoliy Golitsyn. Google search brought up nothing further, considering this guy is alleged to have been an economic adviser to Margaret Thatcher. Jdcooper (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2021 (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:GNG - while Dmartin969 makes a point on the article talk page that the subject meets criteria such as WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR, those guidelines say that he is likely to be notable, not that he automatically is. GNG is the main criteria any subject on Wikipedia should pass, and there is barely any significant coverage for him to meet it. SK2242 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep The subject of the article has received a significant amount of coverage. Though not all of it is linked from the article, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article per WP:NEXIST. I think WP:NTEMP also applies in this scenario, as even though(especially mainstream) media coverage has faded as buzz around the book did, that doesn't change the fact that it was at one point the best selling book in the UK –DMartin 04:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC) (In the interest of full discolosure, I was the primary author of this article)
I would also like to riterate what I said on the article's talk page:
"[The article is notable] based on the following cirteria:
From WP:anybio(1), "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honour": Times #1 bestseller
From WP:author(3), "The person has created...a significant or well-known work or collective body of work": Wrote a book that reached was a #1 best seller, AND has created a YouTube channel that has over 2.5 million subscirbers and 1 billion views.
From WP:ENTERTAINER(2), "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.": Major YouTube fanbase, which could be considered a cult following.
I feel like based on meeting multiple crieteria present in WP:BIO this individual clearly meets the notability requiremnts."
–DMartin 04:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC) (In the interest of full discolosure, I was the primary author of this article)
I did a BEFORE search before nominating and found nothing further in significant coverage for it to meet GNG. NTEMP only applies if the subject has met GNG in the first place. SK2242 (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Once again those guidelines say the subject is only presumed notable if they pass it. This still fails GNG. SK2242 (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. While Quinn has an impressive social media following, it does not appear to have translated to significant coverage in reliable sources. signed, Rosguilltalk 20:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete - Subject doesn't meet WP:GNG by any means. Having a large following on social media doesn't make one notable. The only thing I see that is notable is having won a Round Table Commonwealth Award while at university, and that itself doesn't qualify one for a wiki article. Poor sourcing as well. ExRat (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. A social media following is some evidence of notability, but is hardly determinative, since it can be purchased or otherwise manipulated. I wish we would get away from all that nonsense, which tends to favor males, and stick to WP:GNG. In this case, she has garnered MSM attention, and that's sufficient for me. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see which coverage you're referring to as MSM attention, could you clarify that? signed, Rosguilltalk 17:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NJOURNALIST. The whole article is based on one source, a book written as a tribute to the journalist, that has no ISBN number of any other identification. After looking through Google Books and some other services (including Worldcat) I can't find any accessible copies of this tribute, or much evidence it even existed (I doubt the page creator fabricated this source, but I can't find any copies of it). After performing a WP:BEFORE I can't find any reliable sources. The only sources I have found of the subject are via Newspapers.com; his name as a writer in small pieces for The Guardian. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 13:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:Basic. He was a partner in Cricket Reporting Agency, and introduced the full page profile in Wisden, the Bible for cricket fans, as editor. Regularly still quoted. There won't be much SIGCOV from a sports reporter back then as that is an extremely modern thing starting in the 70s, a decade after his death.The article that nominator is questioning is in the Wisden 1961 edition, which is pre ISBN and was written by a recognised cricket writer Neville CardusDavidstewartharvey (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep. As editor of Wisden Cricketer's Almanack, the most prestigious of all cricket publications, from 1944 to 1951 he is clearly notable. If his article doesn't currently have adequate citations (I haven't yet checked) then it should not be difficult to provide them. JH (talk page) 16:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm genuinely struggling to think over the consistent blatant COI SPA accounts that have been consistently maintaining this article over the past 13 years, but I don't think there's quite enough to meet NAUTHOR. I found a couple of reviews in unremarkable publications. He's done some work, but I'd expect significantly more coverage to establish notability, particularly given that, according to our article, he has published hundreds of articles and over 25 books, drawn considerable attention to his work, has the distinction of being the only person to serve the International Boxing Hall of Fame as an author, historian, chairperson, sponsor, volunteer, and biographer. (I wonder why), his book even hit #1 on Amazon's List of Hot New Releases in Boxer Biographies-the book also hit #1 New Release in Jewish Biographies in December 2017. and don't worry, because he's an active member of the community &c &c &c ... Eddie891TalkWork 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Canvass alert: I saw this article thanks to the nominator raising it in a public chat. That said... delete, barring substantial improvements (I might have given the maintainers a week or two with a notability tag before AfD'ing, but I doubt it would have helped much). Everything is referenced to primary sources or irrelevant - the Connecticut Magazine link about Revolutionary era spies is dead, but even if it was up, who cares? If it backs up that list of spies, that doesn't mean Baker's work here was notable. The only non-primary source is an offline (and thus uncheckable) link that references the claim Baker "was active in the central New York music scene" during his undergraduate years at college. Who cares, that's true of thousands of people, "being active" doesn't show notability. On the off chance Baker really is notable, there need to be independent sources discussing Baker or his work - stuff like a book review of one of his 12 published works, and not a book review made by a blog or random Internet personality or the like. SnowFire (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment. The maintainer of the article has since added a bunch of sources, but... the vast majority are citing Mark Baker. That's still a primary source. The few references that don't cite Baker directly I can't verify - the link is to just the front page, not to the specific book review itself. Even if the link was fixed, these websites appear to be low tier sources, the equivalent of minor boxing fansites. The problem with primary sources hasn't been fixed. SnowFire (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom, alarming lack of RS. The Hartford Courant article was written by the subject himself. Caro7200 (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
*Speedy delete per WP:G12. I suspect that most of the article was written by the subject. Large swathes of content were taken and replicated verbatim from the "about the author" of his books. It appears to take little selections from each one (some are more egregious than others). I realise this action wouldn't settle the notability question, but for what it’s worth, I agree with the nominator. Subject doesn't meet NAUTHOR. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
G12 doesn't apply if the author themself is the one putting the content on Wikipedia. You can't infringe your own copyrights, and Wikipedia actively encourages donating such material under a free license. On the off chance that this author is notable, the copyvio isn't a concern assuming Baker was involved in or otherwise approves of this Wikipedia article (which he surely is, given the depth of minutiae only Baker or his close friends would know). SnowFire (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, SnowFire. Without a public disclosure that this was released to us, can we conclusively say that this was done by Baker? For all we know, it’s an ardent fan and follower of any social media channels. I'm not saying that's true; just that it’s possible. I'm really new to the AfD process, so set me right I'm wrong! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The WP editor who added those should affirm that they own the rights on the talk page. (If they wanted to be really by the book, they could file an ORTS ticket, but that is probably overkill and a waste of time for an article that is likely to be deleted anyway - just the talk page assertion would be fine for now.) SnowFire (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I think I disagree, really. The user in question created another, recently deleted article (which was entirely plagiarised -- 94% on Earwig's tool. I think it stands to reason that this is someone zealous, but I'm not convinced it’s the author. Nor do I think that this user thinks that main space is a user page; they are clearly reading this (your mention that they had added more "primary sources" resulted in them saying they had added secondary and tertiary sources; note that they are still interviews). I'm not convinced of notability, but I could be swayed. The main issue for me right now is this user's penchant for using intellectual property on here and not responding when pressed about it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Either delete or maybeuserfy, as at this point I am convinced that the creator literally thinks that this is a user page. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 21:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete and WP:SALT, per WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:TNT. In 2007, we could have excused what is blatantly an autobiography; it was created by a SPA and heavily edited by a user who name is a shorter version of the word. 20 years in, everybody knows what Wikipedia is and is not. The references are terrible, the writer has not made a major contribution to literature, and the formatting is awful. We have deleted user pages that have been used for spamming and self-promotion. Even if this person was to become notable in the future, abusing editing privileges must have consequences. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:SALT and WP:TNT are incompatible -- 'blow it up and start over' is a different pitch to 'never start again'. Recommending them in the same breath sounds closer to 'dropping policy and essay acronyms that you think make your point' than genuinely making a strong argument. And regarding "Even if this person was to become notable in the future, abusing editing privileges must have consequences", the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to punish people for dumb things they did once. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Userfy and link the author WP:FAMOUS. This is...a messy one. It really does look like the author thinks he's in userspace. I suspect an explanation on what making a page for yourself means may well result in G7 speedy deletion, which would solve our problem for us. I'm currently working on an article that was a PRODded COI mess when I found it, so that firsthand experience with how to rescue such an article is informing my !vote here. (When I first saw this AfD, I put some serious thought to going on a deep-dive for actual information on the author...but I think I'd rather let him decide if he actually wants a Wikipedia page with all that comes with first.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete. The plagiarism issue has not yet been sold, but the sources are still failing to determine any actual notability. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I've just gone through the article more closely. Basically everything in the article fails even basic verification; links have no archived version and are hard redirects to main pages (or broken outright). Numerous problems with POV that indicate the subject or someone close to them is involved in the article. The editor started by writing an article filled with statements that break NPOV (and verifiability), and then tried to work backwards from there; the sources are always going to fail here, because they are only serving to provide an illusion of depth, rather than any meaningful content. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Poorly sourced. Some citations are sponsored content. Article creator has single-purpose account, most likely UPE or CoI. RationalPuff (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
This article is seemingly a COI biography, and appears to be name-dropping people and organizations to appear notable, but I don't think he is notable. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Poorly sourced biography of a journalist, with no particularly strong notability claim under our inclusion standards for journalists. The notability claim here is essentially that she and her work existed, but existence isn't automatically enough in and of itself -- to be notable for this, she would need to show some evidence of distinction, such as major awards or significant critical attention, to make her work significant. But two of the three sources here are just her own work metaverifying its own existence in online bookstores, which isn't how you make a writer notable -- and the only genuinely reliable source shown at all is a single obituary in a newspaper, which is obviously not nothing but isn't enough all by itself. Furthermore, this was created by a virtual SPA whose only other contributions to Wikipedia, in their entire edit history, have been to Ginger's husband and son, suggesting the distinct possibility of conflict of interest editing by a relative or family friend (especially since that edit history has included adding the names of all of Ted and Ginger's children, including the non-notable ones, to both of their articles without actually citing any sources for them, thus suggesting inside knowledge.) There's simply nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. She just sounds like an average person, with no evidence of notability. Kittyclassified (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment. She founded an influential and notable right-wing Canadian magazine, so may well be notable. Please make sure to search for her legal name, Virginia Byfield, too. pburka (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete the sourcing is not nearly what we would need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Page fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The doctoral publications fail the GNG guidelines, the two books were not significant new concepts, theories, or techniques per NAUTHOR, and failed to have any substantial coverage outside that. ~RAM (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete not notable as a writer or as a computer programmer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Weak delete. His claim to fame is having written two editions of a definitive guide to HTML. I'm not sure that's enough. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Bearian, the guidelines for WP:NAUTHOR are pretty specific as to whether or not the author is notable - I do not believe that he meets the criteria for this. ~RAM (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
GNG fail. The only half-decent coverage relate to him being fired from a job. The article was reported at COIN for possible COI issues. Possibly (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete not even close to enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep Has coverage in Forbes and Techcrunch. Has written for some well known publications such as Harvard Business Review. He is also a TedX speaker and organizer of events. In my search of google news, I found other sources not listed. I have added a couple. Article is poorly written IMO. Peter303x (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Monroe's half-sister, whose only claim to notability other than that is a book she published a book about being Monroe's sister in the 1990s. I believe there already was a page on her a couple of years ago, but it was deleted because again, she is not notable enough to have her own article. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Keep – the article was nominated for deletion only a month prior to you nominating it again, and the consensus was to keep. I feel like we're going round in circles here, wasting the time of editors when we could be doing more constructive things. Initially I too was opposed to the creation of the article as it seemed like more centenarian fandom and that she was only known for being a relative of somebody famous. I've changed my mind – the article is well written and sourced for a start. It also demonstrates that Baker Miracle is notable enough in her own right as a memoirist and popular media personality to merit her own article. Baker Miracle's article by no means stands out on Wiki as an exception to a rule, but rather a common occurrence of somebody being in the public eye consistently as a result of being tied to a more known personality. Presidential siblings/parents are often in that category e.g. Nancy Walker Bush Ellis, as are people like Jackie Stallone. I don't see any difference between them and Baker Miracle. Bottom line should be if they're personalities in their own right, regardless of how they got there or who they became known through, they merit an article. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: [note that this is partly the same comment I left on the Gladys Pearl Baker article, as the same things apply] Apologies, I was not aware that there had recently been a discussion on possibly deleting this article, my bad! The thing is, these types of articles tend to attract really, really shoddy writing and sourcing, as well as the type of celeb mythology that has little basis on truth. Although it is true that Monroe's mother does have a central place in her 'mythology' and does attract interest, I don't think that's really the case with Baker Miracle. The only time she ever was in the public eye was for a very brief moment when she published a book about Monroe, and AFAIK even then we're not talking about a great deal of publicity or a bestseller. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk)TrueHeartSusie3
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891TalkWork 17:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Notability is not inherited. She was the half-sister of Marilyn Monroe who, according to the article, only met Monroe later in life, and co-authored one book about Monroe with her daughter in 1994. Her only claim to any sort of notability is being the half-sister of someone famous. ExRat (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
What do you make of the sources cited in the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep Author seems notable. --Gazal world (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep, possibly speedy keep per WP:CSK #3 unless someone explains what's wrong with the seemingly independent, in-depth, reliable sources cited in this page and on the Arabic version of the page, and the dozens more that come up in WP:BEFORE. How much more coverage is needed? - Astrophobe (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep. No explanation from the nominator as to what is wrong with the sources provided. Mccapra (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable author fails WP:AUTHOR. Google search returns nothing substantial, other than linking back to Wiki. RationalPuff (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep The subject of the article is one among the new breed of writers in Malayalam literature. On the literature side, he has authored three novels of which one was shortlisted for the annual literary award given by DC Books, the largest of the Malayalam language publishers. Further, the subject has published several articles in Economics. The mention in the deletion proposal about Google search does not seem to reflect the truth; my search returned sites such as The Indian Express, Mathrubhumi, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, University of Hyderabad article repository, RePEc (Research Papers in Economics) listings, GoodReads, Bodhi Commons, Gale Academic Onefile and Hindawi research, besides listings by many online book sellers.--jojo@nthony (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Logs: 2019-01 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 04:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep I have personally heard of his writer, a person involved with literature. I think this article should stay as the person mentioned meets WP:N.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Atlantis77177 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
Delete – I am mindful of the possible systemic bias here and would be willing to change my !vote if it is shown that WP:SIGCOV exists in Malayalam, but there is no actual claim to notability in the article, nor have I been able to find any independent coverage at all of the person or his books in reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG. The individual in question is an academic who very clearly does not meet WP:NPROF, and an author. I do not see how he would meet WP:NAUTHOR either; the "DC Books Literary Award" is not a notable award, and being nominated for that does not make an author notable. Barring any indications that WP:NAUTHOR #3 is met, it looks like it might just be too soon for an article about this person. Tachs mentions Google hits – could you give some examples of reliable sources (that is, links to the sources themselves) that you found? Anything written by the person himself is irrelevant here (including any academic papers found through GScholar), as is Goodreads, and anything from book sellers. --bonadeacontributionstalk 21:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Non-notable author. The entire article is on the back of a self-published book. Wholly promotional vanity article. RationalPuff (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete there is not enough sourcing to show this person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
In short: this is a WP:COATRACK that takes two very different ideas about economics and shoehorns them into the same article for the trivial reason that the term supercapitalism happens to be a homonym. No reliable sources verify that the two ideas are related or connected in any way, so it's a violation of no original research to present them together as if they are connected, making a Frankenstein article. The details below explain why these to ideas that appear superficially similar because they have something to do with economics don't belong together, at least not until we have a quality source that tells us they do. The red flag that makes this an open and shut case is that the only search result that conflates these two things is this very Wikipedia article.
A redirect to Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life is the obvious solution, since that's the most significant and relevant topic, and the article on that book is the proper place to discuss Robert Reich's ideas. We're here at AfD because when I boldly made that redirect I ran into pushback. Reich's supercapitalism is a late stage of capitalism that begins after 1970s and is characterized by hyper-competition, maximum consumer choice, maximum access to global markets both as consumers and investors due to the rise of global corporations like Wal-Mart and giant mutual funds and pension funds.
The far less notable prior usage of the term supercapitalism aka "inhuman capitalism" by Benito Mussolini is conceived to begin around 1900 and is the opposite of what Reich is referring to: the disappearance of free market competition and consumer choice due to rampant monopolism and trusts. Mussolini's supercapitalism is the main cause of World War I. "The ideal of super-capitalism would be the standardization of mankind, from the cradle to the coffin. Super-capitalism would like all babies to be born the same length so that cradles could be standardized; all children to want the same toys; all men to wear the same clothes, to read the same books, to like the same films; and everyone to crave a so-called labour-saving machine".
Both ideas share the notion that supercapitalism means expanded corporate power at the expense of the state and of individual citizens, but not in the same way or for the same reasons.
Mussolini's criticisms of monopolism has little modern relevance because it has been superseded by better qualified scholars without the ulterior motives of a fascist demagogue. The economic stages imagined by Italian Fascism, including the stub heroic capitalism and supercapitalism, probably should be merged back into the main Italian fascism article, or into a single article about (obsolete) Italian fascist economic thinking. It had no influence on Robert Reich and isn't of serious interest to anybody as economic ideas; they're historical and relevant only to the historical study of Italian fascism. This what we mean by Coatrack articles: it violates WP:NPOV to connect the two different things, and it violates WP:NPOV to say they are related when neither Riech nor any reliable sources even hint that there is any relationship between these two ideas that happen to share the same word. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
On second thought, i personally prefer reverting to make this article solely about the concept in Italian fascism, so i guess i'll change this to "weak keep". I think merge-ability/lack of notability is a legitimate caveat, however. Koopinator (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
My issue with that is that heroic capitalism makes no sense without understanding the stages the fascists say came before, and "inhuman capitalism" makes no sense out of context of heroic capitalism. If we want an article on that, it needs to be about all these stages, not a string of stubs that treat them in isolation. So not supercapitalism, perhaps Italian fascist economic theory or something shorter and catchier. The subject of the Reich book easily meets the criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: simply look up supercapitalism and, excluding weak google hits, social media, and this very Wikipedia article, instead looking only at quality, reliable sources, they are overwhelmingly about Reich's supercapitalism, because the other one is only of historical relevance. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
DeleteRevert this is blatant WP:SYNTH, but the history has a version that is not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe @King of Hearts: can comment on their histmerge in May? The article seems to be agglomerating two unrelated topics now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Do you have that, you know, diff? Suspense is killing me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Uh, it's the same diff that Kooptinator linked? That version may have issues, but WP:SYNTH is not one of them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know why it didn't make sense to me before as to which link you meant. Thanks clarifying.
That version appears better at first glance but I think we need to take a close look at the way the citations are used. All of them are primary sources, words Mussolini & his pals wrote, yet the article has a layer of analysis of what those words mean that isn't in the primary text. All of which is a way of begging the question of the justification for such an article existing: do we have secondary sources to justify an article? The opinions about what the Italian Fascists believed expressed in that version need secondary sources. If we don't have them, then we can't justify this article because those opinions violate the no original research policy. Which leads back to my point that there is little interest in this topic, demonstrated by the lack of secondary sources. It deserves a couple sentences, maybe a paragraph, in a broader article: "yep, this is what those guys thought, but few care any more so it's not worth saying much about". If someone found sufficient secondary sources, I would be proven wrong. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I did a Google Books search and i found 2 secondary sources.[1][2]Koopinator (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Revert per Kooptinator, but with the see also link on the current version. That is a clear article on a concept that existed historically. Whether Reich's book is about the same thing or not is not within my knowledge; I suspect not. The article on the book reads like a publisher's blurb, but it is probably the best that we will get on a topic with the same name. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite with cleanup. Contains interesting ideas about capitalism with some good citations, but inadequacies need to be fixed as pointed out by the users above. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
FA
A
GA
