Open main menu

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography
Crystal personal.svg WikiProject Biography
General information (edit · changes)
Announcements
Departments
Work groups and subprojects
Things you can do (edit)


Biography article statistics
Arts and Entertainment Work Group

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.


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... Specific discipline portals are listed in that section.

Navigation
Articles
Announcements/To Do (edit)

Add this to-do list to your User page! {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Arts and entertainment/Announcements}}

Directions for expanding any division belowEdit

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!

Tagging articlesEdit

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.

MembersEdit

  1. come help with the Bronwen Mantel article Smith Jones 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Lovelaughterlife (talk · contribs) Worked extensively on some biographies; reverted vandalism some others
  3. Francoisalex2 (talk · contribs)
  4. Dovebyrd (talk · contribs)
  5. Artventure22 (talk · contribs)
  6. Truth in Comedy (talk · contribs)
  7. Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs)
  8. DENAMAX (talk · contribs) Maxim Stoyalov
  9. Ozgod (talk · contribs)
  10. Eremeyv (talk · contribs)
  11. Susanlesch (talk · contribs), mostly inactive
  12. EraserGirl (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. Shruti14 (talk · contribs) will help when I can
  14. 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.
  15. Jarhed (talk · contribs) 21:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  16. Mvzix (talk · contribs)
  17. Cassianto (talk · contribs)
  18. Iamthecheese44 (talk · contribs)
  19. Georgiasouthernlynn (talk · contribs)
  20. Fitindia (talk · contribs)
  21. BabbaQ (talk · contribs)
  22. Woodstop45 (talk · contribs)
  23. Willthacheerleader18 (talk · contribs)
  24. The Eloquent Peasant (talk · contribs)

GeneralEdit

InfoboxesEdit

Requested articlesEdit

ActorsEdit

ArchitectsEdit

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Sanwal sharma

IllustratorsEdit

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

PaintersEdit

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

PhotographersEdit

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

SculptorsEdit

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Comics artistsEdit

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Visual arts deletionsEdit

Visual arts deletion sorting discussions


Visual artsEdit

SurautomatismEdit

Surautomatism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Unsourced. The one quote included in this stub article does not use the word "surautomatism". Seems to be a neologism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Cannot find any significant (or even less significant), reliable, and independent sources on this. Fails WP:GNG. William2001(talk) 21:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Keep Looks like I made a mistake here. Thanks for letting me know. William2001(talk) 17:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep On reading this it sounded like pseudo-intellectual bullshit to me, but it is sourceable pseudo-intellectual bullshit and those saying they couldn't find anything didn't look very hard. Book sources include The Language of Surrealism and Historical Dictionary of Surrealism. Both sources confirm that Luca and Trost are responsible for this (the latter has entries for both of them [1][2]) so the fact that the Luca and Trost quotation does not contain the word is not very significant. Having said all that, I wouldn't oppose a merge into surrealism if someone wants to take that on. I don't think there is ever going to be a great deal to say about this subject. SpinningSpark 11:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Do the two sources you cite use the word? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The source I provided actually uses the term surautomatism.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the language is, well, "strange", but that "madness" is part of what "surrealism" was about, I think...
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Why are you asking that question? Can you not follow the links I provided? And yes, they do use that word. The Historical Dictionary has it as a headword in an entry of a hundred words or so, and it is also used in the entries for "Trost, Dolfi" and "Entoptic Graphomania". The Language of Surrealism source says "They [Trost and Luca] termed their manic method surautomatism (Lucal and Trost 1945) or superautomatism (Trost 1945), and included examples of indecipherable writing, text produced so fast and with spasmodic muscle movements that the products could not be made out into conventional words." There is also some coverage in Sacred Surrealism, Dissidence and International Avant-Garde Prose, and it is listed as a surrealist technique in Architectural Draughtsmanship: From Analog to Digital Narratives. SpinningSpark 19:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I suggest now that you have found those sources, you edit the article to make it clearer that the word is legitimate. Perhaps then other editors, myself included, might agree that the article should not be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
...and maybe you should have said in the first place that your problem was you wanted to see the sources in the article rather than get me to waste my time replying to you here. If you want to petulantly persist with delete knowing that sources exist, that is entirely up to you. You have no business demanding that I do something with the article. It is not my responsibility to fix the article any more than it is yours or any other editor. It does not become my responsibility just because I found some sources. If I choose to do anything at all, it won't be until this AFD is closed. I'm not going to work on something only to have it deleted. SpinningSpark 22:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is not a neologism, but an established though little-known term in arts. I've heard the German equivalent of it ("Surautomatismus") in arts courses in school many decades ago. The earliest source I could find is from 1945 already, and this might even be the source originally defining it (or at least being close to it). I have therefore added a reference to the text "Dialectique de la dialectique" by Gherasim Luca and Dolfi Trost stating (boldface by me):
"Poussant l'automatisme jusqu'à ses limites les plus concrètes et absurdes (le surautomatisme, le talisman-simulacre), objectivisant d'une manière ininterrompue le hasard et l'obligeant à renoncer à son caractère de rareté provenant de la découverte de l'objet trouvé (l'objet objectivement offert, la graphomanie entropique), nous écartons l'idée insupportable de ne pouvoir le capter toujours."
I think the article should be expanded, but if it cannot be kept the term should be redirected to "Dialectique de la dialectique".
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
With the added refs I meanwhile clearly see WP:GNG fulfilled to establish notability. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree. Citing NOTDICTIONARY without any explanation of why this is a dictionary entry, well, you may as well cite WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Which of the four major criteria on NOTDICTIONARY do you believe this page fails? It is four sentences plus a lengthy quotation, which is more than a typical dictionary entry and certainly goes beyond a definition. Further, the article is clearly capable of expansion from the sources. SpinningSpark 19:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • See this for the back story of articles created by the same now-banned editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
But that user wasn't blocked for creating articles about rare arts topics, or was he? I mean, nobody get's it right all the time, and the variant "soufflage" is in fact used by some (even some academics), so he might have known the technique under this name rather than "sifflage". We still have to further narrow down its first usage in order to sort out if Wikipedia introduced the spelling variant or not. If so, that would be sad, but for as long as it was not deliberately created (as a joke or hoax or whatever) we can't put the blame on a former user, but should put it more on our ignorant or lazy community not recognizing it in all those years. Actually, we than should thank that former user for creating an entry for it in the first place at all. I haven't checked for why that user was blocked and don't defend him, I just think that it isn't a drama. Let's fix it and be happy.
What is more annoying is the fact that so many arts terms were nominated for deletion recently that is is next to impossible to properly research them all in the given time frame, so it is very likely that some of them will slip through and be deleted even though they are notable - and articles about rare/obscure topics once deleted are seldomly recreated because experts about these topics are rare as well. At least I don't want Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia for mainstream topics only.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sources SpinningSpark provided are fairly cut-and-dry. The argument that it needs to be fixed immediately to avoid deletion seems like textbook WP:IMPATIENT to me. I also found this journal article which discusses surautomatism on pp. 4–7. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 14:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
That's a good one. I have added (as raw refs for now) to the article what we found so far. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I personally would very much prefer to see the outcome of this discussion be that this article is kept. Although the article is undoubtedly beset with problems, my inclination is to have the sense that these certainly can be fixed. StewBrewer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep not a neologism. Reliable sources exist. Vexations (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep article needs a lede rewrite to make the etymology clearer.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Eugene MackabenEdit

Eugene Mackaben (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

GNG and WP:ARTIST fail. I cannot find any sources online. Those mentioned at end of article are largely local. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem is that the way that TucsonArt (talk · contribs) cited sources in xyr original article was fairly rubbish, and has got no better via any cleanup effort since. The ″American Artists of Renown, 1981″ is actually a biography of this person, in a book of artist biographies. It has stuff that this article has not gained in 9 years, including the location and precise date of birth of the subject for example. The one item of TDC coverage that I checked includes biographical information and information about one of the artist's works (Mexican Market Scene, not mentioned in our article), with a reproduction of it above the piece and a report of a prize that it won. I suggest a more thorough review of the citations already present from the initial creation of the article, to see what is being cited and how in-depth they are. I have improved those two. Uncle G (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Visual arts - Proposed deletionsEdit

Visual arts - Images for DeletionEdit

Visual arts - Deletion ReviewEdit

Performing artsEdit

ComediansEdit

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

DancersEdit

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

DirectorsEdit

MusiciansEdit

MagiciansEdit

Writers and criticsEdit

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

FAs and GAs
Announcements/To do (edit)

MembersEdit

CategoriesEdit

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Comics writersEdit

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Romance authorsEdit

ListsEdit

PoetsEdit

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:
Poets

StubsEdit

Authors / Writers deletionsEdit

Authors / Writers deletion sorting discussions


AuthorsEdit

Allison RaskinEdit

Allison Raskin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No reliable sources with depth-of-coverage; most sources are primary, or are trivial mentions. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being on New York Times Best Seller would make her notable per WP:AUTHOR Peter303x (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Saros CowasjeeEdit

Saros Cowasjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as clearing WP:AUTHOR. The only notability claim being made here is that he and his books exist, with no evidence of awards or distinctions that would clinch him as "inherently" notable -- but the sourcing isn't getting him over GNG, as one of the "references" is just a clarifying geographical note rather than an actual source; one is a (deadlinked) primary source profile on the website of his own (former?) employer, not notability-supporting media coverage; and the third is just a glancing namecheck of his existence as a giver of soundbite on one page of a book. This is not enough sourcing to get him over the sourceability-based inclusion bar, but nothing stated in the article body is significant enough to get him over the achievement-based inclusion bar either. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Improper citations used and not enough citations exist. If this person was a notable writer, there should be more info about him online. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR Peter303x (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn and no delete votes. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Philip IgbafeEdit

Philip Igbafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I can't find any SIGCOV on Google or Google News, nor any evidence that NPROF is met. MrClog (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Probably delete. A legit historian with a decent number of citations but seems not to meet NPROF. Fair to compare with other Nigerian historians like Saburi Biobaku or Adiele Afigbo which Google Scholar finds far more citations for. I searched for book reviews but didn't find enough to really move the needle here. Haukur (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    Okay, striking my !vote as per the work below. Haukur (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep -- (1) It seems clear that "Professor" is used in the British sense, not the American one as a synonym for lecturer. (2) He has a significant body of published work. I do not know Mindex, but the other books are with major publishers. (3) "Chief Commissioner" is probably a status equivalent to minister at the state level, and probably also qualifies him as WP notable. He appears to have retired in the 1980s before the arrival of the Internet; certainly before it significantly penetrated Nigeria. Accordingly the lack of web citations does not concern me. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep (as nom - withdrawn request) per Peterkingiron. I wasn't aware of the usage of academic ranks outside the US. Pinging Haukurth, if they also find Peter's argument convincing, they may strike their vote so this AfD can be closed as speedy keep. --MrClog (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not quite sure I understand the argument. Not all full professors are notable. The books may well qualify him but I'd like to see some reviews on them first. I'd like to keep this open a little longer and see if some of the regulars on academic figures chime in. Haukur (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    I found reviews for the two London-published books but not for the African-published ones. I don't know whether that reflects a greater impact for those books, a different culture of book reviewing between Europe and Africa, or a disconnect between the African-published scholarly literature and the internet. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. He appears to be a prominent scholar of the region, his books have multiple reviews, and he also served as a cabinet member in a state-level subdivision of Nigeria. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The reviews found by David Eppstein seal the deal. I don't find the comparisons made by Haukur convincing. We don't demand that an American or British or any other Western academic should be among the top few in their country, so we shouldn't demand that of a Nigerian academic. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep A healthy collection of reviews to count towards WP:AUTHOR and probably holding a rank equivalent to a US "distinguished professor", as well as his political service. XOR'easter (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Billy Camrick Carson IIEdit

Billy Camrick Carson II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Promotional piece that does not indicate notability per WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Sources provided are iffy to say the least. ... discospinster talk 17:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to have extensive coverage and passes notability as TV Host and music producer per WP:AUTHOR guidelines. Peter303x (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Felipe MachadoEdit

Felipe Machado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This person is not notable either as a journalist, a writer or a musician. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets notability per WP:AUTHOR as founder and guitar player for Band Viper which seem to be a big band in Portugal. However, article should probably get toned down a little and seems self promotional, probably created by person or someone associated with him. Peter303x (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Alyssa QuilalaEdit

Alyssa Quilala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Not sure if this is worth a redirect to Chris Quilala, given that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of sourcing. Adam9007 (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - the one role actually done isn't significant, and the other would be a crystal ball issue. Obviously lacking sourcing on top of that. I don't think the redirect would be particularly beneficial Nosebagbear (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete sourcing and notability issues abound. A redirect doesn’t seem to fit here. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Daniel Ortiz (writer)Edit

Daniel Ortiz (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I found no significant coverage for this telenovela co-writer. Strangely enough, the article of the telenovela Passione (TV series) that it says he is a co-writer of doesn't even mention him. SL93 (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ajeesh DasanEdit

Ajeesh Dasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Subject does not meet notability criteria. No national awards or significant coverage. Archer1234 (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Archer1234 (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Archer1234 (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Archer1234 (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Does he not meet WP:BASIC for having three reliable independent sources that cover his work? Mccapra (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I will get the source have more references, initially i did had more content, but it was removed either by a bot or removed by an user. Will get something in a day or two. Please share me what are the notability criteria - i can get those.

Below are the articles featured about his works in Media. (1) The Hindu https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/leela-l-girikuttan-and-ajeesh-dasan-on-their-song-for-poomaram-that-has-gone-viral/article18515260.ece Hindu is considered the best english news paper in India, particularly S.India. The photo in this article, he is on the right side. (2) Times of India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movies/news/kayale-kayale-song-from-thottappan-is-out/articleshow/69737112.cms Talks about his recent work - Kayale Kayale (3) the Hindua https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/music/composer-ranjin-raj-on-his-journey/article26407776.ece This article shows why the poet is ignored by the musicians are more celebrated too, while both the said lyrics were penned by Ajeesh. (4) IB Times https://www.ibtimes.co.in/kalidas-jayarams-poomaram-song-kadavathoru-thoni-out-will-it-repeat-success-njanum-726610 This talks about a much celebrated song Poomaram, in which Ajeesh has debuted.

I've provided 4 urls, I will update the wiki page with his published books with their ISBN and amazon references - and other media coverage if any. Please share me the WIKI page which describes what all needs to be there for a biography article for a living person.

almithra (almithra) 10:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Faye McMillanEdit

Faye McMillan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Not notable. WP:PROF is not yet met--as the article didn't list any of her published work, I added her most cited paper (19 times in Google Scholar). The next highest is 4 times). Notability otherwise would have to be based upon a number of announcements of non-notable awards, and I don't think that meets GNG. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. I don't see enough yet for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC).
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. I have added sources, which now range from 2003 - 2019, and include the Australian Journal of Pharmacy, Deadly Vibe, The Koori Mail, Dubbo Photo News, Triple M, Western Magazine, and Narromine News. At least four of them are SIGCOV. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. She doesn't appear to pass WP:PROF, but the sources now in the article cover her in-depth, appear to be at a national level rather than purely local, and are from a wide enough range of years to show that it's not just for the new AWY award. So I think she passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep All other things being equal, I'd be inclined to say "delete". But we cannot tolerate the out-of-control and institutionally sexist arrangements that hold professional athletes (mostly male) to manifestly lower inclusion standards than academics (a more gender-balanced profession). There's at least an argument here that the subject of the article meets the GNG. It's not a great argument. I have qualms about the reliability of trade magazines such as the Australian Pharmacy Journal and local news papers doing puff pieces. But the article is in good shape thanks to the good work of experienced editors, and the subject of the article is clearly a highly accomplished individual who can make multiple claims of notability, and the article is sufficiently verified, so I am happy to have the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Are you actually saying that because the consensus is to have a low standard of notability in one field, we should have it in other fields also?
(as for equity, there has been quite a flood of barely notable female athletes also. ) DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying that. Ideally we would lift the standard of notability for athletes. It's absurd that merely being a professional athlete is usually sufficient for notability. But being a professional academic, or a professional artist, or a professional nurse, quite correctly, isn't. In the meantime, the next best thing to do is to say that if the case for an academic is marginal, male or female, I'll incline towards keep. Here WP:PROF isn't met, but WP:GNG is at least arguable, and the article is ok, so I'm comfortable with keeping it. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm persuaded that she passes WP:GNG, per David Eppstein and RebeccaGreen. XOR'easter (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added more sources, now from The Sydney Morning Herald (2003), Illawarra Mercury (2010), and Daily Advertiser (2014) - all articles about her. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep RebeccaGreen does great work. This subject meets our GNG. Lightburst (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Avalok langerEdit

Avalok langer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Lacks RS, WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Alis RoweEdit

Alis Rowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Nominating at request of User:Essayist1 at WP:BLPN. Their reasoning: 1. subject has requested the article be deleted on privacy grounds, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. 2. subject is not a public figure. 3. subject is not notable by Wikipedia standards, due to only being an author of some books of niche interest only. 4. subject has appeared as an expert for e.g. the BBC but was not the topic of that coverage. 5. most coverage is self-published primary sources MPS1992 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

comment Just for some background, the subject of this page contacted me through my website asking for assistance getting the page deleted, please see my userpage for the full COI disclosure.Essayist1 (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete (I !voted keep at the first, aborted AFD). I think in cases like this we should respect the wishes of the subject. Wikipedia itself would not be noticeably diminished by deletion. Thincat (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and request at BLPN. Utopes (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Borderline notable, and the subject has requested deletion. SarahSV (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIODEL. There is no compelling public interest for the continued existence of this article, and the subject is only just over the bar regarding notability (see past AfD discussions). With that said: while I have no reason to believe that the subject did not make this request I would feel more comfortable if this request were verified to have come from the subject herself. Theoretically anyone could make a deletion request for a BLP and claim they are making the request on behalf of the subject. Paisarepa (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thegirlwiththecurlyhair has posted this to Alis Rowe: "*delete I would like the page deleted to maintain privacy of my life." SarahSV (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per deleters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not seem notable enough per WP:AUTHOR Peter303x (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Per others. Barely notable and subject requested deletion Taewangkorea (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Louis ProsperiEdit

Louis Prosperi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

BLP is sourced to a single, three-sentence mention in a book published by "Evil Hat Productions." A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News) finds no WP:RS. There is a non-RS book review [3] but this seems to be on an entirely different Prosperi and is irrelevant to establish WP:N in any case. Our policy on BLPs states that "human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest." Currently 25% of this article talks about this unknown gentleman being laid-off from his job. To preserve the personal privacy of a non-notable individual who does not pass the GNG, this should be deleted. Chetsford (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Men-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise move to draft so that it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    • In general I support Draftifying articles, however, our obligations to the personal privacy of BLPs, IMO, precludes draftify except under exceptional circumstances. Chetsford (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If you look at the ″About the author″ section at the back of the book, you will find that it is the same person. There's no clue to be had there where we could go to find this person's life and works independently and reliably documented in depth. There's a clue in the coyness of that section, moreover, that they will not be. And they are not, as far as I can determine. Original research that does not pass muster for Wikipedia (I looked xem up on LinkedIn.) leads me to understand that the first sentence of this article, written in the present tense, is utterly wrong. What we have is wrong, and a biography cannot be written in accordance with our content policies. Uncle G (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Good point, I found the same LinkedIn page. If correct, this article seems to be a "creative" perspective of his actual vocation. This is definitely the problem in sourcing an entire BLP to a single fandom source. Frankly, Oracle Utilities Energy Information Platform Release Notes [4] from Oracle Corporation may have been more widely distributed than the works we list in this article, even if the subject isn't as scintillating as a monster manual. Chetsford (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment if you think something is over the line, as in Currently 25% of this article talks about this unknown gentleman being laid-off from his job, then delete it. (I deleted it).ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. No SIGCOV, GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, for all the reasons stated by Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

P. Nathan ToomeyEdit

P. Nathan Toomey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

BLP on a person who once got third-place in a roleplaying game contest. BLP has a four sentence mention in one book published by "Evil Hat Productions" [5]. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com) fails to find any further references. There is a presumption of privacy for obviously not notable individuals of which this is one; for the benefit of both the subject and WP, this should be deleted. Chetsford (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Men-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Is not notable. Willbb234 (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise move to draft so that it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • In general I'm inclined to support Draftify, however, I think this should be avoided in BLPs except in exceptional circumstances due to our policy that "human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest". Chetsford (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I cannot find sources to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Christopher C. LeeEdit

Christopher C. Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. All references non-reliable and not independent sources and the article has a strongly promotional tone. Article was previously deleted via AfD so it might be a candidate for Speedy Deletion via WP:G5 and I'd definitely recommend WP:SALTing. GPL93 (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
No credible sign of notability. That problem aside. . . .
Let me quote the version of 3 February 2019, at 01:37 (and therefore before deletion at AfD):
Christopher C. Lee was born to Taiwanese parents, Jeff Lee and Ai-Ling Tracy Chuang, in San Jose, California. His parents immigrated to California from Taipei, Taiwan and lived in Fremont during his childhood.
He began to develop an interest in various forms of artistry and was heavily involved in street art and hip hop. He immersed himself into streetwear, graffiti and urban culture through exposure to underground artist exhibitions and fashion shows. He conversed with Haight Street, San Francisco artists and designers to gain more knowledge. Growing up in his teenage years, he was known for being a polymath. He excelled in many topics such as physics, mathematics, philosophy, dance, fashion design, computer science, photography, cinematography, business and marketing.
By contrast (or not), here's the current version:
Christopher C. Lee was born to Taiwanese parents, Jeff Lee and Ai-Ling Tracy Chuang, in San Jose, California. His parents immigrated to California from Taipei, Taiwan and lived in Fremont during his childhood.
He began to develop an interest in various forms of artistry and was heavily involved in street art and hip hop. He immersed himself into streetwear, graffiti and urban culture through exposure to underground artist exhibitions and fashion shows. He conversed with Haight Street, San Francisco artists and designers to gain more knowledge. Growing up in his teenage years, he was known for being a polymath. He excelled in many topics such as physics, mathematics, philosophy, dance, fashion design, computer science, photography, cinematography, business and marketing.
(From which I've removed one reference, to a book by the biographee and self-published via Blurb, Inc..)
Therefore yes, this qualifies for deletion as an improper re-creation or as a creation by a blocked user. The article was re-created by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexkia1399 and I imagine that it will be re-re-created by some other sockpuppet if not salted. -- Hoary (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - he's one of millions of vendors for these Fortune 500 companies. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I just removed the early life and education sections, which had a Google books reference that led to a BlURB publication by the subject. There's really nothing here source-wise. Article needs SALT.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have added 2 links from Yahoo and Forbes. Both news articles has significant coverage about Christopher C. Lee that would satisfy GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.78.120 (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment Adding these two sources is the same edit that has been persistently added to the article by numerous IPs over the past few days. Neihter help with notability. The first source is a Yahoo republication of an AccessWire press release, so not RS. The Forbes source is one sentence: "Photomochi, founded by Christopher C. Lee, is one such agency that deals with the impact of how visual media today can quickly and succinctly capture an entire message within a single frame or a short film." This editor has a lot of similar interests as the other IP editors adding the same material to the page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Jacqueline SaphraEdit

Jacqueline Saphra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer, with only minor claims of notability and only primary sources to support them. This leans heavily on her being nominated for mostly non-notable literary awards that don't constitute automatic notability freebies -- and while there is one award here that is notable enough to be a valid notability claim for a writer, that's still not an instant free notability pass that exempts her from actually having to have any WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources: the notability test for writers is not the things the article says, but the depth and quality of the referencing that the article uses to support the things it says. But the only references here are her self-written biographical blurbs on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations and events, not reliable or independent or notability-supporting media coverage. None of these sources cut it as evidence of notability, and the article claims nothing about her that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sources from having to cut it as evidence of notability. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I am seeing some good coverage in GNews:
It's not enough for WP:AUTHOR, but it is enough for GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable contemporary poet. I added some material to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • KEEP more than adequate coverage of her works and enough coverage of her to write a start article. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Jorge Luis Diaz Granados LugoEdit

Jorge Luis Diaz Granados Lugo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE and WP:ACTOR. Recreation of an article previously deleted via AfD by soft deletion (so I don't think it qualifies for G4) but essentially the same article, with the same non-RS sources and with exactly the same problems – fails WP:AUTHOR because all his work is self-published and has no reliable independent reviews, fails WP:ACTOR as an uncredited role in a short film, fails WP:CREATIVE as a participant in a non-notable local competition (see the previous AfD nomination for more detailed explanation). Richard3120 (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hal elrodEdit

Hal elrod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I guess being a bestselling author is a claim to notability, hence AfD not speedy. The claim is unsourced, & all I can see are unsatisfactory refs like the two provided in the article. TheLongTone (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Miracle Morning easily passes WP:NBOOK - e.g. [8]. And it seems it has become a franchise of several other "Miracle Morning" titles (often written in conjunction with other writers) that receive coverage as well - e.g. [9]. Now - there is alot of crud out there in terms of sourcing (given the promotion of the multitude of books) - but it seems this passes WP:NAUTHOR and probably GNG as well - e.g. coverage [10]. Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Grady BryantEdit

Grady Bryant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable drag racer, article only sourced with primary sources, along with the article being created by someone directly close to the subject. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 10:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 10:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 10:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete page created by an SPA [11]. Books appear to be self published. But I find very few sources, and can find no book reviews except what may be a book review in the Ft. Worth paper, or a feature story - I could not access the article. (Catch this This book's no drag: [NORTHEAST AM Edition], Fort Worth Star - Telegram; Fort Worth, Tex. [Fort Worth, Tex]06 Oct 1996: 14. ), also (What a drag Racer recalls better, cheaper era for sport: [ARLINGTON AM Edition] Harris, John. Fort Worth Star - Telegram; Fort Worth, Tex. [Fort Worth, Tex]05 July 1997: 1.) I am guessing that he lived in Ft. Worth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete- Non-notable drag racer, agree with nominator, all signs of WP:COI. Meeanaya (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Pat DivillyEdit

Pat Divilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

essentially advertising, and presumably coi and very possibly paid. If actually notable, should be started over by an uninvolved editor DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. COI and PROMO concerns notwithstanding, and while I'm not perhaps ready to advocate a "keep" or "delete" either way, I am not personally sure GNG is met. I say this because, while there is clearly some coverage of the subject (including of the 2014 "young entrepreneurs" win), much of it wouldn't seem to meet the SIGCOV guidelines. Specifically, much of the coverage seems to be in non-national outlets like the Connacht Tribune and Galway Advertiser (the latter a regional freesheet). The coverage that is in national outlets seems either to be only indirectly related to the subject, or is not entirely independent of the subject. On the former ("subject not primary topic of coverage") for example, the piece in the Independent Health and Wellbeing supplement is more about paleo diets than the subject, and in the Irish Times piece the subject is mentioned among several other potential personal trainers. On the latter ("coverage not independent of subject"), pieces like the Business & Finance interview would seem to be Q&A/PR pieces published to coincide with the subject's press activity/book launches/etc. It may be that the article can be improved (to address the COI and PROMO issues). But, once we've removed all the uncited NOTCV stuff (about primary school and early interest in fitness), and tempered the uncited PROMO stuff (about having the best selling fitness book in Ireland), I'm not sure what is left. (Other than the shout-out from Facebook for being good at Facebook. And the award from the Galway business community for being good at business. And the two books. All of which are great. And laudable. But which are perhaps not particularly strong notability claims relative to this project's goals). The subject's listing on his PR/entertaintment agency's website is quite likely accurate. And he likely can be described as an "author and corporate speaker from Galway who features regularly in print media, radio and TV". Whether that meets this project's criteria I'm not sure either way.... Guliolopez (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:COI, WP:NOTPROMO, failw WP:AUTHOR fails WP:SIGCOV. Page created by an SPA: [12] in 2015. Divilly is a Paleolithic diet gury, a large tribe inclined towards self-promotion. His books do get mentioned in feature articles on Paleo diets, but they were not reviewed. The books get mentioned in feature stores on Paleo diets, and the 2nd book was the subject of a feature story. Nice, for a small businessman, but I do not see that it makes him notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Lorenzo de ArrauEdit

Lorenzo de Arrau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Completely unsourced, Google shows mostly copies of this page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - much of this can be sourced - e.g. [13][14]. What's holding me off from a straight WP:NOTGENEALOGY !vote is that he authored a work - Arrau, Lorenzo de: Reconocimiento de las Plazas, Pertrechos y herramientas que se hallan en la frontera de este Reyno. Concepción, 10 de abril de 1769 which is still referenced by modern writers.[15][16] This is not presently in the article and may pass WP:NBOOK (and our subject might pass NAUTHOR) - but this require familiarity with Chilean sources that is beyond my purview (i.e. this may be an obscure travel log, or something that is beyond obscure). Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment -- the content we have at present is mere genealogy, but I suspect that there is more to his career, so that I am inclined to keep but tag for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Dunno He is mentioned in a number of books about the founders/early settlers in Chile: [17] For example, the 2nd hit in that gBooks search Los Defensores del Rey, reads "Recuérdase en Chillán a doña Cruz Arrau y Santa María, hija de don Lorenzo de Arrau, oriundo de Cataluña, dueño de la gran estancia de Cato, y de doña Isabel de Santa María Escobedo. En la defensa de la ciudad realista colaboró ..." sourced, that is, to his daughter's recollections of him. Another descendant, Claudio Arrau, liked to boast of/write about this ancestor. So we do have a WP:NOTGENEALOGY problem.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Haukur (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

David S. BrownEdit

David S. Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Subject is an academic and an author. No indication in the article that he meets WP:NACADEMIC. As for WP:AUTHOR, he wrote one book that is somewhat known but doesn't appear to rise to the notability standard. There is a claim that the book was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize, but it is unsourced and I have been unable to verify it. Paisarepa (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Strong keep -- nominator. I can't withdraw the nomination since there are others supporting delete, but I am changing my support to keep (and will be providing the trout...) Paisarepa (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete being nominated for an award does not make a work notable in most cases, nominations are often cheap. We would need multiple reviews showing that Brown's bio of Hofstaer is notable to show that Brown is a notable writer and that is lacking. I have to wonder if the article is outdated since it mentions his last work was 10 years ago. Ok, most historians do not have the output level of Fred E. Woods (that article I do not think has been updated with all his works), although Woods publishes multiple works that are variations on the same theme, and Woods is more a compiler than a writer of prose, but there is no indication that Brown is seen as an impactful historian, and I say that as someone who has engaged more in metahistorial intellectual history studies than many.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. J947(c), at 02:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. J947(c), at 02:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Setting aside the supposed Pulitzer nomination, his faculty profile already makes a clear case for WP:PROF#C5 (endowed professorship) and WP:AUTHOR (multiple published reviews of his books): "David Brown, Raffensperger Professor of History ... His work has been reviewed in the New York Times, New York Review of Books, Times Literary Supplement, New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, (London) Sunday Times, The Irish Times, and The Australian." As nominated, the article already contained external links to NYT and WSJ reviews of his books, so there is little excuse for the nominator to have failed to account for this in the nomination, and even less excuse for JPL to say we "need multiple reviews" when those reviews are already present. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment Major thanks for the improvements to the article. And you're right, I shouldn't have missed the NYT and WSJ reviews. Paisarepa (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Passes WP:PROF#C5 and (easily) WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Holder of a named professorship and author of several books that are likely themselves to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not sure he passes NPROF(5) (as Elizabethtown College would not seem major), and given the common name I am having difficulty assessing NPROF(1) (I did manage to ascertain at least one other scholar with the same name passes). However, Richard Hofstadter: An Intellectual Biography clearly passes WP:NBOOK and to a lesser degree Beyond the Frontier: The Midwestern Voice in American Historical Writing would as well - convincing me that NAUTHOR is quite likely to be met (as might NPROF). Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • HEY Keep. Kudos to David Epstein for sourcing and improving the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Beyond the Sky and EarthEdit

Beyond the Sky and Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Jamie Zeppa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Poorly sourced article about a book whose only substantive notability claim is winning a minor award from a smalltown literary festival that is not a notability clincher in and of itself, and an equally poorly sourced article about its author, which itself makes no notability claim besides the existence of this book. As always, every award that exists on earth is not always an automatic notability freebie -- notability because awards attaches to major national awards that get regular press coverage, on the level of the Governor-General's Awards or the Pulitzer or Booker Prizes, and not just to every small-fry award that exists. But of the 13 footnotes in the book article, six are metareferencing the book to itself, which do not constitute support for its notability; three are needless reduplication of a single review in a travel guide; two are needless reduplication of a single review on a non-notable and unreliable blog; and one is a piece of "local woman does stuff" in her own hometown newspaper -- and the only source in her BLP is a glancing namecheck of her existence at the end of a blurb about somebody else in a listicle. None of this is enough sourcing to get either the book or the author over WP:GNG, but the "Banff Mountain Book Festival" is not an "inherently" notable award that would exempt them from having to have much better sourcing than this just because the word "award" is involved. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • possibly MERGE Earth and Sky to authorJamie Zeppa.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Jamie Zeppa because her "other" book was reviewed and Earth and Sky has had some ongoing attention. More soruces for her bio and for both books exist, enough, certainly, to keep a page on this writer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep both articles, keep author and keep the book, Beyond the Sky and Earth, too. It made quite a splash: feature articles, reviews. Here is the review in the New York times: [18]. Other reviews ran in the Chicago Tribune, Globe and Mail. That said, the article it sub-standard, amateurishly written, badly sourced. Nevertheless, both book and writer are notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep the book. This is my first interaction with AfD, so I don't eif I'm doing this wrong. I edit Bhutanese articles, and I found this AfD from there. It's pretty clear that the book is notable. It has a review in Publisher's Weekly and as pointed out above, in the NYT. It satisfies the first criteria of WP:NBOOK. I'm not familiar with notability criteria for people to say anything about the author. TryKid (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

List of non-binary writersEdit

List of non-binary writers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

We already have List of people with non-binary gender identities, making this redundant. However, more importantly, this article is completely unreferenced and contains potentially controversial statements about BLPs. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 04:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 04:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 04:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 04:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 04:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I've added sources for a few of the people, though I have to say that I could not (in my admittedly brief search) find citations for some of the other people. (I looked for citations that described the people as both non-binary and writers/authors within the same citation. I did not yet have time to look for citations for most of the people, only a few of them.) As to whether the list is redundant in a way that wouldn't normally or shouldn't allow for a separate article, I don't know; I see we have e.g. List of people from Michigan as well as List of Michigan writers as distinct lists (but "WP:OSE"). -sche (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Pinging the article's creator, @Antiqueight:: can you help add references, please? Personally, I would be inclined to keep the list if most of the individuals can be referenced (and any that can't be are removed). -sche (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll go through and update with references where I can and remove what I can't but I believe the list needs to remain and that the existence of List of people with non-binary gender identities is irrelevant. I'm at work right now but I'll get to it later when I can. Thank you @-sche: for the notification. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 09:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Having a list of people with non-binary gender identities is not a reason not to also have a list of non-binary writers. We have lists of women writers from different centuries and different places - being able to find writers of female gender or non-binary gender, etc, is of interest to readers. I have added a couple of references, but I am wondering why some names are in the list, when the articles about the people don't indicate that they have/had non-binary identities - eg Beth Brant, whose article has the category "non-binary writers", but who, according to the article, "became active in the feminist community and announced her sexual orientation as a lesbian", and the article uses she/her pronouns throughout; and Marjorie Celona, whose article makes no mention, in the text or categories, of being non-binary, and uses she/her pronouns. Should I delete any I notice who seem inappropriately included? @-sche:, @Antiqueight:, what do you think? RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, if nothing in the article confirms it and you do a quick google for their name + "non-binary" and don't see anything relevant that could be added to the article ('cause IMO making at least a little good-faith attempt to find sources is a good best practice), I'd say remove them (per BLP and all). I'll try and look for citations for more myself when I have time. -sche (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Sure, I'm always happy to find and add sources! RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep We have lists for writers who are women or men. This completes the lists for writers who are not women or men. The topic is not too general which a list of non-binary people might be. Though the relatively small percentage of notable people out as non binary keeps the list small today, eventually it will be a list that is too general. The topic is not too specific, it isn't only non binary writers from North America. People on the list are notable. There has been some additions to the list that are incorrect or insufficiently cited. This will be rectified over the next couple of weeks and the list tracked to double check all additions have citations. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 22:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Note Since nobody else has supported deletion and references have been added, I'm fine with this discussion ending early as either Keep or nomination withdrawn. I still don't feel that it's really necessary considering we have a list of non-binary people and a category for non-binary writers, but it seems to be a losing battle. I do think that we need to discuss the inclusion of some entries on the list, not just if they identity as non-binary, but also if they're even notable as writers. But that can be had on the talk page. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 23:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Edward Jarvis (author)Edit

Edward Jarvis (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable author, couple of works, fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Hello. I would argue for notability for two reasons. First, originality of approach, technique, and subject (in the spirit of item 2. of WP:AUTHOR as I read it - apologies, I am a novice), and the author's participation in a notable collective body of work (in the spirit of item 3. of WP:AUTHOR - this point I will seek to clarify, with refs, promptly).

The three works listed are recognised as 'firsts' on the subjects, which would not be notable in itself except that those subjects are significant (an indication of this may be the significant attention / discussion that the corresponding Wikipedia articles generate) - Carlos Duarte Costa, Ngo Dinh Thuc, Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church. It could be considered remarkable that there has been no previous monograph ever written on these topics, and therefore these first scholarly publications on the subjects are notable.

I will aim to add more references and sources as they appear (the works are fairly recent).

Another aspect of notability, I would argue, is the subject's significant founding role in the UK branch of a significant international movement, the Catholic Worker Movement.

I would argue that it is in keeping with the overall goal to properly identify the significant individuals of a) a notable but comparatively little-researched area of academic and social interest, and b) a notable and comparatively little-researched international social movement.

I hope these comments help - as I say, a mere beginner! Apollinari (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:AUTHOR. Much/most of the sourcing is PRIMARY. The claims to notability are co-founding a Catholic Worker's house, sourced to Catholic Worker. Writing 2 books, but no book reviews are given. If, someone manages to find INDEPENDENT reviews of the books in WP:RS publications, please ping me to revisit. I am always willing to change an iVote when shown solid sources. This, however, appears to be PROMO for a non-notable author.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep To clarify, three book reviews are given, one from a journal (an established print periodical) and two from a serious blog. May I ask whether the subjective comment about the article being a PROMO (above) is intended to cast doubt on the good faith of the submitter? Apollinari (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not familiar with "RENEW" magazine, but the like given on the page is [19], which did not look like an edited periodical, and may not be INDEPENDENT. A wrodpress blog by an non-notable person is not useful in establishing notability. The forward to the book is not INDEPENDENT of the book. Is there a review that I am missing?
  • Nor does PROMO posted on the publisher's page. And the fact that he had written articles does not contribute unless those articles are discussed in reliable publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, I see that you are new here, and, therefore, probably unaware that it is customary when comment at AfD about a page you created to identify yourself as the page creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Striking good faith duplicate iVote made by new user presumably unaware that although we can comment repeatedly, only one bolded iVote per customer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the guidance, it is truly appreciated. Sorry to insist but I see this accusation of doing promotion as unwarranted conjecture and speculation. I am new, yes, but Wikipedia guidelines enjoin us to presume good faith, and I am doing my best! And what does "And the fact that he had written articles does not contribute (etc.)" mean? Who had written articles? Me?Apollinari (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It refers to Jarvis. Publishing a book or an article does not show that a writer is notable. Books only support the notability of the author by Wikipedia standards if multiple WP:RS publications review or engage with the book. Such material must be WP:INDEPENDENT. And if Jarvis publishes an essay in a the New Statesman or The Guardian, that does not establish notability. But if he publishes such ab article, and The Nation and The Times write articles about the article Jarvis wrote, the discussion about his writing contributes ot establishing his notability by Wikipedia standards. for a dramatic instance of this, see Michael Anton. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Indeed. I believe I never contested that. Apollinari (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep with caution? Could there be an appropriate alternative to deletion? The article has issues but also potential. The Sources problem looks like a quantity issue rather than a quality issue. The Notability question does not look cut-and-dried, but difficult to assert. Edits are being made. Vintage-vintner (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Vintage-vintner (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep sources may be Catholic-related, but that has not necessarily stopped us from using them to establish notability in the past.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Please WP:AGF. As my editing record will show, I am happy to cite small faith publications. Even happier when they are WP:RS. If you are familiar with the editing process at RENEW, please share what you know. Or, if you can access the article cited to 2019, please let us know whether it is by or about Jarvis.19:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk)
  • The 2019 article is a book review by a Paul Dean, as indicated in the reference. Apollinari (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Taking a look at the sources, one by one:
  • Soources # 2 & 3 are a blog VagrantVicar are NOT WP:RS.
  • source # 4 : Alexandre Christoyannopoulos, Christian Anarchism: a political commentary on the gospel,]] (Imprint Academic, Exeter, 2011, pp 355-356, p 408ff) is a WP:RS, althogh I cannot access the relevant page online. The page, however, uses this source only to claim that Jarvis was part of a group that established a residential house in London as part of the Catholic Worker Movement. A worthy activity, but not a notable one. The fact that a newsletter of the Catholic Worker movement mentions him does not contribute to notability.
  • to understand how inadequate the sourcing here is, look at citation #5: [20]. It is an announcement for a Catholic Worker panel discussion, but Jarvis isn't one of the panelists, he's the contact person. Ditto for source # 6, 7, 8 & 9. \
  • Source # 1, #11 not INDEPENDENT; it is the preface of a book by Jarvis.
  • Source # 12 is a blog
    1. 13 is Jarvis' publisher
  • Sources # 10, 15 [21] are to a Catholic magazine called RENEW. The 2018 reference is to an article Jarvis wrote; the 2019 reference is behind the subscribers-only paywall. it is very likely to be an article Jarvis wrote, as the 2018 citation was. This would leave us with the mention in a book of the fact that he was part of a group or committed that opened a Catholic Worker residence in London as our sole SECONDARY, WP:RS source. It ≠ notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The 2019 article is a book review by a Paul Dean, as indicated in the reference. I wonder why it appeared "very likely to be an article Jarvis wrote" when the reference is clear and we are Assuming Good Faith Apollinari (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for identifying this citation (Paul Dean, 'Book Reviews', RENEW, No. 189, March 2019, p 17 ), the nature of which was not at all clear to me. I guessed that it was "very likely" to be an article Jarvis wrote because the first citation was to an article Jarvis wrote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Renew - small publication backed by Hans Küng, Mary Grey, Elizabeth Stuart, Tony Flannery and others, among the most influential (and controversial) figures in the field. Leaning is progressive, feminist, LGBT theology. No question it is WP:RS. So the total is two WP:RS references? As I commented, the issue seems quantity of quality sources, not quality itself. Could use more voices, insights and sources on this but I imagine that would require some time to pass (WP:POTENTIAL). I don't think deletion would be a travesty but this is not clear outright fail of WP:AUTHOR WP:GNG either, as I'm sure many cases are. Borderline case.Vintage-vintner (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • summing up We have 2 WP:RS items for Jarvis' career. 1 review of a book he wrote. 1 book (page view not available when I searched) that discusses or mentions the fact that he was part of a group that established a Catholic Worker Movement something in London. Not clear what it was that the participated in crating. a newsletter? a residence? a London chapter of the movement? It is not clear what the claim is. One book review in a WP:RS does not pass WP:AUTHOR. E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I find the claims clear from the article, which is where the claims should presumably be found. Catholic Worker is described as an international network of branches, co-founding London Catholic Worker would mean co-founding the London branch. It's amazing what can seem clear to one person and not to another, I agree that it's terribly confusing sometimes. I don't think it can be a decisive argument that an editor cannot access one of the WP:RS book references and therefore discards it. It is not a criterion of WP:RS that it be free online access, how would that work? But I get it, the more you contribute the more rules you get to invent.Vintage-vintner (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • We still have only 2 sources on this person.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment -- That is much more a discussion of verifiability of sources, not of notability. He has clearly undertaken research on dissident Catholics. I note that he is now in his mid-40s, and has recently published three books, all with the same publisher. The article says nothing of what he has done before. I suspect that his doctorate is a recent one and the three books are a spin-off from his thesis. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • True. The books may be able to show impact, in the form of scholarly discussion, citation, in a few years. But I have searches, and I presume some of the editors arguing keep have also searches, and I just can't find sources. That, plus the fact that [[User:Vintage-vintner is an WP:SPA; account created the day after this discussion began, has edited only on a narrow range of closely connected topics.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Carl HeldmannEdit

Carl Heldmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Of the five references provided in this article, three are to Heldmann’s own work. The one in the LA Times I can’t access and the last is a passing mention. I can’t find any other references. My conclusion is that while some of the author’s books are possibly notable, he himself isn’t. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  • User:Mccapra, As you say, his books are notable and sources exist from which the page can be improved. However, you appear to misunderstand WP:CREATIVE, with, writers, composers, painters and other CREATIVE types, we do not require that anything at all is known about the creator, only that the work is notable. We have numerous pages about anonymous authors, sculptors, poets... Especially when, as here, the writer is notable for a series of books on a topic, it is COMMON to have a BIO page sourced to articles and reviews about the books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as Nom states, page needs improvement. However, I ran a WP:BEFORE and in a proquest news archive search I can see book reviews and coverage going back to the publication of his first book in the 1990s. Added two book reviews and a NYTimes article stating that one of his books sold 300,000 copied. This page just needs an editor to put the work in, but it may require access to news archive searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks but I still don’t think this passes WP:ANYBIO. The NYT source is a passing reference consisting of one sentence. The CNN source is likewise a passing ref consisting of a one-sentence quote. The last two refs you’ve added don’t have links so I can’t see them, but suspiciously they have identical titles. When I search for that title I turn up a third piece in the NY Daily News also headed “Want to be your own contractor? First read this“. From which I conclude this is most likely just a recycling of launch PR. My conclusion is still that while some of his books may be notable, he isn’t. Mccapra (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Note, however, that they are signed reviews by different journalists, both apparaently using an obvious play on world of the book title. I used a Paywalled Proquest newspaper search, therefore, no links.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Books widely discussed, one sold over 300,00o copies. some book reviews, but mostly discussion of the books, interviews, feature coverage. He was a be-your-own contractor guru. But editors without access to paywalled news archives will have trouble seeing the coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Prolific author who meets WP:SIGCOV Los Angeles Times. E.M.Gregory did some good work adding references. Lightburst (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

William Ingram (writer/actor)Edit

William Ingram (writer/actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Despite the significance roles he has given, it fails the notability guideline due to lack of lead roles. Sheldybett (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, WP:NACTOR doesn't call for leading roles, simply "significant roles", and his roles in Target Luna and Night Must Fall accomplish that. In addition, his writing accomplishments also meet WP:NAUTHOR.Onel5969 TT me 13:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think writing The District Nurse carries him over the bar at WP:AUTHOR. But there is other notable work, only time and good searches are needed. searches are difficult because William Ingram is a very common name. Searching "william Ingram" + BBC, I find some, brief RS stuff like: (We're talking Welsh, my boyo, and I don't mean Irvine, Mourby, Adrian. New Statesman; London Vol. 9, Iss. 411, (Jul 12, 1996): 42. When the Sherman Theatre Company staged The Government Inspector William Ingram rewrote it for a valleys setting."), Searching William + Ingram + Playwright did better. (IRIS MURDOCH'S "THE SANDCASTLE" on ITV Bourne, Richard The Guardian (1959-2003); Apr 10, 1963; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Guardian and The Observer pg. 9; "The Sandcastle last night, ATV production adapted by William Ingram..." adaptation of a novel.); a brief review: (the week's radio reviewed by GILLIAN REYNOLDS, Reynolds, Gillian. The Guardian (1959-2003); London (UK) [London (UK)]19 Dec 1970: 6. "Stop Off by William Ingram had the fashionable Freeid Jones as a kind of mystical trmp who tries in vain...); a long review: (IRIS MURDOCH'S "THE SANDCASTLE" on ITV Bourne, Richard. The Guardian (1959-2003); London (UK) [London (UK)]10 Apr 1963: 9. " actually, I'll just add the longer review to the page. I also get hundreds of schedule pages from seemingly every British newspapers with entries like ("Afternoon Theatre, Darts With the Boys," by William Ingram, 4:35). A prolific writer of material for TV, some of which is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. If kept, needs to be renamed to William Ingram (writer). We don't use double disambiguation and this seems to have been his primary claim to fame. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Good point. I went ahead and moved the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
*Keep. Significant roles in Target Luna and Night Must Fall CharlenePho (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Vilayet JafriEdit

Vilayet Jafri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This page does not meet Wikipedia's Author notability guidelines. There are multiple areas where the article attempts to establish notability, but fails.

The article says he is well known in the entertainment sector in India, yet there seems to be no significant secondary coverage. A breakdown of the article's sources: 1st Source: Does not mention subject 2nd Source: Dead Link 3rd Source: mentions the subject's name once, but there is not enough context to determine if the source is referring to the same person. 4th Source: An editorial, which does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. 5th Source: A photo gallery.

A google search of the name reveals only 300 results, which consist mainly of either unrelated material, Wikipedia duplicate sites, etc. There also exists no Hindi variant of the page, which is another sign the subject lacks notability.

The article makes numerous bold but false claims, most notably that Mr. Jafri has won an Indian Academy Award in 1989 (which there is no record of) and that he helped create a show called Badhte Kadam, which the article says is the longest running play in Indian history with 482 nights in a row. The problem is that 1. Badhte Kadam appears to be an indian charity, and 2. that there is actual reputable independent coverage of the play 'Hai Mera Dil,' which is the actual longest showing play in India, with over 1,000 showings (source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/With-1098-shows-Hindi-play-among-longest-running-in-Mumbai/articleshow/21889796.cms )

There are also no reviews that I can find of any of his supposedly 9 books, 11 plays, 20+ sound and light productions or any of his radio and TV serials.

The article claims the subject created the play Shatranj Mohre in 1999, but the play is an adaptation of a film of the same name, was Created by P.L.Deshpande, not Vilayet Jafri, and has been performed in India since the 1970s.

Awards: While the article mentions him having won numerous awards, there are no reliable sources to verify this information. In reality, there is information proving the exact opposite. The page states Mr. Jafri won the Tulsi Samman award, yet the sourced list of award winners on the award's page does not mention him. There is also no evidence the "Sanket Samman" award even exists. Going through every award results in either A. The subject not being listed among the award's recepients or B. Not enough verifiable coverage of the award to determine the award even exists.

Conclusion: this article is more than likely a hoax. Nothing the article says is backed up with any evidence whatsoever, with much of the information directly contradicting known facts (most notably having received an Indian Academy Award). No verifiable media coverage can be found. The icing on the cake is this sentence on the original draft of the page:

"Vilayet Jafri was born on 2nd October 1935 in Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh, India to an illustrious family of patriots who stood against the British during the Indian freedom struggle. As a result, his Great Grandfather was sentenced to death while his Grandfather was imprisoned in 1921."

The article was clearly written from a non-neutral point of view and none of the information presented by the article should be considered trustworthy. Propose deletion Firstclass306 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Firstclass306 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Firstclass306 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Page is terrible, but, more to the point, I got only 7 hits in a proquest newspapers search. Mere menitons with the exception of:
  • Vilayet Jafri on directing Ek Jama Do... RODERICKS, INDIRA. The Times of India (1861-current); Mumbai, India [Mumbai, India]23 Mar 2007: B16. Overall, I am just not seeing enough to pass WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment:@ThinkingGirl: there are some sources into article but they has not been cited inline into it. Can you suppoort every sententes of article with RS?Hispring (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete The same person had created the page Chandni_Jafri too. Seems the editor is paid and using Wikipedia to promote the specific family. Fails WP:Notability --Harshil169 (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

ToolsEdit

Main tool page: toolserver.org
  • Reflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references
  • Checklinks - Edit and repair external links
  • Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links.
  • Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles.