The Arts and Entertainment Work Group is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality and importance
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs... Specific discipline portals are listed in that section.
William Ely Hill (1887-1962) - Illustrator, created artwork for the book covers for F. Scott Fitzgerald and had a regular entry in the New York tribune along with being published on numerous occasions.
The general outline and collection has been started, but if you would like to expand and organize a discipline, here's what you do. Right below the page heading for the discipline insert this: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Work groups/Division banner}} and save. This will put a rough outline together for you and then you can edit it to conform to your area. See Writers and critics below for an example. If your project grows large enough where it's taking up a good portion of this page, you should probably move it to a subpage of this page.
You might also want to make a Members section for people to join your specific area!
Any article related to this work group should be marked by adding |a&e-work-group=yes to the {{WPBiography}} project banner at the top of its talk page. This will automatically place it into Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles. Articles can be assessed for priority within this work group by using the |a&e-priority= parameter. See Template:WikiProject Biography/doc for detailed instructions on how to use the banner.
Jubileeclipman (talk·contribs) I am interested in taking on UK celebrities with articles that are stubs or otherwise non-standard. Entirely rewrote Fearne Cotton to raise standard and remove fansite tag. I am working on Holly Willoughby which was merely a list plus trivia. Will also work on musicians, all genre, living or dead.
I cannot find anything on this author in both print and online sources despite them writing 28 books. I cannot confirm even the most basic of biographical information (age, country, etc), nor even whether this is even a real person. What if this is simply a collection of authors who publish under this name? I cannot find a single newspaper article on this person, or any kind of faculty biography attached to any kind of institution. There is a short overview that lacks any biographical information on one of her publisher websites. I cannot confirm whether this person is an academic or has any kind of academic background.
Doing online searches, you find people spending years asking the exact same questions and not coming up with anything definitive:
In principle, her works could be used as sources for Wikipedia (not every author is notable enough to have their own page). There are a handful of academic reviews of her books but this is simply not enough. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article creator. I understand the concerns you're raising in your nomination, but they seem to be primarily concerns about the subject herself, which is a separate discussion from whether the subject merits a Wikipedia article. If your argument is that Cavallaro does not qualify for assessment under the academic notability guideline, note that she also meets criteria 1 and 3 of the creative professionals guideline: her Google Scholar results indicate that her work is widely cited, some of them having hundreds of citations, her work has been the subject of plentiful reviews in addition to the ones already present in the article, and physical copies of her works seem to be widespread, with this book and this book being available in hundreds of libraries. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She fails literally every single criteria for the academic notability guideline (and rather badly I might add). She's made zero impact in her field, and merely spams out a lot of very low quality books that get trashed in reviews or cited in other low quality scholarship. She does not publish in any peer reviewed journal at all, and does not hold any position in any unviersity or academic setting, and does not go to any conferences (or even fan conventions). In the end, I can't even prove she's a real person and not 3 teenagers in a trench coat. The article will be permanent stub status simply because there's no sources and likely never will be. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain whether the academic guideline applies in this case, but that's pretty irrelevant as I've already demonstrated how she passes the guideline for creative professionals. Again, none of the concerns you're raising here are relevant to the question of whether Cavallaro merits an article. A person does not need to have a public image or appear at events in order to be notable. Even if you think Cavallaro might be "3 teenagers in a trench coat", that isn't a reason to delete the article. Should William Shakespeare's article be deleted just because the authenticity of his work has been questioned for hundreds of years? Yes, that's a somewhat hyperbolic comparison, but quite to the point — I haven't seen that claim presented anywhere other than a single blog post, and I regard it as a fringe theory. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Plenty of books/papers written by her, nothing about her. I don't find much of anything outside of books she's written. No coverage, no critical reviews of her works, unsure about scholarly notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did. The site is listed as a RS [8], but we need more than two articles from the same site to establish notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. I'm not referring to the nomination but to my comment, where I showed her work has been widely cited and reviewed. Also, I will note that Anime and Manga Studies is likely not reliable as a whole, being a self-published source; the WikiProject only recommends a single page of references as a starting point for further research. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could not find reliable sources online, except for some (including sources used in this article) having short mentions on this subject. Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no reliable sources and is essentially an orphan with no article linking to it. This evidence suggests the article does not fall on the notability side. WolverineXI(talk to me) 15:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Policies and WP's and MOS aside, how can "we" not keep the page of someone who created the title "Ghosts in the form of gifts". Randy Kryn (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this BLP about an artist working in comics and animation, and added a reference. I cannot find more coverage, however, so do not think he meets WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a single source in the article, and my searches are not finding anything else. Does not meet WP:ARTIST at this time. Elspea756 (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a real shame that the folks who edited this article didn't give any indication of where they got the info. I can't find anything but name-checks and most of those are in bibliographical listings (e.g. names of those who contributed to specific comics). Lamona (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding any references for the biographical information presented in the article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics
The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Related Projects
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts
I cannot find anything on this author in both print and online sources despite them writing 28 books. I cannot confirm even the most basic of biographical information (age, country, etc), nor even whether this is even a real person. What if this is simply a collection of authors who publish under this name? I cannot find a single newspaper article on this person, or any kind of faculty biography attached to any kind of institution. There is a short overview that lacks any biographical information on one of her publisher websites. I cannot confirm whether this person is an academic or has any kind of academic background.
Doing online searches, you find people spending years asking the exact same questions and not coming up with anything definitive:
In principle, her works could be used as sources for Wikipedia (not every author is notable enough to have their own page). There are a handful of academic reviews of her books but this is simply not enough. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article creator. I understand the concerns you're raising in your nomination, but they seem to be primarily concerns about the subject herself, which is a separate discussion from whether the subject merits a Wikipedia article. If your argument is that Cavallaro does not qualify for assessment under the academic notability guideline, note that she also meets criteria 1 and 3 of the creative professionals guideline: her Google Scholar results indicate that her work is widely cited, some of them having hundreds of citations, her work has been the subject of plentiful reviews in addition to the ones already present in the article, and physical copies of her works seem to be widespread, with this book and this book being available in hundreds of libraries. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She fails literally every single criteria for the academic notability guideline (and rather badly I might add). She's made zero impact in her field, and merely spams out a lot of very low quality books that get trashed in reviews or cited in other low quality scholarship. She does not publish in any peer reviewed journal at all, and does not hold any position in any unviersity or academic setting, and does not go to any conferences (or even fan conventions). In the end, I can't even prove she's a real person and not 3 teenagers in a trench coat. The article will be permanent stub status simply because there's no sources and likely never will be. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain whether the academic guideline applies in this case, but that's pretty irrelevant as I've already demonstrated how she passes the guideline for creative professionals. Again, none of the concerns you're raising here are relevant to the question of whether Cavallaro merits an article. A person does not need to have a public image or appear at events in order to be notable. Even if you think Cavallaro might be "3 teenagers in a trench coat", that isn't a reason to delete the article. Should William Shakespeare's article be deleted just because the authenticity of his work has been questioned for hundreds of years? Yes, that's a somewhat hyperbolic comparison, but quite to the point — I haven't seen that claim presented anywhere other than a single blog post, and I regard it as a fringe theory. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Plenty of books/papers written by her, nothing about her. I don't find much of anything outside of books she's written. No coverage, no critical reviews of her works, unsure about scholarly notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did. The site is listed as a RS [9], but we need more than two articles from the same site to establish notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. I'm not referring to the nomination but to my comment, where I showed her work has been widely cited and reviewed. Also, I will note that Anime and Manga Studies is likely not reliable as a whole, being a self-published source; the WikiProject only recommends a single page of references as a starting point for further research. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This subject fails WP:GNG and all other notability metrics. Clear promotion and cruft (primary sources, Amazon...) JFHJr (㊟) 01:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This individual has not received significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article. He is among many people to have to visited most of the world's countries, but this is not particularly exceptional and does not confer notability per WP:BLP1E. gobonobo+c 02:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could be something here if we had more/better sourcing. What's used now is basically databases... This is all I can find, a brief mention [10], not enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCIENTIST. His singular discovery is not a notable event, just noteworthy (in the list where it appears). There's just not enough in unrelated third-party reliable sources about him to make an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 04:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This subject fails WP:GNG because only insubstantial coverage is indicated in articles that are all topically about her spouse, or published by her own school. She fails WP:GNG today and is unlikely to garner more substantial coverage in the future due to her being so dead. JFHJr (㊟) 05:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added in reviews of two of her publications. She wrote under the name Elizabeth Young, which makes searching for discussions of her work a challenge. I suspect there is more coverage of her work, but it requires sifting through articles about similar people. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:SNG. Subject is not notable and the article is purely written for promotion (it even reads like a personal resume). Also, most of the content is WP:SYNTH. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Factors do not appear to have meaningfully changed since the prior discussion. He's an active businessperson, and Insignia Ventures Partners may be notable but he does not appear so as an author. StarMississippi 01:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is another sockpuppet production from the same drawer that brought us Conrad Hughes. After socks were blocked, I removed all primary sources before nominating. This subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR. There's no sustained reliable coverage significantly about this subject indicating his encyclopedic notability. There was lots of primary stuff, by related parties. Now it's two books. If one is notable, it might need an article instead of a socky BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 03:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, with redirection also being an option if anyone other than a blocked sock is interested in making a stub on the notable book. I see a notable book with reviews (and also respectable citations in a low citation field), but little other evidence of notability. WP:BLP1E at best. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the problems of puffery and COI authoring etc before the gutting of the entry ... he seems to me to pass WP:Author as his book has been primary subject of multiple independent reviews and an article on him might therefor be useful. An article on the book would seem to me odd, but a brief article on the author mentioning the books would seems OK. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Had another look (thanks to User:JoelleJay's ping) and think the book's publishers WE & DI and reviews in some marginal journals raise enough fringish worries to make my keep based on the book not so wise. Perhaps he is more known as a journalist in the National Review but notability is not so clear enough to me to justify. Preface by Malcolm Muggeridge to, and praise from Rowan Williams for, the book were the things that I now think mislead me. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. This is about a "survey" (as the book is self-described) published in 2019 by "Discovery Institute," a Seattle-based think tank, which was later translated into French. At the risk of stating the obvious, if the guide or the author were notable, sockpuppets and primary sources wouldn't have been necessary for the article creation. The guide reviews aren't found in reliable sources and appear (as is sometimes the case with unknown manuals) to be provided by the author's associates. There don't appear to be any reliable sources for the author either. In addition to failing WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR, the article reads like a peacock marketing piece that runs into further WP:GNG problems when considering a ten-year or twenty-year test. 174.197.67.208 (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per FRINGE and our notability guidelines. As noted above, this guy is affiliated[11] with the Discovery Institute, a disinformation-spewing intelligent design think tank. The Restoration edition is not reliably published -- it went through Discovery Institute Press,[12] a fact that is strangely absent from the article. Its reviews include several in unreliable sources like Evolution News (DI magazine) and/or do not satisfy WP:FRIND's criterion (bolded) The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources, outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself. The Le Figaro review might be acceptable, but one review is definitely not sufficient for an unreliably-published fringe book. The earlier Restitution edition went through a non-academic Christian publisher that doesn't seem inherently unreliable, and some of its reviews are in reliable (if biased) journals, so it's possible an article could be written on it and the biography title redirected to it. While it is sometimes preferable to cover multiple marginally-notable books (or one notable book and one or more related marginal ones) by the same author in a biography page rather than in separate weak pages (or not at all), I don't think Restoration is sufficiently distinct from its precursor to use this as justification for a biography. Moreover, I do not think a biography would be appropriate when a) all IRS SIGCOV is of the author's works and b) the non-independent/primary material we would normally use to fill out a biography on an academic will necessarily be sourced to fringe orgs and thus be overtly non-neutral. Ping @Msrasnw. Also ping @David Eppstein as someone more experienced with NAUTHOR/humanities cases, which I normally avoid. JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a sockpuppet production. After the sock was blocked, I removed all primary sources. I was left with only two, one of which has the subject talking about another topic (his school) in an interview. This subject appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR. JFHJr (㊟) 00:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please see history for an extensive record of puffery. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah--this is where this came from: a socking case of COI-puffery. JFHJr, in such cases, don't even bother cleaning up the article; not doing so makes the fluff stand out nicely. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I try to present each specimen in its most favorable light. And without extraneous reading. Anyone wondering about the application of my edits can see the history. Thank you for your comment. I always appreciate your input. JFHJr (㊟) 00:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone's consideration and time-sinking availability, this version is what we are talking about. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to you wanting to delete this article. Looks like an attempt at illegitimate blanking.Wikiviewer2 (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Independent coverage seems to be limited. Deb (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, in the article you took down there were at least 10 independent references and there are many more out there, just look through the web!213.55.220.222 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised to see the previous article removed. Dr Hughes is well known in international education. Have you googled him? Why should the article be reduced or deleted, according to who?213.55.220.222 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not removed, and "well known" should be supported by reliable secondary sources. "Have you googled him" is not a reasonable or helpful question to ask. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's two interviews (WP:BLPSPS) and coverage that includes Hughes talking about a different topic (the in-depth coverage is not about Hughes but AI in private schools). How does that approach WP:ANYBIO? JFHJr (㊟) 20:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The interviews have not been deleted. They're still at their URLs for anyone who googles this subject to find. JFHJr (㊟) 22:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He has clearly made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in education, just by his publications for the World Economic Forum, Springer, The Conversation, his doctoral research, and dozens of articles. He's a well respected scholar. This alone meets WP:ANYBIO Lefka1 (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC) — Lefka1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You or whoever removed the first article took out lots of independent references. There's an interview with the International Baccalaureate for example. That's not a primary source, why are you removing it? There was also an article in the TES about him and by Cambridge's SHAPE. I am opposed to your proposal to delete this.213.55.220.222 (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm about to block a socking account. The nay-sayers here likely have conflicts of interest, but worse than that they lack a proper understanding of what Wikipedia is and what the processes are. Interviews and whatnot do not count towards notability. If there is an "enduring historical record in education", there will be secondary sources that say that. That someone published articles also does not make them notable--unless others have written about those articles. If there's any more socking, this AfD will be semi-protected. Oh, Lefka1, if you make any more comments about "personal vendetta" or whatever, I will happily block you too. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm intrigued by the controversy surrounding this article. I have no axe to grind about Hughes, one way or another, and I don't necessarily espouse his views, but - whether one likes it or not - he is unquestionably prominent and influential in international education, and increasingly so. Are the editors who propose the deletion of the article familiar with this field?
International educators throughout the world would be puzzled to hear that quite a small article devoted to Hughes has been earmarked for deletion, on the grounds of insufficient notability. An article providing some basic, sober information, free of "puffery", about who Hughes is and does fulfills Wikipedia's responsibility to inform its vast reading public, in an objective and neutral manner, about noteworthy people and topics, with the support of solid citations. I can't say I care enough about the Hughes article to do extensive research on its behalf, but as far as secondary sources go, you might look at the reputed TES journal (29 May 2020, "Rethinking school: a special issue", by Alistair McConville), the McKay interview with Hughes on World Radio Switzerland (29 February 2024), or the June 2024 "Formation" supplement ("Ces écoles centenaires") of Bilan magazine, page 4). So my advice, as an experienced Wikipedia reader (though not editor) would be DO NOT DELETE. All those in the field of international education understand why there is an article about Hughes in Wikipedia, regardless of whether they share his well-known educational goals.
By the way, I notice that some previous contributions to this discussion have been crossed out. Why, by whom, and on what authority? Those deleted comments are somewhat assertive, but by no means rude or irresponsible. I hope that this is not how Wikipedia functions, with certain editors censoring the reasonable contributions of others.83.79.254.53 (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard this speaker in conferences, he's well know in international education circles. But when I go to wikipedia I see someone is trying to delete the page. I am opposed to this page being deleted. Jane asia (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) — Jane asia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Seeing no evidence that article's subject is sufficiently notable re: WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR.The article itself is quite poor.Boredintheevening (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Hughes is a widely known figure in international education. To anybody who is knowledgeable about this field, that's obvious. I'm surprised that this can be such a controversial issue. Basic research about Hughes will confirm his notability. 77.59.138.101 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion proposal is not controversial. It does not require controversy to happen. Just a crappy article and crappy sources. The only controversy here is all the WP:SOCKs, who are apparently determined to edit logged-out after blocks (editing logged-out is much like editing naked, leaves very little in doubt). You're making it much easier to tie a single sock to multiple IPs, so thank you! JFHJr (㊟) 18:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heavily embellished promotional bio created by an SPA, with no actual in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources. Except for nigeriasportsnews.com, which appears to be a puff piece, none of the sources refbombed in the article are actually about the subject—only tangential mentions from issues he has been involved in. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While it's not a G4, it does not appear that the issues raised that led to the prior version being deleted have been resolved. Lushchai was a wonderful person and active Wikipedian but does not appear notable as an author. WP:NOTAMEMORIAL unfortunately applies. StarMississippi 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want just to note that I wasn't the one who moved the article to main space. Though I personally think that he is notable, I would be OK with submitting article later with more sources, which are listed on Russian Wikipedia forum and on Wikinews. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there is significant coverage of the person. And lack of English language sources is never an argument for deletion.
I would also like to note thst I am XFD closer on ruwiki, and User:Андрей Романенко who moved the article is long-serving administrator on ruwiki. So we might now something about notability rules, right? BilboBeggins (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Different languages have different rules as far as notability. No one is saying he isn't notable on RU wiki, and non English sources are 100% welcome but may not meet the bar needed for notability as required here. StarMississippi 13:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is his biography in the source listed.
There are also plenty of Russian language sources in his death, but they are not neutral and I would rather not include them in the article. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NOTMEMORIAL. Simply being a Wikipedian is rarely notable, the rest are stories of his passing. Nothing for notability. His life before death was very much non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His notability is also due to him being a poet and scientist. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To my mind, the key source for this case is the op-ed at Radio Liberty arguing at some length for the special status of Lushchai as a cultural figure. This was not the reason behind keeping the article about this person in ru.wiki, there the closing admin opted for other criteria. Possibly other available sources don't provide so direct and clear reasoning for Lushchai's notability. However, other memorial articles (like this, for instance) also provide significant coverage of his life and are independent of the aforementioned op-ed. All in all I see this person as notable according to WP:BASIC. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So earlier today, I moved this bio to the draft NS because I didn't find the subject WP:N enough. However, the creator Youknowwhoistheman moved it back to the main NS without any discussion. So, I think it's reasonable to nom. it for deletion. From what I can tell, the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or even AUTHOR. Plus, this piece is just a Letter to the editor, so one should simply ignore it when establishing GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thanks for noticing, I think that before putting any new article in draft, it should be given time. So that it can be properly prepared. You put it in draft in a very short time without thinking. Secondly, always try to improve an article before putting it on deletion, rather than nominating it for deletion.
Now coming to the point, is this article really not passing the general notability of Wikipedia, WP:GNG? So, I think you should have done a little more in-depth study. If you search his name in Urdu and English, you will find mention of him in hundreds of books. And there are hundreds of books in which he is mentioned, but he has not come in the world of internet. Which is absolutely right according to Wikipedia policy, for more information you can read WP:Offline.
Yes, it definitely seems to me that the way you put the article in draft in a hurry, it seems as if you have some personal enmity with him.
Youknowwhoistheman, It's strange that everyone thinks I have some sort of agenda or personal enmity with them. Rest assured, I don't have any personal issues with the subject. He's deceased—may he RIP. Tbh, I didn't want to nominate this for deletion. I wanted to give this bio a chance, which is why I draftified it instead of AfD'g it. However, you moved it back to the main NS - leaving me no other option but to bring it here. So you need to avoid WP:ATA and prove that he either meets GNG or AUTHOR. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sure, it is left to other editors to decide. again, thanks you! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep. Meets Wikipedia's notability standards. There is an entry about this person in The Pakistan National Bibliography book from 1975 -- having a subject listed in a national book of biographies is always a good indicator of notability. Second, a Google Scholar search turns up his name referenced in a number of works. Finally, the citations provided in the article appear to be solid overall and support notability. --SouthernNights (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SouthernNights. WP:BEFORE was not done properly. A simple search in Urdu newspapers brings a lot of coverage: [13], [14]. Meets WP:NSCHOLAR. Bad nomination which should be withdrawn asap. 2A00:23C6:139B:A101:78CA:7B5:3148:9172 (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not qualify under WP:GNG, as the sources (both in article and in BEFORE search) appear to be affiliated with the author, press releases, or trivial mentions. (One source might qualify, but we need multiple.) The subject also does not meet the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NWRITER. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find coverage in Jstor, Gbooks or Gscholar, so I'm not sure what else can be found... Delete for a lack of sourcing; happy to revisit if other sources can be found. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just barely. The Stuff profile and Wanganui Chronicle article establish some notability. I'm not sure if WP:AUTHOR is the only criteria that applies here, as she has been a curator and researcher at multiple museums and universities, most notably Te Papa which is the New Zealand national museum. To me, this establishes notability as an academic. David Palmer//cloventt(talk) 08:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Policies and WP's and MOS aside, how can "we" not keep the page of someone who created the title "Ghosts in the form of gifts". Randy Kryn (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unconvinced that the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines for academics. The article subject is a teaching professor with limited research output. Their research has not made a significant impact in their scholarly field (they seem to publish introductions for popular presses, published reviews of their other work is critical). They have not recieved a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national/internationl level. They are not an elected member of a highly selective/prestigious society. The subject does not hold a distinguished professor position or appointment at a major institution, nor have they been named chair or equivalent. The subject has not held a highest-level administrative appointment. The person appears not to have made a signifcant impact outside of academia in their academic capacity, where they are quoted in publications it is usually promotional material for one of their porjects. The subject has not been editor/EiC of a major/well-established academic journal. Other contextual clues indicate that this page exists purely as a promotional platform for the subject. There is very little activity on this page other than IP editors vandalizing the page to introduce promotional content, and then other editors removing or clarifying these edits. The creator of this page has since been banned for their promotional activities. I mean to disrespect to the subject of this article, but I struggle to see how they meet the criteria or need for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your platform and visibility as a junior academic, but I would suggest that this is much better accomplished through a personal website and social media channels. Having a cursory glance at the department the article subject belongs to, there are many far more senior scholars among his colleagues who are not similarly represented on this site. After spending significant time trying to improve this page, I doubt that with the available material it will rise to the level of inclusion. I welcome other editors' feedback and perspectives if I have been too harsh in my judgement. Boredintheevening (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(correcting typo: line read "I mean no disrespect", not "I mean to disrespect") Boredintheevening (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Originally created by some pro-Israeli sock puppet in 2008 that has since been perma-banned? Very sporadic updates since then. Cannot find any independent secondary sources (Washington Institute is main source of all the info, his employer, and is also a pro-Israeli thinktank?), and this reads more like some kinda WP:RESUME than anything else. I cannot think of any good way to salvage this without useful secondary and independent sources. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
all the sources saying he is an important figure in counterterrorism are from his own books or the thinktank he is a part of User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The books alone are not enough but I found and added plenty of reviews (11 for 3 books), giving him a pass of WP:AUTHOR. I agree that there is also a case for WP:PROF#C1. The nominator's interjection of politics into the rationale for deletion is also troublesome. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for edits and review citations.
i didnt see matthew levitts citation count actually, kinda agree on wp:prof 1 now that he is notable, so i kinda change to weak keep maybe. not sure about wp:author.
pointing out the politics is not troubling i think. his page reads very much like a wp:resume and does not indicate that the think tank he works at has been identified by both nytimes and others as both founded by aipac, run with money from aipac donors, and very much proisraeli.
much of his work reflects this bias (i found his article by seeing folks uncritically cite his work as bedrock truth on wikipedia pushing that muslim brotherhood/hamas had infiltrated many if not most muslim orgs)
much of it still reads like a wp:resume i think, especially as article takes significant amount of info from the thinktank. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also for future help in determining the notability of these types of articles, how did you find such book reviews?
honestly asking, the first few page of google search when i was looking were all just his own work or the think tank, didnt know where else to search or find other sources and would love new ways to find sources for articles User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found many of them using a JSTOR advanced search with his name as a quoted string, checking the box restricting the search results to reviews. With that as a base, I filled in some more searching Google Scholar for works whose titles included the title of the book. E.g. search string intitle:"Hezbollah: The Global Footprint of Lebanon's Party of God". —David Eppstein (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Convinced by arguments and citation count (didn't see them). Still think the article could use some work. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment could you elaborate on why none of the sources meet BASIC in your opinion? FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the biography in Educational Institutions Pamphlets (which is actually a 1950 L'Ecole National D'Administration book) plus short mentions in La Rabia De La Expresion, Le conseil d'état et le régime de Vichy", and the State Council plaque should be sufficient for WP:NBASIC. There are other short mentions, perhaps some longer ones, on GScholar. Oblivy (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Per nom. Poor sources with no significant coverage on the biography of the subject. Page about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced is not noteworthy. Fails WP:BIO. RangersRus (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Only sources provided are a primary source and obituary in a local news outlet of a minor town. Search does not indicate any further coverage. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. No indication works have achieved level of significance to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially per nom. Appears to have been a local history enthusiast, but a far cry from satisfying WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Nsk92 (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
These sources cover the subject only in relation to his death, nothing more, as per my WP:BEFORE. Therefore, the article fails WP:BLP1E, which states, "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
Comment I may be missing something, but these obit articles have been published as a result of his death - but it is *not* the event of his death that is the reason why the papers find this person notable enough to publish the article. For example one source states "He was one of radio’s most respected and popular characters". Evidently the coverage is not in the context of a single event. I do not see how WP:BLP1E applies. ResonantDistortion 16:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ResonantDistortion, WP:BLP1E simply mentions “Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.” These sources are published in context of a single event which is his death! It is simple as that. You said “but it is *not* the event of his death that is the reason why the papers find this person notable enough to publish the article.” If you really think he is notable then cite some reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject. But these sources are just in the context of his death. GrabUp - Talk 16:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup - no - it really is not that simple. You appear to be arguing a blanket statement that obituaries do not count towards notability. If I was to die tomorrow of a fairly common disease, I can assure you I would not get an editorial obituary in any publication. None of the cited obit coverage is published because the actual event of the subjects death is particularly newsworthy, but because of the accomplishments of the subject during the rather more sustained period of their life. There is an interesting discussion here which I suggest you review, [15], which includes a quote by the author of BLP1E, @Jclemens, that "but in no way, shape, or form is an obituary one event". For the record, I have no opinion on the notability of the subject nor the reliability of the sources - I am rather challenging the blanket assumption that (editorial) obituaries do not count towards notability. ResonantDistortion 02:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources mentioned above, except one, are citing RadioToday’s report; they are not reporting independently. Additionally, the sources are filled with statements from connected individuals, tributes, and similar content. Do these types of obituaries count towards notability? The first source appears unreliable to me, as it lacks editorial details. Other sources are just repeating what others are saying. GrabUp - Talk 03:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with User:Grabup - the articles mainly say what a wonderful guy he was, but do not give the kind of information that would support notability. I noticed that some of the articles mentioned that he had co-authored a book (but none gave a title). I cannot find any publication by him nor his name in the biggest name authority file. Lamona (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable broadcaster presenting on well known local and national radio stations. J97736 (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
presented * the stations mentioned should surely explain his notability. J97736 (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 19:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It reflects poorly on us to host blatant spam like this. I went in to clean it up but couldn't find sources to support a Wikipedia biography. Most links are dead but those that I could access didn't support the claims or cover him in any depth. The is WP:UPE spam and the subject fails WP:GNG. Usedtobecool☎️ 11:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though the references presented in article from reference no.7 to 10 is reliable and independent to the subject but I didn't find any significant coverage on him to establish notability. Fade258 (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:BIO, the sources provided are not sufficient to establish notability. Pinakpani (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found this title notable because this is an author with published books, those books are notable being bestselling around the country and also the author is being praised by noteworthy personalities in India. It also has enough good references on trusted websites.Samm985 (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, why? List of Indian writers is only for notable writers, redirecting a non-notable individual writer to a directory of notable writers that doesn't mention the subject is counterintuitive. Sohom (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject fails to meet WP:GNG as there is no in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources. However, the subject's book titled "The Book of India Ghosts" may meet WP:AUTHOR criterion number 3, which requires multiple reviews of books to establish notability. There are two reviews available for that particular book, one from The Hindu and one from The Hindu BusinessLine. Both reviews are from different publications and authors. GrabUp - Talk 18:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The author's work has not made a significant monument, or won significant critical attention. One of his book "The book of India Ghosts", got a review from hindu.com but this cannot be considered the criteria needed to pass WP:AUTHOR because the work needs to be widely cited by peers or successors. RangersRus (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RangersRus: WP:AUTHOR’s third criterion states: “The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.” There are two reviews from The Hindu and The Hindu BusinessLine from different authors. I think this is sufficient to meet the third criteria, as multiple reviews from independent sources are available. There are other criteria, but if a subject meets any of them, then it can be presumed to be notable. GrabUp - Talk 15:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: This talks about the author [16]; on the balance, just enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Journalist falls short of WP:NBIO and WP:GNG tests; no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of him separate from his own writing and coverage of his books. (His book "Turn the Beat Around" would likely pass WP:NBOOK if an article were created on it, but Shapiro's notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from it.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep on the subject of this article. I disagree with the nominators assessment here - particularly as the applicable guideline is WP:AUTHOR, where independent coverage of the author's work is sufficient to evidence notability; WP:INHERITED does not apply. I have found and added several independent citations to the article, including a number of RS book reviews and RS articles stating the importance of the works of Shapiro. As such I !vote to keep this article per WP:AUTHOR#3: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Article could really use expansion however. Per WP:NOPAGE I also recommend a single central article on the author and his works, rather than multiple articles on the books themselves. - I recommend Modulations: A History of Electronic Music is redirected to Shapiro if the result of this AfD is to keep.ResonantDistortion 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you adding reviews links to the article. I disagree with you on the eligibility for WP:AUTHOR #3. While the author has created a couple of independently notable works, none of the reviews or sources describe the significance of his body of work; they are about individual works. While I agree that Modulations and Turn the Beat Around are notable, I don't think there are any sources to describe them as "significant" nor do any sources discuss them in the context of Shapiro's body of work. Considering that the only available sources are reviews of individual works, the notability should go to the works themselves. Furthermore, the reviews provide virtually no WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, which would leave this article a WP:PERMASTUB without verifiable biographical information. The absence of significant coverage points toward delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there is enough coverage to write a non-stub article on Shapiro that is focused on his works. Frankly I find the sourcing on Modulations: A History of Electronic Music to be limited - it struggles to meet notability guidelines and it should be merged and redirected to the parent article Modulations: Cinema for the Ear, as a section in that page. As for WP:AUTHOR#3 - I am struggling to follow the above logic as the guidelines clearly do not require secondary coverage of the works as a body; a single book suffices. In this case we have at minimum one fully notable work and several more works with RS secondary coverage over a WP:SUSTAINED period, and the best place to manage this would be the single article on the author. To support this with an example, His 2005 book, The Rough Guide to Hip-Hop, has reliable sources both recommending it and stating it is important; but this is likely not enough for a standalone article, so the author article is the next best place. (Note - given the age of some of the books - we can very likely presume that offline coverage exists beyond a standard search engine). ResonantDistortion 16:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I question on criterion 3: is his work "significant and well-known"? I agree the one book meets the standard of "notable," but "significant and well-known" is different, if undefined. I find it difficult to understand how someone's work could be significant and well-known and the author of them remain sufficiently unknown that there are no reliable sources to validate even birth date or country of origin. (Sources disagree about whether Shapiro is American or British.) I'd be OK with a redirect of this page to an article for Turn the Beat Around if one were to be created, but without anything significant coverage I'm defaulting to WP:COMMONSENSE for a situation in which we can't really construct a biography. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are going to disagree on this one. Given there are a number of reliable sources dedicated to the subjects' other books, but are not sufficiently SIGCOV in and of themselves to create several separate articles for each, the best option (per my version of WP:COMMONSENSE!) would be the other way round: Turn the Beat Around: The Secret History of Disco should redirect to Peter Shapiro (journalist) so we have a single page for all his works. ResonantDistortion 02:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With the addition of new sources, I don't see any particular concern with notability. Shankargb (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To elucidate why I think the (many) book reviews of Shapiro's work don't constitute WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, here's what the sigcov policy states: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Right now, the article as it stands is just a few sentences, hardly any about Shapiro himself and about his work, and the sourcing doesn't really permit anything further to be written. As noted above, we don't even have the most basic information about his life. Thus my argument that the books are notable but that the author is not. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on whether WP:AUTHOR is met. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I've also found this [17], but it also appears on the article author's (Howard Blas') website. I suppose it's a RS Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this article refers to a different Peter Shapiro (concert promoter) - who also writes books on the music business. Which makes source finding doubly tricky! ResonantDistortion 05:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I find no coverage for this individual, sources I'd identified are for a different person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the nominator. - AlbeitPK (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable. Not just as a poet/columnist, but also as a successful cultural producer/entrepreneur whose literary festival is the biggest of its kind in one of the world's largest countries (at least three times bigger than the UK by population). Anglophones may or may not be aware of it, but that is utterly irrelevant to the Bangladesh-based popularity of Dhaka LitFest. --Peripatetic (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References appear to be not about him, notability not established; unclear why his role in Dhaka LitFest meets notability thresholds. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some sources are primary but I am sure there will notability in the future. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 07:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is mainly a resume. Most of the sources in the article consist of dead links from websites that are related to Lya Stern; the rest of the sources either have brief mentions of her or don't mention her at all. After doing a Google search to see if there were sources that could be added to the article, the only significant coverage I found of her was from a website that listed Wikipedia as a source. The rest of the information I found was from her YouTube channel and mentions of her from her students. As a result, she doesn't met WP:GNG or WP:NBLP. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentOne source via Newspapers.com goes into some depth. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Weak) - There is a big gap in WP on instrumental performers who have created the American musical/movie music scene, and in general the encyclopedia is too quick to delete (especially for women and minority performers), but here I think the AfD is correct. The Baltimore Sun article gives a bit of notability, but the other sources do not. A blurb on the back of one's teacher's independently published book is not enough. There needs to be more and I could not find anything that led to more than what a local performing teacher would have. Glad to be proven wrong. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk) 08:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is a staff written bio at AllMusic here and an album review here to go with the detailed Baltimore Sun article linked earlier by Hameltion. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does Eudice Shapiro have to do with the subject of this article? That Tired TarantulaBurrow 23:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just agreeing with That Tired Tarantula above -- @Atlantic306 you have linked to reviews for a different musician. If Lya Stern had an Allmusic staff bio, that would be relevant, but I could not find one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk) 01:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, have struck my vote and comment. In my defence the erroneous AllMusic bio is the first reference in the article but I should have noticed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the subject doesn't meet the WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR, as their works don't seem noteworthy enough. The press coverage in WP:RS also not significant or in depth enough, so fails to meet WP:GNG. Does not satisfy WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or better to be moved to the draft Kotebeet (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree with the nominator. A British Muslim Awards recipient is already qualified for a Wikipedia entry per WP:ANYBIO and from the article was cited to a reliable source per WP:RS. Also, as a journalist of a notable newspaper or TV which she was for Huffpost give us assurance of passing WP:JOURNALIST. She also wrote a book which is notable enough to qualify WP:NAUTHOR. What's then needed for an article? Not being braid doesn't mean it came be a standalone article. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, I'm curious about how she meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria simply for working at Huffpost. The policy doesn't say anything like this. Additionally, is writing just one book sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One book which is reviewed by reliable sources is considered as notable. But may not require a article. However, we usually have problem when journalists wrote about others as few or less writing about them, in other way, winning an award for such excellence in media is part of both ANYBIO and JOURNALISM. While these are additional criteria, the article generally meets our general notability guidelines where being cited to reliable sources, verifiable and significantly covered per WP:SIGCOV. Even as there isn't any fact for such, a redirect should have served better not only when she won a major award and a book mistake reviewed. Let's be truthful herein and ignore certain additional essays. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 09:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because the article raises concerns regarding its credibility due to several factors: 1) Excessive Referencing: With only six sentences, the presence of ten references seems disproportionate. This abundance of citations may suggest an attempt to over-validate the content rather than provide genuine support for the points made. 2) Questionable Contributor: The primary contributor, "User:Kotebeet," [contributed approximately 80% of the content], is no longer active on the platform. This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor.--Crosji (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crosji, you are wrong here. I disagree that an AFD process requires the author except in major cases like undisclosed WP:UPE or thereabout. I am asking you do look at the article by our process of inclusion; WP:GNG. If you have any issue with the creator, then face them. I can't find any argument you're making besides you vote says "not noteworthy". Meaning? Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 10:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crosji, also there is no issue of WP:REFBOMB here. I don't seem to understand your statement This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor, when a creator doesn't require anything on whether to delete an article or keep them. However, this is a process and you can't vote twice. Do remove any of the votes. Thanks! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 10:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 07:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Focus on policy, not issues that can be addressed via editing and Crosji, please strike your duplicate vote. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 13:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
