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.
Promotionally toned article on a non-notable mother-of-pearl artist. It seems to be part of a possible walled garden on various family members of the Mushi/Munsi family. No indication from the current sourcing nor in a BEFORE search that this artist passes GNG nor meets the criteria for NARTIST. All I found online were WP mirrors. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promotionally-toned article on a non-notable artist. Possibly COI or UPE as part of a series of promotional articles on the Munsi/Munshi family. A BEFORE did not find independent SIGCOV in reliable sources. Possibly a family history or memorial project? Sourcing does not meet GNG nor NARTIST criteria. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Borderline G11, would not object to draftification for an unconnected editor to attempt an article about Munsi's contributions to the Academy, but that alone isn't grounds for notability and I do not see sourcing to pass N:ARTIST although I acknowledge age of his life is in issue there. StarMississippi15:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also in 1965, another document covers the news of exhibition by Munsi along with other painters. Although these links are available online, there were two books published offline in which Munsi was commemorated which also supports the notability of the subject. Also, in those books it was mentioned that after Munsi's death the Tata Group commemorated Munsi with all his paintings published in their calender.For an artist, is it not a notability when he gets remembered by internationally renowned conglomerate like Tata Group? Finesilpo (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was only able to find mentions and brief descriptions (<100 words) of the subject in reliable sources (such as by searching "filetype:pdf "Kosmic Free Music Foundation" " on Google). The article doesn't link to anything that would establish notability. toweli (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You must not have been on the internet in the mid 1990s. Back then, "reliable sources" would not be covering what they individuals were doing in the online music community. 75.3.240.177 (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer it if my page was not deleted, please tell me how to move forward. I did not write this page, and I'm not a regular Wikipedia user so I'm not sure how to do anything about this. OnaJiteA (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
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
Keep The Wikipedia Library lists 375 entries either about or mentioning him, including book reviews and an entry about him in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies. Easily meets our notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You pointed out one extensive biography but the rest are as you say ("indicate"). We need in-depth coverage and not just mentions. Is there something other than the first reference that is in-depth?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You appear unwilling to examine sources yourself, however, the onus is on you to demonstrate why the sources I've mentioned do not satisfy the GNG/BIO. Please note WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Moreover, he can be accorded presumed notability due to NPOL. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per points raised by Goldsztajn, which shows the subject meets notability guidelines. And as a general comment, I'm not sure why this AfD was started only three hours after the article was created. Would have been nice to first ask the editor who created the article to address any concerns before going straight to AfD. --SouthernNights (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I was opting for Delete as the page has poor to unreliable to unverifiable sources on the page but in light of sources on the subject's achievement by Goldsztajn, that still shows trivial coverage on the subject, I think Draftify is needed to improve the page with significant indepth coverage on the subject instead of trivial, passing coverage and entries in the sources. As of now, page fails WP:GNG and needs improvement with WP:SIGCOV in reliable and verifiable sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be specific; which sources are "poor", "unreliable" and "unverifiable"? The three sources I analysed present in the article fit none of those descriptions. NB: WP:NEXIST. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The three sources mentioned in my keep !vote above....and, FWIW, you've asked me a question, without replying to mine. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those three sources are on the page and neither one has indepth coverage on the subject. What three you analyzed on the page? Now because you said you analysed three sources on the page, you shortlisted the reliability yourself so I thought it is helpful for me to go over those specfic three if you would have mentioned. RangersRus (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dinamani is not a secondary independent source (subject was editor here). Sahapedia is a non-profit organization source with passing comments. Madras musings is poor with passing comments on the subject. Google book short stories (fiction) is unreliable and fails verification. Google book "in those days there was no coffee" fails verification. Pdf file by Srinivas is poor with only a passing comment (the comment also begins with "it is said that....) and the page directly copied the line from the pdf file. The last google source Tamil prose after Bharathi has no significant coverage either and all it says "Chockalingam published his magazine, Gandhi, again at a very cheap price (quarter ana). Later, he became the editor of the Dinamani. He had the skill to express ideas emotionally and with youthful verve in lively Tamil." Its same repeated on all other sources that he became editor of the Dhimani. No significant and indepth coverage on his biography, work as journalist and to be even notable as freedom fighter. RangersRus (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He died more than 50 years ago; it's not as if he exercises any control over Dinamani. Being a non-profit has no bearing on reliability. BIO, NEXIST, NPOL all indicate the thresholds for notability which are firmly established here. Best to let others express their views. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have access to Google Books? On page 144, it talks about his taking over the editorship of Dhinamani and how he increased readership. Pages 146 and 148 are not visible to me, page 157 contains a footnote discussing him starting Vandemataram in 1931, his arrest for civil disobedience, the effect on the newspaper and him starting as editor at Dhinamani in 1935. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for indepth coverage on the subject as journalist, writer and freedom fighter like the lead says but I am just finding passing comments. You said "Chockalingam is discussed in four pages (144, 146, 148, 157)" but you are not able to verify page 146 and 148. I was able to check 144 and 157 and there is no discussion of indepth coverage here but passing comments. Page 144 says "Chockalingam Pillai became the editor of the Dinamani in 1935. Under his editorship the paper's circulation increased to 11,000 in 1936." Page 157 says "Chockalingam Pillai started the Vandemataram in 21 September, 1931. He was arrested for his active part in civil disobedience. Due to his inability to pay security the paper ceased publication security." These do not help with the coverage needed on a journalist, writer and freedom fighter. Is there any indepth coverage on him as freedom fighter? RangersRus (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does there need to be indepth coverage of him as a freedom fighter? He already clearly satisfies NPOL and BIO. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any significant indepth coverage on his biography in the sources and now you mentioned politician that is no where referred on the page with no sources either. RangersRus (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was evaluating what was on the page. Source about on page 46 has an entry only and no WP:SIGCOV as politician. I will have others say on all this discussion. RangersRus (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In regards to the discussion above, per the notability guidelines for people "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." It appears there is in-depth coverage of Chockalingam but most of that isn't in English (here's an example of such a book). However, there is still plenty of coverage in English to prove notability, especially by combining reliable sources per the above guideline. For example, I just added a citation to the article from The Guardian which said Chockalingam was a "pioneering Tamil journalist," while the Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature described him as one of the most important nationalist journalists in Tamil. --SouthernNights (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable political candidate and author who made himself a Wikipedia page. Of the 6 articles cited on the page: 1 is the candidate list on the Alaska Divison of Elections website; one is a WP:ROTM article from Anchorage Daily News which has 1 sentence about Claesson; 1 is a page on "glamourgirlsofthesilverscreen.com" on which the only mention of Claesson is the inclusion of his book in a "recommended books" list; 1 is an article he wrote; 1 is a press release; and the final is a Los Angeles Times article by "Lawrence Graner" apparently written about him. Strangely enough, this article can't be found online, despite the fact that it was published in May 2023; the link in the citation leads to a paywalled Newspapers.com page, and I can't find any evidence that anyone by the name Lawrence Graner has ever written for the LA Times. Regardless, I don't think these cited articles are enough to determine notability; I can't find anything better on Google, and he doesn't seem to have any other claim to notability. I'd support a redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives election in Alaska. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BottleOfChocolateMilk has an extensive history of deleting Wikipedia pages of politicians or political topics in which the views don't align with his. If you look on his Wikipedia 'talk' page, he's had complaints dating back to 2016. Samuelrclaesson (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is sourced just fine. If bottleofchocolatemilk wants to improve Wikipedia, there are a lot of pages with no sources and misinformation that he can focus on. SpookyGhostMouth0 (talk) 05:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of Wikipedia is to spread knowledge, not to delete biographies of individuals who have opinions that you disagree with. The article shouldn't be deleted. In response to one of the comments on here, I do see that there are some reporters online who accuse BottleofChocolateMilk of being a political operative. While I don't know if the allegations are accurate, it does deserve some investigating: https://www.politicalcortadito.com/2024/02/18/manny-cid-wikipedia-page-questioned/1.177.147.29 (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you bothered doing "investigating" for yourself, Mr. IP user who is definitely not Samuel Claesson, you'd find that the page talked about in that article was deleted after numerous editors agreed that Manny Cid is not notable. The fact that you're spreading clearly bogus allegations from a random blogger shows how little credibility you have. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like it should be deleted to me. You shouldn't classify something or somebody as 'non-notable' because you're unfamiliar with them. 1.177.147.27 (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in addition, your staatement about www.glamourgirlsofthesilverscreen.com not mentioning him as being the nephew of Dennis Crosby is inaccurate. I just looked at the page and it clearly states it. Please examine these pages before flagging them. 1.177.147.29 (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, my mistake. There is indeed a single sentence on that page mentioning that Samuel Claesson accepted an award on someone's behalf. I fail to see how that helps prove he's notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As shown above, Samuel Claesson seems to have made multiple Wikipedia accounts to flood this discussion. He also left a threatening message on my talk page accusing me of being paid to delete Wikipedia accounts. His proof is a Facebook post from some random person who admits they "have no evidence of this." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few things:
1. I didn't make multiple accounts. That's a lie.
2. I didn't leave a threatening message. That's a lie.
3. There is a lot more evidence that he's being paid to do this stuff, including an article that someone else posted a link to above. There are similar allegations made against him by moderators on his 'talk' page.
4. I'd advise people to look at BottleOfChocolateMilk's 'talk' page and see the countless allegations of fraud, unprofessionalism, and bias that he has.
5. I'm under the impression that BottleOfChocolateMilk doesn't have any authority or power in his life, so he's using Wikipedia as an outlet to feel powerful. The purpose of Wikipedia -and I've made a lot of articles- is to provide knowledge, not to boost someone's ego and compensate for their insecurities. I don't hate BottleOfChocolateMilk, but I certainly pity him. Samuelrclaesson (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol, "someone else" posted the link. Sure. Please do us a favor and summarize the "evidence" in that article (there isn't any). If there's "a lot more evidence" then surely you should be able to produce something. Or you could just keep threatening to tell the admins on me, which would probably result in you getting banned, not me. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never "threatened to tell the admins" anything. If you're gonna threaten to get me banned, you should at least be truthful. I merely said that your 'talk' page has dozens of complaints from editors about your conduct. Samuelrclaesson (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Fails WP:NPOL and search shows no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. I think an SPI may also be warranted here; I agree it should be taken to ANI first though, which I may do soon if no one else does. On a bit of an unrelated note the content creator also seems to have made several other CoI creations. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to AllTheUsernamesAreInUse... He's only chiming in because he's colluding with BottleOfChocolateMilk. If you see BottleOfChocolateMilk's 'talk' page, he and AllTheUsernamesAreInUse joke about being paid by a politician to edit Wikipedia. I'll be submitting information to ANI tonight about this, as this is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to be managed... long-time donors like myself hate seeing wannabe vigilantes like the two aforementioned individuals using Wikipedia as a way to give themselves authority and accomplishment that they lack in the real world. Samuelrclaesson (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Samuelrclaesson should not have created Samuel Claesson is indisputable. But what I'm also seeing, are more serious allegations towards this editor. ANI requires evidence and diffs, not just accusations like we see on this page. BottleOfChocolateMilk you've made a lot of accusations, not the least of which is socking - i.e. creating multiple accounts. WP:AN/I is the place to sort this out, and where something can be done about any violations mentioned above. Longhornsg , if you believe the editor should be banned, then do something about it - don't just complain. Wikipedia:Banning policy will tell you how to put that process in motion. — Maile (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His books appear to be self-published but that would be ok if there were reliably published reviews of them. I couldn't find any. The sources in the article now include a book review, but of someone else's book and mentioning Ferris only in passing. The only in-depth source that we have is a local-news obituary, appearing to be a family-written obituary rather than a work of independent journalism. That's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you telling me that the book Métis and the Medicine Line: Creating a Border and Dividing a People, with the author listed as Michel Hogue on the cover, is really by Kade Ferris? Because that is the book whose review I was referring to. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Right. I clocked that the first time I read your comment, but the second time I read it, I read it the other way. I can add the other book reviews (of his book) and also quote from at least one other book I found. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see that the review in American Indian Children's Literature got removed from the article as a source. I am adding it back. While the site itself could be construed as a blog, the reason this particular blog qualifies as a reliable source per WP:BLOGS, is that it is produced by Debbie Reese, who is an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I expanded it to include more about the impact of his tribal history preservation work and the impact that has on reservations, ND and MN educational standards and added information about his mapping skills. oncamera (talk page)08:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His written work as an author and oral traditions that he embedded within his maps, blogs, and recorded videos for the state of North Dakota established notability. He was a respected tribal historian and elder knowledge keeper and professional work reflects that. oncamera (talk page)21:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been puffed up with some 30 footnotes, most of which do not seem to be the sort of in-depth independent and reliably-published coverage of the subject that could be used to pass WP:GNG. Of the ones that actually mention Ferris or his works in their title, "Kade Ferris's Gift" is an interview (not usually counted as independent), the Red Lake Nation News obituary reads like a family-written obituary (not independent), the Mendoza book review is in a blog (not reliably published), Teachings of Our Elders is by him not about him, and Archaeologist presents has no depth of coverage of Ferris. Perhaps, per WP:THREE, advocates of keeping the article could save us the effort of similarly evaluating all 30 of the footnotes and point us to three sources that are actually in-depth, independent, and reliably-published? I'm looking for a small number of high-quality sources, at most three, not many low-quality sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This article was already extremely well cited, but I added an infobox and a little bit more. His notability stems from his tribal historic preservation work which is interdisciplinary (history, anthropology, archaeology, policy making, language advocacy, etc.) Yuchitown (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please address the discussion above about lack of high-quality sourcing, rather than merely asserting that "This article was already extremely well cited" when clearly it isn't? It has many sources but that misses the point. We need a small number of high-quality sources, and continuing to add larger numbers of low-quality sources only makes notability harder to discern by hiding the good sources in a big pile of dross. It would be better to remove both the low-quality sources and the material sourced to them so that we can focus on the essentials. The sources you added (his own dissertation and a web page about someone else that mentions him in passing) do not contribute to notability according to Wikipedia's standards for notability, which are not based on the work the subject might have done but rather on the depth of coverage of the subject in sources that are independent of him and meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate the suggestion that tribal newspapers are "low-quality sources." Like I wrote, his notability is based on being a THPO, so it's interdisciplinary. He was not just a writer. While several pieces (Red Lake Nation News, Minnesota Native News) focus on him specifically, even if these didn't exist, Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. He has contributed "part of the enduring historical record" of the Métis people. Yuchitown (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tribal newspapers are as reliable as any other newspaper. But when a local newspaper (tribal or not) runs an obituary that reads like the sort of obituary written by a family member to announce a death, rather than the kind of obituary that major newspapers write themselves when famous people die, it doesn't count much towards notability. For one thing, if it is indeed written by family, it is not an independent source. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.... even if these didn't exist, Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". He has contributed "part of the enduring historical record" of the Métis people. Yuchitown (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So much a part of the enduring historical record that the only Wikilink to him from any other article is a an unsourced sentence about him in an article about a village in Lebanon, stating that he is also of Lebanese descent, something that appears nowhere in the Kade Ferris article itself? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's an issue to you, you can help expand topics on Turtle Mountain, the Ojibwe or Metis history and credit/wikilink his article from those edits. Wikipedia needs more editors in that area. oncamera (talk page)10:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think the Métis have an interesting history that deserves to be better-known, but I have no special expertise in that area, and I have even less knowledge of Turtle Mountain or the Ojibwe.
Incidentally, I can find no evidence that Kade Ferris had any connection to Lebanon, outside of a few unreliable web sources. I have removed the link to him from the Lebanese village article. His mother was from Minnesota and his father was originally from the Turtle Mountain Reservation. I suspect his father, Albert Ferris, may have some notability as an artist. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. None of the sources are about him. Sources (and much of the content) are about taitrs. Material on him is just resume type material. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to answer with respect to what you are seeing because there have been 104 edits to the article since I nominated this. But I did evaluate them at the time. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a lot was added after you nominated this, including several refs, but much of it was WP:PROMO, fluff, repetition, and stuff about the genre of theatre that, I think, has no direct relevance to D'Lima's career. I tried to reduce the promo, cruft, repetition and tangential stuff, but someone else should review the refs to see if they actually discuss Liima's life or career at all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Subject did receive an award Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism. Source 1 is a book review, source 2 is a blog, source 3 has a passing comment made by the subject himself, source 4 is a review by subject himself, source 5 is a bio written by subject himself, source 6 is more on bio written by subject himself, source 7 is a link to Ramnath Goenka Award and source 8 is a book written by subject himself. Many unreliable and primary sources here. Draftify would be an option to improve the page with secondary independent sources and remove primary sources like the reviews by the subject himself and the interview with the subject.RangersRus (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOI makes it under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I still do not find his books a significant monument or been a substantial part of a significant exhibition or won wide significant critical attention by well known peers and critics in secondary independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOI falling under NEWSORGINDIA is an interpretation that I respect but with which I disagree in this case (not great journalism but not simply unreliable). The fact that the author of the book is one of the film critics of the Hindustan Times also indicates the article in the TOI should be rather independent.-- -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank: The article from TOI doesn't look like a review at all; it seems more like a promotional piece or an announcement. Additionally, the article was published by PTI. I don't think he meets WP:AUTHOR. GrabUp - Talk16:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note about the Times of India: The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I should have mentioned that I hapeen to have been the creator of this page many years back. I actually didn't even remember I was the one who created it, as I've created numerous pages for notable Indian film critics. As someone who has worked on Indian cinema-related articles, I can attest to the relevance of his reviews on dozens of film articles, including several FAs. Him being an author as well as the winner of a notable award only consolidates my position. Shahid • Talk2me18:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are considered primary non-independent source. Independent sources helps to fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. If you use interviews as source for any statement made by the subject then the subject's statements needs to be cited with secondary independent source as well. Wikipedia:Independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AWW has not been listed as an unreliable source and the only refs to it I can find on WP as a source say that it IS a reliable source. Calling it "gossip rag" sounds borderline sexist as it is a magazine predominantly for women.LPascal (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep the article and keep improving. I think this person also meets criteria for Notability (Acadmics)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) She has had an impact in her field and is highly cited and published. She meets criteria 7 The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic. Here's some sources showing her impact and reliable secondary sources showing she is sought after expert in her field. I could find more sources about her but don't have time right now.https://www.nespthreatenedspecies.edu.au/people/rebecca-spindler
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: This un-sourced and un-categorized bio uses many puffy words, without much proof of anything. This spammy website is all I can find [15]. Not passing any sort of notability, could be a hoax for all we know, with no sources. Oaktree b (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although it seems they/someone for them, has made many profiles and entries for their non-notable books, nothing I can find contributes toward WP:N. Skynxnex (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There aren't any sources to back it up, and it uses a lot of vague language. Plus, I can't find anything else reliable online about this subject. Waqar💬16:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page. Simple search do not show reliable sources with significant coverage and noteworthy achievements to warrant a page on this subject. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 18:00, 2 July 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.
Zero references to establish notability. After searching, found other people of same name, but no comprehensive, in-depth coverage of this specific person. PROD removed 27 June 2024; PROD reverted 27 October 2022; PROD on 27 October 2022; Created on 27 August 2014. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!15:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Azerbajani article gives 1 reference: "Tamxil Ziyəddinoğlu, "Hafiz Baxış-80". Bütöv Azərbaycan qəzeti, №36(168), 17-23 oktyabr 2012-ci il." This appears to be an article in a reasonable news source. I can't find it but I think he may have significant coverage. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strike my vote first. I do not believe those interviews are primary sources in the first place since it addresses the subject person's company and the trade industry as a whole, so I did not identify them as PS per WP:IV. But I had no idea that the Forbes India interview is sponsored content, and I agree that paid advertorials should be considered non-independent. My rationale was mostly based on the two interviews, but with one deemed non-independent and one with disputed views, I no longer possess a strong rationale to go for keep. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul）14:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I conducted another round of searching but did not find any other usable sources. Thanks to S0091 for pointing out that the Forbes and Fortune sources are non-independent paid advertorials, which I had overlooked. A single GQ interview is not sufficient for passing GNG. Changing my !vote to Delete. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul）13:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: none of the sources contribute to WP:GNG as they are either primary such as press releases or interviews, trivial coverage or not reliable such as the Huff Post which was written by a contributor rather than staff. S0091 (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 on significant reliable source coverage that enables us to write a substantial article about their political impact. This, however, features virtually none of the type of content (significant things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, etc.) that we would need to see, and is instead devoted almost entirely to things he did before or after the mayoralty rather than anything he did in the mayoralty — and it's referenced predominantly to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, while the few third-party footnotes come entirely from a weekly community hyperlocal rather than GNG-worthy media of record, and are mainly sourcing things like "former mayor has sports complex named after him" (which is not a notability criterion) and "former mayor pens open letter thanking the community" (which is really just another primary source, since he wrote it himself). This isn't what it takes to get a mayor over the wikibar. Bearcat (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject meets the criteria of WP:GNG as these three sources have significant coverage and are independent as well, hence reliable:
Delete I struggle to see any sourcing that points to the political impact of the subject, as Bearcat describes. The LA Times articles are a bit better, but one one of them is primarily about the subject, and even that article is just that he was selected to lead a regional association. --Enos733 (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The association is made up of about 50 Southern California cities that run their own police and fire departments, hence the “independent” designation. Combined, they represent more than 7 million people." - it doesn't seem to be a regional association. Macyramps (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excuse my naivety, but I believe the recent comments from fellow editors are not entirely accurate. The first comment suggests that the coverage is merely passing mention, yet there are several articles that provide significant coverage. The second comment labels him as just a small town mayor, but he holds other notable positions as well, such as President of the Independent Cities Association. He also ran for the state senate, won the Romualdo Pacheco Award, and serves as a Civilian Aide to the Secretary of the Army, a position that carries a three-star general protocol. I believe he meets the notability criteria. Maplelaple (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC) — Maplelaple (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
My comment referenced the fact that if he wasn't a mayor, which is usually the notability hook, he wouldn't otherwise be notable. SportingFlyerT·C22:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but the comments in this discussion seem contradictory. Some are saying there is no coverage about his mayoralty, while others claim the coverage is only about his mayoralty. Additionally, it is worth noting that he was the first refugee ever to be elected as Mayor of the City of Downey. I'm adding more sources below for further clarification:
I've taken a look, and the vast majority of those are simply local news coverage or are related to his political campaigns. I apologize, but I still don't see enough there to keep this. SportingFlyerT·C16:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any independent reliable sources with coverage of Campbell. As one of teams of people, he is credited on multiple notable role-playing games. I think it's stretching NAUTHOR #3 beyond the intent of that SNG to consider every person who is credited on those games as inherently notable. (#3: "...has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work") I cannot find any reviews of any of those games that call out Campbell's contributions. Schazjmd(talk)14:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fully get how annoying White Wolf Publishing's approach to book credits has been, over the years - by crediting the contributions of everyone involved, they often don't end up attributing authorship clearly to anyone.
This article was previously deleted last December because Kiper was deemed non-notable. An editor re-created the page today on the basis that Kiper was included in a single poll, which doesn't really address the fundamental lack of notability and is a perfect example of WP:ROTM campaign coverage (if you even consider it coverage). They also added 5 new sources: a press release from Kiper's website, three clearly WP:ROTM news articles (one just says he filed to run and the other two are about candidate forums he appeared at), and the aforementioned poll. I don't see how any of this overrides the finding of the previous deletion discussion. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still a delete, it's all stories about what he wants to do if elected, nothing of which is any different than any other candidate's articles when they run. This is simple news reporting. A favorability poll isn't really notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted a multitude of changes to the article today--cleaned up the sources, added missing information, changed the voice, and eliminated some information. Hope that helps. RainbowPanda420 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BottleOfChocolateMilk: I just gave you one, the article I mentioned has nothing but ROTM and incidental references, and yet nobody's nominating that for deletion. Kiper is running for governor of an American state and is being included in debates and other events with the other candidates. Given your incivil tone, I honestly think that your nomination has some kind of ulterior purpose. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Royal Autumn Crest:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You're right, I must have an ulterior motive for deleting this random dude's Wikipedia page. And all the other editors who are agreeing with me and voting to delete? I must have paid them to further my nefarious agenda... BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk)
Keep: User @BottleOfChocolateMilk should note that the "Granite State Poll" result they removed from 2024 New Hampshire Gubernatorial is currently included on the articles for the same gubernatorial race in 2022 and 2020. In this poll, Kiper was included and received 16%---more than candidate Volinsky received in the same poll in 2020.
Coverage of Kiper is not ROTM---there is only one TV station in New Hampshire. Economies of scale. For example, nearly every one of New Hampshire's 400 state representatives is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, despite each only representing about 3,000 people. Consider this in comparison to the deletion of Manny Cid's article, a deletion attributed in part to his being a mayor of a city with "only" 30,000 residents. In New Hampshire, only 6 of 234 municipalities meet that population threshold. Notability must consider unique regional characteristics and local relevance. User @BottleOfChocolateMilk may be too inexperienced with the subject matter to effectively identify notability. (Ironic detail---two of Kiper's known endorsers have Wikipedia articles, and they are both New Hampshire state lawmakers.)
From Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
"The following are presumed to be notable:
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."
"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
"A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists."
There is substantial news coverage of Kiper from multiplejournalists in print and on television, and this coverage has included both trivial mentions as well as Kiper serving as the main topic of the source material. (see article references 8, 9, 14, 19, 21, 24, 26)
In fact, Kiper has received coverage from NH's sole TV station while other candidates have not---Ballotpedia shows a 6-way Republican primary as well as two independent candidates. Four of the Republicans have not received news coverage, and neither of the two independent candidates have been covered. In a spread of 11 candidates, only 5 have received coverage, including Kiper.
Additionally, of the 11 candidates to be listed on the ballot, only five were included in the Granite State Poll---Kiper among them. Due to contrast in local media coverage alone, Kiper is notable.
@RainbowPanda420: Rather than spreading conspiracy theories, you could simply have read my stated reason for removing the poll, which is that it only measured favorability and did not test the Democratic gubernatorial candidates against each other. Also, Kiper's news coverage doesn't become non-ROTM just because the state is small. ROTM means that the coverage is normal and part of a news station's regular, necessitated coverage of events, which is the case here. The argument about state legislators is irrelevant because state legislators are automatically considered notable. I'm not going to bother arguing against every stupid point you made, like how Kiper being endorsed by notable people somehow proves he's notable. Essentially, by your logic, every semi-serious candidate in New Hampshire would be considered notable, which I disagree with. Even ignoring your repeated personal attacks, your essay falls flat. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)\[reply]
Delete candidates are not notable just for being candidates, that is long standing consensus on this site, and he doesn't meet the exception (that their candidacy is LASTING). He would not be otherwise notable, so deletion is the correct result, and easily so. SportingFlyerT·C16:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the note about GNG applying below, the political campaign stuff specifically doesn't apply and the other articles are not about him, so doesn't meet GNG. SportingFlyerT·C13:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's received coverage from various outlets and he's also received coverage for his non-political work. There are plenty of other individuals on Wikipedia who have done far less and achieved notability and his notability is going to grow over the next several months as he campaigns. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for deletion unfortunately - political candidates are deleted unless they are otherwise notable, as they always receive a certain level of coverage and are rarely notable after the campaign finishes. If the campaign itself had sustained coverage that's a different story, but that is incredibly rare at this level of election. The coverage of his restaurant isn't coverage of him and would not make him notable enough for a Wikipedia if he hadn't ran for office, either. SportingFlyerT·C21:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. WP:NPOL is the relevant guideline and I don't believe the subject meets this standard so he would have to meet GNG. A source analysis would be helpful here. There are two other points, the previous AFD closed as a Redirect, not a Deletion. Secondly, there is subpar behavior on the part of several participants which are snide remarks. If this continues, I will block editors from particpating in this AFD during its duration. Please, this is not how experienced editors talk to each other. Very disappointing. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record, I would absolutely be in favor of a redirect. As for the question about sources, as has been mentioned previously by several voters, nearly every article cited on the page is WP:ROTM coverage of either the campaign or Kiper's restaurant (and, as others pointed out, coverage of Kiper's restaurant helps establish the notability of the restaurant, not Kiper himself). BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. In almost any political year, non notables run for office, for the free publicity it gives them and/or their non-political careers. This is one of those. He has no past history of political office experience. Most of the article is about is his non-political background. The section "Political career" is misleading, as he's had no career in politics other than a zoning board and town council. Attending a college rally as a spectator in the crowd is not notable. — Maile (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or restore redirect (probably with protection this time). As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. Being included in public opinion polls is not a notability criterion, so the attempt above to claim that he's notable because he polled higher in 2024 than some other guy did in the past doesn't wash — that other guy actually held a notable office, so the fact that he didn't win one particular election is irrelevant because he's more than just an unelected candidate by virtue of having held a different NPOL-passing office. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but absolutely nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article to exist now. Bearcat (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given that the origional redirect was reverted, I would support any protection level that would keep that from happening again. — Maile (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Candidates for a state-wide race should be redirected to the election race, as a usual and appropriate outcome, see WP:POLOUTCOMES. The sourcing does not suggest a GNG pass. I agree that protection should be given to prevent a new article from being created until such time as the subject wins election to an NPOL office. Enos733 (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep also : Not sure why there are profiles, but there appear to be Il Sole 24 Ore covering his return from America, il Fatto Quotidiano covering Italy 2030, what appears to be a book review I'm not sure of the independence of. Along with another book review, these are the only independent reliable sources the book has. Given a couple news stories about him and a number of sources on his books, it seems reasonable to write a short article. He seems to be notable for maybe the Italy 2030 project and his popular books?
Given the large number of sources, I wonder if it's possible to show they pass Wikipedia:Notability_(books)? That would pretty much resolve this debate, because this article would obviously contain the books. And given he has his own news sources, it seems reasonable to also discuss him.
Keep: The article meets the notability criteria for authors. The information is well-sourced and relevant to our readers. I vote to keep it. Waqar💬16:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sal2100 Per WP:NAUTHORThe 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. So far I see one independent review posted by Oaktree b, and there is one extremely short blurb in Publisher's Weekly as mentioned below. No other independent reviews have been found, so I wonder how you think the criterion is fulfilled? Broc (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My main concerns are 1) that there are no independent sources and 2) I cannot find any sources for the awards. The Houston Chronicle source on the last one does not verify that award. One book got a review in Publishers' Weekly but that isn't really enough. Lamona (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b pointed out some additional coverage above, of which one is an independent review in a published source. The other two are coverage of her books in newspapers for which she writes/wrote. Two reviews for a book are in my opinion far from sufficient to fulfill WP:NAUTHOR. Broc (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more enthused if those reviews were in major publications. The Gadsden Times and Sarasota Herald-Tribune don't impress me. And the Lodi review says: "...I have never encountered a book as hard to read as this one" and goes on to pan the book in other aspects. So, no, I don't think these sources are sufficient. And may I say that there is nothing in the policies that says: any 2 reviews = author notability. First, reviews can be negative, so we should read them and not just count them. Then, there is a matter of IMPORT. The actual policy criteria at WP:AUTHOR are pretty intense - but they come down to the question of whether the person has made a significant contribution to a field of study or an area of art, and whether there is evidence that the contribution is recognized by peers. Writing two books on how to buy and sell property - books that do not appear to have gotten national attention - doesn't rise to that level, IMO. Lamona (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The delete arguments do seem a bit stronger based on Wikipedia policy, but a clearer consensus might be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no!21:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
