Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Biography
General information
Announcements
Departments
Work groups and subprojects
Things you can do
Biography article statistics
Arts and Entertainment Work Group

The Arts and Entertainment Work Group is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.

Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 8 17 40 81 1 147
FL 3 3 6
A 1 1 1 3
GA 10 37 83 408 69 607
B 50 149 406 1,227 2,946 4,778
C 19 166 758 6,911 2 15,342 23,198
Start 4 96 1,178 24,918 12 58,030 84,238
Stub 1 17 373 31,559 9 45,147 77,106
List 4 4 173 1 166 348
Category 13,906 13,906
Disambig 30 30
File 355 355
Project 8 8
Redirect 1 426 1,512 1,939
Template 895 895
NA 2 12 14
Other 1 3 75 79
Assessed 92 487 2,848 65,712 16,817 121,701 207,657
Unassessed 1 81 982 1,064
Total 92 487 2,849 65,793 16,817 122,683 208,721
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 992,135 Ω = 5.22


Related Projects

Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.

Related Portals

Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs... Specific discipline portals are listed in that section.

Navigation
Articles
Announcements/To Do (edit)
  • Notability questioned:
  • FAC:
  • FAR:
    • none •
  • FARC:
    • none •
  • GA Noms:
  • Review:
    • none •
  • Article requests::
  • John_Buscema: There's a debate between the current version and this version - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Buscema&oldid=181851662 - requesting input to arrive at a consensus integrating both versions.
  • Pierce O'Donnell — California's 22nd congressional district candidate[1] Los Angeles lawyer Buchwald v. Paramount screenwriter [2] author ISBN 1-56584-958-2 ISBN 0-385-41686-5 [3] California Fair Political Practices Commission[4][5][6][7]
  • 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.
  • Misc:

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

Directions for expanding any division below

[edit]

The general outline and collection has been started, but if you would like to expand and organize a discipline, here's what you do. Right below the page heading for the discipline insert this: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Work groups/Division banner}} and save. This will put a rough outline together for you and then you can edit it to conform to your area. See Writers and critics below for an example. If your project grows large enough where it's taking up a good portion of this page, you should probably move it to a subpage of this page.

You might also want to make a Members section for people to join your specific area!

Tagging articles

[edit]

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.

Members

[edit]
  1. I am ready to work on the biography articles of Indian or Biography actors Jogesh 69 (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. come help with the Bronwen Mantel article Smith Jones 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lovelaughterlife (talk · contribs) Worked extensively on some biographies; reverted vandalism some others
  4. Francoisalex2 (talk · contribs)
  5. Dovebyrd (talk · contribs)
  6. Artventure22 (talk · contribs)
  7. Truth in Comedy (talk · contribs)
  8. Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs)
  9. DENAMAX (talk · contribs) Maxim Stoyalov
  10. Ozgod (talk · contribs)
  11. Eremeyv (talk · contribs)
  12. Susanlesch (talk · contribs), mostly inactive
  13. EraserGirl (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Shruti14 (talk · contribs) will help when I can
  15. 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.
  16. Jarhed (talk · contribs) 21:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Mvzix (talk · contribs)
  18. Cassianto (talk · contribs)
  19. Iamthecheese44 (talk · contribs)
  20. Georgiasouthernlynn (talk · contribs)
  21. Fitindia (talk · contribs)
  22. BabbaQ (talk · contribs)
  23. Woodstop45 (talk · contribs)
  24. Willthacheerleader18 (talk · contribs)
  25. The Eloquent Peasant (talk · contribs)
  26. Lopifalko (talk · contribs)
  27. Terasaface (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC) Working on BLP of artists primarily working in the fields of Studio craft[reply]
  28. Corachow (talk · contribs)
  29. Yorubaja (talk · contribs) 14:23:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  30. Ms Kabintie (talk · contribs)
  31. JamesNotin (talk · contribs)
  32. Ppt91 (talk · contribs)
  33. Slacker13 (talk · contribs)

General

[edit]

Infoboxes

[edit]

Requested articles

[edit]

Actors

[edit]

Architects

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Architects


Illustrators

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Illustrators

Painters

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Painters

Photographers

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Photographers

Sculptors

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Sculptors

Comics artists

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Comics artists

Visual arts deletions

[edit]
Visual arts deletion sorting discussions
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists


Visual arts

[edit]

Events in the Life of Harold Washington

[edit]
Events in the Life of Harold Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious notability, no images, article itself is of rather poor quality. Issues have gone uncorrected for at least 12 years, based on the top message Sandcat555 (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Politics, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily meets GNG with its sources. Needs some editing, and I've done a bit (thanks Sandcat555 for bringing attention to the page), but not deletion. As for the notability, Harold Washington was one of Chicago's most beloved mayors, and the downtown Chicago Public Library is named after him in tribute and honor. It and this mural are two of Chicago's several major commemorative remembrances of Washington. The page also gives a well-written and now edited background of Washington's impact on Chicago and an interesting summary and focus on the artist, Jacob Lawrence. This one seems an easy keep, and I've tried to improve it towards that result. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Harold and his library namesake may be fantastic for all I know, but that changes nothing with this article. The majority of the page isn't about the mural at all, despite it being the title. Write a page about Washington, or merge this into something else, but keeping it as it is doesn't fix the problem. Sandcat555 (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree completely with Randy Kryn - the article does well in explaining both the background of the subject as well as the artist's creation of the mural. — Maile (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge The comments above do not appropriately address notability. It's rather absurd that more of the article merely summarizes the importance of Harold Washington rather than discusses the mural itself. This is a WP:REFBOMB – The only source for information about the mural is "Jacob Lawrence and the Making of Americans", used as cite 15 and 16. With that, it fails WP:GNG, as Washington being beloved and his background being well-written are utterly irrelevant. My search for sources only found brief mentions about the library's collections. Perhaps it can be merged to Harold Washington Library where it's located. I'm also surprised the article inaccurately states Lawrence painted the mural, when it's actually a tile mosaic. Reywas92Talk 16:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You worded my view far better than I did myself. Sandcat555 (talk) 19:22, 22 November 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.

The result was redirect‎ to StarKid Productions. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Friday (musical)

[edit]
Black Friday (musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is entirely reliant on primary sources from Starkid Productions, and a BEFORE yields no significant coverage of this subject, with only trivial mentions of its existence popping up across both reliable and unreliable sources. This is better off redirected or merged to Starkid Productions, the company that produced this musical, as there is no indication of GNG being met with this subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Starkid Productions per WP:ATD. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The best I could find was this review in the student newspaper of Fanshawe College. Clearly not independently notable.4meter4 (talk) 00:17, 17 November 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.

Nerdy Prudes Must Die

[edit]
Nerdy Prudes Must Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search for sources shows no sources from reliable sources; all sources are from blogs or college newspapers, neither of which are reliable. All development information is primary and thus does not indicate notability of the subject. The only third party source that shows notability is the Billboard sales performance, but this is a single source and only covering sales figures. This subject lacks SIGCOV and doesn't meet the GNG, and is better off redirected or merged as an AtD to Starkid Productions, the parent company which produced this musical. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, and Visual arts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While this is not about the cast album but the show itself (whose cast recorded the show), the cast album did make the Billboard national chart making it pass criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM. I also found this additional review [8] Ultimately, the spirit of the WP:NALBUM SNG should apply here. This show charted so we should keep the article.4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @4meter4 The review hails from a student-published newspaper, so that one is also unreliable. From a glance at their about page, they don't seem to have a high journalistic standard (Anyone can apply and write for them) so I'm not sure if it's usable at all.
    Still, my concern is that the album itself is what's notable here, not the show it's attached to. The show received no coverage, with only the album doing so. Notability for the show is not Wikipedia:INHERITED from the album either: "notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent."
    If we were to consider the album separate from the show, and make an article solely about the album, that still wouldn't fly: "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Given all that exists for coverage on the album is the Billboard source, there isn't really enough to build a reasonably detailed article beyond a track listing and a line saying that the album ranked #1. No matter what outcome is taken, this subject doesn't have the sourcing to meet independent notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh no. WP:NALBUM is clear that we keep all albums that place on a national chart regardless of the sourcing. That is the WP:SNG guideline. Period. University newspapers are often used on wikipedia, and are generally considered reliable. They are structured just like newspapers not attached to universities (editorial staff; both student and faculty), have the same legal recognitions under the law as professional journalists, and in this case, are over seen by a nationally recognized school of journalism. There's no reason to question the reliability of the newspaper at Boston University; particularly when its a review of theatre work. Regardless, repurposing this about the album is possible, but maybe not what best serves the encyclopedia. The content would be nearly identical and I don't see the value in differentiating between the two here as cast albums are simply audio recordings of a staged musical. 4meter4 (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 I'm a bit confused since I was primarily citing music notability policies with my above argument, barring the usage of INHERITED. "...a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" hails from Wikipedia:NRECORDING, and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting" is from NALBUM.
While NRECORDING states that albums charting is an indicator of notability, there's nothing in these notability guidelines that state it's an instant keep. Even ignoring that, my previous argument about an album split-out still stands. There's not enough coverage of the album to be non-stubby and not just a track listing, and the musical itself doesn't inherit notability from the album that charted per INHERITED, as, inherently, the album is a separate subject from the original musical.
It's something akin to (and forgive the oddly specific example, this is the first thing I have off the top of my head) Detective Pikachu (film) and Detective Pikachu (soundtrack), where the soundtrack has individual coverage of its own development, reception, etc; it logically wouldn't include content from the film Detective Pikachu (Such as the film's plot and development) since these two subjects have inherently different coverage and subject matter, and those items from the parent subject would not be relevant to the spin-out and vice versa.
This is entirely an aside here, but is there a specific policy for college newspapers? Last I checked they were generally unreliable since they're typically student-run and edited (Meaning literally anyone can write for them and no one with proper journalistic experience if fact checking.) Perhaps it's different if the editors are entirely faculty with journalistic experience in the field, but given we can't tell what's been edited by a student or faculty member unless they outright say it for some reason, I'm not sure how reliable that would be in the long term. This isn't really me arguing against it and more just me stating my gripes; if this is clarified somewhere else please let me know because I genuinely am not familiar with that policy if it exists. I'm mostly just basing this off how we usually determine reliable sources. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most university newspapers have an overseeing faculty advisor/editor who works as a part of the editorial team of the paper. That faculty member is always part of the journalism faculty if a school has a journalism school. Sometimes there is more than one faculty advisor, and generally the paper doesn't get published without their approval of each issue. I think you'll find though that universities with respected papers like The Harvard Crimson, The Tufts Daily, The Cornell Daily Sun, etc. are routinely cited across the encyclopedia by just checking the "what links here" section of those articles. You'll see there are tons of articles that wikilink to those pages because they are used as sources on a routine basis. It would be a tough sell to the reliable sources noticeboard to consider a university paper not reliable when it follows the same protocols editorially as a professional newspaper.4meter4 (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 as a general question: How can it be guaranteed that they receive editorial oversight from a faculty member? I know some papers often have their digital content overseen by dedicated student editors rather than faculty outright. This is obviously on a case-by-case basis, but in cases like these, how would it be determined if site content is usable? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to pursue that further, I suggest asking at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what they have to say. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Weak keep I must agree with 4m4 that the high Billboard ranking gives me pause. Doing my usual source check... Oh hey! Hayley Louise Charlesworth (February 9, 2022). "Nightmare Time and a Case Study for Digital Theatre During the COVID-19 Pandemic". Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network (Abstract). 15 (1). Manchester Metropolitan University. Retrieved November 18, 2024.
@Darkfrog24: Do you have another link? That one isn't working, and it would be easier for others if it could be accessed here rather than through Google. I did look this up separately to check, but all that's in this journal are brief mentions that this musical got delayed due to COVID. The paper is primarily focusing on Nightmare Time, an unrelated production by StarKid, so I wouldn't really consider this source SIGCOV given Nerdy Prudes' mention here is primarily a TRIVIALMENTION in the context of Nightmare Time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch. I have fixed the link in the article. Here is a link to the article itself: [9]. Here is a link to the Google Scholar search: [10]. As always, I'll defer to people who have read the full text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkfrog24 I did read the text, and I've mentioned my findings above. Do you have thoughts on this? I'm not sure trivial mentions in a paper about another series entirely really counts as SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Western European paintings in Ukrainian museums

[edit]
List of Western European paintings in Ukrainian museums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1) As far as I can tell, we don't have any other article that is about "List of paintings of x origin being held in museums in y country". This feels like WP:ARBITRARYCAT, and it's really not notable that Western European paintings specifically are held in Ukraine when Western European paintings are held in museums around the world and when Ukrainian museums have collections of paintings from around the world.

2) Most of the history discussed in the article is not about Western European art in Ukraine specifically, but about the history of artworks in Ukraine in general (several mentions of art museums with Oriental art). This is an interesting topic, but it doesn't justify the existence of an article dedicated specifically to Western European art in Ukraine.

3) The article has been marked as completely lacking sources for 15 years, probably because there is a lack of sources dedicated to the topic of "which Western European paintings are held in Ukraine" (only one I could find was a book published in 1981, but the information in that list is almost certainly out of date after 40 years).

Previous deletion discussion was closed as no consensus.

Jaguarnik (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ukraine, Visual arts, and Lists. Jaguarnik (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I tend to agree with the nom, this isn't really helpful when Western European art is held around the world. I really don't see notability for most of the museums, they aren't that well-known. We're not listing paintings in the Louvre or the MoMA, that are world-famous. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the list part of this article is unhelpful. National museums house stuff from across the entire globe, it's what they do, and which museums house what isn't really encyclopedia material. Where there's a particular documented controversy about a country's culture being housed in another country's museums (Elgin marbles is an extreme individual case) then we can have an article, but I don't think there's any special controversy about the fact there are Western European paintings in Ukrainian museums. So I agree to this extent: the list could be deleted. But the introductory material to the list, about the history of museums, galleries, and art-works is actually quite encyclopedic and interesting. Could the article be trimmed of its "list" material and status, and moved to a more appropriate title? Elemimele (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:CROSSCAT.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Elemimele's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stolperstein of London

[edit]
Stolperstein of London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article dedicated to a single Stolperstein, which is a Holocaust memorial stone, placed in the UK. There have been over one hundred thousand of these stones placed, and the single stone placed in the UK is already covered in the inclusive article List of places with stolpersteine, and in fact that article doesn't even link here in any way. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Reason for the nom is that this is essentially very specific listcruft, where the only thing in the list is a single item that is already covered elsewhere. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it was the very first stolperstein in england and therefor has a unique meaning is an important symbol. it is very nessesary for people to know it.--Donna Gedenk (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I agree with 4meter4 on this. There is coverage, so we can have an article. The fact there are a lot of Stolpersteine elsewhere doesn't matter. This is the English Wikipedia so we are allowed to focus extra attention on things of especial relevance to those living in English-speaking countries, of which the UK is one. The first-and-only Stolpersteine on UK soil has very high cultural significance. Elemimele (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

[edit]

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

[edit]

Visual arts - Deletion Review

[edit]

Performing arts

[edit]

Comedians

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Comedians

Dancers

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Dancers

Directors

[edit]

Musicians

[edit]

Magicians

[edit]

Writers and critics

[edit]
Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics

The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.

Related Projects

Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.

Related Portals

Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts

FAs and GAs
Announcements/To do (edit)

Members

[edit]

Categories

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Writers

Comics writers

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Comics writers

Romance authors

[edit]

Lists

[edit]

Poets

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Poets

Stubs

[edit]

Authors / Writers deletions

[edit]
Authors / Writers deletion sorting discussions


Authors

[edit]

Vincent Czyz

[edit]
Vincent Czyz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this article for deletion under wikipedia's notability guidelines.

This article appears to be a PR piece commissioned by the author themselves, or their literary agency. Just a few hours after the first edit, the author made an edit, followed by a long series of edits by the single originating account. The article included some awards which the author paid in order to receive. Anapophenic (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was a WP:BEFORE done? Easily passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV. Chapter 23 of Shorter Views: Queer Thoughts & the Politics of the Paraliterary by Samuel R. Delany (2011, Wesleyan University Press) is devoted to a lengthy analysis/discussion of Cyzc's Adrifit in A Vanishing City. Book reviews in independent secondary WP:RS: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], and [22]. Other WP:RS: [23], [24] Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Taylor Jr.

[edit]
Charles Taylor Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sigcov, no evidence of notability, insufficient sourcing since its creation. Promotional article. Jdcooper (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is one piece of WP:RS I could locate: [25], but that is it. I will wait to give an opinion in case someone else comes forward with more sources.4meter4 (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Murphy (author)

[edit]
Cameron Murphy (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. All that I can see reeks of promotional content or PR guff. TheLongTone (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Le Fave

[edit]
Kelly Le Fave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not notable; fails WP:GNG. I did a WP:BEFORE search, as well as searched through the Internet Archive book search and ProQuest, and found nothing but trivial mentions of her name, and her own works. The only thing I've found that could be considered "significant" coverage is the short bio page from Image (journal) that is already in the External links section [26] (And the same page live on the web [27]) However, according to that page, she published her poems in that publication, making that source not independent of the subject. GranCavallo (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can find absolutely nothing aside from the links you've put, and Amazon. Procyon117 (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahbub Morshed

[edit]
Mahbub Morshed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. Additionally, their books are not notable, thereby failing to meet WP:AUTHOR. GrabUp - Talk 08:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is the current Managing Director and Chief Editor of Bangladesh's national news agency. He has been working as a journalist since 2006 and has held various roles in many of the country's top newspapers and media. In addition, he has published 12 books, most of which are bestsellers in Bangladesh and India, particularly within the Bengali community. He is also a pioneer of the Bengali blogging community, having started as a blogger and author in 2005. His articles are available on Bengali Wikipedia. The page may need some improvements, deleting it is not the best option. Thank you. Normoddev (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hall (publisher)

[edit]
Daniel Hall (publisher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nearly all of the listed sources seem to be connected to the subject. No indication of notability, and additional searching found nothing. CutlassCiera 16:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Jeglic

[edit]
Elizabeth Jeglic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed for NPP. Entirely cited to passing mentions and things written by the topic of the article. She is the co-author of two books which may or may not be notable, but I don't think that's a large enough body of work to pass WP:NAUTHOR. NACADEMIC is hard for me to understand all the subtleties of, as I don't know what a good or bad h-index is in psychology, so she might pass there but I am not sure. If she does pass NACADEMIC it needs to be far less promotional. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Fernandez

[edit]
Chantal Fernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The book she was the co-author of appears to be close to being notable, but given it's only one she does not quite pass NAUTHOR as there aren't any independent sources on her. If someone wants to flip the article around to being on the book (provided there are more sources for that) then that might be an option but I'm not sure there are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee J. Slavutin

[edit]
Lee J. Slavutin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by a single purpose editor so possible promotion or autobio. A search for sources in google news and google books yielded nothing in depth. Mainly 1 line mentions in google books, this source "The Sid Kess Approach - Page 82" seems the only decent one. But fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saudamini Mishra

[edit]
Saudamini Mishra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacking WP:GNG and WP:BIO . Nxcrypto Message 17:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/beauty-and-brains-as-never-seen-before-in-the-genius-of-the-bestselling-autho r-and-artist-saudamini-mishra-aka-dhi-who-has-mastered-her-art-and-the-selling-of-it-to-change-lives-121030901304_1.html and https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/saudamini-mishra-changing-lives-with-the-most-intellectual-stories-1201118011 79_1.html and https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/author-saudamini-mishra-releases-her-fifth-bestselling-book-dhi-s-law-of-nine-archety pes-of-dhi-s-transformation-series-1985264-2022-08-08 and https://thedailyguardian.com/i-wanted-lives-to-be-changed-saudamini/ . 3 sourcs is enough for notability.Stromeee (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sources don't work (linking errors). You might need to fix them. Procyon117 (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Feinswog

[edit]
Lee Feinswog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete – article has no substantive references, and my WP:BEFORE turned up no decent independent secondary sources to establish or support the subject’s notability with respect to WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR. He does run https://volleyballmag.com/ which is cited in some 50+ Wikipedia articles, and if that is sufficient for notability, I would happily rescind my recommendation to delete. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cohen (writer)

[edit]
Michael Cohen (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PROMO, not a pass for WP:BASIC. No reliable source in the article, nor ones I could find online searching for "Michael Cohen"+"UFO" to try to avoid all the references to Trump's personal lawyer, gives significant coverage to Michael Cohen. Instead they only cover his paranormal/aliens output and give him a trivial mention (e.g., in this piece, "Those who smell a hoax point to several suspicious aspects of the video, including the fact that the man who posted the piece, a paranormal enthusiast named Michael Cohen, has been involved with several other videos of UFOs and other phenomena that are of questionable authenticity.").

That UFO Digest and similar are not reliable sources hardly needs explaining. FOARP (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Bernard Shaw: His Plays

[edit]
George Bernard Shaw: His Plays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely unreferenced. Of minimal interest: the only links to this page are via the Shaw and Mencken templates at the end of the article. Tim riley talk 16:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without checking anything else, many reviews on Newspapers.com. Passes NBOOK on that front. Will check more later PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fwiw this is a Keep vote PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's better, but if the purpose of AfD is to separate the wheat from the chaff, at least in Menken's WP wheat field, this stub is definitely chaff. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we are supposed to delete stubs that can improve at AfD I sure missed the memo.
And in any case this has much improved since then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Three reviews in minor papers from 1906 really isn't sufficient pass NBOOK. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Three reviews from newspapers now would be enough to pass, so why not? NBOOK needs two non trivial (or short) reviews. Unless it's on some fringe theory that's been since disproven to where it's impossible to cover it with the contemporary sources without violating our other policies, it does very much count. This book is about literary criticism. I figured there was much more anyway, and as seen below there was. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep. I am inclined to agree with Ssilvers, and SchroCat quantifies this. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep with many thanks to ReaderofthePack. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have to agree with PARAKANYAA in that this does pass NBOOK. If a source is considered to be something reliable that could give notability, it doesn't really matter how major or minor the source is - all that matters is that it could give notability. To that end, these sources do accomplish that and give notability, so the book technically passes NBOOK at this point. What we should be looking at would be the following:
  1. Is there enough out there to flesh this book out beyond a stub?
  2. Does the existing sourcing give off a strong enough suggestion that more sourcing is available, just not readily available on the internet?
The first is one I'm still trying to answer, but the second question is the one I'm more concerned with because answering that would give me a more clear answer to the first question. And so far, the answer seems to be that there is more out there - it's just not readily available on the internet or at least isn't coming up easily in searches. For example, this news source mentions it as one of the two books that put Mencken on the map, so to speak, and that it also helped make Shaw more of a household name. Then there's this 2002 review of a biography on Mencken. It mentions much of the same - that it helped put both authors on the map - the review also mentions a bit of the biographer's literary criticism of Mencken's Shaw book. So there's more out there - we just have to dig for it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)
Ssilvers, SchroCat, Gog the Mild - what is your opinion on the article now - I've greatly expanded the article. I've started looking for sourcing using just "George Bernard Shaw" and "Mencken" - this has helped immensely. It seems that when places do cover Mencken on Shaw, they are almost always discussing the book itself.
As far as outlets go, this source mentions that outlets that reviews the book include the Boston Globe, New York Times, San Francisco Bulletin, Brooklyn Eagle, Baltimore Sun, New York Post, and The Nation; the last outlet seems to have done a rather extensive review. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go to work now, but I'll try to expand this more later. I want to check the academic/scholarly paper databases - the amount of times books discussed or mentioned this book, I think there's likely to be quite a bit out there that I could easily find. There's definitely more out there not as easily locatable, but it does exist. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Robert Watson

[edit]
Michael Robert Watson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hello - recommending this article for deletion for the following reasons.

Seems like a promotional page by a very ocassional contributor to some industry news, with plenty of links to his own website (cited as a source) and references to prominent or notable collaberators who are all not listed on wikipedia.

Suspicious edits by 81.175.147.23 who appears to only be active on this page (this IP address is based in the same town as Mr Watson) as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DorianRichard1985 which also appears to be the subject, and created this article. There have been no meaningful edits except by these two contributors, who both appear to be Mr Watson.

This is a promotional page with poor source links, some unverifiable, created to promote the career of an ocassional opinion columnist. Does not meet Wikipedias standard for notability, nor source quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments below, I checked GS for "Mike Watson"; the highest-cited works I could find had 21 citations (Can the Left Learn to Meme?: Adorno, Video Gaming, and Stranger Things) and 13 citations (The Memeing of Mark Fisher: How the Frankfurt School Foresaw Capitalist Realism and What to Do About It), but I might well have missed something as there are so many other Mike Watsons; I don't think these citations would meet WP:PROF, but reviews should be sought to address potential notability under WP:AUTHOR. If the article is kept it needs to be moved to "Mike Watson ([disambiguator])". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concern here is the article appears to be self-authored, with two key accounts in its creation having only ever edited this article (one IP, one logged in). This would be less of an issue if it was an especially noteworthy subject but at the moment Wiki runs risk of being a promotional page or 'find my articles online' site. Many many academic / media figures who are more prolific, many more citations, do not have wikipedia pages. Also there is some unsourced biographic information here. All in I think it should be deleted unless new high quality sources can be found and more credible evidence of Mr Watson's relevance / impact 85.68.25.118 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until the encyclopedia actually prohibits writing autobiographical content, rather than strongly discouraging it, suspicions that the article might be authored by the subject are not valid grounds for deletion. However, I've just put all four book titles into JSTOR and come up with nothing, so I'm not arguing for retention unless someone can show that WP:AUTHOR is met by reviews that JSTOR does not index, or GNG is met. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Angusta: Ah, thanks, so it looks like he is this Mike Watson[32]. (The piece mentions a further book, by the way.) Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Gosh everyone seems to be dancing on the fence here and it's as clear a fail as GNG as I've seen for a while. "Watson completed his PhD thesis at Goldsmiths College, University of London, in the department of Visual Cultures, under the supervision of Alex Duttmann, moderated by Howard Caygill and Peter Hallward." Oh the loving detail! Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Steinberg (journalist and photographer)

[edit]
David Steinberg (journalist and photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO, sources not appropriate for a biography. Writing and speaking about sex and sexuality does not in and of itself confer notability, 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who drafted the article. There is absolutely no COI here -- though I did email Steinberg about a few things and did encourage him to submit one of his photos to wikicommons. Also Steinberg informed me that a few years ago he had drafted a wikipedia article for himself – and he forwarded that draft to me. But I mostly ignored that. It was almost entirely unusable.
I consider myself somewhat of an expert in the field of writing about sexuality. Also, I have a background in indie publishing and have written a few author profiles for Wikipedia over the decades.
Here is my personal opinion about why this living person meet the criteria for notability.
1. He made an invaluable contribution to the pro-feminist men's movement in the 1980s and possibly 1990s. In the 1980s pornography was a hot political topic in the USA. Conservatives were arguing about it. Feminists were arguing for it and against it. In the meantime some pro-feminist men were having conferences, publishing books and anthologies. Steinberg was one of the pioneers of this movement.
2. Steinberg's photography book/anthology Erotic by Nature was groundbreaking in the 1980s -- and it is still in print today. It received widespread distribution through Bookpeople and the book itself sold the concept of erotic photography as a legitimate form of fine arts photography. The book was an attempt to put into practice the ideas and aesthetic of the men's movement who were confronting the issue of pornography -- offering this as an alternative.
3. He has been writing about sexuality, sexual politics and new forms of sexual expression for decades. Most of his articles were for (now defunct) weeklies, but some appeared in national magazines like Playboy. Many of these articles were open to new kinds of sexuality. He has also written a lot about hot-button topics like sex trafficking, transgender rights, mostly from the perspective of a "liberated male."
4. He has devoted the latter part of his life taking erotic photographs and showing them at various exhibits and erotic festivals. Unlike many fine arts photographers, Steinberg has taken photographs of nontraditional subjects, like older people, gays, disabled people, transgender. I have listed some critics who have reviewed/interpreted his aesthetic sensibility.
Now, let me put on my wiki hat for a bit.
That first point (pro-feminist men’s movement) is extremely hard to document and source. (Believe me, I tried). The only thing I could find was several anthologies on the subject which he contributed to and/or edited. https://www.nearbycafe.com/loveandlust/steinberg/erotic/about/index.html Ultimately I ended up not mentioning this part for the article. Steinberg mentions a few of the conferences he participated in some of his writings, but I can find next to nothing from secondary sources.
One problem is that unlike feminists (who often were academics and organized many events through their universities) many of these men's conferences were looser and definitely not-academic. They didn't think too much about recording these things for the historical record. Wiki has some articles about men's movements, Men's Rights Movement and Men in Feminism, but really very little about men's response to porn or how to reconcile porn with feminism from a man's point of view. (See the article on sex-positive feminism; it mentions a lot of female names but almost no one who is male!)Ironically, Steinberg is probably a leading figure for the men's pro-feminist movement and sex-positivity. How do I know this? On that page alone, I count at least 15 names of thinkers/activists/intellectuals (all of which have received wikipedia articles) who have explicitly praised Steinberg's writings! (Joanie Blank, mentioned in the article, was in fact the person who financed Erotic by Nature. One of the writers pictured in the article, Tristan Taormino, even invited Steinberg on a recent podcast).
I should ask: is there a double standard here? Why does Wikipedia have so many articles on feminist response to porn and female authors who have written about sex-positive feminism but almost no males?
Finally, longevity counts for something in publishing. Publications come and go; that is especially true for alternative newspapers and especially true for sex-oriented publications. Should wikipedia discount publications from the pre-digital era simply because they are unavailable? Steinberg is one of the few writers/columnists on sexual issues who has digitized many of his writings on sexuality from the 1980s and 1990s and put them online. Wikipedia readers should have the ability to know that people like this actually existed -- and that his archive of writings from that time period exist and remain accessible.
By refusing to acknowledge the importance of contributions of people like David Steinberg, Wikipedia editors are removing bits of history from the public. I have done my best to draft an article on a somewhat sensitive subject in accordance with Wiki's policies. Frankly, I fail to understand why notability would even be a problem here. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to step back for now. But I wanted to reiterate about COI that I have NEVER done paid editing for any wiki article subject and never received remuneration for anything I have done at Wikipedia. I expect to receive no sort of benefit (financial or otherwise) from Steinberg as a result of writing this article, and none was promised to me. My ebook publishing company (Personville Press) doesn't have any interest in publishing any of Steinberg's works although I admit I am extremely fond of his writings. My contact with the subject, as stated in my above statement, was minimal and mainly to check up on dates and verify some things. Robert J Nagle (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought of one more thing -- that maybe is self-evident. The article itself mentions that Steinberg was designated as " Erotic Photographer of the Year" in 2010 by Leydig Trust (which sponsors the Sexual Freedom Awards). The Sexual Freedom Awards has its own wikipedia page; I guess that means wikipedia has already rated these awards as notable. In the article I mentioned that the Seattle Erotic Art Festival has given Steinberg the honorary title, "Master of Erotic Art" for "impactful photography (which) focuses on capturing the diversity of our human sexuality by showcasing a broad range of people. From the SEAF website itself, it says, "The Masters of Erotic Art program showcases artists who have made meaningful contributions to the history and development of erotic art." These are two separate well-known organizations in the field of the erotic arts which have recognized Steinberg's contribution to the field. [34]
These properly sourced details were mentioned in paragraph 2 of the article, so I assume that the other editors saw this already. I have provided other justifications about notability in the previous longer comment. But frankly, I don't know just those two award designations don't confer notability. Robert J Nagle (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need sourcing to back up these claims, "because, trust me" isn't quite the level of sourcing we need. That's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a general statement which does not apply to this article. I think everything in the article is properly sourced. Robert J Nagle (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is enough here to close as Delete but I wanted to allow some time to respond to the argument of the article creator. They claim the sources are sufficient so a source review would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Ref 1 Salon.com. is an interview, not independent
  • Ref 2 Sexual Freedom Awards is a primary source
  • Ref 3 Seattle Erotic Art Festival. is a primary source
  • Ref 4 Eros During Times of Social Change is an interview not independent
  • Ref 5 is a primary source written by Steinberg

Ref 6 is a commercial link to purchase his book

  • Ref7 can’t access this but a foreword is unlikely to be significant coverage
  • Ref 8 Nearbycafe.com. his own words, primary source
  • Ref 9 ditto
  • Ref 10 ditto
  • Ref 11 ditto
  • Ref 12 ditto
  • Ref 13 ditto
  • Ref 14 interview
  • Ref 15 interview
  • Ref 16 Nearbycafe.com. his own words, primary source

Theroadislong (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two things regarding primary sources.
Ref 6 links to public statements made by several other notable people about Steinberg and specifically his book which appeared on the promotional material related to the book (which are copied on the author's own website).You can easily view it in these same quotes in the opening pages for the Kindle ebook. Based on my experience as a publisher, it is very rare that people are misquoted in blurbs and other promotional material. Publishers take these things very seriously; they can get sued! Whether these statements are sufficient to establish notability -- I'll let others decide. What's significant is that a lot of people -- several of which are already on wikipedia -- have made statements about this person's writings.
With regard to interviews, it's a pretty standard way for a journalist to write about any author. Often the preface by the interviewer will try to contextualize a writer's contributions (that was particularly true in the Salon article). (Ref 1) Wiki specifically allows the use the self-published sources as long as 5 conditions are met See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves and as I mentioned before, some well-vetted articles on authors on Wikipedia make use of actual quotes by the author often. One time I counted the number of times author John Updike was quoted in the wiki article about him, I think the number was 18. Robert J Nagle (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert J Nagle, we're not worried about people being misquoted when their statements are being used in blurbs and promo material. We're concerned because they are blurbs and promo material. We don't base notability on these types of thing because they're not independent. (See WP:INDEPENDENT.) -- asilvering (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Breathnach-Banwait

[edit]
Julie Breathnach-Banwait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe she meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO more broadly. 1 hit in google news and nothing in google books which is surprising for a writer. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I still am seeing No consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify per User:Colin Ryan with hopes that they can locate some independent sources, perhaps through the Irish press. Lamona (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Spinifex&Sand is right that when an author has only one notable work, and the coverage is of that work rather than the author, we typically have an article just on the notable work. But when there are multiple notable works, NAUTHOR#3 does actually allow notability to be inherited for an author bio, if there is coverage of their "collective body of work". After some digging I think I see two WP:NBOOK candidates:
And two books that don't meet NBOOK but do have one review (so a second would pass NBOOK):
  • Ar Thóir Gach Ní [43]
  • Cnámha Scoilte / Split Bones [44]
I also found this profile in The Irish Scene, which suggests notability, and this interview which does not but could be useful in fleshing out the article if kept. I have a hard time getting excited about only 2 NBOOKs as a "collective body of work", but I think some would consider that sufficient. I lean keep because I think the profiles in the Irish Times, Anglo&Celtic Australia Magazine, and now The Irish Scene together squeak by for GNG. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for a better consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authors proposed deletions

[edit]

Tools

[edit]
Main tool page: toolserver.org
Article alerts are available, updated by AAlertBot. More information...
  • Reflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references
  • Checklinks - Edit and repair external links
  • Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links.
  • Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Arts_and_entertainment&oldid=1251494985#Writers_and_critics"