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 2 148
FL 3 3 6
A 1 1 1 3
GA 10 37 83 409 69 608
B 51 149 406 1,238 2,951 4,795
C 18 167 771 7,002 2 15,583 23,543
Start 4 97 1,167 24,977 13 58,133 84,391
Stub 1 16 368 31,494 8 44,836 76,723
List 4 4 173 1 166 348
Category 14,569 14,569
Disambig 30 30
File 290 290
Project 8 8
Redirect 1 422 1,523 1,946
Template 903 903
NA 4 87 91
Other 1 2 73 76
Assessed 92 488 2,845 65,806 17,507 121,740 208,478
Unassessed 1 83 920 1,004
Total 92 488 2,846 65,889 17,507 122,660 209,482
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 992,019 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]

Internet aesthetic

[edit]
Internet aesthetic (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 largely an essay lackign a sourced defintion of "internet aesthetic" and collection of topics that aren't supported through any source suggesting their connection to this term. This is largely WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. There is one source from Vogue in 2022 that references "internet aesthetics" but not in connection to wide range of examples provided here. ZimZalaBim talk 05:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Fashion, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Presents a list of things that are somewhat related, more of a meme or trends than any sort of related aesthetic items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of this is synthesis. Just because an aethetic or design or fashion is popular in the modern day and is discussed on the internet does not mean it is an "internet aethetic". That's just how the world works now, not a substantive cohesive concept: "that usually originates from the Internet or is popularized on it" – very little in the last 20 years wasn't popularized on the internet, so this is a meaningless characteristic unless you are just fluffing up the most recent and niche trends. "micro-trends such as mob wife and tomato girl summer" Groan. Which sources actually bring the concepts here together? Reywas92Talk 14:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For all reasons above. At most, this might be best suited as a category for worthwhile articles such as Corecore, dark academia, light academia, and so on. Only problem is that the title is itself a wholesale invention. I don't think it's influenced the popular literature to remain as . Ornov Ganguly TALK 17:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nom and the arguments presented that the article is a synthesis of original research. Perhaps in a few years if scholarly books or articles are written about this topic it will become notable. At this time it is not. Netherzone (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I don't understand why everyone wants this deleted, the pageviews showcase notability and I wouldn't consider it original research, maybe synthesis but ut has still managed to get 90k pageviews this year alone. This0k (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fisayo Fosudo

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Fisayo Fosudo (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:GNG or WP:ENT, and also does not pass the explanatory essay at WP:NYOUTUBER. Pieces from the sources mostly fail WP:INDEPENDENT. Awards won/nominated are not significant enough to confer inherent notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Fernengel

[edit]
Jeff Fernengel (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'm not finding anything to substantiate the notability of this artist. A WP:BEFORE search found a few mentions of him, social media postings, a couple public-relations previews (press releases), and things he has written about himself. There is no independent significant coverage in reliable sources, or essays/articles on his work in art history texts; no major exhibitions at notable galleries or museums; no works in notable museum or national gallery collections. The article is an autobiography and also edited by single purpose accounts. It basically says that he grew up drawing dinosaurs, had a show at "Larry's Bar", designed a beer bottle label, and is an AVID (in all caps) Denver "Broncoes" [sic] Fan, and a "pizza expert", none of which adds up to notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clickwheel

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Clickwheel (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)

Was deleted before in 2006, still doesn't seem to meet GNG. Though I don't want this to be deleted either, I think this needs to be. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 12 December 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]

Tulika Mehrotra

[edit]
Tulika Mehrotra (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)

Do not pass WP:AUTHOR or even WP:BASIC ―  ☪  Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Dalla-Camina

[edit]
Megan Dalla-Camina (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 highly promotional bio of an individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The sources in the article comprise:

My WP:BEFORE search turned up more of the same kind of content, nothing qualifying. I also searched for book reviews to see if she passed WP:NAUTHOR for any of her books, but I found only a single independent review for Women Rising, so there's no pass on that criterion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kealan Patrick Burke

[edit]
Kealan Patrick Burke (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 subject appears to fail WP:GNG as well as higher bars at WP:NACTOR and WP:NAUTHOR. Note, not every Bram Stoker Award recipient is inherently notable. JFHJr (㊟) 00:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirous Ahmadi

[edit]
Sirous Ahmadi (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)

2 google news hits and nothing in Google Books. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Being an immigration consultant hardly adds to notability. LibStar (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Crawley

[edit]
Kim Crawley (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:BLP of a technology writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to pass certain concrete benchmarks of significance (noteworthy awards, third-party attention by critics and reviewers, evidence of their work having had a verifiable impact on the field they write about, etc.) supported by third-party reliable sources independent of themselves -- but the only notability claim in evidence here is that she exists, and the article is referenced almost entirely to primary sources (staff profiles, directory entries, her own writing metaverifying its own existence, podcast interviews, etc.) that are not support for notability, with just one footnote (#10, "Silicon Republic") that represents an independent source writing about her. And while it's questionable as to whether even that counts as a WP:GNG-worthy source at all, one hit of RS coverage isn't enough all by itself even if we do give it the benefit of the doubt.
It also warrants note that the article has been tagged for suspected WP:AUTOBIO editing by the subject herself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence James Ludovici

[edit]
Laurence James Ludovici (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)

PROD was contested. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The bulk of the article is just an unsourced list of his non-notable works. The article has had a notability tag for almost 9 years with no additions to support the subjects notability. cyberdog958Talk 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as the author of the first biography on Alexander Fleming, which received significant international attention at the time of its publication. I would have to disagree with your view. Dan arndt (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phiwa Nkambule

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Phiwa Nkambule (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)

So this article was created by Phwaice who seems to be a WP:COI user judging by username and behavior. The article was previously nominated for deletion and the consensus was to redirect to a company article that is now deleted due to lack of notability. The article was then reverted by Carloschilo who also seems to have COI behavior.

The issue is this article from a quick glance seem to be nothing more than a PR puff piece for the subject which is basically WP:PROMO. There’s also issue of notability. The vast majority of sources are basically brief mentions of the subject. You have some which are interviews, so they are not independent. The subject is mentioned in a few lists, but these again seem more like mentions and not really in-depth.

This article probably needs to be rewritten from scratch to comply with Wikipedia standards. That’s assuming we get enough independent in-depth sources of notability. Imcdc Contact 03:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated my focus is primarily on articles of subjects linked to Eswatini, which are not many unfortunately as the country on has a 1 million population. This country is extremely under-covered. Here are a few examples that show notability of the subject:
1. https://www.google.co.za/books/edition/Entrepreneurs_Who_Changed_History/vAbnDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=phiwa%20nkambule%20entrepreneurs%20who%20changed%20history&pg=PT958&printsec=frontcover
2. https://www.google.co.za/books/edition/Simple_Algorithms/-IdeEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=phiwa%20nkambule%20simple%20coding&pg=PT23&printsec=frontcover
3. https://www.forbesafrica.com/cover-story/2019/10/14/forbes-africa-8-years-and-growing/
4. https://www.forbesafrica.com/under-30/2018/06/04/under-30-technology/
5. https://www.google.co.za/books/edition/Autonomic_Computing/nozJEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=phiwa%20nkambule&pg=PA1946&printsec=frontcover Carloschilo (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources above so far seem to be mainly about another subject but has a brief mention on the current nominated subject with most of them just stating his role founding non-notable companies. Also AFD consensus shows lists like Forbes 30 Under 30 is not considered a reliable source in establishing notability since every year there are 1,230 people under 30 years old placed on the list so it gives the impression it is more of a promotional tool. Notability should not be driven by being on the list although some of the objective information may be used to provide further context on the subject. Imcdc Contact 02:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Jallai

[edit]
Anders Jallai (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:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. As far as his writing goes, the only attempt at a notability claim here is that his work exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself -- writers have to show that they pass WP:GNG on significant third-party coverage and analysis about their writing, not just use ISBN and Libris links to verify that their work exists. And the other attempted notability claim here is that he led a search for a missing plane, which wouldn't be "inherently" notable without a GNG-worthy depth and volume of coverage about that either.
But for sourcing, what we've got here is one deadlinked directory entry that isn't support for notability at all, and one deadlinked (but recoverable via Wayback) National Geographic article that briefly glances off Jallai's involvement in the plane search without being about him in any non-trivial sense, which thus isn't enough to magically vault him over WP:GNG all by itself. And while the Swedish interlang is longer and features more referencing than this, it's still based mainly on primary source directory entries that aren't support for notability, alongside a small smattering of more short blurbs about the plane search that also briefly mention Anders Jallai without being about him, so that article also doesn't have sources that could just be cut and pasted over to salvage this.
As I don't have access to archives of Swedish media coverage, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who does have such access can actually find enough substantive coverage to salvage the article, but nothing in it is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awards don't clinch notability if your source for the award is the self-published website of the award. Since an award has to be notable in its own right before it can make its winners notable for winning it, the source for an award claim has to be media reportage that treats the award presentation as news, in order to demonstrate that the award is notable in the first place. And that's even more the case for general honors that can be presented to absolutely anybody for absolutely any reason, as opposed to being a defined awards program for achievement in a specific domain like literature or film. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hakan B. Gülsün

[edit]
Hakan B. Gülsün (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:GNG. Kadı Message 04:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Clarke (activist)

[edit]
Tony Clarke (activist) (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)

Biography of a recently deceased writer and activist, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for writers or activists. As written, this is based entirely on primary sources (the self-published websites of non-media organizations and people whom he was directly connected with) that are not support for notability, with not even one reliable or WP:GNG-worthy source shown at all -- but even on a WP:BEFORE search for better sources, I just haven't found anything of use: Google's just turning up the same primary sourcing, while ProQuest is giving me a mixture of accidental text matches on other unrelated Tony Clarkes and hits where this one is briefly namechecked as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else (which also isn't support for notability), but no discernible evidence of coverage about this Tony Clarke.
I'm sure he was a lovely man, but Wikipedia is not here to memorialize people who can't be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability, and I just can't find the sourcing to get him over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. With a little effort, many media reports about Mr. Clarke and reviews of his books can be found. He was an important figure in Canadian political analysis and activism for several decades. At least wait for the reactions to his passing to decide whether or not he deserves to be included in Wikipedia. 173.206.73.235 (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Reactions" to a person's passing aren't necessarily WP:GNG builders in and of themselves. We would need to see journalist-written news articles about his life and work and death in real WP:GNG-worthy media, not things people might say about it on Facebook or Xitter or Bluesky or death notices from the newspaper classifieds.
Also interesting how you say many media reports about him and his work can be found "with a little effort", except that you didn't actually undertake any effort to show any of that, while I did undertake some effort and actually found a lot less than you claim. It's not enough to simply assert that more GNG-worthy media coverage existed than anybody's been arsed to actually cite — you have to actually prove that by actually showing specific examples of media coverage that's been overlooked (preferably by actually adding them to the article, but at minimum by listing specific examples here). Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I don’t see any obituaries in mainstream sources or even Sierra Club. Please ping me if something bigger is published. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret D. Nadauld

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Margaret D. Nadauld (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)

Margaret D. Nadauld was a former president of the Young Women organization. This article was deleted on october 17, 2018 for being unnotable. It was recreated today, the author added 25 new sources but all of them seem to be just brief mentions of her. I still think that this article does not satisfy notability guidelines. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The first AfD had no discussion on it which is disappointing and I don't know how to see what the article looked like at that time. My comments are that there seems to be reporting on her actions as president of the organization from non-related sources and that women, especially in more socially conservative areas like religious groups, are mentioned less than equivalent men. Having said that I am not certain this article either meets or doesn't meet requirements I just want to help start a conversation that should be had. The primary author of the article posted on the talk page their reasoning for keeping, not sure why it isn't here.
Moritoriko (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This article was nominated for deletion by a new WP user (account created Nov. 5), who nominated 25+ articles for deletion in one day using Twinkle, with the explanation, "Its relaxing, I love cleaning Wikipedia from bad articles!" on his talk page. When I kindly (I hope) pointed out that this creates significant work for others, within hours this user nominated this new article of mine for deletion. Because I think the deletion proposal was not made on the merits or in good faith I believe this meets the requirements for WP:SK per reason 2a.
Regarding the merits of the case for deletion, the proposer reports to have perused the 29 attached sources and only found "just brief mentions of her". Hmmm. Six articles are entirely about Nadauld. All of the rest that are news articles have at least full paragraphs about her, and are in the context of her activities and accomplishments. As with the other 20+ proposed deletions, he does not report having followed the required WP:BEFORE process, and I believe has not done so. This despite being told by at least three people about WP:BEFORE before he proposed deletion of this article. I've counted over 200 articles mentioning Nadauld in my WP:BEFORE search, one of which is a lengthy, independent secondary source newspaper article entirely about her. Somehow he missed that.
This new article establishes notability by using over 25 different sources. None are trivial mentions per WP:SIGCOV. They are a mix of primary and secondary.
Several sources are clearly, irrefutably independent, including the retrospective of Nadauld's presidency in The Daily Spectrum, the Provo Daily Herald article, and the several Salt Lake Tribune articles. The Tribune was founded specifically for the purpose of being a counterpoint to the Church's viewpoint, as detailed in its WP article. And three secondary sources are academic historical research papers, assessing impact of various initiatives during Nadauld's tenure. As a whole, this all establishes the notability of the article's subject.
Other factors regarding Nadauld's notability:
  • She was global president of a one million-plus member notable organization.
  • The organization has had sixteen presidents in its 144-year history, and Nadauld was the only one who does not have a WP article, despite serving a full term of five years. I tend to believe the deletion of Nadauld's article would be an error (if it were sourced properly), rather than the creation of the other fifteen articles being errors.
  • Seven other WP articles reference Margaret D. Nadauld. This is specified as a measure of notability.
  • WP:SUSTAINED is established by several sources:
    • the 2005 masters thesis,
    • the 2008 Spectrum retrospective article,
    • the news report of the luncheon honoring her nine years after leaving office,
    • the peer reviewed research from 2015 assessing her impact,
    • the television interview with Nadauld in 2015 analyzing organization changes made by the church,
    • multiple invitations to speak at university graduations in the decades since her service, and
    • the fact that several quotes from her speeches and books regularly appear on social media and quote collections, such as on Goodreads, twenty-plus years after her tenure. This google image search shows several hundred examples: [17]. Do I need to link some of these as sources? Davemc0 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the sources of this version of the page, they are (organized by supporting notability):
3. The Spectrum article is actually good.
21. OK, but also just the school newspaper that her husband was the president at
28. OK
2. A short biography (and a speech she wrote), I think a lot hinges on if this biography was provided by her or written independently. If it's the former then it doesn't support notability at all.
6. a mention
7. a mention
8. a mention
9. a mention
15. a mention
16. a mention
23. a mention
10. trivial
12. trivial
13. trivial
14. trivial
18. trivial
19. trivial
20. trivial
22. trivial
24. trivial
25. trivial
26. trivial
4. primary, no notability
5. primary, no notability
27. primary, no notability
29. entirely consists of quotes from her, no notability
1. no mention
11. no mention
17. no mention
I think you are overstating your case here when you might not need to. As far as the other factors go:
500,000 people at the time she was president according to the best article about her but potato potato.
I've looked through the other presidents, many of them are also notable for things besides being president and at least one of the others I think doesn't have enough sources on her page for her to be notable either.
Good point
The masters thesis barely mentions her, I didn't find the 2015 peer reviewed research about her impact, which source is that? Again the spectrum article is the best article for her notability.
@SolxrgashiUnited can you have a look through the Spectrum article and let me know what you think? Moritoriko (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, im unable to access it. For some reason the site does not open. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. What behavior do you get when you try? We're talking about these two links, right? [18] and [19]. It works for me on two computers and two browsers. Weird. I can make a copy for you somewhere if you need me to. Davemc0 (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cloudflare blocked me. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pain! I put copies of the two halves of the article on my Google Drive here: https: //photos.app.goo .gl/DyDaHMCEB2iaFrkG8 (you have to copy and paste the link without spaces). If Cloudflare blocks that for you I could put them on my talk page for a short time and then delete them. Cheers. Davemc0 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding sources:
2. Agree that the bio doesn't indicate notability if she wrote it. Typically, the university leadership will put together a bio from a few sources. But ignoring the bio, this source is a college graduation address, which is a strong indicator of notability, especially since she was invited 20 years after her presidency term ended.
6. Five paragraphs are about her and what she said. The other 6 paragraphs are about Faust, who also spoke. So this is much more than a mention.
7. The article is about six speeches given. Three paragraphs were about hers. That's more than a mention, in my opinion.
Er, the histories were 2011, not 2015. They are refs 16 and 18. 16 is a history of the whole organization, and has three paragraphs about Nadauld and her tenure. That's NOT trivial, and places her leadership in the context of the broader history. The later paragraph about camps is also regarding the 8400 acre camp that Nadauld started.
18. The other history. One long paragraph places Nadauld's 2002 changes in context. I'd promote this one from "trivial" to "a mention".
29. Correct that it's not a news story about her. The fact that a network affiliate news organization chose her to interview about the actions of a 16 million member church is how this indicates notability. And the fact that the station did so 13 years after Nadauld ended her leadership in the church's organization is the indication of WP:SUSTAINED.
The size of the organization (1 million vs. 500,000) came from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article. It's a 1991 figure. I know the church grew between 1991 and 2002, so I was surprised to see the 500,000 figure. Similarly, that article says she visited 25 countries as president, while the Ensign College bio says 55. I don't know which is more accurate.
Anyone have thoughts about the couple hundred post of quotes of hers that are currently floating around social media? Recall that sources in articles and actual notability are completely separate concepts.
I can't track what you're replying to with your other comments. Which was a good point? Which was overstating my case? If you don't think I need to state the case more strongly I'd sure appreciate if you would render a Keep or Speedy Keep opinion to help us all move on.

Davemc0 (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davemc0 You should remove the bolding from your later comments, as editors are allowed only one bolded !vote in any discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. "I don't think" isn't really the standard for deletion. Clearly, the individual is notable. (Capricious AfD noms really do diminish WP.) DesignatedGrammarian (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. . Seems to satify satisfy quite well the requirements of WP:GNG. Regards, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anzer Ayoob

[edit]
Anzer Ayoob (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)

Simply fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep: Subject appears notable for his contributions to journalism and cultural preservation, particularly as the founder of The Chenab Times, a platform that promotes languages like Bhaderwahi and Sarazi. He has been profiled multiple times for his efforts here, here, and here. His work also includes involvement in the internationally awarded documentary Only if the Baby Cries... and contributions to platforms like The Diplomat (here), The Wire (India) (here), The Quint (here), and The Citizen (here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosgulla (talk • contribs) 10:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Polgar

[edit]
Andrei Polgar (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)

Page`s notability might not meet Wikipedia's standards due to a potential lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:55, 28 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! 07:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An analysis of sources:
Can't access source 1, source 2 is unreliable, sources 3, 5, 7, 8 and 12 just have one or two videos from his channel without any mention of Polgar himself, source 4 is a self-published blog, source 6 is just a video, source 9 is his YouTube channel, source 10 is a...course(?), same with source 11, with just a link to his YouTube channel at the bottom, no idea what source 13 is but it's unreliable anyway, sources 14 and 16 are Amazon links, and source 18 is a duplicate of source 6. Sources 15 and 17 are the only ones that mention Polgar by name at all, with 17 being an interview and 15 just talking about his books on Amazon.
In other words, not a single reliable or significant source, aside from possibly 17. Procyon117 (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added few more sources, please have a look. Herinalian (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Hunt

[edit]
Lucas Hunt (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)

Unable to locate any books reviews. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Unable to find an reliable coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV No indication of significance. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years and never been updated scope_creepTalk 07:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Iowa, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: One article here, but it keeps timing out [33], still not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I deprodded this, but on further investigation it looks like it has been written by a combination of SPA/IP/the subject. There's a profile in NYT (Cohen, Joyce. Away From the Hammer and Quiet Enough for Poetry: He had been thinking Brooklyn, but he found what he wanted in Queens. New York Times. 8/13/2017, Vol. 166 Issue 57688, p4), which looks to be in the property section and doesn't address his poetry more than in passing; also a Proquest copy of the article Oaktree b mentions above (Hamlet, Isaac. Iowa poet goes from pigs to pearls. Press - Citizen Iowa City, Iowa. 10 Aug 2019: A.2.); I also found one sort-of-review piece quoting him with brief bio material (Working Out What to Do in the Hamptons This Summer? Tauer, Kristen, Nordstrom, Leigh, Wally, Maxine, Women's Wear Daily (May 24, 2019): 17). Not found much else on Ebsco/Proquest that isn't just him as an agent/editor. Poetry collections are notoriously sparsely reviewed and awards are often more important in this area, but I'm not familiar with the US minor poetry awards. With three different bits of press, plus the review in the article, and the award, I'd generally be leaning keep, but in view of the promotional history here, I'm undecided, willing to be persuaded either way. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I normally try and keep poets and poetry articles if I can as I believe they exhibit the height of human creativity and expression, living a life in a garret and suffering to express, that all denote notability even if only spoken off. Choosing that life is an aspect as well, which is important. However it is a BLP and there must be something there. The award has been given to few very famous individuals but didn't see him listed either on Wikipedia article or the actual site and couldn't find any other Steinback award for poetry. There is a fiction award, and a fellowship award but couldn't identify him. That was reason I sent up to Afd and didn't think he was notable and still don't. scope_creepTalk 11:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given User:Espresso Addict]'s comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 9 December 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"