The Arts and Entertainment Work Group is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality and importance
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs... Specific discipline portals are listed in that section.
William Ely Hill (1887-1962) - Illustrator, created artwork for the book covers for F. Scott Fitzgerald and had a regular entry in the New York tribune along with being published on numerous occasions.
The general outline and collection has been started, but if you would like to expand and organize a discipline, here's what you do. Right below the page heading for the discipline insert this: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Work groups/Division banner}} and save. This will put a rough outline together for you and then you can edit it to conform to your area. See Writers and critics below for an example. If your project grows large enough where it's taking up a good portion of this page, you should probably move it to a subpage of this page.
You might also want to make a Members section for people to join your specific area!
Any article related to this work group should be marked by adding |a&e-work-group=yes to the {{WPBiography}} project banner at the top of its talk page. This will automatically place it into Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles. Articles can be assessed for priority within this work group by using the |a&e-priority= parameter. See Template:WikiProject Biography/doc for detailed instructions on how to use the banner.
Jubileeclipman (talk·contribs) I am interested in taking on UK celebrities with articles that are stubs or otherwise non-standard. Entirely rewrote Fearne Cotton to raise standard and remove fansite tag. I am working on Holly Willoughby which was merely a list plus trivia. Will also work on musicians, all genre, living or dead.
Only trivial, interviews, etc with no deep real media focus on the Julia. The best piece from ARTnews has this:
“Clay,” she says, “gives me the freedom to create something intense, raw, over the top. It has allowed me to pile things up, break things down, play, and make mistakes.” Kunin loves the immediacy of a material that is “as basic as mud,” she points out. “I am addicted to the unpredictability and iridescence of the glazes I’m using as well as the range of their colors and their psychedelic qualities.”
Kunin grew up in Vermont in the ‘70s..... Later, she says, she rejected clay as a dull brown “craft” material but returned to it in 2003. She started exploring female sexuality and the body and began using octopuses for more metaphorical imagery. Frustrated by a series in cast glass, “I happened on an exhibit by the Chinese artist Ah Xian, who creates busts painted in traditional Chinese porcelain patterns from Jingdezhen, China. That initial spark of an idea has kept me going now for ten years.” Qab Bi Av (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page was created by the subject, in an extremely self-laudatory tone that has since partially been repaired.
The sources are also extremely poor. The subject's coverage in the sources is either A. Not significant (i.e. the National Post article that literally just has a single line about her, the Macleans article that has merely 3 sentences about her book, or the Edmonton Journal article that reviews many books and only mentions Murray's books for a few paragraphs) B. Not reliable (not editorially neutral as in the example of the U of T award announcements) C. Not secondary (i.e. the multiple databases linked) D. Independent of the subject (three of the sources are authored by the subject, including her personal website).
The only sources that remain are a couple of decades-old newspaper clippings that support only a few sentences of the article.
It is clear that there aren't sufficient sources to write a fleshed-out article about her, and the only reason the article exists at all is because it was created by the subject herself with virtually no sources. It is obvious that the article was written with first-hand knowledge, only for the sources to try and retroactively justify what was written, when in fact very little of what is written in the article is contained in the sources.
Keep. Unless anyone can prove the content of the article is completely fabricated, she's obviously going to pass our notability guidelines: she's in the Royal Society of Canada, she has the Order of Ontario, and she's written a pile of books. I can go digging for sources later, but this one is really, really clear on its face. -- asilvering (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is true that this was a COI creation (autobiography) which is strongly frowned upon but not forbidden, however the subject is indeed notable, and the article should be retained because it has encyclopedic and historical value. I helped to clean up some of the more obvious indications of COI/AUTOBIO like puffery, and also some copyvios, close paraphrasing, and original research, however it was quite clear to me during clean up and in a BEFORE search that Murray is notable per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC, and based on the awards and honors she has received, also meets WP:ANYBIO. The sourcing can be improved but that is not a reason to delete. Netherzone (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This one seems like a pretty obvious choice. You can't just go making a page for yourself just because you feel like it, especially to promote your own books. Ninjafusion (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient independent coverage in secondary sources to justify notability. Significant and in-depth secondary coverage is a requirement of GNG and this doesn't meet the bar. Coverage is either very shallow (i.e., only a couple sentences is wider article), primary, or clearly not neutral. Gbaby99 (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear as more discussion rolls in, I am not questioning her notability here. I am questioning the sources. No matter her awards or books, there are extremely few reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. There are essentially 3 book reviews plus a newspaper clipping that pass that bar. I tried re-writing the article only using the information in those articles, which can serve as an alternative to deletion, but it was rolled back pending this AfD. Andrew6111 (talk)
Keep: No argument that the origins of the page are dubious, but the COI has been addressed. I note that the editors with conflicts have not touched the page in over a year. I am weighing in here with my perspective as an editor with in depth knowledge of Canadian art and art history to note that can be a challenge to find secondary source writing about curators, particularly in Canada. Doesn't mean they're not notable. Doesn't mean that there's a benefit to stripping out citations from the article, either - I can't see that as an improvement. the artchivist (talk)13:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't see stripping out citations that violate Wikipedia's standards of sourcing as an improvement? There are articles that are plainly trivial mentions, there are subject-authored sources, there are sources that fail verification, there are sources that are editorially biased. Those are unacceptable. Andrew6111 (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no question that the page meets GNG and that the subject is very notable in the art world. A key page within Wikipedia's Canadian art collection and its subset Tom Thompson collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the webcomics that are part of the alliance are notable, the alliance itself doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources; I was only able to find mentions. The article was previously kept at an AfD (well, VfD), but that was back in 2004 when standards were very different. toweli (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Besides a listing in the colofon of Webcomics (2005), I got nothing. The sources in the article aren't particularly reliable either, so there's nothing for us to say on Dumbrella I'm afraid. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit13:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics
The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Related Projects
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts
Disagree:Mr.Tsuda is a prominent figure in Japan's internet scene, with over 20 years of experience. From the early days of Twitter Japan's service, he has engaged in various activities as a "media activist(a term he coined)", creating the buzzword "tsuda-ru". He served as a forum committee member for Asahi Shimbun, one of Japan's leading quality media outlets, from 2015 to 2019, and in 2019, he was the artistic director for the Aichi Triennale, an arts festival organized by Aichi Prefecture, establishing himself as a significant presence in the public discourse. His activities have been recognized by public institutions, having been appointed as a member of various government councils and positions in the aforementioned Aichi Prefecture events. Since 2020, he has shifted his focus to his self-established YouTube channel, "POLITAS TV", where he operates as a political opinion YouTuber, engaging in a range of discourse activities. Therefore, he should not be deleted. MihariHarukaze (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follower Count on X (formerly Twitter): As of October 9, 2024, Tsuda's X account has 1.466 million followers, ranking among the top influencers in Japan. For comparison, the Prime Minister of Japan, Shigeru Ishiba, has 418,000 followers (Shigeru Ishiba X account), and the left-wing journalist Isoko Mochizuki, known as the model for the Netflix global series "The Journalist", has 319,000 followers (Isoko Mochizuki X account). This shows that Tsuda is one of Japan’s leading left-wing influencers (Daisuke Tsuda X account).
Official Profile: According to a 2017 profile published by the public relations department of Aichi Prefecture, Tsuda has been active as an internet expert since the 2000s and has appeared in various mass media outlets. He has authored several books on the internet and has held positions as a professor at higher education institutions and as a member of various government committees (Aichi Prefecture PR Document).
Asahi Shimbun Opinion Committee Member: Tsuda served as a member of the opinion committee for Asahi Shimbun, one of Japan's leading quality media outlets, highlighting his recognition in the world of public discourse (Asahi Shimbun Daisuke Tsuda Opinion).
Mention in Ryukyu Shimpo: In 2018, Tsuda was listed as one of the "famous people (著名人)" in an article by Ryukyu Shimpo, Okinawa’s leading regional newspaper, indicating his influence is acknowledged even in regional media (Ryukyu Shimpo).
Artistic Director of Aichi Triennale: In 2019, Tsuda served as the artistic director of the Aichi Triennale, an arts festival hosted by Aichi Prefecture. This event was sponsored by global corporations headquartered in Aichi Prefecture, such as Toyota Motor Corporation, further demonstrating Tsuda's public activities and societal recognition. (Aichi Prefecture Document, Triennale Report)
BTW, that "Official Profile" you mentioned? That's a one-page chronological list of Tsuda's contributions, basically what you'd find as part of a CV. That's not significant coverage in accord with NPEOPLE. Paradoctor (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tired a .jp website search, nothing comes up. This in a Korean paper [18] briefly mentions this person. Likely more in Japanese sources? I don't know. Oaktree b (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I think Harrison's writing about Wikipedia is insightful, I simply don't think he passes WP:NJOURNALIST. He's not really been the subject of significant coverage. I don't think interviews or reviews of his books in student newspapers (Student Life) are sigcov. The Fix interview might be significant coverage, but I am unfamiliar with the publication. 1A is a podcast interview, which I don't think counts for notability. The Salon, Slate and HuffPost links are just to his journalism and obviously don't count. The New America link is the description of an event that Harrison was participating in, and I don't think its sigcov either. The WashU entry is a "look what one of our alumni is up to" post and therefore it's not independent or sigcov. The Yahoo interview is part of the Yahoo for Creators program, which has an unclear level of editorial control from Yahoo itself, and may be published with little editorial oversight like WP:FORBESCON, but I'm not sure, and I think its status as significant coverage is questionable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find much beyond articles he's penned. Seems notable, but I don't find any sourcing we can use. Article now is mostly sourced to author profiles. Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the publication of The Editors, Harrison satisfies #3 under creative professionals. I also just added two more sources, including an ABC affiliateWFAAand NBC Bay Area. 1A (radio program) is not a podcast, it's a radio program. -Wil540 art (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Editors hasn't even received a proper book review by a professional outlet so I hardly see how it passes the part of #3 that says such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The book was notably also deleted when taken to AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Editors (novel). I hardly see how being a guest on a radio or local television program is enough to pass GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not notable person; I've read all the references and found no one that would address the subject independently and with a big attention. NYTIMES has its own announcement that it fairly nor deep, nor independent as they announced that Kate joined them. Qab Bi Av (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's the co-author of a newly released book that addresses Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter that itself has been covered by CNN, Washington Post, MSNBC. She and co-author Ryan Mac have appeared on multiple TV outlets to promote their work. Her work as a technology beat reporter speaks for itself. Chammyboy (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see high-enough citation counts for WP:PROF#C1. Most of the sources are deadlinks; the "new breed", IEEE Xplore, and "Space Physics and Space Weather Scientist" ones are live, but non-independent (the first and third were written by her employer and the second is just a self-written author profile). So we do not have the independent and in-depth coverage needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Her name is too common,and someone else has got the Google Scholar entry. She is starting to get some attention with moderately cited papers, and counting by hand I make her h-factor to be 15-17 in a medium citation area. That is not quite enough for me, it is WP:TOOSOON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The book appears notable, and recent AfDs have indicated that it's best to keep a book with the author (if information is available for the author) rather than BLAR to a page for the book. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker, not properly referencing any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers. The attempted notability claim here is that his work exists, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- we would need to see some evidence of distinction, such as notable awards and/or WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about him and his work in media and/or books. But this is referenced entirely to primary sources self-published by people or organizations directly affiliated with the statements they're referencing, which is not support for notability, and the article claims absolutely nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable without better sourcing for it than this. Further, there are no inbound links here from any other page in Wikipedia but the disambiguation page at Bob Connolly, and this appears to be a conflict of interest as the creator (who created it in 2013 and has occasionally returned to edit the article as recently as August 2024) appears to have self-identified as Bob Connolly in past posts to Talk:Lee Aaron, but even people who do properly pass our notability and sourcing standards still aren't entitled to write or curate their own articles themselves. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page was created by the subject, in an extremely self-laudatory tone that has since partially been repaired.
The sources are also extremely poor. The subject's coverage in the sources is either A. Not significant (i.e. the National Post article that literally just has a single line about her, the Macleans article that has merely 3 sentences about her book, or the Edmonton Journal article that reviews many books and only mentions Murray's books for a few paragraphs) B. Not reliable (not editorially neutral as in the example of the U of T award announcements) C. Not secondary (i.e. the multiple databases linked) D. Independent of the subject (three of the sources are authored by the subject, including her personal website).
The only sources that remain are a couple of decades-old newspaper clippings that support only a few sentences of the article.
It is clear that there aren't sufficient sources to write a fleshed-out article about her, and the only reason the article exists at all is because it was created by the subject herself with virtually no sources. It is obvious that the article was written with first-hand knowledge, only for the sources to try and retroactively justify what was written, when in fact very little of what is written in the article is contained in the sources.
Keep. Unless anyone can prove the content of the article is completely fabricated, she's obviously going to pass our notability guidelines: she's in the Royal Society of Canada, she has the Order of Ontario, and she's written a pile of books. I can go digging for sources later, but this one is really, really clear on its face. -- asilvering (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is true that this was a COI creation (autobiography) which is strongly frowned upon but not forbidden, however the subject is indeed notable, and the article should be retained because it has encyclopedic and historical value. I helped to clean up some of the more obvious indications of COI/AUTOBIO like puffery, and also some copyvios, close paraphrasing, and original research, however it was quite clear to me during clean up and in a BEFORE search that Murray is notable per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC, and based on the awards and honors she has received, also meets WP:ANYBIO. The sourcing can be improved but that is not a reason to delete. Netherzone (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This one seems like a pretty obvious choice. You can't just go making a page for yourself just because you feel like it, especially to promote your own books. Ninjafusion (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient independent coverage in secondary sources to justify notability. Significant and in-depth secondary coverage is a requirement of GNG and this doesn't meet the bar. Coverage is either very shallow (i.e., only a couple sentences is wider article), primary, or clearly not neutral. Gbaby99 (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear as more discussion rolls in, I am not questioning her notability here. I am questioning the sources. No matter her awards or books, there are extremely few reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. There are essentially 3 book reviews plus a newspaper clipping that pass that bar. I tried re-writing the article only using the information in those articles, which can serve as an alternative to deletion, but it was rolled back pending this AfD. Andrew6111 (talk)
Keep: No argument that the origins of the page are dubious, but the COI has been addressed. I note that the editors with conflicts have not touched the page in over a year. I am weighing in here with my perspective as an editor with in depth knowledge of Canadian art and art history to note that can be a challenge to find secondary source writing about curators, particularly in Canada. Doesn't mean they're not notable. Doesn't mean that there's a benefit to stripping out citations from the article, either - I can't see that as an improvement. the artchivist (talk)13:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't see stripping out citations that violate Wikipedia's standards of sourcing as an improvement? There are articles that are plainly trivial mentions, there are subject-authored sources, there are sources that fail verification, there are sources that are editorially biased. Those are unacceptable. Andrew6111 (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no question that the page meets GNG and that the subject is very notable in the art world. A key page within Wikipedia's Canadian art collection and its subset Tom Thompson collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tesleemah At the moment, there are no reliable sources on Google News that covers him significantly, and independently. You are welcome to update the page and make it qualify as per WP:HEYMAN. But, please avoid using interviews or self-quotations. Charlie (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: At the time of nomination, the article was partially hijacked to be about someone from Nigeria rather than the actual Indian subject. I get the impression that the nominator is challenging the notability of the correct subject as well (even that has been tagged as promotional since 2022), but I wanted to note the even-more-promotional hijacking — which I have reverted — that might have prompted the AfD. (I have no opinion or further comment.) WCQuidditch☎✎07:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep book length biographies of the subject (eg M. S. Gore "Vitthal Ramji Shinde, an Assessment of His Contributions" Tata Institute of Social Sciences, 1990). AGF regarding the nomination; "hijacking" explanation seems plausible. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any trace of meeting WP:GNG. The lyrical competition of the Olympics is probably not the venue that would make a writer notable. It can be confirmed that Antoine Schaller wrote lyrics based on Hippolyte Ackermans [fr], being one of 30 names - with surnames starting with S, that is - mentioned in a large list. I can find nothing but WP:PASSING mentions elsewhere; both Google and Google Books throw around a lot of namesakes from our time. Geschichte (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no more indication of notability this time than there was last time, as far as I can tell. The SCMP article doesn't even seem to mention the article subject. I can't see any indication of how it might meet BASIC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I draftified this PROMO BLP because I don’t think it meets the NAUTHOR or even GNG. However, the creator of this BLP, who’s also a newbie and might have a COI, reverted my changes. So, I feel like my only option now is to nominate this BLP for deletion which relies on unreliable sources. Previously, it was created by our v. prolific sock master Nauman335 and deleted via AFD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article has been reviewed, then why AFD. Previously, it was deleted due to promotional tone and lack of references. But now this is a well referenced article. If an article was made earlier by sock, it does not mean that the person is not a notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titipupo (talk • contribs) 12:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Titipupo: This article has been reviewed But I don’t see any evidence that the review was approved or even reviewed, as you mentioned. Previously, it was deleted due to promotional tone and lack of references. What led you to this conclusion? Did you write the version that was deleted? now this is a well referenced article. No, the BLP still lacks proper references and depends on unreliable sources. If an article was made earlier by sock, it does not mean that the person is not a notable OK I've to agree but you've to help establish WP:N. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything except clones of this article on other websites. I have no idea how this has lasted so long without going to AFD before. The article says "was", but it would appear it should say "is", which means it falls under WP:BLP, and for that, clearly fails for inclusion under the stricter rules for biographies of living persons. Dennis Brown - 2¢07:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Shit, it’s a completely unsourced and blatant promotional article. Thanks for finding and nominating it. It was created back in 2012, and still, no one has been able to find or report it, lol. The article completely fails WP:GNG, WP:BLP, and WP:AUTHOR, with no sources found after searching. I think a speedy deletion under WP:G11 can be attempted before nominating it here. GrabUp - Talk13:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some person uploads a biography, looks like it was taken straight from a word processor and pasted here verbatim... I don't find any sourcing about a writer, there's a recent golfer with a similar name. doesn't appear to be this person. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete / Restore original: The original article was created by me for an author from early 1900s who had notable presence or influence in the Hindi literature (from my perspective). In recent edits, that article was overwritten for some new Akshay Chandra Sharma who I have no clue who is or why is notable. I suggest restoring to the original version. Vivek Rai (talk)
Who created it doesn't really matter here, of course, though it doesn't help. I'm a very, very weak keep on this one and hope that editors will find the sources to improve it--I looked but it's thin. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are quite a few sources for this person but from my quick overview it's not really helping their case for notability. I'll try to dig a little deeper and see if I can find something. They did publish a book which got me excited but it was self-published and the first review I found was from a newswire. Dr vulpes(Talk)04:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Her sole claim to notability so far is her film Supercilious, which was nominated for a notable award. The only coverage I can find of her in reliable sources is passing mentions of her name in connection with that film's nomination, and tame interviews (like the Sheen Magazine source cited), neither of which really pull her over the line for WP:NCREATIVE. My cleanup of the unsourced puffery was a bit of a battle with the paid creator, and though I did manage to find her inclusion in a list in Success magazine, as that WP article notes, it's not the magazine it was since its change of ownership in 2007. If other editors can find some decent coverage of her, I'll change to a "keep". Wikishovel (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the reviewing admin: User:Hamley24/sandbox is a mirror of the article before it was scrutinized for notability. It's full of puffery and doesn't qualify for CSD as far as I know, but should be deleted along with this article. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject biography has no source to proof the statement are true. The reference from 2 to 5 are all dead links. Subject fails WP:GNG except the ref one source is to be considered which is the only source that still doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Gabriel(……?)00:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first two sources are Wordpress blogs, the other three are dead links. A search online found no significant coverage, just some passing mentions. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside being a commissioner 95% of the biography statement can’t be verified. Wikipedia is not a platform for original research. You can check on WP:NOR. You are free to clear all statements with no source and we see what is left. Gabriel(……?)11:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay cool. Would have love to withdraw the nomination but I’m afraid an admin might revert the edit due to the above reason for the delete vote. I have seen where that happened before so what do you think? Gabriel(……?)16:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, don't worry, you can actually withdraw it, but it will not be closed as that, it would be closed appropriately. In other words, just forget about the nom, it doesn't need to be withdrawn because it makes no difference from the outcome. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article can be converted into stub as the profile is notable in terms of a C-tech level Google and Android personnel at a significant position. Chris.lee auth (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:NAUTHOR notability looks possible. I found two reviews [38][39] of the same work. There are Kirkus reviews, but they are in the pay-to-play "Kirkus Indie" program, and do not contribute towards notability. If NAUTHOR notability were found, then the article would need to be reworked to focus more on that. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding to comment explicitly that I don't think editor-in-chief of Southern Literary Review meets NPROF C8: it is neither a journal per se, nor well-established (founded in 2004). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No case for WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Most sources currently in article are very short or do not focus on Mendenhall.
Delete per above discussion. He’s not a full Dean nor a named professor; he’s an associate Dean. He’s not at a prestigious university. His legal career fails my standards for lawyers. 50 articles are nice, but there’s no evidence of impact, or citations. It’s evidence of churning, not scholarly research. Also, Why would anyone advertise his work for one of the most scandal ridden judges in recent American history? If this is kept, any middling Dean or school superintendent can can get an article here. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author of the article, so my voice doesn't count here, but since I was mentioned in the comments, I would like to share my thoughts. Firstly, Antsiferov is mentioned in several articles (for example, in relation to the State Duma elections and the case involving the Kremlin's attempt to sue him), both of which are quite high-profile and have been covered by many reputable media outlets. Secondly, he is the author of well-known textbooks in Russia, which are used by students at elite Russian universities (MGIMO, MSU). Madrugador88 (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In order for the textbooks to help towards Wikipedia:AUTHOR, they would need to be the subject of multiple independently published book reviews. For them to lead us to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), we'd need to see that they are being used by a large number of colleges and universities, with evidence for that (for example, if the publisher has put up a list of textbook adoptions). Qflib (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!20:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the sources are neither reliable nor independent. They are full of primary sources written by the subject or from unreliable blogs. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough here to show GNG. She's written a book that Martin van Beynen has called "bestselling". It created a lot of publicity, for example, John Campbell interviewed her for 10 min on Radio New Zealand. She gets keynote speaking slots and, whilst that's nothing unusual, it is unusual when Stuff reports on that. She's been invited to give a talk at TEDxChristchurch and it takes quite something to get invited to TEDx. The pieces by Kurt Bayer (NZHerald; based in Christchurch), Eleanor Black (Stuff), and Now to Love (which belongs to Are Media) go into plenty enough depth to fulfil the criteria of three independent reliable sources. And all those sources are in the article already. All up, that's an easy keep. Schwede6604:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Waikato Times piece is a promotional piece for the business awards. The Now to Love piece is just her interview with Women's Daily. The other Stuff piece is also a promotional piece.
There is a lot of media coverage but it is promotional/non-independent.
Refs 1-4 are Tarawa herself, they shouldn't be used in the article except in limited aboutself uses, let alone go to notability.
Ref 5, supplied piece from the festival she appeared at.
Ref 6, women's day interview
Ref 7 is about Cooper's conviction and just drops a promotion for her book in it... which is odd. Bit of coverage here but not much and it is still in relation to Gloriavale.
Ref 8 same coverage but more blatantly promotional this time
Refs 9 and 10 have the exact same wording as refs 7 and 8 which makes me believe this is some promotional thing sent out to papers, that or they just simply copied the Herald, either way the refs adds nothing to notability.
Ref 11 is a promotional piece.
Ref 12 is a promotional interview
Ref 13 is an interview
Ref 14 is another interview that involves promoting the book
Refs 15-16 are reprints of Herald refs mentioned earlier
Ref 17 uses same wording as the other promotional pieces
Ref 18 is a promotional interview
Ref 19 is a promotional interview from women's day and the same ref as 6.
Ref 20 isn't promotional or an interview but very brief coverage (3 lines) as part of her grandfather's death
Ref 21 is an interview
Ref 22 is from Tarawa herself
Ref 23 is a promotional piece for the Matamata business awards
Ref 24 is a broken url but it is a very brief interview
Refs 25-27 are interviews
Ref 28 is promotional
Ref 29 opinion piece and it provides little coverage anyhow
Ref 30 is brief coverage of the book
Ref 31 is dead but appears to be a blog from an unreliable source
Ref 32 is about someone else's death
Ref 33 is the exact same as ref 32.
Ref 34 is the same as 9, 9 is presumably a reprint of it. Contains the exact same sentences used in the other promotional pieces
Ref 35 is about Gloriavale but suddenly just drops in the same promotional content about Tarawa's book seen before.
Ref 36 is a radio interview, not even an RS.
Ref 37 is a podcast interview.
Ref 38 is a promotional piece for some event she was invited to
Ref 39 is another piece on Gloriavale that just suddenly includes the same promotional content as else where, it is really odd and I cannot see a reason for it other than being sponsored/paid for it
So yes, there is a lot of media coverage, but little of it is independent, most of it is from the same source, and plenty of it is promotional. The fact that two identical articles are used as a reference right after each other just looks like COI/Paid editing with refbombing so it looks notable. The user who wrote most of this article is now blocked for copyvios but from looking at his contributions I think he may have been a paid editor. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, or maybe easier, rescope (retitle) the article to represent coverage of her book. [On reflection, “delete” doesn’t accurately represent my opinion, and I am neutral. 23:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)] None of the sources appear to be doing any fact-checking, and are covering her story as though it were independent reporting, so functionally what they are covering is her story, and most closely her book. Ultimately, media coverage of her herself most resembles something like coverage WP:VICTIM, where as an individual she isn’t that notable, but for the fact that she was the centre of some event, and then wrote it all down and sold the story. Reading that guideline: Outside of her book, or her story, obviously there isn’t some higher-level event-centred article to incorporate her into, and so if we are to just keep the article as is (not an absolutely awful outcome, per my “weak” !vote), her testimony, which should have lead to an article about her own life and experiences, just becomes a page about her. Not optimal, given how much we have to rely on her as primary sourcing, but there is clearly secondary reporting on her talking about her story/book. — HTGS (talk)23:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google searches easily turn up hundreds of high-profile mentions. There are articles from Amnesty International, the UN, and various governments, and dozens of major newspapers that all mention him. Easily meets WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV criteria. For sects with that many media mentions, their founders and leaders would usually also be notable enough. There is also plenty of information about Hashem that would fit well into a standalone article. DjembeDrums (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. It was moved from draft space to article space before it was reviewed and made live by the creator of the page
2. It was moved to draft space by other editors due to promotional tone, it seemed as it was written by someone closely connected to the subject
3. It was proposed for deletion and the final decision was to keep. However, the keep voters: 1 was a new account created just for this debate only (seems like it and it was an open IP, one was an editor banned for sock-puppetry)
4. There is someone constantly removing a section that is a bit negative about the subject
All this makes me believe that this page is being managed by someone closely connected to the subject. Additionally, i don't believe the subject is notable and most of the references are PRs and he is constantly self-promoting on the internet.
WikiProCreate (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a celebrity plastic surgeon [40], [41], [42]. I'm not sure any of these show notability. Discussion in AfD last time was also questioning the Academic notability, noting that 1000 citations was rather low for his field. I don't see that much has changed since the last AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He's been investigated by a few regulatory bodies [43], which doesn't affect notability. This information has been added/removed, suggesting this page is being actively curated by editors, likely for promo purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 17 September 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, ✗plicit14:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]