Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Crystal personal.svg WikiProject Biography
General information (edit · changes)
Announcements
Departments
Work groups and subprojects
Things you can do (edit)


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.


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)

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

Directions for expanding any division below

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

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

  1. come help with the Bronwen Mantel article Smith Jones 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Lovelaughterlife (talk · contribs) Worked extensively on some biographies; reverted vandalism some others
  3. Francoisalex2 (talk · contribs)
  4. Dovebyrd (talk · contribs)
  5. Artventure22 (talk · contribs)
  6. Truth in Comedy (talk · contribs)
  7. Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs)
  8. Ozgod (talk · contribs)
  9. Eremeyv (talk · contribs)
  10. Susanlesch (talk · contribs), mostly inactive
  11. EraserGirl (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Shruti14 (talk · contribs) will help when I can
  13. 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.
  14. Jarhed (talk · contribs) 21:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  15. Mvzix (talk · contribs)
  16. Cassianto (talk · contribs)
  17. Iamthecheese44 (talk · contribs)
  18. Georgiasouthernlynn (talk · contribs)
  19. Fitindia (talk · contribs)
  20. BabbaQ (talk · contribs)
  21. Woodstop45 (talk · contribs)
  22. Willthacheerleader18 (talk · contribs)

General

Infoboxes

Requested articles

Actors

Architects

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Sanwal sharma

Illustrators

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Painters

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:
Painters

Photographers

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Sculptors

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:
Sculptors

Comics artists

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Visual arts deletions

Visual arts deletion sorting discussions

Visual arts

Amanda Burk

Amanda Burk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Amanda Burk" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

WP:BLP, written more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article, of an artist who has no strong claim of notability per WP:NARTIST and no reliable source coverage to support it; literally the strongest thing here is that she's an associate professor at a small university and the founder of a non-notable local gallery, and the referencing is stacked entirely onto primary sources with no evidence of any reliable source coverage in media shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations directory on which an artist automatically gets a Wikipedia article just because she exists; she must achieve something which specifically satisfies NARTIST, and she must have media coverage to support it, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete does not meet the notability requirements for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm a new female editor and I'm part of a project that is trying to create Wikipedia pages for female artists. I've added a couple of media articles, please give me more time to find stronger references for this page. Klkp123 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Klkp123, the deletion discussion usually takes seven days and can be extended if further discussion is needed. Make sure you can find quality, third-party sources (see WP:RS) and that the claim for notability is strong: emphasize any collections she is part of, any museum and international exhibitions, any in-depth writing on her work. Reviews are good for third-party references but to help with WP:ARTIST, essays in books, catalogues and so on would help satisfy criteria for inclusion (for both WP:ARTIST and WP:NOT). The article cannot be a cv or a mere list. Try to expand it with prose. I hope this helps. freshacconci (✉) 15:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
freshacconci, thank you for your advice. I will work on that this week. Klkp123 (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article appears to have changed quite a bit since the most recent "delete" vote. Any new opinions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 01:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Megumi Kubota

Megumi Kubota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Megumi Kubota" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
(Find sources: "久保田恵" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Only one main role as Ban Yamano, the protagonist, in the Iinazuma ElevenDanboru Senki (Little Battlers Experience) series. Is that enough to meet WP:ENT? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC) updated 23:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect - AngusWOOF By the way: either you or the article is wrong: Ban Yamato is not from Inazuma Eleven, he is apparently from Little Battlers Experience (the Inazuma Eleven appearance was apparently from some crossover special). I don't think that series is very popular, and I don't really see much coverage for Kubota, even in Japanese. She doesn't have any other major roles of note either. However, given that Little Battlers Experience is relatively recent, I don't see how Kubota isn't a possible search term, and as a such, a redirect shouldn't hurt. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 You're right. The Inazuma Eleven is a cross-over film with the LBX franchise. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm doubtful that this is a likely search term for anyone who wasn't already viewing the Little Battlers Experience article, and a check of the page view statistics confirms that there were minimal views prior to the launch of this AfD.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

Visual arts - Deletion Review

Performing arts

Comedians

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:
Comedians

Dancers

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:
Dancers

Directors

Musicians

Magicians

Writers and critics

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

Categories

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:
Writers

Comics writers

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Romance authors

Lists

Poets

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:
Poets

Stubs

Authors / Writers deletions

Authors / Writers deletion sorting discussions


Authors

Niamh Lyons

Niamh Lyons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Niamh Lyons" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Doesn't pass WP:JOURNALIST. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Mikel Gerle

Mikel Gerle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Mikel Gerle" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Advertorially tinged WP:BLP of a person notable only as a former holder of a Mr. Leather title. This is not a notability claim that guarantees an automatic presumption of notability just because the person exists -- of all the past International Mr. Leather titleholders since 1979, just two others actually have Wikipedia articles, and they both have other notability claims much more substantive than IML alone. And for sourcing, all we have here is one primary source and one Q&A interview on a podcast -- which means we have zero sources that actually count toward passage of WP:GNG. Also conflict of interest, as the creator's username matches the name of the subject's husband given in the article body. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete nominator covers the points. Legacypac (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ben Taub (journalist)

Ben Taub (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ben Taub (journalist)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not notable for his journalism or competition on The Voice. All sources are PR, unreliable, or written by Taub himself. Prod declined. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Seemingly a vanity article, listing anything for which he has a byline, all of which isn't substantial journalism and only proves that he's a freelancer or employee for the title. KaisaL (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails GNG as not notable. This is a Pseudo-biography of a freelance journalist. With over 3000 papers in the US, thousands worldwide, 7000 magazines (US) and 82 billion a year (US) in digital forms of media there is nothing unique or encyclopedic about this BLP. I do like his writing style but I am sure that is not a valid reason to keep. Otr500 (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: Notability not established in the article or by the sources. EdChem (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable yet. Let's see some awards or even substantive discussion by others of his body of work. Legacypac (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

George K. Mannickarottu

George K. Mannickarottu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "George K. Mannickarottu" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non notable writer/social leader. Fails WP:GNG and is probably a vanity page. Created by a single purpose account, which probably belongs to a family member as an earlier revision even had pictures and details of family members. All the awards are non-notable as well. All references are self published (and dead links). Searching provides for a book [1] which lists this author among many others, though it reads like a directory listing, with the author's address and phone number, among other things being mentioned. Jupitus Smart 12:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Reads like a resume, first reference is a "Error 404", fails simplest of WP standards for notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable author, none of which his achievements can attest any notability claims. Also article does read like a resume. Ajf773 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as there's no evidence that this person passes WP:NAUTHOR. Apart from brief mentions, I couldn't find any nontrivial coverage about this person, in English or in Malayalam. — Stringy Acid (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Peter Jalowiczor

Peter Jalowiczor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Peter Jalowiczor" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This individual was very briefly in the news for having been credited with the discovery of four exoplanets, but I don't believe this confers the necessary degree of notability. While the article appears well-sourced, many of the references are of questionable reliability, or totally unacceptable for use as citations (Amazon, Daily Mail). Only a handful of sources discuss the individual with any depth, and they're all substantially identical, focusing on the same misleading theme that it's somehow remarkable to have made these sorts of discoveries without the ownership of a telescope. Citizen scientists, particularly amateur astronomers, frequently make comparable discoveries from crowdsourced data, and are often listed as authors in the resulting papers as a courtesy. I've searched for additional coverage of his work, either in astronomy or otherwise, and have to conclude that he unfortunately fails to meet the GNG. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - well, we have WP:BLP1E (policy), which has three criteria that must be met for an article to be deleted, and while this article meets the first two, I think it probably fails the third one. We also have WP:1EVENT (guideline), which recommends having an article about the notable event rather than the person. Neither one strongly points to deletion here. My feeling is that these amateur astronomer discoveries will become more common, so this topic should probably be folded into an overall article about such discoveries made by amateur astronomers. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: I've added multiple references to supplement the Amazon citation which are more reliable. I'd also point out that those two are the only references you have problems with out of what is now 19 sources, and all of them corroborate each other, so I don't think references are a problem anymore. I'm also in the process of adding a section on another piece of research he did - please take a look and let me know if these changes help. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • While I appreciate your efforts and don't wish to denigrate your hard work, I think it's concerning in its own right that all of the sources corroborate each other so strongly – this means Jalowiczor is only known for one minor event, and there isn't much to say about him. Anachronist above suggests the subject escapes WP:BLP1E by virtue of his "one event" being substantial and well documented, and that's possible, but as it stands I disagree. Of your 19 references, very few appear to be reliable sources that discuss the subject or his contributions to astronomy. Inspiration for Life certainly wouldn't be considered a credible academic source; this RfC recently determined the Daily Mail to be unsuited for use as a source; I'm not sure about Sify News, but it doesn't inspire much confidence. References 7, 8, and 9 don't discuss the subject, but only mention him as an author of local history books about his community. Refs 12 and 13 are blogs, and certainly constitute WP:REFBOMBing. Very few of these sources – if any – rise to the level of credibility and depth that would satisfy the "well documented" criterion established in BLP1E, and to the best of my researching abilities, this story was never even picked up by any major, reputable news outlets. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • When you say that the sources "corroborate each other so strongly" and also link to WP:REFBOMB, I might point out that it's only REFBOMB if all of them say the exact same thing and are stacked up beyond a max (ish) of three at the end of sentences. That's not what's happening - the citations are distributed throughout the article because some add different details, though the main point - that he discovered four exoplanets - is indeed the same. However, this is true for just about any subject - articles about Benjamin Franklin will mention he was one of the Founding Fathers, that he did experiments with electricity, or what-have-you, but provide different details about those things (of course, Peter Jalowiczor clearly did less than Benjamin Franklin, but hopefully my point makes sense). In response to the general quality of the sources, I will work on improving those and finding better sources - I saw a CNN clip on YouTube that I haven't watched yet (so major news sources have reported on it). Finally, many researchers (professors/academics) are not reported on in mass media but are still notable as per Wikipedia standards. Jalowiczor has done research beyond just the four exoplanets, which I'm adding a section about (mentioned in my last response). To conclude, I'll do some more work on the sources and finish that section, and hopefully at that stage you'll agree we can keep the article. Thank you for your response! --Nerd1a4i (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Juliancolton: I have improved the sources and removed the ones you've objected too. I've also improved the article with respect to WP:Notability (academics) and added another section (the section on the delta effect) to show that his work isn't just related to exoplanets. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Lick–Carnegie Exoplanet Survey. Mr. Jalowiczor's achievements are laudable, but I am not satisfied that he has received the sort of in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources necessary to make him notable per WP:GNG. Moreover, it is not uncommon for amateur astronomers to discover astronomical objects. For example, the exotic white-dwarf pulsar AR Scorpii was initially discovered by an amateur astronomer who would later be a co-author on the discovery paper in Nature; in addition, you can see at List of minor planet discoverers that many of the people listed are amateurs. In fact, amateurs are frequently included as co-authors in major articles (as Mr. Jalowiczor has been), and on occasion, one will even be lead author of a paper in a major journal. The current article attempts to establish Mr. Jalowiczor's notability (in part) by the fact that he has been a co-author twice. Co-authorship is a ubiquitous practice in astronomy research, and being a co-author by itself does not confer notability -- especially on just two papers spaced by 18 years. Before finding him to be notable, I would need to see that reliable, secondary sources have discussed in appropriate detail how he has made some unique and significant contribution to amateur astronomy that distinguishes him from other amateurs who have engaged in research and/or received transient media coverage. Put another way, we want to ensure that he is truly notable, not that he has been in the news a few times. Redirecting the article will at least preserve the history, should Mr. Jalowiczor become notable at a future time. On a side note, I commend both Juliancolton and Nerd1a4i for their dispassionate and respectful discourse; I don't see it often in AfD discussions. Best, Astro4686 (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Astro4686:, thank you for your comments. In response to WP:GNG I believe that Mr. Jalowiczor does in fact meet those requirements. Piece by piece: significant coverage ("addresses the topic directly and in detail") is true of all but one of my sources (#5) - they all explain exactly what Jalowiczor did (some address the book he has written, others address his discovery of four exoplanets, others discuss his work with the delta effect, etc). In reliable sources ("editorial integrity") that are independent of the subject - I've cleaned up the sources since the AfD started, and I believe that all of my sources are third-party, with editorial oversight. For example, Amazon and Daily Mail are no longer listed as sources. I would point out that there were enough sources that I was able to remove the poorer sources while still having plenty. Finally, I understand this only makes it presumed to be notable, but it might also be worth looking at WP:Academics - the first item which leads to notability is "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" generally shown by being an author "of highly cited academic work". Examining Google Scholar, his two papers have collectively had 38 citations. He had influences upon a paper with 136 citations. I believe this constitutes, at least to some extent, notability under WP:Academics. This, added to his amateur status and his other work (he also wrote a book, for example, and was in the news for this) I believe combines to admitting a stand-alone article for him. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete and/or redirect per the above. While I do not deny that there is a fair amount of coverage, the time of that coverage spans no more than one month. This means that he falls under WP:1E, WP:BLP1E, and WP:PERSISTENCE as a relatively notable event but really just a guy's 15 minutes of fame. His books are relatively minor, with the mentions being local "community bulletin" type releases. To echo Astro4686, I appreciate the level of respect in the discourse happening, and I never like to see hard work be deleted, but at the moment I just don't see Jalowiczor as a notable individual. Primefac (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Jat Mehar Singh

Jat Mehar Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jat Mehar Singh" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Previously nominated for deletion by User:Onel5969 with the following reason Uncited article. Searches on News, books and Scholar returned a single hit to a single commercial website.

ProD removed now by the author Bishal Shrestha (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

P. Alberto Sanchez

P. Alberto Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "P. Alberto Sanchez" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Unnotable author and film director/producer who fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Both books listed at Amazon are, in fact, self-published. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Rehmat Aziz Chitrali

Rehmat Aziz Chitrali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Rehmat Aziz Chitrali" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Doesn't meet the notability criteria set out on. Contained unreliable and questionable sourced which have been removed since they cannot be used as citations. Blatant promotion written by a by socks of indefinitely blocked sock puppeteer Akbaralighazi. Saqib (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep There appears to be coverage in some news sources. Mar4d (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Have we decide to keep the bio, lets curate it as per reliable sources available on web. I have created the Draft:Rehmat Aziz Chitrali. The bio can be further expanded using this source which mentions that he have recieved many awards but I'm sure not sure if those awards not noteworthy enough ? --Saqib (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Cold stop. Those are not reliable sources.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that in the news sources that Mar4d has cited above that both The Dardistan Times and The Express Tribune are being controlled by the sockmaster and his meatpuppets and are COI fluff pieces themselves. This and this are written by blocked meats (check the authorship) and the Dardistan Times may now be sent to RSN as unreliable. Likewise, this piece was authored by a blocked meat and the article subject who supplied the photo. <== The Express Tribune is therefore unreliable and the listing for The International News doesn't have any attribution and looks suspect as unreliable. And the BBC source and two others in your list do not mention him at all. That list is a brilliant argument to Delete.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't consider the Express Tribune as unreliable source, though we can question the accuracy of reporting. The subject may have approached the journalists for press coverage. I didn't liked the fluff piece by Daily Pakistan which reads "He is a freelance contributor and pioneer of Khowar Wikipedia and writes in Khowar language articles for Wikimedia foundation." Seriously, is he pioneer of Wikipedia? Anyways Per BLP1E "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." --Saqib (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing WP:GNG and everything else. There's not a single reliable source, independent of the subject, providing in-depth coverage of the subject, let alone the multiple such reliable sources that would be required. I can add that before I cleaned/pruned it, it was the worst self-promotional puffery piece, bordering on hagiography, that I have ever seen here on en-WP... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for your critique on the sources, though I do not agree with your assessment that The Express Tribune is unreliable. ET is one of the two largest English dailies in Pakistan (the other being Dawn) and is a very prominent mainstream source. The subject is covered in detail in the following article also: Khowar language: Keys of preservation. Furthermore, a basic search of the subject's name in Urdu yields some of the following results: Deutsche Welle [2], UrduPoint [3], ARY News [4], Geo Urdu [5] [6], Chitral [7], News Tribe [8] etc. Just putting these forward per WP:SYSTEMICBIAS to avoid over-reliance on English sources. I do agree however that the article should be cleansed from anything self-promotional or hagiographic in tone. Mar4d (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    • The Express Tribune failed verification of sources on this article. Note the posted comment in 2014 where sources were requested..."Great work. Is there any source to verify the claims? No doubt it is a great piece of work but we live in a country where water-run car made to TV and print media. I failed to get an authentic verification of a reliable source. Someone?". I'm not judging them for all matters here on WP but for this they fail. Since the article cites The Dardistan Times then there is no reason to treat that as a RS. No comment on the others...yet.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
      • @Mar4d: I am surprised you citing "geourdu.com" , "timesofchitral.com", and "thenewstribe.com" as a source. I consider all of them as unreliable. By the way, "geourdu.com" and Geo TV are not related to each other. Also, I would never cite "urdupoint.com" as a source on BLP's. On a different note, I hope you are aware that recently the community has banned the usage of the Daily Mail as unreliable source. --Saqib (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi. As I clarified above, the links I added were extracted from a basic search as a starting point. I will need to take another look regarding the reliability of the Geo and News Tribe etc. links, as (at first glance) they just appear to be normal Urdu articles covering the subject. Also, I am pretty sure Daily Mail wasn't in the discussion. Actually, DM doesn't even have an Urdu version (unless I'm mistaken). Maybe you are confusing it with Deutsche Welle. Mar4d (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
My point of referring to the Daily Mail ban here is to indicate that we should be cautious about citing any other news website as a source, in particularly on BLP's. --Saqib (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- a promotional CV on a subject of unknown (likely limited) notability. WP:PROMO / WP:TNT outweighs any marginal notability the subject might have. Not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Antony Millen

Antony Millen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Antony Millen" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not notable writer Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Nicholas Ruiz III

Nicholas Ruiz III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Nicholas Ruiz III" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Article on failed political candidate fails NPOL. While there are limited RS they directly related to his past elections. No other notability. Has several self-published e-books. DarjeelingTea (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, but this as written is not building a credible case that he would get over our notability standards for any of his other work — all of that stuff is referenced entirely to primary sources, except for one irrelevant newspaper citation that's here only to support the birth and death dates of another tangentially-connected person while failing to even mention Ruiz at all. The reliable sources here are entirely in the context of his candidacy itself — but that's just routine local election coverage of the type that every candidate in any election could always show, and does not demonstrate that his candidacy meets the rarefied standard necessary to be considered more notable than the norm. Furthermore, the article was created by a user named "NRIII", meaning it's an WP:AUTOBIO — and even if he were notable enough for an article, the path to getting one does not pass through writing it himself. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Benjamin P. Hardy

Benjamin P. Hardy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Benjamin P. Hardy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Probably not yet notable: half the refs are to his own work, and most of the rest are by one particular Forbes "contributor", who is not a member of their staff, and therefore no more reliable than a blogger. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep for now. This is obviously a stub article that needs more work. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stubs, whether they "need more work" or not, are not automatically entitled to stick around; there actually has to be a credible notability claim in the first place, as well as at least some evidence that the depth and breadth of reliable source coverage needed to support it at least exists even if it isn't all in the article yet. But this meets neither of those requirements: the notability claim boils down to "he exists", with no evidence shown of anything that would make his existence more notable than the norm among people who do what he does, and the referencing is mainly to primary sources that cannot assist in showing notability — while the fewer sources that do assist in showing notability (Forbes) are not being used to support any actual substance, but are simply piled up as a reference bomb metasourcing the mundane statement that Forbes has written about him. But that's not how referencing shows notability either — the reference has to support a statement about the context that the coverage was given for, not just a statement that the reference exists. There's also a direct conflict of interest here, as the article is a clear WP:AUTOBIO by the subject himself — but even if he can be shown as notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, the path to getting one does not pass through writing it himself. At best this is a blow it up and start over situation; at worst it's WP:TOOSOON for a person who may clear our notability standards in the future once his book is published but does not yet pass them today. Bearcat (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Instead of a potential WP:PERMASTUB, I'd rather see it gone. If and when he becomes notable AND if someone other than himself does the writing, it will stand a better chance of survival. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Neither the article nor sources indicate any notability of the subject. Sources are mostly primary. As nom stated all the Forbes articles are written by a "Contributor" and article carries Forbes' standard disclaimer. Medium.com is pretty much a blog host and accepts just about anything someone wants to write about and being the number 1 writer on it certainly isn't notable. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. CBS527Talk 00:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Semih Çalışkan

Semih Çalışkan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Semih Çalışkan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Per WP:DEL8 non-notable Turkish author with one book; fails all points at WP:AUTHOR. Mathglot (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep This author is the subject of a good bit of independent coverage in reliable news outlets and is the author of a best-selling novel in Turkey. While the author's media coverage may not be in English, that doesn't matter with regards to establishing his obvious notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Harriet Baber

Harriet Baber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Harriet Baber" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:NACADEMIC. Unable to locate any secondary sources--written about her--to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:Too soon. I can find plenty of secondary sources on GS including one book with 353 cites, which is getting close to passing WP:Prof for a low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC).. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC).
@Xxanthippe: There's no doubt she is well published, as are many academics. Were you able to find any secondary source biographies about her? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
More than that: she is well cited (although in this case it may be marginal). See WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC).
No, the 353 cites are for a book by someone else (In Defense Of Affirmative Action by Barbara Bergmann). Baber's top cites are 31, 23, and 13. StAnselm (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Noted. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC).
  • Keep as WP:AUTHOR; multiple non-trivial reviews & decent library holdings. Sample reviews:
  • Review of The Multicultural Mystique: The Liberal Case against Diversity, by H. E. Baber (2008). By Swartz, Omar. Howard Journal of Communications, Jul 01, 2010; Vol. 21, No. 3, p. 315-318: The article reviews the book "The Multicultural Mystique: The Liberal Case Against Div... more
  • The Multicultural Mystique: The Liberal Case against Diversity.By GURSOZLU, FUAT. Teaching Philosophy, Sep 01, 2013; Vol. 36, No. 3, p. 300-303: The article reviews the book "The Multicultural Mystique: The Liberal Case Against Div... more
  • Review: The multicultural mystique. By Kelly, Paul. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, Sep 01, 2014; Vol. 35, No. 6, p. 622-624
  • The Multicultural Mystique: The Liberal Case against Diversity. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Oct 01, 2008; Vol. 28, No. 5: The article reviews the book "The Multicultural Mystique: The Liberal Case against Div... more. Etc.
K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: I may have missed it, but where in WP:AUTHOR does it discuss "multiple non-trivial reviews & decent library holdings"? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: I might have confused this with WP:OUTCOMES; pls see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Literature: "Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read." Also, AUTHOR does refer to reviews: "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject (...) of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. I also note that one of her papers was anthologised in Soble's Philosophy of Sex, that she edited a volume of The Monist on multiculturalism (funnily enough, the issue in our article on the journal) and has significant space devoted to her views on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on feminist moral psychology by Anita Superson. This suggests that there are at least three areas of philosophy (and I've not looked very hard) where she is an important name. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - passes WP:PROF #1 per Josh Milburn. StAnselm (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Peggy Clydesdale

Peggy Clydesdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Peggy Clydesdale" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Completing nomination per WP:AGF on behalf of Malbolgegloblam (talk · contribs), whose rationale (from this edit) was "Not a notable person. Made by the said individual (bedpan username). Half the citations don't work or are to their own pages." I have no real comment on the merits, except to note that the references do indeed appear to be lacking somewhat. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Danielle Pletka

Danielle Pletka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Danielle Pletka" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

WP:BLP, with some overtones of résumé, of a political consultant. This is not based on reliable source coverage about her, but rather cites one news article that glancingly namechecks her existence, one newspaper op-ed where she's the bylined author and not the subject, and one glancing namecheck of her existence in a blog entry. This is not the type of coverage of her that it takes to clear WP:GNG, and nothing claimed here is an automatic pass of any inclusion criterion in the absence of enough coverage of her to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete This looks more like a resume than an encyclopedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Johnpacklambert, the way an article "looks" is not a criteria for deletion. Please weigh in on whether or not she is notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
She is not notable. The references to her are passing, not substantial citations. For example, one sentence that mentions her in a much longer article on Jesse Helms. This is not the stuff notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added some sources to the article. Doing a Google News search or a HighBeam search shows that she is featured as a talking head on a lot of news shows, including NPR, FOX, CNN and other stations. However, because she's written a large number of articles (esp for Washington Post), trying to tease through her authored works and her appearances is going to take time. My quick take on her is that she is likely notable. I'd like to have more solid sources in the article before I !vote, though. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    • What we need is not articles by her, but articles about her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Ben Parris

Ben Parris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ben Parris" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Of the seven references currently provided in this article, the subject is not mentioned anywhere in references 1 or 2; #3 and #4 are both profiles rather than news articles; #5 is a link to a publisher's website; #6 is a primary source; and #7 is a personal blog without an editorial staff or oversight. There is lots of evidence that this person exists, but there does not appear to be enough evidence to substantiate a notability claim. Article was created by an SPA. KDS4444 (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I have to agree that there's limited evidence of notability. The main item would be the author's book, Wade of Aquitaine, except it was self-published 9 years ago, and despite claims of initially being highly ranked on the Kindle, only has 22 reviews at this date. If you take away the book, it's even harder to demonstrate Mr. Parris' notability. I'm putting a delete vote on the book article as well. Timtempleton (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a biography of Ben Parris, which can be found at this link--(one of the references): http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?Ben_Parris He is notable, not only for his novel, but he has won national awards. SFrancis1608 (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Narjis Afroz Zaidi

Narjis Afroz Zaidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Narjis Afroz Zaidi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Cited sources,except one, are not reliable enough to be used on Wikipedia. fails notability criteria. Saqib (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Mary Kavanagh

Mary Kavanagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Mary Kavanagh" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No claim of notability, no secondary sources, does not meet WP:BIO. Rogermx (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
14 libraries is not "many". Coolabahapple (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete can find adequate sourcing neither for Kavanagh nor for her book, this is usually the case for books about local history.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

James Joachim Hurtak

James Joachim Hurtak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "James Joachim Hurtak" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No indication of notability. Practically the entire content is based on Hurtak's own work. I haven't found anything better, at least not in remotely reliable sources (see here for the probably less reliable sources that cover Hurtak's less mainstream work which currently is not discussed in the article). Huon (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a single cite on GS, so no pass of WP:Prof. Maybe other people can find more. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC).
Due to life events, it's been years since I've worked on Wikipedia entries so please forgive any lack of proper formatting in this reply comment. I did reply on the "talk" page for this but want to mention here as well that I am currently researching. I see the valid points raised. Is it appropriate for me to take down the article while I work on it? --Nel4316 (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Article depends on primary sourcing, appears to be a non-notable WP:FRINGE theorist. Article creator Nel4316 asks to have it moved to userspace, but it was created 3 years ago. User:Nel4316 can you provide some sources that indicate that, given time, a reasonable article could be created?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Bush

Stephen Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Stephen Bush" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

The only sources cited are some articles he's written, his social media pages, and a press release saying he'd been hired. No reliable sources to back up why this person is notable. Werónika (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A fairly prominent political commentator - needs work but not deletion (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree 100%, the article needs "some" work but should be retained. (talk) Quetzal1964 15:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree 100% also: article thin in current state, but individual is notable. (talk) Da-rb 02:19, 04 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability should be demonstrated, not simply remarked upon.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the reasons given by the nominator. Wikipedia isn't a directory of magazine journalists. Admittedly Bush is featured in a few paragraphs of an article in The Guardian but, as far as coverage goes about him, I can't see anything else. Failes WP:GNG.
P.S. I'm wondering whether the 3 !votes above are by the same person, particularly the almost identical phrasing and formatting! Sionk (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Well I only voted once. Quetzal1964 14:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC) (talk)
Keep, ‎The work of Quetzal1964 this afternoon demonstrates that should Stephen Bush's article be deleted, it will probably need to be recreated in the not too distant future. Philip Cross (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Not sure how Quetzal's additions have improved anything. One source is from Bush's employer, The Spectator. The other is cited to Bush's own cookery article. Neither are independent. Sionk (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, Bush is employed by the New Statesman, a left of centre political weekly, The Spectator is a right of centre political magazine which I don't think he has worked for. Quetzal1964 19:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I stand corrected. But one line in a blog article doesn't change things greatly. Sionk (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm my own person. I think Philip Cross might have hit the nail on the head in saying it'll be recreated: while Wikipedia isn't a directory of magazine journalists, he's "special correspondant" for the New Statesman, the main left of centre weekly in the UK and seems to write circa 7-10 articles weekly for the online (link: http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/stephen_bush) and 1-2 articles for the press edition; hosts the podcast, and for a UK political journalist has a large-ish following on Twitter: in UK political journalism, he's relatively the same prominence in the UK as Helen Lewis (journalist) and is either going to go the way of Mehdi Hasan or Laurie Penny or fade into obscurity. He's not a WP:BIO1E type thing: just several very moderately notable ones in a niche area. Da-rb (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Which was a way of me saying Keep, by the way. Da-rb (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
That's what journalists do for their job, they write news/opinion articles. It's not a qualifying crieria for WP:GNG. There seem to be lots of soothsayers here, predicting this journalist is going to be notable in the future. But it clearly implies he isn't at the moment. Sionk (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, because Wikipedia is not a directory and the subject does not meet general notability guidelines. There is a difference between a journalist and say, Christopher Hitchens. --Rhombus (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep because he is notable, not in the same league as Mr Hitchens but still is reasonably well known in the UK as a political journalist who is likely to have a long career. In any case there are now enough independent sources cited to establish notability (BBC, The Guardian, Huffington Post, The Spectator) so does meet notability guidelines. Quetzal1964 14:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, despite sock puppetry claim to the contrary. Ifnord (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete may well merely be WP:TOOSOON, may even be true that there will soon be enough significant, non-primary sources to support an article. At present, there are not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep for the reasons above, and will probably throw in relevance of peers George Eaton and Helen Lewis as they're of equal status (or not so as this case may be); but would probably agree with E.M.Gregory for WP:TOOSOON being cited as a good reason, rather than straight up non-notable. Da-rb (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Also: naiveity on my part: as this is the first one of these I've been involved in. This as been relisted a few times now, and is probably under the wrong category now (Author related, rather than journalism related). When does this get decided upon? Da-rb (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Da-rb Editors are free, encouraged actually, to add appropriate categories. If you scroll up, you'll see that this is already listed under journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talkcontribs) 11:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Rahul Verma (social activist)

Rahul Verma (social activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Rahul Verma (social activist)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-Notable Person. Has not won any awards and most of the sources merely just mention his name. Uncletomwood (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep- His PILs had generated a storm of debates in India(As a resident of India I say this).The persons may not be notable himself but his actions certainly are notable as they have affected the Indian education system WIZRADICAL (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge into Uday Foundation, an article about his company - because that's what most of the references in his article are actually about. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep Winning awards should not be criteria of notability. Nobel laureate Kailash Satyarthi never won any padma award but straight away won Nobel peace price . I feel this page should not be deleted or merged with any other page. Some people prefer to speak though their work and you should recognise the same . He is also a writer with various published articles [1] [2] [3] Thanks Shibanihk (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toireporter/author-Rahul-Verma.cms
  2. ^ http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/author/rahulverma/
  3. ^ http://www.ndtv.com/author/rahul-verma
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep There are more articles which supports his work [1] [2][3][4] Some PILs or RTIs are either filed by the name of individuals or in name of non profit but lets accept that small grassroot organizations have very limited resource it is ultimately the work of founder only and also they do not get engaged in any paid news or self glorification.Shibanihk (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)You only get one !vote. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.thebetterindia.com/80335/uday-foundation-delhi-congenital-defects/
  2. ^ http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/our-names-may-not-be-khan/2/101119.html
  3. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/08/20/indian-drug-tests-under-investigation-after-4-babies-die.html
  4. ^ http://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai/condom-vending-machines-in-public-places-not-a-hit-in-city/story-UDUJ5bSllRF8gcLvxfLpUL.html
None of these articles are about him - they're about his foundation. A merge is the only appropriate course of action here. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


I hope you read it carefully, articles are about his contribution towards the foundation & selfless work for the society :- Ref 1: " Rahul decided to start the Uday Foundation in honour of his son to provide quality healthcare for the underprivileged, especially the children." "Rahul says that it is always tough trying to strike a balance in life, especially when one has a sick child at home, but says that the family of four (they have a daughter as well) is well up for the challenges. Once again, he comes back to empathy. “We must sensitise our society better. "

Ref 2: story of "his" son who was born with birth defects and inspired him to start this foundation"

Ref3: Rahul Verma, of the Uday Foundation for Congenital Defects and Rare Blood Groups, which exposed the AIIMS deaths after a request under freedom of information laws, said: “If you are rich in this country you go to a private doctor. You certainly don’t put your child up to be experimented on.”

Ref4: Rahul Verma, a Delhi-based activist and founder of non-governmental organisation Uday Foundation for Congenital Defects, had filed the RTI with National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO). Also please check these links about "his" article as writer [1][2] Shibanihk (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep Read this [3][4] and [5] Understand the depth of writing, and what he is doing. He deserves to be on Wikipedia. HelloDolly89 (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toireporter/author-Rahul-Verma.cms
  2. ^ http://www.ndtv.com/author/rahul-verma?site=classic
  3. ^ http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/voices/story-of-an-invisible-ews-student-you-see-every-day/
  4. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Maam-may-I-go-to-the-toilet-please/articleshow/46595768.cms
  5. ^ https://thelogicalindian.com/my-social-responsibility/my-story-junk-food-free-schools/
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep meets notability requirements. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no notability except with respect to the foundation. One article is sufficient. Two articles for relatively minor figures of this sort normally indicates an attempt to get as many articles as possible, otherwise known as promotionalism . We shuld not be encouraging it. There is a type of publication that does include accouts about people which are designed for emotional impact--tabloids, but we're NOT TABLOID. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 'Emotional impact tabloid??? Well, if it's time to disparage someone working on grass-root. I rest my case.. Shibanihk (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete already mentioned at Uday Foundation; no independent notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable per nom and DGG. Ifnord (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Gary Denniss

Gary Denniss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Gary Denniss" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

A local historian and teacher with no special claim to notability. The three refs provide no evidence of notability. They show he exists and has written some books about local history but no evidence of any notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   22:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)  Velella  Velella Talk   22:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)|pg=Gary Denniss}}

  • This article's subject has sufficient nobility for the following reasons:

1. Lieutenant Governor's Ontario Heritage Award for Lifetime Achievement, presented by Lt. Gov. David C. Onley, Feb. 21, 2013. 2. Author of 39 books on the history of Muskoka. Katsheron (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep, at this time: I am going to look at this from a very narrow point of view, concerning WP:policies and guidelines, that include using historical books and considering Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), Wikipedia:Geographic imbalance, and Wikipedia:Notability (geography), that will add to regional and state prominence, so giving notability to the author. Historical books are important to society, and we can't have a national history without the foundation of local history. 38 books, especially if not self-published, is more than trivial historical prominence, and if we don't consider this important we might as well get rid of all local places such as lighthouses or town historical interests. Because a reference is not "listed" does not mean it does not exist. Regional coverage is acceptable as notability and one book on Texas Rangers would be regional as well as state significance. I have found evidence that some of the books are listed at several libraries, not just in one county, so I am inclined to lean towards regional and state notability. The author wrote an encyclopedia of history that expands coverage to more than just a single town or even county before he died. Note: Angelina Co. historian and author Bob Bowman dies at 77 With such regional and state notability an author with 38 historical books would be notable for Wikipedia inclusion. I do plan to look at the article, as well as sources, for article expansion as well as linking to other relevant articles. Otr500 (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 00:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:PROF, and WP:NAUTHOR. Any argument otherwise is based in folly. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject passes WP:NAUTHOR on items 1, 3 and 4, and passes WP:GNG in ref's and reviews. Katsheron (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • At best weak keep, probably delete. If he were not so prolific I would certainly say Delete. Most local historians are NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Janis Spindel

Janis Spindel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Janis Spindel" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No reliable or significant coverage. Written like an advert to promote a business.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bytemanpacifist (talkcontribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:BIO and WP:PROMO. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Though I consider the subject matter frivolous, and the article needs an NPOV cleanup, she has received in-depth coverage for a number of years in the media as a "premier" matchmaker. [9] (forbes staff, not contributor), [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • keep this WP:PROMO. Edit it for POV and hype. I say this reluctantly, since even a quick gNews search reveals that she peddles "clairvoyant premonition(s)" [20]. Thing is: sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thomas London (author)

Thomas London (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Thomas London (author)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This is an author who appears to have produced only self-published works. Admittedly one of those works has received notable attention, and he produced a film that premiered at a notable indie film event, but I am not seeing WP:NAUTHOR criteria being met. Still WP:TOOSOON. Because notability is not inherited, a notable book does not automatically confer notability on its author. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep: I have removed the IMDB reference and added valid references to this page [1] which show that the film referenced screened at more than one festival (Arpa). The film also appears to show at Valley film festival [2], and at Cannes film festival [3]. The creation of multiple notable works should make this author notable Victory1996 (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Victory1996 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

  1. ^ http://www.arpafilmfestival.com/short-film-rain-thomas-london-2016-arpa-iff/
  2. ^ http://www.valleyfilmfest.com/valleyfilmfest/app/films/2091/;jsessionid=9129E53F44E5679C6229553826E0C938
  3. ^ http://sub.festival-cannes.fr/SfcCatalogue/MovieDetail/35b4d793-9021-4499-a813-9f4d5761a936
You don't seem to understand the deletion rationale above. The fact that his short film has been merely screened anywhere does not make him notable. Exactly what part of WP:NAUTHOR does this person meet? Exactly where is the significant coverage of this person (not one or two of his works) in reliable independent sources? ~Anachronist (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Varun Agarwal

Varun Agarwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Varun Agarwal" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No grounds asserted for notability meeting WP:BIO. Agarwal's article looks like an advertisement & promotion page of the person and his brands, who has done lots of PR online and not received any significant awards/recognition - WP:Notability. Seems a good PR person from India rather than entrepreneur and not notable. Vinay089 (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Strong Keep Significant media coverage from mainstream media houses, clearly makes him pass WP:notability guidelines,GNG.

ATTENTION: I just checked the history of user User:Vinay089, who merely have any positive contribution to Wikipedia. This account seems to be sock, and created solely with purpose of deleting notable articles. (The account Vinay089 is under sockpupet investigation, Here) He nominates the article for deletion even without informing the creator of page (He doesn't leave notification on talk page). The user merely aware about Wikipedia's policy. One more important thing which should be consider, he nominates the article and copy paste same reason in every in each and every AFD. You may check the list of article he nominated and the given reason.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
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 keep. The only delete comments were before StAnselm's and E.M. Gregory's improvements and despite two relistings, there were no more sound delete !votes (only such !vote seems to have misread the references). SoWhy 20:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

James R Payton Jr.

James R Payton Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "James R Payton Jr." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No secondary sources, seems to fail WP:PROF Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails GNG. South Nashua (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete a history professor who does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. A GS h-index of 5 is not enough for WP:Prof#C1, even for theology. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC).
  • Weak keep: His book won a Word Guild prize in 2014,[21] though this is not mentioned in the article. Is that enough for WP:ANYBIO #1? It appears to be the Canadian equivalent of the Gold Medallion Book Award, and that has been enough to establish notability in the past (e.g. Bodie and Brock Thoene). StAnselm (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • keep -- InterVarsity is an important Evangelical Christian Press, one that does not publish rubbish. If this were being presented before any books were published, I would probably be voting to delete. Evangelicals tend to ignore the Early Fathers, so that a book from that viewpoint on one of them is itself important. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • weak keep I was able to improve the page slightly with material found in a scholarly review of one of his books. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 08:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete None of the first references work and the last one is a book written by Payton himself. --Rogerx2 (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I have now added the reference I mentioned above. StAnselm (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
And no, the last one is not written by him - it's an independent review of a book he wrote. StAnselm (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The books are widely held, including by non-religious university libraries.[22] I take that to indicate he may be an influential scholar in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs) 02:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
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.

Ashk Dahlén

Ashk Dahlén (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ashk Dahlén" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashk Dahlén, a recent CSD-Repost was declined. Still fails to provide sufficient sources to establish notability under any applicable criteria for BLPs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. Only 45 cites on GS will not pass WP:Prof. Normally one would look for about 1000 cites, give or take quite a bit depending on field of scholarship, but however much one takes it would not get down to 45. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC).
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, Dahlén's book Islamic law, epistemology and modernity (2003, 2014 rev. ed.) held by around 200 libraries, would expect some reviews, haven't found any online, on the other hand, his book Deciphering the meaning of revealed law : the Surūshian paradigm in Shi'i epistemology (2001) based on his thesis/dissertation held by around 50 libraries does have reviews: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society pp257-259, International Journal of Middle East Studies pp333-334, Islamic Law and Society pp 144-147. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, Dahlén's Modern persisk grammatik (Modern Persian grammar) is used as required reading for students of Persian at Swedish universities. He has also been awarded a scholarship by the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities. /FredrikT (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 15:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Pretty convincing arguments on multiple PROF points, and there do seem to be come non-scholarly sources available too, (for example [23], [24], [25]) although there isn't a whole lot in the English language, but that isn't really surprising. TimothyJosephWood 17:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep looks like a pass of PROF to me based on the above sourcing. Lack of English-language availability doesn't really affect the core question. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only around 50 total GS citations. WorldCat says his Islamic Law book is held by 265 institutions, but his other books are almost all single digits (1 is mid double digits). For the record, it doesn't make any difference if one of his books is required reading at some particular school and we don't take websites as convincing evidence of notability. He clearly does not pass any of the PROF guidelines at the moment, but might in the future. Agricola44 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC).

K. Sean Harris

K. Sean Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "K. Sean Harris" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I found nothing to show notability of this author. SL93 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Good reads is a user generated source and thus not a reliable one, other than that we have nothing. Plus the article is overly promotional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Josephine McCarthy

Josephine McCarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Josephine McCarthy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

References provided lack independence from the subject. No evidence of substantive discussion in reliable independent verifiable sources. KDS4444 (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (natter) 17:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (discourse) 17:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (inform) 17:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
A google search of "quareia" shows the community takes this concept and McCarthy seriously. Obviously references could be improved, but deletion seems harsh. I say Keep. Roseohioresident (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Quareia, fine. But this isn't a deletion discussion about quareia. The question is, is this person independently notable?? The "references" given here include a link to her Amazon offerings, her personal website, her husband's website, and a quareia website, none of which has independence from the subject (she is one of the admins of the quareia site). An assertion that references "must exist" is one of the things to be avoided in a deletion discussion. KDS4444 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
[Note for reviewing editors: this Josephine McCarthy is not the one from the previous deletion discussion, nor is she the daytime television cooking show host from the 1950s, nor the Josephine McCarthy Waggoner of the Lakota Sioux, nor the one who shot and killed a man on a streetcar in New York in the 1870s, nor the one who filed bankruptcy in Virginia in 2004.] KDS4444 (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 00:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete no sources show that she is indepdently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - blatantly promoting a non-notable person. Already speedied it once. Deb (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Jon Smith

Jon Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jon Smith" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This author has published a couple of books that seem to have enough coverage to have their own Wikipedia articles, but the subject doesn't appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR criteria for inclusion.

Note: Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jana Morgan. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete agree subject does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG Boneymau (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep added additional 2017 references to show subject continues to create notable works - a 'best feature film' nomination at an international film festival and regular written article contributions to a leading trade magazine Sanseng (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Note to closing admin: Sanseng (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
    You're missing the point. Exactly what criteria of WP:NAUTHOR does this author meet? Contributing to trade magazines and having a film nominated in a non-notable film festival isn't helping here. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep This article had 2,858 pageviews in the last year, so clearly there is significant interest in this subject.92.21.249.2 (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)92.21.249.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    An article having pageviews isn't a valid reason for keep. I'm sure there are lots of pageviews for all kinds of non-notable or inappropriate topics, but that doesn't mean the author is notable. We need sources, of the kind that Sanseng has added, to demonstrate notability. ♠PMC(talk) 03:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    A source from IMDB and a primary source about an obscure film festival talking about itself, which Sanseng added, don't demonstrate notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

“Cousin Vinny” Agnello

“Cousin Vinny” Agnello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "“Cousin Vinny” Agnello" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Sources are YouTube videos and Amazon. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, and can't find any other notability criteria that automatically makes them notable. Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to Louis Anthony Agnello and get rid of the "Cousin Vinny" part in the title. If we're going to pick one of his many monikers, I'm personally leaning towards "The Stripper King of New York" (lol!). Seems more famous with the press as an oddball and public figure, and in that regard passes WP:GNG. [26] [27] [28] [29]. Yvarta (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
How do we merge to a non-existent article? Or was there a now-deleted article there? Colapeninsula (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Agnello is a published author with a major agency whatever his background may be. His bookcover carries "Cousin Vinnie" as the authors name and anyone searching for him from the book would be looking for that, not 'the Stripper King' no matter how appealing that might be to some. Cited 'copyright' infringements have been removed, links have been added and we'd like this project to move forward. Any reasonable changes needed will be made but Let us see a list of said violations please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panamamac (talkcontribs) 14:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Out of an idle sense of curiosity, who is the we to which you refer? ♠PMC(talk) 06:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing the discussion about this man's journey from lurid stripper to published author. This truly American tale is far from over, and his fans have been asking him, on his recent book tour much of which was picked up by the faith oriented media and well received, why he had no Wiki page.
As we said before if it is matter of content or formatting, adjustments can be made. His 2nd book 'the Vengeance of the Manager is currently available on Amazon with another in work. Interest in the movie rights for Devil's Glove has been shown as well.
  • Why does this have a quote about "Savannah Morning News entertainment writer Linda Sickler’s profile piece" and not use that profile piece for a source? Hyperbolick (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 23:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep He has sufficient press coverage to be notable (including major Florida press and some national publications), and although it's a weak and stubby article right now, issues about promotional content and article titling can be handled. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- nothing encyclopedically relevant here; a promotional / fan page. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Tools

Main tool page: toolserver.org
  • 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=770584231"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Arts_and_entertainment
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA