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

Casa Cuba

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

fails WP:GNG. gnews refers to "Casa cuba" in a different context not this gallery. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep This a Cuban cultural initiative in Malaysia. It is similar to Canada house in London, but a lot less notable and famous. I did find several decent refs and added them. The organization is real, the refs and notability are real but not extremely strong. I am not sure how it hurts Wikipedia to keep the article. It might actually provide a minimal service to readers. If kept it should be renamed to Casa Cuba (Malacca) or (Malaysia) as there are other Casa Cubas (e.g. I saw refs for one in Tampa).198.58.162.200 (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ofer Mizrahi

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

Promotional article not adhering to WP:NPOV. The businesses started by the subject have reached notability (sourced in article), but role of artist himself is not clear and it is hard to assess his notability. Ariadacapo (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • keepWeak Delete. Clearly notable after BEFORE, while filtering out other ofer mizrahies (very common Israeli name). He is the main driving force, public face and operator of the companies he founded. Plenty of coverage and some awards. The article itself is indeed poorly written, is an advert, and doesn't even mention clear negatives such as a chapter 11.Icewhiz (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)changed:Icewhiz (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I can trim the promotional and non-neutral content from the article, but I know nothing about the topic. If I clean up and someone (you?) gives the article some balance, maybe we can keep it? Ariadacapo (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Seeing that searching for dirt on his chapter-11 - leads only to this (in google news) - [1] with no coverage on how he emerged from this - I've changed my mind - if he was notable, this episode should've received much more coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Should have been speedily deleted as WP:G11. There is nothing in the article that can be kept if the promotional content is removed. Yes, it's a bit odd that the Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection isn't mentioned, but not surprising, since this is an advert. Since when do we refer to people as 'real estate visonary'? Yuck. Mduvekot (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this is the most blatantly promotional article I have seen on Wikipedia. I literally felt like vomiting when I read it. Once the promotional garbage about the floor-covering business is removed, nothing is left, so speedy delete. No notability whatsoever. How did this end up here?198.58.162.200 (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Update I took a chainsaw to the promotional garbage that this article was built on. What's left is very unconvincing as to notability. A few refs with passing mentions.198.58.162.200 (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. No real evidence of notability. Hell, even that portrait is obviously promotional. --Calton | Talk 15:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Allen (artist)

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

Fails WP:NARTIST. A search for substantial independent sources found nothing, unlike the footballer with the same name. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep While the article needs a puffery trim, it only took me a few seconds to find this long quote in the reflist, from the Guardian. This is half off the text that talks about him in The Guardian: "And what of Tommy Angel, stage magician, illusionist and burning-bible thumping "gospel magician"? Like François's deluded soapbox man, he wants us to believe in what can't be proved. Angel is in fact the invention of artist Jonathan Allen, who has cast himself in the role of gospel evangelist, with his sparkly suit and too-perfect smile. His persuasive powers are those of the stage illusionist, with his seamless patter, his boxes of tricks, his smoke and mirrors and misdirections. When I met Allen, briefly, last week, he was negotiating the hire of a live lion for a new act, in which he wished to replicate the story of St Jerome."
I then did a proper search and turned up a significant mention in Cabinet Magazine, a small review in PhotoVideo magazine, a Google Books mention in Art21, mentions in this book on blaphemy in art, and his inclusion in this show at Mass Moca.
From the above I think he satisfies the basic WP:GNG requirement for distributed sources. The Guardian especially is convincing. Any show at Mass Moca is a significant show, given the institution, so from that I take that he also satisfies WP:ARTIST.198.58.162.200 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

CdeCuba Art Magazine

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

Non notable, PROMO listing. L3X1 (distant write) 02:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Entirely designed to drive traffic to site. scope_creep (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distant write) 03:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Bernardo Guillermo

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

This seems to be about a rather obscure person who is distantly related to the Dutch royal family by means of his mother. Of course he might get a mention or two in the odd press article because of this but other than that, he seems to lack substantial coverage and appears to be like any other private individual with a relatively well-known parent. Re5x (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete too outlying a member of a royal family to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – I've added two additional sources. – Editør (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep – I don't think "too outlying" is a good argument for deletion. There are multiple reports about him in Dutch main stream media. The article should not be deleted, unless there is a convincing argument that these reports don't establish notability. – Editør (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as both of the recently added sources are very short and don't qualify as "significant coverage" (sadly) and notability is not intherited.104.163.140.193 (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as per talk's defense. If this isn't notable then a purge of many (many) European royals would be in order. --NoGhost (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
He is not even royalty... Only related and I guess a great deal many would be if they looked far back enough. --Re5x (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, insufficient sources for notability, only gossip-level coverage.  Sandstein  22:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 March 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

Bonnie J Leonard

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

Searches turned up virtually zero about this author, whether using the middle initial, not using the middle initial, or using her pen name of BJ. Onel5969 TT me 02:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Sagar Pradhan

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

I came across this as an A7, but Pradhan just barely squeaks by A7 standards because the article mentions some awards. I did try searching under his name, but couldn't bring anything for him, not even using the India WP's search engine. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Absolutely no evidence of notability. His website mentions that he has received some awards from some organizations, but doesn't mention the name of those awards or why he received them. His Google Scholar profiles lists some publications, none of which seem to be his own (Sagar Pradhan is not an uncommon name in India, and Google Scholar has attached the publications of his namesakes to his profile). Also, from the username of the creator of the article, this looks like a WP:AUTOBIO. — Stringy Acid (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Per previous comments. Fails WP:GNG. His awards are a scholarship and an alleged internal company award. Google scholar mentions somebody else. It would also appear that the majority of edits are made by the subject of the article, a violation per WP:COI and using multiple IP's (from work and home), which is considered abuse per WP:SOCK. Here he is adding himself to the March 1st page. Should have been speedily deleted when it was first tagged, but he removed the tag (the IP geolocates to Bhubaneswar, Odisha). Page should be salted as it was previously deleted on 16 January 2015. David.moreno72 11:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: The criteria for A7 is pretty low overall. My thought with taking this to AfD rather than fudging things a little is that if it goes through AfD then that's pretty much it for the article barring anything exceedingly major coming up in the future. It's more of a solid delete than A7 would be by itself. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 12:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Basically, when it comes to A7 they have far more leeway to recreate an article than they do with AfD. After it's deleted at AfD that's pretty much it. Salting from A7 tends to usually happen more when there are 2-4 attempts to create an article in a very short amount of time, to prevent the same person (or group of people) from being disruptive. When the page was deleted in 2015 it didn't have any mention of the awards, which was the only reason I'd declined the speedy and taken it to AfD. It was a weak assertion, but enough to where they might have been able to contest the speedy if it went to DRV. Basically, A7 only handles cases where there's nothing there that could hint at possible coverage out there. The award mention was vague and I definitely don't think that any of them would give notability on Wikipedia, but you can pass A7 on pretty weak assertions. I figured that since there were two new accounts that signed up, there was a higher possibility that they would argue to get the article restored, making an AfD probably inevitable and making the process go longer. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 12:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete Author fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

A. Scott Britton

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

He may be worthy of note for his academic work, but I don't see that he meets the notability guidelines. None of the sources given in the article is an independent reliable source with substantial coverage. As for WP:NACADEMIC, three of his dictionaries have two or three citations each at Google Scholar, though in the case of one of them, all three citations were by one person; and I don't see any indication that he meets any of the other criteria for academics. Largoplazo (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of in-depth sources needed for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC).
  • Delete The books the subject has authored/translated don't seem to be notable enough. No evidence that this article meets WP:GNG. — Stringy Acid (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Subject's books are, indeed, notable, particularly the two titles that are firsts in the field—The Zapotec dictionary, and the translation title. With regards to the information from the original nominator for deletion, it should be reiterated that the subject's works have been the subject of scholarly reference in numerous instances. Further, the subject is a verifiable professional member of the PEN American Center, a prestigious literary organization with strict merit-based membership protocols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.97.135 (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC) 108.51.97.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Clarification: You aren't reiterating what I said. I said I found few citations. Largoplazo (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Response: Point taken, though, you're quite right, I wasn't reiterating what you said, but emphasizing the existence of the citations. And, our individual opinions as to what constitutes a few must be what all opinions are, subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.97.135 (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Regarding PEN America membership: "PEN welcomes to its membership all literary writers and those belonging to the larger literary community. Writers should have one book published; playwrights and screenwriters: one work produced in a professional setting; others should have achieved recognition in the literary field. Nominations are not necessary. While admission is at the discretion of the Membership Committee, PEN aims for inclusion, recognizing that a growing and vibrant membership strengthens and informs all of its efforts on behalf of writers and their readers."[2] Even if all opinions are subjective, this is substantially less stringent that what "strict membership protocols" connotes to me. The standards today are only slightly looser than they were before June 2011: "Prior to a unanimous vote by PEN’s Board of Trustees on June 15, most authors were required to have published two books to join PEN. PEN’s by-laws have now been amended to allow writers to apply for membership after the publication of their first book. Playwrights and screenwriters may join after producing one work in a professional setting." Largoplazo (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Luther Ragsdale

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

A claim of notability here but imo just another pushy nudbnik. Motivational speakers indeed. Ther motivate me to AfD their biogs or leave the room sharpis TheLongTone (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: I couldn't find any significant coverage. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Anwar Shahjahan

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

Subject does not appear to meet our notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Subodh Markandeya

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

Non Notable run of the mill advocate Uncletomwood (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep There's a lot of puffery and irrelevancies which are enough to obscure actual claims to notability. This includes involvement in some major human rights cases before the Supreme Court of India, backed up by references in WP:RS. That seems notable under the WP:GNG and likewise fits under Bearian's Attorney notability essay.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep but trim down. Thanks for the note, Eggishorn. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I should be the one thanking you for that essay. It is a valuable resource. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Welcome. I trimmed it some. Bearian (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable subject with lots of citations to support this notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 05:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

John Lefebvre

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a musician and entrepreneur, with no strong evidence of notability and no strong reliable sourcing -- except for a single news article from a wire service, this is otherwise parked entirely on primary sources like the subject's own blog, his own Twitter and his staff profile on the website of an organization he was on the board of. This is not the type of sourcing that it takes to make someone notable -- there's enough content here to deem him notable if he could be properly sourced over WP:GNG for it, but there's exactly nothing here that entitles him to an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Needs to be re-written - with a focus on Neteller, the gambling case, and the 100 million dollar forfeiture (the music? environment? Sure, can mention - but secondary). This was a major case involving circumvention, via online methods, of gambling laws in the US - and has garnered interest way after it was closed (the case itself - 2007), for instance this book - [3] in 2014 - a whole 480 on Neteller & Lefebvre. Lefebvre clearly meets notability/notoriety (also for the post-Netteller stuff) - the article itself needs to be better sourced and written - as is it conceals the notoriety with quite a bit of fluff.Icewhiz (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - also I wouldn't list him as a musician (assuming the two releases didn't hit the charts). I'd mention he dabbled in music (and released whatever) - but not list him as a musician.Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Ribarovski

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

Not a notable author. Google finds only 13 hits for his name, and 4 for the book with his surname. No source for claim being an "approved source" and none found on google. noq (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete writer whose book does not seem to have gotten enough notice to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Tarvo Merkällinen

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kleuske (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Agree, finding no sources to substantiate GNG.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - not one of the provided sources are RS.198.58.162.200 (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Has no WP:RS to substantiate any claim to notability....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Muhammad Helal Uddin

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

Fails WP:GNG no indepth independent coverage, relies on the same press release. Theroadislong (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Concur with nom's analysis. The cited sources are not independent of each other. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Factiva, HighBeam, JSTOR, LexisNexis, Newsbank, and ProQuest found no other material. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Kerry William Purcell

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a writer, with some advertorial overtones and citing no reliable source coverage about his writing at all -- until I cleaned it up just now for WP:ELNO compliance, the "referencing" here consisted entirely of embedded offsite links to his own website, his own Tumblr and/or amazon.com. As always, a writer is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because his own self-published web presence or an online bookstore verifies that he exists; he must be the subject of reliable source coverage in media, which verifies that he passes WP:AUTHOR for something, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Glenn Llopis

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

A person purporting to be connected with the subject of this article, JimmyDonuts, made a GF attempt to edit and update it to bring it into compliance with BLP. He disclosed his COI at the Teahouse and, there, also indicated that if we couldn't get it up to a level of BLP acceptability, he - and the subject - would be keen to see it deleted. While the subject has been copiously quoted in WP:RS, coverage of the subject is - literally - just quotes. None of the biographical information contained in the BLP can be sourced to RS. If we remove unsourced or improperly sourced material we will be left with a BLP that simply acknowledges the individual is a living human who has been quoted in a number of media outlets and works as a motivational speaker. I feel like this is a person who probably will, in the near future, merit an article but at the present time the coverage doesn't meet the standard of substantial to pass GNG and we have a total lack of RS that would allow inclusion of even the basic information customary to a biography. I would suggest this be deleted with no prejudice for its future recreation. DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Note - For ease of processing this AfD I've gone ahead and removed the aforementiond unsourced (and one instance of improperly sourced) content from the article. DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Kalle Oskari Mattila

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

Appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, there are not significant sources to establish WP:GNG. There is nothing in HIghBeam, seven articles in news, and seven in the google custom search, which overlaps the news sources. –CaroleHenson (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- an overly promotional page on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Theepachelvan Pratheepan

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

The article failed to prove the WP:BIO. References are given for sake of procedure, but fail to WP:VER ~AntanO4task (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Edward J. Steele

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

This article appears to be drawn almost entirely from primary sources associated with the subject. Its tone is promotional, and overall it reads like a PR biography. Taken at face value, this is the biography of someone who has singlehandedly overturned the theory of evolution and restored Lamarckian inheritance to the scientific mainstream. Anyone familiar with the subject knows this is not the case. Guy (Help!) 07:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep GS h-index of 29 passes WP:Prof#C1 in highly cited field. Article needs to be cut by 90% to remove peacockery. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC).
  • Delete. Here's an excellent example where h-index is not particularly relevant because of incestuous citations. If you actually look at the citations, you will see that they are to essentially a WP:Walled garden. WP:PROF is not supposed to be a suicide pact. Since basically there is not a lot of independent evaluation done of this WP:FRINGE proposal and there isn't much else going for this person's biographical notability, I say delete. jps (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I can't see a walled garden in his citations. Looking at the cites to his top cited (202) paper I find no self-citations in the first 20 cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC).
I think you are not looking at his papers here but rather a book. I am of the opinion that book citations are generally not particularly useful as a means to gauge interest in how accepted a particular POV is since they reach non-academic audiences. I would argue that the citations to his books are rather, um, fringe-y themselves. jps (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
of 2146 only 191 [5] are for his book.
  • Weak keep Some does not mean none there has been independent evaluation done of this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Would you care to offer an example? jps (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I was quoting you. You said "Since basically there is not a lot of independent evaluation done of this " I am taking you at your word.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, I like to leave open the opportunities for others to show enough WP:FRIND-complaint sources that would change my mind. Simply positing that they exist and then offering bupkis is not my idea of a good faith discussion. jps (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
So why then not wright "I have seen nothing but am willing to be convinced" rather then implying you have seen some sources? So are you saying you have seen no analysis of this mans work in RS? Are you saying that I should in fact not take you at your word?Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Is this whinging really necessary? I mean, you now know what I mean, so what's the point of complaining about my wrighting(sic) style? jps (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
No I do not know what you mean, Have you or have you not seen RS that analyses his work. It really is a simple yes or no answer.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. If kept, the article should be stubbed and all fringe apologetics removed. It is tempting to say that the resulting article would be so different from the current one that TNT could be invoked to support a detection outcome. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Guy and others. As I've noted before, I can't think of a single case where an entire body of scientific research has been shown to be fundamentally wrong by someone who lacks expertise in that field. This is classic WP:UNDUE. I suppose a case can be made for stubbing, with removal of all the nonsense, but unless better NPOV secondary sources can be produced, my preference would be outright deletion. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 18:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:I DON'T LIKE IT is no reason to delete material. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC).
  • Keep per Xxanthippe and others. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • comment Well now I have found RS discussing his work I no longer feel a weak keep.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, his claims are pure malarkey and the article needs rewriting. But he seems to have a following of sorts in the pseudoscience sphere and it's probably worth having a few words about how his claims are not widely accepted. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC).
Maybe we need to cover his other work and not concentrate on a single book or theory.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep As Xxanthippe said, the article subject has a GS h-index of 29 which passes WP:Prof#C1 in highly cited field. Plus with all the present citations in the article it passes WP:GNG. The promo stuff needs to go, like around 70 to 80%. Antonioatrylia (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Some sources

american scientist [6] The Quarterly Review of Biology [7] New Scientist, Volume 162 Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Bowler, Peter J. (1989). The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society

more [8]Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

And for his work and impact out side Lamikins.

His dismissal, [9], [10], [11], [12]

This should be enough.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve, still too much promotional stuff, but as others point out it passes WP:PROF and WP:GNG. @DoctorJoeE I am pretty sure that WP:UNDUE is only a valid justification for removal of material from an article, not deletion of an article. InsertCleverPhraseHere 19:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • WP:UNDUE specifically says, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
      • The policy you quoted only concerns how an article describes its topic, not what topics can have articles. Otherwise, Wikipedia would never have an article like HIV/AIDS denialism, which concerns what is obviously the viewpoint of a small minority. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Joseph Pippen

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

self-published, no independent coverage Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC(talk) 01:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Coy Bowles

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

Should be a redirect to the band. But redirect keeps getting reverted. Not enough in-depth sourcing about the individual musician to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 TT me 21:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  • Gwinnett Daily Post
  • The Plain Dealer
  • People magazine
  • Indianapolis Star
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do the sources found by Northamerica1000 convey notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Francis Brabazon

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

    Not notable, badly refed like this deleted page [13] SaintAviator lets talk 03:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. SaintAviator lets talk 23:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • delete fails WP:AUTHOR. writing a lot of non notable books doesn't add to notability. no major awards for himself or his books. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Keep. Adding to the above book (reviewed in Journal for the Academic Study of Religion, Vol 18, No 1 (2005)[15]) (probobly started life as a phd thesis [16]). ABC's Radio National broadcast a show about him [17]. National Library of Australia has a "book" of Biographical cuttings on Francis Brabazon, containing one or more cuttings from newspapers or journals [18]. State Library Victoria has similar [19]. There is another book about him, The water carrier : a mosaic of the poet, Francis Brabazon by Robert Rouse [20]. AustLit shows 3 works about him and 10 about his work [21]. Includes Francis Brabazon : A New Measure in Modern Australian Poetry Ross Keating , 1996 criticism — Appears in: Religion, Literature and the Arts : Conference Proceedings [1996]; (p. 185-193). Other articles appear in publications such as Australien zwischen Europa und Asien, 1993, The Bulletin, 1964, Australian Book Review, 1963, Quadrant, 1958, Meanjin, 1957 and 1958, The Sydney Morning Herald, 1957 and Walkabout, 1954. Also an article in Sydney Studies in Religion [22]. Enough coverage for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment Robert Rouse was a Baba follower. [23] His book was self published by funds from Bill Le Page, by deesh Books, now gone as a publisher. Le Pages page was deleted last week. He is also a Baba follower [24] as is Ross Keating who is Le pages son in law [25]. Look for this, 'Jenny ( married Ross Keating )' here [26] All Brabazons books are published by Baba Followers i.e Meher Baba Foundation Australia, Sheriar Press, Beacon Hill Publishing. Also note, there are No references in this article, none whatsoever. The reading list are all Baba followers. The Phd the above poster mentions early in the first 2 links is none other than Ross Keating. Who also does the Radio show in the next link. So all of these three supporting points are one man, Keating, pushing his self published book. The next point the newspaper cuttings includes Brabazons obituary. Hardly notable, Ancestry.com is packed with that info about just about everyone from that time. The next point was Rouse, covered above. The last supporting point by the above poster is our main man, Keating, again, who else. These supporting points are almost all Ross Keating. Duffbeerforme, did you not see that? SaintAviator lets talk 20:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    "These supporting points are almost all Ross Keating." Well the ones you addressed are. How about the others that you skipped. They form the majority of sources. Australien zwischen Europa und Asien, 1993, The Bulletin, 1964, Australian Book Review, 1963, Quadrant, 1958, Meanjin, 1957 and 1958, The Sydney Morning Herald, 1957 and Walkabout, 1954. No by Keating.
    ABC source is published by ABC, a major reputable publisher.
    Yes the Bill Le Page page was bad and should have been deleted but this one is not about him.
    "The next point the newspaper cuttings includes Brabazons obituary." Does it? What else does it contain? Obits are common but the NLA does not collect all obits in a "book" dedicated to random individuals. They are not indiscriminate.
    Keatings books self published? Could be, does not seem to be a regular publisher. Big point against it. In it's favour, Keating is not just a random follower, he is "is a senior lecturer in the School of Education at the Australian Catholic University." and the book has been independently reviewed. Might not be independent enough for GNG but Brabazon passes without it.
    "Also note, there are No references in this article, none whatsoever." At the moment no, but over the years it has had. But more important sources exist and are verifiable. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    A comment on content. I say he passes gng on the strength of those sources from AustLit. Those sources are mostly reviews of his books of poetry. They are not about his devotion to Baba The relative weight given to what is covered needs to reflect the sourcing. Outside of Baba devotion sources there is reviews of his poetry so Wikipedia should reflect that poetry. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    The others I skipped were not linked / refed. They dont count. Sadly Im not going to run around finding your links. Keating is self published. Re no refs, Wikipedia protocol is clear, not refs, delete. Hes not notable enough. Any refs that exist to provide the meat of the article are devotional self published. It looks like the picture is dodgy too, [27] SaintAviator lets talk 21:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    Have a read of WP:OFFLINE. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 08:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Weak delete. It does seem that the subject has been promoted by some people with family (?) COI, but their motivations don't matter that much. Regardless her reasons, Ross Keating managed to publish several academic works about the subject. That said, the sources are few, and kind of stretched. The point to keep in mind is that not all poets are notable, and this bio does seem to fail WP:CREATIVE. No awards, no coverage except one (?) dedicated fan-scholar or so. I am afraid he is not an encyclopedic material, not until more scholars, journalists or such become interested in him and publish a bit more about him. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
      • User:Piotrus. You state that beyond Keating there is no coverage. What about the reviews of Brabazons work that were published in Australien zwischen Europa und Asien, 1993, The Bulletin, 1964, Australian Book Review, 1963, Quadrant, 1958, Meanjin, 1957 and 1958, The Sydney Morning Herald, 1957 and Walkabout, 1954. None of those are by Keating. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Piotrus:. They were found on AustLit. If logged in you get a Biography here and a list of Works About Their Works here. This bapge has the works titles, Author, brief not on what it is and where it appears (with Publication, Date, volume details, pages).
    eg. Untitled Charles Higham , 1957 review
    — Appears in: The Sydney Morning Herald , 26 January 1957; (p. 12)
    — Review of The Hexagon Hal Porter 1956 selected work poetry ; Seven Stars to Morning Francis Brabazon 1956 selected work poetry
    I don't know how much should be copied from AustLit given that is a subscription service.
    Contents are mostly reviews of his books, Proletarians-Transition * 2, The East-West Gathering * 2, Cantos of Wandering * 2, Seven Stars to Morning * 2. Others are more general "criticism".
    Also could you consider the Biographical cuttings on him available in at least two major libraries. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
            • @Duffbeerforme: Since unfortunately I cannot log in, I cannot express my opinion on those sources beyond "they are promising". Regarding reproduction, well, I stand by "knowledge should be free", and add that I have seen on a number of occasion people providing screenshots of otherwise locked content here (of course, we cannot upload them to wiki servers, but there's a ton of free hosts out there). If you have qualms about that, that's fine, but being able to show such screenshots could strengthen the keep side's argument significantly. Seeing is believing, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Checking Poet lists Hes not listed as a famous Australian poet here [28] or here [29] or here [30]. Quite an extensive list. SaintAviator lets talk 03:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not notable. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • For those that want to ignore offline sourcing perhaps have a look at Rumi - Past and Present, East and West, by Franklin D. Lewis (Oneworld Publications) [31] and Meanjin, Volume 17, Issue 72 [32] [33] (1958, see above. "Cantos of Wandering is one of the most curious books of pseudo-poetry ever published in Australia.") and another Meanjin [34]. And what may convince everyone of notability, the New Oxford Book of Australian Verse from Oxford University Press includes him [35]. (other minor snippetts [36] [37] [38]). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Reply The link above for the 'New Oxford Book of Australian Verse' lists his name on this article being discussed for deletion. A self fulfilling loop. A Google search of the title 'Rumi - Past and Present, East and West' plus Brabazon gets 444,000 hits with no Brabazon mentioned. So he has never been discussed online in relation to this book. Cantos of wandering was published by Beacon Hill Press owned by Ross Keatings father in law, Bill Le Page. So self published. Your points in support are going round in circles, revolving around the Keating / Le Page axis of fan boy self publishing. His real notability is association with Meher Baba. The question is, is that enough? And the Elephant in the room is his article has No references, none at all. Why are we even discussing this? SaintAviator lets talk 21:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    Your underhanded attempts to ignore or downplay provided evidence is getting worse.
    "The link above for the 'New Oxford Book of Australian Verse' lists his name on this article being discussed for deletion. A self fulfilling loop." Nope, just another red herring from you. The link above [39] has nothing to do with Wikipedia. That book was published in 1986, well before Wikipedia started.
    You claim to have run a google search and got "no Brabazon mentioned". (You looked through all 44,000 claimed hits did you?) Let's see what a real search gets.
    Let's try as you write it above. 'Rumi - Past and Present, East and West' Brabazon [40] gets 7,300 results, the 3rd one (google books) includes Brabazon. 7 of the first 10 do but some are false hits due to the lack of quote marks.
    Let's try with quote marks "Rumi - Past and Present, East and West" Brabazon [41] gets 7 results, the first one (google books) clearly includes Brabazon.
    But why even try a google search? I've already provided the relevant link.
    "So he has never been discussed online in relation to this book." How is that relevent? Another red herring from you. He was discussed in the book.
    Cantos of Wandering "self published." How is that relevent? Another red herring from you. Self published books can get reviewed too.
    None of the points I just made above revolve around Keating or Le Page so just another red herring from you.
    "His real notability is association with Meher Baba." Says who? Another red herring from you. His real notability is from reviews and critisisms of his work.
    "And the Elephant in the room is his article has No references, none at all." Another red herring from you. This afd is about the notability of Brabazon, not about the current state of the article. Why does it have no "references" at the moment? here it has 23 listed (but many are repeats). Someone must of removed them. Are the sources available, clearly yes and thats the relevant thing. Are there any sources in the article, yes, the publications and further reading are all sources even if they don't help with notability.
    "Why are we even discussing this?" Because you choose not to listen.
    Your strawman is looking very feeble. And you are still ignoring the offline sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

    This is the Elephant Im talking about. [42] Offline sources are OK BTW, I have used them too, but as stated above they need to be presented here properly, if you do it would trump the Google issue SaintAviator lets talk 21:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

    And now I've added a reference to the article so your imaginary elephant has left the room. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    You're starting to be uncivil, here, 'Your underhanded attempts' and directly above, dont. SaintAviator lets talk 21:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    If you don't like that picture, how about this one (he is bottom right)? duffbeerforme (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    Its not a matter of like its about copyright. Again youre taking it to the personal. The editor who posted that picture was contacted about a copyright query and since then has commented above with a 'Delete' re the article. BTW as it happens I dont like that new picture. SaintAviator lets talk 21:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Sidney Nolan: A Life [43] has a little bit more. More snippetts in Modern Love: The Lives of John and Sunday Reed [44] duffbeerforme (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    Snippett. def. A bit, scrap, or morsel. Its four deletes to one keep. Hes just not notable enough. I put him on this page [45] where there are 4 other Meher Baba affiliated pages you, Duffbeerforme, nominated for deletion, which I support BTW. Brabazon was a dedicated Meher Baba follower. SaintAviator lets talk 23:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

    K Himaanshu Shuklaa

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

    All the references are passing mentions without any in-depth coverage. Also, fails to meet WP:BLP1E. Page creator objected to the PROD so I am nominating for AFD for discussion to reach a consensus about the notability of this person. Malunrenta (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

    • I have come across many articles here on Publicists. However, i am trying to improve the article more with reliable sources. K Himaanshu Shuklaa is a famous publicist in Bollywood. (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Delete - Can only find fleeting mentions of his actions. Needs substantial coverage, from reliable, Independent sources, not based on press releases or anything issued by him, his company, friends or clients.
      The current refs are:- 1) showed his client a photo, 2) organized a photoshoot, 3) issued a tweet, 4) tweeted a link to his blog - the sort of non-noteworthy things publicists do every day. - Arjayay (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

    Manohar Shetty

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

    May not meet the notability guidelines TJH2018talk 17:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

    • Strong keep. Manohar Shetty is absolutely notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Normally with non-Western poets the issue is finding reliable citations in English proving their notability. That is not an issue with Shetty. For example, he has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Post-Colonial Literatures in English along with being covered in The English Language Poetry of South Asians, A History of Indian Poetry in English, and many other books. I added some of these citations to the article but there are still many more to be added. We don't delete articles on notable subjects simply because the article still needs work or lacks citations which can be easily found.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Am editing it. Please give some time. #100WikiDays fredericknoronha (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Keep - I don't doubt a certain notability of the writer, the article does not appear to be self-promotion, the article is near decent a state, and is being actively worked on. It may perhaps be best to tag it as necessary (for specific issues it has) and leave more time. PaleoNeonate (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

    Shehzad Ghias Shaikh

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

    After cleaning up and removing unreliable references, I found there is nothing in the cited references that could make the subject notable enough to warrant an entry on Wikipedia. The subject recived some press coverage and most of the cited references merely quote him. The subject clearly fail to meet Wikipedia's bio criteria so I nominate it for deletion. Note: the article itself was created and expanded by the subject himself. Saqib (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

    References

    • The Express Tribune
    • Reuters
    • The Express tribune
    • Hindustan Times
    • News18
    • Pakistan Today
    Almost all sources merely quote his name. --Saqib (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Do the sources found establish notability?
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Delete I can see that this person is a comedian who tells jokes and that some of them have landed him temporary media attention. However, there is no evidence in this article so far which would make him appear notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, the article does not pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 19:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Hi @Wiki-Coffee: Regarding "...landed him temporary media attention", note the dates I have added to the sources below, denoting how the subject has received ongoing coverage, rather than "temporary" coverage.
    Regarding "...no evidence in this article so far", see WP:NEXIST; notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Articles do not pass or not pass notability guidelines, subjects and topics do. North America1000 22:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

    References

    • The Express TribuneJune 16, 2015
    • ReutersAugust 21, 2015
    • The Express tribuneDecember 27, 2015
    • Hindustan TimesMarch 31, 2016
    • News18September 27, 2016
    • Pakistan TodaySeptember 29, 2016

    References

    • @Northamerica1000: Wow your name to ping is a type-full. Of course, the existence of sources can substantiate the existence of a person. News sources are great for finding out what people do and do not do because they make money from printing about it. The assertion that simply because you are mentioned or written about externally from Wikipedia means that this on its own creates notability is something I do not agree with. The key elements to this article seem to be statements of two things. Firstly that the subject of the article is a comedian in Pakistan. Secondly that the comedian has received media coverage. Neither of those two components in of themselves appear to establish notability. Summarily, the articles core information to the reader attests that this is a man who is a comedian and has media coverage. Neither being a comedian or receiving news coverage seems to demonstrate notability of a living person in my mind. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 22:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The presence of media coverage about subjects is a long-term, widespread norm on Wikipedia to establish notability. If you don't agree with notability guidelines, it comes across that you're basing notability on subjective, personal criteria. North America1000 22:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Northamerica1000: I dispute your assertion that Wikipedia's guidelines and or policies stipulate that the notability of a living person can be determined solely on news coverage. One would first have to ascertain the credibility and objectivity of the news sources themselves. Moreover, you would have to move to assess the WP:NPOV of news coverage, which is very rarely the N part of POV. Summarily, basing the notion of notability for a living person on News coverage is not only dangerous but is factually erroneous. This gives control to News outlets so that they may establish a persons notability merely on the basis of writing about that person rather than having a burden of proof on them to credibly establish notability. In my opinion, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Not News. Merely being referenced by news agencies does not solely establish notability, it establishes coverage. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 22:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, better delete Louis C.K. then, right? Just look at all those news articles used as references in the article! North America1000 01:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Northamerica1000:
    Comparison of claims for notability between two articles
    Louis C.K. Shehzad Ghias Shaikh
    Is a comedian Is a comedian
    Has written for famous and notable comedians Has news coverage which validates he is a comedian
    Starred and written notable works
    Won notable awards
    Ranked in the top 50 best stand up comedians

    ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 10:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

    • Comment, as a comedian Shaikh's 'works' are his jokes, if these have been discussed/analysed by the newspaper articles then he is notable under WP:CREATIVE ie. "3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Coolabahapple (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 16:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Only three editors have expressed an opinion either way, so far. Let's hear from more people!
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

    Hermann Bellinghausen

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

    Only reference to this WP:BLP is a NYT article that gives only a passing mention of the subject, a mention which shows no notability. Thus, fails WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

    K. V. Gautam

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

    Fails WP:GNG: no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to support notability. WP:REFFLOOD does not confer notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Keep there is plenty of coverage in secondary reliable sources-- perhaps not as significant as one would like, but there is a lot of coverage in many sources. The page is a bit of a nauseating advertisement, but that does not cancel out the fact that he is mentioned and covered in a non-routine manner in moree than a dozen sources. He was also the subject of a film.104.163.140.193 (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    Yes! A lot of covrage reagrding Bigg Boss 10 and author of 2 non-notable books fails WP:AUTHOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 21:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

    Erika Grey

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

    The bulk of the references are actually just author bios on various websites. The publisher "pedante press" appears to only publish Grey's book making them self-published and not inherently notable. Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment: called a "Bible-prophecy expert" by the New Yorker. StAnselm (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Keep per prophecy expertise noted in reliable sources.[46][47] StAnselm (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Sources: Here is the Courier Times of Roxboro, North Carolina (dunno where Grey lives and if this is local or not,) covering a new book of here [48]. Note that it is published by "PeDante Press", which appears as though it may be self-published, at least, all books listed on Amazon.com as published by PeDante are by Erika Grey [49], and "Pedante Press" doesn't google well [50].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Grey's 2013 book The Empire: Bible Prophecy and the European Union is published by a vanity press, Next Century Publishing. My gNews search [51] found no mentions of this book. Nor do I find books under he name by searching the catalogue of a major library.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Odd, E.M.Gregory (talk) - I clicked your link, and I found her book mentioned. Maybe click it again? Click the "The+Empire%3A+Bible+Prophecy+and+the+European+Union""&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 All results link. Try that: it shows Grey's book. OK, I can't get the 'All results' link to work: try this. Click your link: gNews search [52] and then click the 'All results' link at the bottom: that shows her book (whereas 1st glance did not).96.59.153.17 (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The link in my comment above is a gNews search. It "found no mentions of this book" in any secondary sources. It did produce 1 hit, to an online bookseller. 96.59.153.17, what is needed are WP:RS that discuss & describe the book. things like book reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm not an expert in this gNews search of which you speak, but here, let me tell you what I did. I clicked the little "7" link above, and got one "hit," but below it, there was a blue-clickable-link that said "All results for "The Empire: Bible Prophecy and the ... »," and I clicked it. I got both Barnes & Noble and also Kobo and also some book-seller in a foreign language and also something ending in "dot UK and also "The+Empire:+Bible+Prophecy+and+the+European+Union""&source=bl&ots=nSFRvHUfVg&sig=qKr09yJQcyHJOKZw4pNxWHzwEyo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDwpm5_8nSAhWEeSYKHcJYAMgQ6AEIPTAG#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Empire%3A%20Bible%20Prophecy%20and%20the%20European%20Union%22%22&f=false a Google books hit and also some alternative website, maybe hers?? and even a page off her official namesake website, as well as something in Ireland here, and also one of our mirrors, plus also a big headache! Then, if I click the blue-link below that which says: "repeat the search with the omitted results included," I get like "About 335 results (0.59 seconds)," And a bigger headache! Let's see you write a book that gets so many hits! OK, let's do an experiment: HERE is a book by a friend, ok? Now, if you put "Blind Chance or Intelligent Design?: Empirical Methodologies and the Bible" (the title to that) into http://News.Google.com, like you did, you get NO hits! So, Grey must be notable after all. We all should be jealous and bust our butt so our books can get notability!96.59.153.17 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • delete Despite the recent Trump-related coverage mentioned above, I am not seeing notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    • delete per EM Gregory BobLaRouche (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 18:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Keep This author has been on Coast to Coast AM, at this profile, has authored many books on Amazon.com, and has been cited by The Christian Post in this article. I did not see it, but another editor mentions that she is cited in this article in the New Yorker. (I'm jealous that I'm not as notable!) In all honesty, somewhat borderline, but she definitely makes the grade as notable enough to have an entry and not get deleted, by a small, but definite margin: she has made her mark on the world, and our obligation is to report (not make up, and not out-of-hand "delete") the news. Erika Grey is newsworthy, and thus noteworthy of an entry into an Encyclopedia on the subject on Bible prophecy as it relates to the world's geopolitical developments.96.59.153.17 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)— [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • With all due respect, E.M.Gregory (talk), I take issue with that! My IP address changes, and I will give you but one example: this diff in the Bohemian Grove article showed my IP address 96.point.something (actually 96.59.138.30, not the 96.59.153.17 which I got by the luck of the draw, today), but not this exact IP address each time, so, no, I'm not a "one purpose" editor or a WP:SPA single-purpose account as you Wikipedians call it!!96.59.153.17 (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Addendum I noticed this news item in a paper covering "Roxboro" and "Person." Another editor wondered if this was a local paper: For what it's worth, Grey appears to be living in Connecticut, according to her Twitter account (and her own website, which at this link speaks of a Connecticut doctor who was her doctor), which is nowhere near Roxboro,_North_Carolina (a City in North Carolina) and Person_County,_North_Carolina (a County in North Carolina). Perhaps, the other editor was wondering if she only got news coverage from local papers? Apparently, she's 'big time', and the Courier Times from far-off NC felt she was newsworthy. (I'm really jealous now!!) "Keep."96.59.153.17 (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Comments Page views are spiking upwards (probably due to the Coast to Coast appearance), along with a cool graph of views. And here is an unofficial VfD (Votes for Deletion) vote-counter and here is misc. page information. (These are cool links we can use for any page, not just this one.) Time to take notes and bookmark pages.96.59.153.17 (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Delete: I don't see any notability criteria giving a pass to people with books sold on Amazon (half the frigging world can say that much), to those who've been guests on CoastToCoastAM, or who've been namedropped in NN publications. Where's the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as the GNG requires? What part of WP:AUTHOR does she fulfill? I don't see it. Nha Trang Allons! 21:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    • reply OK, about the Amazon thing, heck, yeah I agree: Even I have a book on Amazon. No big deal, if that's all it were, but the author is notable for many more things, and so it is the weight of cumulative evidence. In her field, she's noteworthy.96.59.153.17 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    • She's also mentioned at this radio program and at this other one here. She gets around. When you can get on C2C-AM, and get on all these shows, you can speak from experience. Me and you, we just dream of stuff like that. Addendum: This blog, and this online paper and this book website, and even this page at Right Wing Watch. 96.59.153.17 (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    Calling the New Yorker an "NN publication" seems a bit over the top. StAnselm (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    I would agree, StAnselm (talk), but calling ALL of these in sum-total to be 'no name' publications is even worse: Sure, some are less worthy news sources than others, but the "lesser" news sources do nothing but ADD to the cake. The cake is there, and if there are some so-called 'no name publications,' they are merely icing on the cake: The cake is quite solid.96.59.153.17 (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Sources' User:StAnselm, I did find that first source in one of my searches, CanaryCryRacio [[53]] Is self-describes as a podcast, a sort of audio blog. It didn't look like a meaningful secondary source. Was I wrong?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The billmartinezlive.com/ show [billmartinezlive.com/] hosted by Bill Martinez interviewed her. He's got 5,000 followers on twitter and 5,000 on Facebook. Is this enough?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't know what defense St. Anselm might give, but I will point out that after having cleaned up the article (and, as I said, above, no, I'm not a WP:SPA: I edit elsewhere, but my IP changes]]), the case for notability or newsworthiness has increased by about one order of magnitude. You can see the article page, and judge for yourself: I may not be perfect, but my edits are all made in WP:Good Faith, and, on balance, apparently helpful & accepted by others, but take a look: This one is worth saving.96.59.153.17 (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Keep A number of others have discovered numerous credible secondary sources citing the woman. I imagine more could be found, but that would require Googling and get me a headache. I'll leave it to the experts to find any more sources, if needed.47.192.27.215 (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)47.192.27.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC) (UTC).
    • Comment I just now noticed this: http://www.erikagrey.com/p/events-radio-tv-conferences.html her personal page lists her appearences, and while I can't verify the absolute accuracy of them, the few about which I know, on this list, are correct: She is one VERY BUSY person, and is like "Savoir-Faire," she is "everywhere!". This, of course, does not (all by itself) warrant or justify an Encyclopedia entry, but it sure doesn't hurt. Also, I would add that while she is probably only in some "professional organization" directories or "religious" encylopedias (and hinted by her copious & ubiquitous presence on their online counterparts), her possible absence in a "regular" encyclopedia (say: Brittanica as but one example) is not necessary fatal to her entry here: Times are a changing, and so we must change with them: An online encyclopedia e.g., Wikipedia is (or should be) more inclusive than one you might find in your local public library. So, based on these factors, she seems appropriate here (even if, I admit, not as 'notable' as, say, Dr. Billy Graham).(Google lookup on phrase above and related video - funny!. My 0.02 worth.96.59.160.94 (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment -- There are about as many interpreters of Biblical eschatology as commentators. If PeDante Press really publishes nothing but her work, it is self-published (or effectively so), in which case the article should be treated as a mere ADVERT and deleted. Her two books on beating addiction are both published in the same year, which also does not inspire confidence. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    • OK, you raise some good points. I did not know about this aspect of her publishing, but I did a little research and find that NOVEL RANK lists only one book as having been published by them: "The Seat of the Antichrist." However, AMAZON at this link shows a bunch of books, all by her as an author, but every single book in this list has a co-author other than Grey: "by Erika Grey and Lawrence D Palmer" are the authors for one book and "Erika Grey and Lia Frederick" for the rest. The very fact that Amazon lists more then NovelRank suggests to me that these rankers are not exactly comprehensive. (But I would not imagine much would get past Amazon.com. Her authorship, if it were the only thing, might be suspect if she was self-published and didn't sell a lot. But many others think she is an expert, so the book issue is icing on the cake, and not the cake itself. Now, http://www.erikagrey.com/p/events-radio-tv-conferences.html lists her schedule. As I said before, I can not vouch for the accuracy of her list, but in several cases, I did some checking, and all the entries I checked were actual cases where she was a guest. The fact that she is a guest on a regular basis (and not as a "one-time" thing), indicates that many others objectively consider her some sort of expert. Myself, as smart as I am, still, by contrast, I'm very lucky to get ONE letter to the editor, or in rare occasion, a guest column, published. And, I have never been a guest on any program, at least in recent memory. I am lucky to call in, and this is in spite of my brilliance, the fact I've written a book, and also accomplished some very impressive things in the legal field, which was not the degree with which I graduated from college. (It was in other than law; I studied hard biosciences.) So, you see, unless you can put together such a solid record of being cited in tap-ranked journals, or put on numerous shows on a regular basis, then I would not stand on equal ground: whether her views are correct or not is not actionable (tho she does seem mostly accurate, at the least). That many others, objectively, think so, when she makes the TV, talk show, or radio show tour on a regular basis [54], and/or gets cited by credible reliable sources is a valid metric. That she has also books is merely additional, not substantive. (But, ten or so books is still impressive; and I would faint under such a heavy TV talk/radio show, and schedule for conferences, unless I devoted myself singly to that: The sheer volume of her TV/radio/conference appearances indicates that she is no small-potatoes expert, in the objective eyes of numerous news media/conferences/etc. So I scanned a few of her appearances, as I said earlier, and verified as accurate at least those few I checked: I might be stronger, faster, and smarter than Grey in a head-to-head battle, but in her specialty, she is much better than me. Here is evidence (even if not proof) of her notability on this head: others (who invite her HERE on a regular basis think so). This implies notability.96.59.183.125 (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)96.59.183.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC) (UTC).
    • KEEPI have been one of the early contributors of this article and I believe numerous other people accept her as notable as she is regularly invited on radio talk shows and is listed in a key Evangelical Christian directory in her genre.32.208.50.163 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)32.208.50.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC).E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment: While there is disagreement here, I would point out two things: First, notability is inherent in the WP:RS, not our views of them or the subject of the article. Secondly, a good number of comments, on both sides of the issue, have been discussed on this discussion page (and elsewhere, when you include the talk page, Talk:Erika_Grey, individual talk pages, and even in edit comments. One overlooked point was the lack of comparability between a "physical" encyclopedia, with its inherent limitations on space, and an electronic, or online, encyclopedia. I won't reinvent the wheel, but rather refer to the already-robust discussion above, as required reading material for anyone before they aspire to vote. Also, I do find it odd that nothing has been done, even though it has been slightly over a week since the last or most-recent relisting on the 15th.96.59.177.243 (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)96.59.177.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC) (UTC).
    • With all due respect, User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric, that is not entirely correct: I have not only edited recently on other VfD pages such as Glayton Modise and The World Tomorrow (radio and television), but I've also edited other articles, such as Frederick Samuel Modise and the Bohemian Grove article, so it is not entirely correct to assert that I am a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, but my IP address is dynamic, and randomly changes because my ISP is a cheap company that does not have static or dedicated IP addresses LOL. Just saying, to correct the record. Nonetheless, I am sure that you acted in WP:Good Faith, User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric. (Not that a SPA is necessarily always bad, but I just wanted to correct the record.) 96.59.159.254 (talk) 22:17, 23 March 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