Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment

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

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

Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 8 17 40 81 3 149
FL 3 3 6
A 1 1 1 3
GA 10 37 84 412 70 613
B 51 151 419 1,290 2,993 4,904
C 18 169 776 7,226 2 15,810 24,001
Start 4 96 1,176 25,445 12 58,459 85,192
Stub 1 16 352 31,321 6 44,462 76,158
List 4 4 175 1 165 349
Category 22,411 22,411
Disambig 30 30
File 380 380
Project 8 8
Redirect 1 419 1,599 2,019
Template 914 914
NA 2 17 19
Other 1 14 55 70
Assessed 92 491 2,857 66,389 25,435 121,962 217,226
Unassessed 1 42 606 649
Total 92 491 2,858 66,431 25,435 122,568 217,875
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 994,820 Ω = 5.21


Related Projects

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

Related Portals

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

Navigation
Articles
Announcements/To Do (edit)
  • Notability questioned:
  • FAC:
  • FAR:
    • none •
  • FARC:
    • none •
  • GA Noms:
  • Review:
    • none •
  • Article requests::
  • John_Buscema: There's a debate between the current version and this version - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Buscema&oldid=181851662 - requesting input to arrive at a consensus integrating both versions.
  • Pierce O'Donnell — California's 22nd congressional district candidate[1] Los Angeles lawyer Buchwald v. Paramount screenwriter [2] author ISBN 1-56584-958-2 ISBN 0-385-41686-5 [3] California Fair Political Practices Commission[4][5][6][7]
  • William Ely Hill (1887-1962) - Illustrator, created artwork for the book covers for F. Scott Fitzgerald and had a regular entry in the New York tribune along with being published on numerous occasions.
  • Misc:

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

Directions for expanding any division below

[edit]

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

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

Tagging articles

[edit]

Any article related to this work group should be marked by adding |a&e-work-group=yes to the {{WPBiography}} project banner at the top of its talk page. This will automatically place it into Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles. Articles can be assessed for priority within this work group by using the |a&e-priority= parameter. See Template:WikiProject Biography/doc for detailed instructions on how to use the banner.

Members

[edit]
  1. I am ready to work on the biography articles of Indian or Biography actors Jogesh 69 (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. come help with the Bronwen Mantel article Smith Jones 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lovelaughterlife (talk · contribs) Worked extensively on some biographies; reverted vandalism some others
  4. Francoisalex2 (talk · contribs)
  5. Dovebyrd (talk · contribs)
  6. Artventure22 (talk · contribs)
  7. Truth in Comedy (talk · contribs)
  8. Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs)
  9. DENAMAX (talk · contribs) Maxim Stoyalov
  10. Ozgod (talk · contribs)
  11. Eremeyv (talk · contribs)
  12. Susanlesch (talk · contribs), mostly inactive
  13. EraserGirl (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Shruti14 (talk · contribs) will help when I can
  15. Jubileeclipman (talk · contribs) I am interested in taking on UK celebrities with articles that are stubs or otherwise non-standard. Entirely rewrote Fearne Cotton to raise standard and remove fansite tag. I am working on Holly Willoughby which was merely a list plus trivia. Will also work on musicians, all genre, living or dead.
  16. Jarhed (talk · contribs) 21:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Mvzix (talk · contribs)
  18. Cassianto (talk · contribs)
  19. Iamthecheese44 (talk · contribs)
  20. Georgiasouthernlynn (talk · contribs)
  21. Fitindia (talk · contribs)
  22. BabbaQ (talk · contribs)
  23. Woodstop45 (talk · contribs)
  24. Willthacheerleader18 (talk · contribs)
  25. The Eloquent Peasant (talk · contribs)
  26. Lopifalko (talk · contribs)
  27. Terasaface (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC) Working on BLP of artists primarily working in the fields of Studio craft[reply]
  28. Corachow (talk · contribs)
  29. Yorubaja (talk · contribs) 14:23:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  30. Ms Kabintie (talk · contribs)
  31. JamesNotin (talk · contribs)
  32. Ppt91 (talk · contribs)
  33. Slacker13 (talk · contribs)

General

[edit]

Infoboxes

[edit]

Requested articles

[edit]

Actors

[edit]

Architects

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


Illustrators

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

Painters

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

Photographers

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

Sculptors

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

Comics artists

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

Visual arts deletions

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


Visual arts

[edit]

Charles Frederic Swigert Jr. Memorial Fountain

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

Does not appear in any RS, other than a single entry listing it at the Smithsonian Institute. Should be merged into "Oregon Zoo." PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Oregon. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Architecture, and Animal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Oregon Zoo as an alternative to deletion. It's only mentioned within the context of the Zoo. It's a really cool sculpture, but I can't find any indication whatsoever that it is notable itself within a fine art or art historical context, aside from being in Smithsonian's database of public sculptures, and a mention in a book authored by his wife about the sculptor's life and work, which is a non-independent source. The current sourcing only mentions the sculpture within the context of the zoo. A WP:BEFORE search finds no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In addition to the Oregon Zoo target article, some of the content can also be used to improve the Richard Beyer article (the sculptor who made the work.) I am glad the sculpture was restored, and that people and especially children continue to enjoy it. Netherzone (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems like a reasonable fork if Wikipedia is going to cover the topic at Oregon Zoo, Richard Beyer, Charles F. Swigert, Fountains in Portland, Oregon, and List of public art in Portland, Oregon. In addition to the Smithsonian Institution entry, there are now citations to four Oregonian articles and other official documentation. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. It does not pass WP:GNG - there's a passing mention in the local newspaper, a link to a database site, and two primary sources linked to the city. SportingFlyer T·C 22:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the topic is notable enough for a stand-alone page. With wide coverage in the reputable source The Oregonian, the sculpture meets GNG. It may be in the Oregon zoo, but that's just a logical location for the work of art and not a merge magnet. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's not wide coverage, they just appear to be passing mentions, two of the three of which are from the days before and after it opened. SportingFlyer T·C 03:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Generic small fountain/sculpture with minimal coverage insufficient to pass GNG. The Oregon Zoo has a variety of artwork and features that should be covered in the main article; separate pages aren't needed for details like a transcription of the plaque or a 30-year-old condition assessment. The Oregon Zoo's own website doesn't mention it and I can't even find a photo of it on Google or Flickr besides the low-res one on the Smithsonian database, so notability is not at all shown. Artworks aren't notable or need a separate page just because we have other articles about their location, artist, subject (nope, the newly written article is about the subject's father) or thematic topic (none of which are particularly long). Reywas92Talk 15:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Oregonian's detailed descriptor of the statue in their 2 August 1983, issue, seems like a reputable source. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple sentences is hilariously not detailed...still only one source and not enough to need a separate page for. Reywas92Talk 22:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

[edit]

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

[edit]

Visual arts - Deletion Review

[edit]

Performing arts

[edit]

Comedians

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

Dancers

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

Directors

[edit]

Musicians

[edit]

Magicians

[edit]

Writers and critics

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

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

Related Projects

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

Related Portals

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

FAs and GAs
Announcements/To do (edit)

Members

[edit]

Categories

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

Comics writers

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

Romance authors

[edit]

Lists

[edit]

Poets

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

Stubs

[edit]

Authors / Writers deletions

[edit]
Authors / Writers deletion sorting discussions


Authors

[edit]

Acy Ramos

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Notability and Inline citations have been challenged for almost 12 years. GSearch and GNews search only provided passing mentions. No notable awards found during search. --Lenticel (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Waterworth

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

I've declined a speedy deletion request on this—voicing the titular character in a major TV series is obviously a credible claim of significance—but sourcing this meagre is clearly not appropriate in a BLP.  ‑ Iridescent 17:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Hyman (TV personality)

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

Repost of previously deleted and salted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Hyman * Pppery * it has begun... 18:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basu Gautam

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

Lacks Notability. Fails GNG. 4 out of 2 sources are written by subject himself ( can’t be used for notability). One is press release and another one is a blog written by his friend. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I would like to respectfully clarify a few points and highlight the efforts already made to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:GNG).
    I have invested significant time and effort researching and compiling information about Basu Gautam, and I understand the importance of maintaining Wikipedia’s standards. While it is true that some of the initial sources include self-authored content and a press release, these were added to provide context rather than to establish notability.
    However, I want to emphasize that my work did not stop there. I have actively sought and included additional sources, and I am in the process of further expanding the references with reliable, independent, secondary sources that offer significant coverage. These sources aim to address the notability concerns directly.
    I deeply value Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and verifiability, and I am fully open to constructive suggestions for improvement. If you are aware of specific independent sources or ways to enhance the article's compliance with GNG, I welcome your input.
    Please note that I am committed to improving this article and ensuring it aligns with Wikipedia’s content policies. I kindly request time to make these updates, as I believe the subject has contributed in ways that merit encyclopedic recognition.Please revisit page again GlobalEmpathy (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The AFD discussion isn't intended to evaluate whether the article is currently good enough -- just whether it is possible to find multiple independent reliable sources that significantly cover the article subject (whether they exist at all), regardless of the subject's importance. Essentially for the article to be kept it needs to be shown that there are reliable sources describing the subject in some detail, or that they can be assumed to exist (mostly the former). If you're planning to find better sources later you could also propose it be draftified (moved to Draft:Basu Gautam), where it can be worked on without having to be in the main article space. See the policy on suitability for inclusion for details. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination for deletion should be reconsidered as Basu Gautam meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines through substantial independent, reliable, and verifiable sources that significantly cover his contributions. Below is a comprehensive breakdown of why the article should be retained:
    ----
    1. Multiple Independent Reliable Sources Establish Notability
    The subject has been extensively covered by reputable third-party sources, including:
    ✅ Kathmandu Post – A widely respected publication featuring his views on sustainable tourism and peacebuilding.
    ✅ OnlineKhabar – A major Nepali news platform discussing his work on sustainable development.
    ✅ Gorkhapatra – A national newspaper reporting on his environmental initiatives.
    ✅ Annapurna Post – A well-known news source covering the activities of the Lumbini World Peace Forum.
    ✅ MyRepublica – Documenting his leadership in international peace conferences.
    These sources are independent and non-affiliated with Gautam, ensuring an objective validation of his impact.
    ----
    2. Proven Impact in Peace and Environmental Advocacy
    Basu Gautam is not just a passive contributor to social causes; he is a recognized leader in:
    🌍 Lumbini World Peace Forum – A global platform fostering peace and cross-cultural dialogue.
    🌱 One Million Trees Plantation Drive – A large-scale afforestation project addressing climate change.
    Both initiatives have been widely covered by media outlets, showcasing their real-world significance beyond mere self-promotion.
    ----
    3. Recognized by Governments and International Bodies
    A critical aspect of Wikipedia’s notability criteria is recognition by credible institutions. Gautam has received:
    🏆 Peace Ambassador Title – Bestowed by Sarno Municipality, Italy, covered in international media.
    🏆 Youth Inspiration Award 2018 – Awarded by Global Youth Parliament.
    🏆 Youth Icon Award – Conferred by Global Law Thinkers Society, Bangladesh.
    Such distinctions aren’t self-attributed but come from respected external bodies, reinforcing global credibility.
    ----
    4. Meets Wikipedia’s Inclusion Criteria
    As per Wikipedia:Notability (People) guidelines, the subject qualifies because:
    ✅ Significant Media Coverage – Multiple news sources provide independent, in-depth discussions.
    ✅ Sustained Contributions – His work spans decades in education, peacebuilding, and environmental activism.
    ✅ International Recognition – Honors from governments and institutions further validate his standing.
    Since multiple reliable sources exist, Gautam’s notability is well-established, negating any claim that the article lacks merit.
    ----
    5. No Justification for Draftification or Deletion
    The argument for deletion is misplaced, as:
    ❌ The article is not promotional—it is well-sourced and fact-based.
    ❌ There is no lack of independent coverage—reputable sources substantiate his achievements.
    ❌ Draftification is unnecessary, as the article already meets inclusion standards.
    If minor improvements are needed, editing and refinement are better solutions than removal.
    ----
    Conclusion: The Article Should Be Kept
    Basu Gautam is a nationally and internationally recognized figure in peace and environmental activism. His notability is well-documented through independent sources, governmental recognition, and sustained contributions.
    🔹 Instead of deletion or draftification, minor improvements can be made, but the subject’s notability is unquestionable.
    Thus, this AfD should be closed as KEEP. GlobalEmpathy (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, provide sources to show that they meet the criteria. These wall of texts are not convincing. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your feedback regarding the notability concerns. We understand the importance of meeting Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines (GNG) and the need for reliable, independent secondary sources to establish the subject’s significance.
    We respectfully want to clarify that extensive work has gone into sourcing and verifying information. In total, 23 references have been provided on the page, and a substantial portion of these are from reliable, independent sources, not authored by the subject or affiliated individuals.
    While earlier versions may have relied on primary materials such as blogs or press releases, these have been largely replaced or supplemented with third-party coverage. We kindly request a review of the references currently cited on the page, which include recognized media outlets, news articles, and other independent publications. With Kindest Regards, Global Empathy
    For your reference, the article in question is available here:
    👉 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basu_Gautam GlobalEmpathy (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Environment. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. English-language references are either authored by Gautam, connected to Gautam Lumbini World Peace Forum (of which Gautam is president [9]), or only have trivial coverage.
I also machine-translated the non-English references:
  • A machine translation of [10] includes "Rise Media Network is the media partner in the One Million Tree Plantation and Conservation Campaign", indicating this article is not independent.
  • [11] [12] [13] are written by Gautam
  • [14] has only a trivial mention of Gautam
  • [15] [16] [17] don't appear to be written by Gautam, but their similar content and puff-piece tone implies they are just press releases.
I could find no additional reliable, independent sources. userdude 20:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability Justification for Wikipedia Approval: Basu Gautam
Basu Gautam is a Nepalese peace advocate, environmentalist, and founder of the Lumbini World Peace Forum (LWPF). His work in promoting nuclear disarmament, sustainability, and interfaith dialogue has garnered attention in both national and international media. Below is a summary of independent coverage establishing his notability per Wikipedia's guidelines:
----
Independent Coverage in Reliable Sources:
1. The Annapurna Express (Nepal’s leading English-language weekly)
2. MyRepublica (Nepal’s major national daily)
3. The Kathmandu Post (Nepal’s most respected English daily)
4. OnlineKhabar (Leading digital news platform)
5. Rising Nepal Daily (Government-run English daily)
6. International Recognition
  • [9] DentroSalerno (Italy) – Covers Gautam’s international peace exhibition in Italy, showing cross-border influence.
  • [10] VetoGate (Arabic) – Highlights his involvement in international peace dialogue, indicating media attention in the Arab world.
----
Additional Media Presence (Supporting Sources)
  • Global Law Thinkers Society – Mentions Gautam’s regional environmental leadership.
  • [Personal Essays/Columns] – Gautam has written for reputable outlets like OnlineKhabar and MyRepublica, showing thought leadership.
----
Nepali Language Coverage (Machine Translated Highlights)
  • Annapurna Post, eLumbiniKhabar, MeroLifestyle, Hamrakura – These articles consistently document Basu Gautam’s campaigns, awards, and peacebuilding efforts, indicating sustained and significant coverage in domestic media.
----
Conclusion
Basu Gautam has received significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, both nationally and internationally. His work has been recognized in English, Nepali, Italian, and Arabic-language media, demonstrating broad impact and sustained relevance in peace and environmental activism.
Therefore, Basu Gautam meets the notability requirements for a standalone Wikipedia article, per Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (GNG), having substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. GlobalEmpathy (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Adeyemi

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

Non-notable "physician", "politician", and individual. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who said she's a politician? Ahola .O (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't mentioned or categorized that she's a politician or an author. She passes both WP:BIO and WP:GNG.
Here are some reports about her on Businessday and Thisdaylive: Why I’m Mentoring a New Generation of Women – THISDAYLIVE, Lola Adeyemi, Founder and CEO at Mentoring Her - Businessday NG but i considered them to be interviews. For WP:BIO, she is a Nigerian cancer researcher that has presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and World Health Organization (WHO), has been recognized by Forbes, was awarded by Johns Hopkins University and a Special Advisor to the Minister of Education, Nigeria. I hope this helps. Ahola .O (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of independent, reliable sources supporting the subject's notability. A brief internet search reveals that most available sources are interviews or press releases, which are not considered reliable for establishing notability. Additionally, presentations at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) do not, on their own, confer notability. Ibjaja055 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real sourcing to support a WP:BLP. scope_creepTalk 21:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kennedy (author)

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

Inadequate article, notabiltiy, and sourcing. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Rizvi

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

Draft on this subject was declined multiple times due to lack of notability. Since it was still under process of improvisation, editor has blanked the draft and moved the article into main space. Article doesn't meet BLP criteria. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence C. Marsh

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

Fails WP:GNG & Wp:nprof Sabirkir (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Economics. Sabirkir (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two items with pretty good citation levels is below what I'm generally looking for in WP:NPROF. University-wide teaching awards do not contribute here. On the other hand, one book tends to fall under WP:BLP1E so far as WP:NAUTHOR goes; I did not anyway find reviews on a cursory search. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Indiana, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. For someone at this level of seniority, two well-cited publications (one a textbook) with the rest falling off steeply is below the bar for WP:PROF#C1, and nothing else in the article looks to contribute to notability. I did find one published review of the book, and hints that there might have been another by Garman in [20] (from which any book reviews are now missing), but even if I could find the second review it wouldn't be enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To my mind a notable econometrician. His founding of/chairing of the Midwest Econometrics Group (MEG) is I think very notable within the US academic econometrics community and his role as the guest editor for a special edition of a highly prestigious econometrics journal - the Journal of Econometrics is important, as his work on Splines in ecmetrics via his book and papers ... and these seem to me together sufficient for notability. His published academic work in econometrics is very wide ranging....and I have used some if it in different contexts.... His later post-retirement books and media / opinion piece work seem to me less notable (but my bias is towards the academic side) and I don't know how notable his work as an independent Midwest Voices columnist on the Kansas City Star online edition might be from a journalistic point of view. (Msrasnw (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Dusty Rhodes (author)

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

couldn't find coverage to establish gng or nauthor Eddie891 Talk Work 18:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Sophia Topley

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

This article doesn’t seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. TheSwamphen (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Renner

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

Bio of a one-book author that appears to fail notability guidelines for WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Single valid reference about this person is an announcement in a small college daily. The other refs provided are her PR agent, blogs, and several of her own bi-lined articles. All the remaining references cover the book, not the author. None of this is enough significant coverage to meet GNG. It seems there could be enough refs for a page about the book where a redirect might be appropriate. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Delony

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of the subject. The subject authored a "Wall Street Journal best-seller" but I'm not sure what that is and whether that meets WP:AUTHOR notability. The page was created by an editor who is creating lots of promotional pages for figures related to Dave Ramsey. Thenightaway (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Ramsey Show is the second-most popular radio show in the US. The hosts are well known across the country and have their own podcasts that have large audiences (which you can see from their YouTube views). I created this article because Kamel's notoriety and place as a co-host on the show warranted it.
What about this article sounded promotional? Was there too much biographical info? Are we not supposed to write that books are bestsellers? Are we not supposed to mention that certain recording artists have x amount of top 40 hits or that movies from a certain actor have made billions of dollars, for that matter? Because I've seen those in articles on this platform as well. What is the standard?
I really want to know because I don't think this article deserves to be deleted. I'm happy to adjust to fit standards, and have attempted to do so in the past. But it seems like the "promotional" standard is based on a sliding scale.
And I don't just edit Ramsey-related articles. I have edited and created articles on a variety of subjects from pop culture to music, American history, Disney, etc. Ramsey was just something where I saw a need and filled it. 2719Hyperion (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ramsey Solutions and/or The Ramsey Show, not seeing anything which suggests that the topic is of stand alone notability. GNG is not met and I don't think that any of the SNG are either... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On top of his two bestselling books and his role as a co-host on the second-most listened to radio show in the US, John Delony recently hit over one million subscribers on his YouTube page. I would argue that qualifies as notoriety, as only a relatively small percentage of YouTube pages hit that milestone.
    These standards seem to have a lot of inconsistencies. I have seen many biographical articles that are less in depth than Delony's and the tone is very similar. I can rewrite, eliminate the "promotional" language, and resubmit for review. I don't think this article should be deleted. 2719Hyperion (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Coleman (radio host)

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of the subject. The subject authored a "Wall Street Journal best-seller" but I'm not sure what that is and whether that meets WP:AUTHOR notability. The page was created by an editor who is creating lots of promotional pages for figures related to Dave Ramsey. Thenightaway (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Ramsey Show is the second-most popular radio show in the US and the hosts are well known across the country and have their own podcasts that have big audiences (which you can see from their YouTube views). I created this article because Coleman's notoriety and place as a co-host on the show warranted it.
What about this article sounded promotional? Was there too much biographical info? Are we not supposed to write that books are bestsellers? Are we not supposed to mention that certain recording artists have x amount of top 40 hits or that movies from a certain actor have made billions of dollars, for that matter? Because I've seen that on this platform as well. What is the standard?
I really want to know because I don't think the article deserves to be deleted. I'm happy adjusting to fit standards, and have attempted to do so in the past.
And I don't just edit Ramsey-related articles. I have edited and created articles on a variety of subjects from pop culture to Disney, music, etc. Ramsey was just something where I saw a need and filled it. 2719Hyperion (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to a redirect if it turns out that there isn't really anything to merge. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't merging these articles with The Ramsey Show article make the latter a bit large? And I have seen quite a few biographical articles that contain thinner information than Coleman's. Why are those okay?
I can try and rewrite the article and resubmit for review. I don't think it warrants deletion. 2719Hyperion (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Coleman article should not remain in mainspace because as a subject he fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. But there's a valid reason per WP:ATD to redirect to a notable topic he is associated with, and it will preserve the page history if Coleman becomes notable in the future. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Kamel

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of the subject. There is nothing to indicate that they are notable. The page was created by an editor who is creating lots of promotional pages for figures related to Dave Ramsey. Thenightaway (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Ramsey Show is the second-most popular radio show in the US. The hosts are well known across the country and have their own podcasts that have big audiences (which you can see from their YouTube views). I created this article because Kamel's notoriety and place as a co-host on the show warranted it.
What about this article sounded promotional? Was there too much biographical info? Are we not supposed to write that books are bestsellers? Are we not supposed to mention that certain recording artists have x amount of top 40 hits or that movies from a certain actor have made billions of dollars, for that matter? Because I've seen those in articles on this platform as well. What is the standard?
I really want to know because I don't think this article deserves to be deleted. I'm happy to adjust to fit standards, and have attempted to do so in the past. But it seems like the "promotional" standard is based on a sliding scale.
And I don't just edit Ramsey-related articles. I have edited and created articles on a variety of subjects from pop culture to music, American history, Disney, etc. Ramsey was just something where I saw a need and filled it. 2719Hyperion (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Vali

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

Lack of notability Shkuru Afshar (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Hollwich

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

Nonnotable architect. --Altenmann >talk 01:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Bøchmann Melchior

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

Fails NACADEMIC. No sources found on Google Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Hoffmann

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

I am the subject of this article and am requesting a courtesy deletion. The only notable aspect to my career in terms of wide in-depth press coverage is only one event, and no other coverage reveals substantial public interest in my career - the rest are run of the mill sources or passing mentions. There has been a banner at the top of the page for seven years asking for additional citations for verification, and none have come forward that changed its status. I would ask for the community to delete my page, which I had no hand in creating. JHHM (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charu Chandra Bandyopadhyay

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

Insufficient Sources. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ansuman Bhagat (Writer)

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

Repost of material previously salted at Ansuman Bhagat. Was tagged A7 and declined, then draftified and undone so WP:DRAFTOBJECT now applies and we need a AfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Jerusalem Demsas

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Lacks direct and in-depth coverage in independent secondary sources. Self-auhtored articles are not enough to prove her notability. Gheus (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:
Multiple references show significant, not trivial, coverage in independent secondary sources, discussing her early life (references 1-5), professional career and her views and contributions to the discussion of the housing crisis. An important notability factor (WP:AUTHOR) relies on the following: The person's work (or works) has won significant critical attention. Her book has received has significant critical attention, including book reviews in major sites including Vox and Bloomberg News (ref 9), which stated that Demsas "has distinguished herself within the supply-side camp." Her overall work has led to multiple high profile interviews, including on Bloomberg (ref. 9), NPR (ref. 11) and Ezra Klein's NYTimes interview (ref. 12), indicating her work has had significant attention. Per WP:NAUTHOR, references 8 & 9 show she is known for originating a significant new concept, further enhancing her notability. Included in the article were her opinions on the housing crisis; there is no Wikipedia injunction against discussing a subject's views. There is no Wikipedia injunction against using the subject's self-authored published works in reputable publications to verify the information presented. The references discussed above were used to verify Demsas' views, not to establish notability. And, only 4/23 references even fall within that purview. In brief: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (Wikipedia:Notability (people)). The article meets all criteria.
I note that the first reviewer (Ipigott]) did not see a problem with this article, and later removed a tag stating that this article may not achieve notability, claiming that "del tag - no longer applicable." Mwinog2777 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was because additional pertinent work had been carried out on the article.--Ipigott (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that she meets WP:AUTHOR. A search of Newspapers.com shows a lot of columnists in other newspapers basing columns on articles by Demsas in The Atlantic and critiquing what she has written. So far I've found examples in The Indianapolis Star, The Herald-Palladium, Sun Journal (Lewiston, Maine), and The San Francisco Examiner, by 5 different columnists. I'll try to add them to the article. (Before searching, I had thought this might be a case of TOOSOON, as she joined The Atlantic only 3 years ago, in 2022. But it's clear that she very quickly had a big impact.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm not seeing the kind of coverage required to meet WP:NJOURNALIST. Some participants above are citing discussion of her work ([39], [40]) as WP:SIGCOV of her, which it's not (that's more of an WP:NACADEMIC criterion). These are mentions, not independent reviews of her body of work required to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Meanwhile, the Bits and Deets article should be deleted as an unreliable blog that scrapes personal info and aggregates it as SEO bait. The rest of the sources appear to be her own work or WP:INTERVIEWs. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:Interviews: "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." The multiple interviews listed were done by highly reputable outlets, including the New York Times and NPR. The interviews were presented as investigative journalism with the interview material often interspersed with the interviewer's own analysis and thoughts. Please review the interviews.Mwinog2777 (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Sarah Flaum

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

Article has sources but not a single one treats the subject other than passing mentions of her as a member of a cast. A further search reveals only primary sources and a raft of social media entries. Fails both points of WP:NACTOR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Fails both points of WP:NACTOR." according to the nominator? What points? How does she fail them if her roles are significant and the productions, notable? -Mushy Yank. 15:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gervais (psychologist)

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

Previously deleted and salted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gervais * Pppery * it has begun... 00:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farouk Yousif

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

There is only one secondary source on the subject which is below the minimum set in the notability guidelines for people set out in WP:BIO. Abolishedtemple (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Boudriot

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

Lacking in real sources for WP:BIO, and no reviews that I can find for his book, Le vaisseau de 74 canons, for WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : The Fr Wiki article is only a list of national catalogue listings used a sourcing and a list of books. The sourcing is even worse than what's here... I can only find this review of one of his books [41]. I don't see enough sourcing to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This review in the Naval War College journal (?, I'm not sure if it's a magazine or a formal academic jouranl) seems to help this person pass AUTHOR [42]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep per the two reviews Oaktree found, bearing in mind that most sources about the subject are likely to be a) offline and b) in French. – Joe (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now looking like No Consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Aktham

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

I don't think this person is notable enough. I couldn't find enough reliable sources to prove its notability. فيصل (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Qatar. فيصل (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Of all nation-states, Qatar has the lowest proportion of women biographies: under 8%, according to humaniki. It feels like there's some WP:Systemic bias here, which was why I created the page. Dsp13 (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have found and added several sources, which are overviews of Arab women writers and literature, tertiary sources rather than secondary. The content within them about this writer is short, but the fact that they include her, and the way they write about her writing, leads me to think that secondary sources exist. The last source currently in the article, at magazine.jouhina.com, is unfortunately a deadlink and not archived (as far as I have been able to find). From what I can see on the Wayback Machine of other articles in that magazine, it would have included critique of her writing, by the author of the article and others, and biographical detail, and would certainly count as SIGCOV. Perhaps a WP editor will have access to it offline. I have tried googling her Arabic name (I do not read or speak Arabic!), and there is one source the title of which translates as Writers from the Arabian Gulf, with the content described as "Arab authors; women Arab authors; Persian Gulf countries; biography." Even if I could read Arabic, only a snippet view is available on Google Books, but if anyone has access to أدباء وأديبات من الخليج العربي offline, it may also be useful. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Gitomer

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

I am not sure if he is notable. Most of sources seem to be either primary or only tangentially related to him. I am unsure whether he meets WP:CREATIVE; points 3 and 4 are relevant. I am not sure if the attention he got was critical and whether his work has been covered in enough periodical articles. (I see [43], but not much more.) Even if The Little Red Book of Selling had made him notable, he would seem to be a bit too BLP1E-ish, as the rest of the coverage is more-or-less trivial or primary. Janhrach (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see plenty of good sources. I remember the incident that lead to his being banned from the airline, so BLP1E doesn't apply. There are issues with the article, but they can be resolved through ordinary editing. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearian: Do you think he meets points 3 or 4 of WP:CREATIVE? I did not express that well, but WP:CREATIVE was intended to be the main point of my nom. I am willing to withdraw this nom if there is a convincing argument that he does. Janhrach (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that he meets factor #3 as having written several related books. Bearian (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but it also says that:

In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);

I don't see multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, but I haven't really done a thorough search. Like I have written, I have found [44], but the other articles I have found were blogs (or similar), not articles from periodicals. Janhrach (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (may return with !vote) This is a typical promotional article for someone whose main skill is promoting. He writes those books a friend of mine calls "business porn": which promise great wealth not unlike that of megachurch leaders. I removed some irrelevant promotional statements, but there are undoubtedly more. I am not sure that the speaking awards (e.g. "Certified Speaking Professional (CSP) Award") are of value because the organization appears to be a speakers' bureau. Two of the book awards (IPPY) are indeed awards but he is among other winners, in one case one of 66. A fairly snide article in Time magazine was used for one "cute" quote but ignored 4 paragraphs of negative review of his work. (I fixed some of that.) The reviews by Jack Covert seem to be in a personal blog, albeit a pretty ambitious one. His books have sold many copies, and I can see some presence in library collections. I confess that I have little regard for this category of output, along with all of the self-help books. I just thought I should be honest about my prejudice. Lamona (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He has had best-selling books although I do not find the two NY Times pages that are listed here. I do find a 2003 NYT best seller list for "paperback advice" books. It seems odd that an older list turns up in a search on his name but the two newer ones listed here do not. I cannot find anything that is independent to fill in his bio, other than being banned by an airline for bad behavior. The link to 800ceoread is a blog post on a book sales site. As I note above the various positive quotes were cherry-picked. Given the degree of PROMO and the lack of independent sources I tend to have doubts about the sources on the article that I cannot find. Lamona (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don Libes

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

Article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, because there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Most references are primary or technical sources rather than in-depth third-party discussions of Don Libes himself. The article reads more like a CV than an appropriate Wiki biography Neurorocker (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for policy based input please. A Google Scholar page cannot be used to prove or disprove notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked for biographical sources, and there just aren't any. This person's software is documented, not least by this person. ☺ But this person xyrself is not. Which is why the article gives almost half its length to expect and in the other half has claims that I cannot source. For example, the claim to being first to port a piece of software is not sourceable. The original paper is silent on whether it was the first, and no-one else appears to have recorded it as such since. I cannot find a source that doesn't come from Wikipedia that records this person doing this at all, the available sourcing on this person's work being that poor.

    In fact, only people named Don Libes have written about Don Libes, everywhere.

    Excluding books where the author is Don Libes outright, I found a CRC Press book with a potted biography that looked promising, until I saw "Prepared by Don Libes." at the foot of the text. The person who wrote what Wikipedia now has is Donlibes (talk · contribs), replacing a much shorter article — which was, it transpires, written by Don Libes, since it was copied from xyr NIST autobiography (Don Libes BIO at the Wayback Machine (archived 2007-05-02)) with first-person pronouns replaced by third person.

    It is impossible, as we can see, for anyone to write a biography if one isn't one of these Don Libeses, which isn't how Wikipedia works. ☺

    Uncle G (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Authors proposed deletions

[edit]

Tools

[edit]
Main tool page: toolserver.org
Article alerts are available, updated by AAlertBot. More information...
  • Reflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references
  • Checklinks - Edit and repair external links
  • Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links.
  • Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Arts_and_entertainment&oldid=1264837709#Writers_and_critics"