The Arts and Entertainment Work Group is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality and importance
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs... Specific discipline portals are listed in that section.
William Ely Hill (1887-1962) - Illustrator, created artwork for the book covers for F. Scott Fitzgerald and had a regular entry in the New York tribune along with being published on numerous occasions.
The general outline and collection has been started, but if you would like to expand and organize a discipline, here's what you do. Right below the page heading for the discipline insert this: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Work groups/Division banner}} and save. This will put a rough outline together for you and then you can edit it to conform to your area. See Writers and critics below for an example. If your project grows large enough where it's taking up a good portion of this page, you should probably move it to a subpage of this page.
You might also want to make a Members section for people to join your specific area!
Any article related to this work group should be marked by adding |a&e-work-group=yes to the {{WPBiography}} project banner at the top of its talk page. This will automatically place it into Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles. Articles can be assessed for priority within this work group by using the |a&e-priority= parameter. See Template:WikiProject Biography/doc for detailed instructions on how to use the banner.
Jubileeclipman (talk·contribs) I am interested in taking on UK celebrities with articles that are stubs or otherwise non-standard. Entirely rewrote Fearne Cotton to raise standard and remove fansite tag. I am working on Holly Willoughby which was merely a list plus trivia. Will also work on musicians, all genre, living or dead.
This article certainly looks impressive, but not one of the sources used is significant coverage from an independent reliable source. IMDB and MVDB are user generated and should not be used at all. Allmusic lists everything, so while it may be ok for verification it doesn't get us anywhere for notability. Websites owned or operated by the subject are possibly ok primary sources but again, no use as far as notability. VideoStatic, I'd never heard of but the coverage there is just crediting this person for their role in various projects, there's no depth of coverage about this person.
My own search didn't turn up anything any better. He certainly seems to be prolific in his industry, but somehow apparently has not been the subject of significant coverage. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 18:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Working commercial photographer, with a too long list of everything they've ever worked on here... Wiki isn't for your CV. I find nothing covering this individual, not even PR items. There just isn't coverage about them. Delete for lack of sourcing. What's used now in the article is primary or simply a name drop... Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The name of the event makes it more difficult to search. I was only able to find mentions, such as "One of the most traditional and largest events still running today is demoparty X, a specific event for the Commodore 64 platform with the first edition held in 1995 in the Netherlands (POLGáR, 2016)." (machine translated from Portuguese) in a paper about the demoscene in Brazil. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties.
"The great meeting events of the Commodore 64 scene in the second half of the nineties were the great international demoparties: The Party in Denmark, Assembly in Finland, and mainly the German Mekka Symposium and Breakpoint. These parties, in addition to the great annual X parties organized by Success & The Ruling Company. For the first time, in 1995, this party was held in Utrecht, Netherlands but moved several times to different cities. Some still remember X’95 as the best X party, and later X parties as the best parties of C64 scene history. Interestingly enough the X still takes place every year. In 1997 the party united with Takeover, and became a multiplatform party under X-Takeover label but the cool oldschool atmosphere was broken by Amiga and PC users, so the cooperation split up. X is still the largest Commodore-only demoparty."
No clear evidence or assertion of notability. Article has previously been recreated, which I redirected to subject, and again a second time, which was disputed by creator, hence ending up at AfD.
References offered only prove show exists and that subject themselves is notable (as they have their own article), but a show about them is not in itself necessarily notable in its own right. In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article. Bungle(talk • contribs) 06:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the following statement is almost bizarre: In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article. .....???? .... Documentary films that are not series MAY be notable, most evidently.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At least one of the current refs is clearly about the movie — the Hollywood Reporter article is called "Michael Chow Shares the Pain Behind the Glamour in New Documentary ‘AKA Mr. Chow’". There's also a Wall Street Journal review called "‘AKA Mr. Chow’ Review: Portrait of the Artist as a Restaurateur", and a Beverly Hills Courier review called "‘AKA Mr. Chow’—But Who is ‘M?’" Toughpigs (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts on this really are that this is a documentary programme, not a film, so we aren't looking at notability in necessarily the same way. The documentary is about the subject, who is notable, whereas a film article would be expected to assert notability in its own right (like a tv episode, series etc). The question really is whether the actual documentary series is notable in its own right, irrespective that it covers (and is biographical in its nature) a subject who we know is notable.
My view on the sources largely are that they are really useful in expanding the article on the individual, but I can't be sure if they assert notability to have a standalone article for a 90min documentary programme. Bungle(talk • contribs) 11:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a documentary programme, not a film....hmmm.....yes, this a documentary film. (it's available on HBO but that does not make it a non-film)...and yes, it's notable "in its own right" as multiple reviews and a lot of very significant coverage addressing the subject in depth and directly in extremely notable reliable (and independent) sources prove it. Kindly have a look at the sources that have been added and check the rest of the existing ones, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selena Gomez: My Mind & Me is also a documentary; so is Madonna: Truth or Dare. I'm not making an "other stuff exists" argument, just saying that there is no precedent for judging a documentary as non-notable just because it's about a notable subject. Notability is not un-inherited. As for the sources, as I said, there is a Wall Street Journal review that begins with the phrase "‘AKA Mr. Chow’ Review". Why doesn't that count? Toughpigs (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the 2 reviews in WSJ and Guardian should be enough to keep ANY film, and here we have 5-10 times that. (The reviews can ALSO be used to expand the bio of Chow, but that does not diminish the notability of the film according to WP requirements). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Keep): I didn't search and only the sources that the page currently ha(d)s, but they seem(ed) to be sufficient to show it's notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Did search 3 minutes. Added some. See for yourself. Changing to STRONG KEEP.[reply]
Redirect to Michael Chow (restaurateur) while there is nothing at all in the article. The sources are about the individual really and only mention the documentary as part of an interview or, worse, as a fact of existence, except the Hollywood Reporter article as mentioned. No need for a separate article— Iadmc♫talk 12:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep. The article at least has some substance now. Will watch. — Iadmc♫talk 15:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is now well sourced to establish notabilty and I have added quotes to it— Iadmc♫talk 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't see the need for a standalone article at this point. Reywas92Talk 13:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator@Bungle:: Have you really checked existing sources??? also @Iadmc and Reywas92: Reviews and significant coverage in WSJ, Decider, Guardian, NYT, etc, etc...I'm inviting you to kindly withdraw this nomination. Added some to the page. - Feel free to add more! My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd firstly note that edit summaries/comments such as No evidence a BEFORE was indeed performed and Have you really checked existing sources???, do not feel like an assumption of good faith, and is a tone to perhaps reflect upon in future. My concerns where not through a lack of media coverage, as outlined. That said, regardless of my own view, consensus seems to be towards retaining, even though I still feel there is a credible case to rd or merge into the subject's article where it's barely mentioned, given it's broadly a collection of journalists' opinions and referencing overuse. Bungle(talk • contribs) 05:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is broadly a collection of journalists' opinions according to you? If it's the sources added to the page, it seems to be another way for acknowledging the existence of LOTS of reviews, which you may have seen or read during your BEFORE, as apparently you consider that you have done one, which I indeed seriously doubted, for which I apologise since you seem to indicate you have and honestly did everything in your power to find sources ("If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." said WP:BEFORE, and you are apparently telling me that you did. I will therefore assume that it's true.) and found "No clear evidence or assertion of notability".
I don't think my tone was nasty, and it was sincerely not meant in a nasty way, but I did seriously doubt that you made a BEFORE at all (not questioning your general good faith but the fact that you really spent time checking sources), yes, and I am still surprised that a film with so many reviews was taken to Afd, when you could have just added the reviews that apparently you had seen and read (but that you did not even mention, btw) as GNG, NFILM, etc. are obviously and more than fairly met.
I was not expecting thanks for presenting various sources that you may have seen during that BEFORE but if a film is reviewed in so many extremely reliable sources, your concern did and does not seem justified, nor does this Afd, for that matter, and calling additional sources that you are telling me you saw but failed to simply mention, even in a general statement (like "I have seen reviews in WSJ, Guardian, Decider, etc. during my BEFORE but think they're not enough for notability of a standalone page", "Despite a lot of media coverage found in my BEFORE, my concern is that it is not enough to warrant an article and etc." or smth of the kind), referencing overuse (unless you are, again, not referring to this article but to the one about Chow) is not exactly the response I was hoping, to be, again, perfectly honest with you. I take it you won't withdraw, then. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a lot of text to try and absorb, but i'll say I didn't say anything was "nasty", and I do admire your determination. That said, while I remain unconvinced that we should have, or need, a separate article for this (when on the basis of existing content, I feel it would be better suited being mentioned on the subject's article), I respect the consensus view that is to the contrary, so it seems fruitless at this stage to consider anything other than a withdrawal. Bungle(talk • contribs) 16:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has plenty of reliable sources. Eric Carpenter (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article know has referenced reviews from reliable sources such as The Guardian, Toronto Star, The Decider and therefore passes WP:NFILM in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reviews in WSJ, Beverly Hills Courier, Toronto Star and MovieWeb are enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above, plenty of good sources exist. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources (including by searching in Trove). Also, the Nullarbor website had a section for media coverage; many of the sources listed there either aren't reliable, don't provide significant coverage, or aren't independent (media/press releases). A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:49, 8 June 2024 (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.
I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Delete or redirect? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:41, 8 June 2024 (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.
Could not find reliable sources online, except for some (including sources used in this article) having short mentions on this subject. Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources used in the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics
The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Related Projects
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts
Newer article created in March 2024; sourced ok enough, but the information doesn't seem to be related to the subject very much. I can strip away that blatently unrelated information, but I'm not able to find much on this guy to warrant even a stub afterwards. He's got an OK social media following, but doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Lindsey40186 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, he doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. I think it is best to delete this article. Johnmarkdyer (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. And I removed massive sections, seconding Lindsey40186's concern. - Altenmann>talk 19:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find podcasts or various videos about this individual, nothing we can use for notability. Seems that after the non-RS are taken out, we're left with a stub, simply confirming he exists... Nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being in the list of a 30 people for a region doesn't mean we have to create an article for each of them. May be she is a celebrity but not notable to be in Wikipedia like the other youtubers. No independent notability other than being a youtuber. AlbeitPK (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being in the list of a 30 people for a region doesn't mean we have to create an article for each of them. No, we do not have articles for each of them. The nom seems to be focused on the subject rather than individual. Regardless what they're known for, if they receive enough notable coverage, they are notable. And this person most definitely passes GNG regardless of the causes. It's not limited to a one-off event (the Forbes list) but sustained coverage exist for this individual. No independent notability other than being a YouTuber That's the most illogical rationale I've ever seen on an AFD nom. We have thousands of biographies on YouTubers. Since when, YouTubers aren't notable solely based on the fact that they are YouTubers? It all comes down to coverage, if they fulfill the notability criteria, they are notable. And even if taking this fallacy into consideration just for the sake of it, this person has received coverage for other ventures outside their digital content creation on YouTube. YouTube contributed to their initial fame but from then on she has received coverage for other activities such as vlogs on Facebook or media collaborations, UNICEF activities, writing, singing, modeling, etc. X (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlbeitPK, I'm inviting you to do a complete source analysis. You clearly did not practice WP:BEFORE, which is not a surprise, you being an inexperienced user. As a friendly advice, I'd urge you to spend more time on article creation and expansion before hopping onto AFD. Familiarize yourself with the policies and when you get a good grip you may participate in these spaces.Albeit being largely primary, the Ice Today piece alone is a clear indication of notability. And independent in-depth coverage do exist. Sources are available in Bengali exist as well, all of which are not included in the article, but I'll be happy to list them if one asks. X (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Source analysis:
This is essentially just a paragaph mentioning she posted a video.
Article on her, though whether the Vanity Star is a reliable source I don't know
The interview mentioned, which is very long but primary. Good for the article, but probably doesn't establish notability (but the other sources probably do)
So, while a lot of the coverage is just tiny 5-sentence mentions, she does seem to be notable (according to these things) in Bengali online media. The book and the popularity probably push her over "random youtuber", and I think the last two sources + the interview + the forbes list and associated sources all together meet the significant coverage criteria. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. Yes, almost all the sources that discusses her starts with something like "Famous social media personality" or "Popular content creator", etc. She also has been the subject of at least 5 full length talk show interviews by the countries largest media Prothom Alo alone. They also dedicated entire episodes of shows on her lifestyle (one about "What's Raba Khan shopping this Eid"). And numerous national and international magazine features. Everything combined speaks for her notability. It appears the nominator is an inexperienced editor, hence they do not have a good grasp over Wiki notability guidelines. I won't say I'm always right, but this is the first WIR article (2nd overall) created by me that has been brought to AFD (I'm taking a Wiki break but had to respond here when I saw the mail, NGL, the nom rationale is ridiculous.) X (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thank you for the source analysis Mrfoogles. I am content that on the basis of those sources the subject meets WP:N. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per source analysis above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This poet appears to be non-notable under WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR. His books of poetry are functionally self-published (Cahuenga Press is a cooperative owned and run by five "poet-members" that exists to publish its owners' work). No substantial reviews of his work appear to be available. I can only find one item of WP:SIGCOV, a local news story. The rest are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or non-independent mentions in affiliated sources (e.g. college magazine). Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Stuff article is all I find [8], no book reviews or no listing in the Getty ULAN. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography of an apparently non-notable retired photography teacher. No in-depth secondary sources, and his awards for photography and teaching do not seem to be significant ones. Belbury (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very trivial coverage in Gnews, with his name in a list of art exhibits. Sources now used in the article are primary or non-RS. Nothing I can find for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete -- pretty close to the line for WP:PROF based on rank and publisher quality for academic textbooks (which are reviewed less often than research texts) but not enough coverage to pass the bar. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk) 21:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources to bring this up to notable. The biographical information is not verified by the link to his faculty listing at Carroll. The "award" is a regional Milwaukee Area Teachers of Art prize for a photograph. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ROTM self-help coach who has authored some guest posts or has been mentioned in guest post - nothing in secondary references. Fails WP:GNG. Teltle (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find book reviews, only various talking points when she interviews in magazines. Not enough for notability here in wiki. Sourcing used now in the article is primary or un-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable speaker. Zero in-depth secondary source about him. A few mentions in promotional guest posts or invitations of his events. Tagged since 2015 but has been continously attracting COI/UPE editors. Fails WP:GNG. Teltle (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only thing here that qualifies as a claim of notability is the CPAE Speakers Hall of Fame, and doing a newspapers.com search for that Hall, the 34 times I find of it being mentioned are basically all clearly quoting press release materials about a given speaker, or flat out ads. Web search is not finding the sort of results that suggest it should be given more consideration. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Drmies offered this one a speedy nearly 13 years ago, which was contested by the creator. No apparent notability has emerged since that time. JFHJr (㊟) 23:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that the article does not satisfy either WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. The references provided are insufficient to indicate notability, and a search for the subject in the news yields no results. In terms of reviews, there is: a review on a personal blog from 2021 and a forum post from 2007 and that is all. Manyyassin (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, JFHJr. Fun fact: I once interviewed for a job at Reed, and one of the perks was that you could bring your dog to class. So that speedy template was removed a few times by the creator, as was a PROD by User:Karl 334. Yeah, I agree--there seems to be no proof of notability here. Delete. Oh, thank you Manyyassin for looking into it also--those things you uncovered don't help here. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What was the cat policy? AFAF. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An author, for sure, but other than confirming the publication of her books, all I found was one review in Publishers Weekly (not terribly enthusiastic) - and none in Kirkus, which reviews a heck of a lot of what gets published. She writes Horror and there is one paragraph (which I believe is a PR blurb because it seems familiar after checking book sales pages) in a book called "100+ Black Women in Horror". Unfortunately, it's a Lulu-published book. That's it. I can confirm that she works at Dark Horse Comics in Portland. Beyond that a few name-checks. Lamona (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lamona: I agree. I saw that review WP:BEFORE and I came to the same conclusion as to the publisher. It's a Who's Who from Lulu. It got my hopes up at the time. JFHJr (㊟) 23:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep here, but a weak one, following some rework. I've added some sources and reworked the article. I think there is a narrow claim to notability, his first book seems to have received a fair amount of coverage in some reliable sources (and been made into a film, unfortunately most of the coverage of that seems to be focused on the actor, not the film, so I've left that out), as well as some of his play work. Others may disagree, but I think he's just over the line. Mdann52 (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak-ish delete I think it's close but not quite GNG. He has written one book that was reviewed in major local newspapers. He has written and adapted plays in that same locality. In 2020 his book was adapted to the film as a short. (I don't find much about it at IMDB) That's about it. At this point I think he is a fish in a pond, but not beyond it. Lamona (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. I can't think of any other applicable grounds for notability for this subject. JFHJr (㊟) 21:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've added several refs and details to the article (while removing unsourced content). There is no significant coverage of Hermes. Her first book won a Lambda Literary Award for Bisexual Literature in 2011, but even if that's considered an important enough award for WP:ANYBIO #1, I consider that the absence of any coverage of her outweighs that. I found a few reviews of her first book in major newspapers, so an article on Careful What You Wish For could be justified. (But I'll note that the Washington Post reviewer generously concluded, "Myrlin Hermes is 23 years old, an age at which having published a book at all is a substantial accomplishment. There's plenty of time for her to turn into a real writer."[11]) Schazjmd(talk) 22:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither a redirect to Hoyt nor to Ginjer Buchanan, where neither the imprint nor this three book series appears to merit mention makes sense, so bringing this here. The books don't appear to have merited note as a series,and there's no indication this use of a pen name was. StarMississippi 19:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline promo piece on a businessperson that doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. According to WP:RSPS, we should not accept Forbes contributor pieces nor articles on Medium as evidence of notability, as they are essentially self-published and/or have very little editorial oversight. The other sources are also quite suspect and either look like blogs or are written in a very promotional way, which indicates some sort of conflict of interest. My own searches found nothing better. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:G11. "President of Rapid Credit Boosters. Sallis is a philanthropist, motivational speaker [...]" give me a break. BrigadierG (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per BrigadierG. It's not just a "borderline promo piece" it literally is a promo piece. Even if it wasn't a promo piece he does not seem notable anyway. Procyon117 (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These sources clearly establish his notability and warrant the retention of this article.
Please sign your comments so we know who this is. Other than that, the first two links are just interviews that don't show any notability. And having a book in Google Books doesn't guarantee notability. Procyon117 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've removed some known SEO sinks. The rest is vanity press publications. Sam Kuru(talk) 02:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing concrete to establish notablility, fails GNG and looks more of promotional as well. Robertjamal12~🔔 14:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this before but it was closed as no consensus since there were no other participates. Same reasoning as before applies: fails WP:MUSICBIO and quite promotional. Can’t find any in-depth sources on the subject. The cited Washington Post article [12] is about the subject’s father, Wayne Stetina. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delate. I suggest that, if nobody comes to support it, it should be considered as a prod. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This subject is not notable enough for an article. Qflib (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be notable through publishing works on how to play guitar, we would need in-depth published reviews of those works, and I don't see them. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep on a hunch (i.e., easily overruled). Coverage is basically blog and genre-magazine style, which needs a lot to add up to notability, but there is a lot out there (even discounting some that seem more like PR/Press-release interview type). Head of department (conservatories often don't have traditional academic ranks) but of a small department. Each part of his career adds up to slightly less than the relevant notability guideline, but together they peek just over the edge for me. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk) 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any non-blog, non-PR sources you would like to share? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is well known in the guitar community and among musicians for his instruction releases. The problem is that this article is poorly sourced so I can see why it attracts a deletion nom. I know that his Left-Handed Guitar: The Complete Method by Stetina, Troy (2001) is quite popular. Yes of course, it takes more than good sales. His Fretboard Mastery was very popular too. He's had articles about him in various guitar mags both paper and online. The Guitarist magazine March 1993 is one. He had article beside Dominic Miller and Tony Zemaitis as you can see. The Guitar Noise website which is a huge go-to source for axmen and axeladies refers to Stetina as an "internationally recognized guitarist and music educator". There's others too but I don't want to get too caught up with this one. Further info below * This is from the magazine, Modern Drummer, September 1993 - Page 106 SPEED AND THRASH METAL DRUM METHOD by Troy Stetina and Charlie Busher. * And there's an article by Stetina published in Guitar One, Volume 9, No 2 February 2006 - Page 176 RETURN OF THE SHRED Come Together Two Essential Hybrid Scales There's more but searching gets flooded with the dozens of releases he has had put out. Karl Twist (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those two books on Amazon have about 200 reviews each. This one is ranked 16,000+ in Music Instruction & Study. By no stretch of the imagination are these "popular" books and they don't contribute to notability.
1) The Guitar Noise website seems to be just a group blog about how to play the guitar. 2) The link you gave is just him responding to someone else's comment. That "internationally recognized" line is a promotional line he wrote himself (as per his own website).
The two articles in Modern Drummer and Guitar one are articles written by Stetina not articles about Stetina. They don't contribute to notability. You would need to find in-depth articles about Stetina.
Well, the Amazon books have more reviews than releases by so-called main-stream artists. They do appear to be quite popular! And I wasn't trying to use them as proof of notability. Just to give an idea of what the guy's exposure is. Somebody in Germany must have heard of him, there's a German Wikipedia article (needs work) See here. Forget the Guitar Noise one, that wasn't the one I meant to put in. Sorry. It was another online music news source. I have to try and remember. There was also a reliable source good size review on that I thought I had put in but for the life of me it's vanished. I went back though the page history and it isn't there. Maybe I thought I did. Perhaps it was on notepad, and I closed it before I had edited it in. It was similar to the Fret 12 review but not related to the sale of the product. The Modern Drummer (if it isn't about him) and Guitar One still show his profile. They are well-respected and notable publications. Well, there's no article page for Guitar One yet.
Easily notable! He's had a huge influence on a good amount of major notable guitarists. I can find more but I have been drawn into this as I do sometimes and have neglected other stuff. Thanks
Sorry but almost all of those sources are interviews with the subject. Interviews are considered primary sources and they don’t contribute to notability. The only non-interview source in there is the Journal Times article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Dr. Swag Lord . Well actually the first part of the OnMilwaukee article is not interview. The subject was researched (as it's the normal procedure) before the interview was conducted. And if considered primary, it's not like it's from the subject's own site anyway. Yes, I understand that primary sources and sources related to the subject themselves cannot be used to support content in a page. By that's not what we're looking at. We're looking at the status of the subject and the reliable sources that support the assertion that he is a notable person. The Maximum Ink is similar. Well, the first 196 worlds / 15 sentences (not including the title) are about him and not by him. The interview is secondary. There are two Journal Times articles. Then there's the Modern Drummer article by Matt Pieken about his book-cd combo, Speed and Thrash Metal Drum Method that he did with Charlie Bushor. It's about his work, not written by him.
Going on what user Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert said earlier with "together they peek just over the edge", well with what I've come up with, the interviews by respected news sources etc., his contributions to major music magazines etc., collectively they well and truly sit on top of the table. And the Modern Drummer review proves it more. And this below, a C&P of what I edited into the article page,
It's obvious when Stetina is mentioned in the same headline such as these premier artists, he's well and widely known in various fields and notable. His volume of work speaks for itself, especially when artists such as Mark Tremonti, Michael Angelo Batio, Bill Peck, and Eric Friedman appear on Troy Stetina: The Sound and the Story etc. etc.. For him not to be notable would be an exception to the rule.
The Modern Drummer article is a short review of one of Stetina’s books. It has no in-depth content of the subject’s life or activities.
Please note, the article in La Scena Musicale is an example of WP:SPONSORED content. At the bottom of the article it states: “LSM Newswire is La Scena's Newswire service. Organizations can post a press release on our website for a fee. See the media kit at our advertising page at https://myscena.org/advertising”. Since that is an ad paid for by the band it is not RS and does not add to notability.
You say there’s two Journal Times articles, but you linked to the same one twice.
Please take a look at WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because the subject has been associated with notable individuals does not make him notable himself.
On a further note, “metalshockfinland.com” and “guitariste-metal.fris” are certainly not RSs (obviously blog sources). Also, Maximum Ink seems WP:QS at best. There’s no published editorial board, no published editorial policies. Additionally, it’s quite suspicious that the article links to the Wikipedia page of Tony Stetina and links to places where you can purchase Stetina’s CD (seems pretty promotional to me). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin, Even though I believe there's enough on Troy Stetina to warrant a keep, could I ask please that if the consensus eventually leans towards a deletion, you might consider redirecting rather than deleting? There are a number of possibilities. One would be Mark Tremonti who has a historical and ongoing musical association with Stetina. There was already a mention of him there on the page. I have also done a bit more. There's other content that would eventually go in there as per the normal growth of an article. This is regardless of a deletion or not. If in the event of a deletion consideration, that would probably be the best. Perhaps if the Guitar One article was created, that would be another one as Stetina was involved with the magazine for some time as a writer and contributor. Then there could be his brothers Dale and Wayne where a paragraph could be. They're only stubs at the moment. With a re-direct, the history can be preserved which IMO is always a good thing. I would like to do more to fix the subject's page as it is a mess. Sadly, my time is limited and I am neglecting other things. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I somehow didn't catch when I first sorted this that {{subst:afd2}} does not appear to have been implemented here, leaving the AfD header incomplete. I have fixed this. (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch☎✎ 16:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the two programmes on the BBC all about him and the first of these and its report his on him were what led me to start this page and think him notable enough - perhaps via general notability rather than as a politician per se. A political activist, NGO worker and then politician (Msrasnw (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - maybe you should find more sources, only 2 out of the 7 sources work.
If there are 2 "working" sources, that should be enough for WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources is a video source which does not work anymore, is one source okay? TheNuggeteer (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our "policy" on this is WP:LINKROT, and it being dead should not be taken against the article, more so if the reference is more than a decade old.
So no, your premise of this article having just one source doesn't hold. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a WP:BEFORE search outside of the sources in the article and can't find anything which suggests to me that the article passes WP:GNG. The non-working links do not necessarily suggest there was secondary coverage of him, either - the magazine just has a wordpress site and the BBC radio bit is an interview, which are not secondary. SportingFlyerT·C 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refund requested after soft deletion so here we are again. Two editors in support of deletion and no support for keep in the first AfD so hopefully we can get a bigger consensus here. As before, the subject does not qualify under WP:GNG, as the sources (both in article and in BEFORE search) appear to be affiliated with the author, press releases, or trivial mentions. (One source might qualify, but we need multiple.) The subject also does not meet the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NWRITER. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Soft deletion is not an option. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 00:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still no sources found. This is about all I can find [13], which does not help notability. Even what's in the article now isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd originally PROD'ed this, that was removed. Bringing it to AfD as I still don't think the sources support notability. I was and am unable to find sourcing about this individual, only things they've written. Unsure if this would pass academic notability or notability for business people. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This scholar of international affairs has a good GS record that passes WP:Prof#C1 and has published notable books. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I don't find anything independent about him. In terms of publications, if you do a scholar search on "Zack Cooper" you get high hits but it is someone else - someone who writes about hospitals. If you add "Japan" to the search you get cites in the single to very low double digits. There's the same confusion in WorldCat books, but this Zack Cooper's books are found again in the single digits. (In VIAF he's "Cooper, Zack ‡c (Researcher in security studies)". With the 2 keep !votes above I wonder if this name confusion wasn't noticed. Lamona (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the scholar link above which differentiates between the two Zack Coopers. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks, I overlooked that. I still don't think he meets NPROF. His H-index is not high, in almost all of his publications he's one of 3 or 4 authors. I see no indication that meets: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I don't see awards. For AUTH we have " is known for originating a significant new concept," "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Just being an author or co-author of articles is not enough. I don't see that he is someone known for furthering a body of knowledge. Lamona (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly a borderline case. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a guideline like NPROF there has to be a sub-heading under which he is said to qualify. With respect to @Xxanthippe I don't see how this person passes under #1 -- the article makes no assertion he's recognized for significant impact by others in his discipline. No other heading seems to apply - he's not been a named chair professor or top academic institution leader, there's no assertion his publications have had significant impact, no evidence of impact outside of academia (meeting with a foreign official is a good start, but just a start), etc. Oblivy (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the scholar link, which I admit does not indicate outstanding citations. What do you think of it? I think that this BLP is borderline and might be argued to be a case of [WP:Too soon]]. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I don't see a google scholar link. Can you provide links, or just explain what you think demonstrates notability? Note that WP:TOOSOON is grounds for deletion, such as for a recent news story or someone who has received what could be temporary notability. Oblivy (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On my screen the scholar link is 6.3 inches above this text. It will work if you click it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
So you just wanted want me to click on the google scholar link on the nomination template and do my own searches? I do that anyway before voting -- it seems he's written a number of papers with a low citation count which is pretty close to irrelevant for notability IMHO. Oblivy (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This subject fails WP:GNG because only insubstantial coverage is indicated in articles that are all topically about her spouse, or published by her own school. She fails WP:GNG today and is unlikely to garner more substantial coverage in the future due to her being so dead. JFHJr (㊟) 05:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added in reviews of two of her publications. She wrote under the name Elizabeth Young, which makes searching for discussions of her work a challenge. I suspect there is more coverage of her work, but it requires sifting through articles about similar people. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find reviews for multiple books. I also added back some of the text that had been removed prior to the AFD nomination. While this text needs citations (and is now marked as such), it is useful to know in order to find the sources needed. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vortex - We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion. Great timing as I have been meaning to hopefully update it. The info is old and not entirely accurate as it was written by fans of my books years ago. Can u share any guidance on how we can improve its "notability" to meet Wikipedia standards? Also what is "RS"? You're probably a volunteer so thanks for all the work you do for the Wikipedia community. Scott Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Scott. Please read this link WP:GNG for the general standards to meet "notability". On Wikipedia, RS stands for "reliable sources". For authors, this commonly includes reviews of your books. None of the sources cited on the article are WP:RS because they are just raw interviews of you, only mention you briefly (see WP:GNG for more info) or are written by Forbes contributors (see this link WP:FORBES for info on deciding what Forbes articles count as RS).
Also, yes, like many editors on Wikipedia, I am a volunteer and edit as a hobby :) — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I'm concerned about you saying "We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion." Just a head's up — if you got an email about this, please be aware that scammers have targeted people whose articles have been deleted or flagged for deletion before (WP:SCAM), offering to restore it or something similar. Most, if not all, of these offers are fradulent. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 09:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vortex: thank you for this detailed reply. This is super helpful. We will work on it. What is the best way to submit or update? Is there a timeline? Thanks again, including for the accurate warning about the (likely scammy) deletion email we received. Nelsonave21 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nelsonave21: Please see WP:AFD, particularly this line: If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search [for] reliable sources so that the article meets notability guidelines. AfD discussion like this one are kept open for at least seven days before a decision is made (multiple editors have to give their opinions first before a decision about the consensus can be made, so this discussion will probably go on for longer).
In your case, editing the article yourself would be COI editing, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. However, you can find examples of reliable sources about you or your books and post it here, on this AfD, to prove the article meets WP:GNG. This would prevent deletion. Again, most RS for authors takes the form of book reviews in newspapers, magazines, or periodicals.
If this AfD is closed with consensus to delete the article, the article can be recreated if and only if it satisfies WP:GNG. In this case, I recommend the AfC process, which involves writing a draft article and submitting it for review. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've not reviewed the article yet, but while it is normal for an AFD discussion to be closed within a week or a month, don't worry too much about that, you can usually get an admin to restore the contents as a draft or by email if you'd like to work on it. "Deletion" is not generally irreversible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The USA Today won't open, the rest are non-RS per Cite Highlighter. Unfortunately, I don't see book reviews, nor much of anything for this person. No notability found, does not pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oaktree, Alpha3031, Vortex3427 and other editors - thanks very much for the followup on this.
We have gathered 100+ links referring to my work supporting startup entrepreneurs over the years, including dozens of book reviews, speaking appearances, and podcasts. We will narrow those down to the more significant ones.
What's the best way to share those links? I know you are volunteers and don't want to burden you, so how can we help best? (Happy to draft a rewrite of the current page for your review but not sure that's allowed.)
Also, many of the bigger name book reviews were from my first book back in 2006-8. It was a pioneering work in the development of Web 2.0 entrepreneurship. We have jpgs and some PDFs of those articles from outlets like the Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, Toronto Globe & Mail, Orange County Register etc. but unfortunately the old URLs are mostly 404 by now. How best to share those?
Similarly - my books have been translated into many languages around the world. That seems to show they are "notable" also in other languages. We found links to some of those (Turkish, Polish, Vietnamese) but other editions (like Russian and Japanese) are not discoverable via English search engines. We do have screen shots of the cover art, though. Can we share those, too?
Thanks for your help learning how Wikipedia works. I have donated repeatedly in the past but never gotten into the nuts & bolts of it like this.
Scott
p.s. I'm currently working on 2 new books to help startup founders, esp under-represented female, minority, and non-US entrepreneurs. Thank you all for your time. Hopefully we can keep my page alive so its available during those book launches next year. Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nelsonave21: Yes, please share the PDFs here. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 00:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do. How do we share PDFs here, though? There's no attachments tool in the toolbar.
@Nelsonave21: You'd have to upload it on another website and share the links here. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 08:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After scouring the internet for any possible sources, I've found twobook reviews and one article that I believe would count towards notability. I've also found fourmorebookreviews, but I'm unsure if the coverage is significant enough to count. Leaving them here for a more experienced editor to assess. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 09:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again - thanks for your guidance here. And for finding those additional sources. You found coverage I've never seen before!
Below is a list of URLs that are still active online that include some of the coverage of my books and work.
If these are helpful, we easily have a lot more from my almost 20 years of serving entrepreneurs if you'd like to see it.
Hopefully that's the right idea for sources.
Please LMK how we can help if we can? It looks like a fair bit of work to parse through those and assign them properly into an article, etc. The article needs updating anyway and we'd be happy to assist.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Do we have any editors willing to look through some of these references brought up in this discussion? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article as is is too promotional but the book reviews presented by Vortex look good. He passes WP:NAUTHOR, his works themselves appear to have been sufficiently reviewed enough for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also additional reviews of his work on Newspapers.com. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Factors do not appear to have meaningfully changed since the prior discussion. He's an active businessperson, and Insignia Ventures Partners may be notable but he does not appear so as an author. StarMississippi 01:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Anyone want to assess the sources offered by the IP editor? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 02:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment here's a start on assessing the newly identified sources:
Heavily embellished promotional bio created by an SPA, with no actual in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources. Except for nigeriasportsnews.com, which appears to be a puff piece, none of the sources refbombed in the article are actually about the subject—only tangential mentions from issues he has been involved in. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is notable as a journalist. Several coverage from BBC and also a host of a show on BBC as well. Subject is a main personality on a notable international station. Be icaverraverra]] talk 02:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a valid, policy-based reason when commenting at AfDs. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 18:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, his cause/work may be notable but notability isn't inherited. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The controversy section isn't terribly notable, rest of the sourcing is simple confirmation of employment. I don't find sources we'd use to build an article. Sadly as a free-lancer, there likely will not be much critical notice of their work; this assumes no awards such as a Pulitzer or an Emmy. I don't find any sort of confirmation of awards won. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could you elaborate on why none of the sources meet BASIC in your opinion? FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the biography in Educational Institutions Pamphlets (which is actually a 1950 L'Ecole National D'Administration book) plus short mentions in La Rabia De La Expresion, Le conseil d'état et le régime de Vichy", and the State Council plaque should be sufficient for WP:NBASIC. There are other short mentions, perhaps some longer ones, on GScholar. Oblivy (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 05:19, 10 June 2024 (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 no consensus. LizRead!Talk! 01:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject fails to meet WP:GNG as there is no in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources. However, the subject's book titled "The Book of India Ghosts" may meet WP:AUTHOR criterion number 3, which requires multiple reviews of books to establish notability. There are two reviews available for that particular book, one from The Hindu and one from The Hindu BusinessLine. Both reviews are from different publications and authors. GrabUp - Talk 18:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The author's work has not made a significant monument, or won significant critical attention. One of his book "The book of India Ghosts", got a review from hindu.com but this cannot be considered the criteria needed to pass WP:AUTHOR because the work needs to be widely cited by peers or successors. RangersRus (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RangersRus: WP:AUTHOR’s third criterion states: “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 multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.” There are two reviews from The Hindu and The Hindu BusinessLine from different authors. I think this is sufficient to meet the third criteria, as multiple reviews from independent sources are available. There are other criteria, but if a subject meets any of them, then it can be presumed to be notable. GrabUp - Talk 15:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: This talks about the author [17]; on the balance, just enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:23, 8 June 2024 (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.
FA
A
GA
