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.
Guess we have to go through this yet again. Utterly non notable company, complete promotional garbage sourced to unreliable sources, PR and other nonsense. There is absolutely nothing in the way of meaningful, in depth coverage in this article or elsewhere. Impressive client list is about the extent to which anyone can say anything about this company, though that can't even be reliably sourced. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
disputed draftify, no secondary sources, not able to make a case for notability. entirely promotional microbiologyMarcus(petri dish•growths) 21:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete preferably speedily - non-notable vanity spam, doesn't even warrant a discussion for the obvious nature of the article (promo and a complete and utter lack of notability.) GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete no secondary sources at all. No significant coverage. Elspea756 (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete no good sources, exhibitions of his website are clearly photoshopped, how exhibition in Austria has the same interior as one in London? Hermann Heilner Giebenrath (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Clearly does not meet any notability guideline. Lack of secondary reliable sources and notable exhibitions.Antimargi (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fails WP:NBIO. Coverage is limited to images of her in costume, repeated on numerous websites, without in-depth analysis or biographical content. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Back to draft. Figure lacks notability from credible sources. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Subject has received significant coverage in multiple sources. There's certainly enough here for an article. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[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
Weak Keep - It looks like it got reviews by both Kirkus Reviews that you can find here, and Publishers Weekly that you can find here, as well as a short review in The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, which is here. None of the reviews are particularly long, but I believe they would fulfil point one of WP:NBOOK. I took a look at the Italian Wikipedia, but it does not look like this book has its own article there to draw any additional sources from. At the very least, if other editors do not agree on these reviews being sufficient for Keeping, this article should at least be used as a Redirect to Pierdomenico Baccalario rather than being deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. In addition to the reviews above, I found this in Italian, which gives us the two reviews for WP:BOOKCRIT even if we discount Kirkus/PW. (A surprising number of books don’t even make it to Kirkus/PW/Booklist so I don’t think they’re unacceptable for BOOKCRIT but it’s nice to see other sources too.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will add more reliable source to it. Nansyy (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: In addition to the recreation history here, this item has been created on Wikidata 13 times, and creation has been blocked by a filter a further 12 times. This doesn't speak directly to the notability of the subject, but it does speak to the creator's motivation, conflict of interest, and unwillingness to abide by our policies. Bovlb (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - The subject of this article is a non-notable illustrator. He does not meet GNG nor NARTIST criteria for notability. The existing sourcing is all primary, rather than WP:SIGCOV in fully independent reliable sources. An online BEFORE search reveals more primary sources and social media. It's definitely WP:TOOSOON for this artist. Netherzone (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draftify I see an artist with some non-trivial RS that borders on meeting WP:BASIC: like 1 or this inteview in a Mormon Artist Magazine 2 also this blurb 3Lightburst (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Lightburst, thank you for what you found in a BEFORE. I too like to save artists articles if there is potential. However, the first two you list are primary sources: interviews. The first does have some editorial content so might count towards notability, but the other does not have any editorial content, just simple questions. The third source you found is a press release, which also a primary source. These might work to back up claims, but anyone can say anything they want about themselves and we need what independent RS's say about the person to establish notability. Netherzone (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Netherzone: I know it is thin. I look for ATD when I can and a draft is a good compromise IMO. Lightburst (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Swedish songwriter whose only notability is winning the 1991 edition of the Eurovision Song Contest. Although he wrote another song for Eurovision which placed 14th I believe this article falls down on WP:ONEEVENT and should be deleted. Recently dePRODded. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep He still seems to be active. He was inducted in this Hall of Fame [8], this talks about him [9] but it's paywalled. This is also paywalled but describes his career and a documentary made about him [10]. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - clearly established and notable career as a songwriter. Part of the Hall of Fame. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very strong keep Melodifestivalen participant (as a songwriter). J 1982 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is pretty much an unsourced BLP. The sources/external links used are not independent of the subject (a book he published or a feature he created). I cannot find any sources that indicate the subject is notable. This is the only thing that came close, but it is just a passing mention, and the article is really about a feature the subject contributed to. - 2pou (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this radio person, some connections to an Addams Family production, but that's not this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NBASIC and per nom, no significant coverage found. TailsWx 02:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG --Kuntra (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge/redirect to Steve Wright in the Afternoon - it's a plausible search term for people looking for information on Mendoza and other participants in that show but I agree he's not notable enough for a standalone article. WaggersTALK 14:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Steve Wright in the Afternoon. This BLP continues to have insufficient secondary sources to demonstrate notability, and I am unable to find more. The show he presented on is the most appropriate redirect target, and furthermore I have added information on Mendoza to the Steve Wright in the Afternoon#Format section, such that merge is no longer necessary.ResonantDistortion 23:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). The main publications mentioned on the page are an unpublished book (which has been such for 13 years) and contributions to the OCD (an encyclopedia with 100s of contributors). She does not hold a named professorship or similar. The TV and radio appearances are routine. The other possible basis for notability is an appearance on University Challenge, which is WP:BLP1E. Previous deletion discussions have noted the BLP1E point, but that 1E seems to have seemed more significant at the time; it is now very obscure (she is currently listed on the University Challenge page as notable on account of her status as an academic... but as stated, she doesn't meet WP's standard for academic notability). Furius (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Her two appearances on heavyweight radio show In Our Time contribute to notability under #7 of WP:NPROF, and the University Challenge coverage continued well beyond the one event, with references like this and this (paywalled, can't read in full) showing that she received ongoing coverage. Classicists publish slowly, by the nature of their field. PamD 09:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Criterion 7 of NPROF: "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" which may be met if "the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." OR "the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study." When one of the options is to have authored several books, I don't think appearing as one of three speakers on a 45-minute radio show with over 1,000 episodes reaches this threshold. "Classicists publish slowly" does not exclude them from notability requirements. Not to have published a book 13 years after the doctorate is quite extraordinary.
As for the coverage that you mention, this is still part of that one event - it could all be covered in University Challenge 2008–09 and University Challenge, which would also allow it to be better placed in context. Furius (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cherwell is the student newspaper of her alma mater; per consensus such papers are not wiki-independent of their schools and so do not count towards notability any more than alumni newsletters would. The extent of her mention there is just one clause in one sentence so definitely doesn't demonstrate SUSTAINED coverage anyway. The Telegraph piece has just 2ish sentences on her directly so doesn't count either. NPROF C7 requires far more widespread and frequent instances of serving as an expert in lay media. JoelleJay (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. While her academic career seems only marginally notable, and individual quiz show appearances would not seem to be, she is clearly not notable for "one event", but seems to have been a regular panelist on two season-long programs, as well as a guest panelist on various quiz and academic programs on both television and radio. Her academic posts in addition to this seem to me to be enough to establish notability. This is not someone who's only known for one thing, but for a number of different things, several of which have brought her to public attention, as well as establishing at least an arguable degree of academic notability; it does not seem reasonable to assert that she is not notable solely because none of the individual things she's done might be sufficiently notable to justify an article by themselves. P Aculeius (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per WP:BLP1E. Wealth of coverage from University Challenge, not a low-profile individual. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hameltion, BLP1E doesn't mean an individual can be notable for a single event if they are non-low-profile; WP:SUSTAINED applies to all pages so there would have to be demonstrable coverage over a wider period that does not just regurgitate the same content generated at the time of the event. BLP1E is mostly meant to decide whether an article should be made on a person or on the event associated with them when BOTH would be valid pages, and since "Gail Trimble's appearance on UC" is clearly not notable as an event the "low-profile" BLP1E criterion is irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Passing mentions don't contribute to NBASIC at all, though, no matter how many of them there are. They are not cumulative. And student newspapers are explicitly excluded from counting toward notability. The BBC article doesn't provide any further coverage of her, it just repeats what was said at the time. Lowering our thresholds for notability to include "single event + some later passing mentions" would mean thousands of reality show contestants would be eligible for articles. But we just don't do that, even for many of the million-dollar winners of top reality shows like Survivor -- see the uncontroversial deletions/redirections of Tina Wesson (won the second season of Survivor and got to top 4 in 27th season; sourcing included [11][12] along with contemporary coverage of seasons 2 and 27), Brian Heidik (won 5th season, also acted in multiple TV shows, non-contemporary coverage includes discussion on several pages in a book), Chris Daugherty (won season 9, non-contemporary coverage includes an academic work, a profile 8 years later, a story run in WaPo about him malingering, etc.), Bob Crowley (oldest winner), and on and on (and that's not even including all the "Where are they now?" pieces that provide lengthy blurbs). What makes the coverage of a college quiz show contestant so much more important to document? It's not like she's the only person in reality TV who went on to become a professor. As her claim to notability is entirely dependent on her UC appearances, having a policy-compliant WP article (i.e. focused on what is covered in IRS sources) will just be overemphasizing a part of her life that probably is only a minor aspect to her at this point. JoelleJay (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Zero evidence of notability through NPROF (appearing on IOT is not unusual for academics in the area and would be considered one piece of evidence towards C7, but the criterion requires much more widespread acknowledgement of expertise). The coverage of her UC appearance is not sufficient to overcome the need for WP:SUSTAINED coverage; the only independent pieces published after 2009 are a BBC "Where are they now" blurb on 10 April 2017 and a clearly non-intellectually-independent derivative blurb in another "Where are they now" series in the Telegraph. Neither provides any additional commentary on her than what was said in 2009, so they do not have any weight. JoelleJay (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your argument seems to be that she's only notable for appearing on a television program in 2009; but this wasn't a one-time appearance; rather it was a season-long one as her team was the winner of that series. She also appeared as part of another team on another program in 2017 and 2018, and made other appearances—some of them academic or scholarly, rather than on quiz shows—in 2020, 2021, and 2022, indicating non-trivial expertise in her field. Essentially you're arguing that she can't be notable because none of the individual things she's done are sufficiently notable, but by that logic we'd be eliminating a lot of scholars and academics, to say nothing of entertainers, who may be familiar to the public for a number of minor things, but not for a single major event. That simply isn't a reasonable standard. P Aculeius (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't have articles on every single Survivor or Bachelor contestant, even though those get waaaaaaaaaay more coverage for a longer period of time. This is because they fail SUSTAINED. Appearing on televised quiz shows does not mean anything unless it corresponds to significant secondaryindependent coverage that extends well beyond the time of those events (and it offers zero weight towards academic notability per NPROF 2c). Essentially you're arguing that she can't be notable because none of the individual things she's done are sufficiently notable, but by that logic we'd be eliminating a lot of scholars and academics, to say nothing of entertainers, who may be familiar to the public for a number of minor things, but not for a single major event.This is in fact explicitly the standard we have for GNG. It does not matter how important an aspect or event associated with a person is; if the coverage is not significant, independent, secondary, and reliable it does not count towards GNG. It is 100% about the coverage, not about what someone has done. These notability criteria aren't additive; non-significant coverage at some later date can't just be added to SUSTAINED-failing coverage to meet GNG (or even NBASIC), else we would have AfD-proof articles on every reality TV contestant ever. So that leaves the only avenue for notability as NPROF C7, but the requirements are very clear that merely providing an expert opinion occasionally -- even in high-profile venues -- does not equate to a C7 pass. You also cannot combine "halfway to achieving GNG" and "halfway to achieving NPROF C7" to reach notability because the criteria for one is invalid for the other so neither GNG nor NPROF can be met. JoelleJay (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You seem to be confusing notability with verifiability. Every fact that makes a topic notable must be verifiable, but the individual facts that go toward demonstrating notability do not each have to be sufficiently notable to justify a stand-alone article. A topic that is the subject of ongoing attention in reliable sources over a period of years will generally be notable, even if it can be argued that none of those items is independently notable. You can't simply kick out each item as insufficiently notable, and then claim that there's nothing to demonstrate notability.
You're quite correct that not every game show contestant is notable—but that's a far cry from claiming that no game show contestants are notable, or that nobody who came to public attention due to participation in a game show is notable. And as several people have pointed out, not only has the subject of this discussion been highly visible across multiple programs over a term of several years, but she's also appeared as a subject-matter expert on scholarly topics on other radio and television programs, in addition to holding an academic position at a very prestigious university, and contributing toward notable works of scholarship. Maybe no one thing she's done is all that notable, but all of these things combined seem sufficient to consider the subject notable. P Aculeius (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Others have cited sustained coverage of the years, and yes, a lot of it is of the "where are they now?" variety, but to my mind the coverage meets the requirements of WP:BASIC and she also has a (yes, marginally) notable academic career. This Guardian article sums it up for me by citing her as "[a]mong the most notable female contestants" on University Challenge. While it's not a straightforward case, I would say keep, for similar reasons to those given by P Aculeius. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to also note that the length of time of her appearance on University Challenge weighed into my decision-making. She received extensive coverage over this time in 2009 that continued in the following years; I don't see this as being a WP:BIO1E or WP:BLP1E situation. This is not a case where "little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography". Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this is the case then should the article be refocused? Only her academic career, not University challenge is mentioned in the lead, but editors seem to be finding the latter to be the source of her notability. Furius (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point; the lead was pretty inadequate really. I've had a stab at expanding it. (Not presupposing the outcome of this discussion, no hard feelings obviously if it the consensus ends up being to delete.) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This interpretation would mean every person on the top two teams of a televised reality program is notable, which is absolutely not the case. Survivor and The Bachelor garner millions more viewers and season-long coverage of individuals than UC, but we do not have articles on every single contestant because they do not overcome the requirements for SUSTAINED. Even the ones that get interviews or become panelists on other shows later on aren't considered notable unless there is substantial secondary coverage accompanying them. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. This is TOOSOON for passing NPROF or NAUTHOR, her book as 5 citations and her academic career is not yet at a point where she would pass NPROF. She is early career so this may change later. Appearing on a quiz show in 2009 should not make her notable either. --hroest 20:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: I am basing this on the existence of adequate coverage in reliable secondary sources as a game show contestant and related ongoing activities, not as an academic. There is also a list of potential sources on the article's talk page, including major newspapers and the BBC. While most of the significant coverage has some age, WP:NOTTEMPORARY specifically says that coverage does not need to be ongoing. Also, this is not someone noted for a single event, as her related quiz/gameshow career has been ongoing. I also note that the decision was to keep this article in two prior AfD. Rublamb (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While coverage does not need to be ongoing, it does need to be significant well beyond the time surrounding a single event. What SIGCOV exists past 2009? JoelleJay (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 2009 University Challenge coverage involved a series of events, not a single event, and were still being discussed in 2016 [13], in 2017 [14][15], in 2018 [16], in 202 [17], and in 2021 [18]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: based on amount of coverage, subject meets WP:BASIC criteria, as it states that multiple independent citations can be combined to show notability. Subject also possibly meets WP:ENT due to being on multiple TV game shows.Royal88888 (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: per arguments of Chocmilk03, Rublamb, and others. She clearly passes WP:BASIC for the University Challenge coverage, her subsequent academic career and media appearences means that she isn't a low profile individual, and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the UC coverage does not pass WP:SUSTAINED and therefore fails NOTNEWS. Should we have articles on every single reality TV contestant just because there is coverage of them during the season they appear in? JoelleJay (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JoelleJay: WP:SUSTAINED says "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." In this situation, she is evidently not a low-profile individual, both due to her academic career and subsequent appearances on quiz shows. @Jonathan A Jones has cited some of the ongoing news coverage. It's true that some of these mentions are passing, such as [19], but they provide evidence (to my mind) that she continues to be notable.
I've also been thinking about why we have the notability rules. There's enough significant coverage of Trimble in reliable sources that a whole article can be written, that it isn't based on random gossip, that an article can be fair and balanced and not based on original research or a single source. She is of enduring notability in a way that many reality show contestants aren't. WP:NOTWHOSWHO, but coverage of Trimble goes beyond a single event, in my view. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 2009 University Challenge coverage involved a series of events, not a single event, and were still being discussed in 2016 [20], in 2017 [21][22], in 2018 [23], in 2020 [24], and in 2021 [25]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non-notable children's author; fails WP:NAUTHOR and generally fails WP:GNG. Article is a bit of unsourced biography coatracking a collection of commercial links. Article was previously draftified but was moved back without improvement. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Has Kirkus [26] and Publsiher's Weekly reviews [27]. also in Common Sense Media [28]Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR#3 - this author has multiple reviews for multiple works, based on the reviews in the article; the article could be expanded with this independent, reliable and secondary coverage of her career, but the sources are available. She also has an entry in Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors that is included in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Clearly meets notability as an author. Thriley (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep : She is well-reviewed in reliable and authoritative sources and also has a bio in Contemporary Authors. There is enough evidence of notability for an author. Rublamb (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep - lots of reviews = clearly notable author. LadyofShalott 13:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. Almost every reference is a paper co-authored by Viega himself. Out of the three that aren't, two don't mention his name at all, and one uses a single quote from him. benǝʇᴉɯ 07:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
John is the most respected people in the software security space. Author of numerous books on the topic. I have just spent the afternoon researching and updating this. Will post next. 81.100.30.32 (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Viega seems to have been one of the major influencers of computer security. WP:ACADEMIC applies here, as his work in the field is highly influential, whether or not he has been the subject of mutliple independent media stories. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as passes WP:ACADEMIC criteria 1 as google scholar shows highly cited works here. At WP:ACADEMIC Specific criteria notes: Note 1 states:" the most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete: Source 2 is probably the best of the bunch, it's a rather short article in a RS. Rest are non-RS publications. A top newsmaker award isn't helpful. I can't find anything extra for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: He's notable as there's a lot of coverage in major reliable newspapers in Nigeria where he was born. There is coverage about him in a lot of sources including Pulse Nigeria, The Nation, European Financial Review, Nigerian Tribune, Vanguard, Authority Magazine, Business Anecdote, Medium and many others. The newspapers he was featured in are the top newspapers in Nigeria. They should not be dismissed. There is no basis for the assertion that any article is a COI/paid article. That assertion is purely speculative and not factual. Moreover his book Dead or Alive meets the notability threshold because it was featured in Kirkus Reviews and Good Reads too. Evanzoe (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC) — Evanzoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Comment that Kirkus Indie is Kirkus' pay-for-review program, and a review there does not contribute to notability. Goodreads is user-generated, and also does not contribute to notability. I have not yet developed an opinion on the rest. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That Kirkus review is Kirkus Indie, and does not qualify towards notability (it's paid coverage). -- asilvering (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
this is identical to #2 - obviously, this is PR copy.
this is the Kirkus review that is paid coverage.
I suspect this is paid, but I'm not sure; at any rate it's basically a regurgitated CV, not journalism.
this is the same PR copy as #2 and #5.
Not a single one of these is useful to show notability, with only a very slim possibility of #1 being useable. -- asilvering (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on WP:NGRS These sources are reliable: Vanguard, Nigerian Tribune and Independent Nigeria
The Business Connect Magazine Article, can also be accessed here also, where you would see that he has 5 paragraphs of independent coverage before the interview portion. He is also on the cover of the magazine. While Wikipedia guidelines may not explicitly consider being featured on a magazine cover as a criterion for notability, common sense dictates that individuals featured on magazine covers are often widely recognized and noteworthy. Royal88888 (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment that Vanguard was found to be only marginally reliable in a recent RSN discussion [33]. I didn't try to track down the others. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am aware and noticed that too, so in one place it says it is "Marginally Reliable" and in another place it is says it is "Reliable,' we can average that out and say it is Mostly reliable. I would also agree with your Kirkus Review argument, so that one would be considered unreliable. But we have many articles besides the Vanguard and Kirkus, so we need to evaluate the overall coverage and even if you discount Vanguard and Kirkus, we still have 2 other reliable Nigerian publications, plus we also have Business Connect Magazine and several others. Royal88888 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would agrue if youre paying for coverage, and the other articles appear to be of a similar style, they're also probably less-than-reliable. Nswix (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep -First thing is, nomination based on notability is not appropriate because the subject clearly passes the notability. Regarding the WP:RS, just because there is a reference from Vanguard doesn’t mean other references also lack WP:RS. As per the findings by Royal88888 sufficient reliable discussion exists. As for WP:NOTEBOMB, the issue has been resolved by removing unnecessary links and part of the content. So I would say keep it and improve it if there is still room for improvement.Cruzdoze (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC) — Cruzdoze (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Delete. Obvious PR-laundering. See my analysis of the sources provided by Royal88888 above. -- asilvering (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Some of the sources are not reliable and some of them are interviews. Cleanup is required by removing the unreliable sources and interviews, however, there are some sources that seem reliable for Nigeria related topics as per this list Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Africa Sources List.Atighot (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as per source #8 by Nigerian Tribune, #21 by Pulse Nigeria and #25 by Independent Nigeria as they all provide significant coverage about the subject as required by WP:SIGCOV and are reliable as per WP:NGRS. I must point out that the subject was listed as one of the 10 most influential Nigerians in the diaspora by Pulse Nigeria and he was one of the top 25 International Newsmakers of 2021 so that is enough to meet WP:GNG as well as WP:NBASIC. Powerviki (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A formal source analysis would be very helpful if an editor wanted to put one together. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to show notability markers such as notable literary awards and/or the reception of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them and their work in real reliable sources -- but the only notability claim being attempted here is that his work exists, and the only source being cited is his "staff" profile on the self-published website of his own publisher, which is not a notability-building source. As I can't read Arabic, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with the necessary language skills and resource access can find enough improved sourcing to salvage it -- but nothing in this version of the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: I honestly want to save this article but BEFORE doesn't help, most sources are just passing mentions, mentions mostly about his book (Women of Karantina). Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Salvage. I agree the 'article' can't be called an article. However his work is very popular in Egypt and the Arab world, and so I started an attempt to salvage it. Ypedia1 (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. This article needs additional review after article improvements. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment there is an ar.wiki article at ناءل الطوخي but I can’t connect it in Wikidata because of things that make my head explode. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep there are loads of reliable independent sources e.g. 1, 2, 3 and many more. Mccapra (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He exists, but I couldn't establish sources showing he meets WP:N. In CAT:NN for more than 13 years. Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Contested WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle(talk • contribs) 22:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The name is familiar to me and the article has been around for a while so I thought he might have written a few books... but no, just a few articles on websites like chessbase. Hasn't played in a US championship or represented the US at anything, hasn't won anything important. Doesn't meet the threshold of notability, per the informal WP:NCHESS criteria. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As mentioned on Wikipedia talk page, there are scores of film critics who are at least as well known as this one who do not have Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia pages for film critics should only exist when it comes to ones like Pauline Kael, Roger Ebert etc.
Also, as Staceyt04 said, "none of the language present connotes any kind of notability. Furthermore, the tone with which this article is written suggests self-promotion. There are references to her current output at Vulture and a Twitter page that, as of this writing, does not exist. 6 of the 23 sources provided are just her writing. The act of writing, as well as the fact of being employed as a staff writer, is not itself notable."— Preceding unsigned comment added by WarrenWilliam (talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. She meets notability as a creative professional given that she has been nominated several times for a significant award (ASME Awards), she is widely cited across significant RS, and she provides commentary in multiple RS. And despite your opinion, notability for critics isn't determined based on your personal determination. Citrivescence (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I also want to add that the nominator made an edit to this page about a highly controversial topic that was rolled back, which indicates this is not a good faith nomination. Citrivescence (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete - per nom, and based on a search online and at the Wikipedia Library; the article has one book review [34]; her profile at ISFDB does not list reviews in entries for her works. Beccaynr (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep wiki page has been up since 2006 with steady and incremental additions to the bibliography, and I found another review listed for her book here and a mention of her in a contest with other notable Oklahoma authors (Ree Drummond, S.E. Hinton, & Lou Berney)in 2016--LovingtheBruce (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC) — LovingtheBruce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
Keep. The figure is notable and has some reliable sources. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - The part of the WP:AUTHOR notability guideline based on reviews (#3) indicates more is needed to support notability than two reviews for one work, so the NONzine review found for Vision2, and the review from The Oklahoman in the article for Vision2, plus the passing mention of her name in a Best of OKC 2016: People source about other people, is not enough according to the notability guideline to develop a balanced article that is not advertising. The lack of adequate support in reliable sources for notability under any guideline is one reason for deletion, and this article also appears to be contrary to WP:NOT policy because this article seems to be promotion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: I can't find mentions of the author at all, I'm not sure the NonZine review is a RS. There doesn't seem to be enough critical notice of the author to meet notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - from the award link: "The Ursa Major Awards are Anthropomorphic (a.k.a. Furry) Fandom's equivalents of s-f fandom's Hugo Awards, mystery fandom's Anthony Awards, horror fandom's Bram Stoker Awards, and so forth. The Ursa Majors are administered and presented by the Anthropomorphic Literature and Arts Association (ALAA), an organization dedicated to promoting anthropomorphic literature and arts both within and outside of the fandom." This does not appear to be a notable award supporting notability. The other link above is an archive listing, not a secondary source supporting notability, and may be a different Kristi Brooks who is a painter. Beccaynr (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: a passing mention by a couple of local newspapers falls short of establishing notability per WP:AUTHOR. The clearly canvassed votes here certainly don't help the case. Owen×☎ 17:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There seems to be no citations, nothing to establish notability. She is just some random French journalist who wants to abolish compulsory education and prisons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2013creek (talk • contribs) 03:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Although there are external links, this article has been unreferenced since at least 2016. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment , I think the article in the moment is clearly lacking in information. However since it already exists in several languages and she is an author I would rather Keep it as a stub. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of the languages is an almost content-less stub. Several others are mere translations of the French Wikipedia, equally as lacking in sources as it itself is, except that they don't point it out like the French Wikipedia does with a notice at the top of the article. Uncle G (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - The fr-wiki article -- which one would expect to be the best -- is similarly poor, and suitable RS sigcov have not been provided for any version in almost 20 years. She has a common name (I've just removed one incorrect wikilink), and insufficient coverage appears using her name plus "unschooling"/"non-scolarisation". She is quote in a paragraph of "The Wiley Handbook of Home Education", and a few papers but I don't believe that it is sufficient for consideration against GNG or NACADEMIC. (I'd be ok with a redirect and brief capsule coverage at unschooling if independent secondary coverage of her work/ideas were used/cited).~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked at fr:Catherine Baker per Hydronium Hydroxide and that has been tagged as lacking non-autobiographical sources since 2021. Both articles in both languages have the same problem. I went looking, and found no documentation of this person's life and exactly one book review of this person's works, in Livres hebdo in 1985. Unfortunately, it seems to be not reliable, because it claimed that Baker was "Ex-journaliste, fondatrice de l'«agence de presse Libération»". But in fact there is no such person recorded as a founder of Agence de presse Libération (a.k.a. Agence de presse APL [fr]), so apparently the book review wasn't checking facts. (Ironically, here are two Wikipedias, 20 years after that, outright ignoring "Ex-journaliste" in 1985 anyway.) The one source that the French Wikipedia cites that isn't the article subject documenting the article subject, turns out to be a 1 sentence mention. There just isn't enough independent and reliable documentation existing to write a biography from, here.
Aside: I found Hydronium Hydroxide's "several papers" independently. It's 3, one of which is a footnote when one reads it, one of which is a doctoral thesis that I have no access to, and one of which merely states that people started pushing the text of Insoumission à l’école obligatoire on-line in the early 2000s. Guess when this article and the French Wikipedia's article were written!
Does not appear to meet NBIO or the GNG. The two references are both articles written by the subject. Google searches return more writing by the subject, but little in the way of sourcing about the subject. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 08:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have any citations in mind? My concern is that adequate citations don't seem to exist. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FA
A
GA
