Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Arts and Entertainment Work Group

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


Related Projects

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

Related Portals

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

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

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

Directions for expanding any division below

[edit]

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

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

Tagging articles

[edit]

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

Members

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

General

[edit]

Infoboxes

[edit]

Requested articles

[edit]

Actors

[edit]

Architects

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


Illustrators

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

Painters

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

Photographers

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

Sculptors

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

Comics artists

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

Visual arts deletions

[edit]
Visual arts deletion sorting discussions


Visual arts

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

No secondary reliable sources on the page, nothing much else found which would meet the RS JMWt (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep A large series by an undoubtedly notable artist. A quick google search finds Lebanon and the Split of Life: Bearing Witness Through the Art of Nabil Kanso By Meriam Soltan · 2024, a large monograph on his woerk, which is bound to have coverage, but only has a few pages on preview. As he is a Lebanese artist, there is no doubt more in Arabic and probably French. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. I'm not really in favour of citing works we haven't actually read and/or confirmed the content we believe it contains. If we haven't read it, we can't cite it. Even if it is true that this work does contain enough to meet the GNG, that's just one ref. I agree this is an important artist, that doesn't mean everything they did is individually notable. JMWt (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This seems to be a popular subject in art, but nothing for a "Nabil Kanso" that I can find... Either primary sourcing or wiki mirrors. Literally hundreds of paintings with this subject, but I don't see much critical notice for this series. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No results for '"Nabil Kanso" "Dance of Salome"' in EBSCOhost, ProQuest, or newspapers.com. Jfire (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Big Bicycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Performed WP:BEFORE in Proquest, Newspapers.com and Google Search. Of the three sources used, the Atlas Obscura page is user generated. The other two pages are clearly not independent, promoting accommodation and merchandise. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; search turned up no apparent notability. Zanahary 02:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clop (erotic fan art) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

To put it simply, the fact that there exists an article for "Clop" on Wikipedia is unbelievable. Clop, as a subgenre of a subgenre of pornography, fails to meet any expectations of relevance or importance a Wikipedia page ought to have. This kind of page explaining a specific form of internet phenomena belongs on Know Your Meme. At best, it warrants a small subsection on a larger Brony or MLP-related article. If there's going to be an entire Clop article, there may as well be articles for Sonichu and Sneed's Feed and Seed. Patriot of Canuckistan (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

A vanity page and likely autobiography (user = P.D.C., who has edited primarily this page and other pages related to the Cangelaris family) of a non-notable individual; fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. No evidence of passing any criterion of WP:ACADEMIC. No evidence of passing WP:NAUTHOR; his books appear to be self-published. No evidence of passing WP:GNG; the sources are limited to passing mentions in government documents/directories and mostly a long run of mentions in various Who's Who lists, a pay-to-play source that is not independent. And no evidence of passing on any other WP:NBIO criterion. Nothing qualifying comes up in a BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom, the entire "Hobbies and Volunteering" section is totally unsourced, and is likely written by the subject. fails academic, nauthor, nbio and gng.
Themoonisacheese (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, I received your message as of your proposal for deletion of the "Panayotis D. Cangelaris" article and I would like to know the specific reason, please! Furthermore, I noticed that the included picture was removed allegedly because of copyright violation (Linkedin). However, if some one has the copyright of this picture, that is me and no one else (and it is me who did provided it for free use). It was never copied from Linkedin or any one else. Could you, please, explain as well? By the way, I would like to reiterate that I too have the best intentions for the highest quality of Wikipedia's articles and I think that this article lives up anybody's expectations. However, any improvement is most welcome and anybody is of course free to do so. I thank you in anticipation for your interest and any reasonable reaction to my reply!

Themoonisacheese (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is the lack of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find anything that would fulfill WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:PROF. His books all appear to be self-published and the articles don't seem to have had substantial citations or widespread publication. Separate from the discussion here, but I concur with the nominator that P.D.C. may also have a COI (seems like a single purpose account, and the initials are the same as the subject of this AFD). nf utvol (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Flag for the Confederation of the Rhine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. It is actually stated in the article that this flag does not exist. TheLongTone (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Clearly incomplete, but notability might be established if RSes can be found. CR (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not finished. It’s meant to be about possible historical flags for Rhine confederation, aswell as give context to the white green blue flag and discuss its origins tae prevent misguided edits to confederation page itself ToadGuy101 (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
John Macleod (art director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Significant WP:BEFORE has brought up no reliable sources at all, and no evidence of notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jfire (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Official portrait of General Mark A. Milley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coverage not WP:SUSTAINED, coverage is WP:ROUTINE, and exemplifies WP:TDS (Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article). Not independently notable and could serve as a footnote or two lines on any given Donald Trump article. Literally, the content is "the US government put up a portrait of a general, and then right after Trump took office, it was removed". WP:NOTNEWS. BarntToust 02:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A poorly thought-out article creation. The removal of a portrait, as politically-overtoned as it may be, does not grant notability to the portrait. Mention this in "Second Presidency of Donald Trump" or whatever the article name about that is. Not worthy of a standalone. Zaathras (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete a blatant WP:COATRACK to make sure that every single petty thing Trump does gets an article publicizing it. a sentence in Milley's article can handle the matter perfectly fine, not to mention actually contextualizing this wrt the animosity between the two. Mangoe (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rudra Shiva (statue) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG: no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sources include two travel blogs, Tumblr, a Tripadvisor-like website, three websites promoting tourism in the area, and one news article. Suggest redirecting to Devrani Jethani Temple Complex. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Redirect to Devrani_Jethani_Temple_Complex#Rudra_Shiva_Statue. RangersRus (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC) See note below.[reply]

Merge or keep. A good amount of info is clearly available, but it seems like consensus is saying its not enough for separate article. Keep the info, dump the rest. It does seem likely that a book and article being written about something would refute the claim that it fails WP:GNG Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, well sourced, meets GNG, and per above there is an entire book written about it. Given the sources and topic I'm not understanding why this is even nommed. At first I thought this was a piece of modern art, quite sophisticated for its era. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source Analysis:
    • Source 1, boloji.com is unreliable source where if you love to write and share, your name can also be a part of boloji's ever-growing list after you agree to their terms.
    • Source 2 is a district tourism page promoting the tourist location.
    • Source 3 is unreliable Tumblr. (Social media)
    • Source 4, trip.com, has nothing significant or even passing mention.
    • Source 5, Chattisgarh tourism pdf page promoting the tourism place and tourism information centers.
    • Source 6, inditales is unreliable Travel blog.
    • Source 7, naidunia, news and current Affairs portal, covering news from the states of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. This has same promotional content from tourism sites.WP:NEWSORGINDIA.
    • Source 8, same chattisgarh tourism page with promotion and advertising excursions, packages for the tour. RangersRus (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's an entire book written about this statue (see above comment), which qualifies as a reference. The statue is obviously notable as an artwork, and that it is part of an existing temple has little to do with this stand-alone notability. Quite the statue. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not able to access those books and maybe that is why they are not on the page maybe because of lack of content verification. Going by the sources on the page, Redirect or even delete is strong case as made by RebeccaGreen. I do not see with poor sources on the page, what is to be merged unless those books can be accessed. If anyone can access those books, please let me know and I can check to see if Merge to Devrani Jethani Temple Complex is also an option. RangersRus (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Devrani Jethani Temple Complex. The article is in poor shape, but the existence of a book focused on this statue and held in many academic libraries [12] demonstrates notability. I have no objection to a rename. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the renaming as proposed by RebeccaGreen, per their rationale. "Tala" is specified in all academic sources. -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

[edit]

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

[edit]

Visual arts - Deletion Review

[edit]

Performing arts

[edit]

Comedians

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

Dancers

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

Directors

[edit]

Musicians

[edit]

Magicians

[edit]

Writers and critics

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

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

Related Projects

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

Related Portals

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

FAs and GAs
Announcements/To do (edit)

Members

[edit]

Categories

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

Comics writers

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

Romance authors

[edit]

Lists

[edit]

Poets

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

Stubs

[edit]

Authors / Writers deletions

[edit]
Authors / Writers deletion sorting discussions


Authors

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

WP:NOTINHERITED, George here is only known in connection with his famous son Leonardo DiCaprio. His "acting debut" is a very small few second cameo, his work as a writer/artist (not really clear) fails WP:ARTIST and his work as a filmmaker fails WP:FILMMAKER, getting a small stint editing on local newspapers does not make you notable. Source 5 in the article shows he's worked on... three comics? Don't know if it's even reliable as a source but clearly not noteworthy in itself. jolielover♥talk 14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can not locate any references that meet WP:RS except BBC. Fails WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Membership in the in Red project does not imply the ability to produce non-notable subjects. Aside from the BBC, Newsclick, Sahapedia, and Forward Press are unreliable sources that are deficient in credibility. WP:RS. AndySailz (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pharaoh of the Wizards, On what ground the subject passes GNG. Let's discuss about the references. AndySailz (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per full professor at two notable universities (one established more than a century ago) and female academic in a place where professors are rare clear pass of the average professor test. (p.s. to AndySailz -- responding to every comment at AfD w/o supporters w/o specific rebuttals is rarely the way to make a winning argument) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I do not see anything that passes the average professor test here. Being a professor, even at well-established universities, is exactly the thing that does _not_ pass this test. Citations are low, and none of the other criteria seem to be passed. It looks more likely that the subject here passes WP:NAUTHOR, but this would generally require reviews of her books, which I did not find. Following in case better evidence of notability emerges. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Russ Woodroofe : Hey Russ, thank you for your comments. As an author, Hemlata has written several books, and you can check out their reviews by clicking on the following links: Link 1, Link 2, Link 3 Link 4 Link 5 and Link 6. These reviews are from reliable sources as well. I appreciate your time and interest. Thanks again:) Baqi:) (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with Russ Woodroofe — I don't see a WP:GNG pass, and I'm not convinced that she clearly passes any of the WP:NPROF criteria. Based on the sources so far my sense is that she surely must pass WP:NAUTHOR, but I don't think the sources that have been found are quite enough to actually demonstrate that yet. Of the six sources about her books above, (1) only has a paragraph about her book (which is not nothing, given that it's a retrospective on the best books of the year in what seems to be a reliable publication, but is not a full review), (2) only has a brief mention of her work, (3) and (5) are interviews, (4) is not really a review, and (6) is probably the closest but spends a lot of time just repeating her poems. My feeling is that based on everything implied by her career and by how she is described in the sources, there surely must be at least two full length reviews of her work out there (maybe in more academic or literary publications?). But I can't find any in English and searching in Hindi using Google Translate was proving to be beyond my abilities. So I would like to say keep, but I would like to see a full-length review of one of her published works first. MCE89 (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sultan Shahin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sultan Shahin does not have significant coverage in Reliable sources. AndySailz (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not a single reference from any reliable source. Fails WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails notability due to lack of coverage by reliable sources. Tone of article is highly promotional and advertorial. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely not notable, if notable WP:TNT applies as content is LLM generated. A09|(talk) 00:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
J. J. Roy Burman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to meet WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability; Cant see anything either in the article or online to suggest he passes WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

A mid-career academic not yet reaching WP:NPROF. Scopus H-factor of 4 is well below what one might expect in the field, suggesting little impact; most of the arguments from the 2016 AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayyed Mohsen Fatemi) still apply. Klbrain (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As to the publication of psychologist Sayyed Mohsen Fatemi, he has 43 publications but only 73 citations which doesn't speak in favor of his notability as an academic:

I'm just curious how you found his H-index50.39.138.50 (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Scopus H-factor, linked on Wikidata. Klbrain (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the statistics on ResearchGate are more comprehensive than on Scopus. However, I still believe this person doesn’t have sufficient notability for a standalone Wikipedia page.50.39.138.50 (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brian D'Ambrosio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted in 2016. The same basis applies at this time: "The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:BIO." In support of the present nom, the article subject requests deletion. See VRTS ticket # 2025012110000983. Geoff | Who, me? 23:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Given that the "article subject" probably also created the article for self-promotional purposes, but now that he is facing a federal prison sentence he wants it removed, it seems he is wanting it both ways. At the time the article was created, he fought off an AfC rejection and then fought and won an AfD at the time. After material on his egregious behavior was added to what was, admittedly, a puff piece for a mostly self-published author, he already tried again as an anon IP (there are several anon IP edits, all geolocating to Sante Fe, New Mexico, where he is apparently living at this time, close enough that they could easily be a dynamic IP from the same location) to AfD the article [16], which resulted in @Cullen328: giving it semi-protection, and that only after it was reverted for a whitewashing attempt. On top of that, one of his anon IP posts put up distractors on articles about other convicted federal felons [17]. All that said, while I think if he was marginally notable before he became notorious, he is definitely notable now. The story was posted on the US DOJ page and was all over the Montana press: posting just a few examples now. [18], [19] On the other hand, If the article is deleted, I also recommend that it be tagged as a WP:SALT so that it doesn't just get recreated as another puff piece when he gets out of the federal pen. Montanabw(talk) 01:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person was apparently happy with this article when he was presenting himself as a notable author. Now that he has been convicted of a crime that is especially unseemly for an author specializing in biography amd history - stealing things from a historical society and trying to sell them - he now wants the article deleted. Coverage of his crime by reliable sources adds to his notability. This looks like a case of whitewashing to me, and yes, I did semiprotect the article for that reason. If the article is kept, it will need to be cleaned up because many although not all of its 24 current references are mediocre. Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kornel Klopfstein-Laszlo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Hungarian journalist; there are no WP:GNG-qualifying sources in the article or in a WP:BEFORE search. Contested PROD, so bringing it to AfD. Source analysis follows:

  • WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]
  • Work authored by Klopfstein-Laszlo and thus non-independent: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]
  • Brief mentions in media interviews about his website:[36], [37]
  • WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs like event descriptions, official bios, etc.: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]
  • Unreliable sources: an opinion blog, FamilySearch, the subject's school yearbook.
  • Source that does not mention the subject: [44] Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Hungary. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Considerations before making a decision about this article:
    1) Referring to Klopfstein as a "non-notable Hungarian journalist" would be an inaccurate portrayal of his contributions. Beyond his research and advocacy work, Klopfstein has published hundreds of opinion pieces and news articles, reviewed by independent editors at Hungary's most widely read newspapers (e.g., HVG, Népszava, Mérce, Euractiv, Kitekintő, Stop.hu), as listed by Declemens1971. In addition, his articles have elicited significant responses from opposing political perspectives.
    2) Among the trivial mentions listed by Declemens1971, several articles authored by Klopfstein's political opponents focus exclusively on his work. This highlights his impact on public discourse. To ensure an accurate evaluation, inviting a Hungarian-speaking editor with expertise in press freedom and human rights advocacy in Central Europe would be beneficial.
    3) Declemens1971 identifies Civilek.info as an "opinion blog," which may stem from a lack of familiarity with the Hungarian media landscape and/or linguistic nuances. Civilek.info is a right-leaning online news portal with a separate opinion section.
    4) Describing Klopfstein solely as a journalist overlooks the breadth of his career. In addition to journalism, he has a well-documented history of political activism, research, and advocacy.
    5) Guidance is requested on verifying roles like protest organizer or political activist when not directly documented in mainstream international publications. Notably, Klopfstein has been quoted by highly reputable outlets, including The New York Times and The Guardian, where he is explicitly named as a protest organizer.
    6) The phrase "brief mentions in media interviews about his website" misrepresents Print-it-Yourself, which is not a mere website but a social movement involving thousands of volunteers across Hungary. As a co-founder, Klopfstein has been extensively quoted in major international newspapers in multiple languages (Politico, The New York Times, The Guardian, taz.de).
    6) Characterizing widely cited research papers from leading think tanks such as the Budapest Institute and Globsec as "non-independent" reflects a misunderstanding of public policy research. These papers are peer-reviewed and authored by recognized experts in the region.
    7) As stated in the article, Klopfstein operates under multiple aliases, including Kornél Klopfstein, Kornél László, and Kornél J. László. Relying on a single Google search may be insufficient to identify WP:GNG-qualifying sources. Nevesnevtelenek (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isaiah Macwealth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Regurgitated press releases WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

General notability guideline(/WP:BASIC) -- lack of secondary/independent sources + no significant coverage. Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines for academics either. Comment(s) on talk page show that verification of any information is an ongoing issue. Tagged for peacock, advert, and tone since Feb 2010. I tried to fix the issues prior to filing this AfD. Puppies937 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewed all sources cited but none is reliable to meet WP:GNG or other criteria. Described as a writer, there is no good review of his book(s) other than a single review by the newspaper where he is a reporter. Mekomo (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Overview: Riyan Al-Jidani
Criterion Supporting Evidence
Notability Through Reliable Sources Featured in Arab News. Source
Featued in Saudi Sports Company, Source
Participated in interviews and podcasts
Podtail.com Source
Al Arabiya Source
Conclusion
The subject has been featured in multiple media sources. While these sources indicate some level of recognition, the depth and independence of the coverage vary. Arab News provides independent coverage of his contributions to women's football, while sources like the SSC's social post and the Al Arabiya video do not constitute in-depth independent coverage under Wikipedia's WP:GNG guidelines
☒N No or few suitable sources that could be cited.
Authorship of Notable Works Authored 4 books, Japanese Football, Asia's Arabs, The Pink Field and Women's Football.
only 9 ratings for his three works on googlereads Source
Conclusion
While the subject has authored multiple books, the limited number of ratings and reviews on platforms like Goodreads indicates insufficient recognition or critical reception. These works do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines without broader independent reviews or recognition.
☒N Likely not notable
Professional Roles and Contributions An editor at Kooora.com (i.e. Article).
Women's Football expert in Saudi Arabia. Source
Conclusion
The subject has held significant roles, including editor at Kooora.com and a women’s football expert in Saudi Arabia. However, these roles alone may not establish notability without broader independent recognition.
☒N Likely not notable
General Conclusion The subject has received some media attention and held notable professional roles, but the lack of independent, in-depth coverage and critical reviews suggests that they do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

A vanity page and likely autobiography (user = P.D.C., who has edited primarily this page and other pages related to the Cangelaris family) of a non-notable individual; fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. No evidence of passing any criterion of WP:ACADEMIC. No evidence of passing WP:NAUTHOR; his books appear to be self-published. No evidence of passing WP:GNG; the sources are limited to passing mentions in government documents/directories and mostly a long run of mentions in various Who's Who lists, a pay-to-play source that is not independent. And no evidence of passing on any other WP:NBIO criterion. Nothing qualifying comes up in a BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom, the entire "Hobbies and Volunteering" section is totally unsourced, and is likely written by the subject. fails academic, nauthor, nbio and gng.
Themoonisacheese (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, I received your message as of your proposal for deletion of the "Panayotis D. Cangelaris" article and I would like to know the specific reason, please! Furthermore, I noticed that the included picture was removed allegedly because of copyright violation (Linkedin). However, if some one has the copyright of this picture, that is me and no one else (and it is me who did provided it for free use). It was never copied from Linkedin or any one else. Could you, please, explain as well? By the way, I would like to reiterate that I too have the best intentions for the highest quality of Wikipedia's articles and I think that this article lives up anybody's expectations. However, any improvement is most welcome and anybody is of course free to do so. I thank you in anticipation for your interest and any reasonable reaction to my reply!

Themoonisacheese (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is the lack of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find anything that would fulfill WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:PROF. His books all appear to be self-published and the articles don't seem to have had substantial citations or widespread publication. Separate from the discussion here, but I concur with the nominator that P.D.C. may also have a COI (seems like a single purpose account, and the initials are the same as the subject of this AFD). nf utvol (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Juan Viale Rigo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author article, Fails WP:NBIOAgusTates (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnotable argentinian teacher. I was unable to find any relevant sources about this person. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MCE89 above. Seems notable but this article definitely needs some love from a Spanish speaker. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 14:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Julie Szego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a case of WP:BLP1E, the subject is only notable for their sacking from The Age. The rest of the sourcing that I've found, both in the article and through searches, is either not independent or not in-depth. I've considered the possibility that they might pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC and I don't see that either is the case. TarnishedPathtalk 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eelipe (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per WP:BLP1E the 'subjects notable for one event' policy must meet each of three criteria listed for the subject to be unsuitable for a page. They are: reliable sources only cover one event; the individual is otherwise low profile; and the individual's role in the event was not significant. I suggest Szego's career as an author and journalist elevates her above “low-profile individual”; and her role in the event clearly was not “not significant”. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A reading of WP:LOWPROFILE would suggest that they are indeed a low profile individual. Being a author or a journalist alone does not make someone not low-profile. In fact if they did have a high profile as consequence of those activities they would almost certainly pass WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NAUTHOR (the same policy), which they appear not to. TarnishedPathtalk 23:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't agree with the contention that she is WP:BLP1E nor do I agree with the issue around the other sources. At the very least there is:

https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/julie-szego

https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2015/04/24/32926/nsw-premiers-literary-awards-2015-shortlists-announced/

https://www.theage.com.au/by/julie-szego-hvf9s

https://thejewishindependent.com.au/podcast-ashley-talks-to-journalist-julie-szego

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/julie-szego

MaskedSinger (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Wild Dingo Press, sells her book (see https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/shop/p/9780987381149). It's unsurprising that a book seller would have a profile page for an author that they sell the books of. It's not independent. It would also be a stretch to call two paragraphs significant coverage.
  2. bookpublishing.com.au only mentions her in passing. It does not have significant coverage of her. Notably there is no claim that she won that award so I don't see a pass with WP:NAUTHOR.
  3. The Age link you provide is her employee profile page, detailing articles that she wrote as a journalist for The Age. Firstly that's not independent coverage of her as an individual and secondly that doesn't go towards showing a pass of WP:NJOURNALIST. The Age were her employer, so it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her.
  4. thejewishindependent is a podcast in which she is interviewed. This is not independent from Szego and more importantly counts as a primary source. This does not contribute towards establishing Szego's notability. Those issues aside it appears to be dominated by her sacking from The Age, going towards my argument of BLP1E.
  5. The Guardian link is of the same nature as The Age link. Again not independent as they are/were her employer and again it's it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her which details the stories that she's written for them.
None of the sources you have provided above contribute to Szego's passing our general notability guidelines. In order to establish notability we would need multiple reliable secondary sources which are independent from Szego and which cover her in-depth. If WP:BLP1E wasn't a thing then she should pass on the coverage of her sacking alone, however WP:BLP1E is a thing and therefore she doesn't meet our general notability guidelines. TarnishedPathtalk 12:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edgar Smith (poet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article on a poet and novelist, and cannot find significant coverage to add. I did find this in Booklife, but am not sure it is a reliable source. Some or all of his books are self-published, which wouldn't be a problem if there are multiple reviews in independent, reliable sources, but I can't find evidence of that. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO. I have reverted from a much longer version, here, but that was no better sourced and I don't see anything there to contribute to notability. Tacyarg (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the books have been self-published. True. Some have not. How is that a problem? There are enough articles and inclusions in numerous magazines and anthologies, as well as evidence of book fairs and literary events to justify the article. Not relating to the level of success of an author based on your definition of success should never be a reason for deletion. 47.185.0.198 (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE For your consideration, I have added several links attesting to the relevance and commitment to culture and literature of author Edgar Smith. I hope this helps. Kevlarcovered (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I have found only 3 reviews of two books - Arrimao here [54] and here [55], and La 90 here [56]. I don't think that's quite enough for WP:NAUTHOR. Two of them were published in acento, but by different reviewers, so I don't see that as an issue, more the lack of other coverage. If someone finds other reviews in independent, reliable sources (not Facebook), I'd be happy to rethink - otherwise, I think it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jean-Marc Rives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. The sourcing is very weak, and I haven't been able to find anything better. The great majority of the edits have been made by the WP:SPA User:RJMarco, which from the name seems to be the guy himself. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
The changes made are minimal on links or inaccurate statements and I did not create the article. I do not know who created it. This article should be checked and formatted before thinking about deleting it in my opinion.
Kind regards RJMarco (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Christer Holloman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely promotional Amigao (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is more or less a lazy nomination; what notability guideline does the subject not meet? Not whether the nature is promotional. See WP:IGNORINGATD. Whether a cursory search was made should also be evident.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:TNT. This page was created 15 years ago by a SPA and tinkered with, but not improved much since then. I tried to fix it and gave up. (I've done more than my share of rescues in the past 3 months, so don't give me side-eye.) He might be notable, based on a couple of searches that I did. I actually don't think it's too promotional. Two more thoughts: (1) are LinkedIn links no longer used in External links? and (2) since the SPA hadn't been active in over 10 years, who would take over to userfy this page if needed as an ATD? Bearian (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marcus Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. There is no secondary source coverage of this individual. Cites his own self published works, sites, social media as a source. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It has almost passed the 7 day threshold without gathering that much discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 16:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. WP:NAUTHOR doesn't require that an author have multiple published works, so I think he could strictly speaking scrape past NAUTHOR on the basis of his book D getting multiple reviews. But the book is only very marginally notable and he really has no notability outside of that. A couple of his short stories got minor awards, but none got any reviews as far as I can tell. So I lean delete as, even though the book was the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, I don't think it really qualifies as a significant or well-known work. MCE89 (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not weighing into this discussion on whether the article should be deleted or not, however I've previously seen editors in other discussion make the argument that having multiple reviews of an author's books is an automatic WP:NAUTHOR pass. After recently re-reading the guideline I believe that takes part of a criterion out of context.
    Criterion 3 reads in full: 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, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). TarnishedPathtalk 02:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep apologies if I wasn't clear, that's exactly what I was trying to say. He meets the criteria following "In addition..." based on having multiple reviews of his book, but I don't think his book qualifies as a significant or well-known work. So he meets the more objective supplementary requirement described in the second sentence of WP:NAUTHOR, but I don't think he meets the more subjective requirement in the first sentence of having created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. MCE89 (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron Louis Tordini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author article, which somebody claiming to be the subject has been editing Orange Mike | Talk 05:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR No significant independent coverage of subject or CAMW organization she is associated with. Found one write-up in a small alumni magazine from 2005 (http://media.wix.com/ugd/ba8d3a_69ce4f04eab549e8992314f78621c089.pdf). There are a few sentences in larger papers like Fox from 2011 (https://www.foxnews.com/us/jury-convicts-new-york-tv-executive-of-beheading-wife) but doubt it rises to level of notability since they are not specifically about subject. No significant coverage located for book or minor awards. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Watson, Stephen (June 21, 2004). "Iranian professor airs concern, criticism for land of birth". The Buffalo News – via newspapers.com.
  2. Lazzara, Grace A. (Winter 2005). "One Voice - Nadia Shahram fights for equality" (PDF). Hilbert Connections Magazine. Hilbert College. pp. 6–10.
  3. Vogel, Charity (April 25, 2010). "Women in the shadows Attorney Nadia Shahram's novel tells the true stories of Iranian women exploited by 'temporary marriage'". The Buffalo News. Archived from the original on 2016-03-08.
  • Comment: Thank you for adding non-primary sources to the article and the overall improvements you have made to it. I don't think I can access source [1] but based on the title it sounds like potential sigcov. And [3] definitely is. However I am uncertain if [2] qualifies as an independent source, since the subject was an adjunct professor at Hilbert College from 2001-2007 and the magazine featuring her was published in 2005. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have marked this article for deletion. While I'm a big fan of Mr. Beat's work, and would ideally like this article kept, I don't think that he passes WP:GNG right now. All of the non-social media sources are local sources, or not reliable at all, indicating that he has little to no national significance. Beat is a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL content creator; achieving 1 million subscribers is a much less notable feat than it was even 10 years ago. I completed a WP:BEFORE search but I couldn't find anything meaningful that wasn't already in the article. I don't see a WP:NAUTHOR pass either, since he's released only two books, and each only has one local review. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:4D29:6661:1D4E:6058 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr. Beat has coverage in local press, which counts towards Mr. Beat being a notable figure. Additionally, this coverage is more than many YouTubers who have pages on here receive. NesserWiki (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Mr. Beat is one of the more famous/notable YouTube historians on the site. If he was less notable, I may be in favor of deletion but this is not the case. Lertaheiko (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep basically what everyone else above who has said keep said. Daemonspudguy (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that something that only receives local coverage is automatically not notable. There are thousands of high schools, library systems and people with Wikipedia articles that will probably only ever receive local coverage, but a reliable, independent secondary source with significant coverage counts towards notability whether its a tiny news station or the BBC. Pointing to subscriber count as evidence of non-notability is about as useful as pointing to it as evidence of notability. (I will note that Mr. Beat posted a screenshot of this discussion to Bluesky (which is how I got here) but not in a WP:Canvassing manner probably with good intentions, but it's definitely become a WP:Canvassing issue regardless). Edit: Given that the nominator has clarified their justification for the deletion, I went through the sources again, and I feel like there's one source that definitely counts toward notability, the aforementioned Lawrence Journal article, and one source that might count towards notability, a sorta review of his SCOTUS book which includes some commentary beyond just the interview component with Mr. Beat. If we're following WP:THREE, then I would probably suggest Draftify given that he seems about one source off from notability. Based5290 :3 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the very definition of canvassing... SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to or posting a a discussion is not in itself canvassing. Canvassing needs to be done with the intention of influencing the outcome. Given that the text of the post is just self-deprecating humor, I highly doubt that intention exists. Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source Lertaheiko (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with what the above editors have said. Local news coverage counts just the same as major outlets in terms of notability. As popular Internet personalities become more prevalent and the mainstream press becomes more separated from Internet culture, we as Wikipedia editors must reckon with the fact that a notable person might not always be covered in the mainstream press. So, if we keep on using big coverage in the press as being "notable", we end up with archaic standards that will most likely miss out on notable people in the future.
All that being said, however, when comparing Mr. Beat to others, he unquestionably surpasses the requirements for being notable enough to have his own Wiki page. LizardDoggos (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC) LizardDoggos (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - I am the IP editor who initially nominated this for deletion, and I'm surprised at the sudden burst of canvassing votes here. They should all be discarded for the purposes of determining consensus; consisting of a mixture of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and claiming I'm trying to discredit local sources: my point is that they are all WP:ROUTINE coverage of him. Doing stuff like local talks about his books, where he mostly does the speaking instead of it being about him doesn't amount to notability here. We need sources that discuss him specifically, simple as that. The only good source here is the Lawrence Journal, and a single article doesn't surpass the WP:THREE sources generally needed to clear the bar of notability. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:2081:789F:4237:C594 (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Mr. Beat is a relevant topic and a very prominent YouTuber with tons of credible sources about him, and CLEARLY it should be kept. Skcin7 (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTNOTABLE? 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:D9D2:6AAD:B5E6:512F (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Just not enough coverage for notability... I don't find very many RS, [58] is one, but I don't consider it enough. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Found this from the same source. Probably leaning draftify. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: or draftify, per Oaktree. (yes, I'm here from the tweet.) charlotte 👸♥ 02:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I decided to look into the local coverage of the subject a bit more closely, since there have been statements that it's been largely promotional. While some of them do seem that way, such as the Lawrence Times article about a book discussion, this is hardly the only source. He has had an extended interview on KQTV[1], a television station in St. Joseph, Missouri, which is in the Kansas City area. To reference what the nominator was saying about the local sources not being great because they are routine, I would like to add that this interview does not appear directly connected with any planned event, such as a book release or announcement. I do not believe this counts as routine. His interview with KCUR-FM would also fall under this, since it is a reliable, third-party, independent secondary source that is also not simply announcing an event or product, but is an actual interview; while the written portion of the article is more about that, the actual interview delves much deeper. I will acknowledge that this article is a bit short, but I cannot in good faith agree that this article should be deleted. I think he does fulfill the GNG, and my vote is for it to be kept. ~Junedude433(talk) 20:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

Not notable. Promo for a business exec. PzizzleD (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not meet neither of Wikipedia's notability or sourcing guidelines OhNoKaren (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unreferenced BLP. Tagged for sourcing issues since 2019. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 I get that, but that is not the cogent policy here. WP:BLPSOURCES external to notability policy but equally important is at play here. We could literally blank the page at present because its unsourced under WP:BURDEN and WP:BLPSOURCES policy. That's a problem relevant to AFD that goes beyond notability criteria. At some level we have to consider the practical application of all of our policies. Not just WP:SNG language. Policies don't exist in a vacuum.4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and blank the page in that case; that's a content issue. AfD isn't for content issues, it's for notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971 To do so in the middle of an AFD would be WP:DISRUPTIVE editing and WP:POINTY. Further, this is a BLP policy issue which falls under criteria 9 of WP:DEL-REASON so your assertion that notability policy is the only relevant policy at AFD is false. Deleting under a WP:BLPSOURCES failure rationale is perfectly acceptable under criteria 9. One can meet an SNG but still be deleted if it fails a WP:DEL-REASON criteria external to a notability issue.4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The book is notable, but the author isn't since one needs multiple notable works to demonstrate NCREATIVE, but since this information would be on said article anyway, I could convert it into an article on the book if that is what people wish. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please show where NCREATIVE requires multiple notable works? Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted for further discussion on possibility of converting to an article on the book
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by MCE89, meets WP:AUTHOR per multiple independent reviews of the book. On the fence about renaming the article though. Procyon117 (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Authors proposed deletions

[edit]

Tools

[edit]
Main tool page: toolserver.org
Article alerts are available, updated by AAlertBot. More information...
  • Reflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references
  • Checklinks - Edit and repair external links
  • Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links.
  • Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles.