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.
Delete per nom. As of now this article is almost entirely WP:SYNTH. "The Paris Apartment" is not recognized as a particular decoration style, contrary to what it suggests. The book with the same name mentioned in the article fails WP:GNG. BilletsMauves€50012:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of deleting let's find a name that fits the concept. Paris is known for styling. In fashion, in architecture, in street layout. And also in unique designs and furnishings, including within homes and apartments. This article covers home atmosphere and decorations. Surely a name, such as Paris interior design, can be agreed on and the article both saved and improved. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "Paris interior design". There are different styles from different periods which can have or already have their own articles, and happen to have existed or originated in Paris in different periods. What you are proposing is a WP:CROSSCAT. BilletsMauves€50014:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NLIST, WP:NOTDIRECTORY; a spam magnet that compares non-notable entries. This source is the only reliable one I could find that provides a software comparison, and none of the software being compared seems to be notable. Machine embroidery already provides a general overview of embroidery software. dePRODed in 2022 with the edit summary This is a fantastic resource for people interested in seeing all embroidery software solutions in a simple chart. (I have PRODed the only entry with an article, Embroidermodder, due to lack of notability.) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My expertise encompasses neither embroidery nor software, but the article is a differently-formatted copy of the table in Ref. 16, which is the only source cited. So we have WP:ONESOURCE, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:NLIST all in one go. The dePRODer's "but it's useful" argument isn't a valid keep rationale, and is ridiculous since the ripped-off source is from 2008. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the above. This doesn't even seem like encyclopedia content. It's more like a how-to guide for choosing software. For the editor who thinks it is a "fantastic resource," they could maybe make this into a spreadsheet hosted somewhere else for sharing with fellow embroidery software users. Even if this had better sourcing and no copyright issues, it still just doesn't fit into an encyclopedia. Asparagusstar (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flags of the federal subjects of Russia#48 oblasts. There might be a more relevant article to redirect to given I'm not familiar with this section of Wiki, in which case I would support that as well. I couldn't find much about the subject aside from user-generated vexillology Web sites and a couple of non-SIGCOV passing mentions in books that mostly talk about the oblast rather than the flag itself. Flags are not notable just because they exist, and there isn't anything substantive to form an article from here. I would also note that most of the articles in this topic are in a similarly poor condition. Billclinton1996 (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics
The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Related Projects
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts
I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced BLP about a writer, and have added three sources. One is the publisher's website, however, so not an independent source. The other two are both reviews in Kirkus. I haven't been able to find three good sources, and don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. I did find this in the Daily Herald through ProQuest, but it reads like a press release from the publisher. Tacyarg (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Article appears to be some sort of vanity page. Coverage from reliable sources is insufficient to warrant a standalone article, and notability still needs to be established. Page has been repeatedly recreated by the same user, which indicates a possible COI. CycloneYoristalk!19:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is sourced entirely to self-written pieces or interviews of subject (other than one "American Conservative" article which isn't WP:NPOV). Extensive talk page discussion by subject with other editors, arguing about his notability (over a 15+ year interval); WP:JOURNO non-notable journalist/blogger.
Also, subject has at least two WP accounts and makes edits to this BLP as well as his wife's BLP so there's a serious COI. Re possible sockpuppet issue see User:WillWilkinson and User:Will_WilkinsonFeralOink (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only 1/2 news article independent from the subject. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG. She has a visible history in academia, but looking at WP:NACADEMIC, I feel that it doesn't meet. Her article most of the times fails to garner 1 view/hit a day, and a total of 170 views in it's nearly one year of existence doesn't scream notable. I feel this article was written for her politics and sex rather than there being a possible notable biography. I think editors outside New Zealand will have a more unbiased eye when determining the notability of this subject. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning keep. Number of hits is completely irrelevant, and I think that speculating on the motivations of the creator/editors is rarely fruitful. The name makes it a bit hard to search but Proquest has an article 'Privilege comes from stolen land'. The New Zealand Herald 23 Oct 2019: A.13. plus several mentions, and there's at least a mention in JSTORjj.1866810 which is snippet-view only, plus a two-page book review already in the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per analysis of sources listed in article:
1. Primary source, written by subject
2. Sigcov of documentary series she was involved in making, gives a lot of background about her life
3. Repeat of source #2
4. Bare-bones bio of subject for organization website she appears to be affiliated with
5. Blurb about book by subject, posted to organization website she appears to be affiliated with
6. Report written by subject, posted to organization website she appears to be affiliated with
7. List of conference participants, subject is just listed as presenter
8. Short article about her research project, posted to AWEA which subject works/worked for (not independent)
9. Bio, posted to organization website she runs
10. Podcast interview
11. Link to specific episode of documentary TV project she was involved with (series itself was already discussed in source #2)
12. Webinar bio, not independent
13. Review of subject’s book in Mai journal, which focuses on indigenous scholarship. Journal appears to be independent of author
14. Link showing that her book exists in New Zealand library system
From what I can tell, source #2 and source #13 are both: sigcov, independent, reliable, and secondary sources. I think this qualifies for multiple examples of GNG. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third party reliable source coverage about them and their work, but the article is not referenced well enough to get him over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PROF pretty clearly and probably WP:BASIC as well. Sources present are largely blog posts or proofs of publication. A short search shows that other available sources don't appear to have significance or independence from the subject. The overall language leads me to suspect COI editing as well. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book "Queer Optimism" has 377 citns in Google Scholar; I think that's pretty high for the field, and will probably mean there are many published reviews; just from PQ there are Matz, Jesse. Modernism/Modernity; Baltimore Vol. 17, Iss. 3, (Sep 2010): 690-692 & Cui, Lily. Essays in Criticism; Oxford Vol. 59, Iss. 4, (Oct 2009): 363. & Hammill, Graham. Postmodern Culture. ; Baltimore Vol. 19, Iss. 1, (Sep 2008). DOI:10.1353/pmc.0.0032 as well as a lot of commentary. His other book Contingent Figure has two reviews in PQ: Mullaney, Clare. The Emily Dickinson Journal; Baltimore Vol. 31, Iss. 1, (2022): 67-70. & McLaughlin, Don James. Genre Vol. 55, Iss. 2, (2022): 173-78. There's also, according to the article, two nominations for the Pushcart Prize, Lambda Literary Awards Finalist for Best Gay Poetry, as well as the win of Poets Out Loud prize; not sure what the last is, perhaps [10], but the other two look significant. I think WP:AUTHOR is met. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the prior nomination on him, the "keep" votes were based on (presumed notability of) other existing Survivor winners (until recent years of AFD noms on certain winners).
A recap article by EW details his cameo appearance in Survivor: Game Changers, but then that's just a recap article, despite the magazine being highly reputable. (BTW, the author of the article has expressed his opinions in other articles.)
I'm kinda cautious about using an ABA Journal article to verify his notability. The source was probably promoting his then-upcoming interview, which is a primary source, one of which to never use to verify this person's notability per GNG. (Will describe some other sources soon.)
I don't wanna argue with others back and forth similar to the other AFD discussion. Nonetheless, I fear similar arguments made in that discussion would be inevitable.
As said in that discussion, if WP:BLP1E isn't applicable to you, then how about WP:BIO1E instead, WP:NBASIC, WP:PAGEDECIDE, and/or WP:BIOSPECIAL? Furthermore, WP:BLP should also apply. Indeed, I'm not confident (yet) about his notability for his Survivor: South Pacific gameplay and its compliance with the BLP policy itself.
Sure, his roles in Survivor have been significant, but his amount of major roles IMO hasn't come close to meeting WP:NACTOR. Well, he's been a post-Survivor television writer, but whether he meets WP:NAUTHOR isn't the main issue. Rather WP:NBASIC and WP:BIOSPECIAL should supersede his (non-)compliance with WP:NAUTHOR. George Ho (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wwew345t, this discussion is not about George Ho, but about the article. Feel free to take your concerns to his talk page, but following him around AfD is not productive. I'll also note your comment on this talk page. win8x (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also voted keep based on WP:NACTOR there are plenty secondary sources that establish his notability the primary sources are there to complement the artcile furthmore he doesnt meet all 3 critiera for BLP1E Wwew345t (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Patch article was an opinion piece by an ordinary citizen (who is a Patch member). The NY Daily News article is a recap of an episode. So is the one by The Republican (MassLive). Recaps are (summarization of) primary sources, which are discounted by GNG, so I gotta treat those recaps as such. I'm unsure how and why you reply too much and argue with me and others back and forth. George Ho (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC); edited, 00:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources by definition get their info from a primary source hence where they are called secondary sources the fact thats its a summarization of a primary sources makes it a secondary source Wwew345t (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a primariy source unless its an interview of someone with first hand knowledge of the event in question a receap of what happned in a tv show doesnt qualfiy as that Wwew345t (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this page and that page about what a secondary source is, well.... CBS recaps episodes... Actually, used to, but I consider CBS somewhat a primary source. (Trying to find other sources explicitly categorizing recaps as either primary or secondary sources.) George Ho (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
according to wikipedias definition of secondary sources stuff that is made after the fact with hindsight are considered secondary sources and the recaps are covering the events of episodes that had happened a couple days prior so by a very loose definition I believe they are secondary especially since no one is actually interviewed in said re caps Wwew345t (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Itd be a lot easier to determine if they listed who wrote the recap unfortunately they dont so it could be anyone that works for cbs regardless of wether or not they had anything to do with Survivor Wwew345t (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, other certain articles about Survivor winners have been redirected per multiple AFD discussions. Well, two other articles were technically deleted from the public eye per AFD. I'm not trying to push you into changing your mind/stance about redirecting. Nonetheless, I wonder whether you can think further about pros and cons on deleting and on redirecting (and other methods seen in WP:ATD).
(Technical) deletion would result in deleting all revisions of the page. On the other hand, redirecting is... still redirecting, but it preserves historical data of pages. Plus, it helps readers realize why the page would no longer be in the current article status and decide what to do about the (redirect) page. Furthermore, redirecting is more of a compromise between keeping and deleting, especially when the AFD result is enforced. George Ho (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
The article notes: "John Cochran’s dream Hollywood run continues. After winning Survivor: Caramoan, he landed a comedy writer job on the CBS series The Millers. And now the 28-year-old Harvard Law graduate is getting a shot at creating his own show with the help of his mentor, The Millers creator Greg Garcia. ... Cochran co-executive produces with Amigos de Garcia’s Alix Jaffe. ... Cochran had been a huge Survivor fan since the reality series’ first season. He handed out Survivor newsletters during high school, wore a Survivor-style buff on his arm and at Harvard Law, he won the Dean’s Scholar Prize for writing an essay about the Survivor jury system as compared to the one employed by American courts."
The article notes: "CBS is developing a multi-cam legal sitcom that hails from “Survivor” winner John Cochran and former “Modern Family” writer Dan O’Shannon, Variety has learned exclusively. ... Cochran appeared on the 23rd season of “Survivor,” finishing in 8th place. He returned for the 26th season, winning the season and the $1 million prize. Following a post-show interview with host Jeff Probst, Cochran revealed his desire to be a comedy writer. He was subsequently contacted by Greg Garcia who offered him a job on the writing staff for the CBS series “The Millers.” Cochran also developed “Bob’s Your Uncle,” a comedy pilot for CBS and CBS Studios with Garcia executive producing. He has also written for the CBS comedy “Kevin Can Wait.”"
The article notes: "Survivor champion John Cochran has followed through on his pledge to become a writer in a big way. ... Cochran, who studied law at Harvard, first revealed his plans to forgo becoming a lawyer and instead pursue writing during Survivor’s live reunion show, which aired May 12."
The article notes: "John Cochran did not stand a chance in hell of winning Survivor: Caramoan, and I told him exactly that right before the game began. After all, who in their right mind would want to align with the guy after he betrayed his entire alliance by refusing to go to rocks in the recently aired Survivor: South Pacific, ensuring not only their destruction but his own. So, naturally, after being told there was no point in even going out and playing, not only did Cochran go and win Caramoan, but he did so in epic fashion—completing a perfect game with zero votes cast against him all season while also receiving every single jury vote for the win."
The article notes: "In Oakton, John Cochran was watching from the start, as a 13-year-old in 2000, and he calls himself a show superfan. Now, he is a part of Survivor history. Cochran, 26, won the 26th season of the show (there are two per year) in a live ceremony announcing the winner in Los Angeles last week. The episodes were filmed last year on Caramoan in the Philippines, where Cochran had to eat nasty things and do all the other physical and mental torture tests required of the contestants. He collects $1 million for his troubles. Cochran also competed in season 24 in 2011 but did not win."
The article notes: "It’s not hard to pick Harvard law graduate John Cochran out of this Louboutin-heeled crowd. He has played the role of fish out of water all his life. On Survivor, he used that to spectacular effect, winning a million dollars in May in a script seemingly lifted from Revenge of the Nerds. ... Some people may be surprised to learn that the ultimate outsider is now part of the Hollywood dream factory, closer to cool kid status as a writer on The Millers, a new CBS sitcom ... But Cochran proved to the world that the most important muscle is the brain. (Naturally, he won the Dean’s Scholar prize at Harvard for his essay on the quirks of Survivor’s jury system.)"
Sources #1 and #2 seem to be more about (promoting and verifying notability of) the then-upcoming sitcom than about the person himself, IMO, despite those article happiness. (Per Cunard's reply below and WP:SIGCOV. George Ho (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Source #3 significantly covers him as the Caramoan winner. I admire your quoting the excerpt about his educational life, but the source mentions it like a summarization of his cover letter or something like that and mentions post-Survivor writing career like a mere resume in prose.
I already explained why I discounted source #4 as a primary source, didn't I?
Source #5 still does the same thing as source #3. Source #6 doesn't convince me why his Harvard background (and essays)... or his career writing for short-lived series and a Star Trek animated series is worth visualizing and teaching readers about him. Rather it still verifies his notability as a Survivor winner. George Ho (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the sources being more about "the then-upcoming sitcom than about the person himself", Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." These sources each provide significant coverage about John Cochran. The 2015 article in Deadline Hollywood and the 2017 article in Variety are in reputable publications. They are not promotional sources. They are independent reliable sources. The third source provides significant biographical coverage about him in The Hollywood Reporter, another reputable source. The fourth source contains non-interview content so is not merely a primary source. The author provides commentary and analysis about what the subject did on the show. The fifth and sixth sources provide further biographical background about the subject.
Sure, those publications are highly reputable. Well, I'm trying to find a policy or guideline that can help me refute your argument about reliability of sources being sufficient, but no such luck yet.
Regarding the sources being more about "the then-upcoming sitcom than about the person himself", Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." These sources each provide significant coverage about John Cochran. Struck my comments about sources #1 and #2. Still, I dunno whether they verify his notability as a writer as much as his post-Survivor activities themselves, IMO. But I'm not gonna argue further about those sources.
The fourth source contains non-interview content so is not merely a primary source. The author provides commentary and analysis about what the subject did on the show. Well, every questionnaire that Dalton Ross wrote does, but that even non-notable contestants were given similar questionnaires, like Gabon winner (AFD) and Island of the Idols winner (AFD).
The fifth and sixth sources provide further biographical background about the subject.Not all articles, if not "not everything", should be included/preserved in the project, ya know? To put this another way, even so, I can't help wonder whether his pre-Survivor background should suffice to verify his notability. Even non-notable contestants have their own backgrounds.
The first two sources about his writing career and the extensive coverage in reliable sources about John Cochran's appearances on Survivor are enough for him to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Regarding "every questionnaire that Dalton Ross wrote does, but that even non-notable contestants were given similar questionnaires", that does not exclude the source from contributing to Cochran's notability under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". The Entertainment Weekly is an independent reputable source and Dalton Ross is a reputable journalist. His analysis and commentary about John Cochran contribute to demonstrating notability. Dalton Ross's coverage about the other contestants gets those contestants closer to passing the notability guideline but may not be enough to establish notability if there are not other sources that show those contestants do not fall under WP:BLP1E. Cunard (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A superficially nice article about a regional artist with no claim of notability. Weak citations, a few small awards, and no evidence of impact or reputation to support WP:NARTIST (e.g., "has been recognized for" links to his own site and a gallery that doesn't suport the claim). Two instructional books, no evidence of independent reviews, not a valid basis for WP:NAUTHOR. I did WP:BEFORE searches and I was unable to find anything additional to support WP:GNG.
Although not strictly a grounds for deletion, the article has hallmarks of WP:NOTCV. The lengthy gallery in particular makes this looks like a promotional page. Oblivy (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Best I can find on Proquest is Award Winners Announced at the Connecticut Pastel Society's Annual Juried Exhibition. Anonymous. American Artist; New York Vol. 72, Iss. 785, (Mar 2008): 10. which does not have full-text but the snippet mentions one of his works "won the CPS Founders' Award". Leaning delete unless other sources can be found. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Making an accusation that the creator of the article, MichaelQSchmidt, a Wikipedia Administrator with over 61,000 non-automated edits, is an undisclosed paid editor is a pretty bold statement. Aside from that, the subject of the article meets WP:CREATIVE #3 for his role as producer, co-director, and writer of Quantum Quest: A Cassini Space Odyssey and possibly for Earth: Final Conflict but I haven't been able to independently verify his involvement in that series (but I haven't tried very hard). RecycledPixels (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The tone is promotional, but if one is going to claim paid advertising, then one needs to prove it. The issue is whether the tone can be fixed by ordinary editing. That's all. Bearian (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator- the article has had the banner claiming it was made for payment since 2022. I had assumed that there was some official process that determines that; I am a new editor. I don't claim to have evidence that the article was paid for: I mean no harm to MichaelQSchmidt. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find things written by him, but anything about him is not reliably independent. The article is about his work, is very promotional, and is a clear conflict of interest. He began editing with User:G._Roger_Denson but was given a warning. He completed the article using this IP, which has only edited this article: Special:Contributions/65.88.88.70. In addition to deletion, it may be necessary to block the IP due to COI. I fear this could come back with minor differences in an attempt to get it through. Lamona (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I stumbled across this article during recent changes patrol; the state of this article is shockingly bad and (even if the subject were notable, which they seem not to be, but it's possible) this entire thing would need to be re-written. It probably could have been speedy-deleted as promotional. Per points above, note that other IPs are now editing the article with similar style. Matt Deres (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notability case for this writer/columnist is unclear. They've produced one book with a couple of reviews that represent the only secondary sourcing on this page (and are mainly about the work, not the author, and so do not really report a standalone BLP). The other two sources are primary references from institutions – one where the subject works and another that gave them an award, without any evidence of secondary coverage lending weight or notability. It's unclear which, if any notability criteria might apply. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I left the citation at the end of the page earlier. Why shouldn't editorialists be notable? He'll sure become notable after suggesting that following a policy that killed 2M Indians should be fine. Selbsportrait (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not about whether someone has a certain job or said a bunch of really hot takes. The notability guidelines require covering in reliable secondary sources, and only one out of the five sources is secondary. Two of them are his own work. Blagai (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. His only reason for notability is his recent article comparing the mass migration of Muslims and Hindus during the Indian partition in 1947 to the proposed forced migration of Palastinians from the Gaza Strip.
I concur with the deletion too but saying "comparing" would be understating it. He has advanced a Gaza transfer on the lines of the 1947 mass migration. Theofunny (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. I have added sources to the article. I do know that we don't want 7 refs after one sentence - I'll come back and add more information from those refs, and spread them out. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no meaningful sources in the article, nor have I been able to find anything to support a claim of notability in a Google search. He wrote a book Battle On The Hudson, but I don't see anything showing that the book gained him notability as an author. He's also poorly linked within Wikipedia, and the only other place where he's listed at List of Duquesne University people, there is a rather weak source to an author profile at an article he wrote for the New York Post.
Many of the sources are written by the subject. Other sources are links to her Ted Talk or "Best of" lists that include movies for which she was screenwriter. What remains does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Truthnope (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that counts as being significant or well-known. The article says of Alexander's Memories of Christmas, "This film has been named on several “Best of Hallmark Christmas movies” lists, including “10 Must-See Hallmark Movies that Celebrate Diversity and Inclusion.” These are listicles, not significant coverage. That criterion also requires that the work or body of work "must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". I wouldn't count these "Best of" lists as reviews. Truthnope (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of an activist and writer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, neither activists nor writers are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party analytical coverage about them and their work -- but the attempted notability claim here is that he exists and wrote a book, and the sole footnote is a magazine article where he was the bylined author rather than the subject. But as usual, you don't make a writer notable by sourcing his work to itself as verification that it exists, you make a writer notable by sourcing his work to third-party coverage about it (book reviews, notable literary award nominations and/or wins, etc.) as evidence that its significance has been externally validated by somebody other than its own publisher. Meanwhile, on a ProQuest search, I'm not finding much in the way of coverage about him: there are a couple of reviews of his book (mostly a single wire service article being reprinted in multiple newspapers), but not really enough reviews of the book to get him over GNG just on those alone, and otherwise I'm really only finding glancing namechecks of his existence as a provider of soundbite in coverage of other things rather than coverage which actually has him as its subject. He's certainly locally known in his own city, but nothing here is adding up to enough nationalized or internationalized prominence to exempt him from having to have a lot more and better referencing than just one piece of his own writing. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meslin's advocacy against corporate billboards in public places is well known around Toronto, but a documentary about him has attracted international attention, e.g. Al Jazeera, and a detailed article from the CBC about the documentary, among other coverage. Besides that work, I found this 1,400-word detailed write-up in Macleans about his work on democratic reform, and another from Macleans ([11]) which is a borderline passing mention, but there are plenty more articles in smaller publications about this work, e.g. [12], [13], [14], [15] (some of these are third-party reviews of one of his books, maybe the same wire service review Bearcat mentioned, but being picked up by multiple outlets suggests notability). There are also plenty of links around to his TED talks and speaking engagements, which suggest notability but aren't really useful as references. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dave Meslin is known in Toronto for his activism against corporate billboards, with international attention from a documentary covered by Al Jazeera and CBC. His work on democratic reform has some media coverage, including Macleans articles and TED talks. However, he lacks sufficient third-party analysis to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards, with limited independent coverage beyond local recognition and a few book reviews. YoYoSuryaPatra → talk 14:479, 08 February 2025 (UTC)
Keep He meets WP:GNG with the sources listed above, and others including the book UTOpia: Towards a New Toronto[16] and a couple of articles in the Toronto Star: [17] from 2012, and [18], [19] (2 pages) from 2019. There are many other short mentions that could provide details of his campaigns, band membership, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article includes references to sources whose reliability I have no doubts about, and these articles are directly dedicated to Meslin and his work. In particular, NPR is listed in WP:RSP as generally reliable (in this case, it is an interview, so the source cannot be considered secondary, but its existence supports the argument for passing WP:SIGCOV). Tau Corvi (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems a pretty clear pass of WP:PROF to me and the article looks uncontroversial. Is there a particular reason given for the subject to request deletion? Espresso Addict (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IEEE Fellow ("Life Fellow" but that just means fellow+older) is a clear pass of WP:PROF notability. The subject's modesty is virtuous, but not a convincing reason to delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you David. However, the Wikipedia article is not an accurate representation of my personal or professional biography. I tried to revise the article but Wikipedia would not allow me to do that. Therefore, after great effort to figure out how to do get in touch with the deletion editor, I requested that my article be deleted. Please do not try to prevent my article from being deleted, as well intended as you may be. Arthur Yaghjian Arthur D. Yaghjian (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly arguing either way here, but one possible solution would be for someone with relevant expertise, perhaps David Eppstein or Ldm1954, to action Arthur D. Yaghjian's edit request, as an alternative to deletion. Looking at the edit history, it looks as if the edits were primarily rejected on copyright grounds rather than for conflict of interest. I have noticed that the editors responding to COI edit requests of late have become less and less inclined to honour even the most vanilla of changes and I can see why this might lead the subject of an article to request deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might suggest to ADY that (from my experience as the subject of a Wikipedia article) it generally works much better to suggest (on the article talk page) the facts that should be updated, rather than suggesting the wording of how to present those facts. Doing so sidesteps both the issue of copying copyrighted text that seems to have tripped up the requests in this case, and the issue of promotional rather than encyclopedic wording that often arises in other cases and is difficult to avoid when writing about yourself. One might also, following Burns, take the existence of an article describing how one appears to others as a blessing, rather than insisting that only one's own view of oneself can be presented. It does not make me sympathetic to a deletion request like this one to see a subject who would be happy for Wikipedia to host an autobiography but is unwilling to allow a biography to be edited and worded by others. Every once in a while I look at the article about myself, shake my head at its haphazard state, and speak to myself the magic incantation: someone else's problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like David, I look at the article on me and shudder at some of the errors, then move on. While I am a sympathetic to the desire to have an accurate version, since those prior edits are blocked (for me) I can make no comments about what might be improved. Notability is very clear as I voted before. Can someone make the prior history more available. (It seems it might have been a copyright violation from https://2024.apsursi.org/master_class.php, that page being very peacocky.) Ldm1954 (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Full professor with a Scopus | h-factor of 33. He has an honorary degree from Novosibrisk which might contribute to WP:NPROF#C3 (although it is unsourced) I am not certain. Citations look a bit weak for C1. I tagged it for unclear notability more than a month ago, nothing has changed. I feel it is time for more opinions about notability as I am on the fence with this one. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think, we should keep the article. I will try to find a source for the honorary degree from Novosibirsk - he told me in person, that he got one, but I don't have a source.
Keep: The article is lacking in references in a few places, but the discovery of a stable nitrene is discussed in multiple sources that give Beckmann more than a passing mention as part of the work. It's tough but I lean towards passing WP:GNG if considering the Chemistry World and C&EN articles on top of the Novosibirsk doctorate (if true). Reconrabbit14:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Honorary degrees can potentially count toward C1, they aren't guaranteed to be contributory, especially when they're not from world-renowned institutions. They definitely don't count toward GNG. The write-ups about his nitrene work are fairly standard, though they're not insignificant. I don't see a GNG pass here, but I might check his Scopus metrics to see if they line up with notability in this field. JoelleJay (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am probably the only other chemist here commenting on this professor of chemistry. His record is notable: "270 peer-reviewed publications, 9 book chapters and 16 patent applications."? The article is peacocky, but we can address that issue.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smokefoot, I think we have to be careful here. Based upon his Scopus profile his highest cited paper here has 108 citations, plus his citations have taken a slight downturn since 2020. The journals look decent (CCR, JACS, Angewandte). However, at least in solid-state physics or materials science these numbers are not impressive. They are also low compared to chemists I have collaborated with. If his honorary degree is major, as I said in my nomination, I am OK with him squeezing past the notability bar, but it remains unconfirmed. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: A bit on the fence right now, leaning towards keep for now per Reconrabbit.
Courtesy request from article subject via VTRS 2024122010000181. The basis of the request is that the subject is not very well known, the sources used in the article are mostly so old as to be inaccurate and/or misleading and the lack of recent sources reinforces that the subject has no lasting nobility.
The quality of some of the sources lacks reliability even if the news sources themselves are generally reliable, the specific sources are not and are towards the gossip column end of journalism e.g. [20]Nthep (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I highly disagree with the subject, and reliable sources being old does not make it so that they don't work. There is no requirement for recent sources. Chicago Tribune and York Daily Record show notability alone. This was also a DYK in 2020. As for the pointed to source, I don't like sourced negative content being removed if it is still found to be true - especially removed by the subject. SL93 (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fact that the sources are "old" isn't a reason to delete. Moreover, as a widely published author and critic (e.g. books, plus pieces in Glamour, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Plain Dealter, Harper's Bazaar) who blogs on a "daily or near-daily basis" to over 9,000 followers (here), she doesn't appear to be an inherently private person. There are more than 3,000 hits for her in Newspapers.com, including WP:SIGCOV starting in 1970 and continuing well into the 1990s. See, e.g., here, here, here, here. Cbl62 (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Proquest has >500 hits for quoted name, the top two pages of which seem to be respectable book reviews (lots), biographical coverage (eg ROBERT STRAUSS. Ivy League or Briar Patch?: After Four Issues, the Editor of the Princeton Alumni Weekly, Not an Alumna, Is Gone. New York Times 05 Dec 1999: NJ6) and, more recently, coverage of her book review blog (eg Booby prize books. Telegraph 02 Mar 2007 & David Nason. The Australian 30 Jan 2008: 5. & Charles, Ron. Two thumbs up! (I hated it). The Washington Post. 2013. [mention only but shows she was still gaining national attention for her writing in 2013]). Notability is not temporary, old sources are fine. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable author. If there are concerns about gossip or trivia in her biography they can be addressed through edit requests. pburka (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single relialbe independnet source to meet WN ANYBIO or GNG. Generally not notable businesswoman/ columnist. Removed some dead or not related links. Classic WP REFBOMB and WP MILL. Cinder painter (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not entirely agree that the links that have been removed are unrelated. The article's history shows quite a bit was removed before this was posted in AfD. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DaffodilOcean The links were restored, and you can analyze them. I reviewed them again, and they appear to be primary, paid, interview-based, and unreliable sources (WP:MILL, WP:REFBOMB, etc.). I cannot find any reliable sources or a valid reason to justify the person's notability. Cinder painter (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why were sources removed? Dead links could be rescued using the wayback machine. Also, sources that shows that her books were reviewed by independent outlets were removed before this nomination. I do not have an opinion on the notability of this topic at this time. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia19:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reading Beans there was a classic REFBOMB with tons of sources about her book (I'm not saying all the sources were paid, but their similarity and flattering tone are suspicious) rather than about the person. To analyze the sources that may establish the person's notability, it's useful to remove excessive, unreliable, REFBOMBING sources. Anyway, the sources were returned back by other editors, and you can evaluate the topic's notability. Cinder painter (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : There is sufficient information in that interview confirming notability. The biographical information is not a "passing mention" as per policy, but a detailed info about the subject before the initial interview. A "passing mention" is something like a one liner - which is not the case here. Interviews are indeed acceptable as sources provided they come from a reliable sources or news outlet. Unless you are claiming that the Guardian (Nigeria) is not a reliable source (please provide link to a community consensus if this is your claim), the ref meets our WP:RS policy, and the coverage sufficient enough to meet our notability guidelines. From my humble experience, the community tends to look down on removal of sources then nominating an article for deletion. That might have been a genuine mistake or oversight on your part, but I would have tagged the article using the appropriate template(s) and initiate discussion on the talkpage. Alternatively, I would not have deleted sources before nominating it for deletion.Tamsier (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed paid, interviews, PR sources, and dead ones. I also marked unreliable and primary sources. Awards are not notable, and bringing them back is very suspicious. The "Keep" votes don't address the subject's questionable notability, so I ask for a review of the available sources and clarification on which GNG criteria the person meets. Cinder painter (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was also amazed by the number of references and was trying to persuade myself that the person is notable, but when I analyzed all the sources, I realized that they lack depth, independence, and reliability, failing to provide sustained coverage that would justify inclusion on Wikipedia (WP:GNG). Most of the references cited are local Nigerian publications such as Punch, Business Day, Vanguard, and Guardian Nigeria, which frequently publish routine coverage, interviews, and promotional articles rather than critical, biographical journalism. Most of the sources appear to be WIKIPEDIA:CHURNALISM - press releases, industry websites, or affiliated organizations (Marketing Edge, NiPRO, Advertisers Association of Nigeria), all of which fail Wikipedia’s reliable source criteria. While she has published one book, The Pressure Cooker, it does not meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for authors (WP:NAUTHOR), as there is no evidence of bestseller status, major literary awards, or academic significance. The article reads like a resume or promotional biography, listing awards, job positions, and speaking engagements rather than demonstrating why she is notable on a broader scale. Given the lack of substantial third-party sources, the over-reliance on weak or non-independent references, and the overall promotional nature and poor notability of the person, the page should be deleted. 98.10.26.73 (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am fixing the article now so it's a work in progress. Was it a refbomb mess? Yes. Did it originally read like a resume? Yes. But that doesn't mean it's not fixable or that the subject is not notable. A WP:BEFORE search even uncovers articles in reliable sources the subject probably wouldn't want to have cited in her biography. Easily meets WP:BASIC. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:HEY. The article, Nkiru Olumide-Ojo, has been much improved; it was a mess to begin with, with too much detail about her professional background and awards, such that it read overly promotional like a resume. There are many bylined reviews of Nkiru Olumide-Ojo's book, The Pressure Cooker: Lessons From a Woman at Work, a self-help book which also describes what life is like for a working Nigerian woman, which are now quoted and cited in her biography. Even if we discount the review by Adebola Rayo-Falade in The Guardian Nigerian News for notability purposes (due to concerns about that particular publication), as well as all the newspaper articles about her book promotion tour (as we would with authors in other countries), there are enough other reviews including a review by Toyin Agunbiade in YNaija which is very much a personal reaction to what the book says about subtle sexism, mentors and mentees, and the need to ask for support; and the review by Hafsah Abubakar Matazu in Daily Trust which is also a personal reaction to the book, bringing up the author's willingness to discuss her failures and insecurities. (Yes, the book hasn't won literary awards or been reviewed in academic journals, but we wouldn't expect that for a book of this genre in this market.) Once again discounting the numerous professional awards which Nkiru Olumide-Ojo has won in Nigeria for notability purposes, we can still find examples of recognition she has received outside of Africa – particularly her selection for the global jury at the 2024 Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity (as well as her selection as a speaker at Advertising Week Europe in London in 2017; these suggest that there is also international / cross-regional recognition of her notability within her field. It is absolutely the case that Nigerian sources need to be used with extreme care, but we have now done so, and the article now portrays an African career woman educated in Nigeria and the United Kingdom, who has climbed the corporate ranks at companies such as Standard Bank Group in South Africa, and Stanbic IBTC and Forte Oil PLC in Nigeria, who also wrote a weekly newspaper column in BusinessDay for about seven years which she turned into a book, has started The Lighthouse Women's Network to help equip women of all ages for the workforce, and has received recognition from global and European organisations in addition to professional associations within her own country. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete :Very interesting argument. But, the article still fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria under WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:HEY, and should therefore be deleted. While quite suspicious efforts have been made to save the article, the subject does not have significant, independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources, and the current evidence presented does not establish enduring notability.
1. Insufficient Notability as an author (fails WP:AUTHOR)
The primary argument for keeping the article are based on the reviews of The Pressure Cooker: Lessons From a Woman at Work. However, most of the cited reviews are personal reactions rather than critical analysis from established literary sources. Also, this book is not itself on the Wikipedia, and won't likely pass GNG for books. Also, the WP AUTHOR requires the person to be known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique;
The book has not received major literary awards, has not been the subject of academic review, and has not been covered by highly authoritative publications outside the Nigerian media space.
The sources referenced (e.g., YNaija, Daily Trust) are not widely recognized for literary criticism, and the Guardian Nigeria's credibility for notability purposes has been questioned.
The book's media coverage appears tied to promotional efforts, which do not establish the author’s independent notability.
2. promotional nature of the subject’s career coverage
The article relies heavily on awards and recognitions received by Nkiru Olumide-Ojo within Nigeria. However, professional industry awards do not inherently confer notability under Wikipedia’s guidelines.
The mention of her corporate career and involvement with organizations like Standard Bank and Stanbic IBTC does not in itself justify inclusion, as holding a high-ranking position in a company does not establish biographical notability unless there is extensive, independent coverage about her specific impact.
The Lighthouse Women's Network lacks significant independent coverage that demonstrates its wide influence.
3. International recognition argument is weak
The claim that she received “international or cross-regional recognition” is overstated.
Being selected as a jury member for the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity is a one-time event, which does not equate to sustained independent notability. Similarly, her participation as a speaker at Advertising Week Europe in 2017 does not improve her possible notability at all.
There is no significant coverage in major international media publications like Forbes, The Economist, Financial Times, or Reuters, which would help substantiate cross-regional notability.
4. Reliance on unreliable and weak sources
The Nigerian media landscape has known issues with reliability, already acknowledged in the "Keep" argument.
The sources used primarily discuss her book or quote her directly, rather than offering independent, in-depth biographical analysis.
5. Marketing Specialist, not a notable public figure
Nkiru Olumide-Ojo is primarily a marketing specialist, a field where notability is not so easy to gain (at least some international rankings, awards could help, but they don't exist)
The article presents her corporate career, a marketing leadership position, even at big companies, does not establish notability under WP:BASIC.
Also, the Keep voter seems to be personally interested in keeping the page, as they wrote a non-neutral argument:
Vague claims:
The phrase “these suggest that there is also international / cross-regional recognition of her notability within her field” is vague and does not specify concrete, independent sources that confirm this recognition.
The statement “has climbed the corporate ranks at companies such as Standard Bank Group in South Africa, and Stanbic IBTC and Forte Oil PLC in Nigeria” simply lists her job history, which is not a valid basis for Wikipedia notability.
Promotional Tone and Subjective Framing The phrase “the article now portrays an African career woman educated in Nigeria and the United Kingdom” is not an objective criteria for notability but rather a framing technique.
Similarly, “who also wrote a weekly newspaper column in BusinessDay for about seven years which she turned into a book” attempts to overestimate the importance of a routine journalistic activity.
Sure, but you have also written a non-neutral argument at AfD; the important thing is that the article itself has been revised to be neutral in tone. And no, I have no personal connection. I would have voted to delete if the article was still in the promotional state it was in previously; the main reason I initially voted to speedy keep instead was because the nominator kept deleting large sections of the article and sources, making it difficult to review. Anyway the article is in better shape now and if WP:CLEANUP was the goal, then job done. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to discuss the sourcing identified by Cielquiparle Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi14:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some references were identified in the last AfD here, but most of them are quotes or brief mentions. There is no book review. None of them cover Basso in-depth and bio fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. I understand why Trade2tradewell, with a special interest and optimism for encompassing all knowledge that were popular 17 or 19 years ago here, first created this. What I don't understand is why this is still here, after literally decades of AfDs and Prods to get rid of all these articles about clearly non-notable people. Bearian (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to see more of a consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find book reviews, so no pass at AUTHOR. All the mentions I find in a Gsearch are podcasts or interviews where this gentleman talks about investing. What's now used for sourcing in the article isn't enough either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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♥talk14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Note expanded bibliography, which establishes DiCaprio as an active editor and writer in the underground movement in the 1970s (extending into the early 1980s). -- stoshmaster (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. The entire underground comix movement was designed to change people's perceptions of what stories were "worth" telling in the comics format, so many products of that era fail a mainstream definition of "notablity". Nonetheless, the material produced during that era changed the comics industry forever, heralding the alternative comics movement and the rise of the graphic novel. That history has been well established. DiCaprio's role during that time as a writer, publisher, editor, and distributor is also well-established. Not to mention that he collaborated with such "notable" artists as Justin Green and Jay Kinney, and contributed to anthologies such as Arcade and Slow Death. -- stoshmaster (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are at least three good sources. However, there are several sources that need to be removed and the article tagged as needing better sources, if it is kept. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about the sources, obviously Leonardo DiCaprio's dad is going to have a plethora of articles about him no matter what he did. The issue is that he has no notability outside of being Leo's father. jolielover♥talk05:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep I agree with the above needs better sources and some expanding. I say keep for now and maybe re-nominate in the future if its not expanded on much better sources found. ContentEditman (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Draftify This is a very new article from a very new editor (which did not go through AfC). The external link hyperlinked to Zebra Cross is actually a review, and should be a reference. The article creator needs to look for other reviews of her published books, or articles about her (not by her). This author may be notable - let's give the editor time to work on it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That should work. Creator moved it from userspace to draft then to main, I mistakenly thought this was a contested draftification, hence the AfD and not a draftify myself ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>13:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Draftify: When I created this article, I believed that the sources I used were entirely reliable. However, after the admin Significa Liberdade edited the article, they removed all unreliable sources, for which I sincerely appreciate their efforts. [21]The subject is an author, and to be honest, I also struggled to find completely reliable sources. Therefore, I have decided to draft the article so that I can take the time to find better sources. Baqi:) (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep argument here which makes Soft Deletion inappropriate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is true that there are some book reviews, but I don't find that be sufficient to support an article about an author. There is one rather gossipy review in the SF Examiner; a single paragraph in Publishers' Weekly; a single page in Library journal. The Key West Journal and Communities also provide gossipy reviews, and neither is what I would consider to be a major publication of book reviews. Most of what is in the article about the person is from a non-independent source. Lamona (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Counting pburka's comment as a call for retention, I still don't see consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎01:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GNG dictates widespread coverage in independent sources. Doing a cursory search of the sources leads to Lamona's conclusion. There are references, but, for the most part, they are minor and few enough as to not satisfy the widespread coverage usually required. One single paragraph and one single page isn't enough to satisfy notability. GuardianH03:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:AUTHOR. The third guideline says that the author must have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" and said work has been the subject of multiple independent reviews. Having reviews alone is not sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthnope (talk • contribs) 05:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
FA
A
GA
