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.
Neutral. As the original author of the article I do not accept suggestions that the article is inaccurate. To the best of my knowledge the complainant has not provided any examples of inaccuracies. Further, there are a large number of citations given. The fact that these sources are freely available rather challenges the complainant's request for privacy. I probably prepared the article after seeing a list of the "Top Ten Most Inspiring Portuguese Women",[1] which to me does not suggest a lack of notability, although I would agree that the subject, despite the quality of her work, is not in the first rank of Portuguese artists and her inclusion on Wikipedia cannot be considered essential. Roundtheworld (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Of the fourteen sources currently in the article, which one(s) are not blogs, user-submitted content, sales sites or primary sources? In other words, which are secondary reliable sources that are fully independent from the person? Netherzone (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question 2: OK, I'm confused. The nominator, Roundtheworld, who started this AfD says they are the original author, but are neutral about deletion. However the article history says that the editor, Umdiadepois, nominated the article for deletion according to their user contributions,[8] and they claim to be the the subject of the article, although there is no proof of that. Roundtheworld could you, when you find a moment, please explain what's going on, I'm confused. Thank you, Netherzone (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not start the AFD. I responded to a notification that the page had been started. Umdiadepois had previously made lots of large deletions, which were reverted by others. I am reasonably satisfied that she is the subject of the article. Her first revert stated "Hello, I am the subject of this article. Some of the information is outdated and does not accurately reflect my current trajectory. I would like the article to be simplified, as I prefer to keep my personal and professional information on my official website. I kindly request the removal of excessive details and a more neutral, concise version of the article. Thank you for your time and consideration." Roundtheworld (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining, now I understand. Umdiadepois may well be the subject, however, because this is a BLP, I think there is a procedure that has to occur to prove that they are who they say they are. If I'm not mistaken, they need to file an email ticket with WP:VRT that gets reviewed by a team member and assigned a number. I'm pinging @Star Mississippi for her guidance. (BTW, I have no opinion on Fleming's notability at this time.) Netherzone (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Netherzone for the ping. NZ, @Roundtheworld while that's the best route if Fleming wants to edit the article or under their name, it's not mandatory for us to consider this deletion discussion. They're welcome to open the discussion or weigh in and if they have specific privacy concerns about material, they should reach out to VRT/OTRS. No comment on notability as I haven't had a chance to dive in and it's late here @Justlettersandnumbers @Barkeep49 is there anything we're missing here? StarMississippi03:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For everyone else doing their searching, there was another woman named Margarida Fleming in the arts, but 100 years ago, just so you don't get confused like me :) Moritoriko (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upon search, I can't find any reliable, independent sources about the subject. Not to mention, none of the current sources in the article are reliable, which means that we can't presume that the subject is notable. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Peter Noever is an internationally known curator, author, museum professional and designer. What is problematic about the article is the COI editing and large amounts of unsourced content, all of which can be cleaned up. AfD is not clean up. A quick WP:BEFORE search on the WP Library (access required) finds these reviews of his books: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and many others. Reviews of his work as curator: [14], [15], [16], additionally there are these interviews (primary sources, but relevant): [17], [18]. Clearly a notable person who meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Question for nominator @WormEater13: since when has Domus (magazine) a notable art, architecture and design magazine that has been around since 1928 become an "unreliable" source? Netherzone (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I went to the article and attempted to clean it up. I removed tons of unsourced CV items and claims. The exhaustive list of "Publications" is so overwhelming as to be un-encyclopedic in value. The remaining citations are pretty thin. I strongly suspect that the reference to exact birth date was added in the original article by COI editor "Knowledge space". That date was picked up by https://cs.isabart.org/person/15892. I think the remaining unsourced material needs to be sourced or removed. I'll wait a few days to see if the cruft goes, if not I will remove it. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, has zero in-depth sourcing. Could be redirected to Jiangsu Road (Lhasa), another poorly sourced stub by this same editor, which contains almost all the same information. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969TT me13:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jiangsu Road (Lhasa) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After the completion of the road was renamed "Jiangsu Road", and set up a Monument of Jiangsu Road to commemorate the contribution of Jiangsu Province's reconstruction assistance.
The Washington Post oped is about the person and only mentions the statue in the title. The other added sources are also just about the unveiling, still doesn’t pass WP:SUSTAINED. मल्ल (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only 3 sentences are about the statue, the rest are about the man. And one of those sentences are about the people who were at the unveiling, not really about the statue itself, either.
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
I was going to make some wise guy comment to Obi2canibe but then realized that you are a longtime and experienced editor. Better late than never I guess, unless your comment was satire. In any case, maybe think about or reconsider your delete vote? Thanks. As for the sourcing concern above, the Smithsonian is an adequate GNG source for establishing notability (besides, this statue is at the entrance of one of the most notable airports in the U.S., and its notability is both sustained and recognized daily by those who view it). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Smithsonian is the absolute worst source of these, just data in an inventory, not analysis or substantial coverage. A statue does not inherit notability from its location – if its location at a notable airport is so significant, it should be covered at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, which does not even mention this. The airport (like others) has a lot of art seen by thousands every day that don't need standalone articles. Reywas92Talk23:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit this one is pretty difficult to search for, but I don't think it's notable; the site for the capitol grounds appear to be the only real coverage of this piece of public art. Belongs on a list of the artist's works and a list of public art installations in the city. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the work is cited as being among the Washington Capitol collection, a prominent sculpture collection in the Northwest U.S. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Give us one fact from those sources that is neither in the Washington State official blurb nor the Crooks book. (Hint: Historians can read newspapers, too.) Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the standard for notability, but the first article says that the model for the statute was created in wood. A fact (among several at least) that's in the article and not in either the official blurb or Crooks. Jahaza (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a way to evaluate the depths of the sources being waved around, which have been merely described as "this" and "a bit weak"; and notability is very much about the depth of sourcing. If you aren't looking for depth, you aren't doing it right. Uncle G (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of public art in Olympia, Washington. There doesn't seem to be any specific notability guidelines for pieces of art but looking at the guidelines for music and books and making my own suggests that this sculpture doesn't meet what I would expect is needed, following from what Reywas92 said. this is the only source of the newspapers that actually discusses the sculpture in depth. The Washington State blurb is what I would consider primary. I do not recommend redirecting to List of works by Lee Kelly which I think is the other possible target because many of his works are titled Untitled, it would just be confusing. Moritoriko (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is one topic, and not just a grouping of topics across two characteristics (mosaics from certain regions / influences, and certain regions in Asia) which have no real common ground. I could find no good sources for this topic as a whole (looking for this gave results about mosaics in Asia Minor, which is not the same of course). Fram (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the article lacks a common bond of mosaics in the different regions, I think some of the content is good. Mosaic is overwhelmingly about Europe (and it should make better use of summary style with its subpages), but the Middle Eastern and Western Asian section is relatively short and there is nothing at all about East or Southeast Asian mosaic art. This is a new article from a new user, so I would recommend they consider merging some information or working on it as a draft. Reywas92Talk15:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced and very detailed, the stand-alone visual arts article presents the topic in an adequate encyclopedic fashion. Not long enough for a split, and no need to think along those lines. The page covers what it intends to cover, per title. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources tie together around their common connections: mosaics and their existence in the continent of Asia. Asians artistic crafting of mosaics make for a well-done informative article. Nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really how it should work though. If there are no sources treating them as one subject, we shouldn't either. It gives the impression that there is some common characteristic setting them apart from mosaics in other continents, as studied or described by reliable sources. Fram (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't found any sources covering Mosaics in Asia as a whole (in a fairly minimal search, I must admit). I agree that sections of this article are worth keeping, perhaps as separate articles or in the Mosaic article. I did note that searching various terms, including "Asian mosaics", brought up several sources about Central Asian mosaics, both ancient and modern, eg 14th and 15th century mosaics in Samarkhand and Bukhara, and 20th century mosaics on pre-fab apartments in Tashkent [19]. This topic does not seem to be covered anywhere, not even in this article on Mosaics in Asia (and their existence brings into question the statement in the Mosaic article that "Mosaics generally went out of fashion in the Islamic world after the 8th century." RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - I understand the rationale for the nom, but I lean towards an "Ignore all rules" K*eep if there is such a thing. (Note this is the first time I've ever suggested IAR.) When I consider if the the encyclopedia is better or worse off with this new article, ripe for improvement, the solid answer is that it is a positive contribution that betters the encyclopedia. I agree that there is some good content here and that the overall subject is relevant to WP's readership. The article is only one week old, and can be improved in terms of sourcing and format. A quick BEFORE finds many articles on JSTOR about mosaics that exist in Asian countries, but I have not had the time to read them all to understand if they discuss the entire Asian continent as a whole. Perhaps this is an emerging field in art history/archaeology. I think the article needs more time for the new editor to develop it, but it is not so "broken" that it needs to be draftified at this time. A simple "under construction" maintenance tag may be the solution. That and encouragement directed to the newbie editor, Jaynentu who created it. Netherzone (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate all the editors for your time and feedbacks. I do find more valuable sources for developing to improve the content. Certainly more time and suggestions would help to organize this work. Jaynentu (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Split into region-specific articles: West Asia, South Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. Perhaps even narrower: Persian mosaics is still a redlink! However, I recognize that this is unlikely to gain consensus at the tail end of an AfD, so in the meantime I guess we can draftify it or keep it. I don't think the topic is notable, which makes the article basically SYNTH, but the content is not bad and should be kept somewhere while it's being split. Jaynentu, thank you for writing this – I encourage you to write the narrower region-specific mosaic articles as well! Toadspike[Talk]09:31, 15 April 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
This article has had an unresolved sourcing tag for eight years. Now it's time for it to go.
This BLP has two non-RS sources. A standard WP:BEFORE finds prodigious instances of the name in Google News but, on close examination, these are each instances of bylined articles by the subject which are, therefore, not WP:INDEPENDENT. No other sources offer WP:SIGCOV. The so-called "awards" listed in the article are unsourced (and aren't even awards!), therefore, don't meet WP:AWARD. While he seems to have written a score of technical books that *might* have been reviewed, they don't meet the high standards required under WP:NAUTHOR. Chetsford (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not seem to meet any of the qualifications in WP:ACADEMIC. Perhaps meets WP:BASIC but I don't think so; he has been interviewed as an expert on G.K. Chesterton, but that's not really significant coverage on Ahlquist himself.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Not a single piece of WP:SIGCOV in this BLP (a possible WP:VANITY BLP, I'm speculating [but don't know], based on the licensing of the Sears glamor shot in the infobox). A standard WP:BEFORE finds nothing either. WP:POLOUTCOMES does not presume notability for the minor post of special assistant. Fellows of the RSA -- the only other possible claim to WP:N -- are apparently self-nominated persons who pay a $100 registration fee [21]. Chetsford (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is your obvious evidence of socking (per bellow), I suggest you try a little harder as (per their two xtools [22][23]) they have basically no similarity in editing topic and are clearly in different time zones. If you have any other inane speculation about other users you wish to post here, my recommendation is don't, and if you have any serious evidence raise it at the appropriate channels (i.e. not this AFD). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk15:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Dr. Pippa Malmgren meets notability criteria per WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. She has significant, independent coverage in reputable sources, demonstrating sustained impact in economics, policy, and leadership.
These sources provide significant coverage that is both independent and reliable. She clearly qualifies for a standalone article under Wikipedia notability guidelines. 64.98.74.238 (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When we say significant, independent coverage in reputable sources we are not looking for interviews in or expert quotes given to reliable sources as these aren't coverage of the person. Publishing books (in and of its self) is not enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR. The FT award is more interesting but your link doesn't work, and I can't find anything about it on the web. Much of the rest is covered by the nom already. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk14:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to ask if the above is AI generated (thus explaining the hallucinated FT link, broken incorrect formating and making points already discussed in nom)? GPTZero gives 100% chance of AI generated, but I guess I'll give you the chance to explain whether that's the case. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk14:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there lovely person. Don't think that's AI generated. Mostly because AI either gives me no links or correct but irrelevant links. Broken links are probably the result of a typo. Furthermore, the incorrect broken formatting if anything points to a fallible human rather than a machine.
Perhaps the reason why they're making points already discussed in nom is because the persons interested in this article's deletion give no credence to easily discernible and verifiable facts?
Comment all should be aware that this article has been tangentially mentioned in various fora during an ongoing off wiki condonation campaign (e.g. [24], [25], [26]) so theirs a possibility of WP:CANVASSING to keep in mind here.Cakelot1 ☞️ talk14:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we call for a block on "Chetsworth" pulling this crap, please...? It's pretty obvious someone's operating a sockpuppet account here, I have no idea what their problem is with the late Mr Malmgren, Pippa or Christopher Mellon for that matter - they hit him yesterday as well as Malmgren - I'm sure they're sticking to the strict letter of the law but these deletion calls really are bullshit.
I don't know what's pissing me off more at present - this person vandalising Wikipedia like this or this idiot making me actually agree with UFO nuts....
KEEP THE ARTICLE - QUIT PULLING THIS BS
If there are issues, correct them - stop with these pointless calls for deletion, this is obviously targeted and clearly done in service of some idiot sceptic group's addenda. I don't give the first shit what they're calling themselves this week - knock. it. on. the. head.
Not a notable person. Most references are hard to analyze. Not related and ambiguous citations and mostly not a single reason for a notability. Yousiphh (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is an article about one of her books [27], confirmed on the second reference under the External Links section in the article. I'll keep looking. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Newspapers.com also turns up a number of reviews in American newspapers, e.g. of her first book, Equivocal Death: [29], [30], [31], [32] (2 pages); and the second The Anniversary: [33], [34], , [35], [36], [37], [38]. There's also a few more profile-y articles from around when the books came out that would enable the fleshing out of a true article, namely [39] (two pages, I didn't clip the second), and [40], [41], [42]. Mostly small papers, but all around the country. I think NAUTHOR (and GNG) is met here. Eddie891TalkWork08:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The kid has published 4 books but they are all self-published - although I cannot find more information about the books (e.g. who illustrated them ("Linda H" is what is listed, oddly), who laid them out, are they copyrighted? etc). The "Mother Hubbard" publisher has published all of 4 books, all his. motherhubbard.tv is also him and one other kid, with a small number of videos. Also, this WP article says that he won the 2019 GUBA award, but the GUBA site shows that no awards were given in 2019 or 2020. It's just not adding up. Lamona (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was deprodded without improvement with the rationale, "Take to AFD. Works are cited by journals advocating Austrian economics." Well, yes, they are. With a high citation count of a whopping 7. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG, nor do they meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969TT me14:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched for reviews of his two books but did not find any. So I think both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR are out, and if there is any notability it will have to be found through WP:GNG. But of the sources in the article as nominated, [1], [3], [4], [11], and [14] are self-written employee/contributor profiles, [2] is an abstract-only link whose abstract does not mention the subject, [5-10] are dubiously-reliable and non-independent interviews, [12] is an audio version of one of his coauthored books, [13] is a sales link for the other book. None count towards GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Horribly promotional and refbombed biography, with half of the references being broken links to bookstores that don't seem to actually sell his books, or sources that don't mention him. I found a couple of interviews (e.g. [43]) but had no luck finding usable reviews of any of his books in either English or French. MCE89 (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this guy really notable? I see that one of his books was reviewed by the Guardian, and another by the Tablet magazine - but that's pretty much it. The other links are just his personal profile on the Tablet and his blog on Wordpress. HPfan4 (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Book reviews as above seem fine, more than enough for AUTHOR. Could use more biographical info in the article, but that's not for AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article only concerns a trial lawyer and is entirely about this person's work for a law firm, Winston & Strawn. When checking the sources there are few independent WP:BASIC sources, and the subject overall fails that criteria, lacking significant coverage in independent (!) sources. It also doesn't help that the article is written in a promotional tone. It was created in 2013 by a single-purpose account. GuardianH06:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - under the cruft is a notable lawyer who appears to have been ripped off by a professional editor. I started to remove the promotional and NN trivia. Bearian (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Weak keep" I agree with Bearian that the subject likely is notable however TNT would be an acceptable alternative (especially if Bearian had not already taken an editor's pen to the article) based on nominator's very valid concerns about promotional editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, considering Bearian's fixes + notable cases + references i.e. justice.gov. Worth keeping live for time being. Good faith cleanup still required for the long haul. --Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability with the only sources being WP:PRIMARY listings of his books. Doing a WP:BEFORE, I could only find more self-published content and this press release, nothing counting for GNG.
Delete Obvious COI editor created the article about themselves, Jeromeenriquez matches the page title almost exactly (missing a space between the "ee" and also missing "john". All sources are self published or primary sources (the main source is a press release by the subject). Promotional language is quite clear throughout the article. Sources are from only two websites (goodreads.com and PRLog.org) PRLog.org is a distribution website for press releases.
@Jeromeenriquez like @Jlwoodwa said Amazon pages are not considered reliable sources per Wikipedia policy. What you need is a in-depth review in a newspaper/website about the books or the author (author would count more since they usually throw in a quick review of their books as well.) (good reads is ok for a couple of things like showing who the author is and other basic facts about that book, it can also is used to cite books. (Sometimes they have a online version of a book, so we cite the book using the good reads web address. In that case the book is the RS, good reads is just the middle man to us. Same thing applies to the Internet Archive.) If you cite a newspaper it would be best if it is at least national, if not international. Also we can use reliable sources that are in Portuguese. (Personally I prefer English sources, but I only know English). Sheriff U304:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the books appear to be self-published on Amazon and are less than 100 pages long (one of them being just 13 pages long!), which tend to be pretty big red flags in my experience. I wasn't able to find any RS reviews for any of the books either, and I don't see any evidence that the subject has created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. MCE89 (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been deleted multiple times under the title Mudit Srivastava. A previous PROD was contested by the creator, who then added a few references. However, none of the sources provide significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Junbeesh (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bolta Kagaz Thanks for sharing the links. However, the sources provided are primarily podcasts and YouTube videos, which are generally not acceptable for establishing notability on Wikipedia. According to WP:GNG, a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Information coming directly from the subject such as interviews or self-published content is not considered independent. If you come across third-party sources that provide in-depth, independent coverage, feel free to share them here and I'd be happy to take a look. Junbeesh (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article was created by the subject's son in 2006 (edit: looks like Cramer edited his article a few times under Dylanrcramer12 (talk·contribs) and Dylanrcramer (talk·contribs)) and has survived for nineteen years with a single source – the subject's own website. I found two news articles on Dylan Cramer (one, two), but they do not mention any major works or accomplishments. The book Journeys to the Bandstand has a chapter on him and his father, but is unlikely to mention anything that would make him notable (or there would be other news sources reporting on it). Cramer appears to be a local Vancouver musician who does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Iiii I I I (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject does not appear to meet any of the 12 criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. I searched newspapers.com as well and found many notices about upcoming performances and the like (mainly in Vancouver area) but I don't see any sigcov to support WP:BASIC either. Zzz plant (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a close call because the musician has gained respect from other musicians, and that generated some basic coverage among afficionados, but unfortunately I must agree with the in-depth conclusions by the nominator and previous voter. There simply isn't enough with which to build an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the book chapter and news pieces highlighted by the nominator I found two staff-written album reviews at AllMusic here and here. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:NMUSIC with the reviews found by the previous two editors, plus the chapter, plus there are long articles about Cramer and his first album (The First One, DSM, 1998, later re-released as Remembering Sonny Criss) in the French language newspaper Le Devoir (from the opposite side of Canada), one of which says "Il faut connaître Dylan Cramer. ... Cet album, il faut en goûter chaque note. Car Dylan Cramer a ceci qui est trės rare: chaque note mérite le doigté le plus fin qui soit." (You have to know Dylan Cramer. ...With this album, you have to savor every note. Because Dylan Cramer has something that is very rare: every note merits the finest fingering possible.) Plus, WP:MUSICBIO#5 says "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" - he has released 3 albums on Nagel-Heyer Records. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Compelling arguments on both the sides. More input from community is appreciated. Also, a source eval would be great. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to try to look through Wayback Machine archives for this particular one, but based on other ones I've checked in the past, the biographies were originally on SR, then imported to Olympedia when SR's Olympics site split. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Die Olympischen Kunstwettbewerbe 1912-1948 (The Olympic Art Competitions 1912-1948) covers the olympic artwork, but with little beyond. [48] He also gets multiple mentions in A Pacifist's Life and Death: Grigorios Lambrakis and Greece in the Long Shadow of Civil War[49], although these are not biographical of him. That's all I found so far. That is not a GNG pass yet, but may indicate there is more to be found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of people with the name Takis Sakellariou. There's also no Greek article on him, unfortunately, so it's not like we can just expand it with the corresponding article in Greek. If someone native in the language looked, maybe we'd get a more definitive answer if there's any articles that do pass GNG on him. Réunion!20:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There will certainly be namesakes, but what is the basis for saying there are a lot of them? Sakellariou is not unusual but neither is it a particularly common Greek surname, and the same could be said for the forename, Takis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Greek there is an extensive reference to Sakelariou here which comes from a book on the subject - I think it's a reliable source. Apart from that, however, I have not found anything else worthwhile. DeleteLord Mountbutter (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greece at the 1936 Summer Olympics or consider Grigoris Lambrakis, although mention at the page would be required. I have searched but unable to find any SIGCOV secondary sources for this subject. There is a more notable namesake in entertainment (actor and producer) and most sources refer to that one. However the sources I found above are confirmed to be this page subject. The problem is that these are just not enough. The history of the Olympic art competitions confirms his entry, but doesn't have anything to tell us about the man. Likewise Gkotzaridis (2016), that is, A Pacifist's Life and Death: Grigorios Lambrakis and Greece in the Long Shadow of Civil War, which I have now obtained a library copy of, only actually has three mentions of the page subject, the other mentions of Sakellariou in the work referring to one of five others with that surname: Alexandros, Aristeidis, Epameinondas, Petros and Vassileos. The most substantial of the references to the page subject reads: As for Takis Sakellariou, he was properly bedazzled and stirred - like so many others back at home - by the spectacle of Germans rooting for Greek athletes in Greek and some even succeeding in intoning the first verses of the Greek national anthem! and this is referenced to one of his works:
- Takis Sakellariou, "The Foustanela-dressed of the Gymnastics Academy and the Greek Champions: Mantikas, Syllas and Papadimas," Athlitismos, August 10, 1936.
That source, of course, is primary. The book also confirms his involvement in training, with As soon as he met Grigorios, the coach, Takis Sakellariou, sensed at once that he had in front of him a rare instance of an athlete, with remarkable jumping capabilities. He started to train him, believing firmly that he would grow into a wonderful jumper. The other mention also briefly mentions training. And that is it. We have no secondary sources covering the subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the one good source below, striking my redirect for now, as focus on the subject as a sports science pioneer may be more fruitful than as an Olympian. At the very least we should allow time for further searches. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am putting my redirect !vote back. The source below is excerpted from a local history book published by the Piraeus association. The website is similarly supported by the association. The claims about him being a pioneer are, it seems, overhyped, as there is no other evidence of this. He is of local interest, but it is a single source by an association promoting Piraeus. This is not enough for GNG and nothing else is coming to light. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. @Svartner and Sirfurboy: A search brought up that he literally had an in-depth story written on him this year, see this, which is 1,600 words on him by some Greek historical writer, titled "the pioneer of scientific gymnastics". In addition to it being SIGCOV, the fact that he still gets in-depth coverage today and that recent Greek writers were able to find so much on him strongly indicates that there would be further, offline coverage, as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this one meets SIGCOV in a secondary source, and is an excerpt from a book that appears to be reliable, and independent. Who are the Thematic Office of Culture? Almost certainly this gives us one good source. We need multiple to meet GNG, so one more will do it (given that we have the brief mentions too). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The website you found deals exclusively with Piraeus issues - it records the local history of the city. There is no in-depth coverage of this person anywhere else. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no in-depth coverage of this person anywhere else. – How do you know? Have you checked old Greek archives? What about 1930s newspapers? Not everything is on the internet... BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are sources that are inaccessible to us - it is as if they do not exist since they cannot be documented. The newspapers of the time are considered primary sources since they cannot prove notability. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inaccessible to you does not equate to non-existent. If you have not checked any Greek archives, then you have no right to claim that they do not exist. Neither are all newspaper sources primary and unusable like you claim. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. We have one source with clear sigcov and some other sources that mention him. For a topic so inaccessible, this is enough to convince me that WP:NEXIST applies. Toadspike[Talk]10:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. As always, writers and musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to pass certain defined notability criteria verified by WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them and their work in reliable sources independent of themselves -- for example, you don't make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his books to themselves as circular metaverification of their own existence, you make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his books to third-party media coverage about them, such as professional book reviews and/or evidence that they've won or been nominated for major literary awards. But this essentially just states that his work exists, without documenting anything that would meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:AUTHOR criteria, and it's referenced almost entirely to primary sourcing that isn't support for notability, such as his own podcast and the books metaverifying themselves. The only secondary source cited here at all is a (deadlinked but recoverable) Tiny Desk Concert, which just briefly namechecks his participation in the surrounding text without saying anything substantive about him, and thus isn't sufficient to get him over GNG all by itself. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability, except for a single glancing namecheck of his existence in a media source that is not about him in any substantive or notability-building sense. What bare minimum of GNG-worthy sourcing does that add up to? Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DeLeon (band): Changing my vote. Saks has coverage, but mostly in connecting with his bands. His podcast "has been recognized as a 2020 Webby Honoree and listed among Apple Podcasts' top shows in children's music education", but the article references a self-published source, and I couldn't find anything solid. Redirect to Deleon, because it seems more beefy with info, and The LeeVees potentially lack notability. LastJabberwocky (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear editors, the article subject, Samia Gore, is requesting a soft deletion on English Wikipedia, claiming the content is promotional and inaccurately presented. I would also like to highlight that the notability is somewhat unclear. Thank you in advance for your thoughts on this! SG2025wiki (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easy keep [51], [52], plus the Essence article now used for sourcing. There are many more that come up, showing notability. Keeping the article also promotes gender equality and helps combat gender bias, as a person of colour in the USA. Oaktree b (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - while the subject is accomplished, she has not gotten MSM attention nor won a major award, either of which would be a completely objective test of notability (compare that to a Grammy Award winning musician, or an art curator who was lauded by a newspaper of record). Bearian (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this was a regular AfD I'd lean "Weak keep" as there are 6-7 references in what appear to be WP:RS covering the article content and they span a three year period (2020-2022). I'm confused though why there are COI and PROMO maintenance tags on the article. It doesn't appear promotional to me, and I'm guessing given there's sockpuppetry and IP address edits to the article that admins determined the COI. But as it reads today the article seems OK (although needs work) and I'd remove both tags. If the subject really doesn't want an article about them I'd respect that decision as it's an edge case. I'd also be willing to work on improving the article if it's kept. Nnev66 (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Orignal creator of this article was blocked for WP:COI and WP:PROMO. This persons fails WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR, due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Also most of the sources on this article are not about him, hence checked carefully. It may be created for undisclosed payments because this article creator also created articles on his multiple books which are also nothing more than promotion. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHORTheSlumPanda (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Vijay Nahar should be retained. There is sufficient coverage in a wide range of independent and reliable sources, satisfying Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline for authors, historians, and public figures. His work spans historical biographies, political commentary, and education-focused literature. Below is a list of significant sources that discuss his contributions:
----These references clearly demonstrate both the coverage and influence of Vijay Nahar’s work. While the Wikipedia article might benefit from improvements in structure, formatting, and inline citations, the subject himself meets Wikipedia's notability threshold. Therefore, the article should be improved, not deleGujjar.rudraa (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all sources are not about this subject. Some are about maharana Pratap, or other are about modi or vasundra raje, also the #2 TOI article is a reliable source but that talks more about the book written by him. And please remind that online listing of books for purchase like Amazon doesn’t confer notability. TheSlumPanda (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vijay Nahar is an Indian author and historian known for his biographical and historical works on notable Indian political figures and Rajput kings. His book Swarnim Bharat ke Swapndrishtha Narendra Modi has been referenced in multiple media outlets, including The Sunday Guardian, for its early commentary on Narendra Modi’s developmental vision and personal life aspects, including his marriage, which was highlighted during political discourse (The Sunday Guardian, Amar Ujala).
Nahar’s biography of Vasundhara Raje, Vasundhara Raje aur Viksit Rajasthan, is among the first dedicated publications on her political career and is noted in news profiles (Jansatta). His contributions to historical research include books on Samrat Bhoj Parmar, Mihir Bhoj, and Rao Akheraj Songara, which have been cited in literary platforms such as Sahitya Kunj and Sahitya Nama, and are among the few comprehensive modern works available on these historical figures (Sahitya Kunj, Udaipur Kiran).
In the context of Maharana Pratap, Nahar's writings have been used in regional discourse to support the view that Pratap was born in Pali, Rajasthan—challenging the traditionally cited location of Kumbhalgarh attributed to Colonel Tod (Bhaskar, Samvad). His contributions have also been recognized through awards and coverage in local media outlets, emphasizing his role in historical interpretation and education.
While online listings like Amazon do not independently confer notability, they help identify the range and accessibility of his publications. Furthermore, his books have been featured in school libraries in Rajasthan, according to a report by The Times of India (TOI). Gujjar.rudraa (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His book on narendra modi got media coverage like 1, 2. While the sunday guardian have only passing mention at last which is not enough. But if we talk about notability of this subject them i am still inclined toward deletion because of lack of Significant coverage about him in independent sources rather than sticking only on his modi book.TheSlumPanda (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
== Sources supporting notability ==
Lokmat Times – Photos of Gulab Kataria Ji – Features visuals and associations, including those connected to historian Vijay Nahar and other BJP figures.
Sahitya Kunj – Samraat Bhoj Parmar Sameeksha – A critical review of Vijay Nahar’s historical writing on King Bhoj, hosted by a Hindi literary platform.
Jansatta – Vasundhara Raje’s political profile – Refers to authors including Nahar who’ve written about Rajasthan’s leadership and political figures.
Punjab Kesari – Maharana Pratap Jayanti – Covers public celebration of figures about whom Vijay Nahar has authored biographies.
News Puran – Death Anniversary of Maharana Pratap – Discusses cultural memory around Maharana Pratap, a key figure in Vijay Nahar’s historical works.
Sahitya Kunj – Vijay Nahar Author Profile – A central repository of Nahar’s literary contributions and publications.
Most of the sources cited to support the notability of Vijay Nahar are from Hindi-language newspapers and online publications. However, these are established and widely circulated media outlets in India, such as Dainik Bhaskar, Amar Ujala, Rajasthan Patrika, Punjab Kesari, Jansatta, and the Hindi edition of Times of India. These outlets are considered reliable sources under Wikipedia guidelines for regional and vernacular coverage.
The references include interviews, book reviews, coverage of public recognitions and awards, listings of published works, and inclusion of his books in institutional libraries. Several sources document his contributions as a biographer of public figures like Narendra Modi, Vasundhara Raje, and Maharana Pratap. Many of these sources offer English summaries or have accessible translations. Gujjar.rudraa (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors willing to research the sources offered in the article and discussion. Would the two editors who have participated so far please take a step back and let other editors weigh in? Please let them comment without adding your opinions to their arguments. Thank you. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per Liz, again. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about author. I have searched about the subject but didn't find significant coverages.. That can pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR.
Although I did come across a few mentions about the person, they were news-related and not about the work for which the person is known as an author. Dam222🌋 (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am trying to find sources, not easy when I do not read Urdu. However, it looks like she may have had more than one bestseller - Mus'haf as noted (but not yet sourced) in the article, and Jannat Kay Pattay, mentioned in this [53] and this [54]. I will try to find better sources. I note too that on the Talk:Nemrah Ahmed Khan page, there is mention of other Romanised spellings of her name, including Nimra Ahmad. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree this page was previously deleted and salted. The preceding AFD is 18 years old. Since then, numerous independent references from credible sources have emerged regarding the subject. Consequently, it meets the criteria of WP:GNG.. Sore Shout (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the subject has potential for keeps one of which from the bibliographic achievements, the books being translated to numerous languages is notable, if a few more independent RS can be added aside from the numerous primary sources already cited, would increase its keep status potential.Villkomoses (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see how this attains NAUTHOR if the subject's claim to fame is Pranic healing, and that subject is itself non-notable. There is an unreferenced mention of pranic healing at Energy medicine#Beliefs; maybe one of the sources could be applied there prior to deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a keep argument, so long as what I have pointed out can be resolved, at worst I would suggest a Draftify rather than a delete, as given more RS just needs to be cited for it. Villkomoses (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case this article was kept, kindly move the page to Choa Kok Sui, which is a red link. as the current title includes an unnessesary disambiguation. Thanks and no Opinion on the AFD. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
