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.
Dear WcQuiddith! Could you help me? What is wrong with the topics 'Artist' and 'Austria'? Klaus Boesch is an Austrian citizen and he is an artist, being successful in the asian and ME region mainly. Which does not make his artworks any worse than works of artists who are renowned in the US. The English Wikipedia should carry international measurements, because English is the language many Wiki users look up if they can't find anyting in their own language. Rich KB (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Oaktree, I have read the in the Getty ULAN website, it is a historical database. But Klaus Boesch is a still alive artist. You might find his profile on Artmajeur.com in example. I find it interesting, that Wikipedia seems not to allow establishing novelties. Sandman is not in the Getty database, because Klaus Boesch has not achieved major success in USA. Also let me add, that the English Wikipedia should be open for a world-wide community and not be snippeted to American measurements only! Klaus Boesch's success happens in Japan and China. If it is important for you to be listed in the Getty ULAN - could you let me know how an artist can be listed there?
Dear all! Once again: my success is in ME, China and Japan. That's why you can't find me in the Getty ULAN and you can't find anything relevant online in the English world or particularly in the USA about Klaus Boesch.
I talked to a moderator I know and he said, I might upload information from non-commercial media and eventually mention the Beijing Design Week.
Unfortunately the lady who had been creating my article on Wiki just gave birth to her first baby and she is off duty therefore. So my question is: who can help me inserting some of that content to get a better proof for my live as an artist. If you can help me, I would appreciate. Klaus Boesch Rich KB (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable sourcing for the information presented. See source table below. This is a poorly created WP:PROMO. Claims by the subject of this article on this deletion discussion show conflict of interest. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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}}.
Delete - based on the source analysis by WomenArtistUpdates and an online BEFORE search. This promotionally toned autobiography is of an artist who does not meet WP's notability criteria for artists per WP:NARTIST, WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Klaus (Rich KB), Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies because it's nearly impossible for a person to have a completely neutral, objective point of view about one's own self-importance, or as you put it, "success". Fame and success are not the same as encyclopedic notability on WP. This is not a reflection on you or your work, it's simply how the encyclopedia works. I suggest that you set up a personal artist website to promote your work. Netherzone (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the existing relying on a single source and vagueness issues (likely due to translation), the information in the article could easily be included onto the existing articles – DIN 1451, Austria (typeface), Tern (typeface) and Road signs in Austria – with the provision of sources, weakening the article's basis.
Deletion was objected, a merged was proposed instead. However, it is not possible to redirect one article to 3 others. Created a topic at WikiProject Typography over 4 months ago with no response. The article has no notability on its own, and is poorly written/explained. EthanL13 | talk22:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is covered in DIN 1451 in more detail than is here. Nothing in that article gives me the impression that a separate article on DIN 1451 Engschrift would be needed. I did search and Engschrift is always defined together with DIN 1451. Lamona (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just now finished List of national flags of sovereign states, which contains far more information regarding each flag and provides several references on each entry. I do not see a reason for the gallery to continue existing since the flags list I have written contains the same information and then some. I therefore request this article become a redirect to the one I have made. ―Howard • 🌽3322:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment/suggestion about the new list since we're here, although not directly relevant to this discussion. The new list is nice for sure, but even on my modestly small laptop screen, I have to scroll over to see the whole thing. The refs (whose column is unnecessary huge for me) could probably go after the name in the first column, and the description is probably a bit overkill, contributing to the formatting issues, and might be more appropriate as alt text for accessibility. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur here. I'd suggest putting the refs in the description rather than the name. It's okay to just say the books are general references rather than footnoting each of them 193 times (WP:OVERREF). Also the newly added Official usage column seems entirely unnecessary, especially with no explanation. What's the difference between ensign and civil ensign? Between state flag and national flag? Why should a reader even care? It's clutter. Reywas92Talk13:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just glancing the first 10 results of google book search ("mirador azul" "puerto rico" surrealist OR surrealista) it is clear the group is well covered in academic literature, appears well notable. --Soman (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This promotional biography of an emerging artist. The article is trying to cobble together notability-by-association. It doesn't matter who or how many well known artists someone has studied with or interviewed or written about or allegedly curated into shows. The article has been ref-bombed mostly with things he's written about others; student newspaper profiles in the Daily Bruin(UCLA); blog-ish PR advertorials such as Cultbytes a "strategic communications agency" (PR agency "online publication"); and user submitted content websites "submit your music!". Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON; does not meet WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Saint Amadour. I can't remember how this came to be on my watchlist, possibly due to a previous article of this name that got deleted. If so, that does not seem to have been about the same person. There are potentially four claims to notability made here: As a visual artist, as a musician, as a writer and as a curator. None of those are substantiated. The article seems to be trying to inherit notability from minor connections to notable topics. The sources are poor. Many are just their writing, which provides verifiability that they have written, but proves no notability. The music coverage is minimal and one of the sources is a Tumblr blog. The visual/conceptual arts stuff is even thinner, most are just a single passing reference in coverage of group shows, mere entries on a list. There is potentially a fifth claim to notability in that they are described as an art critic here. What we seem to have here is a person who is trying various different things in and around the art world and who has yet to become notable for any one of them. Getting redirected to a (probably fictional) saint might seem like a bit of a kick in the teeth but it is the right thing to do, at least for now. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ARTIST. No awards or recognition. Created by a single purpose editor so possible promo. Sources provided merely confirm where she has exhibited and not SIGCOV. This source seems to be the only indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are several articles in art magazines about her work and its significance. I added one today that I found. I think she meets criteria 2, 3, and 4d of WP:Artist. Nnev66 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review article improvements. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Again, please provide a review of sources and any improvements made to the article since its nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she meets GNG based on reviews in Artforum, Frieze, and Studio International; she's produced a window installation at MoMA. It is quite early in her career, and she does not yet meet WP:NARTIST, but after a BEFORE search I think that there's enough significant coverage to support an article based on the general notability guideline. Netherzone (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics
The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Related Projects
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts
No indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:NAUTHOR. Notability is not inherited from a famous parent. I am unable to find multiple reliable sources discussing the individual in a significant way. The article was also possibly written by the subject himself. ...discospinstertalk20:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG based on significant coverage in three news articles that are about him and his work, and three book reviews on his work in peer-reviewed academic journals. Netherzone (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A professor emeritus at a large university with an OBE strikes me as notable; an OBE probably counts as "a well-known and significant award or honor" per WP:ANYBIO. I suspect there will be reviews of his books out there, which is important per WP:AUTHOR; here is one, for instance, and here is another. Admittedly, his web presence isn't big. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An architect and lecturer, he went on to author and co-author several books that appear to be important in terms of architectural reference guides. I've added some references to show that his works have been reviewed across several decades. I think he clearly is notable when judged against WP:AUTHOR. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this unreferenced article about a scriptwriter and dramatist, and cannot find coverage to add. I have also looked at a lot of the references in the articles he is linked to, and cannot find him mentioned. I did find a mention of him being arrested in 2018, but this is not appropriate for the article per WP:BLPCRIME. I may be failing to find coverage in Hindi-language sources. No obvious redirect target. Tacyarg (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Youtube and Imdb aren't RS, I can't find anything about this person. A doctor and a bunch of others come up in my searches, not this person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Sources provided are mainly primary, and the ones that aren't are (1) an obituary, (2) Find a Grave, (3) an article about an exhibition of his letters to a pen pal, (4) a couple of notices about a tribute by one of his students. None of the sources are about him in any significant way. ...discospinstertalk01:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I should've submitted for review. There are three newspaper articles concerning his work or renditions of it, two concerning performances of his poems by Northwestern, and another about an exhibit of his work after his death. Though I can easily link others. He seems to be congruent with a notable academic or creative figure. Hypnosef (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully disagree that none of the sources pertain to him in any significant way.
Source #5 fourteeneastmag.com details "the touring exhibition Poet to Poet: Living Letters, a 13-year correspondence between poet Abe Louise Young and poet Alan Shefsky. Their friendship was preserved in loose leaf papers of written word before Shefsky died from a brain tumor." The source explicitly pertains to his being a poet and his dying of a brain tumor. 2. #6 chicago tribune, details the two's friendship, their long correspondence, and his death from cancer. 3. prizer arts and letters, states that this touring exhibition travelled to Austin, Texas. 4. Sources 8&9 are his poems published in a well-known literary journal. The find a grave and obit were simply to establish birth and death years as they were less readily available than other information. I have also added ten different publications that thank Shefsky by name, though many more exist. These should be sufficient to establish his lasting impact in the academic community. He was a very well-known figure at Northwestern for years.
I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously-unreferenced article about a Romanian actor, journalist, writer and university lecturer. I have added three references, but all are mentions of his name only. According to the article in the Romanian Wikipedia (also unreferenced), he has written 29 articles, but I can't find reviews of them. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NJOURNALIST, etc. Tacyarg (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. None of the links in the article help establish notability. toweli (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a subjective opinion coming from a lack of awareness of Canada's television entertainment scene. Sebastian Cluer is one of the most well known and in-demand directors in his country, having directed, produced and developed many notable shows that have had massive success both in his home country and abroad. Lots of them are on airlines, including Still Standing, Bollywed, Property Brothers...and the list goes on. These along with receiving many nominations and wins, particularly with The Canadian Screen Awards, which are the country's equivalent to the Oscars and Golden Globes combined.
Sebastian was also instrumental in the success of the hugely popular and successful show Kenny vs. Spenny and has been appearing in commentaries alongside Kenny Hotz as of late.
Keep. Article does need improvement, but there are far too many Gemini Award and Canadian Screen Award nominations and victories listed here to deem him "non-notable" at all. That's top-level national awards, equivalent to Emmys and Oscars, which is a notability lock even if the sourcing still needs improvement, and the sourcing for that kind of stuff most certainly can be improved. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Is notable" and "delete" cannot coexist. Gemini Awards and Canadian Screen Awards are an inherent notability lock, meaning that every person with those awards on their mantle must be allowed to have a Wikipedia article. I'll grant that not everybody named in our Genie, Gemini and CSA articles already has an article yet, but everybody named in any of them must be allowed to have an article as soon as somebody gets around to it, and there can be no exceptions to that: it's a top-level national award that nails inherent notability to the wall right on its face per WP:ANYBIO's "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times", which means it's inherently notable enough that it locks notability down even if the sourcing is inadequate. The only legitimate grounds for deleting a Gemini/Genie/CSA winner would be if sourceability were completely nonexistent (e.g. a person whose article falsely claimed a nomination or win that they didn't really have). Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nominations suggest notability, but there just isn't enough coverage about him. I had to dig to even bring this up [12]. An interview that doesn't quite help notability. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When an author only has one book, and all the coverage is about the book and not biographical coverage of the author, it's the book that's notable, not the author. If you want to argue that she's a notable author for having written the "significant or well-known work", Sins of the Shovel... well, I can't stop you, but I don't think that's a good argument. -- asilvering (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I don't object to his outcome; I think the content would be basically the same. My preference is still for keeping this title, though, since it doesn't really matter either way and a) that it is what the original author of this article chose and b) it's quite likely the subject will write more books. – Joe (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the book is notable (amply demonstrated by the sources cited in the article), then so is the author per WP:NAUTHOR#3. Whether we cover them separately, together under the author's name, or together under the book's title is inconsequential. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not consensus. The author must be standalone notable as well. I've never seen that statement at Afd in more than 1 years. They are many many famous books where the author is virtually unknown, even in the modern period. They don't like the limelight, don't give interviews or readings or go to conferences or conventions. They are unknown and by any defintion they would fail WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk10:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAUTHOR has wide consensus and has been stable for years. It reads:
This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if [... t]he person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series).
The subject of this article has written a significant work, Sins of the Shovel: Looting, Murder, and the Evolution of American Archaeology, which has been the subject of at least six independent reviews in periodicals (cited in the article). Hence, they meet WP:NAUTHOR.
I alluded to the logic behind this above: if we can write an article on a book, we can write an article on its author – even if the content is just John Smith is the author of Notable Book, a [remainder based on significant coverage of the book]. Whether to call this article "John Smith" or "Notable Book" barely affects the content and is a question of article titling and framing rather than notability or deletion. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what it reads and what it means. I've done 100's of book and author Afd's, over the years. I'm acutely aware of the policy. They are one of the most common article types that gets sent to Afd. The author must be notable on their own to have the article. Notability is not inherited. That is long-establised consensus. I could point to 1000's Afd's where the statement has been made, following established policy. The book is certainly notable, but the author isn't yet. You just have to look at how the industry is structured. If you followed They must be standalone notable. List of books review. By your logic every self-published author would have have an article on here. scope_creepTalk11:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep, I think you're right about the outcome of AfDs, but I don't think that's an accurate conclusion about Joe's logic. Those self-published authors rarely get book reviews in reliable sources that would count for notability. Frankly, I think Joe's logic is perfectly correct (what does it matter if the article on a book is at the author's name or the book's title?), but it would be a really eccentric outcome for an AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite a common outcome for academics, at least. A common objection to WP:NPROF is that it lets us have articles on people for whom there could be little or no biographical sources available. Which is true, but following the logic above it just means that the notable entity is John Smith's work not John Smith. But actually calling the article that would be dumb, so we don't do it. – Joe (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Odd that this long-established consensus followed in hundred of AfDs isn't written down anywhere, then, and that the notability guideline for authors explicitly contradicts it. – Joe (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a handful of AfDs (or even one, honestly) for authors that have been kept on the grounds that an author has a single book with multiple reviews, I'd be very interested to see them. -- (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
asilvering, no specific AFD comes to mind right now but after closing hundreds (thousands?) of these discussions over the past 4 1/2 years, I'm sure that this has happened. There are authors, like Harper Lee, who, throughout most of her life, was notable for writing only onw book but it was a highly notable one. Also, many AFDs are sparsely attended and if there is a strong consensus that the book is notable and the reviews are prestigious, then it's likely that the article will be Kept. LizRead!Talk!19:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Harper Lee is a good index case. I've used that exact example before when explaining to AfC submitters what kind of coverage one might need to be notable on a single book. (Though, obviously, she's rather extremely notable, so it's not exactly fair. Someone half as famous as Harper Lee is still going to pass any kind of AfD with flying colours.) This is an early career archaeologist with a well-reviewed book. They're very much not in the same league. -- asilvering (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E are the relevant standards. For example, Harper Lee has been covered enough to not be a low-profile individual, and her relationship with the book is well-documented and substantial, even though she was for a long time covered only in the context of the one book. Also, the To Kill A Mockingbird is such a significant book that it is worthwhile covering both author and book. None of the reasons to cover Harper Lee apply here, at least so far as I can see. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the book, our standard outcome for authors of only one book but one that is arguably notable. And while we're at it refocus the article on the book to say something about the book based on its published reviews instead of merely being a rehash of the author's back cover blurb, sourced only to that blurb. As for the argument above over whether authoring one book should be enough for the author to also be notable: see WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the suggestion that a book is notable but not the author bizarre outside of the exceptional cases that scope creep describes (e.g., ghostwriting cases), but I can't see that here; Morgan is happy to appear on scholarly podcasts, blog about careers, write for popular magazines, etc. She's also listed in various places for her contribution to particular digs etc., so she's hardly unknown. And remember that this is a particularly widely reviewed book. Not many academics or first-time authors can boast a lengthy review in the New York Times. WP:AUTHOR does not say (as pointed out) that multiple books are required, and WP:1E doesn't apply, as no one is claiming that Morgan is notable for her role in some event (e.g., for an archeologist, a particular discovery); the claim is that she's notable for her creative output. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per the above discussion of the 'unorthodox' creation of the book article, we literally cannot delete this article. If the consensus is to go with the (bizarre, in my view) 'book not author' approach, a history merge would be necessary. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite being a prolific writer of op-eds and magazine articles, Fontaine is not himself the subject of any WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. (The closest example is a press release-based WP:ROUTINEarticle about his appointment as president of CNAS.) As a result, there's no pass of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. No other SNGs appear to apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable academic whose credentials do not verify, and for whom most of the claims in the text are uncited. Even if there were sources he would not pass notability. Somehow the original nomination has got mangled so I am doing a second nomination. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely shocking that some ignorant (and perhaps ill intentioned) person is trying to delete the article about Canada's foremost expert on nuclear energy issues - who has worked for over 50 years to raise awareness of the risks of nuclear energy and nuclear waste. He is the most recognized activist on these issues in Canada and is in demand around the world as a speaker by groups fighting nuclear pollution. I'd be happy to provide many sources, but I'm completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing and would prefer to provide sources/background to an administrator. When the commenter above says "most of the claims in the text are uncited," he seems to be holding this article to a higher standard that hundreds of articles I've encountered (as a Wikipedia reader). When he says, "Even if there were sources he would not pass notability," he is revealing his profound ignorance about Dr. Edwards, his world-wide reputation and his life's work. What concerns me even more, though, is that there could be malicious intent here, trying to suppress the profile of a noted activist on a controversial topic. PLEASE - administrators, immediately look into what is going on here and put a stop to it if it is indeed malicious. Hundreds of Canadian activists are watching this closely and frankly, Wikipedia's credibility is on the line. PaceVerde (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This topic should definitely not be deleted. Dr. Edwards is an expert in nuclear energy issues and has a worldwide reputation. He is an excellent speaker, is extremely knowledgeable and is in demand around the world for his expertise. He is a prominent Canadian who should be represented in Wikipedia. I agree with the previous post, that Wikipedia should be sure that there isn't a nefarious person trying to shut down the discussion about nuclear energy. 45.78.126.149 (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)— 45.78.126.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Content copied over from earlier nomination: 'Hello, I am concerned about the designation of Gordon Edwards' article as an article for "deletion". I viewed of list of multiple recent edits to his article, which appear to be done by a possible 'bot'. Would an administrator please check whether this is the case or not? Many thanks, Nancy Covington MD' 08:09, September 2, 2024— Preceding unsigned comment added by Covingni (talk • contribs) 13:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC) — Covingni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Content copied from talk page of earlier nomination: "I have followed Dr. Edwards for years and find his information on nuclear to be very helpful. The article on Dr. Edwards is factual. This article should remain on Wikipedia. It is concerning that someone, who appears to be pro-nuclear, has asked for the article on Dr. Edwards to be deleted, as it is perhaps bothersome to them in all its accuracy? Wanda Laurin (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)" — Wanda Laurin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment For the closer: This "2nd nomination" was created because User:@Daffydavid: tagged the article for deletion, but (presumably) mistakenly started the discussion at the article's talk page. User:@Covingni:'s keep !vote (which was copied here already by Ldm1954) was the first edit to the "1st nomination" page. which is why there is a "2nd nomination." Daffydavid's rationale for placing the deletion tag was as follows: The only reference attached that appears to be valid indicates the person to be unqualified. Daffydavid (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC) and I would interpret this as a delete !vote for the purposes of this "2nd" nomination. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)01:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is better, but there are still serious issues which it appears led to the original AfD by @Daffydavid. For instance, source [1] is used to verify that he is both President & co-founder of CCNR, but in fact it only states that he is President. While your sourcing is better, there are still too many unsourced claims and it remains very weak on SIGCOV. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To me it does not matter if someone is pro- or anti- nuclear, QANON or a judge. The bar is the same and is in WP:N. That several WP:Single-purpose accounts make rude comments about Daffydavid or me is not going to change anything. As always, this is a discussion and proof of notability by reputable secondary sources is unconditionally required. This is of course at a higher level for living people. Just having a few mentions is not now and never has been enough. Maybe you can find enough, to date this page fails WP:PROVEIT by a long, long way.Ldm1954 (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to ask that of @Daffydavid since he made the nomination, albeit with a technical glitch as @GhostOfDanGurney indicates above (a best guess) -- but I do support the nomination. @Daffydavid clearly tried to improve it then gave up, I see no indication of ill-will on his part. I of course did the routine Google check, not finding enough for Wikipedia:Notability of a BLP. You can find the SIGCOV to prove me wrong, I never claim to be infallible. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Strange...in Wikipedia:Notability I find a whole subsection entitled: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." It points out that: "before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any." For this subject, there are ample sources that come up on a simple Google search including articles, quotes in mainstream media, guest appearances on major Canadian television and radio networks, etc. I am working on identifying the best ones to add and will do so as soon as possible. Please note Dr. Edwards is not a university professor and doesn't claim to be. He is an independent expert. PaceVerde (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC) — PaceVerde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
PaceVerde - what you posted is accurate, but a few of us have already searched for Reliable Sources and come up a bit short. You're welcome to perform your own search and add sources to the article or to this discussion, but without satisfying minimal requirements the article will likely be deleted. You're invited to collaborate and improve the article to establish his notability according to our WP:BIO guidelines.Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uses quotes from the subject, but the story is not at all about the subject, but rather the Canadian government potentially choosing a site on Lake Huron to store nuclear waste
Simply lists the subject's name as a faculty member.
✘No
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}}.
As this shows, the subject does not come close to meeting GNG. Using google, I found a couple of directories of articles he has written for The Hill Times and National Observer, as well as more articles similar to the one by Detroit Free Press in which he is quoted in his role as a scientist who advocates against nuclear power, but like Detroit Free Press, is not about the subject. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)00:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a mathematician, does not meet WP:PROF. As an anti-nuclear campaigner, I thought he might meet WP:GNG, but like David Eppstein, I am coming up short of any independent coverage that covers him. Not sure if there is off wiki canvassing here for keep voters, but ultimately it is the sources that matter, and we don't have anything that meets GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 7:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep - You are perhaps not very familiar with the Canadian media? Dr. Edwards is a Canadian and is known across the country as an independent expert on the nuclear industry. That is why his opinion pieces are published in prominent national publications like The Hill Times and the National Observer. That is why he was featured as one of the main guests/experts on not one, but two episodes of the national award-winning TV program The Nature of Things, hosted on our national Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) network by Dr. David Suzuki (perhaps you've heard of him?). One is The Friendly Atom, 1998 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpVgYrfSIAM, the other My Nuclear Neighbour, 2010 (looking for online link). On APTN News (Aboriginal Peoples television network) in 2019, a journalist introduced him as "probably the nuclear industry's most prominent critic in Canada" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW1CpAOr9HI (10min45). I do thank you for flagging the fact that his bio does not do justice to him. I am working to update and fill it out and will post new content and sources in the coming week or two. His short bio is also on the site of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Does that qualify as a source 'about' him? https://thebulletin.org/biography/gordon-edwards/ He has also provided invited testimony to legislative committees and expert sworn testimony (e.g. to the US Atomic Safety & Licensing Board, although mostly in Canada) about two dozen times. These date back to the 1970s and 1980s so the earlier examples do not have online sources (as far as I know). I believe I can footnote them without an online link, according to wikipedia guidelines? talk — Preceding undated by PaceVerde added 19:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC) Repeat vote.— PaceVerde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (you can only cast one "vote", I'm striking this duplicate vote. LizRead!Talk!03:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Biography of a Buddhist teacher fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG. The sourcing (both in the article and in WP:BEFORE search) is to Burbea's own writing and works, as well as sources not independent from him (eg the Hermes Amara Fdn). No WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than finding his books listed in the catalog of the Italian libraries, I struck out. I did try some Italian newspapers, but nil. The name is not uncommon, and following the links in G-scholar I don't think any of those were him. The ones I did see were theses by others. Lamona (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I created the article because I believe the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR due to the awards. Also worth saying is that the nominator of this discussion only had 11 edits before nominating this article, all of them made on a single day in 2022. Badbluebus (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, please assess new additions to the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's evidently done commendable work, such as the VA program, but I can't find significant coverage of her, or reviews of her books in reliable sources, to meet WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. She's also worked with some notable people, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Filled to the brim with primary sources and not enough independent sources to sustain a biography; the single book review is not enough. Appearing on podcasts is not a criterion for notability. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject appears to be a non-notable individual, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. Most of the sources cited in the article and on the talk page are passing mentions, interviews, primary, routine coverage, or hearsay, none of which provide in-depth coverage. The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, off-wiki evidence suggests potential undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry. GSS💬13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xegma Do you really research on topics or just go on voting 'delete' at AfDs? Did you check the talk page of this article? There are significant coverage in China Daily and The Telegraph and all are present in the talk page. Even nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. Unless it is a UPE issue, there is no reason to delete. It is a Keep. Hitro talk21:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles you are referring to seem to be paid promotional pieces, structured as interviews, which often include sections like "bio" and "CV" at the end of the article—something rarely found in genuine editorial news. It's a common feature of sponsored content. Additionally, the Telegraph article lacks an author byline, which raises questions about whether it was even produced by their editorial team. GSS💬03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The China Daily article, the one I am referring to, was written by Andrew Moody. I hope you are not implying that Andrew Moody, a renowned journalist and recipient of the Friendship Medal (China) from the Chinese government, was just an editor of paid promotional pieces.
The Telegraph article, which is almost 16 years old, appears to be written by Dominic White and must have been published on the old format of the website of The Telegraph which was significantly different from current one. Please check the other articles of same years, you won't find author bylines.
I see that this BLP article was created on Wikipedia in 2008 and being nominated for deletion now due to some recent UPE activities. IMO, it's more appropriate to restore the best version of the article rather than delete it entirely. If you have a case that this has been a UPE product from the start then I'll rest my case. Hitro talk15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HitroMilanese, I respect your expertise, but I must point out that all the articles you've mentioned are essentially interviews, which do not meet the standards of independent sources required by WP:GNG. For instance, the China Daily article explicitly states in the second paragraph, "Steve Tappin says," while the Telegraph article includes phrases like "But Tappin, whom I meet" and "Talking to him, it almost seems..." Similarly, the South China Morning Post piece follows the same pattern. These sources rely heavily on hearsay and fail to meet the criteria for WP:IS.
Regarding the absence of a byline in The Telegraph, I managed to find many articles, both older and from the same time period (even 2008), with proper author attribution, such as this. It's unfair to say the byline is missing simply because it could have been published in an older format of the website, where bylines were not prominently displayed.
Additionally, the article was created by a single-purpose account (SPA) with no contributions outside this topic. Given the subject's history of hiring freelancers to update his article, it is highly likely that the SPA either has a conflict of interest or was hired to create this article. GSS💬06:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I am posting on behalf of Steve Tappin, so I assume my vote would not count, but I just wanted to bring to your attention that Mr. Tappin meets the criteria for WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. As WP:AUTHOR, if there are multiple reviews of his work he would qualify. Below are some links to his book reviews
In addition WP:BASIC states that “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;” Tappin has over 40 articles online as you can also see some posted in the tal page. Also the following article is in depth:
Finally, as per WP:ENT he would qualify because he was the host of BBC TV show CEO GURU for a long time - over two years - and has been on at least 30 episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzsoth (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources presented above? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk!05:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Do you mind if I ask for clarification about why it's been nominated for deletion? Is it because many of the references also refer to her company, rather than just her personally? I had assumed (perhaps wrongly) that because she is the founder and CEO of a global HR company which has seen rapid growth post COVID, and the founder of the industry on which its based (employer of record industry which allows companies to easily hire people all over the globe), that her notability would be inherently tied to the company's performance and notability. I'd be grateful for your clarification and guidance. Cheers, Kate. KWriteReturn (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KWriteReturn: This is a WP:BLP and consensus that is long established states that that person is not the company. Notabilty is not inherited from any other entity and there is nothing here to indicate why this person is notable. Looking at the first seven, in fact the 14 references. These are a mix of routine company news about employment, non-bylined paid-for articles, press-releases, funding, merging, expansion and acquisition news. It is all routine news. There is no WP:SECONDARY coverage to verify per WP:V that she is notable. It states in the WP:BLP policy "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.". There is nothing here. Nothing. scope_creepTalk06:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, because there are No allegations of notability, nor reliable sources, for this BLP. Look, in 2024, claiming that someone is a CEO and therefore automatically deserves a Wikipedia article, is untenable. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit11:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
