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.
Keep I just added a few references. There is more than enough coverage for a comprehensive article. That said, I agree that the style and lay-out needs improvement. Will work on it. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ruud, the GNG, and AFDISNOTCLEANUP. gidonb (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Rudd Buite, has been improved and additional sources added. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability outside of the college. I am unable to find significant discussion of this mascot in independent sources. ...discospinstertalk 03:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to sources added last week, I've listed more potential sources to the article's Talk page (in decreasing order of value for notability), in the event others might want to add more text. Article clears the bar for WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Long-time unreferenced article. I am not sure if there is an overall concept/topic of 'lion mask' or sources to show its notability. Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This does seem to be a recognized motif in art. That was just from the first few hits for "lion mask" + "motif" on Google books, there are quite a few more. I wouldn't oppose it being merged into something but there does seem to be discussion and analysis of lion mask motifs. Admittedly there isn't a lot of useful content here, but something can be said about the topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a nice base article to work from. A stub, but an encyclopedic stub. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if we're going to keep it, could we at least find some sources to cite? This article has gone entirely unreferenced since its creation almost twenty years ago. Any decent sources would at least demonstrate that it's a distinct topic worthy of inclusion somewhere in Wikipedia. This AfD would seem to provide a good opportunity to locate some. P Aculeius (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and section redirect to Cultural depictions of lions. Noteworthy, possibly notable, but better off as a section of a larger relevant article. BD2412T 01:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no issue with the suggestion to merge. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lion mask seems to be a notable concept in art/history as per sources cited above. Cortador (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cortador ... did you mean keep? Voting delete and then saying right after you think it's notable confuses me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. That was supposed to be a keep. Cortador (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've found some additional sources, and incorporated them. There's still room for expansion, but I think the article clearly meets the criteria for keeping. P Aculeius (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please review the new sources added to the article recently. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that User:Jamiebuba approved this page because this company has a long and torrid history of COI and uploading promotional pages to Wikipedia and this page seems no different to what has gone before. Sure, we've got Entrepreneur Magazine which might have been published independently of the subject but there are a lot of sources that don't count as RS like press releases, local newspapers and the dreaded TechCrunch the least independent source in the history of business journalism. I think it's safe to say that this one-man band, run of the mill, stock image supplier fails WP:NCORP and is hardly notable so fails WP:GNG. I am interested to see what crawls out of the woodwork in the ensuing discussion, though.Dafydd y Corach (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Biz journal article is repeated in a Lexington newspaper and by Yahoo [8] so feels like a PR item. The rest of the sources given don't impress me. Oaktree b (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously needs a complete rewrite and shouldn't have been accepted in its current state, but these reviews [9][10] seem like enough for a NCORP/NPRODUCT pass. – Teratix₵ 14:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are some reviews from some good news organizations on subject. Enough to satisfy WP:NCORP.Chekidalum (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet NCORP although this type of writing shouldn't get past AFC. X (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the article is recase to be about the website but otherwise Delete. The topic of the article is a *company* therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Two sources mentioned above refer to reviews on the product/website of the company. Just to point out the obvious - if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*. I'd also add that those references would not, in my opinion, meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the product either - both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links and appears Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent, failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 13:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*. Well, in that case we can write the article on Vecteezy the website instead. In fact, my understanding is that's how the article is written already.
both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links this interpretation of independence is too demanding and is not supported by ORGIND. The actual reviews demonstrate more than enough deep and original analysis to qualify as significant independent opinion.
Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent Well, these are two different allegations – being a blog would make it unreliable, not non-independent. They appear to have a strong editorial policy but looking through the rest of the site it does look like they're a bit of a one-man operation. On the borderline for me.
In any case there is also PetaPixel's review already cited in the article, which should settle it. – Teratix₵ 15:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage somebody to consider recasting the article so that it is primarily about the product (the website) and if that were the case I believe it would pass GNG/NCORP as a topic and I've changed my !vote to reflect that. Sometimes it might appear that an article is about the product (i.e. the website) and not about the company, but for me that isn't the case here. The article includes a company template and omits key information about the product while including information which is relevant to company activity such as signing deals and agreements - sure they impacted the product but compare the thrust of the article with the reviews you've pointed to concerning the website. Those reviews write from the point of view of the website. The article omits any mention of features such as reverse image searching, or the recent incorporation of AI, or valid critcisms which have been written about. As it stands, for me, the topic is the company and the company fails GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing++ 09:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. A source analysis would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:56, 1 May 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
This article is mainly a resume. Most of the sources in the article consist of dead links from websites that are related to Lya Stern; the rest of the sources either have brief mentions of her or don't mention her at all. After doing a Google search to see if there were sources that could be added to the article, the only significant coverage I found of her was from a website that listed Wikipedia as a source. The rest of the information I found was from her YouTube channel and mentions of her from her students. As a result, she doesn't met WP:GNG or WP:NBLP. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject appears to fail to meet the GNG or any suitable SNG. Running a before using Google News results in only a list of quotes from the subject. When filtering out quotes leads to a single website which only attributes another quote to the subject. Broadening the search to Google generally only provides links to social media, links to purchase books authored by the subject, and links to listen to subject's music. Page creator found 2 sources, [11] and [12], both of which are press releases and so are ineligible for establishing notability. I do not believe there is any suitable redirect targets. —Sirdog(talk) 03:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've verified the above and not found anything different. Global and Mail looks like it might be an RS, but it clearly marks both these pages as press releases. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Stated clearly in the sources provided that it's press release. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. @T.C.G.[talk] 09:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear press releases which are not independent. Else, there is a quote in Newsweek but that isnt significant coverage Robertjamal12~🔔 09:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, this appears to be a legit BLP - however, upon closer examination of each referenced source, it becomes evident that they merely mention the subject without providing sig./in-depth coverage. Consequently, the subject fails to meet the criteria outlined in both WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is not described as journalist and should not be measured in WP:JOURNALIST.
Subject is described as a lawyer and falls under Notability of attorneys guildeline provided in Wikipedia:Notability (law), which says 3-4 factors are sufficent. Subject meets more than that. From the guideline:
"To be a notable attorney, a person must have notable accomplishments as an attorney, backed up by references that are reliable. These accomplishments include:
trying a notable case, which has its own article in Wikipedia
3 cases are on wiki
being recognized as an expert in a specialized area of law (see Mark Zaid and John S. Lowe)
NPOV reliable sources, Al Jazeera etc mention he is constitutional expert, coverage in The Economist on SC constitutional cases
service as a law clerk at SCOTUS or having clerked for another famous judge.
Clerked for Chief Justice/famous judge
service in an administrative capacity in a major court system agency (example, clerk of a Federal court, chief court administrator).
Clerk at Lahore high court, which in US terms is a federal court
service as a general counsel of a large state or federal agency (example, secretary of state or transportation authority).
Attorney General office Pakistan
Also partially meets
teaching at an accredited college or law school, as a chairman or tenured associate or full professor (preferably a distinguished professor per WP:PROF)"
The BLP is well-sourced, contains no OR, Maintains a NPOV. Also in WP:GNG at least two referenced sources are in-depth with sig coverage and most are not in passing, with consistent coverage in the news over many years.
Retinscn20 (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not referencing a policy but a personal essay. How about I create a essay too outlining the criteria of WP:YOUTUBER, stating that one must have at least 100,000 subscribers to qualify for a WP BLP? I fear we'd end up with at least 300,000 new BLPs in just one day. And please refrain from misleading. The BLP lacks proper sourcing, contains WP:OR and in fact is WP:PROMO. You've to provide the references, which discuss the subject in depth as required by WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect I did not call it a policy. I called it a guideline. I am not misleading the discussion by pointing out that you have put this under WP:JOURNALIST, which the subject is not. You have not responded to this. We can have this discussion without being personal as WP:GD says.
Your point is understood that the guideline is not considered policy. It is still however a reasonable understanding of notability for attorneys, not journalists. If you would like to keep this to WP:GNG, that states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Significant coverage has been stated in independent sources directly discussing the subject here [1] here [2] here [3]. And more than a trivial mention has been included in leading publications Al Jazeera, Economist, Dawn. If not, rather than deleting it immediately, article can be improved to address concerns you have, which you said fits BLP criteria at first glance. Cheers. Retinscn20 (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fry, this isn't a guideline either. It's simply a personal essay as I stated previously. So, if you intend to assess this based on WP:GNG, I'm disappointed to inform you that the first two sources (this and this) are not acceptable as they are not considered WP:RS. Even the Tribune piece is just a column, lacking sig/in-depth coverage on the subject. Hence, it clearly fails to meet WP:GNG and doesn't even come close to passing WP:N. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Working lawyer that practices in a high court, but still nothing for notability. Sourcing is either about the cases where this person is mentioned in passing, or written by the subject. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO. Sources are either passing mentions, unreliable, dependent on the subject, PRs, etc. Nothing to establish WP:BASIC here. Overall, very non-neutrally written and promotional. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO. Flowery language used in the sources doesn't fill me with hope. I don't find any that don't appear to be promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is the article promotional, the sources cited do not give an in-depth coverage of the topic. Some sources only talk about how he did this and that, or how his business did this and that. Other sources are mere "trival" and passing metions of the subject. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO to me. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is lased with PR releases and puff pieces. GNG is not meet. Best, Reading Beans 10:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So back in 2019, this BLP was a nom. for deletion and the consensus was to move this BLP to the draft NS, but it wasn't executed. Five years have passed since then. Upon conducting a quick Google search, it seems that the subject still doesn't meet the basic WP:GNG. Most of her work doesn't meet the standards for WP:N so she fails WP:NCREATIVE as well. Despite receiving Asian/Pacific American Awards for Literature, it's not adequate to establish WP:N. Therefore, it seems appropriate to proceed with deletion for now. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anoosha Syed has had a number of books published by large presses, with reviews of these works in places such as Publishers Weekly (link 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), Kirkus Reviews (links 1, 2, 3 plus more here), School Library Journal (starred review plus more on site, along with being covered in articles such as this one), and more than a hundred other reviews that can be found through the Wikipedia Library. In addition, there are articles and interviews focused on the subject and her works such as these (link 1 and 2). And that is not even all of the coverage out there. Syed easily meets the WP:Author notability guidelines as a creative professional who has "won significant critical attention." --SouthernNights (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SouthernNights explanation above. — Maile (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GNG and the rationale presented by SouthernNights. Lots of book reviews. Netherzone (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to pass WP:NBIO, only sources that I could find is one book from 2022 [13] (already cited extensively in the article, and authored in part by is grandson), and his obituary [14] in the NYT. Most of the contents of the article were added by one IP and do not look verifiable. His son Hopkinson Smith looks notable though. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 11:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Guggenheim Fellowship and an obituary (not paid death notice) in the New York Times should be enough by themselves. But (unsurprisingly for a prominent author of many books) there are also many book reviews to be found]. I found and added 28 published reviews of 8 books (multiple reviews for each), giving him an overwhelming pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the impressive expansion by David Eppstein. Aintabli (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the subject doesn't meet the WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR, as their works don't seem noteworthy enough. The press coverage in WP:RS also not significant or in depth enough, so fails to meet WP:GNG. Does not satisfy WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm usually sympathetic to pages on perpetual students but I couldn't find enough reliable sources for this person besides that he got a bunch of degrees and is a professor. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Interesting human interest story and I'm amazed he hasn't been featured in NPR or something... I don't see anything we'd use, no news coverage, nothing, for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than mentions of his degrees and being a professor, I cannot find anything to convince GNG.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think the multiple sources with SIGCOV provided by Hameltion are enough for a GNG pass. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per GNG and per WP:NPROF#1 based on his GS profile, he seems to be highly cited for his field in ethics/philosophy. Also there is enough evidence for a GNG pass.--hroest 07:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as the case for WP:PROF#C1 we also have a case for WP:AUTHOR through multiple published reviews of his books [15][16][17][18]. Each case is borderline but I think together they're enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to reach WP:NACADEMIC. All of the reference are to their own company website, own publication or the usual academic databases. Scopus shows H-factor of 5, with highest number of citation for any paper being 26, for a 2010 paper. The affiliation at Stockholm is unclear, as they have no web presence there (suggesting that they are not a principle investigator). The prizes look like routine conference early career development prizes, insufficient to establish notability. The maths book doesn't seem notable either. A merge to Anchor modeling could be considered (their most notable contribution perhaps), but wouldn't help the subject at that page. Klbrain (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a bit harsh. Is there no other notability criteria that can be deemed suitable? Sauer202 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly does not pass any WP:PROF criterion (and in particular not #C1, because the citations are not high enough in a high-citation field). He (or someone with his name) apparently won some local teaching award in 2010 [19] but that doesn't pass #C2. We have no independent in-depth coverage of him needed for notability through WP:GNG and my searches didn't turn up any. One book would not be enough for WP:AUTHOR and we don't have any of the published reviews of it that (together with reviews of other books) could be used for notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He is one of the persons "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" of anchor modeling.
Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:PROF. The local teaching award is in neurology, so it was probably awarded to this Lars Rönnbäck. Sjö (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I pointed out that there is a neuroscientist with the same name, and that it probably was the neuroscientist that recieved the award. That is the opposite of confusing them, so your patronizing is uncalled-for. Sjö (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but my point is that the article has never claimed that he received a neurology award. Sauer202 (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is one of the inventors of anchor modeling, a well-known data warehouse architecture, and is an active contributor in various open professional and social media channels about data warehouse architecture. I find it very weird that this should not meet any general notability criteria? Is this a competition about finding reasons to delete articles? Sauer202 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our anchor modeling article is entirely primary-sourced, and although searches for that term in Google Scholar have many hits, many of them appear to be for an unrelated technique in audio signal processing. I am not convinced that this is a significant enough contribution to give its inventor inherited notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't view anchor modeling as primarily academic, but primarily applied. It is true that the Wikipedia article about anchor modeling is sparse (and I plan to develop it further), but that can not be held against its creator. Anchor modeling is open source, and its concepts are taught independently by Nikolay Golov at Harbour.Space University.[20] Nikolay has many interesting videos on YouTube with interesting comparisons of data vault and anchor modeling. Anchor modeling is the only data warehouse modeling technique that is 6NF, and therefore I think notability is inherited to its contributor. Sauer202 (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's not academic work that he might be notable for, then you need to go through our notability criterion for people notable for non-academic work, WP:NBIO. That requires independent publications that provide in-depth coverage of the person, seemingly even harder to reach in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to add independent sources. Can you make a new assessment of whether it meets the threshold? Sauer202 (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 2 is "has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". (Emphasis mine.)
Criterion 3 is "has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor".
Times Higher Education reports McDermott as a National Teaching Fellow, "Fifty-five people working in universities have been named as the latest winners of the sector’s top honour for teaching and learning".[1]
I make the argument below that it is at least a contribution under C4 (significant contributions to higher education) even if the community does not choose to call it a C3 (scholarly society), which I would. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk) 19:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keepbased on the presumption that the aforementioned National Teaching Fellowship does, in fact, qualify as a "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society." I am unfamiliar with this fellowship though, and it might not meet the mark. If consensus is reached that it is not sufficient to meet these criteria, then I will change to Delete, as this person's notability seems to ride on this award. Updating to Keep based on David Eppstein's discovery of the reviews, and the Design Week profile. nf utvol (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR, setting aside the question of whether the fellowship is significant. I found four reviews of two of her (many!) design books and added them to the article. Note that another book, Feel-Bad Postfeminism: Impasse, Resilience and Female Subjectivity in Popular Culture, is not hers: it's by a different Catherine McDermott, a lecturer of English at Manchester Metropolitan University. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR (Eppstein's argument) and also per WP:PROF: British-full professor at a well-regarded institution is at the level that are notable at a research level; the National Teaching Fellowship is sufficiently selective to count strongly towards a C4 (contributions to higher education) or C3 notability. About half the books are from presses that are selective in their publications. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk) 19:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Design historian Professor Catherine McDermott is one of design’s most prominent academics. I know nothing about design but I'm assuming the authors of this article in Design Week probably do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No significant independent RS coverage that I could find. Only hits in WP:LIBRARY are his research papers and a quote in Men's Health about growth hormone therapy. His book is self-published and I couldn't find any reviews. That leaves us with WP:NPROF criteria. I think the research impact criterion is the only one that might apply, but I'm unfamiliar with the subject area so will leave that for others to evaluate. Jfire (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jfire, others, I do not see signs of significant academic impact here. I see on Google Scholar several papers with a moderate number of citations, but in a medium-to-higher citation field. (Even in a lower citation field, I'm generally looking for several papers with more citations than the highest cited one I see of his.) Awards listed in the article are all WP:MILL, as is membership on an editorial board. I was cursory in checking NAUTHOR and GNG, but did not quickly see a pass. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sadeghi-Nejad is one of the most notable experts in the field of pediatric endocrinology, globally, and his publications support that. A niche medical field does not have the same number of citations as more general research areas. In addition, the book Dreams of Persia is an important contribution to Persian-American culture and linguistic heritage. KatMaldon (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC) — KatMaldon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Most likely not per WP:NBIO. References linked either don't mention the subject at all or offer very trivial mentions. A quick Google search shows little-to-no coverage. There's no reason for this article to exist on its own. Clearfrienda💬 23:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO/WP:GNG/WP:AUTHOR. No significant coverage in reliable sources. His book is self-published and not notable. He is not mentioned in Prophet's Prey. I don't know if there's even any reliable sources available to support a mention in Warren Jeffs and therefore a redirect. Jfire (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've just noticed he is credited as being portrayed in the Netflix Documentary, so that's at least another mainstream reference. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merely having an actor portray him is insufficient for WP:NBIO. The credit is for "Young Ammon Jeffs" in a single episode; it may not even be a speaking part. The documentary would have to contain significant coverage of him to be relevant for notability, and I don't see any evidence of that. Jfire (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments of Jfire. Skyerise (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be resume. Fails notability. The professor's work is not notable that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice. RangersRus (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC) evidenced[reply]
Delete. I'm seeing only a handful of citations for a possible WP:NPROF case, and only passing mentions for GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. The only source that meets GNG criteria is the article from The Japan Times. Normally, I would probably draftify, but the article has already been accepted previously at AfC by User:14 novembre. Most of what I found online was not independent of the subject. GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be an WP:AUTOBIO created by a SPA Sar-e-dasht-e-gumaan (talk·contribs), likely the subject themselves, given the similarity between the username and one of their book titles. Having said that, the BLP fails to meet the WP:AUTHOR as the the subject's works do not seem to be noteworthy enough. The subject also clearly fails to meet basic WP:GNG. Therefore, this shamelessly written promo BLP should be thrashed. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only once of the sources here is actual news coverage (Techcrunch) and it has a WP:COI issue, the rest are just WP:ROUTINE mentions of him. Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found no coverage in WP:LIBRARY under various permutations of name + associated term ("poet", "rentlord", "Evidence of the Senses", "Angeli, Archangeli", etc.). Jfire (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, WP:PROF, or WP:AUTHOR. None of the organizations he was affiliated with seem to be accredited in any way. Psychastes (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak/Lean Delete (Awaiting more information) -- looking at Google Scholar I immediately came to the conclusion that there was enough to mount a keep argument. But looking more closely, it's tough. He has a complete tribute obituary in Studia Gilsoniana, a philosophy journal held in 188 libraries, which is generally enough for a WP:PROF:C1 evidence for impact in the world of scholarship. But as an e-journal, it is hard to tell if this is because of overzealous librarians who like to catalog (or subscribe to catalogs of) e-journals. "Music Theory Online," which is one of the top 3 journals of my field, but is free and (as the name says) online only, is in 1180 libraries -- none of the libraries actually "own" either of the journals. It's enough to contribute to notability, but not sure it's sufficient on its own. Then there are tons of tributes in less reputable sources all found on thegreatideas.org. Clearly Adler and A Syntopicon are notable, given the large amount of coverage, but I don't see Weismann's impact in any of the coverage. It could go either way, but my spidey-sense from participating in a lot of these is that it doesn't add up to enough for WP:PROF or GNG notability, and the fact that none of the articles that seem like a place to direct to mention Weismann helps my conclusion. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk) 10:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this stage, doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. If there are more sources, will be a different story MaskedSinger (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Multiple WP:BLP issues with the page, as well as sourcing issues and WP:NOR. The article was created by a WP:SPA IP address back in 2005. GuardianH (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete unless better sources can be found. I couldn't find anything independent of Hoberman himself or University of Texas. Cnilep (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep -- ugh, this article is a mess, a minefield of BLP and SPA and NOR problems (even the photo!). I won't weep for it if it's deleted. But we do have a full professor at a major research university (usually a good sign of a WP:PROF likely pass) with books by U. Chicago Press and Houghton Mifflin, which is probably enough with any of the controversies to pass WP:AUTHOR. But what a mess. There's the old saying "AfD is not cleanup" but a Soft Delete (=expired PROD, no prejudice against creating again) might be a good way to deal with the major BLP issues. And yet, I think the subject is more likely notable than not. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk) 10:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject does not meet the WP:AUTHOR, as none of their published works are deemed significant enough. Additionally, they do not fulfill the basic WP:GNG. Their roles, such as serving as chairperson of the Sindhi Language Authority or as a secretary in provincial government departments, do not meet the threshold for WP:N either. I previously nom. it for deletion, but the BLP was ultimately retained due to a lack of discussion. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does not appear to be any sort of notable person; the article is just an advertisement for his book and/or company. The article was created by a sockpuppet, which is not promising – in the sockpuppet investigation, Spicy said "fairly obvious UPEs" i.e. undisclosed paid editing, like this thing. Any media coverage discovered in WP:BEFORE is stuff like "I ate like Beyonce & lost 16 pounds in 3 weeks" that mentions this guy in passing. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borges does not inherit notability just because he has worked with notable people. We would need to see reliable sources give significant coverage of Borges himself. The sources I saw were either obviously unreliable or only mentioned Borges in passing when discussing Beyonce. – Teratix₵ 03:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Teratix, notability is not inherited. The subject lacks significant coverage and generally fails to meet WP:N. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. his news is around being Beyonce's trainer, etc. I could not find any articles that are primarily about him. Yolandagonzales (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does not appear to be substantial in-depth coverage of the subject themselves or their professional activities, with most coverage being brief and primarily in relation to their association with high-profile clients. X (talk) 04:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Teratix, subject has no notability of their own Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan article with no evidence of notability. Lecturer does not meet WP:PROF and an h-Index of 4 means the research output had little impact. Tried to find book reviews to see if the subject could meet WP:NAUTHOR but I was only able to find this one and I don't think it's enough to qualify for notability. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV as well. Contributor892z (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a clear case of WP:AUTOBIO. None of the subject's work appears outstanding, which means he fails to meet WP:AUTHOR. Additionally, there is a lack of significant coverage in WP:RS, further failing to meet the basic WP:GNG. Moreover, the BLP seems overly promotional and is written by SPAs Urdulibrary (talk·contribs) Hammad.anwar (talk·contribs) Sibyl12drip (talk·contribs) —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs work, including the addition of reliable citations. However, a quick search in the Wikipedia Library turned out a ton of reliable citations proving this author's notability. This includes reviews in places like Publishers Weekly (link 1 and 2), Kirkus (link) and many other places. The subject also has an entry in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies. All in all, easily meets Wikipedia's author notability standards. --SouthernNights (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 02:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it true that WP:N are based on the WP:GNG, which require significant in-depth coverage about the subject? I haven't been able to find such coverage so far. Additionally, if we're considering WP:AUTHOR, it requires the subject's work to be noteworthy. However, none of the subject's works are even mentioned on WP. So, how can we assume they're not noteworthy solely based on some WP:ROTM coverage and reviews. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came about this article during clean up and saw it's contains a bit vague and non verifiable content. Taking into cleaning up, I became tired at the line seeing almost if not all the sources lacks editorial guidelines, perhaps doesn't go with our policy and guidelines for reliable sources.
On the other hand, apart from the quality percentage of primary sources linking to book that were self published in the platforms such as Amazon, etc., the article generally doesn't meet WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV, and it contains a bit hoaxes that were made (those like references/acclaims which I have removed when cleaning part of the article). The article in general doesn't conform with Wikipedia's inclusion for authors, journalist too—since he edited a magazine and has written for some magazines per the article. Lacks verifiable source and seem looking like a advert/promotional/vaguely constructed source, and more.
The books he wrote doesn't meet our guidelines for books, so we may try redirecting or WP:PRESERVE albeit there is nothing to be preserved here. I also discovered the previous AFD that reads 'no consensus', and it seems there were no improvement or rather say; the previous AFD seeking for clean up which I've did to some part and found no substantial need for the inclusion of this article. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 01:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I once looked at this article and realized that it was created when some of the links verifying some information were not yet dead links. It was created in 2010 or so. For such kind of articles, caution is required. I saw that he was mentioned by the Nigerian author, Chimamanda Adichie in the New Yorker Magazine and he was involved in creating the Occupy Nigeria protests online. There is also some newspaper articles (see Newswatch) on his writings, especially his poem on Lagos, said to be the longest metrical poem by a Nigerian. I think it needs serious clean up and I may help to find his recent activities. Royalrumblebee (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Royalrumblebee, dead links doesn't mean anything. There is the Wayback machine for saving pages to archives. While you argue about being mentioned by notable Nigerian writers, it's not a criteria for notability. Almost all the references are links to his publications and things about him were written from a PR which is no shadowed to the eye. In any case, provide me with the links that credibly show this article meets notability. — Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 11:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I found some of his academic publications, including two in JSTOR. But I will look for articles about him, and really- I share your opinion about making sure articles meet notability to remain in this encyclopaedia. Note: see https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6285-4800Royalrumblebee (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My honest opinion is that inexperienced editors added a lot of unreliable links such as amazon over the reliable ones and so the article only needs serious clean up. I have seen articles in Wikipedia held by just one reference that is not as reliable as the ones I saw on this article. I have included the reliable links above already too. Thanks. Royalrumblebee (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Royalrumblebee, all these sources doesn't link or explained the article like one. For example, a source can say "John Doe is a Nigerian writer who was awarded an MFR by the president of the country. He hasbeen recognized in .....". Then another days "John Doe said he was awarded an MFR by president Doe. In a speech by the president, the world revognised many people and John Doe, standing at the outside asked who is the president." In both sources, the first one seems to he verifiable, significantly covered albeit requires multiple confirmation. It also was taking about John Doe,while the second was taking about an event he attended while giving much view on the president. The thing about John Doe was reported by him—so it's not verifiable. I believe this can help though not broadly covered. Thanks! — Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 15:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. This was previously deleted in 2019 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Ferrier and then got recreated in fall 2023 after his death, but this version is still referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all -- even the one footnote that's technically citing a newspaper is still just his paid-inclusion death notice in the classifieds, not a journalist-written news story about his death, and virtually everything else is content self-published by companies or organizations he was directly affiliated with, while the one potentially acceptable source (LitLive) is not enough to clinch passage of GNG all by itself. And for notability claims, there are statements (a minor literary award, presidency of an organization) that might count for something if they were sourced properly, but there's still absolutely nothing that would be "inherently" notable enough to hand him an automatic notability freebie in the absence of proper WP:GNG-worthy sourcing. And the French interlang is based entirely on the same poor sourcing as this one, so it has no GNG-worthy footnotes that can be copied over to salvage this either. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The French language sources aren't poor, they're excellent. Passes GNG easily on this basis. Desertarun (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the English and French articles are based entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability, such as "staff" profiles or press releases on the self-published websites of organizations and companies that he was directly affiliated with — only one source (LitLive) is GNG-worthy at all, and one GNG-worthy source isn't enough. People don't pass GNG just by using primary sources to verify facts, people pass GNG by showing third-party journalism and/or books that cover said facts as subjects of news and analysis. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has plenty of references so it seems like coverage is enough to pass notability guidelines. InDimensional (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passed notability in my eyes Sansbarry (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't a question of "your eyes", it's a question of whether the correct kind of sourcing is there or not. Bearcat (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "in my eyes" means in my opinion of whether or not the sourcing is good@BearcatMe Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out precisely which sources are "good", considering that they're pretty much all primary sources right across the board. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While every opinion after the deletion nomination has been a bolded 'keep', I am still not suitably persuaded. Further discourse regarding the 'quality' (in Wikipedia terms) of the French sources appears to be needed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I lean toward delete; but I'm wondering if his textbook "has made a significant impact in the area of higher education" per WP:NACADEMIC #4 (although the discussion under that bullet point suggest that meeting notability through that path requires "several books that are widely used as textbooks"). This is an area of academic law not within my experience, so I will refrain from an actual !vote. TJRC (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are thankful to the kamikaze account who created and posted up this text, just as we're thankful to Mr Barth himself for supplying his photographic portrait. If only the text could be worthy of inclusion! It is not, due to our subject's notable lack of independent notability. We check the article and we search for sources but, alas, nothing of substance do we manage to scare up. All we catch are routine listings in trade media, such as this; online brochures, such as this; a bunch of expired links, e.g. here, here, here; and a few advertorials. And WP:NACADEMIC is spectacularly failed. -The Gnome (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:NPROF by any stretch of the imagination. An academic doing what academics do, but not notably. Qflib (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our article lists two books coauthored by him, but I only found one published review of one of them [26]. If both had multiple reviews, we would at least have a weak case for WP:AUTHOR (weak because both coauthored), but one review of one book is definitely not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above editors. very weak news coverage. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of an artist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for artists or writers. As always, creative professionals are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists -- the notability test doesn't hinge on sourcing their work to itself as proof that it exists, it hinges on sourcing their work to external validatation of its significance, through independent third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in media and/or books. But this is referenced almost entirely to directly affiliated primary sources -- the self-published websites of galleries that have exhibited her work, "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's associated with, etc. -- and the only footnotes that represent any kind of third-party coverage are a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person and a single article in the local newspaper of her own hometown, which doesn't represent enough coverage to get her over the bar all by itself. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject of a 16 minute segment on CBC radio, holds a residency, has exhibited in many exhibitions. Plus, this well-referenced article seems to be the work of a new editor participating in an editathon, who submitted their work to AfC and had it approved, and has since created another well-referenced biography of a different artist; to delete this would be a slap in the face for a serious new contributor to the encyclopedia. (I was initially suspicious of COI or paid editing because I noticed that the editor had made 10 varied edits a little while before starting this article, but I note that the artist's name was on the list of "Suggestions for notable artists / writers / curators / contributors, etc. without articles:" at Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism 2024, so I believe this art historian is a genuine enthusiastic new editor in the field of artist biographies.) PamD 11:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Artists do not become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows by sourcing those gallery shows to content self-published by those galleries (as was done here) — artists only become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows if you can source the gallery shows to third-party content about the gallery shows, such as a newspaper or magazine art critic reviewing said show, but not a single gallery show here has cited the correct kind of sourcing to make her notable for that.
And the CBC source is an interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which is a kind of source that we're allowed to use for supplementary verification of stray facts in an article that has already passed WP:GNG on stronger sources but not a kind of source we can use to bring the GNG in and of itself, because it isn't independent of her. And no, articles aren't exempted from having to pass GNG just because they came out of editathons, either: editathons still have to follow the same principles as everybody else, and the articles resulting from them still have to properly source their notability claims. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the CBC radio piece is an interview, surely her selection as the subject of an interview in a series on a major radio station is an indicator of notability? As is her selection for two residencies: the organisations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist, and there are sources from those organisations. PamD 21:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC interview is from one of the CBC's local programs on one of its local stations, not from the national network, so it isn't automatically more special than other interviews just because it came from a CBC station instead of a Corus or Pattison or Rogers station. So it isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source she has.
It isn't enough that the organizations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist — they aren't independent of the residency, so they're still affiliated sources. The source for a residency obviously can't be her own website, but it also can't be the website of the organization that she worked with or for either — it has to be a third party that has no affiliation with either end of that relationship, namely a media outlet writing about the residency as news, because the organization is still affiliated with the statement. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, reluctantly. It seems to me I've previously read something about this artist, and her work has been exhibited in well known galleries. I'm just not finding any additional independent reliable sources beyond the first one in the article. Willing to change my vote if better sourcing is found. Curiocurio (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per PamD. This was not a person-picked-off-the-street interview. BD2412T 01:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: borderline but I think tagging the article for relying on primary sources might be sufficient without needing to delete the entry. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If primary sources are virtually all it has, then just tagging it for relying on primary sources isn't sufficient — it's not enough to assume that better sources exist that haven't been shown. Better sources have to be demonstrated to exist, not just speculated about as theoretically possible, in order to tip the balance between an AFD discussion and just being flagged for better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not speculating, read your discussion above with PamD then made my decision. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG as well as the four criteria set down by WP:NARTIST. The nominator's report is spot on. After discarding the interviews and the primary sources, we're left with a non-existent case for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a directory of artists, nor a collection of indiscriminate information. And the extensive discussion is rather surprising for such an evidently straightforward issue. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why are you discarding the CBC interview? FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 14:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the CBC feature, combined with the weight of what seem to be adequate sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What adequate sources? I see exactly one. Curiocurio (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the Guleph Today piece and CBC coverage, there is non-primary coverage. Whether aspects of the biography sourced to primary sources are wholly due as paragraphic body text or could be better rendered as a list of works/residences is a content question at the article level rather than an inclusion/deletion question at the encyclopedia level. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nicely done bio on the notability borderline. Don't we have more serious things to worry about? Carrite (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - most of the sources are primary, and not high-quality at that, as they are very promotional. She has very little reliable third-party coverage. Swordman97talk to me 03:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A dozen warm-up edits then creation of a detailed article with mostly commercial non-archival references. Article has a cereal-filler claim to notability ("She is primarily known for her sculptural works which incorporate a variety of natural and industrial materials.") This looks like some kind of fan-page or COI. 2600:1700:8650:2C60:89EE:CBB:BDD3:F68E (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
