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.
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
Failed WP:BEFORE search. So unsourced that I missed the one source that was there and accidentally BLPROD'd initially (it was rightfully reverted by GB fan). Unfortunately, I find that non-BLP PRODs get reverted by article creators pretty quickly. I dream of horses(Hoofprints)(Neigh at me)19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another hyperlocal politician in the walled garden created to boost Carmel-by-theSea who fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a tiny town, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is filled with fluff and neither demonstrates nor verifies notability. He acted in a play which had 1,000 attendees. This is true barrel scraping. This is a Born - Lived - Died article about a WP:ROTM person who was doubtless notable to the who loved him 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone has eviscerated this article -- I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so clearly it should be kept unless someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eviscerating and then nominating this article makes sense if you understand the context of User:Greghenderson2006's eventual site block. Greg spent many years building a "walled garden" of articles about people, buildings and institutions that were famous in the small community of Carmel-by-the-Sea. His articles all used self-published sources, no matter how often he was told to stop, and that's what was deleted in this article. If you're interested, here's the final ANI discussion which led to Greg's site ban. Toughpigs (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not satisifed with your response, because the edits that were made in deleting the sources and content were really bad edits that left the article (and the other similar articles) ungrammatical and virtually unreadable. It would be expremely helpful for someone to list the specific sources that you object to and detail why they are not acceptable, even for non-controversial facts, and then we can make better edits or, possibly, merge, redirect or delete. But these arguments that the article should be deleted simply because the person who created it was blocked, and/or because it was one of several articles used to build out information about the locality, does not explain why the person is not notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just to be clear: I personally had nothing to do with deleting anything from this article. I just remembered the ANI discussions, so I wanted to provide that context. Toughpigs (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this clarification of the context. I still don't think eviscerating and then nominating a page is a good approach, but, honestly, that's just me. As for "self-published sources", maybe that was the reason you blocked that user but may I ask if Watkins, R. G., Hoyle, M. F. (1925). History of Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties, California: Biographical S.J. Clarke (1925) was self-published? It was removed (used 5 times). Thanks again. (I will stand by my triple !vote, if I may; opposed to deletion). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)22:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another hyperlocal politician in the walled garden created to boost Carmel-by-theSea who fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a tiny town, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is filled with fluff and neither demonstrates nor verifies notability. Even the NYT reference is a passing mention. As for the play, 1,000 theatregoers is woefully small. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an interesting entry about a small-town Mayor and newspaper publisher, but it is horribly written. Someone had removed a lot of the content before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so clearly it should be kept unless someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC) -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is another entry in the "Carmelopedia" effort to promote all things Carmel-by-the-Sea. This mayor, whose term ran for two years, of a town of less than 700 people during his term, does not meet notability criteria for an encyclopedia article. According to the article, he is "best known" for his efforts to keep Carmel free from tourists; this does not confer inherent notability. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. He was also a non-notable writer (fails WP:NAUTHOR) and he acted in a play at a local theater in Carmel (fails WP:NACTOR). (The Forest Theater section is because he acted in a play there - this is typical bloat/puffery from the editor who is now blocked for COI/UPE and poor sourcing.) The sources are all local or hyper-local, or sourced to the Carmel Residents Association (COI), or the questionable "Arcadia Publisher" Images of America series of books for the tourist trade. The New York Times citation does not mention him at all. Netherzone (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious: How do you know that he only served as mayor for 2 years? The article says that the was elected for a 2nd term as mayor. Most mayors serve for 4 years, so that would indicate that he was mayor for 8 years. If that is not true, you should add refs to the article to make that clear for reviewers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and augment. Part of the issue with the author is that it can be difficult to meet WP:AUTHOR when her working language is Irish, and that doesn't Google so well. I'll also point to her article in the Irish Language Wikipedia, which has clearly met inclusion criteria there. Yes - different wiki, different rules, but still ... - Alisontalk04:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Her works have been included in anthologies [8], and some analysis here [9] and here [10]. There's some coverage in Gaelic (?) sources if you limit it to .ie websites, but I can't tell what qualifies as a RS in that language. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was the one who got the article up in the first place, but I tend to agree now that more references are needed, as discussed above. As for notability, a significant problem for writers in Irish is that few reviews are available in English, though I would regard her as a poet worthy of inclusion on her own merits. If the consensus was that the article should be deleted, I would accept that, and see if I could come up with something new and improved. Colin Ryan (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In its current state, the BLP is not ready for the main NS. This PROMO BLP appears to have been created by a newbie, yet it resembles the work of an experienced editor, which raises concerns about possible UPE. I suggest we draftify it for now to allow an AFC review. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, @Saqib. I am sorry but I am new to this space; could you please help me understand what UPE stands for?
Draftify for now, but I will note that the creator, MohamoedKhaledZ010, has been very responsive and looks like they are trying to be productive. It seems like this is just part of their interest area, and I don't believe the promotional tone is intentional. I pinged them to make sure they are aware of this discussion, and so they can chime in if they'd like. I'm certainly willing to help them as their mentor if needed. Fritzmann (message me) 03:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankful to you for marking this for me, @Fritzmann2002!
Could you please guide me about how to improve the article? As community members are suggesting to draftify the article, how do I go about doing that exactly - would really appreciate if you help me through this. MohamoedKhaledZ010 (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be a hoax. I cannot find any of the cited books, and the cited Journal of Canadian Studies article or issue does not exist. A Google Search for "Harold Standish" finds only mirrors of his Wikipedia article. A Google Search for results before his article's creation finds nothing; only a PDF that mirrors our article on Canadian poetry, which he is name-checked in. Searches on Google Books, Google Scholar, or Newspapers.com return no sources that support his existence. As well, Standish and his works are not recorded in any library catalogs, such as WorldCat, and no edits to his article after 2008 have changed the content in a substantial way. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because of hoax concerns described above:
Delete. A deep dive into Newspapers.com yields no results whatsoever for a Canadian writer by this name, or for the purported novel, "The Golden Time". It does turn up a descendant of Miles Standish by this name, but not fitting any of the other biographical details here. The Internet Archive only returns a "Harold Standish Corbin" (not our fencer, Harold Corbin, by the way). This is likely a hoax, but even if it were a real person it would be one lacking any actual sources. BD2412T00:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a clear and evidenced claim of notability in this new article about a writer. I think her books are self-published, which would be fine if there were significant coverage of them in independent, reliable published sources, but I cannot find that there is. Several of the existing references read promotional and I'm not clear that they are reliable and independent sources. This one, for instance, at a site called Altright Australia, or this at a site called Techno Tricks, or this which looks like it was originally a memorial site to someone called Houston Stevenson. The only claim in the article which might contribute to notability is the statement that one of her books won an award in the Independent Press Awards 2022 - I found the awards website to verify that, but am not clear that the award has received independent coverage or is notable. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found anything to add to notability, or where I can be sure it is the same person. Tacyarg (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: When I first looked at the article, my AI senses tingled, and as I tried to clean it up, they tingled more. Although 12 sources were listed, there were only 6: one promotional article slightly changed across multiple platforms, one link to a site similar to MuckRack with no information about the author, an Amazon book link, an Apple Books link, and wait for it an article that mentioned a different Aoife Burke who plays footy (which was cited multiple times), as well as an obit for some Aoife Burke's father. An independent search for sources has turned up several Aoife Burkes, none of which are writers. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subject hasn't been the subject of significant/independent/reliable/verifiable sources - to the extent that WP:GNG or WP:NWRITER is met. As noted above, once all the unreliable/non-independent/unrelated sources are removed, the only thing that remains is a single blogpost (that was written 2 weeks before this article was created). Even if it were an independent/reliable source (and it doesn't appear to be), it doesn't constitute WP:SIGCOV on its own. Nor can I find any other sources to establish notability or support the text. (The text itself describes just about any author/writer - and the stuff about schoolgirl and student awards is borders on the silly..). Mine is a firm "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all sources found are spam and fake blackhat SEO blogs. The author is an obvious UDPE, now blocked for using socks. That "houstonstevenson" source is one of the most repugnant things I've ever seen here: spammers have taken over an open blog on a memorial site. Sam Kuru(talk)13:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per IP: "Daughter of Someone Famous". This is a vanity page which refers to self-published poems and lists university awards as reason for notability. No substantial or notable press or internet presence. Not something one would expect in a generalist reference. UtherSRG(talk)11:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nom here, not sure if I can vote for my own nom. Just went through and deleted broken links that don't exist (FT for one was a dud) plus references to her own two paragraph reviews of someone else's poems in unknown arts mags. Although she's rising, I would not say she is risen. Many if not 1000s of people have poems in anthologies, poetry books and have won small awards (or 'jointly won' in her case). We have a poetry slam in my city every weekend you want every winner on here? This is specialist not generalist and there's a definite element of sock-puppetry going on. The prizes are not notable enough at this point. Will get an ID here one day I swear 80.194.211.108 (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've reverted the IP's two recent edits, which removed valid content. I found an archived copy of one ref, the FT link exists though it is behind a paywall, so I can't see whether the reference is "a dud" but I don't know that the IP can see it either. Other refs they removed included links to her entry at London Review of Books which links to four of her poems published there: a valid source for the statement that she has been published in LRB, and so on. She appears to be notable. PamD10:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FT link is to a page showing that she has been published in the FT, ie supporting the statement in the article. I can't click through to read her actual article in the FT, but the ref certainly isn't "a dud". PamD10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a paid subscriber to FT, and it comes up with an 'oops' page. I'm actually more inclined towards Keep now, thanks to recent edits, but lots of references does not equate to quality references 80.194.211.108 (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The statement "Takala was elected chairman of Minnesota's Pine County Republicans at the age of 18. He was re-elected in 2009 with 60% of the vote, and again in 2011" looks promising except that it is without citation. Subject does not meet the notability of a politician and it fails WP:GNGTesleemah (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage that shows notability. I realize that the sources are non-English but doing my best through Google Translate I think this is likely the best source which looks more like a reprint of a bio. CNMall41 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are some very quirky expressions and stylistic oddities for an english reader in the text of the article, (that is not encyclopediac) despite some off putting aspects that would lend to a sense of promotional - it is (barring some conclusive evidence of copyvio or similar problem) just notable, in the realm of probabilities, but requires quite a lot of editing. JarrahTree03:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, JarrahTree. Which sources would you consider significant coverage to show notability here? I will take a look and withdraw the AfD should they be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm seeing the deputy chairman of a sub-ministerial government body, moderator in a Presidential debate, and major interviewee in a viral film. Not necessarily sufficient on their own, but together they definitely support a presumption of notability. Referring to the sources:
These are sources I saw but they are not about him. An interview is not independent and the others are him giving an opinion on legal issues. Where is the significant coverage about him?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable individual. Spam that smells of UPE. Ref-bombed and Dishonestly sourced largely with primary sources. Lacks coverage about her in independent reliable sources. Comments from her are not coverage about her. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added in multiple reviews of her 2008 book, and note that the article is not an orphan. That being said, it is rather promotional and I have started remove some of the duplicate citations. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She is quoted in brief statements quite frequently, but I can find no other reviews of her books. I did some tidying up and removed references to promotional websites. The three news articles with the most extensive coverage that I can find are [12], the articles written by Carolyn Flynn for the Albuquerque Journal (newspaper.com clippings are in the article), and the 2018 article where she discusses her book Late Love[13]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article now lists three reviews of her book Why Women Mean Business, a promising start. But I didn't find any reviews of her other books listed in the selected works section. They appear self-published but it's the reviews more than the publisher that concerns me. One more reliably published review of a different book (not in Chautauquan Daily, her go-to publicity outlet) would push me over to a weak keep per WP:AUTHOR, but I don't think we should pass that criterion based on only one book. I don't think the other sources provide in-depth and independent coverage of her suitable for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- book reviewed by the NYTimes, cited as an expert in the field by Washington Post, and published as author by Harvard Business Review and Financial Times. There's promotion and fluff in the article, but I am happy to put the standard of external notability at a single book reviewed in the Times. It's not a slam dunk, but I think it's a keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)21:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
He has only won one notable award but I think more is needed to meet fails WP:JOURNALIST.
A search for sources in google news under his full name, Reji Pulluthuruthiyil and Joseph Pulluthuruthiyil did not yield anything. so fails WP:BIO more generally. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The journalist has won a notable award, which is significant. However, more comprehensive coverage on their work and achievements is needed, as it is currently lacking. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong keep Having over 1,000,000 subscribers and over 153,000,000 views on YouTube, seems pretty notable in my opinion. But following, WP:NPOV, there's more than enough credible sources aswell as editor/writer(s) of those WP:RS article makes it more essential than ever. Don't know the point/reason of create/have(ing) a deletion talk for this article. Bruno 🌹 (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improve
He is notable, but the problem is there. I think the lack of proper writing, the need to add more information, and the carrier is empty. UzbukUdash (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UzbukUdash, I kinda agree with you. He’s definitely notable, but yeah, I see the problem too. The writing feels rough in spots, and there’s definitely more information that could be added, I’m working on it in my sandbox and trying to develop it further. Bruno 🌹 (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Please provide references supporting your keep !votes to establish notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. Available sources do not establish notability because those that contain significant coverage are uncritical interviews (The Business Standard 1 Jan 2022, The Daily Star, The Daily Ittefaq, and BBC) or reprintings of his social media posts (Daily Sun). What he says about himself is a primary, non-independent source.
These pieces are generally accompanied by an introductory bio. The news organizations aren't transparent about where those capsule bios come from. One has to evaluate how similar they are to the "about me" section of his website and YouTube channel, and whether any independent sources are credited (e.g. "According to his class 9 teacher ...", "His college roommate said ...", etc.). If the bio has been supplied by him and is republished without analysis, evaluation, or interpretation by the journalist, then it is non-independent.
Comment I'd like to point out that Mick Armstrong was mentioned in the target when the redirect was created. He was only removed from that article a minute before the redirect was listed for discussion, for not being mentioned in the target... The removal (and deletion) may turn out to be perfectly justified (I have no insight into and no opinion about this matter), but I find the reason "not mentioned in target" strange when the reason for this is that the user has removed it themselves moments earlier, and then doesn't disclose that they did this. Renerpho (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the original state of the Socialist Alternative (Australia) article (before the removal of that paragraph, and more so when the redirect was created in 2020), that redirect looks sensible to me. The relevant paragraph was tagged as needing citations since June 2024; and as I said, removing it may be the right choice. But it wasn't an unreasonable target for the redirect based on what it looked like at the time. Renerpho (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath: Yes, and maybe others will be more lenient. WP:CHALLENGE is clear that you had every right to remove it. That doesn't mean that the timing wasn't unfortunate, and that this wasn't important. I would have preferred either an upfront mention that you removed it ("I have just removed this as failing WP:V, and believe the redirect should be deleted because it's no longer mentioned in the target"), or to leave it and include it in the discussion ("I plan to remove this unsourced information from the target, at which point the subject will no longer be mentioned in the target"). This gives users the opportunity to form an opinion if sources exist (the talk page exists if there's more to know). It's a matter of transparency: When I see an argument like "not mentioned in the target", my impression is that this is because the two are unrelated, and the redirect was unreasonable. I feel misled when important background about the article's history is hidden from me. Renerpho (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All the references in the article (that aren't broken) only mention him in passing besides this which is a review of one of Armstrong's books. Performing a search I found a bunch of articles written by him at redflag.org.au (One of Socialist Alternative's newspapers which Armstrong seems to be a member of) and other articles from the same site that discuss him. Redflag is obviously not independent and can't be used to establish notability. Nothing I've found would satisfy WP:AUTHOR and I don't think there's enough for WP:BASIC. Ping me if good sources are found. TarnishedPathtalk04:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Socialist Alternative (SA). That is, more or less turn back the clock to before the discussion of that redirect was started (including adding back the mention at the target; see my comment above). I find links.org.au and sa.org.au convincing enough to have him mentioned there, but too little for a standalone article. Both sources mention Armstrong at the very top, but only the latter does this because he comes alphabetically first; and judging from its critical standpoint, the former doesn't seem to be affiliated with SA. Books like this, while being self-published, at least demonstrate the link between Armstrong and SA (who surely wouldn't let him publish in their name if he wasn't speaking, well, in their name). As I said, there's not enough to demonstrate that Armstrong is notable enough for a standalone article, but the redirect looks like a straightforward "keep". Renerpho (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would Support the redirect back to the same target ONLY if mention is added back, and would Oppose the redirect if mention could not be added. The context in which mention could be added is as a member in the history of Socialist Alternative which says: .. established in 1995 by ex-members of the former International Socialist Organisation... The pre-BLAR history of Mick Armstrong says: In 1995, he and several other leading members, including Sandra Bloodworth and Jill Sparrow... went on to form Socialist Alternative. If the list of founders is not a large number, these three names, assuming they are not WP:UNDUE, can be mentioned in the History section. Jay 💬16:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"According to National Executive member Mick Armstrong, Socialist Alternative's focus on student work is part of a perspective that the organisation has adopted for the political period due to what they see as their limited size and influence in the working class movement and the lack of any substantial radicalisation in society. Socialist Alternative's political orientation to students mirrors the development of the British Socialist Workers Party during the 1980s.[citation needed] and had been taged as needing a citation since June 2024.
@Ratekreel, When you nominated the article, at that time only two references were there in the article. Now number of references are 10+. All references are from national newspapers or books or authenticated government websites. Author have written many books, all can not be listed in the article. Two stories are base for two different bollywood films. Some work by the author is translated in multiple languages by well known authors and translators. Looking at these things, article should not be deleted. There are some research articles which are clearly comparing author's work with Premchand, which is also like an award for Hindi writers. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a "family life and relationship coach, TV personality, and author" sourced entirely to shady pieces. While most of the publications are reliable on their own, the pieces sourced to are either unreliable, of the subject's opinion, run of the mill coverages or vanispamcruft. It's either the subject is publishing their opinion or it's an unreliable "things you need to know about X" piece. Nothing to confer inherent notability here either. Fails WP:GNG over all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP was created in the main namespace and later draftified by Maliner. The creator then submitted it for review, but later unilaterally moved the BLP back to the main namespace, to avoid AFC review process. So I feel compelled to take this to AFD so the community can decide whether it should remain or be deleted. IMO, it fails both GNG and NAUTHOR, as none of the works are notable enough. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Likely to be contested, so let's get a more firm outcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit12:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although I couldn't find sources providing significant coverage as per WP:SIGCOV, I did come across some sources that support the subject's notability, though not conclusively. These include 1, 2, 3, 4, and mentioned featured in BCC Urdu's poetic collection here. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: The Dawn source is fine, I imagine there would be more in the several native languages mentioned. I found this [15] and [16], which seem fine. I couldn't find any reviews in Gscholar or Jstor. Oaktree b (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, Whether it's critical or not isn't the point. What matters is if the source being used to establish GNG is RS and in this case, it isn't. It's just a column written by an unknown freelancer, which might be suitable for the BLP itself but does not adequately support the case for GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As much as I think Harrison's writing about Wikipedia is insightful, I simply don't think he passes WP:NJOURNALIST. He's not really been the subject of significant coverage. I don't think interviews or reviews of his books in student newspapers (Student Life) are sigcov. The Fix interview might be significant coverage, but I am unfamiliar with the publication. 1A is a podcast interview, which I don't think counts for notability. The Salon, Slate and HuffPost links are just to his journalism and obviously don't count. The New America link is the description of an event that Harrison was participating in, and I don't think its sigcov either. The WashU entry is a "look what one of our alumni is up to" post and therefore it's not independent or sigcov. The Yahoo interview is part of the Yahoo for Creators program, which has an unclear level of editorial control from Yahoo itself, and may be published with little editorial oversight like WP:FORBESCON, but I'm not sure, and I think its status as significant coverage is questionable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find much beyond articles he's penned. Seems notable, but I don't find any sourcing we can use. Article now is mostly sourced to author profiles. Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the publication of The Editors, Harrison satisfies #3 under creative professionals. I also just added two more sources, including an ABC affiliateWFAAand NBC Bay Area. 1A (radio program) is not a podcast, it's a radio program. -Wil540 art (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Editors hasn't even received a proper book review by a professional outlet so I hardly see how it passes the part of #3 that says such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The book was notably also deleted when taken to AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Editors (novel). I hardly see how being a guest on a radio or local television program is enough to pass GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I mostly agree with Oaktree above. Simply having published a book is definitely not enough to meet point 3 of WP:NCREATIVE, especially when that book's coverage has been pretty minimal. Going through the article's sources - author pages don't establish anything, the Yahoo article is misleading as it's aggregated from a Substack, and I would not consider alumni magazines to be sufficiently WP:INDEPENDENT. There may eventually be enough coverage for an article on his book, but it doesn't seem like there's enough here for an article on him. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me!02:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:ATD as it's possibly just a bit WP:TOOSOON. Continue adding coverage to the article as it is published, such as book reviews and author profiles. If no one updates for six months, it will get deleted. But if sufficient sources are added, it can get moved back into mainspace. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for Draftification since we have an editor willing to work on improving this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
FA
A
GA
