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.
Comment - I'm not finding anything in a BEFORE search to substantiate the notability of this artist who is at the beginning of her career. I'm holding off on !voting for now to do a deeper search, but all I'm finding is non-independent mentions of her from connected sources, and also finding social media posts and user submitted content. I am finding quite a few hits about her sister Neri due to a high-profile plagiarism case, but that is no reflection on this artist. Leaning towards delete unless enough independent reliable sources can be found to meet WP:NARTIST. I just ran it thru Earwigs and it's 90% copyright violation, WP:COPYVIO which I will remove from the article. Netherzone (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This was previously speedy deleted on 11 July 2023 under the G8 and A7 criteria. No improvement since it was crafted by User:Kerenoxman in 2023, which I'm assuming might have an been autobiography.[8] The artist does not meet WP criteria for inclusion as a notable person per WP:NARTIST nor GNG. I'm not finding anything substantial in a BEFORE, and the current sourcing consists of the blog Freshpaint which looks to be user-submitted photos with zero editorial content; her own website; a user-submitted bio for a residency (text taken directly from her own website); and a link to a name check for working as a team assistant for one of her sister Neri Oxman's projects at the Pompedou Center. A before search reveals her social media posts and PR, but nothing of substance. No notable shows, no works in permanent collections of notable museums or national galleries, or any of the kind of coverage we would expect for a notable artist. Maybe in a few years but it's definitely WP:TOOSOON at this time. And possible PROMO. Netherzone (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post oped is about the person and only mentions the statue in the title. The other added sources are also just about the unveiling, still doesn’t pass WP:SUSTAINED. मल्ल (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only 3 sentences are about the statue, the rest are about the man. And one of those sentences are about the people who were at the unveiling, not really about the statue itself, either.
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
I'll admit this one is pretty difficult to search for, but I don't think it's notable; the site for the capitol grounds appear to be the only real coverage of this piece of public art. Belongs on a list of the artist's works and a list of public art installations in the city. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the work is cited as being among the Washington Capitol collection, a prominent sculpture collection in the Northwest U.S. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Give us one fact from those sources that is neither in the Washington State official blurb nor the Crooks book. (Hint: Historians can read newspapers, too.) Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the standard for notability, but the first article says that the model for the statute was created in wood. A fact (among several at least) that's in the article and not in either the official blurb or Crooks. Jahaza (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a way to evaluate the depths of the sources being waved around, which have been merely described as "this" and "a bit weak"; and notability is very much about the depth of sourcing. If you aren't looking for depth, you aren't doing it right. Uncle G (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another Olympia public art installation. This one has two sources, but one of the sources has a single sentence about the piece. Should be included on a list of public art installations in the city (and a page for the artist, who appears notable) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Susan Point. The sculpture itself is not notable, however the Salish artist who created it, Susan Point, is indeed notable. As mentioned by the nominator, Generalissima, the newspaper sources don't mention Sea to Sky, and the sources that do are not independent. As a reasonable alternative to deletion, there is an excellent target article to which it can be redirected and the two sentences from this can be merged there. Netherzone (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Olympia public arts installation with one source. Again, should be simply included on a list of public art installations in the city. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Is there a list this can be redirected to? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit03:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is one topic, and not just a grouping of topics across two characteristics (mosaics from certain regions / influences, and certain regions in Asia) which have no real common ground. I could find no good sources for this topic as a whole (looking for this gave results about mosaics in Asia Minor, which is not the same of course). Fram (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the article lacks a common bond of mosaics in the different regions, I think some of the content is good. Mosaic is overwhelmingly about Europe (and it should make better use of summary style with its subpages), but the Middle Eastern and Western Asian section is relatively short and there is nothing at all about East or Southeast Asian mosaic art. This is a new article from a new user, so I would recommend they consider merging some information or working on it as a draft. Reywas92Talk15:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced and very detailed, the stand-alone visual arts article presents the topic in an adequate encyclopedic fashion. Not long enough for a split, and no need to think along those lines. The page covers what it intends to cover, per title. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources tie together around their common connections: mosaics and their existence in the continent of Asia. Asians artistic crafting of mosaics make for a well-done informative article. Nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really how it should work though. If there are no sources treating them as one subject, we shouldn't either. It gives the impression that there is some common characteristic setting them apart from mosaics in other continents, as studied or described by reliable sources. Fram (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't found any sources covering Mosaics in Asia as a whole (in a fairly minimal search, I must admit). I agree that sections of this article are worth keeping, perhaps as separate articles or in the Mosaic article. I did note that searching various terms, including "Asian mosaics", brought up several sources about Central Asian mosaics, both ancient and modern, eg 14th and 15th century mosaics in Samarkhand and Bukhara, and 20th century mosaics on pre-fab apartments in Tashkent [9]. This topic does not seem to be covered anywhere, not even in this article on Mosaics in Asia (and their existence brings into question the statement in the Mosaic article that "Mosaics generally went out of fashion in the Islamic world after the 8th century." RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - I understand the rationale for the nom, but I lean towards an "Ignore all rules" K*eep if there is such a thing. (Note this is the first time I've ever suggested IAR.) When I consider if the the encyclopedia is better or worse off with this new article, ripe for improvement, the solid answer is that it is a positive contribution that betters the encyclopedia. I agree that there is some good content here and that the overall subject is relevant to WP's readership. The article is only one week old, and can be improved in terms of sourcing and format. A quick BEFORE finds many articles on JSTOR about mosaics that exist in Asian countries, but I have not had the time to read them all to understand if they discuss the entire Asian continent as a whole. Perhaps this is an emerging field in art history/archaeology. I think the article needs more time for the new editor to develop it, but it is not so "broken" that it needs to be draftified at this time. A simple "under construction" maintenance tag may be the solution. That and encouragement directed to the newbie editor, Jaynentu who created it. Netherzone (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate all the editors for your time and feedbacks. I do find more valuable sources for developing to improve the content. Certainly more time and suggestions would help to organize this work. Jaynentu (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Split into region-specific articles: West Asia, South Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. Perhaps even narrower: Persian mosaics is still a redlink! However, I recognize that this is unlikely to gain consensus at the tail end of an AfD, so in the meantime I guess we can draftify it or keep it. I don't think the topic is notable, which makes the article basically SYNTH, but the content is not bad and should be kept somewhere while it's being split. Jaynentu, thank you for writing this – I encourage you to write the narrower region-specific mosaic articles as well! Toadspike[Talk]09:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics
The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Related Projects
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts
The article has been deleted multiple times under the title Mudit Srivastava. A previous PROD was contested by the creator, who then added a few references. However, none of the sources provide significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Junbeesh (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article was created by the subject's son in 2006 and has survived for nineteen years with a single source – the subject's own website. I found two news articles on Dylan Cramer (one, two), but they do not mention any major works or accomplishments. The book Journeys to the Bandstand has a chapter on him and his father, but is unlikely to mention anything that would make him notable (or there would be other news sources reporting on it). Cramer appears to be a local Vancouver musician who does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Iiii I I I (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject does not appear to meet any of the 12 criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. I searched newspapers.com as well and found many notices about upcoming performances and the like (mainly in Vancouver area) but I don't see any sigcov to support WP:BASIC either. Zzz plant (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a close call because the musician has gained respect from other musicians, and that generated some basic coverage among afficionados, but unfortunately I must agree with the in-depth conclusions by the nominator and previous voter. There simply isn't enough with which to build an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed PROD, and that’s totally fine. But the de-PROD-der did so with summary that prompted me to do another cursory search, but still didn’t come up with anything tangible. My PROD statement Subject fails WP:NPOL and current sources do not help to qualify for WP:GNG still stands. I particularly went through the cited sources to find GNG-passable sources but yielded nothing. There are no sufficient independent sources that provide substantial coverage of the subject to establish the minimum GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Seems to be plenty of secondary source and independent media coverage to me. Article could use some work, but that is not grounds for deletion. RedBlueGreen9323:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this BLP about a journalist, and have not found secondary sources to add. The existing references are mostly records of his journalism. He has won an award, but I don't think it is notable. He has been shortlisted for other awards, which you can see in this earlier version of the article. He has also set a world record for generating energy by pedalling, but I don't think this makes him notable - the only relevant discussion I could find is at Notability of Guinness World Record holders, where the two editors in the discussion agreed that breaking a world record doesn't make someone notable. I cannot see that he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:JOURNALIST. Tacyarg (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to try to look through Wayback Machine archives for this particular one, but based on other ones I've checked in the past, the biographies were originally on SR, then imported to Olympedia when SR's Olympics site split. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Die Olympischen Kunstwettbewerbe 1912-1948 (The Olympic Art Competitions 192-1948) covers the olympic artwork, but with little beyond. [10] He also gets multiple mentions in A Pacifist's Life and Death: Grigorios Lambrakis and Greece in the Long Shadow of Civil War[11], although these are not biographical of him. That's all I found so far. That is not a GNG pass yet, but may indicate there is more to be found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article subject is a child who got a couple of human interest pieces in local news when they started a nonprofit. A single purpose account decided to dodge the AFC queue after getting a decline on their draft (and COI warning besides), so here we are at AFD. There is no sustained coverage, and no real biographical details. This is a clear case of a WP:BLP1E and ought to be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi @Garsh2 @Wound theology. With all due respect, would I be able to provide you both some context in hopes of getting you both to reconsider your votes? WP:COI isn't the subject of this AfD, and even so, i've already disclosed in the past to MrOllie twice that I don't have a COI, and if I did, I would declare it. An article can be rewritten itself, but notability can't be changed, no matter how good an article is. The nominator (MrOllie) proposed that the article is WP:BLP1E and does not merit its own article about the subject itself, but the subject of the article is high-profile (intentionally seeking coverage about themselves or such through interviews, PR, etc), and their independent, reliable coverage has been sustained and not a quick burst. Given this, I would believe that the article falls into WP:GNG, but this is a debatable point, because the subject is a minor. At the very least, if you still believe that the article does not meet WP:GNG, I believe draftification would be a significantly better better option, given that notability is borderline/debatable here.Liahuu (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is not high-profile nor are the sources sustained. The subject is not notable as a coder nor as an author but simply as a 12-year-old who started a nonprofit. Founding a nonprofit is not notable in and of itself; I did it myself my senior year. WP:BLP1E still stands and WP:COI has not been sufficiently addressed. wound theology◈13:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:BLP1E, the subject is a high-profile individual. If you don't mind me asking - how are the sources not sustained? I can agree with you - the subject isn't notable as a coder or author, but is notable for their work with their organization.
I agree - founding a non-profit organization is not notable inherently, as many do. However, my main point was that the kid received extensive, significant coverage about he and his organization, from reliable sources which in my opinion would constitute notability. Again, i'm 100% open to debate about this, because the subject's notability is genuinely borderline and falls in a gray area.
As for WP:COI - how would you like me to address your concerns? With respect, i've addressed your concerns about a potential COI. I wanted to first write an article about the kid's nonprofit organization, but had the article draftified and was told by editors that the nonprofit organization itself hasn't received extensive coverage under WP:NGO, only the kid has. I was encouraged by editors to write about the kid - which I did. I asked around on the Wikipedia Discord and the Kiwi IRC, and the consensus has been 50/50 - a lot of editors have mentioned to me that they feel the article meets WP:GNG with the sources, but a lot of editors have also mentioned to me that this seems to feel like local coverage and that WP:BLP1E would be a strong case in any AfD discussion (which we can see, here). Liahuu (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hi @MrOllie! Much thanks for your explanation and review on this subject. I just wanted to clarify a few points.
First, you mention that I have a conflict of interest with the subject. You've already given me a COI warning on my talk page in the past, and i've appropriately responded to such answering that I am aware of such policy and will be disclosing any conflicts of interests I have with any subject. In this case, my reply explicitly mentioned that I do not have a connection to the subject. I also explicitly mentioned this to you on your talk page, for a different (but relevant) draft.
You're also falsely claiming that my account is a "single purpose account" - when, in reality, you're basing this claim off of the action I took to move my draft into the article space. Dodging the AFC queue is not inherently prohibited for autoconfirmed users, and given the long wait time, I explicitly clarified in my edit summary that I would be skipping a AFC review to get a review by a NPP in a faster time frame. You also claim "after getting a decline on their draft" - but if you noticed, that declined draft version was from early March 2025. If I had genuine ill intentions for Wikipedia, I could have easily dodged the AfC process, far earlier, and moved my rejected draft into the mainspace. I made a large amount of edits before resubmitting, and eventually moving my draft into the mainspace.
I would also like to mention that your review of my article about this subject is unjust - you proposed the deletion of my article 20 minutes after it was created, which is clearly in violation of WP:NPPHOUR, as the article does not qualify for speedy deletion or PROD.
"There is no sustained coverage" - there are plenty of reliable, secondary sources that cover the subject, and over a sustained period of time. As you can see, the first article covering the kid founding the nonprofit was on January 2, 2024, while there are sources as late as June 2024 covering the kid founding the nonprofit. There's also coverage about the kid's nonprofit starting a new program, etc and the kid's coding skills. Compared to a traditional WP:BLP1E, this spike of coverage has been sustained and the kid is still "relevant", which is a indicator of notability. The subject further doesn't qualify for WP:BLP1E because they are not a low-profile figure, and (no offense) have made attempts to self-promote through press releases, scheduled interviews, and more, which, by definition, makes them a high-profile figure.
Could the article be expanded? Of course. This wasn't something I immediately did, especially given that the subject is WP:CHILD, and I don't want to write too much about them. However, I do definitely think that there are areas of improvement.
A huge majority of your statements seem to WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL - inaccurately portraying the context of the situation. I would strongly ask that you take edits from new editors like me with WP:GOODFAITH. I would love to discuss any potential issues, but would love to do so in a civil manner, instead of making false, slanderous claims.
Noting that you are a single purpose account is not a 'false claim' - 100% of your editing is either about this person or their nonprofit. You've had more than a month to work on your draft, WP:NPPHOUR clearly does not apply - all that really matters in this AFD is that the coverage is not sufficient to demonstrate notability, and your decision to push for an article anyway. Trying to turn this around and making it about me personally will not change that. - MrOllie (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, i'm not trying to change the topic of this AfD onto you, and I apologize if you feel that way. Claiming that i'm a "single purpose account", though, is personally insulting to me (WP:CIVIL), given that you aren't aware of the future contributions I intend to make on this platform, and simply claiming me as a marketing/spam account is highly offensive and slander when i've clearly mentioned that I don't have a conflict of interest about the subject, and if I did, I would have declared that. However, the COI is not the topic of this AfD, so here's my take on notability.
As for notability, I have mentioned this in my previous answer, but there is a sufficient amount of notability for the subject, which is the primary concern here and the reason this article has been nominated for AfD. WP:BLP1E isn't applicable here because the subject is high-profile (subject has intentionally decided to seek coverage and have published press releases in the past), and they've received sustained coverage (not a burst of coverage in a month or two). By means of WP:GNG, the subject is notable due to independent coverage in multiple sources. Liahuu (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As MrOllie (talk·contribs) explained, as it stands, you are a single-purpose editor. Possible intent to make future contributions elsewhere are irrelevant. Your only edits on Wikipedia have been related to TLEEM and Sharda, therefore you are a single-purpose editor. It really is that simple, and MrOllie was not being uncivil by pointing this out. Nor did he claim you were a marketing or spam account. You are casting aspersions which is itself uncivil. You should also read WP:WIKILAWYER. wound theology◈13:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. For that, I apologize for my comments about those topics, since I can see why they have been misinterpreted, as I myself misinterpreted the definition of "single-purpose editor" itself. I also apologize if you felt that I am WP:LAWYERING (I can see how you feel that way). My comments had the sole intention of clarifying on specific points, and I did not mean to be uncivil myself. Liahuu (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found no indication in this article that it meets the criteria set out in WP:GNG or WP:Scholar. However, I did come across a video in which another scholar discusses this individual's work, which suggests that the subject may have some notability as a researcher. That said, this alone is not sufficient to establish Wikipedia notability. I propose deletion. I would be happy if someone could provide reliable sources to support the subject's notability and thus prevent deletion. I also found a 15-year-old AfD discussion where participants similarly struggled to find reliable sources.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ22:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. As always, writers and musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to pass certain defined notability criteria verified by WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them and their work in reliable sources independent of themselves -- for example, you don't make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his books to themselves as circular metaverification of their own existence, you make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his books to third-party media coverage about them, such as professional book reviews and/or evidence that they've won or been nominated for major literary awards. But this essentially just states that his work exists, without documenting anything that would meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:AUTHOR criteria, and it's referenced almost entirely to primary sourcing that isn't support for notability, such as his own podcast and the books metaverifying themselves. The only secondary source cited here at all is a (deadlinked but recoverable) Tiny Desk Concert, which just briefly namechecks his participation in the surrounding text without saying anything substantive about him, and thus isn't sufficient to get him over GNG all by itself. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current article cites a total of nine references, eight of which focus solely on a single incident—his arrest and release. The remaining one is about his father. This is insufficient to meet the criteria of WP:GNG and does not establish the subject's notability as a Wp:Nscholar, writer, or religious figure.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ21:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vinegarymass911: Being arrested on just three occasions does not, in itself, constitute notability—particularly when the arrests lack in-depth coverage. There is no reliable evidence indicating that these incidents had any significant impact or received national attention.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ22:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Central Committee of Hefazat comprises over 200 leaders. Merely holding a leadership position in a notable organization does not establish individual notability, see WP:NOTINHERIT. He is not the Director of Jamiatul Uloom Al-Islamia Lalkhan Bazar; this claim is incorrect. He serves as the Assistant Director. All media coverage related to him appears to be routine reporting or breaking news. In-depth, substantial coverage is required to demonstrate notability.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ17:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has anyone seen if he passes one of the criteria for WP:PROF? The Prof Test is an alternative method of showing notability, so please ping me. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a young professor who has just gotten an under-40 years old award. The "extensive coverage" of his work is the newspaper reports generated from a single University of Cambridge press release. He appears to have only that single paper in Google scholar, which has mixed him up with a Canadian business professor. It is too soon for him to have an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His coverage was not the result of a ‘single University press release’ – it was the featured research story on the University homepage – and independently of that, it was covered by BBC, ITV, etc.
He clearly passes the criteria for WP:PROF (of which you only need to meet one):
1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline: His recent article is “in the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric”.
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level: His research won the National Innovation Award, the Digital Health Award, and the 40 Under 40 Award.
3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association: Dr Macdonald is a Fellow at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of the Institute of Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability
7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity: His research has appeared in over 100 international news outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayneDavis07 (talk • contribs)
JayneDavis07, our criteria can be confusing for a new editor. Most researchers have multiple publications. What matters is not how many they have published but how other researchers have responded to those publications by citing them in their own papers. That is how we determine significant impact. Most awards, and definitely not young investigator awards, are not what we mean by "highly prestigious". Having newspapers cover ones research when publicized by their employer is common and not considered "substantial impact". "Fellow" is a term used in many different ways. In Macdonald's case the first Fellow is one of the terms used by Cambridge for their employees, so does not qualify. The second Fellow is just the name of the level of dues paying member of the ICRS, not an honorary award given for major contributions to a field. Macdonald is a promising researcher, and may well qualify according to WP:NPROF in the future, but not now. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the impact of his publications see here. He has only been publishing for a few years. We would need to see over a hundred citations per paper for impact, but he is just starting out so hasn't had time to develop. He does have 14 papers in Google Scholar, but his latest one is linked to another author. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete:
Fellow in the Cambridge system is not merely a term for employees. Fellows are voted in by the Governing body and are special honours for “distinguished, learned, or skilled individuals in academia, medicine, research, and industry.” There are different types of Fellowship at Cambridge (Visiting Fellow, Research Fellow, Fellow Commoner, Bye-Fellow, etc) – Dr Macdonald holds a full unrestricted permanent Fellowship and as a result is a full voting member of the Governing Body of the University – the highest honour.
Under the criteria for WP:PROF, Academics only need to meet one of 8 conditions.
1. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
With regard to condition 1 – Dr Macdonald won the 40 Under 40 Award in the Science category. The award has two rounds of voting – the first is an expert panel, the second is a public vote – the award programme is at the national level and is for the nation’s most influential and accomplished leaders.
7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
With regard to condition 7 – Dr Macdonald developed and launched a virtual reality public speaking platform to help individuals overcome speech anxiety. He made the platform fully open access, and it is used by people around the world. It is a first-of-its-kind platform – the only to be free and accessible on all platforms and operating systems. Accordingly, it received widespread global media attention - it was covered in over 100 media outlets - including The Times, The Guardian, ITV, BBC, etc, etc. This is outside of a conventional academics remit.
It makes the academic “significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice”.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JayneDavis07 (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. No consensus here yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not been able to find evidence that Chris Macdonald meets the criteria for GNG or NPROF. As noted by StarryGrandma, most of the publicity appears to be based on a press release from cambridge. Public press about a single VR program is not indicative of academic notability.
Responding specifically to arguments above concerning NPROF:
1. AltMetric is not good for determining academic notability as any mention on any site online can improve altmetric. If we're considering notability based on academics, then his work needs to be highly cited by other academics, which it is not.
2. The awards he has won do not appear prestigious on a national or international level, names notwithstanding. Think Nobel prize (international) or something like a Priestly medal (national chemistry award in US). I'm not even sure which 40 under 40 list he was included under because there are so many of these lists today and the specific list is mentioned nowhere in his bios. A public vote for an award is also not good criteria for academic notability.
3. Elected member/fellow of a society. A fellow at a uni is not the same thing. Reading through the types of fellow at Lucy Cavendish College, it sounds like he is just a professor (not the same thing as Cambridge wide fellowships --- each college has their own processes). Nor is being a "fellow" at a non-profit think tank funded by a bunch of corporations in the name of "responsibility"
7. Unlikely over 100 international news outlets covered his virtually reality public speaking VR work independently. This is also definitely WP:TOOSOON as the impact of the work that was released a month ago is not yet known.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Author best known for a 7-book fantasy series. I can only find reviews in Publishers Weekly for books number 1 [12], 5 [13], 6 [14], and 7 [15] in the series. Book 6 also has a second review in Library Journal [16]; however, this is the only one of the series that (barely) meets WP:NBOOK, and so I don't think the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. Astaire (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reviews mentioned in the nom are more than we see for the majority of authors here in AfD. I'd argue they show critical notice, for a series of books for the last 15 yrs or so. It's not War and Peace, but we have some reviews over a span of time, that's the bare minimum for author notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With 9 books written by this author and only 1 of them (barely) meeting NBOOK, and most of the coverage coming from a single source (Publishers Weekly), I just don't see this as a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. But maybe there's a different prevailing interpretation of NAUTHOR here at AFD. Astaire (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the author has a single book that passes NBOOK and that book is part of a series, I am generally inclined to either have a page on the author OR have a page on the series. This is because having an entry on say, book 6, would be generally undesirable because it's not very comprehensive, can lack some context for people wanting more information on the series and can generally be seen as an invitation to create (or recreate) articles on the author or other books.
A series page usually satisfies the average person coming into Wikipedia, however sometimes I'll recommend author pages if the author has put out more than one series. It serves roughly the same purpose - giving a more comprehensive overview of everything and having a bibliography section for the multiple series also helps deter people from trying to re/create pages that would fail notability guidelines or otherwise be unnecessary.
This is a situation where I'd recommend the author page simply because of the multiple series. That other series looks to have been cancelled, but it's possible that it might get picked up again or the author might put out other works. That said, this does need some general editing - for example, it's completely unnecessary to mention who is representing her. The page could also use a teensy bit more info about the Craft series. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)19:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the tl;dnr here is that while Price isn't a super fit for NAUTHOR, an author article is an easier way to impart information on her work, which has received some coverage. It's a case of IAR in that we're not exactly ignoring notability guidelines, just that since at least some part of her work is notable the author page is probably the most helpful way to impart info about that work to the reader. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)19:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear editors, the article subject, Samia Gore, is requesting a soft deletion on English Wikipedia, claiming the content is promotional and inaccurately presented. I would also like to highlight that the notability is somewhat unclear. Thank you in advance for your thoughts on this! SG2025wiki (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easy keep [17], [18], plus the Essence article now used for sourcing. There are many more that come up, showing notability. Keeping the article also promotes gender equality and helps combat gender bias, as a person of colour in the USA. Oaktree b (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - while the subject is accomplished, she has not gotten MSM attention nor won a major award, either of which would be a completely objective test of notability (compare that to a Grammy Award winning musician, or an art curator who was lauded by a newspaper of record). Bearian (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Orignal creator of this article was blocked for WP:COI and WP:PROMO. This persons fails WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR, due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Also most of the sources on this article are not about him, hence checked carefully. It may be created for undisclosed payments because this article creator also created articles on his multiple books which are also nothing more than promotion. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHORTheSlumPanda (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Vijay Nahar should be retained. There is sufficient coverage in a wide range of independent and reliable sources, satisfying Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline for authors, historians, and public figures. His work spans historical biographies, political commentary, and education-focused literature. Below is a list of significant sources that discuss his contributions:
----These references clearly demonstrate both the coverage and influence of Vijay Nahar’s work. While the Wikipedia article might benefit from improvements in structure, formatting, and inline citations, the subject himself meets Wikipedia's notability threshold. Therefore, the article should be improved, not deleGujjar.rudraa (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all sources are not about this subject. Some are about maharana Pratap, or other are about modi or vasundra raje, also the #2 TOI article is a reliable source but that talks more about the book written by him. And please remind that online listing of books for purchase like Amazon doesn’t confer notability. TheSlumPanda (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vijay Nahar is an Indian author and historian known for his biographical and historical works on notable Indian political figures and Rajput kings. His book Swarnim Bharat ke Swapndrishtha Narendra Modi has been referenced in multiple media outlets, including The Sunday Guardian, for its early commentary on Narendra Modi’s developmental vision and personal life aspects, including his marriage, which was highlighted during political discourse (The Sunday Guardian, Amar Ujala).
Nahar’s biography of Vasundhara Raje, Vasundhara Raje aur Viksit Rajasthan, is among the first dedicated publications on her political career and is noted in news profiles (Jansatta). His contributions to historical research include books on Samrat Bhoj Parmar, Mihir Bhoj, and Rao Akheraj Songara, which have been cited in literary platforms such as Sahitya Kunj and Sahitya Nama, and are among the few comprehensive modern works available on these historical figures (Sahitya Kunj, Udaipur Kiran).
In the context of Maharana Pratap, Nahar's writings have been used in regional discourse to support the view that Pratap was born in Pali, Rajasthan—challenging the traditionally cited location of Kumbhalgarh attributed to Colonel Tod (Bhaskar, Samvad). His contributions have also been recognized through awards and coverage in local media outlets, emphasizing his role in historical interpretation and education.
While online listings like Amazon do not independently confer notability, they help identify the range and accessibility of his publications. Furthermore, his books have been featured in school libraries in Rajasthan, according to a report by The Times of India (TOI). Gujjar.rudraa (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His book on narendra modi got media coverage like 1, 2. While the sunday guardian have only passing mention at last which is not enough. But if we talk about notability of this subject them i am still inclined toward deletion because of lack of Significant coverage about him in independent sources rather than sticking only on his modi book.TheSlumPanda (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
== Sources supporting notability ==
Lokmat Times – Photos of Gulab Kataria Ji – Features visuals and associations, including those connected to historian Vijay Nahar and other BJP figures.
Sahitya Kunj – Samraat Bhoj Parmar Sameeksha – A critical review of Vijay Nahar’s historical writing on King Bhoj, hosted by a Hindi literary platform.
Jansatta – Vasundhara Raje’s political profile – Refers to authors including Nahar who’ve written about Rajasthan’s leadership and political figures.
Punjab Kesari – Maharana Pratap Jayanti – Covers public celebration of figures about whom Vijay Nahar has authored biographies.
News Puran – Death Anniversary of Maharana Pratap – Discusses cultural memory around Maharana Pratap, a key figure in Vijay Nahar’s historical works.
Sahitya Kunj – Vijay Nahar Author Profile – A central repository of Nahar’s literary contributions and publications.
Most of the sources cited to support the notability of Vijay Nahar are from Hindi-language newspapers and online publications. However, these are established and widely circulated media outlets in India, such as Dainik Bhaskar, Amar Ujala, Rajasthan Patrika, Punjab Kesari, Jansatta, and the Hindi edition of Times of India. These outlets are considered reliable sources under Wikipedia guidelines for regional and vernacular coverage.
The references include interviews, book reviews, coverage of public recognitions and awards, listings of published works, and inclusion of his books in institutional libraries. Several sources document his contributions as a biographer of public figures like Narendra Modi, Vasundhara Raje, and Maharana Pratap. Many of these sources offer English summaries or have accessible translations. Gujjar.rudraa (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors willing to research the sources offered in the article and discussion. Would the two editors who have participated so far please take a step back and let other editors weigh in? Please let them comment without adding your opinions to their arguments. Thank you. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about author. I have searched about the subject but didn't find significant coverages.. That can pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR.
Although I did come across a few mentions about the person, they were news-related and not about the work for which the person is known as an author. Dam222🌋 (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am trying to find sources, not easy when I do not read Urdu. However, it looks like she may have had more than one bestseller - Mus'haf as noted (but not yet sourced) in the article, and Jannat Kay Pattay, mentioned in this [19] and this [20]. I will try to find better sources. I note too that on the Talk:Nemrah Ahmed Khan page, there is mention of other Romanised spellings of her name, including Nimra Ahmad. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to pass NPEOPLE. I see only passing mentions in independent sources. [21] is an interview, so it is neither secondary nor independent. [22] seems to have some coverage, but if I interpret Acknowledgements correctly, the coverage is primarily based on interviews, so this source is also not independent. I also see a few other interviews, but nothing notability-confering. Janhrach (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, WP:SK3. What is the point of starting an AfD when the nomination statement itself states that the subject probably passes a notability criterion, WP:NPOL? But for the record I think he also has a good case for WP:PROF #C2 (Templeton prize), #C3 (Academy of Sciences of Iran), and #C5 (distinguished professor), so the nomination claim of "no indication of notability" through academic notability is both a WP:VAGUEWAVE and completely erroneous. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein. As for #C5 I couldn't find any independent sources for the distinction claim. As for #C2 how is "winner of a course program" and a "former judge" notable? As for #C3 it has hundreds of members most of which are not notable. So I don't think it passes WP:PROF as suggested. Xpander (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. Why would you nominate a former member of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution for deletion when you say yourself that it's enough for NPOL? People who are notable need only be notable for one thing; even if you don't believe he is notable as an academic, notability as a politician is enough. For that matter, he's also likely not notable as an athlete (because we have no record of any athletic accomplishments) nor as a musician (likewise); do you think that should be a valid rationale to delete someone notable as a politician? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein I certainly respect your points. The issue with SCCR is that it is not a de jure legislative body, and if it is, it is not a common one, i.e. as compared to the US, UK etc. where the only legislature is the Congress/Parliament/Assembly. On their website they mention:
The duties of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution can be divided into three areas: policymaking, regulation development, and supervision[1].
So it doesn't say lawmaking specifically, although it is mentioned in their by-law, that in case of needing law-changes they can ask the corresponding body to provide the necessary arrangements:
Article 32 - If the Supreme Council resolution requires a law, regulation, or resources to be implemented, the matter will be sent to the head of the relevant authority or the highest official of the relevant body for legal procedures to be carried out, in order to provide the necessary arrangements.[2]
So maybe it could be interpreted as an executive body rather than a legislative one? That's why I said probably. Some editors have rejected the notability claim based on membership of this body. So the rationale was to reach as clear a consensus as possible. Xpander (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might do to revisit some tacit assumptions, David Eppstein. I found a potted biography preceding the main interview in Richardson & Slack 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRichardsonSlack2005 (help), and whilst it has degrees, awards, and books it has no mention of membership of that organization. The claim to membership was not in this article for the first 10 years of its life, only being added without source nor edit summary in 2017. It's not even made in Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, which merely claims, with zero sourcing, membership of a predecessor organization. Is the whole back-and-forth above based upon assuming as a given a claim that is not actually true? Certainly, even with the assumption, what the status of the SCCR is is irrelevant, as the (unsourced!) claim is that this person was a member of an appointed council of university professors in the Cultural Revolution HQ that preceded the 1984 foundation of the SCCR. Uncle G (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Richardson, Mark; Slack, Gordy, eds. (2005). "Mehdi Golshani: The Ladder To God". Faith in Science: Scientists Search for Truth. Routledge. pp. 121 et seq. ISBN9781134516568.
Keep: I agree this page was previously deleted and salted. The preceding AFD is 18 years old. Since then, numerous independent references from credible sources have emerged regarding the subject. Consequently, it meets the criteria of WP:GNG.. Sore Shout (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the subject has potential for keeps one of which from the bibliographic achievements, the books being translated to numerous languages is notable, if a few more independent RS can be added aside from the numerous primary sources already cited, would increase its keep status potential.Villkomoses (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see how this attains NAUTHOR if the subject's claim to fame is Pranic healing, and that subject is itself non-notable. There is an unreferenced mention of pranic healing at Energy medicine#Beliefs; maybe one of the sources could be applied there prior to deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leerbaert has written at least a half dozen books that have been reviewed in peer-reviewed academic journals. Unfortunately, most of what is in the article is unsourced, which violates BLP rules. I looked for more bio info based on what is in the article but have not found it. I will try to at least get the weightier reviews into the article, and will mark [citation needed] where I will be looking for sources. Lacking sources, though, the article will need to be greatly reduced. Lamona (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Example reviews:
Reviewed Work: Soviet Military Thinking. by Derek Leebaert
Immerman, Richard. 2019. Grand Improvisations: America Confronts the British Superpower, 1945-1957. Derek Leebaert. Journal of American History. Vol. 134. p. 818 doi: 10.1093/jahist/jaz636
Hirschey, Mark. 1984. What Role for Government? Lessons from Policy Research. Richard J. Zeckhauser Derek Leebaert. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 22. pp. 1122-1123
Comment I've made many changes to the article and have found some good reviews (good = reliable sources) for his books. I have yet to find anything independent for biographical information, so all of that may either need to be sourced to non-independent sources or be removed. I do not know what to do about the WP:COI, aka AUTOBIOGRAPHY. As the changes have all been done with an IP (and the same IP) I would suggest blocking that IP, even though it's easy to get around that. I'll add some COI notices. Lamona (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See talk page for information on COI. I will also remove unsourced BLP content. What's left will help me see if there is enough to keep. Lamona (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article created by blocked sock puppet. Subject is not notable. Mostly edited by IPs and may indicate COI issues. Ramos1990 (talk)
Keep: Book reviews in the New York Times [23] -archived, and the Wall Street Journal [24], plus the academic journal ones listed elsewhere, easily passes AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
G5 says: "any of that person's accounts qualify for G5 (if not substantially edited by others)". Deletion under G5 has been rejected - since creation it has been edited ~100 times by others. (This is to inform others so we hopefully don't have to go through this again.) Lamona (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only independent sources I can find are ones that mention her in passing. Created over a declined AfC in 2015 by a single-purpose account editing about Perkins and her publishing company. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸04:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but stubify. Underneath the promotional tone is a lot of important work in publishing award-winning Lesbian writers. The Lambda Literary Awards are the Pulitzers of queer writing, and her imprints have for over a dozen years published many notable women's literature, including Cecilia Tan. I don't know the subject, but I met Tan once or twice at SF Cons. Can I take a crack at this? Thanks for your patience. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC) P.S. I've started to work on it. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC) P.P.S. I cut out what can't be sourced or is out of date, and added a source. I considered a merger but upon further reflection took it back. Discuss. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as between the three book reviews, awards, and coverage about her agency and e-book house there seems to be enough for at least WP:NAUTHOR if not WP:BASIC. The article is a bit of a mess and would benefit from a re-write. Nnev66 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
? What does the nominator think about the subject's citation record? It appears to contain hundreds of sources that are not connected to the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Can we confirm that he's actually a Harvard professor? Not all self-described "teaching at Harvard" is prestigious. --Jahaza (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that info is out of date. Note that most of his books were published between 2001-2003, and we have so far articles from 2007-2019. We won't be able to include his teaching unless we find some actual biographical info. He can meet NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC on the basis of his writings alone, although that isn't satisfying as an article. Lamona (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did find a press release that gives a full bio: "Bryan Bergeron Named Acting Director of Clinical Investigation Graduate Program." Business Wire, 31 July 2007. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A166986885/ITOF?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=89c774e5. Accessed 13 Apr. 2025. It says: The MGH Institute of Health Professions, an academic affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, announces the appointment of Bryan Bergeron, MD, as Acting Director of the Graduate Program in Clinical Investigation. There are various prior positions and what AFAIK some minor awards. So far I haven't found an independent source for this info. Lamona (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It is a bit of a red flag to me how low his ratio of book reviews to books is. I found only two reviews, from many books, and one of the two is in a journal I think may be dubious: [25][26]. That's not enough for WP:AUTHOR for me and I don't think his citation record is strong enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a list of his books and a few articles. His books get hundreds of cites (905, 690, 620 ...). I did not find bio information (yet) and the one reference that is there from business wire is a press release. I did find an interview. I still think he passes NAUTHOR and possibly NACADEMIC. Lamona (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. References limited to self-published sources. Lacks significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent publications. WP:BEFORE search turned up little beyond self-published sources, book lists and one TED talk recording. Geoff | Who, me?19:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with nomination. Jenna is linked to sources besides her own. She is an advocate for the truth as shown in the substack article referenced on her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeJMyhre (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Agree with the nomination. Tried my own search and only found references from primary sources (author, publisher) + her Tedx talk. Don't consider reviews from Kirkus reviews to be significant due to potential to pay for review.
I also pointed out that the conspiracy theorist label was wrong. They claimed that I was not presenting a neutral point of view. Below are my comments:
My comments were a neutral point of view. The text I was trying to change said:
"Jenna McCarthy is an American conspiracy theorist." with no links or arguments to support the claim.
I tried to change it to "Jenna McCarthy has been called an American conspiracy theorist." which is true without argument or need for support.
I then also included an article from Jenna McCarthy that explained what are and are not conspiracy theories. This of course was her opinion which was explained in my edit. To not include any relevant arguments and simply claim that 'she is a conspiracy theorist' is not a neutral point of view. You can't remove my edits trying to correct your current bias and claim that I don't have a neutral view 24.143.78.9 (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article no longer mentions the "conspiracy theorist" label. In any case, this is not relevant to whether the article should be deleted.Geoff | Who, me?16:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The body of work consists of material that in the past has been censored and dismissed as "conspiracy based". But as with most COVID "conspriacies", much of it has turned out to be true. No downside to keeping, and not a good look to continue censoring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmatich (talk • contribs) 16:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This looks like the person we're discussing [27] and would be a book review, but one isn't enough. I don't find anything else about this person, this likely doesn't pass AUTHOR. (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, she does appear to be a prolific writer, according to Baker & Taylor Author Biographies: McCarthy is a writer whose work has appeared in more than 40 national and international magazines including: Allure, Parenting, Shape, Fit Pregnancy, Babytalk, Glamour, Seventeen, New Parent, Real Simple, New Woman, Self, and in anthologies such as the popular Chicken Soup series. She's had a decent amount of book reviews, and she co-authored (with Pierre Kory), a top-ten national bestseller. I found a lot of newspapers that quoted her and/or mentioned her books, but no significant coverage about her – that I could find. So I'm neutral on whether to keep or delete the article.
If It Was Easy, They'd Call the Whole Damn Thing a Honeymoon: Living With and Loving the TV-Addicted, Sex-Obsessed, Not-So-Handy Man You Married. Publishers Weekly. 8/22/2011, Vol. 258 Issue 34, pages 57-58
If It Was Easy, They'd Call the Whole Damn Thing a Honeymoon: Living With and Loving the TV-Addicted, Sex-Obsessed, Not-So-Han:dy Man You Married. Kirkus Reviews. 10/15/2011, Vol. 79 Issue 20, page 1905
If It Was Easy, They'd Call the Whole Damn Thing a Honeymoon: Living With and Loving the TV-Addicted, Sex-Obsessed, Not-So-Han:dy Man You Married. St. Petersburg Times, 10/23/2011, page 7L
Jenna McCarthy discusses her book, "If It Was Easy, They'd Call The Whole Damn Thing A Honeymoon". 2011, Today Show
Poppy Louise Is Not Afraid of Anything. Publishers Weekly, 2/13/2017, Vol. 264, Issue 7, page 73
Poppy Louise Is Not Afraid of Anything. Booklist, 2/15/2017, Vol. 113, Issue 12, page 83
The Parent Trip: From High Heels and Parties to High Chairs and Potties. Foreword Magazine, May-June 2008
Keep. (presumably) writing nonsense about covid is not a reason for deletion. The question is whether she's notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Given her publication list she seems notable as an author to me, hence she should be kept. Keep in mind notability of authors/journalists/writers is not an assessment of the quality or correctness of their work.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Searching newspapers.com, I found one review, of The Parent Trip[30], and several other articles where she, or one of her books, is quoted [31], [32], [33]. So there's the review I found, the one that Oaktree b and Bearian found, the Foreword Magazine review, St. Petersburg Times review, and the Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly reviews that Isaidnoway found. That's not a lot, for such a prolific author, but it's probably just enough for a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Updating my vote based on sources that others have found. Given her writing on ivermectin, I do think it would be appropriate for the article to include some mention of McCarthy promoting use of ivermectin for COVID despite the lack of quality evidence. Whether or not that includes the specific label of conspiracy theorist will depend on secondary sources about her.
Delete agree with the nomination. Upon some research, her first PRIMARY source is literally a medium article written by her with the intent of amending her own wikipedia page.
Writing an article about yourself on medium with the intent of using it as a citable source absolutely fails WP:GNG - it is clear she is non-notable else why would she go through the lengths to do this?
The only other sources are a dead link, her TED talk (which can be paid promotion), and her own website.
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV of the author herself in the book reviews that @RebeccaGreen cited or that @Isaidnoway researched. Writing nonsense about Covid is not a reason for deletion, but it's also not a reason for inclusion, either. Maybe someone will publish an article about her as an author/contributor at some point, but it's WP:TOOSOON to keep this now. BBQboffingrill me00:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to High places in cyberspace. I have found three reviews of his book High places in cyberspace: in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies[34], in Semeia : an Experimental Journal for Biblical Studies[35] (p 166), and in the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion[36]. So it looks as though the book is notable, per WP:NBOOK. We could either write an article about the book, or keep the article about him, adding references including the book reviews. There are certainly newspaper articles which verify that he worked as a defence lawyer, which don't contribute to notability but would probably be better sources than a law report. I haven't yet found secondary sources about his work with OASIS or ISO standards. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could move the current article to the book title, to maintain history, and make the article about the book, which per your sourcing looks notable. Onel5969TT me20:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Onel5969:: I would have no objection to moving the current title to the book title, but I personally do not have either the time or interest to write an article about the book. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR / WP:NBOOK based on the book reviews found by RebeccaGreen, and no objection to a move to the book title following the AfD. A redirect would also be fine if someone does decide to create a separate article about the book prior to this AfD's closure. MCE89 (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Ars Technica source is a green reliable source and should be sufficient for this article to be kept. There is a self source which would not be enough, and then there are a few others, but with the green reliable source and others, on net, this article is a Keep in my evaluation. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is a deletion discussion about a person, and yet so far the discussion has not come to a consensus about this person, and has instead determined that a book they wrote - which does not currently have an article - is notable (noting here that the arguments for keeping that have been presented are all about the book, and do not establish notability for the author). The AfD closer cannot be responsible for implementing such a reframing, and it isn't reasonable to move what is patently a biography to a title about a book without reframing. As such, this currently looks like a "delete" outcome - I'm relisting for one more week in the hope that someone will do something to avoid such a closure. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote was not considering notability from the perspective of WP:NBOOK but if anything WP:AUTHOR, the BLPs consensus is leaning if anything towards a Keep if I were to look at it again. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I said in my !vote, the book reviews are enough to establish notability under WP:NBOOKor under WP:NAUTHOR (specifically criteria 3, which says that an individual who created a significant and notable work can themselves be considered notable). With authors who have written a single notable book, it's obviously a common outcome to prefer having an article about the book rather than about the author, since having both is typically redundant. But the sources that establish WP:NBOOK notability here also establish WP:NAUTHOR notability, and as the nominator here said themselves, there is value to retaining the article history. So I don't see any reason why we shouldn't keep this article on the basis of WP:NAUTHOR, and a discussion can be had outside of AfD about whether or not to reframe it to be about the book. MCE89 (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
