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.
The page was created by the subject, in an extremely self-laudatory tone that has since partially been repaired.
The sources are also extremely poor. The subject's coverage in the sources is either A. Not significant (i.e. the National Post article that literally just has a single line about her, the Macleans article that has merely 3 sentences about her book, or the Edmonton Journal article that reviews many books and only mentions Murray's books for a few paragraphs) B. Not reliable (not editorially neutral as in the example of the U of T award announcements) C. Not secondary (i.e. the multiple databases linked) D. Not independent of the subject (three of the sources are authored by the subject, including her personal website).
The only sources that remain are a couple of decades-old newspaper clippings that support only a few sentences of the article.
It is clear that there aren't sufficient sources to write a fleshed-out article about her, and the only reason the article exists at all is because it was created by the subject herself with virtually no sources. It is obvious that the article was written with first-hand knowledge, only for the sources to try and retroactively justify what was written, when in fact very little of what is written in the article is contained in the sources.
Keep. Unless anyone can prove the content of the article is completely fabricated, she's obviously going to pass our notability guidelines: she's in the Royal Society of Canada, she has the Order of Ontario, and she's written a pile of books. I can go digging for sources later, but this one is really, really clear on its face. -- asilvering (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is true that this was a COI creation (autobiography) which is strongly frowned upon but not forbidden, however the subject is indeed notable, and the article should be retained because it has encyclopedic and historical value. I helped to clean up some of the more obvious indications of COI/AUTOBIO like puffery, and also some copyvios, close paraphrasing, and original research, however it was quite clear to me during clean up and in a BEFORE search that Murray is notable per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC, and based on the awards and honors she has received, also meets WP:ANYBIO. The sourcing can be improved but that is not a reason to delete. Netherzone (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established with significant sources. Prod removal claimed "artworks are usually accepted with one good source" – besides this being completely false, the single citation has only a single sentence on it and is not a good source toward GNG at all. The only sources I can find are routine data generic to any painting and no substantive coverage about the piece. Reywas92Talk13:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Portraits of the presidents: the National Portrait Gallery pp. 14-15 (p. 34): "The Missouri-born artist George Caleb Bingham painted the original version of this portrait in the spring of 1844 in his temporary hut-like studio situated at the bottom of Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Bingham would later gain much acclaim for his depictions of life on the transMississippi frontier. At the moment, however, he was an unproven quantity, and Adams’s willingness to sit for him stemmed largely from the fact that Bingham was sharing his studio with painter John Cranch, who was an Adams kinsman."
Portraits of John Quincy Adams and his wife (pp. 231-235): "The third example catalogued by Bloch (Fig. 100) is considerably different from the other two but undoubtedly derived from one of them. Adams is shown, turned slightly to his right and looking to the viewer's left." (And so on)
A Pioneer Preacher.St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 1910-12-11: "Of these the one of John Quincy Adams, president of the United States, is probably the most famous. It was painted on a slab of walnut wood."
the article should be expanded (I'm not an expert on painting but I may make a go at extending it sometime... looks like it's been expanded with different sources than I found). Skynxnex (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources used in the article come from multiple books and two different news organiations. In conjunction with others mentioned by Skynxnex, this article has enough coverage to meet notability. Demt1298 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at first glance she appears notable, but I will look deeper into the sources, as well as potential sources in a BEFORE search within the next few days before iVoting. It appears there are several SPA's who have worked on the article, however, that may or may not mean it's an autobio, which while strongly frowned upon, is not forbidden - if the person is notable. It may have influenced the neutrality of the article, so if it turns out that they meet notability criteria and the article is kept, it may need to be cleaned up. Netherzone (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this was my "last article before bed" AfD so I don't want to go down the complete rabbit hole it would take to make a definitive statement, but just from being adjacent to the poetry and translation world for a few years, the Pushcart prize is a big deal. It's not at the MacArthur/Oscar/Pulitzer level of presumed notability/speedy keep, but it's not a run-of-a-mill everyone pretty good has one at all. There are parts of the bio that probably don't help notability (the musical compositions have no publishers that would contribute to GNG or a music note), but the poetry looks more like it does -- Best American Poetry and the Pushcart anthology are quite heavy hitters. (If for some reason I don't get time to return to this, my gut is Keep). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)09:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the webcomics that are part of the alliance are notable, the alliance itself doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources; I was only able to find mentions. The article was previously kept at an AfD (well, VfD), but that was back in 2004 when standards were very different. toweli (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Besides a listing in the colofon of Webcomics (2005), I got nothing. The sources in the article aren't particularly reliable either, so there's nothing for us to say on Dumbrella I'm afraid. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit13:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics
The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Related Projects
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts
Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker, not properly referencing any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers. The attempted notability claim here is that his work exists, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- we would need to see some evidence of distinction, such as notable awards and/or WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about him and his work in media and/or books. But this is referenced entirely to primary sources self-published by people or organizations directly affiliated with the statements they're referencing, which is not support for notability, and the article claims absolutely nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable without better sourcing for it than this. Further, there are no inbound links here from any other page in Wikipedia but the disambiguation page at Bob Connolly, and this appears to be a conflict of interest as the creator (who created it in 2013 and has occasionally returned to edit the article as recently as August 2024) appears to have self-identified as Bob Connolly in past posts to Talk:Lee Aaron, but even people who do properly pass our notability and sourcing standards still aren't entitled to write or curate their own articles themselves. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page was created by the subject, in an extremely self-laudatory tone that has since partially been repaired.
The sources are also extremely poor. The subject's coverage in the sources is either A. Not significant (i.e. the National Post article that literally just has a single line about her, the Macleans article that has merely 3 sentences about her book, or the Edmonton Journal article that reviews many books and only mentions Murray's books for a few paragraphs) B. Not reliable (not editorially neutral as in the example of the U of T award announcements) C. Not secondary (i.e. the multiple databases linked) D. Not independent of the subject (three of the sources are authored by the subject, including her personal website).
The only sources that remain are a couple of decades-old newspaper clippings that support only a few sentences of the article.
It is clear that there aren't sufficient sources to write a fleshed-out article about her, and the only reason the article exists at all is because it was created by the subject herself with virtually no sources. It is obvious that the article was written with first-hand knowledge, only for the sources to try and retroactively justify what was written, when in fact very little of what is written in the article is contained in the sources.
Keep. Unless anyone can prove the content of the article is completely fabricated, she's obviously going to pass our notability guidelines: she's in the Royal Society of Canada, she has the Order of Ontario, and she's written a pile of books. I can go digging for sources later, but this one is really, really clear on its face. -- asilvering (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is true that this was a COI creation (autobiography) which is strongly frowned upon but not forbidden, however the subject is indeed notable, and the article should be retained because it has encyclopedic and historical value. I helped to clean up some of the more obvious indications of COI/AUTOBIO like puffery, and also some copyvios, close paraphrasing, and original research, however it was quite clear to me during clean up and in a BEFORE search that Murray is notable per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC, and based on the awards and honors she has received, also meets WP:ANYBIO. The sourcing can be improved but that is not a reason to delete. Netherzone (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tesleemah At the moment, there are no reliable sources on Google News that covers him significantly, and independently. You are welcome to update the page and make it qualify as per WP:HEYMAN. But, please avoid using interviews or self-quotations. Charlie (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: At the time of nomination, the article was partially hijacked to be about someone from Nigeria rather than the actual Indian subject. I get the impression that the nominator is challenging the notability of the correct subject as well (even that has been tagged as promotional since 2022), but I wanted to note the even-more-promotional hijacking — which I have reverted — that might have prompted the AfD. (I have no opinion or further comment.) WCQuidditch☎✎07:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep book length biographies of the subject (eg M. S. Gore "Vitthal Ramji Shinde, an Assessment of His Contributions" Tata Institute of Social Sciences, 1990). AGF regarding the nomination; "hijacking" explanation seems plausible. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any trace of meeting WP:GNG. The lyrical competition of the Olympics is probably not the venue that would make a writer notable. It can be confirmed that Antoine Schaller wrote lyrics based on Hippolyte Ackermans [fr], being one of 30 names - with surnames starting with S, that is - mentioned in a large list. I can find nothing but WP:PASSING mentions elsewhere; both Google and Google Books throw around a lot of namesakes from our time. Geschichte (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no more indication of notability this time than there was last time, as far as I can tell. The SCMP article doesn't even seem to mention the article subject. I can't see any indication of how it might meet BASIC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I draftified this PROMO BLP because I don’t think it meets the NAUTHOR or even GNG. However, the creator of this BLP, who’s also a newbie and might have a COI, reverted my changes. So, I feel like my only option now is to nominate this BLP for deletion which relies on unreliable sources. Previously, it was created by our v. prolific sock master Nauman335 and deleted via AFD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article has been reviewed, then why AFD. Previously, it was deleted due to promotional tone and lack of references. But now this is a well referenced article. If an article was made earlier by sock, it does not mean that the person is not a notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titipupo (talk • contribs) 12:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Titipupo: This article has been reviewed But I don’t see any evidence that the review was approved or even reviewed, as you mentioned. Previously, it was deleted due to promotional tone and lack of references. What led you to this conclusion? Did you write the version that was deleted? now this is a well referenced article. No, the BLP still lacks proper references and depends on unreliable sources. If an article was made earlier by sock, it does not mean that the person is not a notable OK I've to agree but you've to help establish WP:N. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything except clones of this article on other websites. I have no idea how this has lasted so long without going to AFD before. The article says "was", but it would appear it should say "is", which means it falls under WP:BLP, and for that, clearly fails for inclusion under the stricter rules for biographies of living persons. Dennis Brown - 2¢07:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Shit, it’s a completely unsourced and blatant promotional article. Thanks for finding and nominating it. It was created back in 2012, and still, no one has been able to find or report it, lol. The article completely fails WP:GNG, WP:BLP, and WP:AUTHOR, with no sources found after searching. I think a speedy deletion under WP:G11 can be attempted before nominating it here. GrabUp - Talk13:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some person uploads a biography, looks like it was taken straight from a word processor and pasted here verbatim... I don't find any sourcing about a writer, there's a recent golfer with a similar name. doesn't appear to be this person. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete / Restore original: The original article was created by me for an author from early 1900s who had notable presence or influence in the Hindi literature (from my perspective). In recent edits, that article was overwritten for some new Akshay Chandra Sharma who I have no clue who is or why is notable. I suggest restoring to the original version. Vivek Rai (talk)
Who created it doesn't really matter here, of course, though it doesn't help. I'm a very, very weak keep on this one and hope that editors will find the sources to improve it--I looked but it's thin. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are quite a few sources for this person but from my quick overview it's not really helping their case for notability. I'll try to dig a little deeper and see if I can find something. They did publish a book which got me excited but it was self-published and the first review I found was from a newswire. Dr vulpes(Talk)04:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Her sole claim to notability so far is her film Supercilious, which was nominated for a notable award. The only coverage I can find of her in reliable sources is passing mentions of her name in connection with that film's nomination, and tame interviews (like the Sheen Magazine source cited), neither of which really pull her over the line for WP:NCREATIVE. My cleanup of the unsourced puffery was a bit of a battle with the paid creator, and though I did manage to find her inclusion in a list in Success magazine, as that WP article notes, it's not the magazine it was since its change of ownership in 2007. If other editors can find some decent coverage of her, I'll change to a "keep". Wikishovel (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the reviewing admin: User:Hamley24/sandbox is a mirror of the article before it was scrutinized for notability. It's full of puffery and doesn't qualify for CSD as far as I know, but should be deleted along with this article. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject biography has no source to proof the statement are true. The reference from 2 to 5 are all dead links. Subject fails WP:GNG except the ref one source is to be considered which is the only source that still doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Gabriel(……?)00:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first two sources are Wordpress blogs, the other three are dead links. A search online found no significant coverage, just some passing mentions. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside being a commissioner 95% of the biography statement can’t be verified. Wikipedia is not a platform for original research. You can check on WP:NOR. You are free to clear all statements with no source and we see what is left. Gabriel(……?)11:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay cool. Would have love to withdraw the nomination but I’m afraid an admin might revert the edit due to the above reason for the delete vote. I have seen where that happened before so what do you think? Gabriel(……?)16:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:NAUTHOR notability looks possible. I found two reviews [21][22] of the same work. There are Kirkus reviews, but they are in the pay-to-play "Kirkus Indie" program, and do not contribute towards notability. If NAUTHOR notability were found, then the article would need to be reworked to focus more on that. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I declare to be one of the persons knowing this person (Swamini) for whom this article is about. I can vouch for the fact that she is very well known in vedanta circles, has accomplished a lot in her field. This article was written with complete consent from one of his disciples (who's also declared his COI with the article).
Weve maintained and are restating this that the idea here is not to violate any wikipedia policies and completely feel that this tag for deletion needs to be taken off. Need specifics from your side (in terms of lines etc that are not neutral or communicate an attempt of promotion) and are willing to amend the article or take certain sections off. Looking forward to an open and positive response. 2001:8F8:1D2C:2A26:0:0:1910:7401 (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully oppose the deletion of this page for the following reasons:
Notability: Swamini Brahmaprajnananda Saraswati holds a significant position in the spiritual community and has made contributions that are noteworthy within her field. She is a respected figure in the Parampara, and her work, including published writings and teachings, is relevant to a wide audience. Her influence goes beyond individual students and impacts the larger community of spiritual seekers in India and internationally.
Presence of Reliable Sources: While the page may need further citations, there are multiple reliable sources that can validate her notability. These sources include books, publications, and notable mentions in relevant forums. Her contributions to spiritual teachings and involvement in community services have been acknowledged in respected publications. We will continue improving the citations to comply with Wikipedia's verifiability and notability guidelines.
As an example, her work can be seen in comparison with other Swamis and Swaminis in the Parampara who have established Wikipedia pages (e.g., Swamini Atmaprajnananda Saraswati).
Additionally, published materials such as her books and teachings, and references to her in newspapers and online platforms, validate her presence and importance in the field of spiritual education.
Ongoing Efforts to Improve the Page: The page has already been edited to align with Wikipedia's guidelines, including improvements made to ensure neutrality and adherence to notability criteria. We are open to further editing to meet any specific concerns raised by editors. This includes adding more reliable secondary sources and ensuring that the content follows a neutral point of view.
Does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. Reasons given for notability are co-authoring books with husband. I understand it is difficult to know who is responsible for the written work in these circumstances, but I think co-authoring books that do not have their own article is a difficult justification for an article- I would suggest a merge with her Husband's article maybe (her husband is clearly notable as president of a learned body). I feel very bad about doing this, however, as obviously I do not want to underplay women's accomplishments in scientific fields. Spiralwidget (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She's mentioned quite a bit in Gscholar [23] for example, but I suspect it was due to the era in which she lived and gender bias that "minimized" her contributions for lack of a better term. The 50s and 60s was still early for female scientists to be taken as equals to males. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I sympathise with the proposer's dilemma. Although in Wikipedia terms "president of a learned body" gives us an easy basis for declaring someone notable, the lasting impact of this couple, and the real reason they're notable, is the anthropology they did, and their written output, not the husband's post. We cannot tease apart who contributed how much. Given that we don't know their relative contributions, deciding to put her contribution in an article with his name just feels too old-fashioned and patriarchal, as well as very arbitrary. Also, from a practical perspective, if we were to merge, her life prior to her marriage wouldn't fit well in her husband's article, giving too much weight to things that aren't directly about him; we'd have to consider moving the new merged article to "Felix Maxwell Keeling and Marie Margaret Keeling" or something like that, but then we'd need redirects anyway, so what's the point? "Keep" has the benefit of being a simple outcome to an inseparable duo. Elemimele (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the co-author of Elite Communication in Samoa and Taming Philippine Headhunters, both of which seem to be significant books (I'm seeing lots of published scholarly reviews online, despite the fact they were published a long time pre-internet), she surely meets WP:AUTHOR. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You should have followed your initial hunch: "I feel very bad about doing this". Back then, it was absolutely normal that a woman would publish together with her husband. Even if she was the major contributor, it would go out with the appearance that it was mainly the man's work. We should not be perpetuating this custom and either way, it's clear that they were both notable for their work in anthropology, even if it appears that he is the major author. Schwede6618:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Schwede66 and Josh Milburn and other arguments. Additionally the Pan-Pacific Women's Association was a redlink in the article due to a typo but is a significant organization. Major evidence comes from the article Oaktree found, "Applied Anthropology and Interwar Internationalism: Felix and Marie Keesing and the (White) Future of the ʻNativeʼ Pan-Pacific" -- when researchers are being the subject of others' academic articles, it's a very strong sign of WP:PROF passing. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)09:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge: weak delete because I agree with the points made above about women in science being overshadowed by men. However, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, as much as I would like to. I think the alternative of an article merge would be good, but would require a rewrite of both articles to create a "joint" article for the couple. David Palmer//cloventt(talk)21:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP of a political scientist of doubtful notability. The only source that might get it over the line is the biographical dictionary of Georgia, but that looks more like an online Who’s Who rather than a DNB. Mccapra (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author of the article, so my voice doesn't count here, but since I was mentioned in the comments, I would like to share my thoughts. Firstly, Antsiferov is mentioned in several articles (for example, in relation to the State Duma elections and the case involving the Kremlin's attempt to sue him), both of which are quite high-profile and have been covered by many reputable media outlets. Secondly, he is the author of well-known textbooks in Russia, which are used by students at elite Russian universities (MGIMO, MSU). Madrugador88 (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In order for the textbooks to help towards Wikipedia:AUTHOR, they would need to be the subject of multiple independently published book reviews. For them to lead us to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), we'd need to see that they are being used by a large number of colleges and universities, with evidence for that (for example, if the publisher has put up a list of textbook adoptions). Qflib (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at first glance she appears notable, but I will look deeper into the sources, as well as potential sources in a BEFORE search within the next few days before iVoting. It appears there are several SPA's who have worked on the article, however, that may or may not mean it's an autobio, which while strongly frowned upon, is not forbidden - if the person is notable. It may have influenced the neutrality of the article, so if it turns out that they meet notability criteria and the article is kept, it may need to be cleaned up. Netherzone (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this was my "last article before bed" AfD so I don't want to go down the complete rabbit hole it would take to make a definitive statement, but just from being adjacent to the poetry and translation world for a few years, the Pushcart prize is a big deal. It's not at the MacArthur/Oscar/Pulitzer level of presumed notability/speedy keep, but it's not a run-of-a-mill everyone pretty good has one at all. There are parts of the bio that probably don't help notability (the musical compositions have no publishers that would contribute to GNG or a music note), but the poetry looks more like it does -- Best American Poetry and the Pushcart anthology are quite heavy hitters. (If for some reason I don't get time to return to this, my gut is Keep). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)09:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the sources are neither reliable nor independent. They are full of primary sources written by the subject or from unreliable blogs. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough here to show GNG. She's written a book that Martin van Beynen has called "bestselling". It created a lot of publicity, for example, John Campbell interviewed her for 10 min on Radio New Zealand. She gets keynote speaking slots and, whilst that's nothing unusual, it is unusual when Stuff reports on that. She's been invited to give a talk at TEDxChristchurch and it takes quite something to get invited to TEDx. The pieces by Kurt Bayer (NZHerald; based in Christchurch), Eleanor Black (Stuff), and Now to Love (which belongs to Are Media) go into plenty enough depth to fulfil the criteria of three independent reliable sources. And all those sources are in the article already. All up, that's an easy keep. Schwede6604:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Waikato Times piece is a promotional piece for the business awards. The Now to Love piece is just her interview with Women's Daily. The other Stuff piece is also a promotional piece.
There is a lot of media coverage but it is promotional/non-independent.
Refs 1-4 are Tarawa herself, they shouldn't be used in the article except in limited aboutself uses, let alone go to notability.
Ref 5, supplied piece from the festival she appeared at.
Ref 6, women's day interview
Ref 7 is about Cooper's conviction and just drops a promotion for her book in it... which is odd. Bit of coverage here but not much and it is still in relation to Gloriavale.
Ref 8 same coverage but more blatantly promotional this time
Refs 9 and 10 have the exact same wording as refs 7 and 8 which makes me believe this is some promotional thing sent out to papers, that or they just simply copied the Herald, either way the refs adds nothing to notability.
Ref 11 is a promotional piece.
Ref 12 is a promotional interview
Ref 13 is an interview
Ref 14 is another interview that involves promoting the book
Refs 15-16 are reprints of Herald refs mentioned earlier
Ref 17 uses same wording as the other promotional pieces
Ref 18 is a promotional interview
Ref 19 is a promotional interview from women's day and the same ref as 6.
Ref 20 isn't promotional or an interview but very brief coverage (3 lines) as part of her grandfather's death
Ref 21 is an interview
Ref 22 is from Tarawa herself
Ref 23 is a promotional piece for the Matamata business awards
Ref 24 is a broken url but it is a very brief interview
Refs 25-27 are interviews
Ref 28 is promotional
Ref 29 opinion piece and it provides little coverage anyhow
Ref 30 is brief coverage of the book
Ref 31 is dead but appears to be a blog from an unreliable source
Ref 32 is about someone else's death
Ref 33 is the exact same as ref 32.
Ref 34 is the same as 9, 9 is presumably a reprint of it. Contains the exact same sentences used in the other promotional pieces
Ref 35 is about Gloriavale but suddenly just drops in the same promotional content about Tarawa's book seen before.
Ref 36 is a radio interview, not even an RS.
Ref 37 is a podcast interview.
Ref 38 is a promotional piece for some event she was invited to
Ref 39 is another piece on Gloriavale that just suddenly includes the same promotional content as else where, it is really odd and I cannot see a reason for it other than being sponsored/paid for it
So yes, there is a lot of media coverage, but little of it is independent, most of it is from the same source, and plenty of it is promotional. The fact that two identical articles are used as a reference right after each other just looks like COI/Paid editing with refbombing so it looks notable. The user who wrote most of this article is now blocked for copyvios but from looking at his contributions I think he may have been a paid editor. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE with only minor roles in various TV and music. I can't find any sources getting close to discussing him. This is just the latest iteration in attempts to promote him as a speaker going back to 2014 (I've already removed that). SmartSE (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Redirect or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit08:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a lot of IP nonsense in the history of this article, so while I agree with the IP's PROD, I think this merits an AFD. Farmer has been cited, but since OA isn't sufficient I don't see WP:BIO level coverage StarMississippi21:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have semi'ed the article due to the blanking, but not this discussion. If someone feels I should not have done so as nom, feel free to amend. StarMississippi00:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is Brad Farmer AM. I do not understand why or by who the wiki page relating to me is suggested to be deleted. How can I fix this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.145.11.26 (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google searches easily turn up hundreds of high-profile mentions. There are articles from Amnesty International, the UN, and various governments, and dozens of major newspapers that all mention him. Easily meets WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV criteria. For sects with that many media mentions, their founders and leaders would usually also be notable enough. There is also plenty of information about Hashem that would fit well into a standalone article. DjembeDrums (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. It was moved from draft space to article space before it was reviewed and made live by the creator of the page
2. It was moved to draft space by other editors due to promotional tone, it seemed as it was written by someone closely connected to the subject
3. It was proposed for deletion and the final decision was to keep. However, the keep voters: 1 was a new account created just for this debate only (seems like it and it was an open IP, one was an editor banned for sock-puppetry)
4. There is someone constantly removing a section that is a bit negative about the subject
All this makes me believe that this page is being managed by someone closely connected to the subject. Additionally, i don't believe the subject is notable and most of the references are PRs and he is constantly self-promoting on the internet.
WikiProCreate (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a celebrity plastic surgeon [29], [30], [31]. I'm not sure any of these show notability. Discussion in AfD last time was also questioning the Academic notability, noting that 1000 citations was rather low for his field. I don't see that much has changed since the last AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He's been investigated by a few regulatory bodies [32], which doesn't affect notability. This information has been added/removed, suggesting this page is being actively curated by editors, likely for promo purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit14:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a cookbook author and filmmaker, not reliably sourced as having a strong claim to passing notability criteria for either occupation. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in media independent of themselves -- but the only notability claim on offer here is that her work exists, and the article is referenced to one (deadlinked but recoverable) short blurb that isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's all she's got for GNG-worthy coverage, and one primary source that isn't support for notability at all. The article, further, has been tagged for needing more sources since 2011 without ever having better sources added, and a WP:BEFORE search came up dry as all I found in ProQuest was the blurb and a small handful of glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of events. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, reviews exist for Lickin' the Beaters 2 from Library Journal[33] and Vegetarian Journal[34], and there are two shorter reviews for the two Lickin' the Beaters cookbooks from Broken Pencil magazine [35][36]. Broken Pencil also has a good number of reviews on her zines, e.g., one for The Day I Stopped Being Punk[37]. There's also an interview with her in Joe Biel's Beyond the Music: How Punks are Saving the World with DIY Ethics, Skills, & Values (Microcosm Publishing) on pages 150–152. With more research, I think we could probably find more reviews of her works that would warrant inclusion of this article (per WP:NAUTHOR). Best, Bridget(talk)15:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a lot of reviews/mentions are before the internet existed as we know it. Broken Pencil reviewed all the zines, even some not listed on the wiki page. I've just found a Fascinating Folks from Broken Pencil (hopefully I'm doing this correctly, first time in one of these discussions... Maulydaft (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I "vote" Not to Delete. To the article I added an example of the HeartaCk column (magazine defunct), an inclusion of Fascinating Folks in Broken Pencil, an interview with Boardwalk Chocolates with T.O.F.U Magazine. Bitch Magazine also highlighted Fascinating Folks in an article but Bitch is also defunct. Maulydaft (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Found and added another radio interview on CFBU, Animal Voices, and website; Bitch Magazine article; others have found numerous other reviews of writings that weren't even on the list previously. Maulydaft (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Several zines have been reviewed, though many are reviewed in Broken Pencil, with which Moffat seems to have been involved. Many of the reviews are quite short, as well. However, I believe we have enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
