Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Crystal personal.svg WikiProject Biography
General information (edit · changes)
Announcements
Departments
Work groups and subprojects
Things you can do (edit)


Biography article statistics
Arts and Entertainment Work Group

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.


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... Specific discipline portals are listed in that section.

Navigation
Articles
Announcements/To Do (edit)

Add this to-do list to your User page! {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Arts and entertainment/Announcements}}

Directions for expanding any division below[edit]

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!

Tagging articles[edit]

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.

Members[edit]

  1. come help with the Bronwen Mantel article Smith Jones 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Lovelaughterlife (talk · contribs) Worked extensively on some biographies; reverted vandalism some others
  3. Francoisalex2 (talk · contribs)
  4. Dovebyrd (talk · contribs)
  5. Artventure22 (talk · contribs)
  6. Truth in Comedy (talk · contribs)
  7. Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs)
  8. DENAMAX (talk · contribs) Maxim Stoyalov
  9. Ozgod (talk · contribs)
  10. Eremeyv (talk · contribs)
  11. Susanlesch (talk · contribs), mostly inactive
  12. EraserGirl (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. Shruti14 (talk · contribs) will help when I can
  14. 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.
  15. Jarhed (talk · contribs) 21:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  16. Mvzix (talk · contribs)
  17. Cassianto (talk · contribs)
  18. Iamthecheese44 (talk · contribs)
  19. Georgiasouthernlynn (talk · contribs)
  20. Fitindia (talk · contribs)
  21. BabbaQ (talk · contribs)
  22. Woodstop45 (talk · contribs)
  23. Willthacheerleader18 (talk · contribs)

General[edit]

Infoboxes[edit]

Requested articles[edit]

Actors[edit]

Architects[edit]

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Sanwal sharma

Illustrators[edit]

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Painters[edit]

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Photographers[edit]

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Sculptors[edit]

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Comics artists[edit]

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Visual arts deletions[edit]

Visual arts deletion sorting discussions

Visual arts[edit]

Stev´nn Hall[edit]

Stev´nn Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Stev´nn Hall" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

There are certainly sources but I do not believe that they are of sufficient quality to establish notability for a visual artist. There is nothing in the article that suggests that he passes WP:Artist either. Nor does a search throw up anything, other than evidence t TheLongTone (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 18:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete The only source that is of any use for notability is the Globe and Mail review, and that's just a short review amongst several others. Perhaps the creators.vice.com link is useful, but I can't personally verify that. The Thomas Waugh essay (google books link here) only mentions him in a screen grab and caption. The article's claim that his "satyrical short film 'Bondage Television' deserved broad commentary by the film writer Thomas Waugh in the context of masculine sexual orientation" is not backed up by the cited text itself (nor does it make much sense as a sentence -- Hall's short film deserved more "broad commentary" by "the film writer Thomas Waugh"? Or is Waugh claiming it deserves more broad commentary in general?) Either way, it doesn't seem to appear in the cited text and cannot be verified. If the original author of this Wikipedia article is making some sort of claim about what Waugh has or has not done as a scholar on behalf of Hall, that would be original research and a POV issue. Further searching turns up very little, a few mentions that only confirm Hall as an artist, but nothing that supports WP:GNG (or WP:ARTIST for that matter). freshacconci (✉) 18:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Globe article is good, but it's not enough. Lacks RS to establish GNG.96.127.242.226 (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is far too dependent on blogs and primary sources, and not nearly enough on reliable sources, to deem him notable — but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per above - Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 20:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Note to closing administrator On (3:00 AM/July 19, 2018) I edited the article adding hopefully more comprehensive references and making a few text changes in an attempt to address some of the above comments. Thanks to all intervening participants for their contribution.

De Sarthe Gallery[edit]

De Sarthe Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "De Sarthe Gallery" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This business apparently does not satisfy our new and improved notability requirements for companies, and probably didn't meet the old ones either. It carries on the routine business of art dealing, showing works of art in the hope of selling some of them. Some of these works are by notable artists, and so may receive some press coverage, in which there may be some passing mention of the gallery. But a business does not become notable because it works on notable jobs or because it sells notable products – a car dealer does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car, a butcher's shop does not become notable because it sells a famous kind of meat, a second-hand charity shop does not become notable because it sells clothes made by famous companies, a plumber does not become notable because he works on a famous building. I tried to rewrite this article, but couldn't find enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to say anything much about it. Even the South China Morning Post article, which is specifically about the gallery, has very little solid information. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I looked at the article as it now stands and came to the opposite conclusion: the sources you found have given enough verifiable detail from reliable sources about this art gallery, over a sufficiently long period of time (2014 - 2018!) to push it over the threshold of notability. Weak keep. Deryck C. 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers—stop burdening us with the same nonsense that you are posting at so many of these discussions: "a business does not become notable because it works on notable jobs or because it sells notable products – a car dealer does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car, a butcher's shop does not become notable because it sells a famous kind of meat, a second-hand charity shop does not become notable because it sells clothes made by famous companies, a plumber does not become notable because he works on a famous building." That tedious nonsense is largely irrelevant yet you've posted it or a variation of it not only at this article but here, here, and here. Bus stop (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and all of those articles were deleted, because what Justlettersandnumbers said was accurate. Please do not badger this AfD as you have done at other AfDs. If you keep up the WP:IDONTLIKEIT and walls of text, I would say you are headed for a topic ban. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Let's look at the available online sources
    [1] Mostly quotes from Pascal de Sarthe, referring to opening of Hong Kong location.
    [2] cites the place of publication of an exhibition catalogue of Marie Raymond to show that the Gallery had a location in San Francisco.
    [3] does verify that de Sarthe participated in Art Silicon Valley San Francisco (not a notable art fair), with the artists mentioned, some who are indeed very notable but not typically represented by de Sarthe, like Robert Indiana (Paul Kasmin Gallery), Yayoi Kusama (Gagosian Gallery) and Bernar Venet (Paul Kasmin).
    [4] Is used to show that the gallery participated in the Art Basel Hong Kong art fair quotes Pascal de Sarthe as saying "We did very well last year, and it was repeated this year", "We have seen a lot of money coming to the art market" and "Chinese investors and collectors understand that art is a tangible asset." (Note that ABHK had 231 exhibitors in 2105, 239 in 2016, 241 in 2017 and 248 in 2018. Calling that "hundreds" to trivialize inclusion in the selection is not NPOV). But the information provided her is useless, and we already have a list of participants. I'm not convinced that participating in ABHK is even of sufficient encyclopedic interest to merit mention in the article.
    [5] I don't have a subscription to Barron's. The title indicates that the article is not primarily about de Sarthe.
    [6] This article discusses and contextualizes the selection of de Sarthe and is a good example of independent reporting and analysis. This isn't just the gallery talking about itself. Interestingly, it shows that de Sarthe particpated in the 2014 edition of ABHK, the so the statement that it supports is incorrect.
    [7] Not independent, just the gallery talking about itself.
    In summary, I see one source that I think is any good, but it fails to provide enough information to create a comprehensive article. I'm not exactly overwhelmed by an abundance of great coverage, and even less impressed by the disgraceful involvement of paid editors. It's pathetic for a supposedly serious gallery to lower itself to hiring a paid hack to get an entry in an encyclopedia. Until we get better sources: delete, without prejudice to recreation by an unconnected editor once those sources emerge. Vexations (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete inadequate reliable sources to establish notability, per Vexation's excellent analysis.96.127.242.226 (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous discussions have been tainted by personal attacks. If you want to topic ban somebody, go to WP:ANI and make your case. Otherwise, just focus on the merits of the article and its sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Vexations—you are evaluating an article that has already been gutted by Justlettersandnumbers. They started dismantling the article on June 10 and nominated it for deletion on July 2. Also, you write that "I'm not exactly overwhelmed by an abundance of great coverage, and even less impressed by the disgraceful involvement of paid editors. It's pathetic for a supposedly serious gallery to lower itself to hiring a paid hack to get an entry in an encyclopedia." While I agree with the sentiment that "It's pathetic for a supposedly serious gallery to lower itself to hiring a paid hack to get an entry in an encyclopedia", I wish to point out that that alone is not a reason for deletion. Bus stop (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It's true that we ought to consider the entire history of the article in a deletion discussion. I don't think we need to discuss https://www.desarthe.com/about.html, that should be obvious. I suppose could review https://www.artsy.net/show/de-sarthe-gallery-de-sarthe-gallery-at-art-basel-in-hong-kong-2017, a source that Justlettersandnumbers removed, but I think it's unnecessary. Artsy is there to "Promote your works and artists to the largest online art audience" per https://www.artsy.net/gallery-partnerships. As for Ocula, https://ocula.com/art-galleries/de-sarthe-gallery, same thing: For a monthly fee of only US$125 Ocula offers members a fully managed and comprehensive profile with features designed to raise international visibility, increase visitor engagement and deliver qualified sales leads on artworks. Did I miss anything else? Vexations (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Untitled (Rosati)[edit]

Untitled (Rosati) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Untitled (Rosati)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability: no indepth independent coverage, only references are as part of a collection. GRuban (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:OTHERTHINGS not relevant.198.58.163.19 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Untitled (Patel)[edit]

Untitled (Patel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Untitled (Patel)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability, no indepth coverage in independent sources. GRuban (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Namio Harukawa[edit]

Namio Harukawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Namio Harukawa" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable artist. Shritwod (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep It's had 108k views in 3 years, which strongly suggests notability. Do we have a porn/erotica sorting list? This is where he fits. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete the sourcing does not show notability. We do not keep articles based on how often they are viewed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I would suggest merging somewhere, but I am not sure where. We don't seem to have a list.Seraphim System (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
He's on a couple of lists already - see Special:WhatLinksHere/Namio_Harukawa. Body worship seems to be the only article. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, merge (to where?) or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 10:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails ARTIST & GNG, Page views are irrelevant at AFD and there's nowhere appropriate to merge so our best option is delete. –Davey2010Talk 20:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Visual arts - Proposed deletions[edit]

Visual arts - Images for Deletion[edit]

Visual arts - Deletion Review[edit]

Performing arts[edit]

Comedians[edit]

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Dancers[edit]

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Directors[edit]

Musicians[edit]

Magicians[edit]

Writers and critics[edit]

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

FAs and GAs
Announcements/To do (edit)

Members[edit]

Categories[edit]

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Comics writers[edit]

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Romance authors[edit]

Lists[edit]

Poets[edit]

Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:
Poets

Stubs[edit]

Authors / Writers deletions[edit]

Authors / Writers deletion sorting discussions


Authors[edit]

Yakov Leib HaKohain[edit]

Yakov Leib HaKohain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Yakov Leib HaKohain" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Promotional religious tone, advocacy and appraisal: the entire page is a brochure from Donmeh West, HaKohain's now-defunct website. It totally lacks any sign of neutrality, verifiability, and is substantially a poor quality original research entirely based on his website, primarily containing contentious and unsourced material, before it was taken down. Both his biography and the Donmeh West's article were written by the same user. No evidence of notability, cited only to a poetry website and a press release.--GenoV84 (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons:
Donmeh West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--GenoV84 (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • GenoV84, I have fixed your nomination. Please replace the Why the page should be deleted text given above with your actual reason for nominating these two pages. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
  • Support the deletion of both pages. The Donmeh West is just a defunct website, since the "founder" of the sect passed away. But the article about the person is clearly self-promotion, since he was not a recognized rabbi by any institurtion, and did not have any recognized academic degrees. Having been interviewed once by an Israeli newspaper, where the intervies was published only in Hebrew is no claim to notability on Wikipedia. Besides being clear-self promotion, the two pages are also clear attempts at religious advocacy and recruitment. warshy (¥¥) 19:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Donmeh West; Neutral on Yakov Leib HaKohain The article about Donmeh West does not meet the notability standard, nor can anything else be found in a Google search. In terms of Yakov Leib HaKohain, the Maariv article is a substantial one in a reliable and verifiable source that supports a claim of notability for his syncretic beliefs. There might be other sources, but the various spellings and the likelihood that they may not be in English raises some justifiable reasons to consider not deleting the article. Issues with the content and tone of the article for Yakov Leib HaKohain should be addressed via editing and discussion. Alansohn (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Vijay Menon (author)[edit]

Vijay Menon (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Vijay Menon (author)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Vanity article (probably auto-biography) that doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:NBIO, or WP:GNG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Brown Man in Russia: Lessons Learned on the Trans-Siberian. ansh666 07:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ansh666 08:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete: Run of the mill author. Searches on News, Newspapers, Scholar, Highbeam and JSTOR turned up nothing and the current sources do not establish notability. The creator appears to have a conflict of interest. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Kim Stallwood[edit]

Kim Stallwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kim Stallwood" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No cited sources. No substantial coverage apparent in Google News Archive search. Not much engagement from other scholars on their books (eg.). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Daask (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete this reads like a resume, not an encyclopedia article. Especially the "he has over 40 years expeirence" that is the wording for a resume. The fact that the article lacks sources is another problem, but the format is just plain off.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per John - Clearly written by her or someone close to her, Anyway no evidence of notability. –Davey2010Talk 20:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete No references in a Bio qualifies for proposed deletion. There is no coverage either. AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, as WP:NOTRESUME, this is almost a word for word copy from his webpage here so WP:COPYVIO may also apply? his book Growl has not made much impact (in 25 libraries), although there are reviews out there ie. The Vegan - here, Journal for Critical Animal Studies - here, so the book might just squeak over WP:NBOOK but that is all. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Criminal[edit]

Mr. Criminal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Mr. Criminal" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Puff piece : contains a spammy link and a bit of advertising for his clothes, sacrificed a lot, rise to prominence, his fame. This article also contains a bunch of unreliable sources. » Shadowowl | talk 20:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity article with peacock language and self promotion. References are self downloads. I'm not sure how this survived AfD 12 years ago other than our standards then rewarded showing up in google searches, rather than the more defined criteria that it takes to establish GNG and WP:MUSIC. In fact, upon second glance, I see one of the keep editor's comments at the time was "MySpace profiles are a good way to gauge the indie scene...", which right there says everything one needs to know about how WP:MUSIC criteria has evolved. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - notability aside, WP:TNT applies here. This reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article.Accesscrawl (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Dima Khatib[edit]

Dima Khatib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Dima Khatib" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Puff piece : award-winning (without telling which awards she won), speaks 8 languages (without sources) , unprecedented insight. It also contains unreliable sources. » Shadowowl | talk 20:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this comment above that she is a non-notable journalist. She is a journalist that has not worked most of her career for English-speaking media, but has rather been reporting in Arabic and Spanish, which is why someone from who speaks those languages will be able to find sufficient evidence and sources. Bilal Randeree (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep AfD is not cleanup - though the article undeniably does need cleanup, Khatib is notable - checking quickly I see mentions of her in multiple full length books about journalism published by academic publishers OUP OUP SAGE Seraphim System (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I will be happy to help with cleanup. Learning a lot about editing at the Wikimania event today in Cape Town Bilal Randeree (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Oswald K. Azumah[edit]

Oswald K. Azumah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Oswald K. Azumah" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I am unable to find multiple reliable sources that discuss him significantly. Google search for "Oswald Azumah" or "Oswald K. Azumah" results in fewer than 100 listings, mainly of things he's written. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 17:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete I tagged as unclear notability because I was too busy to do a full search but couldn't see any reliable sources covering the subject. After doing a search in Google, I still can't see any reliable sources covering the subject. I agree with discospinster the topic does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails to meet notability requirements. As per nom. Greyjoy talk 05:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete The article meets credibility requirements. Ugfile.com and Myjoyonline.com aare credibles news portals and they are both cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaintOhrszy (talkcontribs) 14:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Phil Gowan[edit]

Phil Gowan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Phil Gowan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

non notable writer . No evidence of having actually published any books. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep. Non notable writer, but notable RMS Titanic historian. As the article and the sources says, one of the most important. This is enough to have a wikipedia article. Alsoriano97 (talk) 9:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: Alsoriano97 (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nautical-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Royson James[edit]

Royson James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Royson James" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. The editor whose username is Z0 17:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. As always, a journalist is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because his existence can technically be verified by a primary source directory of his own work on the website of his own employer — a journalist does not get over our notability standards by being the author of coverage of other things, but by being the subject of coverage written by other people. Bearcat (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

James P Honey[edit]

James P Honey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "James P Honey" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Vanity page created by subject of non notable music act - fails Music and GNG Rayman60 (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Kent Clizbe[edit]

Kent Clizbe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Kent Clizbe" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Typical of WP:BIO1E, the subject of this article became briefly (though far from widely) known, for ostensibly helping expose Fox News guest commentator and self-proclaimed "CIA operative," Wayne Simmons, as a fraud. No sources extending beyond this episode were found, if one discards blogs (e.g. this) and the Daily Mail (i.e. here). Reuters did not even mention Clizbe in its Simmons trial news report. The Gnome (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -The Gnome (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -The Gnome (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -The Gnome (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete for the record the low notability news commentator who is key to the odd way Clizbe is claimed to have a little notability is almost certainly not notable either, but Clizbe is clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Alexis Dent[edit]

Alexis Dent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Alexis Dent" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable author lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are examples of subjects work and some fail to mention article subject. Won a local award, but don't see that as enough to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete – At this time. I have to say Ms. Dent is a prolific writer with articles in the Huffington PostWashington Post and BET to name a few. However, cannot fine any 3 party – Independent – Reliable sources dealing with Ms. Dent specifically. I am sure, one day I will see an article here on Wikipedia with Ms. Dent as the subject. But sorry to say, she has not obtained the Notability yet to be included in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talkcontribs)
  • Delete – appears to clever bit of native advertising with corresponding lack of WP:COI if not WP:PAID disclosure by article creator. FlamesElite (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Contrary to what some believe, Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising. We really need to enforce this rule better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and possible COI/Paid issues as outlined above. Snowycats (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment ... and at long last we have a ... disclosure. Allow me to apologize for wasting everyone's time by contesting the speedy. I should have smelled this for what it was. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Lilyscholz has now disclosed the paid editing and apologized to me by email. I was the one who originally contested the WP:CSD#A7 tagging, and I was feeling a bit taken advantage of when I wrote that snarky comment. I'm still not a fan of paid editing, disclosed or not, but of course Lilyscholz is now taking steps in the right direction. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – The subject does meet WP:GNG criteria. She received significant coverage by reliable sources, independent of the subject in BRIDES magazine, WeddingBee, The Business Journals and WKBW-TV as well as in MTV.com, NY Daily News, Gawker and Hollywood Life for her blog Bieber Heiress. The article satisfies WP:NOTPROMOTION because it does not state any opinions and provides only sourced information; it does not self-promote because Dent did not write the article and it maintains a neutral point of view; and it does not advertise because mentions of companies are written objectively and sourced by reliable sources independent of the subject. I have now disclosed WP:PAID. This is my first paid contribution. I'm sorry for the omission; I did not understand the process for disclosure and have corrected my mistake. Though I have a WP:COI, I genuinely believe that Dent meets the notability requirements to warrant a Wikipedia page. The page has been edited and improved by other contributors since its nomination for deletion. If there are any concerns I have not addressed, please let me know how to improve the page. Lilyscholz (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Merete Lien[edit]

Merete Lien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Merete Lien" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This was kept at AfD in 2006, but I believe it does not pass our much-tighter modern notability criteria. I did a fairly thorough search involving a lot of Google translating, and I didn't find a single reliable source that profiled this author or even reviewed a single one of her books. Although she is apparently prolific, WP:NAUTHOR requires that being prolific is not enough for a notability claim; per point 3, a person must be the primary subject of a work discussing their body of work, or per point 4 it has to have attracted significant critical attention. I can find no evidence to confirm either.

None of the foreign-language Wikipedias have much more content, and none of them have any more reliable sources to use. ♠PMC(talk) 01:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Lien presents a very good analysis of the questions at hand. Being prolific does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Dan Lok[edit]

Dan Lok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Dan Lok" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Mostly promotional article lacking reliable sources. Key claims to fame are not independently verifiable and seem to revolve around claims made by the subject. Most sources are primary or closely related PR. While it may be true that he has been invited as speaker and appeared on TV, there's little reliable, independent coverage *about* the subject as opposed to what is *output* by the subject. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: no part of the article is promotional in nature. The article is a simple biography of a person who is notable on 3 counts: as a martial artist, as a business founder and as an author. The article in no way promotes or puts the person in good light and only describes his career and life history in a factual manner. We should not be using the deletion option to address any such issue but I do suggest that nominator point out what in the article is promotional to follow WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. The subject has written atleast 9 books which are in their selves good citations and make him notable. A google search shows that many reliable references are present (some of which are already in the article). --Rubyking27 (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)  Note: This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of user Danthemanlok who created an original version of this article. See below. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Clearly does not meet notability requirements as a martial artist WP:MANOTE. Don't think WP:NAUTHOR is met either.PRehse (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Danthemanlok pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep: Content and article meets WP:GNG criteria of wikipedia. The article is about a notable subject. 64.231.242.134 (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC) 64.231.242.134 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphim System (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, thank for your view. The claim that he appeared on those TV stations is based on a press-release by the subject so we cannot independently verify this. What is interesting though, the one show that was picked up by several networks, "America’s PremierExperts®" is an interview style. A look at their website tells us their mission is "To showcase Experts who are dedicated to spreading knowledge and awareness in their field while making significant contributions to their industry and the marketplace as a whole. In exchange for the knowledge these experts contribute, America’s PremierExperts® is dedicated to promoting them in their field of expertise, by offering business owners, entrepreneurs, professional speakers, teachers, lecturers, authors, professionals and corporate CEOs exclusive opportunities for further exposure and growth in the marketplace." Digging a tad deeper, it seems that "America's PremierExperts" is owned or managed by "CelebritySites" an Orlando based marketing firm and content provider. I think it's safe to assume that we are dealing with TV advertorial contents. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep for now: I see the weak aspects of the sourcing of the article and have read the above debate and Jake's explanation of sources. It is a good idea to keep the article for now and if more sources are not available in future, it can be renominated. However, I would like to see if the article can develop if given a chance as the bibliography section of the person rings some notability bells to me. Talking about TV coverage, TV coverage does not need verification by news sources, infact TV coverage is a secondary source in itself and therefore should be taken as WP:RS. It is an assumption that the coverage is advertorial which we should not take at face value and give the article six months (which is the normal time before an article should ideally be renominated) to see if it can be improved. 50.100.174.75 (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC) 50.100.174.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nadja Sayej[edit]

Nadja Sayej (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Nadja Sayej" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

WP:BLP, with some advertorial undertones, about a journalist and celebrity interviewer who is not properly sourced as passing our notability standards for journalists. Far too many of the references here are primary sources which do not support notability at all, such as pieces of her own writing about other things and YouTube video clips of her doing her job -- and the ones that are reliable sources aren't about her in the sense required to get her over WP:GNG, but (a) glancingly namecheck her existence in coverage of other things, (b) feature her talking about herself in Q&A format, or (c) tangentially verify a stray fact while failing to mention Nadja Sayej at all in conjunction with it. This is not how you source a journalist as notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nom. Theres not even one good solid RS to build an article on, only filler/support stuff. And so many many examples of the subjects own work being used to reference things it feels like refspam. Curdle (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Alex Epstein (screenwriter)[edit]

Alex Epstein (screenwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Alex Epstein (screenwriter)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

The sources do not prove notability as per WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. 1 is the subject's own website, 2 is IMDB and 3 is the subject's own blog. The only marginally useful source that I could find in a WP:BEFORE search was [9] but as this is an WP:INTERVIEW it is a primary source and not helpful to prove notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... as stated, Epstein is a recognized industry figure with a verifiable body work that has been recognized as notable and worthy of documenting by Wikipedia beforehand in other pages. In addition, other writer-teachers have been allowed articles here before, such Blake Snyder, Robert McKee and Syd Field, so I fail to see why this piece should be singled out for deletion. And no, the relevant cited guidelines do not disprove this.SavageEditor (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Each article is judged on the notability of its subject according to the sources produced and found. The sources do not show notability and this has nothing to do with the notability of any other article similar or not. That said if you feel the other articles do not show notability please feel free to nominate them. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
He didn't tell you anything about "feeling" like that. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's some "any significant biographical information in reliable secondary sources": [10] (for example). Here;s also some more recent bio info along with accomplishments: [11] --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's being referenced in industry literature (by which i mean the literature that isn't his own) and one of his books was enthusiastically endorsed by Ken Levine (screenwriter) as "everything you need plus talent". That's in addition to his own fiction-writing work. A frivolous nomination. To the nominator: try searching like that [12] (disregard the obvious other Alex Epsteins of course) next time. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice but still not convinced that he makes the grade as per WP:FILMMAKER or WP:NAUTHOR or GNG. The sources are not in-depth coverage as is required. The writer's guide was a self published book [13] so not what I would call a reliable secondary source. An endorsement of your book by someone famous is nice but a bit thin to show notability as an author I think. But if you have some in depth coverage that I was unable to find before my frivolous nomination I'll be happy to have a look. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Added the awards (nominations and wins) and also video game credits among other things. You're welcome. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The article is now 2x longer and also renamed (it was misnamed). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
It is longer (but I believe size doesn't matter thank heavens) but the sources are still too weak. The review of his book is not enough to show he passes WP:NAUTHOR and the WP:Interviews are primary sources so not useful to show notabilty and his own blogs and websites aren't either. I still think it's too weak.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Alex Epstein (screenwriter)[edit]

Alex Epstein (screenwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Alex Epstein (screenwriter)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

The sources do not prove notability as per WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. 1 is the subject's own website, 2 is IMDB and 3 is the subject's own blog. The only marginally useful source that I could find in a WP:BEFORE search was [14] but as this is an WP:INTERVIEW it is a primary source and not helpful to prove notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... as stated, Epstein is a recognized industry figure with a verifiable body work that has been recognized as notable and worthy of documenting by Wikipedia beforehand in other pages. In addition, other writer-teachers have been allowed articles here before, such Blake Snyder, Robert McKee and Syd Field, so I fail to see why this piece should be singled out for deletion. And no, the relevant cited guidelines do not disprove this.SavageEditor (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Each article is judged on the notability of its subject according to the sources produced and found. The sources do not show notability and this has nothing to do with the notability of any other article similar or not. That said if you feel the other articles do not show notability please feel free to nominate them. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
He didn't tell you anything about "feeling" like that. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's some "any significant biographical information in reliable secondary sources": [15] (for example). Here;s also some more recent bio info along with accomplishments: [16] --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's being referenced in industry literature (by which i mean the literature that isn't his own) and one of his books was enthusiastically endorsed by Ken Levine (screenwriter) as "everything you need plus talent". That's in addition to his own fiction-writing work. A frivolous nomination. To the nominator: try searching like that [17] (disregard the obvious other Alex Epsteins of course) next time. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice but still not convinced that he makes the grade as per WP:FILMMAKER or WP:NAUTHOR or GNG. The sources are not in-depth coverage as is required. The writer's guide was a self published book [18] so not what I would call a reliable secondary source. An endorsement of your book by someone famous is nice but a bit thin to show notability as an author I think. But if you have some in depth coverage that I was unable to find before my frivolous nomination I'll be happy to have a look. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Added the awards (nominations and wins) and also video game credits among other things. You're welcome. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The article is now 2x longer and also renamed (it was misnamed). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
It is longer (but I believe size doesn't matter thank heavens) but the sources are still too weak. The review of his book is not enough to show he passes WP:NAUTHOR and the WP:Interviews are primary sources so not useful to show notabilty and his own blogs and websites aren't either. I still think it's too weak.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Alan Sabrosky[edit]

Alan Sabrosky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Alan Sabrosky" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
(Find sources: "Alan Ned Sabrosky" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No evidence subject qualifies under NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Director of the Strategic Studies institute at the Army War College should be enough for WP:MILPERSON criteria 6 and 8 and at least one of his papers was reasonably influential. His predictions and opinions were routinely cited in the press in the 1980s and during the First Gulf War.
  • NOTE: This article was fully protected recently due to persistent disruptive editing. Seraphim System (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I am looking at the list of qualifications for MILPERSON and the closest qualification I see is #6 "Made a material contribution to military science that is indisputably attributed to them." The article does not currently establish this, so maybe it needs a few more references. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why being "Director of the Strategic Studies institute at the Army War College" makes him notable via #6 or #8. This academic rank seems no more intrinsically notable than being Dean of the Faculty at Harvey Mudd or Head of the English Department as ASU. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
It's really not comparable. I would say he passes NPROF as a director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university) - the Army War College is not a university, its a graduate level program only for military officers who have been selected.Seraphim System (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The operative word there is "independent", not "university." The SSI is not independent, it is a subordinate part of the Army War College. So that part of NPROF does not apply to this case. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Passing MILPERSON-6/8 or NPROF is borderline. I see (manual calculation) a h-index of around 10 and 1 major publication (Interstate alliances: Their reliability and the expansion of war - 166 citations, the rest have 32, 28, 26, 26, 5 less than 20, the rest less than 10). What is of concern here is WP:NFRINGE in regards to his 9/11 and Mossad operation theories - coverage of this seems to be scant and mostly passing (at least in reputable publishing outlets....) - and not in depth - e.g. there is this and on the other hand [19][20] which support this - but there isn't enough in-depth mainstream coverage of this to cover the fringe aspect in a NPOV manner.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
What? Nothing in the article is fringe. The unrelated fact that fringe theories can't be covered in an NPOV manner is a tautology, not a ground for deletion. Being Director of the Strategic Studies Institute is definitely enough for MILHIST 8. I don't know the details of his "theories" but given the coverage I have found, I'm inclined to believe that more sources exist about Sabrosky that aren't accessible.Seraphim System (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the subject's pre-retirement career at the war college was entirely mainstream and covered in a NPOV manner in the article. However, the subject, following his retirement, is to a large extent known for his 9/11 views - which I do not see how we can cover in a NPOV manner given the lack of reliable in-depth and independent sources on this (see WP:NFRINGE). His prior academic career is borderline - but the NFRINGE issues (which also seem to be causing BLP/vandalism issues on the page) - sets a higher notability bar. Note that fringe theories and promoters can be covered in a NPOV manner (in fact - we have several BLP subjects that are notable just for that) - however to do so requires good independent sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
NFRINGE is completely irrelevant, this is a BLP. I agree that the 9/11 conspiracy theory issues are contributing to vandalism on the page, but both 9/11 conspiracy theories and BLP are DS areas. If all it takes to get an article deleted is a couple of months of bad behavior we won't have much of an encyclopedia left. That said, I don't particularly mind either way, because it is a minor article and notability is borderline, if it requires this level of policing and attention it probably isn't worth it.Seraphim System (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I have said about 6 times that the reason you do not find many sources on me is that the Wikipedia collective excludes my middle name. I learned two years ago that using "Alan Sabrosky" misses almost all of my military and government and academic work, but using "Alan Ned Sabrosky" brings all of that up - including a lot of sources. Having said that, I personally think the "Alan Sabrosky" article as it exists should be deleted. notability aside - it is factually inaccurate in several places and a best demeaning. If the Wikipedia editors feel that what comes up on "Alan Ned Sabrosky" merits an article, I would be gratified (and I think what was briefly put up in late May might give some idea of that), but I would rather have nothing than what is there now. Docbrosk1941 (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

  • At least some of the books should pass notability [21] and the academic work has been cited enough to be incorporated into existing articles. That might be another option to preserve notable encyclopedic content and resolve the fringe theory/blp/vandalism issues of this article. Seraphim System (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    @Seraphim System: A keep (selective content) but rename to the notable book on alliances would be a good option, and would place the later fringe stuff clearly out of scope. Suggestions on which title?Icewhiz (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I'm honestly not sure about the specialized notability criteria in this case, but in practice we usually keep articles about academics where there is significant published discussion of their work; incorporating the middle name as suggested, I see about 3 pages of potentially useful JSTOR hits, including two reviews and a summary of his degrees and the title of his dissertation (predating the Army War College). That plus the number of citations on Google Scholar make me pretty confident I could construct a summary of his book publications from third-party sources, so that box is checked. I did not find independent sources for his birthdate and birthplace; Docbrosk1941's proposed material on the article talk page (very similar to the May 13 version of the article, so much so that I wonder whether there is an official published biography being used as model, but Docbrosk1941's version cites sources) cites a regional Who's Who, but my understanding is that we don't cite Who's Who as sole source for biographical details in a BLP because of its self-sourced nature; in any case I don't believe I have access to it. (Is there a faculty page from any of the teaching/administrative positions, perhaps now only preserved at the Wayback Machine, that might state year and place of birth in addition to attesting to the non-military academic posts?) So the article would be mostly a summary of academic work, which is not unusual for living academics. (We often have to wait for an obituary to fill in biographical details, since newspapers rarely write articles about academics, and I imagine military researchers are all the more likely not to have garnered such coverage. In any event, I didn't find any.) What puts it over the top for me is the ongoing coverage of "Treason, Betrayal and Deceit: The Road to 9/11 and Beyond". True, it's not extended coverage, but it's widespread enough that I believe notability has been achieved. And I agree with Seraphim System that neutral and not excessive coverage of that aspect of his career is possible and that we should therefore seek to give the reader a balanced article rather than deleting it. (I would set to and demonstrate, but the article is full protected. If I have time, I'll draft something in user space.) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (EC) Using the new name, the only work by Sabrosky with more than 100 citations in Google Scholar is his book on alliances. Taking a closer look at some of these, I did not find people citing it as influential or important but saw its inclusion in footnotes and citing others who disputed his claims there. I am also not seeing mainstream coverage of the article "Treason, Betrayal, and Deceit" (unless you count a brief mention in Washington Times as mainstream coverage,) just a lot of POV pushers using it to vilify Sabrosky or Israel, based on their POVs. 16:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair and balanced assessments. Please note I am NOT a retired Marine officer, I did not retire and was never an officer. If anyone does decide to rework (& protect) the article with the extended name, I could email them copies of relevant documentation (e.g., DD214 after 10 years in the Marines, Army War College diploma & Chair info & award at the completion of my service there) - that way you would not have to wait for my obit (which I would like to defer as long as possible).Docbrosk1941 (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful is participants could review and discuss the proposed rewrite.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Phil Gowan[edit]

Phil Gowan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Phil Gowan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

non notable writer . No evidence of having actually published any books. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep. Non notable writer, but notable RMS Titanic historian. As the article and the sources says, one of the most important. This is enough to have a wikipedia article. Alsoriano97 (talk) 9:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: Alsoriano97 (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nautical-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Deepali Junjappa[edit]

Deepali Junjappa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Deepali Junjappa" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. It fails notability guidelines for creative authors/writers, and WP:ANYBIO, as well as general notability criteria. No scope for salvation. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. As the author of multiple notable shows, the subject appears to meet WP:CREATIVE criterion #3, although we need better verification for that than just IMDB. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 10:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarun Sagar

Tools[edit]

Main tool page: toolserver.org
  • Reflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references
  • Checklinks - Edit and repair external links
  • Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links.
  • Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles.