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]

White Frame[edit]

White Frame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non notable. No independent reliable source. ToT89 (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete yup. This is just an organisational promotional piece without notability based on on independent sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete because unfortunately WP:NCORP is now quite strict.--Theredproject (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Glossary of graffiti[edit]

Glossary of graffiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

WP:NOT#DICT Graywalls (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • neutral I may have misunderstood the meaning of WP:NOT#DICT. Nonetheless, the contents are poor and written like guidebook for taggers by taggers. Graywalls (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Remember that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and the article can be improved, adding references and rewriting the contents that need to be fixed. MarkZusab (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm still confused about how Wikipedia defines acceptable glossary vs a miniature slang dictionary that is not allowed. I've asked the WP:NOT#DICT talk page. Graywalls (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOTDICT does apply to lists of definitions such as this. Ajf773 (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    You need to read it again; NOTDICT even specifically addresses glossaries as permissible. It has nothing to do with "lists of definitions", but with definitional material that is dictionarian and not encyclopedic in nature. If a page like this is deleted, it inspires the creation of stand-alone articles on key terms which are not themselves actually notable (in the stand-alone article sense WP:N is about) but which are within encyclopedic relevance per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, which results in a re-merge back into a list.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete While this is technically a glossary, how many articles on graffiti do we have to require this much detail? There are certainly terms that probably should be defined in content of the article on Graffiti, like "tagging" but I'm not sure about the rest. --Masem (t) 00:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
There are currently 105 articles that are categorized as "graffiti" and another 139 articles about specific American graffiti artists. As there are likely still more untagged articles, I am okay with having a glossary. --Knulclunk (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to fit the definition of Glossary perfectly. The graffiti article is already massive. To fold this glossary into it seems a poor choice. Additionally, there are are dozens of WP:WPGLOSSARIES that I personally will never need, but may be helpful to other users. Knulclunk (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. While some specific entries are presently a bit WP:DICDEF, this is a surmountable problem. Various entries are already of a properly encyclopedic scope. This is a completely normal glossary-format stand-alone list article, though a bit under-developed. It's long enough already that merging it into another article as an embedded list isn't practical. Glossary articles are of great use when dealing with jargon-heavy topics (e.g. cue sports); if we lacked a glossary article (or a @#$*-load of dubious stand-alone articles), we'd have to explain in situ every single time we needed to use the field's terminology, which would be a) annoyingly brow-beating to anyone already familiar with the topic, and b) intensely frustrating for anyone reading multiple of our articles in the same topic area, seeing the same re-re-re-explanations of the same terms over and over again.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Glossaries of terms are well-accepted here. bd2412 T 15:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Per WP:DICDEF, "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field...". See category:Wikipedia glossaries for many other examples. Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – With the Graffiti article presently at over 105kb (WP:SIZERULE), qualifies as a valid WP:SPINOUT article. Also, per WP:DICDEF, "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field". North America1000 19:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - No valid reason for deletion given. DICDEF isn't about glossaries, which is a perfectly viable article type. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Glossaries are valid Wikipedia articles.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The Violence of Gender[edit]

The Violence of Gender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

a short exhibition which probably has no enduring historical significance, how can it be possible to create an article for a single museum exhibition like this, otherwise all museums should by far have a long lists of articles of their exhibitions and talks. 淺藍雪 19:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: - Some background on the article: It was created as part of the Asia Art Archive Women in Art Edit-a-thon in Hong Kong, in which new users are asked to write about female artists and art-related articles. A participant, who was a brand new user, wished to create an article on the exhibit. I decided she could do it after she found one local news article (in Chinese) from The Stand News [zh] (立場新聞) and one from the South China Morning Post (SCMP), which would satisfy WP:GNG. As a volunteer at the event I'm aware several articles on other art exhibitions had been created as part of these events. I am interested in knowing whether there is notability criteria specific to art exhibitions (other than GNG), but if not I would use GNG as the guidepost.
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Answering my own question I found Wikipedia:WikiProject_Contemporary_Art/Notability#Notability_of_events. I'll quote it from here:
"
  • An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.
  • Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group.
  • An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable.
  • Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.
  • Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted."
Since Hong Kong is an SAR, it is de facto treated as a small country for the purposes of "national" reporting, so I would count the SCMP as "national" in this regard. The issue is whether this event will exceed the "news cycle" factor.
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
"Notability is not temporary", and nothing could convince me that this is not a temporary event, and I really doubt a report from the SCMP would make it non-temporary and different from other normal museum events. It may have notability, but a very short one. I would say it is better to wait for some experts on articles about events to judge.--淺藍雪 19:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I would like to clarify that the SCMP article is a review by Rachel Cheung (SCMP culture reporter) that goes in detail about the exhibit's themes and the reviewer's opinion of the works, not merely a news announcement that the exhibit's happening. A review of the exhibit would make the case of notability much stronger. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I still do not think a review is enough to make the event non-temporary, and "the SCMP is a national media" does not make sense to me either.--淺藍雪 20:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Re: "the SCMP is a national media" - The SCMP is treated as a newspaper of record of Hong Kong (essentially one of the most important newspapers). Secondly, while Hong Kong is under Chinese sovereignty, it maintains its own borders and customs, autonomous government, currency, etc., and therefore is treated similarly to a small country. This makes the SCMP a "national" publication of Hong Kong. The guidelines on events say "national" coverage has more weight than strictly "local". WhisperToMe (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I interpret WP:NTEMP as saying that once notability is established, it is permanent. The temporary nature of the subject is irrelevant: The Armory Show is notable, even though it only lasted 26 days. In retrospect that exhibit was very significant. But we're not here to decide if The Violence of Gender is historically significant (it's too early to tell) but if there is sufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources to sustain an article. Vexations (talk)
There are two independent published sources that make commentary on the subject: SCMP review and The Stand News (in Chinese) - you can google translate to see what this one says, roughly WhisperToMe (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Three, I think. I added a review by Katherine Volk. Vexations (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! The publisher is CoBo Social International Co., Limited and the author of the review is a freelance journalist. I think I can say Keep for this article. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete the sources are not adequate to establish notability over time. The Armory show, mentioned above, is notable because it has occurred over time and been very widely reviewed. This is a single exhibition with three reviews. If we say that's enough, then we could apply the same criteria to tens of thousands of shows a year. Additionally the only thing the article tells me is that it happened ona certain date, a list of artists participated, and then it goes on to paraphrase the SCMP. We aren't a directory of things that happened, nor are we a news source. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The notability standard for books, for example, is at least two independent secondary sources giving commentary on the subject. The SCMP gives an analysis and commentary, and articles are supposed to paraphrase that. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not persuaded that short exhibitions are inherently non-notable. WP:NEVENTS seems to suggest the topic might or might not be notable but, since this guideline claims to be interpreting pre-existing guidelines I'll refer to WP:N where the guidance indicates the topic may be presumed to merit an article. Thincat (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Manuel Arturo Abreu[edit]

Manuel Arturo Abreu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No claim of notability per WP:BLP, also it has no article links to his work of major art shows which he did from 2016-2018. lacking reliable sources coverage as well. Sheldybett (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
delete Not covered in mainstream press of at least a regional interest. The style smells of general promotional intentions and I am getting a general sense that sources are scavenged to justify what the proponents want to present rather than writing about subject around high depth coverage in high quality sources with intended audience base spanning regionally or wider.Graywalls (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC). dunno, maybe the cumulative impact of so many blogs, small online zines, grants.... notability still looks marginal to me, but I'm gonna back off without opining further.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I have added sources that show that his work has been the subject of critical attention. Vexations (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Sourcing is still minor, non-bluelinked websites. User:Vexations, if you would bring the 3 best sources that you regard as WP:SIGCOV to this page and ping me, I will reconsider. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
This is all I have for now. I don't see a requirement in SIGCOV that the publications must have their own article, only that they are reliable and independent of the subject, which I think is the case here. FWIW, I have no connection to the subject whatsoever, and before I noticed this AfD, I had never heard of Abreu. Vexations (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Bluelinked sites are certainly not required, but bluelinking does make it easier for editors to sort out WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I also recognized The Stranger (newspaper), but it's just an events listing. possibly not evenan edited list of listings [1]
Then there is the fact that the bio details are sourced to the Academy of American Poets, which is exactly as exclusive as Facebook.
This looks like mere PROMO. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Funny, those are exactly the ones I didn't add. I did add: http://thefanzine.com/thinking-beyond-colonial-gender-a-review-of-manuel-arturo-abreus-transtrender/, https://www.aqnb.com/2017/01/30/the-violence-of-naming-and-necessity-reading-through-porous-bodies-in-manuel-arturo-abreus-transtrender/ and https://apogeejournal.org/2017/05/01/yani-robinson-reviews-transtrender-manuel-arturo-abreus-chapbook/. When you say "clicked one that I could identify", does that mean you ignore the sources you don't recognize? Vexations (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It "means" only that assessing notability is time-consuming, hard work, and, therefore, the custom has evolved to sometimes politely request that an editor who seems to be familiar with the subject, and who is arguing to "k" indicate 2 or 3 WP:RS that support notability especially well. Thank you for now doing so.
  • . a book review] in AQNB , a very small "editorial platform committed to independent media" [3]
  • a book review in [thefanzine.com] thefanzine.com, another small literary magazine.
  • It is unclear to me what degree of editorial control these small literary publication have over their contributors, whether reviews are assigned, whether they are edited, whether the writer are paid,, or indeed much about them. This is the problem. Notability for this "artist, poet, and curator" is being quesitoned precisely because the strongest sourcing an editor arguing to keep has been able to bring is reviewa of a single book in three very small, literary zines. This is the kind of sourcing writers have BEFORE they become notable. notable writers get reviews in better-known publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that the sources I added are "small" (you've mentioned that five times). I'm not sure what "big enough" would be. As far as I can tell, we have no policy that says a source must have a minimum number of subscribers or have a print version or meet some other quantative measure. I think the sources I have added are independent of the subject and reliable. I'll note for example that Apogee has an editorial staff and does not accept submissions. AQNB has an editorial staff as well, and so does thefanzine. Vexations (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello all, sorry, I'm the original editor, and I am a new editor. I included this as a part of an Edit-athon, and I purposely started on it with little information, so that the students who came to the Edit-athon would have one to improve. (However, I ended up editing myself, obviously). I disagree with a lot of the assertions made about the source. Firstly, Academy of American Poets is not "equivalent of Facebook." You have to be solicited to publish a poem with them, and they have requirements including significant previous publications. Once you have been solicited by an editor, the board can still choose to reject your work. So I believe there is significant enough oversight to meet your concerns. And if your poem is published, as abreu's was, as part of Poem-A-Day, the poem is seen by 500,000+ readers. [1] As for Apogee, their editor just won the PEN/Nora Magid Award for Magazine Editing for their work on Apogee, so I feel like that is also a reliable source [2] I have added several other references that mention abreu and included links to some of their own work. Just FYI, I have no connection to abreu nor have I ever met them. I am a poet and executive editor for an award-winning independent press, and my only interest in this poet is increasing awareness for Latinx writers. Thanks for the comments and notes, and I hope this wiki keeps growing. PoetryPerson1 (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)PoetryPerson1 15 March 2019

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♠ 04:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You can become a member of Academy of American Poets, but you are not necessarily featured as a poet just because you are. None of the benefits listed include being published by the organization. It's an arts organization, meaning it survives on sponsors, grants, and members, just like an organization like the Met. You can become a member of the Met, but you are not going to be able to have an art show just because you're a member. Furthermore, there is no evidence that this poet is a member. Instead, he is featured as a poet by the Academy of American Poet's program "Poem-A-Day." They have multiple prestigious awards and programs, none of which are connected by membership. https://www.poets.org/academy-american-poets/programs.
  • The citation is to his member bio.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I accept that having a poem selected for "Poem a Day" is having a poem published. Publishing a poem does not, however, make the poem or the poet notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:CITEKILL. The page creator, an editor who joined the project last year has created a series of articles, some on notable artists, has now reference bombed the page. Many of these sources are not usable at all. Some are PRIMARY. Take the 2018 Oregon Book Awards, for example, citation #25. This is a real award, but it is a distinctly minor literary prize. I note that most of the recipients are not bluelinked. The fact that this artist won the award is sourced to Literary Arts, which is the website of the Oregon Book Award. WP:BOMBARDING the page with such references does not establish notability. I cannot see that anything in the "Awards" section establishes notability. The "Art Show" section is very brief, but it has a PRIMARY problem. Having work in a group show at New Museum would be impressive, except that the only source is Rhizome which is published by the New Museum. I can't get the first link in te=he "Art Shows" section to work, the second cite is to a show that Abreu put together, the 3rd is the Rhizome cite, and the 4th and last is a social media post.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • User:PoetryPerson1, You could persuade me with 3 or 4 truly solid sources with working links. My searches aren't finding much about him, and when I try clicking links to publications I know, like the Philadelphia Tribune, it did not work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
It works now. Vexations (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, thanks. But it DOES NOT support the assertion on our page that: "abreu is most well-known for their discussion of the term, 'Online Imagined Black English.'" It shows it that he wrote an essay on a widely discussed topic, and that the essay was mentioned in other essays on the topic. Perhaps User:Graywalls, User:PoetryPerson1, or Nom User:Sheldybett would be willing to revisit. To me, this oversoruced page shows that it is WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

David Lach[edit]

David Lach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Guys claim to fame is the first fiber glass painter. Sure that is notable, but I can't find any sites for this guy. (The only URL went to a site that is now something rather inappropriate, couldn't use the dead link for it either) Interesting that not even the Spanish wiki has a page for this guy, has been on here for years though. Wgolf (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay I have looked up David Lach (painter) and I have found some links for him, but nothing as of yet to say he was the first one. If someone can find proof behind this I will cancel this AFD. Wgolf (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Wgolf, Perhaps this: "El mexicano David Lach está considerado como el primer creador plástico que utilizó fibra de vidrio ..." http://ceape.edomex.gob.mx/sites/ceape.edomex.gob.mx/files/David%20Lach.%20Catarsis.pdf Vexations (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, is painting on fiberglass really notable? would it mean Lach meets no. 2 of WP:CREATIVE because of it? Coolabahapple (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
All fiberglass boats since the 1960s have been painted. Painting on fiberglass, even if it's not a boat but instead a figurative, abstract or contemporary painting, seems like a silly claim.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Not so much painted as covered in gelcoat. Vexations (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking of below the waterline, where epoxy-based paints are usually applied. Not that it is worth arguing about. Hand-painted fibreglass lampshades were also popular in the 1950s. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment After a quick search I found 3 antique stores and a mirror wiki.[1] [2] [3] [4] I mean it's arguably notable. Mosaicberry (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. All sources found above are promotional, merely selling the artists paintings. I could find no reliable secondary sources to document the facts claimed in the article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Ontario Association of Art Galleries[edit]

Ontario Association of Art Galleries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Article on an association that represents art galleries in Ontario Canada. They represent lots of notable galleries, but we know that notability is not inherited. They do give out an award that is sometimes reported on, but an industry award given by the article subject seems only weakly notable. The sourcing in the article is poor and mostly primary. I'm unable to find significant independent reliabale sources that would allow me to easily establish notability. The article seems to be a promotional vehicle and listing of the non-profit and its members (you can't fault them for it) more than anything.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It's hard to find external coverage of organisations of this kind, but that doesn't demonstrate that its not notable. The article actually consists mostly of a useful list of art galleries, and I'd like it kept to preserve that. There is regular coverage of their awards and its publications are quite notable.Bigwig7 (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable, well written and sourced, an interesting page, and per Bigwig7. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly notable. A significant organization with many members, publications etc. A Google Books search shows plenty of sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Can you provide links for that claim? I see only trivial sources in google books that mention the name.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I can provide snippets:
  • ... the Ontario Association of Art Galleries Directory includes contact information for 457 key individuals in 183 art galleries and organizations throughout Ontario...
  • ... formation of the Ontario Association of Art Galleries resulted from a meeting held in August 1968. The roots of the organization, however, go back to 1947, when representatives ...
  • ... received the 2009 Ontario Association of Art Galleries Award for exhibition of the year. Hassan's works ...
  • ... This book came out of a collaboration between York University in Toronto, the Ontario Association of Art Galleries, and...
JSTOR gives 11 hits. The online profile is about what you would expect from a trade association like this: important to the members, not of much interest to the general public. But "dull" does not mean "not notable". Aymatth2 (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion on Aymatth2's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 17:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Tanya Davis (artist)[edit]

Tanya Davis (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable artist. Sourced by weak mentions. Promotional. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. J947(c), at 04:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The President of one of the largest - if not the largest - artists' organization in the USA is definately notable enough for inclusion in WP - especially since she has been representing us in the battles against the City of Alexandria's takeover of the Torpedo Factory! 64.26.99.248 (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Being president of something does not contribute to notability, unless people write about you. If you have links to articles in newspapers, post them here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

My apologies as I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, but it seems to us that "Being the president of something does not contribute to notability, unless people write about you", with all due respect, seems to be a short-sighted and far-away viewpoint (Montreal?) which is not aware of the trails and tribulations that the Torpedo Factory artists have experienced over the last few years in their struggles versus the City of Alexandria - and instead of the articles "being about you" (in this case Ms. Davis and/or her successor), the articles and the debate have been about the issues - the multiple issues carried forward by Davis and others, but led by the Presidents of one of the largest artist's organization in the country. Perhaps the article on Davis should focus more attention on that aspect of her artistic presence? I do not mean to start an online argument or debate - but we do mean to try to enter that there are a lot of us here in Alexandria who think that she is indeed notable-enough for a Wiki article. 64.26.99.248 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

We judge notability based on established sources, per WP:notability. All the things you say are helpful and relevant to a particular community's situation, but they are essentially subjective. In order to make Wikipedia as neutral as possible, we go on the fact that people have been independently been written about by good publications with independent editorial teams. So it really is all about the sources, and very little about the situation. As well, the location of our editors is irrelevant. Wikipedia editors from the opposite side of the globe are able to more or less objectively edit articles on subjects on the other side of the globe-- based on their use of the relevant policy and by relying on globally published sources to back up claims made in articles. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2019 (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]

Tom Del Beccaro[edit]

Tom Del Beccaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Lacks significant coverage. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Colette Pervette[edit]

Colette Pervette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Overly promotional article on non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current coverage is primary, non reliable or passing mentions, nothing good for GNG. A search found nothing better. Very recently deleted at Domina Colette for promotion and no indication of notability. Speedy for promotion removed, complete with adhom, by a newly created SPA. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as very promotional article/advert for the subject and their business interests that is a case of WP:PROMO. Also the subject does not pass WP:BASIC as the references are not independent as either written by the subject or interview with no independent prose; the most reliable source is The NYT but the subject only gets a brief mention which does not verify much at all, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Julio Roberto Peña[edit]

Julio Roberto Peña (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Filmmaker with questionable notability. I can't find anything he has done on here and I have not found that much about him outside of Wikipedia mirror sites. Wgolf (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. I've altered the article to note that he died in 2017, so this is no longer a BLP. The fact is that Mr. Peña only worked on three full-length films, Raíces de Piedra (1961), Sangre en los Jazmines (1974) and Mientras Arde el Fuego (1979) – everything else were short films or documentaries. That's not to dismiss him, but it means there is little in the way of in-depth sources about a person with such little output. The most detailed biography is on the website of Colombia's national film institute [4] but this probably doesn't constitute a reliable independent source. Most other sources are just passing mentions, and mostly regarding Raíces de Piedra [5], [6], [7] – it seems to me that it would be more worthwhile creating an article for the film than to keep this biography, which it appears will never be more than a very brief stub. The film, on the other hand, has more potential reliable sources, and is also notable for being banned by the military government of the time. Richard3120 (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Christian Prince (Pseudonymous Christian Apologist)[edit]

Christian Prince (Pseudonymous Christian Apologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I can't find evidence that he has received significant attention in reliable sources. The book is listed at all the common webshops and the like, and there are the usual twitter, youtube, wordpress, ... sources, but nothing substantial and reliable (nothing in News or Google Books as far as I can tell, searching for "Christian Prince" "the deception of allah"). Fram (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

CP is really well-known today. If you search on Youtube and you just found a few videos which uploaded by himself, because some of those videos had been removed by him previously. But, you can find bunch of videos, maybe thousand videos of him, on which re-uploaded by his followers. His latest big debates was with Shabir Ally as his opponent and they both are still arguing even though not in debates. Kekemycuppa (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep just added two third party references to the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
If this was a "normal" BLP, I would be deleting these two references from the article. Britishfinance (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Christian Prince has been around for over a decade and is an author and you-tuber well-known amongst both Islamic and Christian apologists.Patapsco913 (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Plese see WP:BIO. We need evidence from reliable sources that he is well-known, not things like blogs or youtube. Fram (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If he has been around for over a decade, you should be able to provide references (per WP:RS) to support his notability? Britishfinance (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete seems to be PROMO for a YouTube personality. No coverage found in WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment For somone who has been around for a decade, and operates mostly online, I find very little WP:RS on him that would meet WP:GNG (usually, media/youtube-stars are drowning in lower-tier RS). He has three books on Amazon (noted on the article), but I cannot see any decent WP:RS reviewing them, to give him WP:NAUTHOR? Britishfinance (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Clem Bastow[edit]

Clem Bastow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
also Clementine (Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable journalist. This article is only linked to from a few pages, and is not substantially connected to any of them. Euchrid (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. –MJLTalk 06:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. –MJLTalk 06:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Still thinking about this one and still looking. As well as the awards listed in the article there is also this one. The subject is definitely prolific, and is extensively published by multiple very well respected multi media outlets, so certainly has a high level of professional standing. However, there is very little independent material about her that I can find so far. Does not have to pass either JOURNALIST or ENTERTAINER (comedian) individually if overall they pass GNG. They may already pass AUTHOR? Aoziwe (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The lack of incoming links and-or their qualtiy, while a flag, is in no way definitive regarding notability. Aoziwe (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Harry Stojan[edit]

Harry Stojan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Unclear that he meets WP:NAUTHOR based on a lack of reliable, independent sources. There are none on Bulgarian WP either, and I'm not seeing many hits on his Bulgarian name except WP mirrors/user-created sites either. Note comments on the article talk page from 2005 suggesting that this is a vanity page, although I can't substantiate that. ♠PMC(talk) 08:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Mike Sharman[edit]

Mike Sharman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non notable personality. unreliable/connected sources. Some are interviews, not secondary sources. ToT89 (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Mark L. Hunt[edit]

Mark L. Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Claim to fame is a few production credits, but none of the sources include non-trivial coverage of the subject. Author appears to be engaged in PR work for this and a few other related persons and films. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Ari Mannis[edit]

Ari Mannis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Likely WP:TOOSOON, doesn't appear to have any significant independent coverage in reliable sources, existing coverage is of minimal depth and mostly just in local news publications. The subject was the winner of the "KAABOO discovery tour", which appears to be a Southern California local talent discovery contest, and thus would seem to fall short of WP:ANYBIO. In addition to the provided sources, I was able to find a brief mention here, but all together I think this still falls short of WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. signed, Rosguill talk 20:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete PROMO for an aspiring comedian who fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and E.M.Gregory. --mikeu talk 22:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete No significant press coverage, found a publication on CBS8 about winning a tour or something. Lapablo (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the initial editor of the article contacted me about this deletion proposal on my talk page, and is making edits to attempt to demonstrate the subject's notability. They should be commenting here shortly. signed, Rosguill talk 21:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like User:Romanstuff has made some significant changes to the article. Relisting to give people a chance to evaluate if those changes are sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Commenting on additional sources provided one source is a professional database entry (not independent), and the other is an interview in a local paper about the subject's then-upcoming performance in the KAABOO contest. These sources do not change my vote (well, nom), as I don't believe that they help the subject meet any notability guideline. signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Commenting on additional sources provided The edits still don't address concerns expressed above. --mikeu talk 00:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Daniel G. Sullivan[edit]

Daniel G. Sullivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

A screenwriter with just one credit. While his film is notable, he is not. Either delete or a redirect to While You Were Sleeping (film). (Odd it says he still is screenwriting when he has no other credits) Wgolf (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 03:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Michael Balazo[edit]

Michael Balazo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Comedian I can find little info for (yet another page that has been here for a long time) For years it was nothing but unsourced info, which I can't find any back up for. Wgolf (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Created in 2008 by an SPA IP. An SPA named MichaelBelazzo removed swaths of unsourced bio years ago. More to the point, he has a couple of minor writing credits on IMDB [8], this is not a WP:RS, but it is a useful way to check on potential notability, writing credits for a fee sitcom episodes ≠ notability. a gNews search [9] doesn't either. Looks like Delete, but if someone can make a solid, well-sourced argugment for notability, feel free to pig me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Jack Thiessen[edit]

Jack Thiessen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly referenced as passing WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they and their work exist, but need to be the subject of enough media attention (reviews of their work, etc.) to clear WP:GNG -- but the only references being cited here are a user-generated wiki site and a single news article in a smalltown community pennysaver. This is not enough to make a writer notable enough for a Wikipedia article: the news article is okay, but not enough all by itself, and the wiki contributes nothing whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I came to the subject's article through another page I watch. It seems that the author is an expert in the field of Mennonite Low German and has created works to that end. This seems to meet AUTHOR. The documentation, or lack thereof, is not a reason to delete an article. If it is lacking references, that merits a {{cleanup}} template (or similar). Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
There's no way to divorce notability from referenceability: by definition, referenceability is what the concept of notability measures. There is no notability claim so "inherently" notable that the "need" to maintain an article about them justifies the use of poor quality sources because good ones don't exist — the quality of the sourcing is what the entire concept of notability is. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I will add more sources, however, the comments below contain numerous unfounded assumptions. GAMEO is NOT a wiki. The article cited is from 1989. Nor is The Carillon a "pennysaver." It's a long-established subscription-based newspaper. The article also links to already-existing articles about Jack Thiessen in both the German and Low German wikipedia pages. Neverthless, I will add more sources.
Firstly, GAMEO is a Wiki, which can be plainly verified just by looking at it: it looks exactly like Wikipedia, just with a different logo in the top corner, and it explicitly states about itself that it's powered by MediaWiki, and can be edited by anybody who sets up an account on it. And I don't know where you're getting the idea that "pennysaver" and "subscription based newspaper" are two mutually exclusive things: "pennysaver" is simply a term that means a newspaper published in a small town or city neighbourhood, but not widely distributed enough to make a person notable just because they have some coverage in it. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I fear we may be weighing into semantics here and perhaps a bit off topic. Nevertheless. Yes, I take your point that GAMEO does use Wiki technology, but as you can see at the bottom of the article, the articles are taken from an actual published encyclopedia, The Mennonite Encyclopedia published by Herald Press. After consulting this publication I have update the citation. As for the term "pennysaver," it is by definition a free newspaper that focuses on publishing advertisements. So, yes, The Carillon is a small town paper, but it is not a pennysaver. I take your point, however, that this one citation is insufficient to warrant the Jack Thiessen article. I trust that new references I have added have proven Jack Thiessen's notability.
Pennysavers do not only publish advertisements, but most certainly do also publish real but locally targeted news content. Yes, they may be advertising-heavy, but the word's meaning does not inherently imply that they're advertising-exclusive. Bearcat (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I did not use the word "exclusive" or "only". I said pennysavers "focus" on publishing ads, which is true. That is their primary goal, which is why they are able to give them out for free, and is why the articles that do appear in them would be considered less credible. In this context, however, the term "pennysaver" was misapplied to a traditional newspaper that in no sense fits that definition. Anyway, perhaps this discussion can return to the subject of Jack Thiessen.
  • Keep WP:HEYMANN article creator has improved page during this discussion, and I have added a little to the upgrade. Notable lexicographer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss the recent improvements to the article some more
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there still any debate? Jack Thiessen is a notable contributer to Plautdietsch literature and lexicography and this is well established in numerous legitimate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mennowiki (talkcontribs) 01:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Melinda Hill[edit]

Melinda Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Prior article on this person was deleted for failing notability criteria. The poster has simply re-created it without addressing the notability issues. It should therefore be deleted immediately. Dkendr (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Melinda Hill belongs on Wikipedia and has abundant credits to support that. The article is cited substantially. I will add sections and otherwise do whatever work I can to make it stronger. But I feel her presence here is merited and important for the broader audience, for comedy, and for women in comedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poppydownsinternational (talkcontribs) 21:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
She clearly merits an article and there seem to be enough cited sources here to meet the notability requirement. Like many new pages, it could use improvement, but shouldn't be up for deletion. Per the guidelines: "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." Deletion is not appropriate here. StaceyEOB (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Excellent point @StaceyEOB - the prior resolution was actually "move to draft." By the poster's admission the article isn't ready for prime time so Move to Draft again might be a better option. Dkendr (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J947(c), at 02:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J947(c), at 02:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. J947(c), at 02:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. J947(c), at 02:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. J947(c), at 02:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete As with first AfD, the sourcing seems minor, the best of the lot is the LA Weekly story about a pilot for a comedy series, that apparently never happened. She is an actual comedian, but notability appears to have never happened, at least, not yet. If anyone manages to source it up to speed, feel free to ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Francine McKenna[edit]

Francine McKenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Journalist who doesn't appear to have garnered any recognition beyond bylines on articles that she's written. I don't see any evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. While searching online, I found this article which would allege that she was nominated for, but did not win, an award. According to a Google Scholar search, McKenna's h-index appears to be about 3, and that's only if you include citations for articles that she wrote in mass media publications (i.e. not scientific papers), which is far short of WP:NACADEMIC. signed, Rosguill talk 22:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I wrote this article because I felt that she was pretty influential in the corporate accounting world. I would be willing to better the article, but I certainly feel that she is relevant enough for Wikipedia's standards as I read them.  Mailman9  (talk)  00:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • delete There is no significant independent coverage of her and I see nothing that shows notability as a reporter or professor.Sandals1 (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep She has received recognition - she is quoted as a consultant and expert, and her blog recommended, in several textbooks, and many newspaper articles, about business and corporate ethics. She meets WP:AUTHOR #1: "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". I have added some references (including a quote from one textbook that her blog "should be on every corporate accountant and CPAs watchlist"), and will try to add more. I am somewhat hampered by Google books not showing all pages around references, and also in trying to work out what the issues are that she reported on, that these sources are referencing her about (eg involving Lehman Brothers, Ernst & Young, AIG, etc). RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 23:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Jennifer Wright[edit]

Jennifer Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

A author who I can't quite find if she is notable or not. She does not appear to be that much to me, but I will see what others think. Wgolf (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment It appears to me that the subject's strongest claim to notability is being an Editor at Large for Harper's Bazaar. I don't know that that is shoo-in for notability, however. signed, Rosguill talk 23:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment-Might be a redirect. BTW I have found at least one other person with this name (no surprise), an actress from the 50s, so if it survives any page linked to her that is some film should be renamed to Jennifer Write (actress). Back on topic though, I do think a redirect for now could be the best if not a delete. Wgolf (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I think that being Editor at Large for Harper's Bazaar could be described as playing a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known collective body of work. Her books have articles about them - those articles aren't great, but they do have a few reviews as references, so her independent work has received some critical attention - I think we can manage to get her over WP:NAUTHOR.GirthSummit (blether) 15:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment-well as I said it is a bit tough to find info with someone like her as she has a very common name. If more info can be found though....Wgolf (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hamilton Mitchell[edit]

Hamilton Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Unsourced BLP about an actor of dubious notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, though he possibly was a busy actor with a number of minor parts, he doesn't seem to have had numerous major roles to meet WP:NACTOR criteria. Sionk (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 14:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Stuart Heritage[edit]

Stuart Heritage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This page has no reliable, 3rd party secondary sources. A search for such showed up nothing. We have pages from his employers, and works by him, we need indepdent works about him to show notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • delete I cannot find book reviews, profiles, or any secondary. Please feel free to ping me to reconsider if someone manages to source this, but it appears to be WP:TOOSOON for this writer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Some additional information and sources - he is the founder of the website HecklerSpray,[10][11] listed as one of the most powerful blogs by The Observer - [12] and he was listed as one of the top 100 people of London's creative industries by The Independent [13]. There are a few articles on his book (not entirely independent but it shows media interest) - [14][15] and mentioned as one of the best books of 2018 by RTE [16]. Review articles - [17][18] Hzh (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Note that author has a new book coming out on the fall list 2019, a fact now reliably sourced on the page to The Bookseller. Perhaps page creator User:GoddessV would like to userfy this and bring it back if the author's next book gets press attention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♠ 04:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Jagdish Chaturvedi[edit]

Jagdish Chaturvedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Twinkling XfD after IP 2401:4900:2503:1A19:4540:B6DA:8AC4:3DF8 tried to ask for speedy deletion (albeit without knowing how to and somewhat butchering the page). IP's rationale was "The article is regrettably pure self promotion. The personality is not note worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. The article may be moved for deletion with immediate effect. The text in the article resembles to a great extent the text in the personality's personal webpage. Such self aggrandizement and promotion ought not to be entertained on an Encyclopedic Platform." Moral of the story: although I don't know if the IP read/was familiar with general notability guidelines, the IP was on to something, and this article may not meet notability (among other problems the article has). Your folks' thoughts? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The personality is a notable author and inventor and therefore should have a Wikipedia Page. The article has been edited to remove promotional content. External links have been removed. Reliable sources and unbiased facts have been included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas222334 (talkcontribs) 07:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.