The Arts and Entertainment Work Group is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality and importance
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs... Specific discipline portals are listed in that section.
William Ely Hill (1887-1962) - Illustrator, created artwork for the book covers for F. Scott Fitzgerald and had a regular entry in the New York tribune along with being published on numerous occasions.
The general outline and collection has been started, but if you would like to expand and organize a discipline, here's what you do. Right below the page heading for the discipline insert this: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Work groups/Division banner}} and save. This will put a rough outline together for you and then you can edit it to conform to your area. See Writers and critics below for an example. If your project grows large enough where it's taking up a good portion of this page, you should probably move it to a subpage of this page.
You might also want to make a Members section for people to join your specific area!
Any article related to this work group should be marked by adding |a&e-work-group=yes to the {{WPBiography}} project banner at the top of its talk page. This will automatically place it into Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles. Articles can be assessed for priority within this work group by using the |a&e-priority= parameter. See Template:WikiProject Biography/doc for detailed instructions on how to use the banner.
Jubileeclipman (talk·contribs) I am interested in taking on UK celebrities with articles that are stubs or otherwise non-standard. Entirely rewrote Fearne Cotton to raise standard and remove fansite tag. I am working on Holly Willoughby which was merely a list plus trivia. Will also work on musicians, all genre, living or dead.
Teodoro Vidal and his collection of art has been covered by many sources ranging from academic and journalistic backgrounds. There are three academic articles cited on the page, one journalistic, as well as various shorter pieces from sources like the Smithsonian American Art Museum. An argument could be made that Vidal is understudied, especially in English, but the range of sources covering his impact on the cultural heritage of Puerto Rico and his impact on a major American museum should establish sufficient notability. Coffeycp (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily passes artist notability with the Smithsonian collection [8], and is featured in this book [9]. Many peer-reviewed articles about him in Gscholar as well. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes, easily passes GNG and has many reputable sources. And per Oaktree. Maybe not only do a "before" but a "present" as well. Interesting article, thanks for pointing it out. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps surprisingly, there are no independent sources to help this pass WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. Sources listed are either to SJSU, which houses the arch, or to writings of the artist who created it. Additional sources found in WP:BEFORE search are also from SJSU or authored by artist Judy Baca. It gets trivial coverage in a few places (passing reference in a local paper and local visitor guide) but no significant, secondary coverage in independent, reliable sources. One AtD would be to merge any encyclopedic content to Paseo de César Chávez. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree that it's surprising that aren't more independent sources featuring the Arch. That being said, I was able to find a few independent sources discussing the Arch, namely:
- A publication from from the San Jose Museum of Art - here
- An article from the Social and Public Art Resource Center - here
- An article by Mosaic Atlas - here (Admittedly, Mosaic Atlas is partnered with SJSU, but ostensibly they're an independent source)
Personally, I think the article should be kept, but adding the More citations needed template and incorporating the above sources. SammySpartan (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the SPARC piece during my search, but Judy Baca is a [of SPARC] and the author of the piece. It can't be independent. The GPSMyCity piece appears to be copied from an official SJSU page here. And the final piece published by SJSU cannot be independent when establishing notability of a structure at SJSU. With only the SJMoA piece you found, we still need more sources to get this over GNG or NBUILDING. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per new sources above, and an artwork is usually kept if the housing institution, gallery, museum, etc., has catalogued it in some form. This is a specific artwork, not a building, and already has enough to pass GNG related to Wikipedia visual arts pages. As for its value to Wikipedia, please note the navboxes which now include it and the benefit of including this artwork within them (the page and this discussion inspired the creation of the {{Dolores Huerta}} navbox, thanks Sammy Spartan and Dclemens1971). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the artwork is one of the few highly visible landmarks of the SJ public art scene. It has sources on its artistry, historical relevance to Cesar Chavez, and local relevance to San Jose. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Cristiano Tomás I agree with you that it is a highly visible landmark. @Randy Kryn I'd also like to find a way to keep it. But can you show any reliable, secondary, significant coverage that is independent of San Jose State University, the artist Judy Baca who made it, or of the organization she founded? Those sources are what I can't turn up, and that's what is required under policy for GNG and SNGs related to art/buildings. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a building, so building notability wouldn't apply. Visual art pages are usually accepted as established with sources from the holding museum or organization, in this case the University mentions would apply toward notability. And wouldn't the University mentions be secondary (primary would be the work itself)? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no SNG for artworks, so it has to pass GNG, which requires independent sources. Sources from the entity that commissioned the artwork (SJSU) and the artist who made it (Baca) cannot be independent from it for purposes of assessing notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No SNG for artworks? I thought there was and, if not, there should be as sourcing to a museum or gallery (which the University would qualify as) has been the standard and used as the sole source on maybe thousands of pages. Better call in (they may be tired of me calling upon their knowledge) Another Believer and Johnbod. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with new sources as previously stated. Additionally, speaking purely from an art history perspective here, Baca is clearly notable enough and this work is clearly prominent enough to merit inclusion.--19h00s (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability. I'd redirect this to the perp's page, but there is not anything about this work there. Searches throw up zip. TheLongTone (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find one possible mention of this art piece in a G-Book but it isn't previewed. I also checked the magazines available online from the library, figuring there might be info in art magazines and journals, but nothing. I looked at the artist's article and I admit I also have doubts that they meet notability requirements. Lamona (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wanås is the leading international sculpture park [10] - any art piece exhibited there deserves a mention. MusicFromOutoftheOpera (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a more apt citation for that? That is a travel/promotional magazine, not an art magazine. Also, that article does not mention this work of art. Lamona (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've found some more links rectifying Wanås Sculpture Park as, atleast, internationally reknowned [11], [12],[13]. MusicFromOutoftheOpera (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, you can't use the same notability reference to an artpiece almost 30-years-old but I've done what I could providing proof of this artwork's legacy albeit its growing age. MusicFromOutoftheOpera (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you have provided fit with the Wikipedia definition of reliable source and none mention this sculpture. I don't think this helps. Lamona (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment Having something in this sculpture park might help in establishing the notability of an artist with a work there but does not establish the notability of the work.TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics
The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Related Projects
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts
The article has a serious lack of WP:RS, which is why I have doubts about notability. There are only five links, and the last one is the website of his own organization, International Security Institute. HPfan4 (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably meets WP:AUTHOR, I easily found several reviews of his 2013 book. Quickly added them, though several are paywalled. Geschichte (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd like to see more than one book for WP:AUTHOR but Royal Swedish Academy of Music might be a pass of WP:PROF#C3. It depends on whether it is for music scholarship (likely in his case) or performance (also prestigious but not really academic notability). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- my sense is that the membership in Royal Swedish Academy of Music would be a WP:PROF#C3 qualification (membership in a very rigorously chosen and prestigious academic society). There are four academics (or five if the society director is included) in the list of 177 current members, among 800ish since the founding in the 1770s, suggesting that at least one society considers him among the top handful of music academics in Sweden. I don't personally know his work, but I haven't really studied Swedish music history, which is his specialty. But he is the author of the plurality(? majority?) of the articles on Swedish music in the New Grove 2001 encyclopedia, meaning he had enough reputation by then to be a significant authority. I think that to the extent that the Academy does appoint researchers as members, it is in that capacity an academic institution; the American Academy of Arts and Sciences appoints some non-academic musicians and screen actors as well, but its appointments of academics are considered as WP:PROF#C3. (I was convinced of a Keep before I looked at WP's coverage of Swedish academics in music. A delete here would be 20% of the living people in the category). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk) 07:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. The Italian newspapers and magazines where we could check for reviews are behind paywalls so it's very hard to find sources. I looked on Italian Amazon but did not find published reviews (nor mention of the award). I can say that the creator of the article has the same name as her collaborator on most of her books, User:Castellacci. That user name conflicted with another when user names were normalized across wikis. Another SPA User:PuzzleInk comes in later and that name is also the name of the publisher of one of her supposed works. Lamona (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gliding aside the COI or UPE, the subject doesn't seemingly have significant coverage, at least online. I've dug in Italian as well (cursory), but was unable to find anything of use. Printed sig coverage is unlikely, and is pretty hard to find in a foreign language which I don't speak myself. X (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable professor. I can't find a Google Scholar for him; ResearchGate indicates he's only been cited 22 times (which seems too low to meet WP:NPROF). A search for sources only turns up profiles for him and sites hawking his books. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 19:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Although he does not seem to satisfy WP:NPROF, subject may possibly satisfy WP:AUTHOR (C3). I do see a few reviews of published works; not sure if there is enough, though. Qflib (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in third-party media -- but this is referenced entirely to sources directly affiliated with the claims, such as the promotional pages of the subject's books on the self-published websites of their own publishers, with not even one hit of proper GNG-building media coverage shown at all. There is a literary award in the mix here which would be a valid notability claim if the article were properly sourced, but as a specialty award it still isn't "inherently" notable enough to confer an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of any GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to see how this TEEN meets the WP:N for WP:NAUTHOR or even GNG. While there may be coverage in RS as cited in the BLP, but these all seem to ROTM coverage - PR articles without any by-lines, which isn't sufficient to meet WP:SIRS. I would say WP:NOTJUSTYET. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing isn't stellar but sufficient to keep the article under general notability. Cortador (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cortador, So, are you suggesting that we keep this BLP even though we don't have enough coverage meeting WP:SIRS to establish GNG, but because he got some ROTM coverage? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SIRS doesn't apply to people and has no relevance here. Cortador (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cortador, Noted. Are you willing to provide the THREE best coverage that you believe should meets GNG? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NAUTHOR. Teenage is not a disqualifier as we don't discriminate somone's abilities based on their age. We are an inclusive encyclopedia, that's why we have plenty of articles on such topics Category:2003 births. This in-depth article in Arab News is written by Saima Shabbir. The book has been reviewd in Dawn ([14]) and The Nation ([15]) by their staff members (when a newspaper writes "staff report" it is enough to prove the reliability). Wieles (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And let's not apply guidelines randomly to the mix. WP:SIRS is for corporations/organizations. Wieles (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wieles, So, it looks like he's only authored this one book, which got some coverage in RS. Is just writing one book enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR? Seems like a pretty ROTM author. And it makes me wonder, if someone just writes a book and gets some press coverage on it, do they automatically qualify for a WP BLP? As for the coverage, DAWN coverage seems pretty ROTM to me. It's not sig/in-depth as required by GNG. And The Nation coverage is based on his interview, which also isn't sig/in-depth or even independent of the subject. Sure, they can be used for WP:V, but for establishing GNG, I'd say no. They also don't qualify as reviews of the book, as WP:NAUTHOR states work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting he shouldn't get a BLP because he's a TEEN! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 16:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though WSCC and IMSA are not explicitly listed in WP:NMOTORSPORT they are "significant international motorsport series" (as mentioned in the second bullet point). NuIotaChi (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage about being jailed: [16]. Also [17]. Feels like there should be more coverage... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My name is John Bartlett (the John Bartlett you are discussing). I have just been alerted to this situation. I'm not very internet savvy so not sure if I'm supposed to even comment but have been directed to this discussion.
Having now viewed the various comments here I thought I should perhaps point out that my actual blog/website already has my medical history published (including the MRI scans somebody mentioned, which in fact have my name on the top of the scan, albeit very small). The MRI scan on my website site is bigger so it's easier to see my name.
Re the other "John Bartlett" someone referred to as owning a US hockey team (I think). That person bears no relation to me, so is clearly a different John Bartlett! I therefore have no idea if what is being said about him owning a hockey team in the US is correct or not.
I spent most of my racing career in the world sports car championship/world endurance championship, generally considered (at the time) to be one tier below F1. My blog also has a lot of my career facts/history/documents etc. Most of my former racing history is in paper form in book/reference books (such as the various Official Le Mans Yearbooks) etc.
As to the person questioning something about my company, Maidstone Scuba, if you look at the 'Meet our team of PADI instructors' on the website, you'll see I am still the Director of Maidstone Scuba School, althow I have just seen that I am shown as being 61, which is incorrect.
Because what happened to me back in 1993/4, I have always freely publish (albeit with helpers) everything. Therefore everything mentioned about me is already in the public domain and therefore their is no breach of any copyright.
I'm now almost 70, and anything internet is usually handled for me by various very kind 'helpers'.
I'm not a lot of good at any of this internet stuff but can be contacted by old-fashioned phone (Redacted). I attempted to add my email address but it wont allow me to do that! Their is a messaging system on Maidstone Scuba so you can contact me on that if needed. if I can assist any further.
@77.101.199.59: Hi John. Do you know whether you have been covered in-depth in independent sources? E.g. stories focusing about you in newspapers, racing magazines, etc.? If so, let us know and that could be able to rescue the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there will be lots of stuff but I'd have to search through boxes and I'm about to leave tomorrow for Birmingham for a protest outside the offices of the CCRC on Friday (we're hoping it might hit the headlines)!
I do remember putting a Post of a German magazine on my Facebook page a few years ago (probably 2014/15) that did a feature of some sort about me but I have no idea what it said, as it was all in German, but it did have various photos of my Team. I have enough trouble with english as I'm very dyslexic!
I will defiantly have Le Mans year books for 84/85/86/87 (the years we ran) but I'll have to find them, probably in the roof!
I do know Penthouse Magazine (who were sponsoring us that year) ran a full a 2 page article on us in 1987. I suspect it was published in the July or Aug edition, as Le Mans would have been June. I'll see if I can at least find the German article for a start but it probably won't be until I get back. Thanks, John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That should have been "definitely", not defiantly!!!
Anyway, I've found it, but still no idea what it says. It was 'RTL GP magazine' and I put it on my facebook page on 3rd Feb 2015. On the front cover it mentions Features on Lamborghini, De Tomaso and Bardon, a car we ran in 85/86/87 in WSPC. The Bardon was the Group C car I developed in 1996. The name was a mix of BAR (me) and DON (Robin Donovan). Robin was one of my regular co-drivers and is listed on Wikipedia.
I have just re posted the magazine on my Facebook page as a memory.
Hope this helps but I'm going to be away until next week now (longer if I'm arrested)!
I added the message below to BeanieFan11 last night but I don't know if you also got to see that message? I will now be away until next week but I have added my direct contact info below. John
My name is John Bartlett (the John Bartlett you are discussing). I have just been alerted to this situation. I'm not very internet savvy so not sure if I'm supposed to even comment but have been directed to this discussion.
Having now viewed the various comments here I thought I should perhaps point out that my actual blog/website already has my medical history published (including the MRI scans somebody mentioned, which in fact have my name on the top of the scan, albeit very small). The MRI scan on my website site is bigger so it's easier to see my name.
Re the other "John Bartlett" someone referred to as owning a US hockey team (I think). That person bears no relation to me, so is clearly a different John Bartlett! I therefore have no idea if what is being said about him owning a hockey team in the US is correct or not.
I spent most of my racing career in the world sports car championship/world endurance championship, generally considered (at the time) to be one tier below F1. My blog also has a lot of my career facts/history/documents etc. Most of my former racing history is in paper form in book/reference books (such as the various Official Le Mans Yearbooks) etc.
As to the person questioning something about my company, Maidstone Scuba, if you look at the 'Meet our team of PADI instructors' on the website, you'll see I am still the Director of Maidstone Scuba School, althow I have just seen that I am shown as being 61, which is incorrect.
Because what happened to me back in 1993/4, I have always freely publish (albeit with helpers) everything. Therefore everything mentioned about me is already in the public domain and therefore their is no breach of any copyright.
I'm now almost 70, and anything internet is usually handled for me by various very kind 'helpers'.
I'm not a lot of good at any of this internet stuff but can be contacted by old-fashioned phone ([REDACTED]). I attempted to add my email address but it wont allow me to do that! Their is a messaging system on Maidstone Scuba so you can contact me on that if needed. if I can assist any further.
Read your message. I'll see if I look into the German article / Facebook post soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To closer: request relisting to allow for more time to research. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per Beanie's request, and as there is currently no consensus Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 00:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think this person is notable enough. It has zero sources, and that it hasn't been really expanded that much. JuniperChill (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Nom is based purely on the current stage of the article and not on the notability of the subject. If a basic BEFORE had been done the Sydney Morning Herald linked in the Tuvalu (novel) page would have been seen demonstrating that the subject does not have zero sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Duffbeerforme: that is still only one source that goes towards establishing notability. A Google search I did found a bunch of references to 'Andrew O'Connor' but I suspect that none of them are this Andrew O'Connor. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did say about the notability in the first sentence. Maybe I forgot to say that my Google search mostly returns the actor. Also, Google seems to no longer return the number of results I have been getting (in the form of about 1,000,000 results (0.10 seconds)). We have many pages without sources but I think due to the new rules, any articles created today without sources will almost certainly result in an AFD, merge, redirect or drafts. JuniperChill (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are only finding hits for others then refine your search. This man wrote a book called Tuvalu so search for "Andrew O'Connor" Tuvalu and you may get better results, such as [18][19][20][21][22][23]. Simple really. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Single EL source in article does not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth, nothing found in BEFORE that has SIGCOV from independent sources. Info from sources found related to Awards and nominations does not meet SIGCOV and would fail WP:IS. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 15:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Austlit lists 17 works about his works. Below are from some of the better known publications listed. Info from sources found related to Awards and nominations does meet SIGCOV and would pass WP:IS.duffbeerforme (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pierce, Peter (23 September 2006), "Gaining in translation", The Age
Full length review of Tuvalu. (Peter Pierce is professor of Australian literature at James Cook University.)
Stubbings, Diane (19 August 2006), "All-absorbing look at search for an elusive dream", The Canberra Times
Keep: this is a classic case of an editor equating a lack of references with notability. It has needed, and has now received, an edit that includes a number of references. The author's novel, Tuvalu, is an Australian prize-winner, which makes it notable. To delete the page of the author of that novel would diminish the encyclopedia. The page still needs more work rather than a deletion. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the book awards and these critical reviews of Tuvalu [24], [25], passes AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And this discussion [26] of his work. Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are a bios on a nomination pages, nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent sources. BEFORE found nothing meeting SIGCOV with indepth coverage. // Timothy :: talk 17:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Macedonian article has two news items about him and confirms he won an award; the news appears to be in RS, I think this passes notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a review of his book here [27]. The News link in the nomination header here brings up a few other articles about him in Macedonian media, and he's mentioned as a translator here [28] in a Maltese newspaper, showing some international reach. Oaktree b (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A very long standing, since 2005, and short article supported only by the title character's own books. Nothing independent and nothing reliable. Undoubtedly well known in their specialist circle but no evidence of notability as understood by Wikipedia . Searches find his books and , many photos including beer drinking on a rock face and very many web pages with the Wikipedia text. Difficult to say which came firts and to determione whether this is simply 100% copy vio, but with a start date in 2005, it is likely that this is being mirrored (without acknowldgement) in many other places. Fails WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 22:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Only just saw this now. I have sympathy for the nom as any WP:BASIC gives patchy sourcing, but Sherman is considered one of the founders of modern bouldering and the inventor of the now dominant V-grade scale (the "V" is believed to be his nickname 0f "Vermin").
In 2011, Geographic did a piece on him and saying John “Verm” Sherman is a legend among us. He pioneered bouldering and invented the V-scale for grading bouldering problems. He also championed the development of bouldering at Hueco Tanks, Texas. Quite a legacy.
In 2022, the York Times did a piece on bouldering being an Olympic sport, with Sherman, saying He went on to spend the next 50 years creating new boulder routes — called “problems” in the sport — and helped popularize bouldering through books, articles and outrageous stunts.
In 2022, when Outside did a piece on 12 Great Moments in Bouldering History, they opened it by explaining the effect of Sherman's V-scale on bouldering, and their sister publication, Climbing, has several articles that have sections that discuss his contributions here.
Hope that is helpful. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standards were far lower in 2005, and notability should not be assessed on that basis. Sherman is mentioned five times in the 2002 book Wizards of Rock: A History of Free Climbing in America by Pat Ament. On page 244, Ament wrote that in 1980, "John Sherman began to establish himself as one of the leading boulderers." I own the book. Here is coverage in Climbing magazine. Here is coverage by the American Alpine Club. Here is more coverage in Climbing magazine, with Sherman's name in the title of the article. Here is coverage in Texas Monthly. Cullen328 (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is mainly a resume. Most of the sources in the article consist of dead links from websites that are related to Lya Stern; the rest of the sources either have brief mentions of her or don't mention her at all. After doing a Google search to see if there were sources that could be added to the article, the only significant coverage I found of her was from a website that listed Wikipedia as a source. The rest of the information I found was from her YouTube channel and mentions of her from her students. As a result, she doesn't met WP:GNG or WP:NBLP. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentOne source via Newspapers.com goes into some depth. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Weak) - There is a big gap in WP on instrumental performers who have created the American musical/movie music scene, and in general the encyclopedia is too quick to delete (especially for women and minority performers), but here I think the AfD is correct. The Baltimore Sun article gives a bit of notability, but the other sources do not. A blurb on the back of one's teacher's independently published book is not enough. There needs to be more and I could not find anything that led to more than what a local performing teacher would have. Glad to be proven wrong. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk) 08:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is a staff written bio at AllMusic here and an album review here to go with the detailed Baltimore Sun article linked earlier by Hameltion. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does Eudice Shapiro have to do with the subject of this article? That Tired TarantulaBurrow 23:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just agreeing with That Tired Tarantula above -- @Atlantic306 you have linked to reviews for a different musician. If Lya Stern had an Allmusic staff bio, that would be relevant, but I could not find one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk) 01:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, have struck my vote and comment. In my defence the erroneous AllMusic bio is the first reference in the article but I should have noticed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the subject doesn't meet the WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR, as their works don't seem noteworthy enough. The press coverage in WP:RS also not significant or in depth enough, so fails to meet WP:GNG. Does not satisfy WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or better to be moved to the draft Kotebeet (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree with the nominator. A British Muslim Awards recipient is already qualified for a Wikipedia entry per WP:ANYBIO and from the article was cited to a reliable source per WP:RS. Also, as a journalist of a notable newspaper or TV which she was for Huffpost give us assurance of passing WP:JOURNALIST. She also wrote a book which is notable enough to qualify WP:NAUTHOR. What's then needed for an article? Not being braid doesn't mean it came be a standalone article. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, I'm curious about how she meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria simply for working at Huffpost. The policy doesn't say anything like this. Additionally, is writing just one book sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One book which is reviewed by reliable sources is considered as notable. But may not require a article. However, we usually have problem when journalists wrote about others as few or less writing about them, in other way, winning an award for such excellence in media is part of both ANYBIO and JOURNALISM. While these are additional criteria, the article generally meets our general notability guidelines where being cited to reliable sources, verifiable and significantly covered per WP:SIGCOV. Even as there isn't any fact for such, a redirect should have served better not only when she won a major award and a book mistake reviewed. Let's be truthful herein and ignore certain additional essays. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 09:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because the article raises concerns regarding its credibility due to several factors: 1) Excessive Referencing: With only six sentences, the presence of ten references seems disproportionate. This abundance of citations may suggest an attempt to over-validate the content rather than provide genuine support for the points made. 2) Questionable Contributor: The primary contributor, "User:Kotebeet," [contributed approximately 80% of the content], is no longer active on the platform. This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor.--Crosji (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crosji, you are wrong here. I disagree that an AFD process requires the author except in major cases like undisclosed WP:UPE or thereabout. I am asking you do look at the article by our process of inclusion; WP:GNG. If you have any issue with the creator, then face them. I can't find any argument you're making besides you vote says "not noteworthy". Meaning? Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 10:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crosji, also there is no issue of WP:REFBOMB here. I don't seem to understand your statement This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor, when a creator doesn't require anything on whether to delete an article or keep them. However, this is a process and you can't vote twice. Do remove any of the votes. Thanks! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 10:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 07:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given his novels and play I think he may possibly be notable under WP:AUTHOR but I can’t search for reviews in Arabic without the original names of his works. It’s unfortunate when editors rush to create an en.wiki article when there isn’t yet one in the mother language. Mccapra (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of an artist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for artists or writers. As always, creative professionals are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists -- the notability test doesn't hinge on sourcing their work to itself as proof that it exists, it hinges on sourcing their work to external validatation of its significance, through independent third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in media and/or books. But this is referenced almost entirely to directly affiliated primary sources -- the self-published websites of galleries that have exhibited her work, "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's associated with, etc. -- and the only footnotes that represent any kind of third-party coverage are a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person and a single article in the local newspaper of her own hometown, which doesn't represent enough coverage to get her over the bar all by itself. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject of a 16 minute segment on CBC radio, holds a residency, has exhibited in many exhibitions. Plus, this well-referenced article seems to be the work of a new editor participating in an editathon, who submitted their work to AfC and had it approved, and has since created another well-referenced biography of a different artist; to delete this would be a slap in the face for a serious new contributor to the encyclopedia. (I was initially suspicious of COI or paid editing because I noticed that the editor had made 10 varied edits a little while before starting this article, but I note that the artist's name was on the list of "Suggestions for notable artists / writers / curators / contributors, etc. without articles:" at Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism 2024, so I believe this art historian is a genuine enthusiastic new editor in the field of artist biographies.) PamD 11:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Artists do not become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows by sourcing those gallery shows to content self-published by those galleries (as was done here) — artists only become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows if you can source the gallery shows to third-party content about the gallery shows, such as a newspaper or magazine art critic reviewing said show, but not a single gallery show here has cited the correct kind of sourcing to make her notable for that.
And the CBC source is an interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which is a kind of source that we're allowed to use for supplementary verification of stray facts in an article that has already passed WP:GNG on stronger sources but not a kind of source we can use to bring the GNG in and of itself, because it isn't independent of her. And no, articles aren't exempted from having to pass GNG just because they came out of editathons, either: editathons still have to follow the same principles as everybody else, and the articles resulting from them still have to properly source their notability claims. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the CBC radio piece is an interview, surely her selection as the subject of an interview in a series on a major radio station is an indicator of notability? As is her selection for two residencies: the organisations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist, and there are sources from those organisations. PamD 21:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC interview is from one of the CBC's local programs on one of its local stations, not from the national network, so it isn't automatically more special than other interviews just because it came from a CBC station instead of a Corus or Pattison or Rogers station. So it isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source she has.
It isn't enough that the organizations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist — they aren't independent of the residency, so they're still affiliated sources. The source for a residency obviously can't be her own website, but it also can't be the website of the organization that she worked with or for either — it has to be a third party that has no affiliation with either end of that relationship, namely a media outlet writing about the residency as news, because the organization is still affiliated with the statement. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, reluctantly. It seems to me I've previously read something about this artist, and her work has been exhibited in well known galleries. I'm just not finding any additional independent reliable sources beyond the first one in the article. Willing to change my vote if better sourcing is found. Curiocurio (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per PamD. This was not a person-picked-off-the-street interview. BD2412T 01:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: borderline but I think tagging the article for relying on primary sources might be sufficient without needing to delete the entry. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If primary sources are virtually all it has, then just tagging it for relying on primary sources isn't sufficient — it's not enough to assume that better sources exist that haven't been shown. Better sources have to be demonstrated to exist, not just speculated about as theoretically possible, in order to tip the balance between an AFD discussion and just being flagged for better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not speculating, read your discussion above with PamD then made my decision. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG as well as the four criteria set down by WP:NARTIST. The nominator's report is spot on. After discarding the interviews and the primary sources, we're left with a non-existent case for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a directory of artists, nor a collection of indiscriminate information. And the extensive discussion is rather surprising for such an evidently straightforward issue. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why are you discarding the CBC interview? FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 14:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the CBC feature, combined with the weight of what seem to be adequate sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What adequate sources? I see exactly one. Curiocurio (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the Guleph Today piece and CBC coverage, there is non-primary coverage. Whether aspects of the biography sourced to primary sources are wholly due as paragraphic body text or could be better rendered as a list of works/residences is a content question at the article level rather than an inclusion/deletion question at the encyclopedia level. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nicely done bio on the notability borderline. Don't we have more serious things to worry about? Carrite (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - most of the sources are primary, and not high-quality at that, as they are very promotional. She has very little reliable third-party coverage. Swordman97talk to me 03:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A dozen warm-up edits then creation of a detailed article with mostly commercial non-archival references. Article has a cereal-filler claim to notability ("She is primarily known for her sculptural works which incorporate a variety of natural and industrial materials.") This looks like some kind of fan-page or COI. 2600:1700:8650:2C60:89EE:CBB:BDD3:F68E (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 08:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding any RS online to add to the article. She does exist as an author and artist but fails WP:Artist. WP:TOOSOON. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
above people mentioned Guleph Today and CBC, both are RS FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being mentioned in a RS source does not indicate that the coverage contributes evidence of the subject's notability. I agree with other commenters that this falls short of WP:Artist, her importance in Maple Ridge, British Columbia notwithstanding. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All these guidelines that allow us to say "passed xyz standard", or "fails XYZ standard" is handy to have. But the fact of the matter is, we have articles like this one, where it should be obvious that this is an accomplished artist. Maybe she does/or doesn't exactly fit into the guidelines we so love to haul out for our assessment. Wikipedia has kept stubs and others with far less content and substance than this one. As far as I'm concerned, her article shows her qualifications to be here. We get carried away sometimes on one view or the other. I say she's notable as an artist, and I'm sticking to my perspective on it. — Maile (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll concur with Maile66. I see sufficient anchoring sourcing (Guleph Today and CBC) and plenty of less independent stuff (which may be used to detail the subject once NOTE is met, which I now assert). Given the usual dearth of direct detailing of visual artists in media, this sourcing is pretty good. BusterD (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
