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.
And please just talk about the sources and don't try to label me. I could do the same thing by pointing out the nature of your contributions (we are discussing it here), which are clearly associated with ethnonationalist ideas, deprecated here on Wikipedia. I am active on the Italian-language Wikipedia, not here. Here on the English-language Wikipedia I am limiting myself to these topics, because I was surprised by how much certain users have imposed certain clearly POV ideas in recent years. --Syphax98 (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Talk:World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan#Requested move 29 October 2024, concerns were brought up regarding the notability of this topic in sources, specifically such a way to make it notable and not violate WP:NOTNEWS. In addition, trying to find an "official" name for this topic seemed to provide no results, and the claim that this is the "world's largest" without "in Afghanistan" was apparently disproven 2 years after the creation of this article's subject [9]. In a nutshell, there seems to be no references to illustrate that the subject of this article had encyclopedic notability that can withstand WP:GNG. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for deletion. I was the sole participant in the aforementioned RM discussion, besides the nominator, Steel1943. Our discussion reached a dead end due to a lack of ongoing coverage in English language sources establishing an appropriateWP:COMMONNAME or official name. Some English language sources revealed new record holder's for "world's largest [handmade] Quran," thus calling into question variations on the current descriptive title. Additionally, there are no Wikipedia articles in other languages for this topic. All of this raised the question of notability and led Steel1943 and I to pursue this AfD discussion. I would defer to other editors on the ultimate decision. I'm not familiar enough with the topic and related subject area to conclusively determine whether appropriate sources, in English or not, exist to establish notability.--MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk20:24, 4 November 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
This article has zero independent sources that provide any nontrivial content about the article subject. Most of it is just blog posts he made or articles he wrote. The rest discusses that he was elected to local government as a district councilor. The BBC covered one of his opponents. Here's the only text the BBC wrote about the article subject: Mr Humphries is contending the Droitwich Central ward against John Hartley of the Conservative Party and Chas Murray of the Liberal Democrats.
I accepted this at AFC after requesting the create protection was lifted in mainspace. I now have strong doubts that Gertoux has anything other than faux-notability, and believe that I was in error. I have subsequently, with consensus, removed undue weight from thge article. However, I am struggling to check and verify references in the detail required. At AFC I needed simply to accept based on what I believed was a greater than 50% probability of surviving an immediate deletion process. It has done that - there was no immediate deletion process. Now I am looking in greater detail I have found that it has an impenetrable referencing scheme, which often links in a tortuous manner to Gertoux's own works. Quotations in the references often do not match the alleged fact that is cited. Some I have removed. However, when studied in detail, each references appears susceptible to challenge in some manner. My conclusion is that this is a WP:SOAPBOX and a WP:COATRACK for the ideas and concepts attributed to Gertoux. Furthermore that he fails WP:BIO, WP:NPROF, and WP:GNG. If deleted it should again be salted 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His only claim to fame is not finishing his PhD, and accusing his professors of the "great French academic conspiracy against fundamentalism". The reason for not allowing him to continue his PhD wasn't his religious affiliation, but his insistence to peddle WP:FRINGE fundamentalist claims in his dissertation. Because which church he attends in his leisure time is not relevant to getting a PhD. Belonging to a tiny religious movement could be frowned upon, but it is ultimately a private matter which does not concern writing a dissertation. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, being personally a fundamentalist does not concern the university: that's what he is during his leisure time. Writing a fundamentalist dissertation does concern the university. MIVILUDES is more of an organized whistleblower than an organization exercising political or juridical power. E.g. when I was a Christian fundamentalist I managed to get a BSc from the University of Amsterdam, which is considered a bastion of atheism by many. When a professor wrote to him that he is a fundamentalist, the professor meant that his dissertation is fundamentalist. Otherwise, French professors don't tell him which church he should attend. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeffro77 I am grateful. I was unable to see the prior article(s) when I reviewed this since I do not have admin goggles. While they might or might not have changed my acceptance they would have meant that I would have made an even more detailed study than I did. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on JWs coatrack presumption: Since the 19th century, Bible Students have used the form Jehovah in their worship and in general in their movement, and since 1931 they have been using the name Jehovah's Witnesses for their denomination for almost a century, I do not believe that they need Gertoux's support to justify the inclusion and use of the term Jehovah, or that they are interested in it because I typed in the web search engine and found that the JWs cite George Wesley Buchanan, Everett Fox,[10] and dozens, but never Gertoux. Regarding pronunciation, JWs have always affirmed:
that the form Yahweh is the form most accepted by scholars
that there are other pronunciations such as Iao (i.e. 4Q120) or Yaho, and others, and it is not possible to know the original pronunciation
that they use Jehovah because it is well known and familiar
that it is possible to use the pronunciation of an individual's choice
JWs use both Jehovah and Yahwen in their publications
Even Gertoux claims that he limits the Yehowah pronunciation only to the 1st century CE,[11] because going further back is a mythical rather than a scientific quest. So can Gertoux give support to the JWs, to use the pronunciation proposed by him, when the JWs do not need it? Reference has been made to soapbox and coatrack, which is not clearly what this is about, or, how to prove that it is? Although there is no clear relationship in the coatrack and soapbox, I can well think that researchers who have also attracted attention in these contexts are relevant, JWs are a fairly large community. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that JWs have been using the form Jehovah for a long time has no bearing on an attempt to make their (and similar groups') views appear more legitimate by a purportedly independent scholar presenting that view as 'mainstream'. The assertion that "JWs use both Jehovah and Yahwen [sic] in their publications" is intentionally misleading, and they actually only use Yahweh in their literature when quoting other sources or suggesting that the form Yahweh is inferior to the form Jehovah. (The denomination's Watchtower Library uses Yahweh a total of 732 times compared to Jehovah appearing 360,095 times.) See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Gerard Gertoux.--Jeffro77Talk12:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the doctoral thesis rejected: it is interesting that his doctoral supervisor worked for 3 years and developed the thesis for the defense. The other reporters had also accepted it. At the last moment Gertoux changed his thesis, only to have it rejected? Then his next doctoral supervisor and again the same reporters who already knew the thesis would accept it again for transfer, and then tell him that they could not accept it? Obviously the rejection was not because of its content. Anyone in France knows about the treatment of minority groups. On the other hand, people with no doctorate, no master's degree or even no bachelor's degree have become top academics: Freeman Dyson, Louis Smullin, Walter Russell Mead, Andrew Casson, William Gillan Waddell, Jack Edmonds, John Strugnell, etc. so a rejected dissertation would not be an obstacle to the existence of a WP article. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can unfortunately not build upon your personal opinions about the topic, or what you "obviously" find to be true, only on opinions and analysis presented in reliable, secondary sources. Therefore, please provide such sources. Geschichte (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Gertoux's book The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is Pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah. It Story has been included among the references of articles in The Encyclopedia of Christianity, the Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity and the Μεγάλη Ορθόδοξη Χριστιανική Εγυκλοπαίδεια (ΜΟΧΕ). Some reviews of two Gertoux's books:
Winedt, Marlon (2004). Lind, Sarah (ed.). "Biblical Studies § OT § Gérard Gertoux. 2002. The Name of God Y.EH.OW.AH Which is Pronounced as It is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah: Its Story. University Press of America. Translated from the French Un historique du nom divin. Un Nom Encens (L'Harmattan, 1999)". TIC Talk. Newsletter of the United Bible Societies Translation Information Clearinghouse. 57. United Bible Societies.
Gee, John (June 2004). "Gertoux, Gérard. The Name of God Y.EH.OW.AH Which is Pronounced as It Is Written I_EH_OU_AH. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2002. Pp. 328. Paper. $47.00. ISBN 0761822046". Review of Biblical Literature. Society of Biblical Literature. ISSN1099-0321.
Comment: The substantial amount of extraneous comment about some mythical being named (probably) Jehovah is not germane to this discussion and distracts and detracts from the pure policy based discussion on whether Gerard Gertoux ought to be kept of deleted. It is pure blether, dancing very close to bludgeoning. This discussion is not about a mythical being. It is about the deletion or retention of the article. Since I am the nominator I do not feel I ought to be the one to collapse it. "Soneone else" should be, after mature reflection. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found coverage of him in one independent source, a Publishers Weekly article.[12] It looks like all of his books are self-published. I didn't find any other significant coverage of him or his books. Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Schazjmd(talk)22:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The CNN source used in the article is a RS, and the Publisher's Weekly cited above seems ok; two sources about an author, that's more than what we see in some articles about authors here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
probably delete (weak delete) I didn't really conduct that much research, though it doesn't seem like he's that notable. not significant coverage by major outlets, review websites. has zero books that are so ubiquit that they show up everywhere, including LibraryHub's bookmarks, kirkus, publishers weekly, end of the year lists. no major literary awards according to isfdb and sfadb. even nominations. best he has is nominations for locus, which isn't good enough to keep unless he wins one. royal not listed as a 2011 nominee for locus award for scifi, fantasy, ya, first, or any category here https://www.sfadb.com/Locus_Awards_2011Create a template (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(unsigned misplaced comment) I can confirm that all of his novels were self-published. The publishing company is Mathias Publishing. He owns this company as a fictitious business name. The business is not registered in his home state of Oklahoma. I am in favor of deleting the article as it does not meet the requirements for ‘notable’. I apologize if I’m not using proper editor quotes and references. I contributed to this article 8 years ago correcting misinformation and guesswork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biouxtai (talk • contribs) 02:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC) moved into place by 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, being the manager of a non-notable influencer isn't notable... The influencer doesn't seem to have an article here. [13] is a PR item, a non-RS. The rest of the article reads as a CV of a production company person, which seems PROMO at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He is not notable for an article. Of all footnotes in the article just two discussed the subject in WP:SIGCOV and I am not sure of the reliability of those two sources. His notably heavily relies on his management of a social media influencer with purported over 160 million followers on TikTok and being 5th most followed on Instagram. This manager fails WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article because it was linked to a dozen pages already, had an article in another language, and is the author of The Crystal and the Amulet, which has had an article on the English Wikipedia for years. I also linked to external databases, most of which have longer articles about him than this current stub --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: There's a review of a book written about him [14], suggesting notability. This [15] was published on paper at one point but is now online; Cawthorn has an entry there. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added a couple of citations and am fairly sure that SF Encyclopedia (the online version of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction) can be considered reliable. I hope someone who knows more about science fiction and illustration can add a few more citations or edit. Is there a deletion sorting category for science fiction? The book mentioned above was written by his sister and published by a very small press. I am unsure if it adds to notability. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article came up at ANI, due to an IP address making inappropriate edits, and on closer inspection I don't think that the subject is notable. The article asserts that he has lectured at a couple of academic institutions, but he doesn't appear to be currently employed at either of them, and that wouldn't constitute an WP:NPROF pass anyway. His dismissal from a railway engineering firm was covered in the national press, but WP:BLP1E. He has written a book, but the reviews I'm finding for that are written on activist websites, railway fan forums and the like - it's not an WP:NAUTHOR pass. That leaves us with the idea that he is notable because he is interviewed in the press from time to time about matters concerning railway transportation; I'm not persuaded that that constitutes notability for our purposes. He may become notable in the future, if his writing attracts significant critical attention, but to my mind this article is premature. GirthSummit (blether)11:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week redirect to Peter Hendy#Network Rail, where his sacking is covered. Despite enjoying his work, I have to agree that at present Dennis doesn't quite have enough coverage (per WP:BLP1E) to merit a standalone article (although I personally don't think he's too far off). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk13:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem to pass author notability for "How Railways will fix the Future", this is the only sort of "critical review" I could find [16] and I'm not sure if that even counts as a RS. Getting fired isn't terribly notable. I don't see him passing academic notability either. I'm not sure what's left for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just to be clear, I think trains are great, and the subject's advocacy and passion are probably for the good. But being interviewed a lot, getting sacked for maybe not choosing his words carefully enough, and writing one book with apparently one review (in something called Counterfire, "a revolutionary socialist organisation committed to transforming our society from one based on the profit motive to one built on the needs of working people" [17]), aren't even close to notability material. It's worth pointing out that the subject himself has edited the article recently, so we can assume that any worthwhile sources are already present in the article. EEng16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be fair, as far as I can tell, Dennis only made two edits in August, which amounted to a change of the nationality of his father, which in the timeline of this article doesn't seem very recent. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk16:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't implying there was anything wrong with his edits. My point was simply that you can count on the subject to have added to the article any missing significant sources about himself, if any existed. (Or he might have raised them on the talk page.) EEng16:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can assume that. If there was an article on me, I probably wouldn't edit it or its talk page point blank as far as possible. If there was something bad enough that I felt I did need to do something I would likely stick to the talk page etc but whatever I did, would still only edit in relation to these important issues. And no matter how much else I felt was missing I likely wouldn't do anything about it, not even posting sources on the talk page. I'm not sure if I'd worry too much about the nationality of my father myself, but it can be a big deal for some. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth noting the book is only being published this month so it could be a case of WP:TOOSOON as far as reviews go. For this reason, if it can't be kept, I would support a redirect for now per @Cakelot1:'s suggestion. Starklinson (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and suggestion: stories about him are front page news in UK national newspapers today, please can we wait a while to make a decision, there are many new refs to add and very likely more in the next days. John Cummings (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt if any newspaper, anywhere in the world has front-page, today, that isn't entirely One Story. In terms of update, itself, it doesn't seem to change the WP:BLP1E calculation (it being an update to the "Hendy event"). Is your impression that we are likely to get any stories about Gareth, that don't concern his firing/Hendy? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk13:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is off topic, but I guess when somebody says a front page news, I still think there talking about the print editions (which were pretty uniform in being about the elections). Certainly when I went to the Grauniad website yesterday the first screen I got (from the UK) was all US election stories/widgets and had to scroll to see anything else, but I guess that would also depend on size, etc. All of which is besides the point about the 1E-ness of the article. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk09:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind when newspapers were being prepared for Wednesday morning in the UK, it's fairly likely all that there was to say about the US election, was something like "Americans vote in monumental election" so it's not particularly surprising they had a lot of room for other stuff on their front pages. I'm sure their Thursday papers and any evening or other late editions might be different. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point remains though that this is still BLP1E - it looks like he ended up getting sacked because a government minister complained to his boss about something he said in an interview; that (now former) government minister has apologised, and that apology is resulting in news coverage. We can (and do) cover those controversial events in the article about the politician (although it looks like that might need a bit of updating in light of today's coverage), but it doesn't follow that we need an article about the individual who lost his job. GirthSummit (blether)14:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean an article on the scandal / controversy? I don't have a view on whether or not it would be possible, but I doubt it worthwhile - as scandals involving government ministers go, it's pretty low level. Mentioning it at the page about him is probably worthwhile, but I wouldn't go further than that personally, and I've written some low-traffic articles in my time! GirthSummit (blether)09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing stopping you making a user space copy of it yourself right now, provided you follow the guidelines at WP:CWW. If this closes as redirect, as seems likely at this point, you would then be able to work on it in your user space, and copy back across to the article title when the subject clearly passes notability criteria. I'd appreciate a courtesy ping if you do that, but I can't require that of you. GirthSummit (blether)09:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit I'm requesting this because I want to catch the most developed version of this article if it dissappears, given that its currently covered in the news it seems likely it will change in the next days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cummings (talk • contribs) 09:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whoever closes the discussion can make that call; I guess it could be draftified/userfied and then a redirect put in its current title place if that's the decision. GirthSummit (blether)15:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that waiting for a deletion decision is best. A copy/paste drafting would lack the version history, which might hold information that's useful in the future. A page move isn't appropriate during the AfD discussion. But that's essentially the best outcome for @John Cummings. I just !voted delete, but this is a sincere comment. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peter Hendy#Network Rail, as the sacking seems to be the main source of notability now. If delete & redirect is the outcome then I'd be happy with userifying the latest version for John Cummings to keep on working on it; if the book becomes notable by reviews, then the content of this article might be useful background, but with only a single authored book, WP:AUTHOR isn't going to be met for Dennis himself, even if multiple mainstream reviews are later published. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the merits of this article, it very clearly wasn't written to support his upcomming book. The first versions of the article don't mention the book and came months before the incident with Hendy happened. Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Every year, hundreds of IPS and IAS officers are appointed in India, and most of them receive media coverage. They are often highlighted as successful individuals, especially those from poor backgrounds. According to this, it would seem that all of them should qualify for Wikipedia, Sorry. Baqi:) (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NLIST. This article is just a simple list without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit, and no WP:SIGCOV indicating this list is discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Article contains original research as well with many questionable entries where the corresponding article doesn't even mention horror fiction writer. Isaidnoway(talk)08:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, once suitably pruned and referenced to address the objections given above. There are certainly plenty of lists from WP:RS of top 10, top 100, etc. horror books, and that might be a good place to start. See User:The Anome/Draft/List of horror writers for a fairly defensible list of writers, each cited to at least one WP:RS as either being notable for being a horror writer or as the author of at least one notable work of horror fiction. — The Anome (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, navigational lists like this don't have to be an encyclopedic topic (and nor do they even need to be referenced), they're here to help the reader find pre-existing articles on their members. This list is helpful to the reader who wants to know the biographical details of that author they remember reading last year, "...who's name began with a B... or was it a C... Martha someone??". Elemimele (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: and if the revised version was to be enhanced by nationality and dates, like the current version, that would add value as well. I'd also point out that the topic of horror authors has been discussed in many published works, eg. to name just the first two hits of Google Books, ISBN9780786462490, ISBN9781587150111... — The Anome (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not much of a fan of navigational lists in general, inasmuch as they oftentimes aren't well suited to their intended purpose and don't have well-thought-out WP:LISTCRITERIA, but this seems like a rather defensible one both in terms of scope and design (the real solution would be some kind of technical solution that would make maintaining these kinds of lists manually unnecessary, but that's a separate discussion). Being a navigational list and thus being restricted to entries with stand-alone articles per WP:CSC keeps this from expanding unboundedly as some lists are wont to do, and entries having only the minimal biographical information keeps it from becoming bloated with a bunch of WP:Original research commentary on the entries as is unfortunately also common on list articles (as long as the entries stick to it, at least). The corresponding category (Category:Horror writers) appears to contain a few hundred articles on writers in its various sub-categories (I could, admittedly, be way off in that estimate), so it shouldn't get so long as to necessitate a split or similar. As for inclusion criteria, I might suggest a simple "described as a horror writer by WP:Reliable sources" or something along those lines. TompaDompa (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:TompaDompa and I have now extensively reworked this list article into a version that is now fully sourced and purged of excess fluff. The criterion for inclusion is now "notable writer who has published significant work in the horror field" (notability of the author to be shown by the existence of a properely sourced WP article, and the significance of the work by the cite given here, eg. one or more of their horror works being the subject of WP:RS that describes it as such, or the presence of the work/works in a "best of" horror writing list published by a WP:RS.) — The Anome (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The reference to Deccan Chronicle is valid. However, the inclusion of 'Amazon' as a reference is inappropriate and does not meet reliable sourcing standards. Given these sources, the subject may not meet the criteria outlined in Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines (WP:GNG), which require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Therefore, additional references from reputable publications would be needed to establish notability effectively. Baqi:) (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the DC's author seemed dubious, but further review revealed that Cris S is an assistant editor at DC. After removing Amazon and Goodreads, the other three sources don't meet the significant coverage requirement.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is insufficient information to support the subject of this article's notability. Even before I began culling this page of non-WP:RS sources, this article had no citations supporting much of the personal life and religious sections. As such, this subject does not meet the guidelines of sufficient coverage and verifiability. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recommending this article for deletion. The person has no particular wiki worthy notability. He is a psychiatrist.
The page mentions that - "Known for Various presentations public speeches and debates done for Kerala Freethinkers Forum and many other science groups of Kerala". This isn't something that qualifies as notability. Freethinkers itself isn't particularly notable on its own. And being a member of it isn't any remarkable achievement.
And has received an award named Media Special Appreciation Award' which is of no particular value whatsoever. Every professional would have received some form of award in their career.
Delete: The sources for the subject consist primarily of promotional articles offering suggestions, tips, and recommendations on medical well-being. Additionally, there is a verifiable and reliable source related to a sexual offense case. However, beyond that, the subject lacks significant notability, thereby failing to meet Wikipedia's WP:GNG.--— MimsMENTORtalk07:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep may be notable as many other journalists; some sources do exist as my quick google search shows, but I'm not good at evaluating journalistBLPs. --25lucky (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a journalist at the very beginning of a career, and like an assistant professor, we almost never keep such articles as being too soon. Bearian (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and augment. Part of the issue with the author is that it can be difficult to meet WP:AUTHOR when her working language is Irish, and that doesn't Google so well. I'll also point to her article in the Irish Language Wikipedia, which has clearly met inclusion criteria there. Yes - different wiki, different rules, but still ... - Alisontalk04:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Her works have been included in anthologies [18], and some analysis here [19] and here [20]. There's some coverage in Gaelic (?) sources if you limit it to .ie websites, but I can't tell what qualifies as a RS in that language. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was the one who got the article up in the first place, but I tend to agree now that more references are needed, as discussed above. As for notability, a significant problem for writers in Irish is that few reviews are available in English, though I would regard her as a poet worthy of inclusion on her own merits. If the consensus was that the article should be deleted, I would accept that, and see if I could come up with something new and improved. Colin Ryan (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage that shows notability. I realize that the sources are non-English but doing my best through Google Translate I think this is likely the best source which looks more like a reprint of a bio. CNMall41 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are some very quirky expressions and stylistic oddities for an english reader in the text of the article, (that is not encyclopediac) despite some off putting aspects that would lend to a sense of promotional - it is (barring some conclusive evidence of copyvio or similar problem) just notable, in the realm of probabilities, but requires quite a lot of editing. JarrahTree03:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, JarrahTree. Which sources would you consider significant coverage to show notability here? I will take a look and withdraw the AfD should they be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm seeing the deputy chairman of a sub-ministerial government body, moderator in a Presidential debate, and major interviewee in a viral film. Not necessarily sufficient on their own, but together they definitely support a presumption of notability. Referring to the sources:
These are sources I saw but they are not about him. An interview is not independent and the others are him giving an opinion on legal issues. Where is the significant coverage about him?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the quality of the sources but I'm not ready to close this as No consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
