The Arts and Entertainment Work Group is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality and importance
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs... Specific discipline portals are listed in that section.
William Ely Hill (1887-1962) - Illustrator, created artwork for the book covers for F. Scott Fitzgerald and had a regular entry in the New York tribune along with being published on numerous occasions.
The general outline and collection has been started, but if you would like to expand and organize a discipline, here's what you do. Right below the page heading for the discipline insert this: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Work groups/Division banner}} and save. This will put a rough outline together for you and then you can edit it to conform to your area. See Writers and critics below for an example. If your project grows large enough where it's taking up a good portion of this page, you should probably move it to a subpage of this page.
You might also want to make a Members section for people to join your specific area!
Any article related to this work group should be marked by adding |a&e-work-group=yes to the {{WPBiography}} project banner at the top of its talk page. This will automatically place it into Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles. Articles can be assessed for priority within this work group by using the |a&e-priority= parameter. See Template:WikiProject Biography/doc for detailed instructions on how to use the banner.
Jubileeclipman (talk·contribs) I am interested in taking on UK celebrities with articles that are stubs or otherwise non-standard. Entirely rewrote Fearne Cotton to raise standard and remove fansite tag. I am working on Holly Willoughby which was merely a list plus trivia. Will also work on musicians, all genre, living or dead.
The article, given the recent history and its state at the time of nomination, seems to be in large part a vehicle for promoting some cryptocurrency coin's website or wallet address. Beyond not being in good shape today, I doubt this article is salvageable due to notability and coverage issues.
Given the many reverts in the history (a couple of them mine) over the crypto wallet spam, I expect a WP:PROD to be contested, so submitting here directly.
The handful of news articles about the statue itself are fairly short, they all contain roughly the same few paragraphs of information, such that there's not enough published about this statue to write a very good article even with more effort. My assessment after a quick search is that this is not near the level of significant coverage expected to pass WP:GNG guidelines. Mlkj (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Times article and other coverage. Too soon to delete as it's not known if this will be notable in the future (as it is at present) or where the statue will end up after its planned nationwide exhibition. Other Trump statues, mostly satirical or mocking artworks, have retained their pages. It is said above that the artist, Alan Cottrill, isn't notable. He has a new Wikipedia article and see his 2016 Statue of Thomas Edison exhibited in the U.S. Capitol National Statuary Hall Collection representing the state of Ohio. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge together with the other, similarly problematic, ones to a new article, List of Donald Trump statues. Not notable enough for a stand-alone article, and "too soon to delete" should never be used as a reason to keep: we only keep once lasting notability is sure or near-sure, not in the hope that it will materialize in the future. Fram (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not need to merge if you create the list article, just add it as a linked entry on the list as is done with other American presidential statues. Yes, my mistake "too soon to delete", thanks. This is still a notable sourced statue by a notable sculptor. The Times article is much more notable coverage than most statues ever get. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Multiple reliable, secondary sources (including major outlets both within U.S. and internationally (i.e.: The Times) exist proving the artwork's notability. The artist, furthermore, is notable – and it has been confirmed that the statue will eventually be displayed at the future Trump Presidential Library. Infrastorian (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as suggested - this is literally a derivative work of a photograph. There are some sources, so a selective merge is possible. Bearian (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This [9] source doesn't look reliable to me, it looks like someone's personal website project. I can't find reliable sources that have "acid green" as the primary topic. Astaire (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect: There does seem to be a book written about the statue which contains articles/chapters written by several scholars including Michael W. Meister and Hans T. Bakker. However, I cannot access this source presently, and the article in its current form doesn't really say anything that isn't already mentioned in the article about the temples, and I suspect parts of it were written using ChatGPT. -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title of this article is actually not specific to the statue at this temple complex - Rudra is a name of Shiva / Siva (see Shiva, Rudra, and also [10], and there could be (probably are) many statues of Shiva in the form of Rudra. If anyone was searching for this particular statue, they would be likely to include a place name - and indeed, the book found by AmateurHi$torian and an article I found on Google Scholar [11] refer to it as the Tala Icon or the Tala Siva. (Both of those sources are already included as references in the article Devrani Jethani Temple Complex, though not in this article.) So I don't think it's an appropriate redirect. I think it might be more appropriate to include a photo of this statue and a link to Devrani Jethani Temple Complex in the Rudra article - or a list within that article of notable statues of Rudra - and certainly better to delete this, it doesn't add anything to what's already in the Devrani Jethani Temple Complex article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a life-long Godzilla fan, I'm ashamed to admit that I barely noticed that this article exists. But should it continue to exist? It was published (perhaps prematurely?) in 2013 and hasn't been expanded on since then. Maybe because there's very little significant coverage to warrant a whole article?
I say that because I tried to find as much info as I could, and all I could find was this Screen Rant article and they sum it up perfectly: "There are no signs of Tokyo 1960 being shown again after its original theatrical release, and no clips of it are available. All that remains are some posters (via Lost Media Wiki)".
For all we know, this could be a well-made hoax that caught on. But in case it isn't, I propose merging this with Godzilla (1954 film). It is notable to some degree but not enough to dedicate a whole Wiki article to it. Armegon (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is honestly nothing out there that I can find in reliable sources that can even verify that this existed. I would not be opposed to having a sentence or two in the Godzilla (1954 film) article mentioning if, and only if, any kind of reliable source can be found just for basic WP:V. But if the "best" source available is a Screen Rant article that is based entirely on content from a different Wiki, then doing so would definitely not be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging competent users in case they are interested and can help determine if this existed @Eiga-Kevin2, Hariboneagle927, Lenticel, Titopao, and Paleface Jack: (apologies if the pings were inappropriate/feel free to ping other users). I cannot have access to libraries that may contain newspapers or books about this, anytime soon, myself. Thanks,-Mushy Yank. 09:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This seems like a failure of WP:BEFORE. A simple GS search as #4 shows a snippet that states "Rawle discusses in detail films such as: the lost Filipino Tokyo 1960 (Teodorico C. Santos 1957)", in reference to the following book: " Steven Rawle, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2022, ix + 278 pp., £90 (hardback), ISBN: 978-1-4744-7580-8". (it is a book review of said book). This source should be consulted first. And while I cannot locate anything else, I'd be hesitant to delete this without hearing what a Tagalog-reader can find. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here13:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So, I actually went ahead and bought that book, since as a lifelong Godzilla fan I am genuinely curious about its history, and even it can not really verify whether the film exists or not. The section on Tokyo 1960 describes it as an online legend whose existence was only established through the movie posters being posted on Blog. And while it discusses how Fillipino cinema and political history of the era can be used as evidence in support of fan theories about the film, it admits that this can be nothing more than speculative since nothing aside from the poster images has ever surfaced. Its a decent, paragraph length discussion speculating on the film's existence, which could support a couple sentences mentioning it at Godzilla (1954 film) as a noteworthy online "legend" about the film, but I don't think it alone can really be used to justify keeping as a standalone article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Godzilla (1954 film). I can't find anything online aside from the Screen Rant article and the journal article. I found no newspaper archives covering this supposed film. At best it should probably have a mention in the target article. --Lenticel(talk)01:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively, per Rorshacma. It's questionable that this even exists, but there are reliable sources that have noted its importance even just as a rumor, so it should be covered somewhere, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I for the life of me can't find any reliable sources. the place and sculpture exists, but I don't think that it's notable. The only source I can find is
but I don't think this is particularly reliable. Everything else I could find online was not independent, or was covering a replacement of one of the sculptures with a bronze copy. I think this is a WP:TNT, WP:GNG, and is full of WP:PROMO in current form. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it now includes its Memorial Art Gallery page as a reference. Artworks usually are verified as notable if they include their sourced holding museum reference, so please check for these if you make further artwork AfDs (thanks). Additionally, the museum website page includes its own list of references. The museum page and its references, along with many of the other cites such as newspapers and The Brooklyn Rail reference included in the nomination, meet GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's simply untrue that a holding museum page for an article typically establishes notability, as many museums have brief data pages for most all their artwork and even this one lacks significant coverage needed to pass GNG. But the linked [12] in addition to the Brooklyn Rail is certainly enough for notability of the sculpture series. Reywas92Talk14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, museums have pages for their artworks. Please look at the museum link again, it contains further references towards the bottom. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's how I found the link I mentioned. But having a museum page doesn't mean a page is presumed to be notable, many don't have a bibliography or substantial analysis. Reywas92Talk18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, please have a read of the museum link. It's a full presentation with multiple photographs and its own references. Museum pages are not primary references, they are simply recognition that a particular artwork (or in this case, group of works) both exists and is prominent enough to be brought into and remain in the collection of their prominent museum. Museums don't just take in any work, they closely and expertly judge notability for inclusion, which is why a single museum source is usually enough to provide notability to an artwork. In this case the artwork is also fully in public space, to be visited at any hour of the day or night, and was granted this exposure by the museum which, of course, puts its own reputation on the line when making such decisions. Thanks for asking for further discussion, an exchange of points-of-view. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of thousands of museums that have judged millions of artworks to be in their collections. Significance to display at a university gallery – or even the Met, with 1.5 million works and perhaps as many webpages about expertly judged objects – is not the same as notability on Wikipedia or the need for a standalone page here. No, a single source is not acceptable, and there is no basis for this claim in WP:N. Reywas92Talk22:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, absolutely over done, over the top article about a run-of-the-mill sculpture in a park. I laughed out loud at the line about "Despite being a world famous artist." If it is necessary to have 9 of the 16 sources be the person who made the sculpture, then that is not a "world famous artist" and this is not a notable sculpture. There is clearly not enough coverage in independent sources to support a separate article about this sculpture. This sculpture can be covered in probably two sentences in the article on the artist. Asparagusstar (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed "world famous artist", good catch. Aside from that, it's not one sculpture, or a "sculpture in a park", as you imply throughout your comment. It's a series of sculptures. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed you "upgraded" your delete to 'Strong delete', even after I fixed your main objection. Pointing out again, the sculptures are not just a "sculpture' in a park but a series of sculptures placed in the outside public space of the major art museum in Rochester, New York. Aside from the museum cites the sources seem to easily meet GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is at least this editor's 5th comment here. Their incorrect claims have already been addressed by multiple editors. Their multiple attention-seeking comments are adding nothing to this conversation other than filibustering and wasting other editors' volunteer time. Asparagusstar (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to artist's article. The fact that the only "analysis" source is the one Brooklyn Rail article is not enough to justify a standalone article. It becomes a WP:COATRACK for primary source expansion when dedicated articles should be sourced to reliable, secondary sources. In this case, they do not appear to exist. The Marlborough Gallery exhibition essay is not independent of the subject. The other sources in the Magart catalog listing might be relevant to a Centennial Sculpture Park article but even then are more likely to fill out a section on that topic within the museum's article than to substantiate an article about an individual sculpture discussed in passing. Expand in summary style within the parent artist article. Also note that this article should be retitled by the artwork titles guideline and that the multiple images uploaded to Commons need to be deleted, lacking a free license to display the copyrighted sculpture with no freedom of panorama. czar14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Art isn't really my area, but I did find some additional sources that I thought might be useful. These three articles (one admittedly in a college paper) talk about plans for the sculpture and about the controversy surrounding it in a fair bit of detail: [13][14][15] (edit: apologies, missed that one of these was already in the article). These two articles from 2018 are about ongoing maintenance of the sculpture, suggesting that it continues to attract at least some level of attention: [16][17]. And I'm not sure whether this can be considered towards notability, but it's discussed at some length in this PhD dissertation (suggesting at least a minor level of academic interest in the sculpture?). It's definitely not the world's most prominent artwork, but a few pieces of artistic analysis plus some local news coverage as a landmark is enough to make me think it's marginally notable. MCE89 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dissertations and student papers are unreliable and not considered notable coverage for notability discussions. The Rochester City Magazine articles make the case for an article about the sculpture park, which can contain discussion of the sculpture, but where's the significant coverage to write about the sculpture itself without delving into primary sources like the article has? The other local news coverage is brief and doesn't contribute to this either. czar21:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The museum source is not a primary source. And no, this is not bludgeoning, just a clarification about museum pages reporting about their holdings. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to re-read that essay on bludgeoning. I don't often cite essays at people, as it's rude and counterproductive, but you should really just stop responding to this AfD. You've responded 6 times, and people know your opinion, and we know you are going to disagree with those arguing delete. You really can just drop the stick. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Gallery's sculpture garden not without controversy". The Buffalo News. 2013-08-04. p. 65. Retrieved 2025-01-23. The most interesting work at the new sculpture garden at Rochester's Memorial Art Gallery, the one that attracts the most attention, that takes up the most space, that visitors are most likely to spend the most time with, that is, in so many ways, delightful, is also the most controversial, the one with the darkest past. It's called Creation Myth and is the work of Tom Otterness, one of the country's best-known sculptors...
Jacobson, Sebby Wilson. "Inside Out: Memorial Art Gallery celebrates 100 years with a new sculpture park". American Craft. 73 (4): 90–93. Given a prime site at the park's busy corner, Otterness designed Creation Myth to link the gallery with its neighboring museums and artists' studios -and to reflect the region's history as the cradle of the U.S. women's rights movement. Reversing the roles of the traditional Pygmalion tale, the Brooklyn artist depicts female sculptors carving male sculptures amid a quarry-like setting that doubles as an amphitheater. Several massive, cartoonlike figures, composed of simple sphere, cube, cone, and cylinder forms, are rendered in Indiana limestone taken from the same quarry that supplied materials for the gallery's original building. Scattered throughout the site are about a dozen small bronze figures that depict the creative process, as well as same-sex couples kissing.
Steiner, Wendy (2015-08-01). "Moved by Metal On Beauty as Interaction". Metalsmith. 33 (4). Tom Otterness builds whole playgrounds out of the debris of the old Palace of Art, humanizing the cold geometric forms of modernism into lovable cones, cubes, and spheres. In the "Creation Myth" series, he deploys these figures to overturn the misogyny of the Pygmalion myth. In this archetypal account of male creativity, the sculptor Pygmalion refuses to use any model for his image of beauty, because he believes that all women are prostitutes. He fabricates an ideal female figure out of his own imagination, and predictably, falls in love with his self-projection. With the help of the gods, he kisses the statue to life and then marries her. This is Interactive Beauty with a vengeance, I suppose, except that the women in the story have no agency. Pygmalion is not only the artist, but the model for his artwork, its viewer, and its owner. Otterness amends this closed circuit with a female artist who sculpts a male statue, and when the two kiss, they kiss as equals.
I don't believe she meets WP:ARTIST. Could not find coverage in google news or books. The awards do not appear major (and not reported in press). She is not part of a permanent collection of notable galleries. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am looking her up in Australian art sources to check notability. In the meantime, as most of her career has been in Germany and she has received more exposure there, is there any way to refer her article to German Wikipedia and see if the German editors can find her as a notable artist there? LPascal (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article Anne Pincus does not have sources either (other Wikipedia sites have different criteria, and don't always require sources etc). Her own website, shown in the External links section, has a Press section which lists reviews of her exhibitions in publications like Süddeutsche Zeitung and Abendzeitung. Those articles have links to the newspapers' websites - I've just searched Süddeutsche Zeitung and found a 2021 review, but on first glance neither seems to go back far enough for reviews before that. I think as far as galleries are concerned, we'd also need to search in German galleries ... RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have looked at her artist's file in an art library and found enough ephemera and clippings to confirm the accuracy of her CV under "Exhibitions" on her own website. There isn't a lot of information about her in english since she left Australia for Germany in the late 1990s. She has been interviewed by Australian press and looks like occasionally exhibits here but I haven't found any of her works in the collections of the major government galleries. As mentioned in previous comments she might meet German wikipedia's standards for notability. I don't make a keep or delete comment one way or another on principle because I disagree with wikipedia's biased notability criteria for Australian women artists.LPascal (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LPascal, did you find any clippings of reviews? If so, could you perhaps include them as sources in the article? (Sorry, you probably would have if there were any - this is probably just wishful thinking!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a few sources to the article, and a bit of info. I'm also finding some paywalled sources, such as this [18], and any articles in the Süddeutsche Zeitung beyond the one I have accessed (which is a review of an exhibition, but doesn't seem to be written by an art critic). RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the writer is known within the contemporary art scene in the UK and is currently active suggesting there may be more additions to the page in future. While I agree that searching for the author turns up lots of his own writing, a look at other art critics, writers and journalists with Wikipedia entries returns similar results. In terms of independent coverage, this article does include links to notable outlets that have sought his views on art stories and artworks. Suggestions for improvement rather than deletion may be a better course of action. Londoneditor284 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — Londoneditor284 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - although this person is mostly only known within the contemporary British art scene, they have contributed numerous articles, interviews, and features in multiple outlets and have been quoted in many sources (as can be seen from the citations). They are clearly significant enough within their own field to warrant keeping this article. Any suggestions to improve the article would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.218.212 (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — 80.45.218.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Quotations in sources are not enough to demonstrate notability (except in a limited case for certain academics), and authoring articles isn't either. What SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources can you offer? Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me do some digging and get back to you. The nature of the subject (someone who writes about other people's artwork for a living) makes it difficult by definition to have many SIGCOV sources. I feel this should be taken into account? 80.45.218.212 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could Dclemens1971 help in finding any better sources for this person/article? I've looked at pages for other critics too but can't seem to see how they fit the criteria if we are super-strict with SIGCOV Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote. LizRead!Talk!03:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
It's what we should expect from a person who's not notable, I suppose. And as already mentioned, please strike through your duplicative !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting this AFD discussion. Since there are several strong Keep arguments, I'm giving this discussion a little more time for supporters to locate RS that provide SIGCOV. If nothing appears, then I assume this article will be headed towards deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like more references have been added linking to interviews on BBC Radio London, a 'talking head' spot on a BBC documentary, and a reference from the Royal Academy of Arts. I think this person is notable enough for Wikipedia. I will find more references too. Likeabutterfly (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been adding some more references and a good point was raised about WP:SIGCOV so I've looked at other notable UK based art critics - Jonathan Jones, Adrian Searle, Alastair Sooke, Mark Hudson and Waldemar Janusczak are the ones I could find who have Wikipedia entries. In all of the above I found they are all heavily reliant on WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. It's unclear to me how a practising art critic, or more broadly a journalist, can be eligible for a Wikipedia entry without heavily relying on WP:PRIMARYSOURCE? I did try to find whether this has been discussed on forums elsewhere within Wikipedia but I wasn't able to. I appreciate I'm relatively new here so happy to be directed to a relevant discussion if it's already been had. Londoneditor284 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing that helpful discussion and I agree we shouldn't base arguments at AfD on the existence of other potentially policy-violating pages that haven't been nominated yet. However, the critics in my last comment are among the most notable art critics in the UK and if the bar for WP:SIGCOV is set so high that no UK-based art critic would be eligible for a Wikipedia entry then that would appear excessive given the UK has a significant art scene and critics play an important part in it. Londoneditor284 (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since several sources have been added, I'll put in a source assessment table below. I am concerned that several of the sources added do not mention Khan at all; there appears to an effort at WP:SYNTH here. Regardless, we still have zero qualifying sources toward GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
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
WP:BLP of a writer and unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or politicians. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their books exist, and unelected candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates: the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and the notability test for writers is the reception of third-party attention being paid to their books, such as literary awards and reviews by professional literary critics in WP:GNG-worthy real media. But this just states that he exists, and sources its content entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage or analysis about his work. It also warrants note that even though he's German, and thus an article on the German Wikipedia would be expected to exist if he were genuinely notable enough for Wikipedia, the only interlang actually present here is in Portuguese, and cites absolutely no GNG-worthy sourcing that could be moved over here to salvage this either -- while even the Wikidata entry suggests that attempts to create articles about him in the Spanish and Romanian Wikipedias have previously been deleted on those Wikipedias for notability reasons, whereas no article about him has ever existed in the German Wikipedia at all. So even the Portuguese article exists only because the Portuguese administrators haven't caught and deleted it yet, rather than because he's got any kind of genuine claim to notability. (Does anybody here have enough Portuguese to take it to their AFD?) Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evo-psych is a high-citation field but still I think his citation counts [19] are enough for WP:PROF#C1. He holds a personal chair at the University of Edinburgh, possibly enough for #C5. He is a Fellow of the British Academy [20], a clear pass of #C3. And multiple reviews of multiple books [21][22][23][24][25][26][27] give him another case for notability through WP:AUTHOR. I don't know what WP:BEFORE the nominator tried to produce this WP:VAGUEWAVE towards our notability guidelines but it wasn't enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His book D might possibly be notable - there's a review in the Sydney Morning Herald [29] and one in Aurealis (that's referenced in the article). According to Austlit, there's also an article or review in The Australian: 'First-Time Author on a Fast Track to Fame' - though that may be one of his "media appearances", rather than a review. But there does not seem to be coverage about him, and with only one published book, he doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be non-notable. Created by one of an army of socks. All sources are affiliated, bare mentions, interviews, blogs, or appear to be created from press releases. Google news search only pulled up similar. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither of the two books mentioned seem to be noteworthy enough to help a WP:AUTHOR case (JSTOR searches for reviews came up with zip). The sources about the plays are too superficial and/or unreliably published to make a case for notability as a playwright. The Physics Essays journal where he published "The Universe Has No Beginning? Doubts About The Big Bang Theory" is a haven for crackpots; publishing there isn't anything to be proud of. Merely writing things isn't enough for notability, and being reduced to writing for Physics Essays is a sign that you are not influential. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even after excluding non-RSs, there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Coverage includes his recent death, his involvement with the transition for the second Trump presidency, Operation Warp Speed and his book about it (two reviews of which are cited in the article), and his Pennsylvania gubernatorial run.
Comment: I deprodded it on a suspicion that he might meet NAUTHOR, and tried searching for reviews. Of those two reviews, I am not familiar with one of the websites. I only got so far, so this discussion can be a forum to unearth more sources. Geschichte (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This person does not meet notability guidelines and is directly connected to an old hoax that they are attempting to use.
Part of it (before edits) reads as though they wrote it themselves.
Apologies if I'm missing some things for this, as it's my first time doing it.
I have marked this article for deletion. While I'm a big fan of Mr. Beat's work, and would ideally like this article kept, I don't think that he passes WP:GNG right now. All of the non-social media sources are local sources, or not reliable at all, indicating that he has little to no national significance. Beat is a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL content creator; achieving 1 million subscribers is a much less notable feat than it was even 10 years ago. I completed a WP:BEFORE search but I couldn't find anything meaningful that wasn't already in the article. I don't see a WP:NAUTHOR pass either, since he's released only two books, and each only has one local review. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:4D29:6661:1D4E:6058 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have little to add beyond the nominator's honest and thorough rationale. The article appears to have a lot of sources but most point toward the guy's own posts. He has a little notice from local newspapers but not enough to support an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There have been some keep !votes below, so I just want to make clear that I really only see up to one GNG-qualifying source in the article, which is a local publication's review of his book. My BEFORE search brought up only his own content or promotional sources. He has received some local coverage which is mostly promotional. It's not impossible there's better coverage, but most of the sources in the article are Youtube links or Twitter links. SportingFlyerT·C19:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The article's content and history can be kept back in the draftspace until sufficient further coverage is found, if that ever becomes the case in the future. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mr. Beat has coverage in local press, which counts towards Mr. Beat being a notable figure. Additionally, this coverage is more than many YouTubers who have pages on here receive. NesserWiki (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Mr. Beat is one of the more famous/notable YouTube historians on the site. If he was less notable, I may be in favor of deletion but this is not the case. Lertaheiko (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that something that only receives local coverage is automatically not notable. There are thousands of high schools, library systems and people with Wikipedia articles that will probably only ever receive local coverage, but a reliable, independent secondary source with significant coverage counts towards notability whether its a tiny news station or the BBC.Pointing to subscriber count as evidence of non-notability is about as useful as pointing to it as evidence of notability. (I will note that Mr. Beat posted a screenshot of this discussion to Bluesky (which is how I got here) but not in a WP:Canvassing manner). Based5290 :3 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A couple sources here don't even mention him ([49], [50]); perhaps they were included by mistake. I didn't find any other qualifying coverage in my WP:BEFORE search, and I checked for an WP:NAUTHOR pass but didn't find any independent reviews for his books. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I suppose there could be an argument under WP:NPROF#C4 based on being a contributor/editor for multiple textbooks and reference works, but I don't buy it at all — none of the works seem to be in wide enough use. I would also have to assume based on his bio that he has published in journals, but the name is too common for me to work out what he's actually published (Google Scholar says that the 'Deepak Gupta' listed as an author on one of his books has an h-index of 70, but it's clearly pulling together publications from multiple people with the same name). Agree that there's no indication of passing WP:GNG as a businessman or WP:NAUTHOR as an author, and I'm very, very sceptical that his research work could be enough for an WP:NPROF pass. MCE89 (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual. A lot of the sources are unreliable or primary. Doesn't meet WP:NBASIC and the creator of the article appears to have a COI. Frost00:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Do credible peer-reviewed sources (or those managed by editors) over a period of time (at least since 2017) like The Poetry Society (UK), The Bombay Literary Magazine, Poetry Magazine, etc. count? As it is, one of his poems has been handed out in schools in the UK as part of a UK Dept for Education project. The same poem was presented at COP26, the United Nations Climate Conference, in 2021. His work is also known in the UK, with his forthcoming pamphlet having created somewhat of a buzz. Through The Poetry Society's partnership with the University of Hertfordshire to support their MA Animation students in producing animated films, one of Kashyap's poems was made into a short film. Several other videos of his poetry readings have also appeared on YouTube through different organisations. I'm curious—would any of this not count?
Hi! To clarify, things like "created a buzz" can't really be measured objectively – while it is a bi counter-intuitive, what we call "notability" is closer to "whether there is enough independent material to write an article" than to "how famous the person is". However, peer-reviewed sources commenting on him or his body of work would definitely count for notability. I haven't looked at them individually, but that is indeed very promising. The poetry readings aren't necessarily useful, as they would still be primary sources and wouldn't give more information than "X read this person's poem", except if there is significant commentary/analysis on the poems. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! As mentioned before, I've made sure to use statements from different websites, such as where work is reviewed and not just published, with comments from editors of journals, or people who review his work. I suppose this will increase once Kashyap's new pamphlet is out (probably around May) but until then, there are a considerable amount of sources, including news articles and press releases, that have made a mention.
Also, since it is not an autobiography, nor am I connected to the subject of the article, I'm removing the autobiography tag from the top of the page. I removed one other tag, which mentioned a lack of backlinks(?) to this page –- this I did after finding links (for this page) to several other pages. Please do let me know if there's been an issue! Also, I intend to add more discussion about the subject from a few more sources I've found. Could you please review in, say 24 hours, with the point in mind that there'll still be some material to add? Thank you!
Delete. I don't see notability yet. Two pamphlets and a zine, published by small non-notable presses, that's not enough for notability. In addition, much of the content (as the nominator and others saw) lacks proper sourcing. Like, this is supposed to verify that one of the subject's poems was nominated for an award--but this is a website that publishes one of the subject's poems, and the note about the nomination no doubt came from the author, before we even get to the notability of the award, "Sundress Publication’s Best of the Net", there's the question of a. why isn't there better sourcing and b. is a nomination for this worth mentioning in the first place. And that can be repeated for many of the factoids and instances of namedropping in the article. So, "His third pamphlet, Notes on Burials, won the Poetry Business New Poets Prize in 2024, judged by the poet Holly Hopkins"--yes, but who is Holly Hopkins, and how is that Poetry Business Award (the author's writing of the article notwithstanding) a notable award contributing to notability? Drmies (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, being nominated for both the Pushcart Prize and the Best of the Net is something big in the poetry world. People like Amitav Ghosh have won Pushcart Prizes, and there are more than a few famous poets I've read (and could name) who've been included in the BotN anthology. I remember seeing a blog post mentioning the same, and tried retrieving it best as I could – however, since you mentioned, here's a twitter/x link (from a different journal) nominated Kashyap's name: https://x.com/AtlasAndAlice/status/1707414323545493536. And oh, the magazine you noted: https://x.com/Briefly_Zine/status/1576968035248009217. As for the Poetry Business award, here's the Poetry Business article you could take a look at – I understand they're a big name in the UK, and the current UK Poet Laureate and the previous one were both first published by the said press. Friend, I understand you're making efforts to keep Wikipedia as reliable as one can, and I thank you for asking the right questions, and I understand the bit about notability. I'm still curious though that while many pages/articles with much less information are kept up, how is this one not good enough compared to those? Thanks again! GreenBlast4 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I've already made efforts to explain that there is no COI, and I'd request you to believe that. This may be supported by the fact that I tend to add to pages in this area extensively. While I do not imply that I cannot be wrong at any point since the creation of the page, and during the editing process (following which edits have been made – truth is this was my first article for Wikipedia that I've written from scratch, and it took me a while learning) I do wish to assure you that I've taken steps to add details extensively and without bias. I've written about other people whose focus is the same topic as Kashyap's, and I've done my best to be as objective as possible there too. In all of the cases, I rely heavily on extensively published sources, and cross-check all of my added data to ensure a lack of errors. For example, very recently, he's been shortlisted for the TFA Awards CWE which is a competition of repute in India, with coverage by The Hindu, etc. and I've checked all links available to add the same. After the final list is released, I'll be updating the same with improved/correct citations. GreenBlast4 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amendement to original rationale: Also should be deleted under criteria 9 of WP:DEL-REASON as an unsourced BLP which is external to notability policies including SNGs. Fails our policy on verification at WP:BLP. 4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that the subject is unlikely to pass WP:GNG, but I think they probably pass WP:AUTHOR for their book The Reluctant Metrosexual: Dispatches from an Almost Hip Life. I found reviews in the New York Times [51] and the Washington Post [52], and there are several other usable reviews referenced here [53] although frustratingly I wasn't able to find any of those originals from 2004. Their book is also cited or mentioned in probably a dozen academic books and journal articles, although admittedly not in any great detail. Together I think that's probably enough for a WP:AUTHOR pass. MCE89 (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Dclemens1971 and MCE89 I would feel a lot better about this if those sources had biographical content but they don't other than perfunctory coverage. The sources are about the book rather than the author. Fundamentally we don't have materials supporting a biography page. Given that it is only a single work, wouldn't this be better repurposed into an article on that one book? This would seem to be a better approach per the spirit of WP:Verifiability. We could always recreate a page on the author if and when a second notable work is created by the subject. We really can only create articles based on the available sources. Otherwise we are fundamentally allowing an unsourced BLP article page which I thought was a big no no on wikipedia.4meter4 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCREATIVE is clear that "Such a person is notable if:... The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews..." There's no requirement for biographical content in such reviews. Biographical content can be added from other sources, but the test of notability is met by what MCE89 identified. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 I get that, but that is not the cogent policy here. WP:BLPSOURCES external to notability policy but equally important is at play here. We could literally blank the page at present because its unsourced under WP:BURDEN and WP:BLPSOURCES policy. That's a problem relevant to AFD that goes beyond notability criteria. At some level we have to consider the practical application of all of our policies. Not just WP:SNG language. Policies don't exist in a vacuum.4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971 To do so in the middle of an AFD would be WP:DISRUPTIVE editing and WP:POINTY. Further, this is a BLP policy issue which falls under criteria 9 of WP:DEL-REASON so your assertion that notability policy is the only relevant policy at AFD is false. Deleting under a WP:BLPSOURCES failure rationale is perfectly acceptable under criteria 9. One can meet an SNG but still be deleted if it fails a WP:DEL-REASON criteria external to a notability issue.4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The book is notable, but the author isn't since one needs multiple notable works to demonstrate NCREATIVE, but since this information would be on said article anyway, I could convert it into an article on the book if that is what people wish. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted for further discussion on possibility of converting to an article on the book Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- There are many articles like this that should be deleted and no one is arguing for them to be deleted. There are biographies of athletes, new actors in the same situation and no one is suggesting deleting them. I don't think it should be deleted. The person has very good sources and the writing is different now than when it was first deleted.
Keep. He is a new author who is just starting his career as a writer, so there are quite a few here and I think what he is publishing now is interesting. Queresant (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER. While I have found/confirmed/added a number of sources to the article, none deal with the subject in any meaningful depth. To the extent that the only biographical information at all is a somewhat "throw away" comment in a piece by historian Nollaig Ó Muraíle - where he gives a very rough age (60ish) as of 1724. Otherwise the only "claim to fame" is that the subject was involved in transcribing someone else's work. While being able to read/write/copy someone else's work was probably far more significant (in the 1720s) than it might now be in the 21st century, absent other biographical coverage, it isn't enough to meet WP:NWRITER. Which, among other things, expect that someone would have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant [..] or collective body of work". (Transcribing two works by Seathrún Céitinn isn't a "major role in co-creating a significant [..] body of work"....) Guliolopez (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I've soft-deleted the other two but given the additional sources that turned up in this case, I'll relist this one in the hopes there's anything else. Has anyone checked Irish-language sources? Also, the relevant standard for a scribe would be WP:NARTIST. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: mentioned as a "scribe who left a vivid impression of his life and personality" (with analysis of his work, more than 1 page) in The Irish Classical Self: Poets and Poor Scholars in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, also see Galway: History & Society - Page 192; + coverage on the page. Notable and verifiable. More sources exist. Please do better BEFORES when you nominate historical personalities. -Mushy Yank. 16:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as the sources in the article, and the source found by Mushy Yank, a search of Google Books shows at least 3 other sources about this scribe (2 books and a journal), which only have snippet views and would thus need access to a hard copy to include as references. One source gives his address, which is more than is in the article now. The statement by one source that he "left a vivid impression of his life and personality" suggests that the first sentence in the current article is misleading. I think that, with the 7 sources identified so far, he would meet WP:BASIC, at least, and probably WP:CREATIVE, having transcribed two manuscripts and authored one. (The article Seathrún Céitinn gives a reason why scribes were important in early 17th century Ireland; perhaps that still applied in the early 18th century.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the writer is known within the contemporary art scene in the UK and is currently active suggesting there may be more additions to the page in future. While I agree that searching for the author turns up lots of his own writing, a look at other art critics, writers and journalists with Wikipedia entries returns similar results. In terms of independent coverage, this article does include links to notable outlets that have sought his views on art stories and artworks. Suggestions for improvement rather than deletion may be a better course of action. Londoneditor284 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — Londoneditor284 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - although this person is mostly only known within the contemporary British art scene, they have contributed numerous articles, interviews, and features in multiple outlets and have been quoted in many sources (as can be seen from the citations). They are clearly significant enough within their own field to warrant keeping this article. Any suggestions to improve the article would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.218.212 (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — 80.45.218.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Quotations in sources are not enough to demonstrate notability (except in a limited case for certain academics), and authoring articles isn't either. What SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources can you offer? Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me do some digging and get back to you. The nature of the subject (someone who writes about other people's artwork for a living) makes it difficult by definition to have many SIGCOV sources. I feel this should be taken into account? 80.45.218.212 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could Dclemens1971 help in finding any better sources for this person/article? I've looked at pages for other critics too but can't seem to see how they fit the criteria if we are super-strict with SIGCOV Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote. LizRead!Talk!03:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
It's what we should expect from a person who's not notable, I suppose. And as already mentioned, please strike through your duplicative !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting this AFD discussion. Since there are several strong Keep arguments, I'm giving this discussion a little more time for supporters to locate RS that provide SIGCOV. If nothing appears, then I assume this article will be headed towards deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like more references have been added linking to interviews on BBC Radio London, a 'talking head' spot on a BBC documentary, and a reference from the Royal Academy of Arts. I think this person is notable enough for Wikipedia. I will find more references too. Likeabutterfly (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been adding some more references and a good point was raised about WP:SIGCOV so I've looked at other notable UK based art critics - Jonathan Jones, Adrian Searle, Alastair Sooke, Mark Hudson and Waldemar Janusczak are the ones I could find who have Wikipedia entries. In all of the above I found they are all heavily reliant on WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. It's unclear to me how a practising art critic, or more broadly a journalist, can be eligible for a Wikipedia entry without heavily relying on WP:PRIMARYSOURCE? I did try to find whether this has been discussed on forums elsewhere within Wikipedia but I wasn't able to. I appreciate I'm relatively new here so happy to be directed to a relevant discussion if it's already been had. Londoneditor284 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing that helpful discussion and I agree we shouldn't base arguments at AfD on the existence of other potentially policy-violating pages that haven't been nominated yet. However, the critics in my last comment are among the most notable art critics in the UK and if the bar for WP:SIGCOV is set so high that no UK-based art critic would be eligible for a Wikipedia entry then that would appear excessive given the UK has a significant art scene and critics play an important part in it. Londoneditor284 (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since several sources have been added, I'll put in a source assessment table below. I am concerned that several of the sources added do not mention Khan at all; there appears to an effort at WP:SYNTH here. Regardless, we still have zero qualifying sources toward GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
This is a copy of Draft:Moe Dimanche which the creator of both articles, User:NovembersHeartbeat, submitted to Articles for Creation back in September. This user has now made a new article, Moliere Dimanche, to bypass the AfC process, and redirected Moe Dimanche to lead back to this article. I have suspicions about WP:COI that I have expressed on NovembersHeartbeat's talk page (Dimanche is running to be Governor of Florida, which provides a clear motivation). NovembersHeartbeat also created Dimanche v. Brown for a legal case Dimanche was prominent within, and I am now also considering this for deletion. I would like some external advice on whether any of these articles pass WP:GNG as I am not well versed on American legal stuff like this. Spiralwidget (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement:
My contributions to Wikipedia have been neutral, informative, and edited by Admins. I like editing on Wikipedia because I like spreading knowledge. My contributions include the Federal Magistrates Act, the JUDGES Act, and I'm currently putting together a page on the concept of Unsettled Law. These are topics that serve public interest and make people wiser, and why people rely on wikipedia more than any other source of enlightenment. This user SpiralWidget on the other hand has had his pages deleted because he abandoned them for 6 months. I take the spread of knowledge seriously, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.
Redirects and Related Articles: The user SpiralWidget says he has conflict of interest concerns, which were addressed when he first started editing the page Moe Dimanche. I think his primary reason for nominating the article for deletion is because it is a duplicate page. However, the wikipedia deletion policy specifically says
"If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand."
But SpiralWidget moved the redirect page anyway because he wanted a formal discussion. The redirect Moe Dimanche was created to aid navigation for users searching under this common nickname. As for Dimanche v. Brown, it is a separate topic with its own independent notability, as demonstrated by coverage in legal publications and its significance in state-level jurisprudence. These articles serve distinct purposes and are appropriately created.
2. Conflict of Interest: I have no personal or professional connection to Moliere Dimanche. The article was written to document a notable public figure in compliance with Wikipedia’s WP:COI and WP:NPOV guidelines. This was already explained to SpiralWidget, even though I do not owe him an explanation. I came across Mr. Dimanche's YouTube videos after a judge in my city reopened a death investigation into a death of an inmate at a local prison. The only videos I could find on that inmate were done by Mr. Dimanche's Youtube channel and I learned more about him and asked why there wasn't a wikipedia page about him. So I decided to do it, as I began to follow what was going on with him.
I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I hope my contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marginally Keep While I share suspicions that this is self-promotion by the primary contributor or meatpuppetry by the subject, I find that this does meet the general criteria for inclusion. Though not all the detail is necessary, the case cited does lend credence to the idea that the case and the subject of the case is notable enough; the precedent set is not nontrivial. Given the numerous local sources (admittedly probably pushing their own agenda), I think it marginally meets the threshold for inclusion. I would strongly advise User:NovembersHeartbeat to back off for a few days and likewise recant/strike his remarks about "vandalism". This is not "your" article. It is open to anyone to edit and improve within our guidelines. Buffs (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep When I first came across this draft in AfC, I refrained from reviewing as the notability seemed marginal–it could've gone both ways. However, I do feel that there are some significant coverage of him as an artist, but this article needs to be ridden of fluff and promotion. [54] I also found this book by Nicole R. Fleetwood that discusses his art in detail. Catalk to me!02:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My presumption is that the subject of the article wrote this article or is heavily involved in its creation. I'll concede it is possible that the creator is telling the truth about their identity and they simply find the figure admirable. Shortly after at least some content was removed for copyright infringement, the subject's photograph and the subject's artwork were re-uploaded by the subject into Wikimedia Commons and released into the public domain. This is simply too great of a coincidence to ignore. All of this A bulk of this new user's edits are related to the subject. Frankly, the only evidence I can weigh in favor that this article was not written by Dimanche is this little viewed canvassing attempt I found on Twitter to oppose the deletion. This is a clear violation of the conflict of interest rules, specifically those around political advocacy and the rules against canvassing. When weighing my response against the weak keeps, please consider this might be part of what is influencing my delete vote.
The claims are artist and plantiff in an important court case. His candidacy as of now, in of itself, would not qualify him under WP:POLITICIAN and that does not seem to be a fact on which the article creator is basing their argument that the subject meets the various notability criteria.
On the note of his time as an artist, the writer does make a strong effort to attempt to demonstrate WP:GNG through mentioning various, wider distribution publications in which Dimache is mentioned or the subject. A Google News search indicates these are the ONLY third party coverage and while they are not all published on the same day, the similar content strikes me as creating an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers. For example, the Salon is a literal republication of The Conversation's piece on the Dimanche. These duplicative citations, combined with mentions such as taking a job at Winn-Dixie lead me to believe these are an effort to mask a lack of notability. I cannot consider him to have met the guidelines for artists.
Delete: fails WP:GNG. Some of the sources are duplicates of each other and some mention the subject only marginally, if at all. The best source here seems to be The Conversation, but for some weird reason that article is duplicated in The Salon and in the first reference (which does not even name its source).--DesiMoore (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The Conversation releases its articles under a CC 4.0 license. They are not so much syndicated like a comic strip but rather available freely to any publication that needs to boost its inventory of quality articles in an era of readers demanding instant, infinite content. Salon appears to regularly publish the Conversation's articles so I don't think its republication in Salon is so unique as to warrant double counting it as two unique sources to meet GNG. I also searched The Chicago Tribune and the Associated Press and received zero results. I would recommend if you want to demonstrate notability, then you need to do more than just say he's an artist with a republished article. Wikipedia's Prison art demonstrates prison art is not so rare and new its artists are inherently more notable and requires less coverage than others to be here. Finally, An article about yourself or someone you like isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I would say about that, is that what you call republishing, I would call an endorsement. I think it is not as simple as The Conversation clicking "publish" and it appears in articles all over the world. I think those publishers independently decide if they want to promote the content of the article to their own readers. As you can see with the Malta Independent publication, it was in-print, even though you can read it online. That means Maltese people held that article in their hands and read it at home. That's just the mediterranean. The Conversation is based in Australia, MENAFN is for North Africa, and Dimanche is an American artist. That's Europe, Africa and Australia. The Good Men Project is based in Dallas, and their article is just one region in North America: https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/through-his-art-a-former-prisoner-diagnoses-the-systemic-sickness-of-floridas-penitentiaries-phtz/. The criminal justice initiative by the John Galsworthy foundation endorsed it: https://www.galsworthycjr.org/civil-society-issues/2018/9/3/through-his-art-a-former-prisoner-diagnoses-the-systemic-sickness-of-floridas-penitentiaries. As to your search in Chicago Tribune, it probably depends on what search engine you use, but I use Yandex. It's the same article, and I guess its up to how you interpret it, whether its publisher's needing content, or as I say, endorsements from publishers of the what the focus of the Conversation piece is about. Regardless of how you view that particular article, meeting GNG was not solely relying on that one. Again, I was not aiming to focus on the global recognition of the art, which is a fact, regardless of how global syndication is viewed. I wanted to focus on what the art meant to people, especially those involved in the prison reform movement, and the art sparked an important conversation. Despite being a "featured" article in multiple countries, the art also relied on another feature: https://www.staugustine.com/story/news/2016/08/12/2016-08-12-1/16300345007/. These articles are years apart, and this article was also published in print, and Mr. Dimanche was on the cover. It also relied on Folio, and I honestly did not expect to debate an artists, recognition with any involvement with Folio, whatsoever. In the art world, it's one of the most prestigious publications, and all artists vie for some type of mention there. I even found one in Arbus, but the link was broken, so I didn't use it. The article also cited an appearance at the International Center of Photography where he was a headliner, again talking about his art. Maybe I didn't go into detail about the coverage, but I was not trying to make the article all about his achievements as an artist, and I didn't want to make it promotional, like he was Pablo Picasso or anything like that. But it seems to me like any time there is a feature on his art, its a pretty significant story every time, and I don't believe there is a genuine dispute about whether or not he meets GNC based on art alone. That's not to mention, yet another feature, in the Marking Time book, or the local radio appearances talking about art. I didn't cite any of the radio appearances I found because it just came off as promotional, and he primarily discusses upcoming art exhibits at different venues. But with global recognition, headlining panel discussions about art, in-print circulation of the art, and a feature in a book published by Rutgers, he clearly meets GNG. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "That means Maltese people held that article in their hands and read it at home." That is aggressively irrelevant to the matter at hand. These non-sequiturs, claims of endorsement by publications, other misrepresentations, and selective reading (no one is saying The Conversation is a bad citation, just that it shouldn't be triple-counted) serve no point, but to bog down those who disagree with you in a Gish gallop.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Endorsement" is just my view of it, and you are free to disagree. We can agree to disagree on that point, but until we ask the publishers directly, we will never know. Maybe they just want to share various perspectives. Your guess is as good as mine, but they chose to amplify the content in multiple countries, and that's a good thing. I don't intend for this to be an argument, but you said "Salon appears to regularly publish the Conversation's articles so I don't think its republication in Salon is so unique as to warrant double counting it as two unique sources to meet GNG". That's why I had to demonstrate that it went far beyond Salon. I thought you were saying that Salon and the Conversation were pretty much one and the same, and I provided additional sources that conclude that every publication can't be a doppelgänger of the Conversation. You also said "I would recommend if you want to demonstrate notability, then you need to do more than just say he's an artist with a republished article". So I provided the feature from the St. Augustine Record, the ICP citation, and the Marking Time feature because you implied that the only source was that one article. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just clarifying that there were additional sources already included in the article, and that the reach of the Conversation article was global. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by write them myself, but whatever you say. This is exactly why I opted to stay out of this conversation. If my input isn't welcome, that is fine. I have no idea how you differentiate between what you cal "fluff" on one hand, but expect to be "notable" on the other hand. I just looked at the edits you made, and you deleted the citation that was added by the user who nominated the article for deletion in the first place. I didn't write that part, and was actually accused of trying to obscure the prison stint, so I am wholly confused as to what is considered "fluff" and what is not. Then you deleted an edit written by an administrator, who made that edit to clarify that the view about systemic injustice was subjective, so I'm of the view that you seem to be searching for issues with the article, when there are none. If that is what this is about, I won't say anything else about it. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the "write them yourself" comment: I initially thought this was AI-generated but then noticed some grammar errors that made me reconsider, and you seem to have read my comment before I removed that part of it.
As to the rest of your comment, other editors are certainly free to disagree with me on what exactly constitutes fluff/puffery, in which case they're welcome to undo some or all of my changes and I won't argue, but in general it's important to avoid placing undue weight on certain viewpoints (as was the case with the extended quotes section - a collection of praise from different authors compromises the article's neutrality), using peacock or promotional wording, and presenting opinions as fact. As for notability, you shouldn't need to argue in the article that the subject is notable if the references support notability. --Richard Yin (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I have no problem with any of the edits you made, but puffery implies that I was trying to pretty it up, but if what was removed was not written by me, then was there really an issue about puffery at all? Aside from that, I totally understand that you may be concerned about genuine neutrality, but I hope you also understand I am not attempting to do any of that. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I don't really understand what you mean by but if what was removed was not written by me, then was there really an issue about puffery at all? since your version is more biased than what I removed. Not that it matters, puffery is puffery regardless of who wrote it. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that it was changed to something else by the admin. That should have been the end of it. If you deleted it as "puffery", you deleted what an admin deemed appropriate. The bottom line is that whatever the admin decided to change was changed. You, then, deleted that modification as puffery on the mistaken belief that it was as I wrote it. Even if I did, that same admin didn't identify it as puffery when he made his edit, but somehow you did. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, after posting my last reply I went back and restored some of the content in question. Apologies to NovembersHeartbeat and any readers for the unnecessary argument. --Richard Yin (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for raising concerns about the article on Ram Krishna Bantawa. I firmly believe the article meets the requirements outlined in Wikipedia’s WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV guidelines. Below is an explanation supporting this assertion:
Notability as an Author (WP:NAUTHOR):
Ram Krishna Bantawa is a recognized author and lyricist in Nepali literature. He is known for his novel Saghan Tuwanlo (Shrill Mist) and novel Amalai Chithi (Letter to Mother-whose English translation is forthcoming.) His work has made a significant cultural impact, particularly within the Nepali community.
His lyrics and songs are available on platforms such as YouTube.
Saghan Tuwanlo is included in the curriculum of Tribhuvan University, highlighting its academic and cultural significance.His novels address meaningful societal issues such as women’s rights, untouchability, and Sati Pratha (the practice of widow immolation), further emphasizing his contributions to literature and social discourse.
Significant Coverage (WP:SIGCOV):
Independent and reliable media outlets, including Kantipur, Annapurna Post, and various Hong Kong-based Nepali newspapers, have provided coverage of Bantawa’s work. This demonstrates his influence in Nepali literature and music.
He has been featured in interviews and podcasts that delve into his life, literary contributions, and societal impact, providing further evidence of significant independent coverage.
Bantawa has received several awards and certificates from reputable organizations, including:Nepalese Literary Academy Hong Kong , Heavenly Path Hong Kong , Charu Sahitya Pratisthan , Hong Kong Nepalese Federation , Lyricist Association of Nepal
The article references independent and verifiable sources that discuss Ram Krishna Bantawa’s work in detail. Taken collectively, these factors satisfy the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia under WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV.
If additional information or sources are required to further support this assertion and enhance the article, I would be happy to assist.
I feel you know the person very well so you are aware of so many information. When i search on internet , I hardly find anything of significance covered in reputable media outlet about him .
regarding references, plz go through all the references, and let me know if a single source in reputable Nepali media from NPOV meeting WP criteria. If your have such sources plz put it here other than what you have kept in references. Plz note that sources in reference are not of significance. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rahmatula786,
Thank you for your message. I want to clarify that I do not personally know the person. The information I’ve provided is based solely on my research.
I understand your concerns regarding the importance of meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria. Unfortunately, there is limited online information due to the lack of archived articles in Nepali media. However, I have collected pictures of old newspaper articles about the author, including coverage from Nepali Hong Kong newspapers during a book launch press meet.
I believe the article is written from a neutral point of view. While I cannot attach the offline sources here, I’d be happy to share them via email. Additionally, I can provide relevant YouTube(https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Ram+Krishna+Bantawa) links of his Songs, Interviews. Please let me know how you’d like to proceed.
I look forward to your guidance and support, as I am currently gathering resources and information for my next article of Nepali Singer "Kuma Sagar" . Your insights will be invaluable in helping me refine my work. Please let me know how best to proceed.
According to Wikipedia's guidelines, contributors are discouraged from writing about individuals they personally know to maintain neutrality and avoid conflicts of interest. I can assure you that I have no personal connection with, nor do I know, the author.
In my case, I refrained from including details about the author's awards and certificates, as I was unsure about their accuracy and could not verify them through reliable sources all i had were photographs of certificates and some mentions in newspapers. However, I conducted thorough research and included information about the author's books, song lyrics, and album, as these are well-documented and publicly available.
I can provide you with ISBN of the books they were published through Sajha Publications and ASIA 2000 Ltd. Also you can search in youtube for his songs and interviews. I can additionally provide you with offline sources(Newspaper Articles, Magazines) relating to the author. Rasilshrestha (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched under three different names for this author and his book, Shrill Mist. I also reached out to a Nepalese friend. I've come up with zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thank you for letting me know.I am actively working on gathering reliable links and additional information to support it. I’ll share them in refrence of the article.
The reason your friend might not have found information about the novel could be because it is an older work, first published in 2008. The author is not as widely recognized as prominent Nepali literary figures like Parijat, Laxmi Prasad Devkota, or Bhanubhakta Acharya, whose biographies are included in school curriculum. Additionally, the novel hasn’t been published online, limiting its accessibility to a broader audience. However, I’ve heard that the author’s new book is being published or translated into English, which might bring more attention to their work.
It’s also worth noting that the author has spent a significant amount of time outside Nepal, particularly in Hong Kong. If you search for his name on YouTube, you’ll find his songs, which might provide some additional context.
For now, I can provide the ISBN number of the book or any other available details. I’m actively working on finding more reliable sources and digging through news archives to provide further information Rasilshrestha (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted the photos of news archive i have clicked (Ram Krishna Bantawa News Articles : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive) in archive.org Rasilshrestha (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. There is an unbolded Keep here and a previous visit to AFD which means that Soft Deletion is not an option. It usually all comes down to sources so a source analysis of what is present in the article would be helpful at this point. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.
Ref 1 : non neutral source ( media with no reputation has review of some book not a notable work , no findings on search on internet )
Ref 2 & 3 - not active link, neither found on google
Ref 4 - not at all a media of even minor entity
Ref 5&6 - he attends book inauguration program ( that’s all . Just his name mentioned)
Ref 7. Controversial piece about some legal issues being taken. Doesn’t support the article in any sense.
Rest sources - all are either repetition of above news or your tube material or some small contributions not covered in any genuine source. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what i heard, his book "Aamalai Chitthi" is currently being translated and is expected to be published soon. Once it becomes available, I believe I will be able to provide you with more relevant online sources for further reference. Rasilshrestha (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is now clear evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources newspapers as shown in the news archive link mentioned above in the external links section of the article. Passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - COI - looking at the Archies i wonder how so much personal info (like old newspapers copies) and he is planning to make an English version of some book , can be gathered unless editor knows and have approach with the subject. Recent update in the article also describes the same thing. Nothing but a Desperate attempt.Rahmatula786 (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I appreciate your concern, but as I mentioned earlier, I have photographs of offline sources that I have used for my research. Regarding the English translation, it is based on news related to Aamalai Chitthi (https://annapurnapost.com/story/451773/), where the translator Devi Panthi has spoken about it.
I assure you, this is not a desperate attempt, If it were, I would have included additional details of the author. Instead, my article focuses primarily on the subject's songs, novels, and books that he has written. For example, I have read Shrill Mist and am currently reading another work. The song I referenced is also publicly available on YouTube.
I collected photographs from various sources, including a news archive where old newspapers are stacked. Unfortunately, I couldn’t obtain any materials from Gorkhapatra, as they dont allow. Some of the newspapers I used were already in my possession at home, while others were gathered during my visit to a book launch event.
The event was held to celebrate the author’s return from Hong Kong and his book launch. It featured displays of certificates for his awards and documents with official letterheads. However, I chose not to mention these certificates or documents in my article, as I wasn’t entirely certain about their authenticity or relevance Rasilshrestha (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are related with him, how come you find or keen to find those stuff. Have you ever done such efforts to make any other article in Wikipedia. So far i can see , you are here just to make this article. If ur a genuine editor. You might have participated in various other articles, agenda . Did you understand it now. U have altogether 63 edits and almost all for this article only since May 5. That clearly shows what you are looking for . I guess u will come with some other explanations. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thank you for your concern. I’m currently a student in my final year, and I have a deep interest in Nepali literature, arts, and culture, especially Newar traditions and history, as I am a Newar myself. I also enjoy learning about historical topics and sharing knowledge.
I want to clarify that I am not connected to the author mentioned in the article, nor am I being paid for my contributions. If this were a paid effort, I believe the author would have hired someone more experienced than me. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I am still learning and this article has been my starting point.
I plan to work on more articles in the future and am currently gathering resources for my next article as i have already mentioned earlier. Regarding the current article, my intent has been to present information in a neutral tone. If I were biased or paid, my contributions would likely reflect that, but I have strived to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines.
Wikipedia encourages contributors to improve content where they can, and I believe my contributions are consistent with this principle.
While it’s true that I haven’t contributed extensively to other articles yet, everyone starts somewhere. My current focus on this article does not diminish my genuine intention to support Wikipedia’s mission of providing accurate, unbiased information.
If you have specific concerns about my edits, I’d be happy to discuss and address them transparently. I value constructive feedback and aim to contribute positively to the platform. Rasilshrestha (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation doesn’t justify how you gathered all those photos and newspapers pieces put in archives . Anyway i leave it for now. And want to see how other editors put their views. Rahmatula786 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I respect your concerns and your efforts to make Wikipedia a reliable and comprehensive source of information for everyone. As a newcomer, I would greatly value your feedback on how I can improve my article. Could you please guide me on how to make it more effective? Also, do you think there are any changes I should consider?
Keep: Seems offline sources are available as provided in [55]. The same source mentions that his book is included in the Tribhuvan University curriculum. Also suggest the original editor to add the list of awards with sources.nirmal (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot read Nepali but it looks like the GNG has been met here. Bearian, some sources have been added since your !vote, so I am pinging you in case you would like to re-assess. Toadspike[Talk]10:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, he insulted an older woman and dismissed her ability to read. Last time I checked, that's a grave taboo, the sort of thing that makes your Hajura'āmā box your ear. I'm done with this Sealioning. Bearian (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely apologize if my previous message came across as disrespectful. That was never my intention. I truly appreciate your friend's representation of Nepal at WOREC and admire her love for reading. If she’s interested, I’d be happy to lend her a book by the author. I only have two books with me one is the english translation of Saghan Tuwanlo and the other one is Aamalai Chitthi.
I’m new to Wikipedia and still learning how things work. I plan to write another article soon, perhaps about a Nepalese singer or a temple in my hometown. Once again, I apologize if I caused any offense and hope to move forward respectfully. Rasilshrestha (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. The consensus is almost around the corner. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently dedicating my time to working on a new article while contributing to Wikipedia during my free time. I plan to publish the article within the next three to four months and would greatly appreciate your guidance, support, and constructive feedback throughout this process.
Additionally, I would like to inquire about incorporating offline sources, such as old newspaper articles that are not available online. Should I upload these resources to the Internet Archive, as I did with this article, or are there alternative methods?
FA
A
GA
![[55]](https://ia600609.us.archive.org/30/items/20240930-120248/20240331_160729.jpg){kind=link}