Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Biography
General information
Announcements
Departments
Work groups and subprojects
Things you can do
Biography article statistics
Arts and Entertainment Work Group

The Arts and Entertainment Work Group is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.

Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 8 17 40 81 2 148
FL 3 3 6
A 1 1 1 3
GA 10 37 83 409 69 608
B 51 149 407 1,241 2,954 4,802
C 18 168 774 7,019 2 15,611 23,592
Start 4 96 1,172 25,009 13 58,140 84,434
Stub 1 16 360 31,483 8 44,783 76,651
List 4 4 173 1 166 348
Category 18,604 18,604
Disambig 30 30
File 344 344
Project 7 7
Redirect 1 411 1,493 1,905
Template 824 824
NA 13 607 620
Other 1 2 67 70
Assessed 92 488 2,846 65,845 22,000 121,725 212,996
Unassessed 1 83 900 984
Total 92 488 2,847 65,928 22,000 122,625 213,980
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 992,448 Ω = 5.21


Related Projects

Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.

Related Portals

Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs... Specific discipline portals are listed in that section.

Navigation
Articles
Announcements/To Do (edit)
  • Notability questioned:
  • FAC:
  • FAR:
    • none •
  • FARC:
    • none •
  • GA Noms:
  • Review:
    • none •
  • Article requests::
  • John_Buscema: There's a debate between the current version and this version - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Buscema&oldid=181851662 - requesting input to arrive at a consensus integrating both versions.
  • Pierce O'Donnell — California's 22nd congressional district candidate[1] Los Angeles lawyer Buchwald v. Paramount screenwriter [2] author ISBN 1-56584-958-2 ISBN 0-385-41686-5 [3] California Fair Political Practices Commission[4][5][6][7]
  • 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.
  • Misc:

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

Directions for expanding any division below

[edit]

The general outline and collection has been started, but if you would like to expand and organize a discipline, here's what you do. Right below the page heading for the discipline insert this: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Work groups/Division banner}} and save. This will put a rough outline together for you and then you can edit it to conform to your area. See Writers and critics below for an example. If your project grows large enough where it's taking up a good portion of this page, you should probably move it to a subpage of this page.

You might also want to make a Members section for people to join your specific area!

Tagging articles

[edit]

Any article related to this work group should be marked by adding |a&e-work-group=yes to the {{WPBiography}} project banner at the top of its talk page. This will automatically place it into Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles. Articles can be assessed for priority within this work group by using the |a&e-priority= parameter. See Template:WikiProject Biography/doc for detailed instructions on how to use the banner.

Members

[edit]
  1. I am ready to work on the biography articles of Indian or Biography actors Jogesh 69 (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. come help with the Bronwen Mantel article Smith Jones 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lovelaughterlife (talk · contribs) Worked extensively on some biographies; reverted vandalism some others
  4. Francoisalex2 (talk · contribs)
  5. Dovebyrd (talk · contribs)
  6. Artventure22 (talk · contribs)
  7. Truth in Comedy (talk · contribs)
  8. Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs)
  9. DENAMAX (talk · contribs) Maxim Stoyalov
  10. Ozgod (talk · contribs)
  11. Eremeyv (talk · contribs)
  12. Susanlesch (talk · contribs), mostly inactive
  13. EraserGirl (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Shruti14 (talk · contribs) will help when I can
  15. 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.
  16. Jarhed (talk · contribs) 21:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Mvzix (talk · contribs)
  18. Cassianto (talk · contribs)
  19. Iamthecheese44 (talk · contribs)
  20. Georgiasouthernlynn (talk · contribs)
  21. Fitindia (talk · contribs)
  22. BabbaQ (talk · contribs)
  23. Woodstop45 (talk · contribs)
  24. Willthacheerleader18 (talk · contribs)
  25. The Eloquent Peasant (talk · contribs)
  26. Lopifalko (talk · contribs)
  27. Terasaface (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC) Working on BLP of artists primarily working in the fields of Studio craft[reply]
  28. Corachow (talk · contribs)
  29. Yorubaja (talk · contribs) 14:23:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  30. Ms Kabintie (talk · contribs)
  31. JamesNotin (talk · contribs)
  32. Ppt91 (talk · contribs)
  33. Slacker13 (talk · contribs)

General

[edit]

Infoboxes

[edit]

Requested articles

[edit]

Actors

[edit]

Architects

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Architects


Illustrators

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Illustrators

Painters

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Painters

Photographers

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Photographers

Sculptors

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Sculptors

Comics artists

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Comics artists

Visual arts deletions

[edit]
Visual arts deletion sorting discussions
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists


Visual arts

[edit]

Internet aesthetic

[edit]
Internet aesthetic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is largely an essay lackign a sourced defintion of "internet aesthetic" and collection of topics that aren't supported through any source suggesting their connection to this term. This is largely WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. There is one source from Vogue in 2022 that references "internet aesthetics" but not in connection to wide range of examples provided here. ZimZalaBim talk 05:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Fashion, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Presents a list of things that are somewhat related, more of a meme or trends than any sort of related aesthetic items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of this is synthesis. Just because an aethetic or design or fashion is popular in the modern day and is discussed on the internet does not mean it is an "internet aethetic". That's just how the world works now, not a substantive cohesive concept: "that usually originates from the Internet or is popularized on it" – very little in the last 20 years wasn't popularized on the internet, so this is a meaningless characteristic unless you are just fluffing up the most recent and niche trends. "micro-trends such as mob wife and tomato girl summer" Groan. Which sources actually bring the concepts here together? Reywas92Talk 14:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For all reasons above. At most, this might be best suited as a category for worthwhile articles such as Corecore, dark academia, light academia, and so on. Only problem is that the title is itself a wholesale invention. I don't think it's influenced the popular literature to remain as . Ornov Ganguly TALK 17:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nom and the arguments presented that the article is a synthesis of original research. Perhaps in a few years if scholarly books or articles are written about this topic it will become notable. At this time it is not. Netherzone (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with everyone else. History being a definition of aesthetic with a line from Vogue tacked on? Seems like a desperate, last minute high school essay more than an article. There are individual elements which might be able to stand on their own, but as a whole it's all over the place. Tengu99 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews does not establish notability. See WP:POPULARPAGE. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay. Essays have nothing to do with policy or guidelines, they are opinion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and I suspect most editors here respect the views expressed at WP:ATA. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respect is fine but is not a policy or guideline. Many editors name essays as if they were canon, they are not. They are opinion and have nothing to do with deletion close decisions (or at least shouldn't). Sources have been found and listed for this topic, and that should be enough, per GNG, to keep the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination mentions a lack of sourced definitions, here is a link to some (disregard the first, Wikipedia, and look beyond that, such as this long and detailed screenshot article). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. While the majority of sources are unusable, the Glamour article, this First Monday article, and potentially this German one are all usable. Ornov Ganguly TALK 12:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 06:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Clearly significant coverage of this, not in stuffy academic literature yet, but that's not a requirement for notability. I've spot-checked a couple of the listed aesthetics and found multiple people referring to them as 'Internet Aesthetics', or found them on lists of 'Internet Aesthetics' of course if things on this list are not called 'Internet Aesthetics' they shouldn't be there, and can be removed. (If that happens to leave us with the two that I picked at random, a delete might be appropriate!) JeffUK 11:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move - Coverage about the topic exists but the information should be rewritten to fit an encyclopedic tone.
Miiversal (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s easy to dismiss aesthetics, particularly some of the wackier ones, as superficial and frivolous. But Alexander Cho, a digital-media researcher at UC Santa Barbara, told me that they can be “really important, especially for young adults in terms of creating or fashioning a self.” If you have a hunch about who you are, it’s incredibly easy now to search for images and ideas that help you refine that sense of self.
On the opposite end this Vox article on aesthethics criticizes them as fleeting, hollow and commercial. Prospect magazine did a similar article. I can definitely understand how compared to hippies, goth, punk, etc., these niche aesthetic subcultures can seem inconsequential and like short-lived trends of the past. But there is a long-term movement away from large-scale countercultures towards niche subcultures, which makes comparing them anachronistic. The physical ecosystems of the past (clothing stores, music concerts, magazines, etc.) could only sustain a limited number of subcultures, so people outside of the mainstream only had limited groups to join, and this inflated their numbers. The current digital ecosystem (social media sites, online shopping, etc.) can support a wide diversity of niche subcultures which the larger subcultures are splintering into.
Individually most of these aesthetics subcultures are not notable, but collectively they are a sizeable movement that currently has no other article to be discussed in. Photos of Japan (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have plenty of editors here who disagree over whether "internet aesthetic" is or is not a real "thing" but we rely on sources to determine this. We have a disagreement over whether there are reliable sources verifying the subject's notability while other editors see the article as OR. Could we get a source assessment to settle this dispute over whether there are adequate sources providing SIGCOV or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Of the three sources cited by the last user, none of them use the term "internet aesthetic" (one says "internet aestheticization", though). To me this argues that the label is an attempt to tie together different things in an WP:OR way. I don't have a strong keep/delete opinion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Vox article uses both "online aesthetic" and "digital aesthetic". In reality these are just referred to as "aesthetic" most of the time, but when trying to discuss them and clearly differentiate them from regular aesthetics people sometimes put an adjective in front of them. This article could be renamed something like Aesthetic (internet). Photos of Japan (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely the problem with pretty much all sources attempted. They talk about aesthetics that happen to be common/connected to the internet, but that doesn't make them an "internet aesthetic". Just because people find examples of cottagecore online doesn't make it an "internet aesthetic. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a problem with the sources though, but a problem with the article. The article should just refer to these as "aesthetics" and probably be named something along the lines of Aesthetics (parenthetical differentiator), but there's no clear word to put in the parentheses to differentiate it from the Aesthetics article. Photos of Japan (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There have been two recurring concerns brought up here: that the grouping of aesthetics here is WP:OR, and that internet aesthetics lack WP:SIGCOV. Discussion has been fragmented, so I will comprehensively address both here.
WP:OR/WP:SYNTH concerns
There are two practical methods for determining what counts as an internet aesthetic for the purpose of being incorporated into this article. For the first, any entry in the Aesthetics Wiki can simply be considered an aesthetic. The Aesthetics Wiki has wide currency as the space on the internet where aesthetics are being documented and catalogued, with multiple rs's that go in depth on internet aesthetics primarily referencing the wiki ([8][9][10]).
For the second practical method, anything containing a common aesthetic suffix or which commonly has "aesthetic" appended to the end of it can be considered an internet aesthetic for this article. For instance, "Clean Girl" is often referred to as "Clean Girl aesthetic" ([11] [12]). Common aesthetic suffixes include “core” (e.g., cottagecore), “goth” (e.g., cybergoth), “kei” (e.g., cult party kei), “punk” (e.g., sea punk), “wave” (e.g., sovietwave), and “academia” (e.g., dark academia)
WP:SIGCOV
Just glancing at the references section and looking at their titles shows that "aesthetics" in the internet sense is in widespread use by reliable sources. However, the main concern people have is whether there is significant coverage to establish them as a concept. This is unequivocally the case with multiple sources delving in depth into aesthetics:
With these (and others) there is enough to write fairly sizeable history, definition, and criticism sections. A concern that has been raised is that these do not all use the term "internet aesthetic". Many terms are used: "online aesthetic", "digital aesthetic", "micro aesthetic", etc. Most commonly they are simply called "aesthetics" (it is tangential to the discussion of notability, but I believe this article should simply refer to them as "aesthetics" and be renamed something like Aesthetic (internet)). Regardless of what they call it, it is clear they are all referring to the same concept, and are referring to things which would be considered internet aesthetics by the two practical methods described earlier.
Issues concerning the article lacking a cited definition, or other content issues have been raised, but should be addressed through editing. The lack of a cited definition is not due to lack of sources trying to define aesthetics, but due to the difficulty in defining them. I am working on a summary of how different sources have discussed its usage, but it is a linguistically complex issue and will likely take a few days. Photos of Japan (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment - Seems like an article on Aesthetics Wiki (now a redirect) would/could use the sources above more accurately. It is a tangible thing that exists, controversies and all. I don't think a case has been made that Internet aesthetic exists. Perhaps reversing the redirect would allow for a wiki worthy article that could touch on the topics listed now that fall into OR. I suggest redirect and rewrite as an alternative to deletion, unless a [fandom site] is never considered notable, in which case I stick with removing the article.I do not find any reliable sourcing for this article as it stands and don't see how it can be edited into anything wiki-worthy.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet aesthetics exist and are straightforward to identify as such even if they are hard to define. It doesn't help that "The terms "internet aesthetic" and "aesthetic" are often used interchangeably." To simply borrow the description from the wiki:
Aesthetics have now come to mean a collection of images, colors, objects, music, and writings that creates a specific emotion, purpose, and community.
Aesthetics largely emerged from the categorization of media across social aggregation websites (Instagram, Tumblr, Pinterest, etc.). Broadly speaking "aesthetics" is used to variably to describe collections of media that exemplify something akin to a style or trend, the lifestyles and communities based around them, and the individuals that identify with them. Various sources discuss, however, how they differ from things like styles (not explicitly defined, instead typically illustrated by collections of exemplifying materials), and subcultures (communities around aesthetics don't require physical participation, are more ephemeral, tend to lack political stances/morals/etc.) It is very difficult trying to summarize the various sources' descriptions of how "aesthetics" is used and what "aesthetics" are, while avoiding WP:SYNTH, due to the variety of closely related meanings the word has and the lack of a linguistics source comprehensively and explicitly detailing how the word is being used. However, all of the sources are in common agreement as to what things are aesthetics (e.g. cottagecore, Y2K aesthetic, Dark academia, etc.), these all either end in common aesthetics suffixes or are referred to as "X aesthetic" widely across social media, and are documented and appear in the Aesthetics wiki. Some sources that discuss them include:
The aesthetics of the self: The meaning-making of Internet aesthetics article in First Monday (journal) exploring and characterizing the nature of internet aesthetics:
In this study we explore the so-called Internet aesthetics, labels applied on heterogenous collections of materials and activities by Internet users, which are discussed and constructed primarily on the Internet.
Do I have an Aesthetic? article on aesthetics in Vogue (magazine)
What I’m asking in these moments is, in internet parlance, what is my aesthetic? ... I’m suddenly aware of just how many hyper-specific aesthetics with handy, catchy names already exist on the internet. Overtime, “aesthetic” has evolved from an academic word and something utilized by artists and auteurs to something to categorize our own identities by. It can mean both personal style and a vague stand-in for beauty ... Pinterest says that there has been a growing interest in aesthetics since 2018, with a “large spike of 60% in searches for simply “core aesthetic” as Pinners discovered different types of aesthetics to shape their identity,” ... On Tumblr, users would build their blogs around a particular theme, whether it was cottagecore or a collage of images representing a character from a TV show. These niches have blossomed and expanded. One Tumblr user, who goes by Fairypage, took notice of just how many aesthetics were being defined online, and decided to make the AestheticsWiki ... has her own definition for what an aesthetic is: The stylistically consistent multimodal manifestation of an imagined lifeworld. In other words, “Something is an aesthetic if you can look at an image [or song] and say ‘yeah that belongs there.’”
All style, no substance: the problem of aesthetics in 2023 article on aesthetics in Prospect (magazine)
Aesthetics is no longer an investigative term for the science of beauty and taste, but an umbrella term for online subcultures, a byword for “vibe”. And you can do more than just admire an aesthetic: it’s now something you can be too, if you wear the right clothes and listen to the right playlist. As the wiki itself puts it, “There is currently no dictionary definition that captures the complexity of this phenomenon, which arose in the Internet youth.”
Cottagecore Was Just the Beginning article on aesthetics in The Atlantic:
At this point, the word aesthetic is totally divorced from its academic origins. While Tumblr users mainstreamed it years ago, many teenagers use aesthetic as an all-purpose adjective—“that’s so aesthetic” as a shorthand for “that’s so aesthetically pleasing to me.” But in broader internet parlance, it now means a collection of signifiers or, more precisely, a “vibe.”
Decoding Internet Fashion: 20 Aesthetics for 2023 marketing analysis of internet aesthetics by Ipsos
To understand each aesthetic, we analyzed 8 million posts – including text, images, and videos – related to Angelcore, Art Hoe, Baddie, Clean Girl, Coastal Grandmother, Cottagecore, Dark Academia, E-girl, Emo, Fairycore, Grunge, Indie, Kawaii, Kidcore, Light Academia, Old Money, Skater Girl, Soft Girl, Vintage, and Y2K. Hashtags for each of the aesthetics have generated billions of views and interactions on TikTok, displaying content from influencers, brands, and “normal” platform users. While TikTok generates the most engagement on aesthetics-related posts, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram are also go-to sites to share and discuss content.'
Style at Home: Internet aesthetics: cottagecore vs. cluttercore article in The Detroit News:
The aesthetics tend to be more than just a design choice, sometimes also embodying a fantastical-seeming lifestyle.
Ranking 2023's Internet Aesthetic Trends article in Paper (magazine)
More sources exist, but I believe these are sufficient to show that internet aesthetics (e.g. Corecore, Y2K aesthetic, Light academia, Cottagecore) exist, and have recieved WP:SIGCOV, even if they are conceptually difficult to describe. Photos of Japan (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

[edit]

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

[edit]

Visual arts - Deletion Review

[edit]

Performing arts

[edit]

Comedians

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Comedians

Dancers

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Dancers

Directors

[edit]

Musicians

[edit]

Magicians

[edit]

Writers and critics

[edit]
Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics

The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.

Related Projects

Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.

Related Portals

Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts

FAs and GAs
Announcements/To do (edit)

Members

[edit]

Categories

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Writers

Comics writers

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Comics writers

Romance authors

[edit]

Lists

[edit]

Poets

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Poets

Stubs

[edit]

Authors / Writers deletions

[edit]
Authors / Writers deletion sorting discussions


Authors

[edit]

Patrick Zeinali

[edit]
Patrick Zeinali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE — The article on Patrick Zeinali fails to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines WP:GNG for inclusion. The subject's coverage in reliable, secondary sources appears to be insufficiently substantial and independent of promotional or self-published content. While Zeinali has a notable presence on platforms like YouTube and TikTok, the majority of the references cited either derive from websites of questionable reliability or are focused on basic statistical data (e.g., subscriber count, views) and not substantive biographical or critical coverage.

The article primary relies on low-quality or non-independent sources with several of the sources cited, such as hypeauditor.com, socialblade.com, and networthspot.com, are not considered reliable for establishing notability. They primarily provide analytics and self-reported metrics rather than independent coverage.

The limited biographical mentions from "Creator Handbook" or "The Famous People" are either brief or fail to offer in-depth, independent analysis. No significant third-party journalistic or academic sources have been identified that discuss Zeinali's work or impact in a meaningful way.

Promotional tone and focus on social media metrics: The article leans heavily on discussing subscriber counts, followers, and collaborations with other creators, which aligns more closely with promotional content than encyclopedic coverage. Notability should stem from reliable, independent coverage of the subject's lasting impact, not their self-promotion or online popularity alone.

Given these factors, the article does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion and could be considered for deletion unless more reliable, independent, and substantial sources are provided.

Nyxion303 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Mukoya

[edit]
Dennis Mukoya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography falling below notability guidelines. Failed attempt for a parliamentary seat does not confer notability Ednabrenze (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harshada Pathare

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Harshada Pathare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article on Harshada Pathare fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for authors and filmmakers. The references cited are primarily from non-independent or low-quality sources, such as News24, Yahoo Finance, and promotional platforms like the Tagore International Film Festival’s own website. These sources lack the depth and reliability required to establish significant coverage or independent notability. Additionally, the article has a promotional tone, which violates Unambiguous Advertising or Promotion. The subject's notable achievements, including awards and books, are not adequately supported by independent, verifiable sources.

There is also a possible Conflict of Interest, as this subject has a significant creation and deletion history dating back to 2018, with five drafts and one main space article being deleted under G11. It is unlikely that this repeated effort to create the article is coincidental, especially considering the subject's limited notability as evidenced by their sparse Google presence. This raises questions about why multiple attempts have been made to establish this page, despite a lack of substantial independent coverage.

Upon further investigation, the creator of this page appears to have a pattern of creating articles with extensive personal data, often citing only one or two references. This raises concerns about verifiability and how the creator is obtaining such detailed information when it is not publicly available. These issues, combined with the lack of reliable, independent sources and a promotional tone, warrant deletion of this article for failing to meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability, neutrality, and verifiability. Kriji Sehamati (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabh Shah

[edit]
Rishabh Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this page does not meet notability standards WP:NBIO and WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Citations are just WP:ROUTINE. Also, this might be a case of article hijacking WP:AHIJACK. The article was originally about cricketer Rishabh Arjun Chandra Shah (born 11 September 1991). In 2021, it was redirected to the List of Durham UCCE & MCCU players. Then, in 2023, the redirection was removed, and the article was recreated as Rishabh Sanjay Shah (born 3 September 1991). Charlie (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination is part of my training and assessment activities at CVA School. Charlie (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Sinclair

[edit]
Deborah Sinclair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There doesn't seem to be enough independent, secondary sources that discuss Sinclair in depth. Badbluebus (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudraneil Sengupta

[edit]
Rudraneil Sengupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article on Rudraneil Sengupta does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies, as it lacks adequate independent and reliable sources to substantiate the subject's significance. While the article attempts to document his career and achievements, it is insufficiently supported by verifiable evidence from secondary sources providing substantial coverage of his life and work.

Of the references cited in the article, only the first citation meets the criteria for a reliable source. The rest of the references merely mention Sengupta in passing, failing to offer independent or in-depth analysis of his contributions. This is not enough to establish notability under Wikipedia's standards, which require significant, independent coverage from credible sources.

A quick Google search further confirms the lack of independent coverage. Most search results are either related to Sengupta's published works or are affiliated with organizations he has worked for. There is no significant independent recognition or detailed media coverage, which is essential to meet notability guidelines.

The article also claims that Sengupta has received awards such as the Ramnath Goenka Award and the SOPA Award, but these claims are not supported by verifiable sources within the article or by any independent third-party confirmation. Without proper citations, such assertions cannot be deemed reliable or sufficient to demonstrate his notability.

Much of the content appears to be derived from primary sources or editorialized interpretations of his career. Wikipedia's verifiability and neutrality policies require that biographical content rely on independent, third-party sources to ensure reliability.

In conclusion, this article fails to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and standards for Reliable Sources. As a result, I am nominating this article for deletion. Kriji Sehamati (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim McLelland

[edit]
Tim McLelland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability; article has been tagged as possible nn since creation. Cannot find anything online other than amazon, abebooks & the like, none of which establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Warikoo

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ankur Warikoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable YouTuber, given sources are either obviously paid or lack WP:SIGCOV. CutlassCiera 18:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vinayak Singh Oberoi

[edit]
Vinayak Singh Oberoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails notability and significant coverage. Pizzaonpineapple (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete The individual who created this article submitted it multiple times before they were auto confirmed, and multiple times it was declined for not being Notable. The individual did not just suddenly become notable because the editor of the article became auto confirmed. The individual in this article does not show any notability to speak of. Not only should the article be deleted but WP:Salted as well.--VVikingTalkEdits 15:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt – to quote my own reviewer comment at the draft: The sum of the information about him is as follows: He has notable relatives (that does not make him notable), he has self-published a number of books (which does not make him notable), he has had minor roles in a few TV shows (not something that makes him notable), he has donated to charitable causes, and he has a website. Neither of which is a criterion for notability. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't yield any independent sources. And the discussion at Draft talk:Vinayak Singh Oberoi as well as the article creator's talk page doesn't give me any confidence that they will understand or respect a "delete" outcome of a community discussion, so salting is probably necessary. --bonadea contributions talk 10:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable self-publicist. MisterWizzy (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amrita Narlikar

[edit]
Amrita Narlikar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO, and WP:NPROF. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Also, Wikipedia is not a resume hosting site WP:NOTRESUME. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramiz Rovshan

[edit]
Ramiz Rovshan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 23:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis for the cross-wiki references

1- Offline source, I can not find it on Google Books.
2- 404 error.
3-Only listed.
4- kaspi.az is not a reliable source.
5- Interview with his son, not independent.

Most of the links are from YouTube. In Turkish books, his name is listed and mentioned in the sentences, again not adequate for notability. I can only say that this source is good but only one source is not adequate for passing GNG.--Kadı Message 12:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Kant (Indian executive)

[edit]
Ravi Kant (Indian executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable executive, fails wp:GNG. Zuck28 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keely Shaye Smith

[edit]
Keely Shaye Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notable mainly for being Pierce Brosnan's wife. However, notability is not inherited. All reliable references to her exist because she is Pierce Brosnan's wife.

Fails notability guideline WP:JOURNALIST --LK (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Novakovich, Lilana (August 21, 1989). "Food therapy for GH's Valerie". The Toronto Star – via newspapers.com.
  2. Slewinski, Christy (December 29, 1995). "Keely Shaye Smith turns her green thumb to gold". Chicago Tribune. ProQuest 291082310 – via newspapers.com.
  3. Fabian, Allison (January 1999). "Keely Shaye Smith putting her passion to work". New Woman. Vol. 29, no. 1. New York: Hearst Magazine Media, Inc. p. 13. ProQuest 206658619.
  4. Tschinkel, Arielle (August 5, 2024). "Who Is Pierce Brosnan's Wife? All About Keely Shaye Brosnan". People (magazine).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory J. Blotnick

[edit]
Gregory J. Blotnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's unclear to me why this man's fraud conviction makes him notable. There were many people who committed PPP fraud and while large, his is not the largest or most well reported. I see a smattering of reporting, of the routine kind of reporting you usually see that is rewritten SEC or DOJ press releases.

Furthermore, I don't see how he is notable for his finance activities prior to his conviction.

This article seems to promote the man in a strange kind of way. I am concerned about the potential COI nature of this articles creation as well, because the Wikidata item for this page/person, Gregory Blotnick (Q131440997) is being actively edited by wikidata:User:Gregory J. Blotnick so shortly after creation. William Graham talk 05:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While his case is covered in reliable sources, they mostly seem to be somewhat routine, nothing to me that really stands out. Quite a few sources are out there reporting on it, but I'm not sure if the content is enough for a keep. Procyon117 (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel McLean (writer)

[edit]
Rachel McLean (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

inexplicably declined - despite no evidence of notability - being a "kindle author" is meaningless in the absence of actual meaningful coverage, of which there is none. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 21:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (As I had to go and look to work out what you meant by 'Inexplicably declined'...) Your nomination for a speedy deletion was declined, with the perfectly clear explanation that "the Kindle award is enough to get past an A7, and the article is not promotional". Speedy Deletion is for a very strictly determined subset of articles. JeffUK 15:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG, the Amazon source is not neutral, and the bookseller source alone isn't sufficient. There are a few mentions around of McLean attending book signings and the like, but they're also not really neutral as it's a commercial engagement being advertised. JeffUK 15:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclear - it's certainly not speedy delete-able because there's an allegation of notability and some coverage although debatable whether it's significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it meets sustained coverage, the Amazon article is not neutral, the Bookseller article is an just reporting on the exact same award (So even though it's more neutral, it's not sustained coverage) The only other article in a very very local paper about 'author signs books at local library' is around the time of the Amazon award (again, not sustained coverage). I just don't think it meets the test. Mostly there's just not enough here for us to write an article with. JeffUK 10:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, delete then. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: She seems to have different names/pseudonyms, I've found a few more sources that way and incorporated more info (edit: + over a wider range of years) but unsure if it's enough. – Starklinson 10:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, there have been a lot of changes to this article since its nomination so it should get an additional review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per WP:HEY. Better sourcing than the version that was submitted to AfD, but admittedly I'm unsure whether the added sources pushes the subject solidly into the notable category. I'd err toward keep than delete here. Madeleine961 (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see any critical reviews for any of this individual's books when I search. What's used in the article doesn't appear to be RS, mostly blogs. This writer seems to give advice on how to self publish in the few sources I've found. [15], seems to be in independent author, so that could explain the lack of much critical coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing in Gscholar or Jstor either, appears to be a prolific writer though. Some sources says "award-winning author", but I don't know how much weight that carries. I don't see any awards won that I recognize, anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Rex

[edit]
Jimmy Rex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Total promo nonsense article, sourced to passing mentions with nothing meaningful in the way of actual coverage - and the only mentions of Rex are again, in passing, if even that. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dont label an article that I spent my time and effort working on nonsense. Talk to me with respect. Cokeandbread (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I was asked to review this article earlier. I tagged it as relying too heavily on primary sources. It seems like with how long this person has been around and the circles they trade in it would be easy for him to be notable by some metric, but his projects and interviews have no independent coverage and there's little to nothing I could find that discusses him in an impartial way. Reconrabbit 20:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man. Cokeandbread (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created the page so let me explain why. I will start like this.
In the early days of Instagram verification, before Instagram gave out verification, they didnt know how to select who was worthy of being verified and why those people were worthy and others were not. So they found a solution. One of the criteria they used to determine if someone was notable to be verified was to check out the number of DMs said person from other verified accounts. Getting DMs from verified accounts meant you were notable too. E.g an obscure music producer getting DMs from different big musicians meant he was notable even though he wasnt famous. Afterall some notable people work behind the scenes. Jimmy Rex's Show have had some great people on the podcast. In Wikipedia we call those "associates". Lots of people who have Wikipedia articles have been guests at his show. A non notable podcaster wont pull notable guests to his podcast.
There is something else I should point out. There was a debate about Giannis Antetokounmpo, and how his opening sentence should be worded. The bone of contention was whether he should be labeled as a Greek or a Nigerian-Greek. What put that argument to rest was a video from YouTube. In the video he said that he represents both Nigeria and Greece. These are the scenarios when Youtube videos can be employed. In Jimmy Rex's case, these notable guests are talking by themselves for themselves. You watch the video and see them. It is verifiable. When you say primary source, do you know that you mean that the words are coming from Jimmy Rex's mouth? And in this case, are they? Cokeandbread (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what WP:SOURCING is, because I'm not going to explain it to you. It details the different types and the fact that your article is a raging advertisement sourced to blackhat SEO doesn't help. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:YOUTUBE-EL.
And about SEO blackhatting, you are simply projecting, because I never had the intention for such. Cokeandbread (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how I am projecting? What does that mean? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some signs that you might be projecting onto me:
• You make assumptions about my intentions. With no good faith.
• You accuse me of doing something that you yourself might be guilty of.
• You seem overly sensitive to my words or actions, as if you’re taking them personally. Cokeandbread (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Define projecting. Cause this isn't it. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have time for this. Cokeandbread (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Almost evenly divided between editors arguing to Keep this article and those advocating Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Cokeandbread (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You ought to stop with the WP:BLUDGEON. It does not help your case in any way. Madeleine (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am very civil and contributing to Wikipedia to make a great encyclopedia, not trying to WP:SATISFY you. Cokeandbread (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And just how is responding to every Delete vote forming a consensus? Madeleine (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Author of the page in question has been indeffed on grounds of WP:NOTHERE and utter disreputability, including a possible COI. Borgenland (talk) 09:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this whole article frankly reads like a bad trivia section.Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tulika Mehrotra

[edit]
Tulika Mehrotra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do not pass WP:AUTHOR or even WP:BASIC ―  ☪  Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence James Ludovici

[edit]
Laurence James Ludovici (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD was contested. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The bulk of the article is just an unsourced list of his non-notable works. The article has had a notability tag for almost 9 years with no additions to support the subjects notability. cyberdog958Talk 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as the author of the first biography on Alexander Fleming, which received significant international attention at the time of its publication. I would have to disagree with your view. Dan arndt (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see more input from the community on the recent edits.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authors proposed deletions

[edit]

Tools

[edit]
Main tool page: toolserver.org
Article alerts are available, updated by AAlertBot. More information...
  • Reflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references
  • Checklinks - Edit and repair external links
  • Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links.
  • Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Arts_and_entertainment&oldid=1264837709#Writers_and_critics"