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.
Delete - this emerging artist does not meet notability criteria for inclusion based on WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. There are no notable exhibitions, no works in notable museum or national gallery permanent collections, or the type of art historical or art critical coverage one finds for a notable artist. Perhaps in 5 or so years there will be enough significant, independent coverage in reliable sources to consider for an encyclopedia article. At this time, it's definitely WP:TOOSOON. Netherzone (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage, beyond listings and credits. Declined 5 times at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace repeatedly by User:Orlando Davis who states “ I don't agree with notability tags. The subject may take it personally. Deletion makes more sense, or leave it alone.” so here we are. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fine-Scale Modeler, The Evening Independent, and Bay News 9 are all highly reliable and independent. The film credits and interview articles should be noted. Significant changes have been made after each time it was turned down. Orlando Davis (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With niche sourcing like Fine-Scale Modeler, one good way to establish it as a RS is to show where the source is seen as a RS by other RS, particularly academic/scholarly sources. Offhand I see it used listed in a further reading section in this CRC Press book and a note in this Taylor & Francis. I wasn't able to find much more. The magazine was owned by Kalmbach Media but was sold to Firecrown Media last year. It looks like this is probably usable, but I'd recommend running it through WP:RS/N to be certain.
As far as interviews go, those are seen as primary sources regardless of where they're posted unless they're written in prose. The standard interview format is pretty much just question and answer, without any sort of accompanying article. As such, they almost always have little to no editorial oversight or fact-checking beyond formatting and spell-check. This is a very widely held stance on Wikipedia and is unlikely to ever change.
Now, when it comes to film credits the issue here is that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the person working on a notable production or with notable people. The reason for this is that there can be hundreds to even thousands of people working on a film. According to this, over 3,000 people worked on Iron Man 3, so just working on a notable film isn't enough to establish notability - you need coverage in independent and reliable sources that specific highlight the person in question. So if there was a RS review that stated "Randy Cooper's work on IM2 was fantastic", that would count. However with his work being so specific, it's unlikely that he would be highlighted over say, the person or company who was overall in charge of VFX.
Finally, I guess I'd be remiss if I didn't say that local coverage tends to be kind of seen as routine on Wikipedia as local outlets are more likely to cover a local person. So in this case what you will need to do is help establish how this coverage should be seen as more than just local, routine coverage. Viewership/circulation numbers are a great way of doing this. So for example, a local paper with a fairly low readership would be seen as kind of routine whereas say, an article in a major, well circulated paper would be seen as a much stronger source. Now to be fair, there's nothing official saying that local coverage can't be used, but it is typically seen as a weaker source and shouldn't be doing the heavy lifting in an AfD discussion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)17:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fine Scale Modeler magazine is ok for sourcing, the rest either aren't online, trivial mentions or primary sources. I can't pull anything up. Just not enough sourcing for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have two solid sources so far: Fine Scale Modeler and the Evening Independent. Also, we should be able to use the five interviews due to the Ignore-all-rules rule since it is an article that is obviously notable, and the rules are getting in the way. Interviews by the hobby magazines Sci-Fi-Modeler., Psycho Moya Styrene, the YouTube channels Richard Cleveland (Amazing Plastic), Adam Savage’s Tested (A YouTube channel with almost 7 million subscribers and the public television Bay news, with a viewership of 1.76 million make Randy notable, and the Ignore All Rules rule was put in place for situations like this when the rules get in the way of an obviously notable article. He built many models that were used for major films such as Starship Troopers, Iron Man 2, Stargate, Spider-Man 2, and many others. Just looking at his older models, it's obvious that the style of spaceships he created was used for Starship Troopers, a major movie!
And what's the difference between an interview and an article in this case? For this article, the part that matters for notability is that he is significant enough to be written about and interviewed by various significant sources. Orlando Davis (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable photographer. Page was created by a single-purpose account with a clear COI (and who claims to be the subject himself). A WP:BEFORE search doesn't provide much information, and there isn't any evidence of notability from reliable sources. Fails WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. CycloneYoristalk!09:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the subject is "non-notable."
As a wildlife photographer, I have received significant **international recognition**, including:
Winner of the People’s Choice Award at the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition, hosted by the Natural History Museum — one of the world’s most prestigious institutions in the field of natural history and photography.
Featured and interviewed by numerous independent, reliable international media outlets, including the BBC, CNN, Forbes, National Geographic, The Guardian, Smithsonian Magazine, and others.
Just days ago, my work was profiled in a full-length feature by the Süddeutsche Zeitung[1] — a leading German newspaper and an established reliable source under WP:RS.
My images are actively used by the WWF, the Snow Leopard Trust, and the Amur Tiger Center for conservation, education, and fundraising purposes.
While I acknowledge that the article was created with a conflict of interest, I have fully disclosed my identity on my user page and within this discussion. I have taken care to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and verifiability, and have cited only independent, third-party sources.
Keep – — Duplicate !vote:SaFo wiki (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
Sascha Fonseca meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria as a widely published and internationally recognized wildlife :photographer, particularly known for pioneering DSLR and mirrorless camera trap photography of elusive big cats such :as snow leopards, Amur leopards, and Siberian tigers.
1. Significant Independent Media Coverage:
Fonseca’s work has been featured in reputable, independent outlets including:
• Condé Nast, BBC, NatGeo, WWF
• Leading newspapers Telegraph, The Guardian, Süddeutsche Zeitung
This coverage demonstrates clear notability under WP:BIO and WP:GNG standards.
2. Prestigious Awards and Exhibitions:
• Winner in the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition by the Natural History Museum in London – one of :the most competitive and globally recognized photography contests.
• His now-iconic image of a wild snow leopard at sunset was shared by major conservation groups and widely :praised.
• Exhibitions include the UN Headquarters in New York, the Xposure International Photography Festival (UAE), and :global wildlife platforms.
3. Conservation Impact and Public Engagement:
Fonseca’s work raises awareness about endangered species and supports conservation through visuals rarely captured in the wild. His photos are used in research and education, and he regularly gives talks and participates in outreach.
4. Reliable Sources Exist and Can Be Added:
There is ample coverage available from independent third-party sources. If the article lacks inline citations, it can and should be improved—not deleted.
5. COI / Tone Issues Are Fixable:
If concerns exist around neutrality or conflict of interest, the appropriate step is to improve tone and structure—not removal. Wikipedia welcomes editing improvements and collaboration rather than erasure of notable subjects.
Conclusion:
Fonseca clearly meets the inclusion criteria. Deletion would remove a notable figure in modern wildlife photography from Wikipedia and disregard available documentation of his accomplishments. I strongly recommend keeping and improving the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaFo wiki (talk • contribs) 10:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC) — SaFo wiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: SaFo wiki (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
his accomplishments So now you are not Fonseca?
But on your userpage you claimed to be him. I am Sascha Fonseca
@Polygnotus: Yes, I confirm that I am Sascha Fonseca, and all my edits and replies have been written by me personally — not using AI or automated tools. The references cited in the article are not just for my photos, but for published interviews, tutorials and features where my work and career are covered independently by reliable sources. SaFo wiki (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris: Labelling someone a “non-notable photographer” without fairly evaluating the sources is not only dismissive, but also contrary to Wikipedia’s spirit of neutrality and evidence-based discussion. The article includes coverage from multiple independent, reliable publications — including a full-length profile in Süddeutsche Zeitung (one of Germany’s leading newspapers), and features in Condé Nast Traveller, Smithsonian Magazine, and Nature TTL.
I was awarded the People’s Choice Award at the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition hosted by the Natural History Museum, selected from 39,000 images, with over 60,000 public votes. That alone is widely covered and meets notability per WP:PHOTOGRAPHER and WP:CREATIVE.
Yes, I created the article and have declared my COI transparently. But dismissing a subject solely on that basis while ignoring strong sources and international recognition contradicts the principles of WP:NPOV and WP:AGF.
Specifically in regards to WP:PHOTOGRAPHER Foncesca would meet the criteria "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," with regards to the snow leopard photo, which all of these articles are about I think. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not convinced that this article meets WP:PHOTOGRAPHER or even WP:GNG. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, because the only reliable source I'm seeing with significant coverage is Conde Nast. I also have a problem with the COI. I think the subject can wait until more sources become available.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm just starting to look into the sources and I've already found two that are advertorials, not articles providing significant coverage. These are Native Advertising, in other words, WP:ADMASQ advertisements mascarading as news/journalism sources. World Art News is a promotional service platform that anyone can submit their work to for publication, at a fee; its pay to play, proven by their "About" description, Engage with this diverse audience through our promotional services. and Advertise with World Art News: Publish your Art, Press Release, Story and News and Additionally, we serve as a publisher, offering advertising, press releases, and other promotional services tailored to the affluent art community. all of which then link to the page that says for $99 Getting Started is Easy!My Modern Met is also an advertising platform mascarading as an art magazine or trade journal. Are you an artist, designer or photographer who'd like to have your work featured on My Modern Met? Did you see something interesting or inspiring that you think others might enjoy? Do you want to share it with the rest of the world? Great! Here's how: It's promotional click-bait, not serious art historical/art critical journalism. I am holding off !voting for now until I can take a deeper dive into the sources, but this is looking alot like WP:PROMO, and the COI is problematic. So far it seems like the subject is simply doing his job as a commercial photographer, like thousands of others. Netherzone (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not a commercial photographer — this is my personal passion and not my profession. I pursue wildlife photography independently, not for advertising or profit, and do not promote or sell products or services.
I understand concerns about source reliability, and I agree that not all media outlets carry the same editorial weight. I’ve been working to improve the article by adding coverage from more established publications (e.g. Süddeutsche Zeitung, Nature TTL) and am open to feedback on further strengthening it with reliable, independent sources. 91.73.1.255 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
91.73.1.255, please log in if you are @SaFo wiki Sascha Fonseca. Thanks for clarification. Unfortunately I'm unable to read the Süddeutsche Zeitung without paying for a subscription. Perhaps there is another link? The Nature TTL citation is a tutorial you wrote yourself, so therefore not an independent source. Nature TTL seems to be something different than the British scientific journal Nature. The Forbes piece seems to be based off a press release. A question for you, if you are Sascha, are any of your photographs held in the permanent collections of notable museums or national galleries? If so could you please add links here that would verify that? It might help establishing notability per WP:NARTIST. BTW, I'm sorry if it feels like there is a lot of scrutiny going on in the deletion process, but this is just how the encyclopedia determines what is notable or not, based on it's own inclusion criteria that's been developed over the years through consensus. It may be helpful and of interest for you to read this content guideline: WP:AUTOBIO and also this essay: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, as it's really difficult to be objective if one is personally connected to the subject of an article. Netherzone (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: Thanks for your message. Yes, I’m Sascha Fonseca and have declared my COI. The Süddeutsche Zeitung article is paywalled because it’s a premium profile — I believe the fact that it’s behind a paywall reflects the value of the content, not a lack of coverage. I understand the Nature TTL piece is self-authored and will look to add more independent sources. While my work isn’t in permanent museum collections, it has been exhibited at the UN, Xposure, and other international venues. Appreciate the engagement. 91.73.1.255 (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please log in, it's confusing to other editors if you are contributing from both an IP address and with a user name. Also, the IP address reveals personal information that you may not want to be made public on this forum. Netherzone (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NPR and People pieces are almost identical, and seem to be based on the same press release. The Condé Nast piece is better. Might this be a case of WP:BLP1E or WP:TOOSOON? The photographs are exceptionally beautiful. Netherzone (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's featured in NPR, [11], ExplorersWeb, [12] the Natural History Museum (London), [13] the BBC, [14] MyModernMet [15] along with others, mostly due to his awards won which still qualifies as notability and substantial recognition, as per option 3 ("... In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews") in the WP:PHOTOGRAPHER guidelines. Additionally, he is featured on the Xposure exhibition's website for participating in the event, [16] which in my opinion seems to secure WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. In conclusion, I think that this is enough to qualify for WP:GNG and WP:PHOTOGRAPHER (for the photographer part, I believe that it specifically follows options 3 and 4 for notability) and that the article should hence be kept. One Hop2482 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding the sources - The more closely I examine the sources, they really seem to be the work of Public Relations PR Promo, that is based on this press release: [17], per this disclosure Compiled and prepared by Malik Merchant from (1) Press Release issued on February 9, 2023, by Wildlife Photographer of the Year (WPY), which is developed and produced by the Natural History Museum (NHM), London; (2) Media Kit that Simergphotos was provided access to by the NHM; and (3) Jay Sullivan’s informative article published on the NHM website. The press release issued on Feb. 9, 2023 by the NHM is here: [18] Many of the sources in the article and found online in a BEFORE are not independent journalism, they are iterations of the press release(s). Between that and the pay-to-play Native advertising or Advertorials, listicles, blogs and primary sources I'm leaning more towards D*eletion, per WP:PROMO, however I'm not !voting yet since I'm still trying to find THREE fully independent, secondary reliable sources that provide significant coverage that is not based on the press release. Netherzone (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: These claims are incorrect and frankly dismissive. The article includes multiple independent sources — *Süddeutsche Zeitung*, *Smithsonian Magazine*, *Condé Nast Traveller*, *The Guardian* — none of which are PR or pay-to-play. To call this a promo piece based on a single press release is reductive and ignores the broader context.
If the standard here is three independent, reliable sources, that bar has already been met — and exceeded. I'm happy to improve formatting, but mischaracterizing this as marketing is simply not accurate. 91.73.91.130 (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not dismissive. You had requested more focus on the sources, and this is my analysis. It's not personal, and I'm not dismissing you or your work, which I find to be quite beautiful. I was commenting on the fact that when examined and actually read closely, it's quite clear that most of them, including the Smithsonian and The Guardian are directly based on the press release/media kit that was compiled and prepared by Malik Merchant from (1) Press Release issued on February 9, 2023, by Wildlife Photographer of the Year (WPY), which is developed and produced by the Natural History Museum (NHM), London; (2) Media Kit that Simergphotos was provided access to by the NHM ; and (3) Jay Sullivan’s informative article published on the NHM website.[19] Malik Merchant owns Simergphotos and Simerg.com, so it seems that they were doing the public relations work. Regarding pay to play PR, My Modern Met and World Art News are essentially mills for native advertising. Netherzone (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Besides the COI, this photographer stands out as having significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. However Wikipedia discourages the COI contributions. AndySailz (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AndySailz: Thank you for the fair assessment. I fully acknowledge the COI and have declared it transparently from the beginning. My only goal here is to ensure the subject is evaluated based on verifiable coverage and not dismissed due to authorship alone. I welcome collaboration from neutral editors to further improve the article. Appreciate your balanced view. — SaFo wiki (talk) SaFo wiki (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is an Wikipedia:Autobiography created by a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and I think it should be deleted as WP:TNT. As it stands, it will forever have the {{Autobiography|date=May 2025}} tag. The source cited in the lede is https://xposure.net/photographer/sascha-fonseca/ which is pure puffery. While Wikipedia guidelines state "don't bite the newbies" and "Assume Good Faith", the editor/subject is clearly not listening WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Their talk page and this AFD are littered with editors trying to explain that the best move is to stop editing the autobiography, yet they keep editing. The photographer/subject should wait for a neutral source editor to create an article. It is in the subject's best interest to have this vanity article go away. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates: I understand the concerns. I’ve disclosed my COI and welcome neutral editors to improve the article. My intent was never vanity, just accuracy. Some sources may be stronger than others, but several are independent and reliable. Open to constructive suggestions. — SaFo wiki (talk) SaFo wiki (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After an exhaustive BEFORE search I have found that all of the sources (except maybe one) are based on the same press release and media kit provided by the organization that issued the non-notable award and an associated PR firm. The sources in the citations are Churnalism, and/or Native advertising (pay-to-play) and/or possibly Advertorials, or are non-independent primary sources that do not count towards notability. The article is clearly WP:PROMO, and based on a thorough analysis of the sources it does not meet either WP:GNG nor WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. The photographs are beautiful though, and his creative process is interesting; this !vote is not a criticism of his work itself. Netherzone (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: I respectfully disagree with your assessment. Describing the Wildlife Photographer of the Year – People’s Choice Award (hosted by the Natural History Museum) as “non-notable” is not accurate. This competition is globally recognized, highly selective, and judged by expert panels. My image was selected from nearly 39,000 entries and voted the favorite by over 60,000 members of the public — that speaks to its impact.
Moreover, many sources cited are not based on a press release. The Süddeutsche Zeitung published a full-length profile in May 2025 — a leading German newspaper and a reliable source under WP:RS. Condé Nast Traveller India, The Guardian, and Nature TTL all independently covered my work. Additionally, I was featured in Emirates Airline’s Open Skies Magazine back in 2019 — well before any recent awards, clearly disproving the idea that coverage is solely tied to one event.
I fully acknowledge my COI and have declared it transparently. I’m also open to improving formatting and citations. However, deletion — despite the presence of multiple independent, reliable sources — would disregard significant coverage and misrepresent notability standards under WP:PHOTOGRAPHER and WP:GNG.
the Natural History Museum is well known, but that does not mean their People's Choice award is Wiki-notable, nor do you inherit notability from the museum's "brand". Many organizations give out awards based on visitors/viewers opinions - it's called audience engagement. Popularity is not the same as notability. The People's Choice Prize is like entering your work in a juried show, not an art historically significant curated show. Notable awards for artists are things like the Guggenheim Fellowship, the Guggenheim International Award, MacArthur Fellowship, a Royal Photographic Society award, the KAIROS prize, etc. Showing a photo at the UN is not the same as getting a Nobel Prize! We are not seeing any Wiki-notable exhibitions either; a notable exhibition (per WP) would be the Venice Biennale, Documenta, Carnegie International, the Whitney Biennial, a one person show at the Pompidou Center or the Tate Museum.
Forgive me for saying this so directly, but you are inflating the importance of your accomplishments – precisely because of your COI – you are too connected to your own career to be objective and neutral. You are right to be proud of your work, but please read WP:PROUD. Of course your accomplishments are important to you, and I'm truly happy for you that your work is getting publicity and gaining popularity, but popularity and publicity are not the same as notability here; it is simply not the right place for you-or-a-PR firm, to promote your work. The sources are clones of the PR press release/media kit, it's Churnalism not fully independent coverage. I'm sorry if that is not the answer you would like to hear. Netherzone (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is similar to a WP:ONEEVENT. He's primarily known for one photo/set of photos, which really aren't even notable enough to get their own article. Needs more time to cook and develop a broader reputation or as a WP:ARTIST be collected/analyzed broadly to be notable. Jahaza (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not accurate. There are at least two iconic photographs that have independently won high-level international awards and were published in separate books — Remembering Tigers and Remembering Leopards. Several other works have received broad recognition, including a feature in The Telegraph, a full-page story in Emirates Open Skies Magazine, and international exhibitions. My snow leopard image was featured during the UN’s official Snow Leopard Day event in New York — a fact supported by extensive photo documentation and media coverage, though not yet linked in the article.
This is not a case of WP:ONEEVENT. The photos cited go well beyond a single viral moment or contest win. Moreover, the article reflects a growing, consistently recognized body of work across reputable sources. For context, there are several wildlife photographers currently on Wikipedia with far less coverage or award history. I appreciate the scrutiny, but I believe this meets the standard for notability under WP:ARTIST and WP:BIO. SaFo wiki (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not indexed in the Getty Ulan [20], brief bio here [21]- although I can't pull up the bio itself due to only having access to the snippit view- I don't see notability with a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not seem to have been a notable painter. There is an entry in French Wikipedia for an artist named Pierre Schwartz (note different spelling of last name) born in the same year, 1950.[23]. But they are a French (not Belgian) sports photographer, not a Neo-expressionist painter. Different artist it seems. Other than that, all I have found is user-submitted content on pay-to-play art selling sites like ArtMajeur [24] (with the last name spelled Schwartz) - who also sounds like a different artist, and an entry Artspur (also a pay-to-play art selling site) [25] but that one has a birthdate of 1963, not 1950, so is probably a different person also. The only thing found with the last name spelled Schwarz not Schwartz is an announcement for a show (connected primary source doesn't count towards GNG) [26]. No luck so far in finding coverage, nor anything with the title, "Biographical illustrated dictionary of the artists in Belgique since 1830" online or on JSTOR. Fails WP:GNG and also WP:NARTIST notability criteria. Netherzone (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Creator objected to proposed deletion. They provided sources on the article's talk page, but I'm not really convinced by them; one is a YouTube video by Mother's Basement (an obviously unreliable source), another is a BackerKit page for a TTRPG, and yet a third one isn't a meaningful source at all, but just a content tag on CoroCoro's website. The others they linked are at least from sites that could conceivably be utilized in Wikipedia, but they're all mostly discussing Yu-Gi-Oh, with a couple of them mentioning other series in passing mostly in relation to Yu-Gi-Oh. Several of the not-outright-unreliable or user-generated sources here are from WP:VALNET, and most of the rest are just from Anime News Network. The current state of the article is generally poorly sourced, and I don't see the potential state looking much better. It doesn't look like this passes NLIST. silviaASH(inquire within)00:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no substantial change in the article after the objection from Setenzatsu.2 (talk·contribs). The issue with the user is clearly a WP:IDHT case, and I wonder why they did not receive any kind of sanction after being reported to ANI. Xexerss (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From looking at the discussion, it seems to me like they went inactive for a few days and no one followed up on it before the topic got archived. They also never responded to the discussion and didn't edit between May 21st and 25th, so I'd say it was a pretty clear case of ANI flu. Obviously this AfD isn't the right venue to discuss their conduct, but given the quite obvious WP:RADAR issues it should probably be dealt with somehow. silviaASH(inquire within)05:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be possible to create an article about card-themed anime and manga series (I can't think of a particular title at the moment). The problem is this list article and its poorly sourced and worded content. I don't feel like I'm reading an encyclopedic Wikipedia article, but a Fandom article or something like that. Xexerss (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename to List of card games related anime and manga or something more simple. As by the discussion above, I don't think WP:NLIST is actually a problem. I also don't think this is a case of WP:TNT, which would mean that nothing here is usable in an encyclopedic article: The introduction needs sources, and then probably a rephrasing in accordance with the sources. But this is primarily a list, so that's a minor issue. The list below could nicely fulfill the purpose of navigation which is one of major reasons to have list at Wikipedia, if non-relevant examples were removed. There's enough blue links here to still constitute a proper list after such a trim. Other examples should in my view only be included if their inclusion can be verified by a reliable secondary source, solving the other issue raised in the nomination. So in total, spelling out an inclusion critereon and implementing it can save this through normal editing, which means deletion is not appropriate in accordance with WP:ARTN and WP:ATD. Daranios (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics
The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Related Projects
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts
Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. I have had some concerns over notability and verifiability, as well as commissioned editing; I've discussed these with the creator at User talk:Woodandoil#Jason Arora. There are some impressive prizes, but the question is whether these are more 'early career' initiatives insufficient to support notability. Research output is low for career stage for a "public health scientist". The article is filled with puffery; for example, " worked as a National Health Service (NHS) physician", translates to mere mortals as 'worked as a junior hospital doctor'. This makes it very difficult to trust any claims being made. WP:TOOSOON. Klbrain (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article is consistent with numerous other accepted and regularly visited articles on Wikipedia, and page creator has made numerous attempts to improve the page in line with feedback from Klbrain. There is plenty of evidence to support notability, including national and international awards, high-profile entrepreneurial activities, media work, and more, with notable 3rd party independent sources referenced numerous times. I do not believe this warrants the page for deletion - these independent sources are available to be checked at any time. Woodandoil (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a Google search turned up more primary and sponsored sources, but it doesn't seem like there's sigcov for him or his companies and books. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All primary sources and routine coverage of cases Joseph Fried was involved in, but nothing to show that he meets GNG. Googling didn't turn up anything. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article makes no claim to notability which would satisfy either WP:BLP or WP:NPROF. I have also done some searches and see nothing which would change that but will reconsider if further sources are found. Oblivy (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He certainly seems to be active in a lot of committees, and has published a bit, but I see no evidence he's getting published recognition. The article cites to things that quote him and then a bunch of primacy sources. I can't assess the law.com article as it's paywalled, but even if it is substantive and not just puff/interview, that's only one source. His book, Understanding Motor Carrier Claims is apparently self-published, has no WorldCat entries, and based on a Google Scholar search has one citation. Oblivy (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography with no coverage in independent sources that fails NAUTHOR. Most coverage is primary and awards do not arise to the significance of ANYBIO. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Weakly squeaks by on WP:AUTHOR I think. I've added reviews of his books to the article, not all of his books are even listed yet or all of the reviews. Article should probably be moved to "Andrew Wilson (pastor)" rather than using a double disambiguator. Jahaza (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A decent author and professor that wrote some interesting short stories that by and large seems to have escaped notability to live a quiet life. Nothing in the article claims notability and other than his name being included in a couple lists of science fiction authors I can't find any independent information about him. (But give some of his short stories on TWL a read maybe) Moritoriko (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It would be great if here at Wikipedia we could keep up the level of coverage found in the secondary sources as described in the nomination and the sources in the article. I expect that there is not enough for stand-alone notability, so a merge as WP:Alternative to deletion would be best. The main question is where. List of science fiction writers unfortunately does not offer itself to merge in accordance with the suggestion of WP:ATD-M, so I guess Tachyon Publications, where Wightman is already mention, would be best. Open to other suggestions. Daranios (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What information from this article would you merge? The fact that he wrote for Thirteenth Moon and the name of his (only?) book are already on the Tachyon page. His name is on the Future on Fire page (but unlinked interestingly). That leaves his education and employment at a community college which I don't believe belong on a different page. Moritoriko (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, thinking about it, content-wise I would like it best to WP:PRESERVE everything except the sentence about his degrees, maybe shortening the occupation. That's the problem with the deletion request. That kind of information would be worthwhile for the encyclopedia, but without a separate article I don't know if it fits into any existing target. Additionally, Wightman contributing in Amazing Stories should be added based on The History of the Science-fiction Magazine Volume 3, p. xix, and his year of birth based on isfdb. Daranios (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of a series of promotional spam articles written by a WP:SPA using blatantly phony sources. It has already been deleted over a half-dozen times over on es.wiki. CSD declined without providing rationale. JTtheOG (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The administrator removed the {{db-spam}} tag because this article did not meet the very specific requirements of WP:G11. Whatever the intent of the article’s creator, the article did not use promotional language and it did not “require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic.” Speedy deletion criteria are much narrower than for this AfD. —A. B.(talk • contribs • global count)00:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aside from the problem of the cited sources failing verification, a Google search found nothing about the subject other than social media posts and very trivial mentions. I see no indication that the subject meets any notability criteria. - Donald Albury13:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. Doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPOL. No major role in major community projects. Her book isn't notable either. Not notable from her radio show. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even close to notable. The made up awards, the difficulties in verifying facts, the third-place finish for the equivalent of dog catcher, all are red flags for notability. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Article relies mostly on primary sources. No significant coverage in independent, reliable media. A few mentions here and there, but nothing in-depth or sustained. Can't see anything that clearly establishes notability. Junbeesh (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not too well versed in those particular points - it’s just the part of me that doesn’t like to see articles deleted wholesale coming out… but given there’s already precedent, then yeah perhaps it’s not the best idea here. Danners430 (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the editor got blocked from article space. It would make sense that although not yet blocked from draft space, we should not tee up the opportunity to continue vanity edits with nasty edit summaries while squandering the opportunities for productive discussions. JFHJr (㊟) 00:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd have preferred to wait until the article subject himself (who appears to have been editing the article under a series of single-purpose accounts, the latest of which is currently being discussed at WP:ANI) had at least a theoretical opportunity to engage in meaningful discussion, but given that an AfD has been started, I'll at least chip in with my initial thoughts. We are in a slightly unusual situation in that we have articles on some of his work, and that notability criteria for these is probably met, but for the man himself, there really doesn't appear to be sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources (as opposed to social media, IMDB etc) to justify a biography. As it stands currently, we can't really even justify a list of works, since we don't actually have a proper source to assert that the 'BC Furtney' responsible for some of them is the same person as the 'BC Fourteen' who is the article subject. For now, I'll hold off making a firm decision, but I have to say that unless someone can come up with proper in-depth WP:RS coverage, this article is probably going to have to be deleted, or at minimum moved to draft space as suggested above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The SPA has had the opportunity to respond. That's all we really need. We don't need to wait for the SPA to make good use of the opportunity. JFHJr (㊟) 21:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The SPA has been indeffed from all article namespaces. But the SPA can still respond here in WPspace. The notion of response from this user remains purely theoretical, but this kind of funnel will do it if anything will. JFHJr (㊟) 00:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per observations above. This subject lacks the basic personal coverage to justify a standalone WP:BLP and no clear single redirect target appears to exist. It takes a great deal of WP:NOR to string together the legal name change and several pen names in wikivoice. There's no sense in draftifying for a disruptive, non-responsive, and blockedWP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY writer working on a WP:NOTHERE vanity project. Let someone else recreate this namespace with a clean history based on WP:RS. JFHJr (㊟) 21:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. But. Compared to brick house Frank-Walter Steinmeier, this article is made of popsicle sticks. This is the homecraft of a single person, article and image. It's such a selfie. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesnt seem to be. Most references are either basically his University profile or a copy of that. Also some of the papers he published. Only notable thing is a SMH article about Magnetically directed drugs that mentions him. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently 10% of its members are fellows. Meaning 418 people, I dont think it counts as "highly selective". Unless all 418 members should have pages made Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds more like a regulatory body, if they handle CChem designations. You basically need this to exercise your trade, much like a medical license. That's not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is the professional body aspect, but I was focusing on the learned society side, as the institute article states Election to Fellow of the institute ("FRACI") is dependent on a position of eminence, services rendered, academic honours, experience and status, creative achievement, responsibility and contribution to chemical science, and recommendation by the RACI Assessment Committee, which is more towards what we generally consider for that criteria. Curbon7 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. To me his citations at 42 are on the margins. He does have in his GScholar profile 3 papers with > 1K cites. However, beyond this he does not seem to have major peer recognition; as mentioned above the fellow is not that major. If he had a truly significant award that would tip my vote to weak keep. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see a pass at PROF. The rest is rather typical for someone in his position. Being a member of the Society is not notable, for me anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I agree that the citation record looks borderline for NPROF#C1 and that the RACI Fellowship is borderline for NPROF#C3. The RACI fellowship does have a lot of the characteristics that would suggest it might satisfy C3 (elected fellowship, requires nomination from two existing fellows, reserved for people in a position of "eminence" within the profession). But the number of fellows does seem to be on the high side, and looking through their recent fellows I don't think it quite meets the standard of being a highly selective honour. MCE89 (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Language problems may be why I can’t identify sources, but I’ve never before seen an article with entries in multiple language Wikipedias none of which are sourced, and I also note a number of self-published books. Doug Wellertalk18:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article should definitely not have been created directly in mainspace in this condition; it's completely unsourced, and I can't find any third-party sources on Google either. Needs to be either deleted or moved to draft where the creator can work on it. Bishonen | tålk21:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
IIRC there is at least one institute for the preservation or recovery of the Asturian language. It may be worth looking there for support. All the best: RichFarmbrough11:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment it looks to me like the author is probably notable, but that the transliteration of his name, also spelled "Sherif Meleka" and other ways! is giving us issues. His novel Suleiman's Ring is reviewed I think here[28](I don't have access), here[29](last page) and here[30]. --Jahaza (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first point re: the reception of his novel seems worth a double check. Given that Yale has 14.9 million volumes in its holdings however I do not think that is sufficient to establish notability. M.A.Spinn (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable executive and author. Lots of PR pieces but very little secondary, independent coverage of substance. No notable executive roles or critical reception for her publications. Some impressive athletic feats, but they do not confer broader notability. Mooonswimmer17:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as my last comment in AfD two years ago it seems... many PR items, interviews, but nothing about this person specifically. [32], [33] for example. She's the "expert" on a subject, but nothing to back up that claim, other than what we're told in the same article. Too PROMO. Also, even less sourcing, with almost nothing new found since the last Afd in 2023 (same sources that were looked at in 2023 are also being repeated here). Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Oaktree b. Thank you for your attention to my recent edit. To the best of my knowledge, the subject meets the notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. I acknowledge that some of the language used may appear promotional, and I will make the necessary revisions to ensure the content aligns with Wikipedia's neutral point of view guidelines.
Could you please advise if there are any additional steps I can take to prevent the article from being deleted, beyond the revisions I have already mentioned? Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. Sergiomarcus (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You would need to show sources that talk about the person, not simply things she's reported on, or stories with trivial mentions in passing of her. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mooonswimmer. Thank you for your attention to my recent edit. The subject appears to have significant online presence and notability, and I have incorporated only some of the several sources available on the internet that reference the subject. Among these, I believe outlets such as Fox News, Fox4KC, George Mason University (GMU), and CNBC are highly credible and provide sufficient coverage to support citations on Wikipedia.
Could you please advise whether these sources are considered reliable and substantial enough for the subject to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria and justify the article’s inclusion? Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. Sergiomarcus (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Fox News, Fox4KC, and CNBC sources are all about advice she is giving, rather than articles profiling her life and accomplishments. The GMU source appears to be a self-bio, not independent of subject.
@UtherSRG Sources include: a full-page article about her on the front page of The Jackson Sun; a full-page article about her on page 2 of the metro section of the New York Daily News; a peer-reviewed book chapter about her work in an academic publications; a master's thesis about her from Georgia State University. NotBartEhrman (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Flowery promotional language, lack of any coverage outside of PR items... [34] is only one of two hits in Gnews, and it's a PR item. No book reviews found for his book... The likely sock puppet author is another red flag. I see no claim at notability, very PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I thank everyone contributing their thoughts regarding this nomination.
Currently, I am working on the article by removing promotional language and incorporating independent, third-party references consistent with Wikipedia content policies, especially WP:NPOV and WP:GNG.
Regarding notability, Sterling Staffing Solutions, Stephen Carter’s company, has prominently featured on the Inc. 5000 list several times, which is an unaffiliated notable recognition. His co-authored business book also published by ForbesBooks, a noted imprinted business publisher, adds to the list. There further exist non-partisan media coverage of his youth entrepreneurship non-profit initiatives in Click2Houston, Defender Network, and PRWeb.
I appreciate the concern regarding possible sockpuppetry. I can assure you that does not concern me; I do not belong to any paid editing companies, nor am I a sockpuppet account. The edits are made in good faith and with the goal of improving the encyclopedia.
I would like to request the chance to update the article as explained above prior to the deletion decision being finalized.
Can you state for the record if you have any WP:COI for Carter? It's an interesting choice of first article to create, especially given that your previous edit history consists of mostly adding references to obscure species of beetles. Jpatokal (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jpatokal Thanks for your message. In response to your question: I have no (WP:COI) on the matter of the Carter article. My contributions are entirely in good faith using only sources that are reliable and citable following Wikipedia's core content standards such as WP:NPOV and WP:V.
And speaking of subject matter – editors are not bound by previous projects. Wikipedia is all about branching out into areas nobody else is doing, and the creation of new articles, is best judged on it's merit and actual content, not who created it.
Willing to meet any content-wise objections with thought and consideration
Refbombed promotion for non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Many sources but most are by him instead of about him. A little bit of local interest puff but nothing significant. Awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have decided not to make a specific recommendation here. Yet. As, frankly, I wonder if I can leave aside the years of WP:COI and WP:REFBOMB concerns that I've struggled with on this title. And, perhaps, any !vote contribution from me may not be fully objective. However, I have long wondered whether WP:BASIC and WP:JOURNALIST and WP:NACADEMIC are met here. As, IMO, there is limited evidence that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The sources (in the article and seemingly those that are available) are almost all either written by the subject (some abouthimself and others just things he has written generally), or by entities associated with the subject (university bio profiles, Huffington Post profile, news employer bio, etc), or are just trivial passing mentions. The only three sources, of which the subject is a primary topic and which are could be considered somewhat independent, are the three pieces in the local Clare Champion newspaper (from 2013, 2021 & 2022). And, personally, I'd question whether these are fully independent. Or whether these types of "local boy graduates" stories materially contribute to notability. Any more than this "former co-worker wrote autobiography" piece is strictly independent. Anyway. If I was confident that years of COI/REFBOMB/FV annoyance with this title weren't influencing my recommendation, I'd probably lean "delete". But, being perfectly frank and hopefully somewhat self-aware, I'm not convinced would be an entirely objective recommendation (based entirely on NBIO merit).... Guliolopez (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a tricky one to try and assess. Ultimately I think notability is not there. There is some coverage but is it significant? I think not. Looking at the academic side, I don't think the research and published works are there yet. The awards are non-notable really and as for the references, most are published own works. It almost feels kind of WP:Auto even if it isn't. Coldupnorth (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Associate professor who doesn't meet WP:NPROF. His work has been covered in news outlets, but these seem to be passing churnalism, likely driven by his institution's public relations team. The book seems to be self-published by an out-of-business published (Booktango). Scopus shows H-index of 17, which is modest for the field and correct for career stage. Overall, WP:TOOSOON. Klbrain (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The highly cited papers I see are also highly coauthored, and I am not convinced by WP:NPROF impact. The Royal Society for Public Health fellowship [35] does not appear to be the kind of fellowship considered in WP:NPROF C3. The coverage discussed in the above !vote is mostly in tabloid sources (see e.g. WP:RSP), other sources tend not to significantly mention the subject here, and I don't think WP:BASIC is met. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NPROF. Having one study mentioned in the Daily Mail and such isn't the same as having biographical sourcing available. Also worth noting that this article has been a target of paid editors, so expect the socks to come out of the woodwork on this one. This was discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_217#Raphael_E._Cuomo The part where they accidentally replied from the incorrect sock puppet account is especially enlightening. - MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a well-known researcher. Per WP:NPROF (C7), he is "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." There are several examples of this (some already discussed here), but here are a couple additional ones where he was interviewed by popular media sources on the topic of early-onset cancer:
Delete: Hello, this is Raphael. Please do delete this page. I never wanted a page on this website as I have other sites, like my faculty site and personal webpage, which exist for anyone who wants to learn about my work. However I'm honored that someone wanted to put up this page and I appreciate all the supportive comments here and elsewhere on this website. Rapha1023~enwikibooks (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is absolutely nothing conclusive to indicate that the account Rapha1023~enwikibooks belongs to the subject. Bear in mind that this subject publishes research on things like cannabis and cancer, and also nutrition and cancer, both of which draw a lot of attention and cause controversy. To illustrate, see the massviews analysis below where this page is the most highly-viewed in the category for cancer epidemiologists on Wikipedia. Anyone can create an account and claim to be someone on here, or any other site, in an attempt to influence the removal of a page of someone publishing research that they don't like. The page should be assessed on its merits where it clearly meets C7 of WP:NPROF.
The Wikibooks account is 19 years old. That's a long time to lie in wait to disrupt an AFD. I think it is rather more likely that this person is who they say they are. And again, see the COIN section linked above. MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well-cited enough that I might consider keeping per WP:PROF#C1, but still borderline-enough as a case that I think we should respect WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, taking the comment above this one per WP:AGF as legitimately from the subject despite this not having been verified. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I cleaned up the absolute worst of the deprecated sourcing, and underneath is a very marginal case, for which I'm leaning towards deleting. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article may not meet Wikipedia’s WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable secondary sources. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶22:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I am the author of this Wikipedia page. I note @S-Aura that you have nominated this page for deletion. I am curious to know why?
I would say that the article on Damien Costas clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria under both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. There is significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject in depth, not just in passing.
These sources span business, politics, and culture — showing that the subject of Damien Costas has been covered across domains over a number of years. I believe that the article is neutrally written and properly cited. I would argue that there is no policy-based reason to delete this page. CharlotteMilic (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Crikey's report mentions Costas once. This is a long way from WP:SIGCOV of him.
The Guardian and ABC reports don't mention him at all.
The International Business Times report is an interview. Interviews are WP:PRIMARY and don't count towards establishing notablity.
Thank you for the follow-up. To clarify, with specific reference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines:
Regarding significant coverage and source quality:
The Sydney Morning Herald article ("Debt deal and sex appeal") is an independent, reliable source that provides significant coverage of Costas's business activities and financial history. Per WP:GNG, "significant coverage" means coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." This article clearly meets the threshold of WP:SIGCOV as it discusses the subject substantively rather than in passing. As established in Wikipedia policy, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" and "does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
Crikey's article mentions Costas several times throughout. Further, it is not used alone to establish notability. It complements other sources that do provide in-depth coverage. Under WP:GNG, multiple sources providing coverage can collectively demonstrate notability, as the guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
Regarding supporting sources and their appropriate use:
ABC News and The Guardian are used to verify key aspects of Costas's professional activities — specifically his role in organizing major speaking tours. These are supporting citations, not primary evidence of notability. Per WP:BIO (WP:Notability (people)), biographical articles may include material from multiple reliable sources to establish the full scope of a person's notable activities.
Regarding primary sources and interviews:
Regarding the International Business Times, while interviews are considered WP:PRIMARY sources, this does not make them unusable. Per WP:NOR, "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care." They can be cited to support attributed statements or commentary about the subject's views — which is precisely how it's used in the article. As stated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author."
Taken together — Sydney Morning Herald, Men's Health, SmartCompany, and IBTimes (for attributed quotes) — the subject clearly receives sustained, non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, satisfying WP:GNG. The General Notability Guideline requires that "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Per WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."
The coverage spans business, media, and cultural domains over multiple years, demonstrating the sustained attention that indicates lasting notability rather than temporary news coverage. As stated in WP:N, "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability" and "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability" - meaning topics are notable when "the outside world has already 'taken notice of it.'"
I have updated the Damien Costas article to include additional citations from independent and credible publications, strengthening its compliance with Wikipedia's sources policy. Below is a list of the new references added to the current version:
• WAtoday: Includes detailed reporting on Costas’s organization of Nigel Farage’s 2022 Australian tour, strengthening notability by documenting his significant role in high-profile political events.
• The Guardian: Covers Costas’s involvement in the emerging market for rightwing speaking tours, with his own insights, bolstering notability through in-depth, independent analysis of his cultural and political impact.
• The Sydney Morning Herald: Provides substantive coverage of Costas’s 2025 book, What Happened to the Lucky Country?, reinforcing notability by highlighting his authorship and influence in cultural commentary.
Australian Financial Review: Details Costas’s bankruptcy and financial history with independent reporting, enhancing notability by offering credible coverage of his business and personal challenges.
• Men’s Health Magazine Australia: Profiles Costas’s innovative media leadership and risk-taking approach, supporting notability with independent recognition of his sustained impact in the media industry.
These additions enhance the article’s alignment with Wikipedia’s policies:
• WP:RS: These publications—WAtoday, The Guardian, The Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Financial Review, and Men’s Health Magazine Australia—are reputable, editorially controlled, and independent of the subject, meeting Wikipedia’s standards for reliable secondary sources.
• WP:GNG: The added sources provide significant, sustained coverage of Damien Costas across business, media, and cultural domains, directly addressing his activities in detail and reinforcing notability through multiple credible, independent outlets.
• Verifiability: These independent publications bolster the article’s verifiability, supporting claims about Costas’s work with high-quality sources, reducing reliance on less robust material. CharlotteMilic (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very PROMO. This is about the best there is [36], this is PROMO as well [37]. Seems to be going places, but isn't there yet, for notability anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The books are self-published and not particularly long so WP:AUTHOR is failed. There is no reasonable claim to notability for political involvement either through NPOL or GNG. Hope he accomplishes a lot in life, but the subject does not warrant an article.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Page is the work of one editor who has edited it 250 times in the past few weeks (COI; user admits family relationship on their Talk page). When trying to work with them, I did some digging to see what I could find on Bradley... not much. Jessicapierce (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage from reliable sources. The Guardian source is a blogpost that only mentions the subject in passing. Aŭstriano (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those looking for sources, there appears to be another author with a pen name of Alison Tyler (Elise Title is her real name) who writes romance novels. Given the book titles and geography, I think these are different people. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails to meet the notability guidelines as outlined in WP:N. The subject is not the focus of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The few mentions that do exist are passing and do not provide the depth of material necessary to support a standalone article. Most of the sources cited are either not about the subject or use it only as a brief example without substantial analysis or dedicated discussion. Given the lack of notability and meaningful coverage, the article does not justify its own space. Deletion or merging into a broader, more relevant topic (if applicable) would be more appropriate. Retaining it in its current state risks violating Wikipedia’s standards. Jaunpurzada (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both the context and sourcing doesn't explain why he's notable. Where are the reviews of his works? Where are the compendiums or other collections? Bearian (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sylhetis#Other languages. The deepest source is a single paragraph, half of which is about who he was descended from, about his uncle, and about one of his sons. The remainder is just two sentences: "[Syed Israil] was a sufi saint well known for his high proficiency in Arabic and Persian. He was also known as the Malek-ul-Ulama, well-versed in both Arabic and Persian: he wrote Madanul Fauaed in Persian in 914 Hijri." The other sources manage to cover the same ground in one sentence each. Because of the absence of significant coverage, this shouldn't be a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NOTINHERITED. First off, we need an analysis of the reviews, if any, of his books in reliable sources. Next, his tenuous relationship with a famous foundation is not explained. Finally, it's too promotional in tone. Ping me if you can fix this mess of a page. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a long list of references but hardly relevant. He has written books but are they notable, Hard to find news about his books. I even couldn’t find any reliable book reviews to understand more about the subject. Neither there are coverage on subject in independent sources. He clearly fails WP:NAUTHOR. Above all article is promoting the individual by language and contents as well. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article clearly meets both WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. The article contains citations from:
Times of India – National daily; easily passes “newspaper of record” bar for reliability.[1]
The Daily Star – Independent, third-party literary criticism → satisfies NAUTHOR #3.[2]
Indiablooms – National digital news-wire, independent.[3]
The Telegraph – Independent national daily (mostly popular in West Bengal and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands).[4]
Trans World Features – in-depth author interview.[5]
Each of these pieces is non-PR and non-paid. Together they comfortably exceed the two-source threshold of WP:GNG. Publishing credentials:
ISBN citations include works from Rupa Publications – one of India’s oldest mainstream publishers.
N.E. Publishers and Smriti Publishers – both commercial, audited presses (not vanity).
This, plus multiple in-depth reviews (at least on two books), means Victor Ghoshe meets WP:NAUTHOR outright. Additional evidence of lasting impact:
Library holdings:Tomb of God is catalogued in the Kerala State Central Library – the country’s second-oldest public library.[6]
International distribution: The novel is stocked by Waterstones UK (brick-and-mortar chain).[7]
Cultural cross-overs: Launches were headlined by National Film-Award legend Soumitra Chatterjee (for Tomb of God) and Sahitya Akademi winner Shirshendu Mukhopadhyay (for Paranormal 2).[3]
These points strengthen the “enduring, not temporary” aspect of notability per WP:N.
On the Gates Foundation mention: The caption of the image is the only evidence for that collaboration. If this single citation is insufficient, we can remove the claim without affecting notability.
Addressing the objections:
Mentions are not trivial: Coverage comes from mainstream dailies.
No independent book reviews:Daily Star piece is a 1 000-word critique; TOI article devotes its entire feature to dissecting plot and historical backdrop.
Tone is promotional: Agreed. The solution is copy-editing, not deletion.
Dr. Peter Chee is ranked #2 globally by Global Gurus (2023) and was named to the inaugural Coaches50 list by Thinkers50. Both these platforms are independent, reputable authorities in executive coaching. He has co-authored books with Jack Canfield, Brian Tracy, and Marshall Goldsmith, and is featured in major media including The Star and CNN Philippines. The article cites independent, verifiable sources. It meets notability guidelines under WP:BIO and WP:CORP and should be "KEEP". User:CS Aaron08:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Was just at a previous AFD a few days ago so it is ineligible for another Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP the article. All sources are clearly verified and credible. His contributions to thought leadership through original coaching models and internationally recognized certifications are substantial and well-documented. Collaborations with top-tier coaches and recognition by global rankings should not be discounted simply because the subject operates outside more traditionally covered geographies. This article clearly meets notability guidelines under WP:BIO and WP:CORP and should be KEPT. User:CS Aaron (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not satisfied he meets WP:NAUTHOR as his work has not been widely reviewed (the best I found was a 1996 review of his first book in Kirkus). Search his name and you quickly run into other people called Ben Birdsall, so I'm not convinced he meets the WP:GNG criteria either.
The article was also created by a single purpose account that is very likely to be the man himself, hence the chunks of text that are uncited. In other words, this is a poorly sourced promo. Leonstojka (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
The review notes: "Ben Birdsall arrived on his loaded-up Vespa on Jura and met a couple of strangers sitting outside a hotel. ... West Yorkshire-born Birdsall had many such encounters on his Vespa-borne travels round Arran, Kintyre, Islay, Jura, Mull, Skye, the west and central Highlands, Speyside and, finally, the east Highlands and Orkney. He has now poured his writings, photographs and paintings of that trip into a rather nice book. ... Birdsall, who is 49, lives with his wife and daughter in Winterthur, a city in the Swiss canton of Zurich, where he teaches English "and paint and write in my spare time". Having written a book about his travels round Tuscany by Vespa, he originally envisaged his Scottish project as a painting trip with a few distilleries thrown in, but the idea gradually evolved in favour of the distilleries."
The article notes: "A young Englishman of Irish descent who has links with Dromore West has had his first novel, set in Connemara published. Indeed, for author Ben Birdsall (28) it was the beauty of the West of Ireland and his summer and Christmas holidays spent here that drew him to put pen to paper. ... His novel, Blue Charm, is published by Blackstaff and is the story of one man's renewal through the joys, strangeness and humour of country life. Charged with the hidden rhythms and resonances of a fading Gaelic way of life, the novel catches a twilight society poised between a haunted past and an unsteady future. ... While the main character has an interest in art, so too has Ben, so much so that painting plays just as big a part in his life as writing. ... After leaving Durham University, Ben spent some years working on his uncle's farm in the Dromore West area but in the last two years he has been living in Tuscany, Italy, studying the Renaissance artists and painting their landscapes. ... Writing is certainly in the Birdsall blood. Ben's father, James has published two successful volumes of memoirs ... Timothy Birdsall, Ben's uncle, reached fame through his cartoon ... Ben's early writing career had a bit of a chequered history. In 1985 while a pupil at Sedbergh School, Cumbria, his play The Happiest Days the story of a revolt in a boys' school was banned before it was due to be performed on Open Day on the grounds that it was unsuitable for parents. A year later, Ben began reading English Literature at Durham University and his first attempt at a novel, The Wanderings of a Buadno-Marxist, was published in the student magazine."
This is a book review of Blue Charm by Ben Birdsall published by The Blackstaff Press. The review notes: "This may be the worst book on Ireland ever written. What condemns it is not the mistaken belief that the quality of the writing can disguise the absence of a plot; it is not Birdsall's conceit that he is accurately representing a little piece of Ireland; it is, rather, the brass neck of the publishers in thinking that they can pass off such a blatant piece of Paddywhackery as literature that really gets up the nose. When Birdsall confines himself to descriptions of nature or places he is quite a nice writer. However he is determined to make quite a large section of people in the West fit the faith and begorrah, fairy-believing cliche so beloved of much of the English middle-classes. ... Blue Charm is a joke, made worse by Birdsall's patronising treatment of the people to whom he purports to be strongly attached."
The review notes: "Staggart Lane: Collingwood Catdaddy Codpieces. This meandering new play by Ben Birdsall, an undergraduate from Durham University, has some very effective moments. There can be no doubt, as well, that the playwright shows great potential, but the smarties handed out to the audience at Masonic Lodge, Hill Street were easier to digest than the to find life meaningless, and therefore recklessly waste it. This theme is explored through an anti-hero who has problems with drugs. But he is prevented from facing what has made him an addict in the first place by officiously well-meaning do gooders who queue up to save him. These include, among others, an aerobic Christian, and an implacable Buddhist—both richly comic cameo roles."
The article notes: "Edinburgh's famous Fringe Festival will next week be the venue of a new play by young Keighley writer Ben Birdsall. The play, Staggart Lane will be performed at the festival renowned as an outlet for new theatrical talents from August 24 to 29 at the Masonic Lodge Theatre. Now at Durham University, Ben, of Cross Hills, was a pupil at South Craven School before going to Sedburgh."
The article notes: "The first novel by Cross Hills writer Ben Birdsall has been nominated for a top literary prize. Blue Charm is one of five books shortlisted for the Author's Club First Novel Award. The prize is given annually to the writer of the most promising first novel published in the United Kingdom. ... Educated at Glusburn and South Craven Schools and later at Sedbergh, Ben gained a BA Hons degree in English language and literature at Durham University. Being of Anglo-Irish origin, he returns regularly to his family home in County Sligo, and has formed a deep attachment to the West of Ireland and its peo-ple. Indeed, his novel Blue Charm is based in County Galway."
The article notes: "It is ten years since Ben Birdsall's first attempt at writing was thwarted by cautious teachers at his school. His play The Happiest Days, which told the story of a revolt in a boys' school, was banned from performance at Sedbergh School, North Yorkshire, because it was felt to be unsuitable for parents. Now the Keighley author is celebrating seeing his first novel in print. Blue Charm, which paints a vivid picture of life in Connemara, Ireland, has just been published by Belfast-based Blackstaff Press. ... His literary interest grew at Durham University where he read English Literature. His first attempt at a novel — The Wanderings of a Buddho-Marxist — was published in extracts in the student magazine Inprint. In his last year at Durham he wrote a dissertation on his own work."
Delete First AFD nomination was delete. This second time, notability is still not established with the sources available. Many of these look like promotion or announcements. I don't think this is enough for notability or for a stand alone article. Plus much of the page is WP:OR which means someone close or even the subject may be writing their own biographical details. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are going to offer an argument, please evaluate the sources presented in the article and in the discussion. We don't want to make a closure based on impressions. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet NAUTH:
he is not "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited". Most sources are primarily small, local papers (Sligo Champion, Telegraph and Argus, Charlston Mercury. (The latter appears to be very informal, and without paid writers.)) Two of the reviews blast him (see above) which indicates that he is not considered a serious author.
Nor, as per criterion 3: "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." I can see one independent source (The Herald). The #2 reference in the article is 1) an interview and 2) by the organization that published his book. And there is no indication that this is considered a "significant body of work."
The festival date article is not significant, and he was nominated for an award but did not win.
While much is often made of GNG when some sources are found, the policy is: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6] This policy does not say that if sources are found the subject is automatically notable. We need to analyze what the sources are telling us, and in this case I conclude that not even the cumulation of the sources adds up to notability. Lamona (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability"
Take a look at the article history. Created and mainly edited by a WP:SPA, so probably either himself or a paid editor. What I see here is a mediocre writer trying to use Wikipedia for WP:PROMO. And, funny thing, that editor is User:Wormtub67 and (I know this is a stretch but not out of the bounds of possibility) Birdsall's year of birth is '67. As for the newspapers, I didn't say they weren't reliable. I do say that being written up in a source that reaches a small (by my standards) community isn't enough. If he'd gotten a review in The Times or The Guardian then I would see notability. Oh, and Hemingway and Joyce got (and still get) positive reviews and academic treatment, and are pronounced as cultural titans. Maybe if we wait 50 years this guy will be in the canon of literature, but I for one would not put money on it. Lamona (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with A. B. that there is no support in Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (people) to exclude sources that have negative reviews about a subject's work from contributing to that person's notability. Wikipedia:Notability (people) does not exclude local newspapers from contributing to notability. But in Ben Birdsall's case, he has significant coverage in the national newspapers The Herald, so this criticism of the sources is inaccurate.
FA
A
GA
