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.
Leaning Keep A large series by an undoubtedly notable artist. A quick google search finds Lebanon and the Split of Life: Bearing Witness Through the Art of Nabil Kanso By Meriam Soltan · 2024, a large monograph on his woerk, which is bound to have coverage, but only has a few pages on preview. As he is a Lebanese artist, there is no doubt more in Arabic and probably French. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I'm not really in favour of citing works we haven't actually read and/or confirmed the content we believe it contains. If we haven't read it, we can't cite it. Even if it is true that this work does contain enough to meet the GNG, that's just one ref. I agree this is an important artist, that doesn't mean everything they did is individually notable. JMWt (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This seems to be a popular subject in art, but nothing for a "Nabil Kanso" that I can find... Either primary sourcing or wiki mirrors. Literally hundreds of paintings with this subject, but I don't see much critical notice for this series. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To put it simply, the fact that there exists an article for "Clop" on Wikipedia is unbelievable. Clop, as a subgenre of a subgenre of pornography, fails to meet any expectations of relevance or importance a Wikipedia page ought to have. This kind of page explaining a specific form of internet phenomena belongs on Know Your Meme. At best, it warrants a small subsection on a larger Brony or MLP-related article. If there's going to be an entire Clop article, there may as well be articles for Sonichu and Sneed's Feed and Seed. Patriot of Canuckistan (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep the existence of an article being "unbeliavable" in your opinion doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. Fact of the matter is that the topic clearly meets WP:GNG and even received academic attention. Skyshiftertalk19:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has 17 sources, which ones do you have an issue with, or in which section? The FiM fandom article is already 170k bytes and around 10k words, I assume this was spun off as others felt there was enough sources for notability and that it would be too clunky as just a section on that page (see also other articles linked in the fandom section of Template:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic). I'm also not sure I understand what you're trying to say is "unbelievable" here, there are a lot of articles about pornographic subgenres on here (see Template:Pornography). Ringtail Raider (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A vanity page and likely autobiography (user = P.D.C., who has edited primarily this page and other pages related to the Cangelaris family) of a non-notable individual; fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. No evidence of passing any criterion of WP:ACADEMIC. No evidence of passing WP:NAUTHOR; his books appear to be self-published. No evidence of passing WP:GNG; the sources are limited to passing mentions in government documents/directories and mostly a long run of mentions in various Who's Who lists, a pay-to-play source that is not independent. And no evidence of passing on any other WP:NBIO criterion. Nothing qualifying comes up in a BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The awards for volunteering and stamp collecting aren't notable ones, the books and journal articles don't seem to have attracted any meaningful reviews or citations, and his political and diplomatic activities don't seem to have any secondary coverage. This seems to be a vanity page packed with every possible award and achievement in the author's life, but I can't see any that could give a claim to notability. MCE89 (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, the entire "Hobbies and Volunteering" section is totally unsourced, and is likely written by the subject. fails academic, nauthor, nbio and gng.
Delete: Only hits I get are primary items or vanity websites. Stamp collecting doesn't seem to be notable, This reads as an extended resume. Long way from notability Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir, I received your message as of your proposal for deletion of the "Panayotis D. Cangelaris" article and I would like to know the specific reason, please! Furthermore, I noticed that the included picture was removed allegedly because of copyright violation (Linkedin). However, if some one has the copyright of this picture, that is me and no one else (and it is me who did provided it for free use). It was never copied from Linkedin or any one else. Could you, please, explain as well? By the way, I would like to reiterate that I too have the best intentions for the highest quality of Wikipedia's articles and I think that this article lives up anybody's expectations. However, any improvement is most welcome and anybody is of course free to do so. I thank you in anticipation for your interest and any reasonable reaction to my reply!
It’s not finished. It’s meant to be about possible historical flags for Rhine confederation, aswell as give context to the white green blue flag and discuss its origins tae prevent misguided edits to confederation page itself ToadGuy101 (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On second thought and an attempt to find sources, there appears to be no basis for this article to pass GNG. Much as I enjoy the guy's videos, one youtube essay from Noj Rants does not confer notability. CR (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any decent sources with significant coverage. [8] is not independent, and [9] is unreliable and almost certainly copied from Wikipedia itself anyway. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references at all in the article, and my search was as unsuccessful as those before me. Even if the claims in the article were supported, this is just basic art director employment that does not meet WP:ARTIST standards such as an artist whose work "(a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention." Asparagusstar (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage not WP:SUSTAINED, coverage is WP:ROUTINE, and exemplifies WP:TDS (Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article). Not independently notable and could serve as a footnote or two lines on any given Donald Trump article. Literally, the content is "the US government put up a portrait of a general, and then right after Trump took office, it was removed". WP:NOTNEWS. BarntToust02:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A poorly thought-out article creation. The removal of a portrait, as politically-overtoned as it may be, does not grant notability to the portrait. Mention this in "Second Presidency of Donald Trump" or whatever the article name about that is. Not worthy of a standalone. Zaathras (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete a blatant WP:COATRACK to make sure that every single petty thing Trump does gets an article publicizing it. a sentence in Milley's article can handle the matter perfectly fine, not to mention actually contextualizing this wrt the animosity between the two. Mangoe (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is well-written and cited with lots of reliable sources. It was also viewed 3 791 times since January 25, making it quite notable in my opinion. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:SIGCOV. The New York magazine piece is a great feature of his photographs but there isn't much prose about the subject accompanying the photos. The other source is the subject's website. There's not enough indepth coverage here to justify an article.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect: There does seem to be a book written about the statue which contains articles/chapters written by several scholars including Michael W. Meister and Hans T. Bakker. However, I cannot access this source presently, and the article in its current form doesn't really say anything that isn't already mentioned in the article about the temples, and I suspect parts of it were written using ChatGPT. -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC) Please see below[reply]
Delete The title of this article is actually not specific to the statue at this temple complex - Rudra is a name of Shiva / Siva (see Shiva, Rudra, and also [10], and there could be (probably are) many statues of Shiva in the form of Rudra. If anyone was searching for this particular statue, they would be likely to include a place name - and indeed, the book found by AmateurHi$torian and an article I found on Google Scholar [11] refer to it as the Tala Icon or the Tala Siva. (Both of those sources are already included as references in the article Devrani Jethani Temple Complex, though not in this article.) So I don't think it's an appropriate redirect. I think it might be more appropriate to include a photo of this statue and a link to Devrani Jethani Temple Complex in the Rudra article - or a list within that article of notable statues of Rudra - and certainly better to delete this, it doesn't add anything to what's already in the Devrani Jethani Temple Complex article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep. A good amount of info is clearly available, but it seems like consensus is saying its not enough for separate article. Keep the info, dump the rest. It does seem likely that a book and article being written about something would refute the claim that it fails WP:GNG Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, well sourced, meets GNG, and per above there is an entire book written about it. Given the sources and topic I'm not understanding why this is even nommed. At first I thought this was a piece of modern art, quite sophisticated for its era. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source Analysis:
Source 1, boloji.com is unreliable source where if you love to write and share, your name can also be a part of boloji's ever-growing list after you agree to their terms.
Source 2 is a district tourism page promoting the tourist location.
Source 3 is unreliable Tumblr. (Social media)
Source 4, trip.com, has nothing significant or even passing mention.
Source 5, Chattisgarh tourism pdf page promoting the tourism place and tourism information centers.
Source 6, inditales is unreliable Travel blog.
Source 7, naidunia, news and current Affairs portal, covering news from the states of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. This has same promotional content from tourism sites.WP:NEWSORGINDIA.
There's an entire book written about this statue (see above comment), which qualifies as a reference. The statue is obviously notable as an artwork, and that it is part of an existing temple has little to do with this stand-alone notability. Quite the statue. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not able to access those books and maybe that is why they are not on the page maybe because of lack of content verification. Going by the sources on the page, Redirect or even delete is strong case as made by RebeccaGreen. I do not see with poor sources on the page, what is to be merged unless those books can be accessed. If anyone can access those books, please let me know and I can check to see if Merge to Devrani Jethani Temple Complex is also an option. RangersRus (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rescue - While the article is in poor shape, I've found another source (a PhD thesis) which covers the subject in some detail, and now think it can be rescued even if we cannot access the book edited by Nigam. I've prepared a draft at User:AmateurHi$torian/sandbox1 -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I for the life of me can't find any reliable sources. the place and sculpture exists, but I don't think that it's notable. The only source I can find is
but I don't think this is particularly reliable. Everything else I could find online was not independent, or was covering a replacement of one of the sculptures with a bronze copy. I think this is a WP:TNT, WP:GNG, and is full of WP:PROMO in current form. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it now includes its Memorial Art Gallery page as a reference. Artworks usually are verified as notable if they include their sourced holding museum reference, so please check for these if you make further artwork AfDs (thanks). Additionally, the museum website page includes its own list of references. The museum page and its references, along with many of the other cites such as newspapers and The Brooklyn Rail reference included in the nomination, meet GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's simply untrue that a holding museum page for an article typically establishes notability, as many museums have brief data pages for most all their artwork and even this one lacks significant coverage needed to pass GNG. But the linked [15] in addition to the Brooklyn Rail is certainly enough for notability of the sculpture series. Reywas92Talk14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, museums have pages for their artworks. Please look at the museum link again, it contains further references towards the bottom. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's how I found the link I mentioned. But having a museum page doesn't mean a page is presumed to be notable, many don't have a bibliography or substantial analysis. Reywas92Talk18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, please have a read of the museum link. It's a full presentation with multiple photographs and its own references. Museum pages are not primary references, they are simply recognition that a particular artwork (or in this case, group of works) both exists and is prominent enough to be brought into and remain in the collection of their prominent museum. Museums don't just take in any work, they closely and expertly judge notability for inclusion, which is why a single museum source is usually enough to provide notability to an artwork. In this case the artwork is also fully in public space, to be visited at any hour of the day or night, and was granted this exposure by the museum which, of course, puts its own reputation on the line when making such decisions. Thanks for asking for further discussion, an exchange of points-of-view. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of thousands of museums that have judged millions of artworks to be in their collections. Significance to display at a university gallery – or even the Met, with 1.5 million works and perhaps as many webpages about expertly judged objects – is not the same as notability on Wikipedia or the need for a standalone page here. No, a single source is not acceptable, and there is no basis for this claim in WP:N. Reywas92Talk22:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, absolutely over done, over the top article about a run-of-the-mill sculpture in a park. I laughed out loud at the line about "Despite being a world famous artist." If it is necessary to have 9 of the 16 sources be the person who made the sculpture, then that is not a "world famous artist" and this is not a notable sculpture. There is clearly not enough coverage in independent sources to support a separate article about this sculpture. This sculpture can be covered in probably two sentences in the article on the artist. Asparagusstar (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed "world famous artist", good catch. Aside from that, it's not one sculpture, or a "sculpture in a park", as you imply throughout your comment. It's a series of sculptures. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed you "upgraded" your delete to 'Strong delete', even after I fixed your main objection. Pointing out again, the sculptures are not just a "sculpture' in a park but a series of sculptures placed in the outside public space of the major art museum in Rochester, New York. Aside from the museum cites the sources seem to easily meet GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is at least this editor's 5th comment here. Their incorrect claims have already been addressed by multiple editors. Their multiple attention-seeking comments are adding nothing to this conversation other than filibustering and wasting other editors' volunteer time. Asparagusstar (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to artist's article. The fact that the only "analysis" source is the one Brooklyn Rail article is not enough to justify a standalone article. It becomes a WP:COATRACK for primary source expansion when dedicated articles should be sourced to reliable, secondary sources. In this case, they do not appear to exist. The Marlborough Gallery exhibition essay is not independent of the subject. The other sources in the Magart catalog listing might be relevant to a Centennial Sculpture Park article but even then are more likely to fill out a section on that topic within the museum's article than to substantiate an article about an individual sculpture discussed in passing. Expand in summary style within the parent artist article. Also note that this article should be retitled by the artwork titles guideline and that the multiple images uploaded to Commons need to be deleted, lacking a free license to display the copyrighted sculpture with no freedom of panorama. czar14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Art isn't really my area, but I did find some additional sources that I thought might be useful. These three articles (one admittedly in a college paper) talk about plans for the sculpture and about the controversy surrounding it in a fair bit of detail: [16][17][18] (edit: apologies, missed that one of these was already in the article). These two articles from 2018 are about ongoing maintenance of the sculpture, suggesting that it continues to attract at least some level of attention: [19][20]. And I'm not sure whether this can be considered towards notability, but it's discussed at some length in this PhD dissertation (suggesting at least a minor level of academic interest in the sculpture?). It's definitely not the world's most prominent artwork, but a few pieces of artistic analysis plus some local news coverage as a landmark is enough to make me think it's marginally notable. MCE89 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dissertations and student papers are unreliable and not considered notable coverage for notability discussions. The Rochester City Magazine articles make the case for an article about the sculpture park, which can contain discussion of the sculpture, but where's the significant coverage to write about the sculpture itself without delving into primary sources like the article has? The other local news coverage is brief and doesn't contribute to this either. czar21:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The museum source is not a primary source. And no, this is not bludgeoning, just a clarification about museum pages reporting about their holdings. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to re-read that essay on bludgeoning. I don't often cite essays at people, as it's rude and counterproductive, but you should really just stop responding to this AfD. You've responded 6 times, and people know your opinion, and we know you are going to disagree with those arguing delete. You really can just drop the stick. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Gallery's sculpture garden not without controversy". The Buffalo News. 2013-08-04. p. 65. Retrieved 2025-01-23. The most interesting work at the new sculpture garden at Rochester's Memorial Art Gallery, the one that attracts the most attention, that takes up the most space, that visitors are most likely to spend the most time with, that is, in so many ways, delightful, is also the most controversial, the one with the darkest past. It's called Creation Myth and is the work of Tom Otterness, one of the country's best-known sculptors...
Jacobson, Sebby Wilson. "Inside Out: Memorial Art Gallery celebrates 100 years with a new sculpture park". American Craft. 73 (4): 90–93. Given a prime site at the park's busy corner, Otterness designed Creation Myth to link the gallery with its neighboring museums and artists' studios -and to reflect the region's history as the cradle of the U.S. women's rights movement. Reversing the roles of the traditional Pygmalion tale, the Brooklyn artist depicts female sculptors carving male sculptures amid a quarry-like setting that doubles as an amphitheater. Several massive, cartoonlike figures, composed of simple sphere, cube, cone, and cylinder forms, are rendered in Indiana limestone taken from the same quarry that supplied materials for the gallery's original building. Scattered throughout the site are about a dozen small bronze figures that depict the creative process, as well as same-sex couples kissing.
Steiner, Wendy (2015-08-01). "Moved by Metal On Beauty as Interaction". Metalsmith. 33 (4). Tom Otterness builds whole playgrounds out of the debris of the old Palace of Art, humanizing the cold geometric forms of modernism into lovable cones, cubes, and spheres. In the "Creation Myth" series, he deploys these figures to overturn the misogyny of the Pygmalion myth. In this archetypal account of male creativity, the sculptor Pygmalion refuses to use any model for his image of beauty, because he believes that all women are prostitutes. He fabricates an ideal female figure out of his own imagination, and predictably, falls in love with his self-projection. With the help of the gods, he kisses the statue to life and then marries her. This is Interactive Beauty with a vengeance, I suppose, except that the women in the story have no agency. Pygmalion is not only the artist, but the model for his artwork, its viewer, and its owner. Otterness amends this closed circuit with a female artist who sculpts a male statue, and when the two kiss, they kiss as equals.
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
Delete. He still falls far short of WP:PROF#C1 in a high-citation field. The article is also a copyvio of his self-written Psych Today profile, or maybe more likely both of them were made as copies of each other by the same author (so we also have apparent undeclared COI/AUTOBIO in the mix). Because some claims from that source are dubious (specifically the claim to be a Harvard Fellow not backed up by the list of past members of the Society of Fellows [21]) we also have a problem with circularity and reliability of sourcing on a WP:BLP. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that the "article subject" probably also created the article for self-promotional purposes, but now that he is facing a federal prison sentence he wants it removed, it seems he is wanting it both ways. At the time the article was created, he fought off an AfC rejection and then fought and won an AfD at the time. After material on his egregious behavior was added to what was, admittedly, a puff piece for a mostly self-published author, he already tried again as an anon IP (there are several anon IP edits, all geolocating to Sante Fe, New Mexico, where he is apparently living at this time, close enough that they could easily be a dynamic IP from the same location) to AfD the article [22], which resulted in @Cullen328: giving it semi-protection, and that only after it was reverted for a whitewashing attempt. On top of that, one of his anon IP posts put up distractors on articles about other convicted federal felons [23]. All that said, while I think if he was marginally notable before he became notorious, he is definitely notable now. The story was posted on the US DOJ page and was all over the Montana press: posting just a few examples now. [24], [25] On the other hand, If the article is deleted, I also recommend that it be tagged as a WP:SALT so that it doesn't just get recreated as another puff piece when he gets out of the federal pen. Montanabw(talk)01:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person was apparently happy with this article when he was presenting himself as a notable author. Now that he has been convicted of a crime that is especially unseemly for an author specializing in biography amd history - stealing things from a historical society and trying to sell them - he now wants the article deleted. Coverage of his crime by reliable sources adds to his notability. This looks like a case of whitewashing to me, and yes, I did semiprotect the article for that reason. If the article is kept, it will need to be cleaned up because many although not all of its 24 current references are mediocre. Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Hungarian journalist; there are no WP:GNG-qualifying sources in the article or in a WP:BEFORE search. Contested PROD, so bringing it to AfD. Source analysis follows:
Considerations before making a decision about this article:
1) Referring to Klopfstein as a "non-notable Hungarian journalist" would be an inaccurate portrayal of his contributions. Beyond his research and advocacy work, Klopfstein has published hundreds of opinion pieces and news articles, reviewed by independent editors at Hungary's most widely read newspapers (e.g., HVG, Népszava, Mérce, Euractiv, Kitekintő, Stop.hu), as listed by Declemens1971. In addition, his articles have elicited significant responses from opposing political perspectives.
2) Among the trivial mentions listed by Declemens1971, several articles authored by Klopfstein's political opponents focus exclusively on his work. This highlights his impact on public discourse. To ensure an accurate evaluation, inviting a Hungarian-speaking editor with expertise in press freedom and human rights advocacy in Central Europe would be beneficial.
3) Declemens1971 identifies Civilek.info as an "opinion blog," which may stem from a lack of familiarity with the Hungarian media landscape and/or linguistic nuances. Civilek.info is a right-leaning online news portal with a separate opinion section.
4) Describing Klopfstein solely as a journalist overlooks the breadth of his career. In addition to journalism, he has a well-documented history of political activism, research, and advocacy.
5) Guidance is requested on verifying roles like protest organizer or political activist when not directly documented in mainstream international publications. Notably, Klopfstein has been quoted by highly reputable outlets, including The New York Times and The Guardian, where he is explicitly named as a protest organizer.
6) The phrase "brief mentions in media interviews about his website" misrepresents Print-it-Yourself, which is not a mere website but a social movement involving thousands of volunteers across Hungary. As a co-founder, Klopfstein has been extensively quoted in major international newspapers in multiple languages (Politico, The New York Times, The Guardian, taz.de).
6) Characterizing widely cited research papers from leading think tanks such as the Budapest Institute and Globsec as "non-independent" reflects a misunderstanding of public policy research. These papers are peer-reviewed and authored by recognized experts in the region.
7) As stated in the article, Klopfstein operates under multiple aliases, including Kornél Klopfstein, Kornél László, and Kornél J. László. Relying on a single Google search may be insufficient to identify WP:GNG-qualifying sources. Nevesnevtelenek (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General notability guideline(/WP:BASIC) -- lack of secondary/independent sources + no significant coverage. Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines for academics either. Comment(s) on talk page show that verification of any information is an ongoing issue. Tagged for peacock, advert, and tone since Feb 2010. I tried to fix the issues prior to filing this AfD. Puppies937 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed all sources cited but none is reliable to meet WP:GNG or other criteria. Described as a writer, there is no good review of his book(s) other than a single review by the newspaper where he is a reporter. Mekomo (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion The subject has been featured in multiple media sources. While these sources indicate some level of recognition, the depth and independence of the coverage vary. Arab News provides independent coverage of his contributions to women's football, while sources like the SSC's social post and the Al Arabiya video do not constitute in-depth independent coverage under Wikipedia's WP:GNG guidelines N No or few suitable sources that could be cited.
Authorship of Notable Works
Authored 4 books, Japanese Football, Asia's Arabs, The Pink Field and Women's Football.
only 9 ratings for his three works on googlereads Source
Conclusion While the subject has authored multiple books, the limited number of ratings and reviews on platforms like Goodreads indicates insufficient recognition or critical reception. These works do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines without broader independent reviews or recognition. NLikely not notable
Conclusion The subject has held significant roles, including editor at Kooora.com and a women’s football expert in Saudi Arabia. However, these roles alone may not establish notability without broader independent recognition. NLikely not notable
General Conclusion
The subject has received some media attention and held notable professional roles, but the lack of independent, in-depth coverage and critical reviews suggests that they do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
A vanity page and likely autobiography (user = P.D.C., who has edited primarily this page and other pages related to the Cangelaris family) of a non-notable individual; fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. No evidence of passing any criterion of WP:ACADEMIC. No evidence of passing WP:NAUTHOR; his books appear to be self-published. No evidence of passing WP:GNG; the sources are limited to passing mentions in government documents/directories and mostly a long run of mentions in various Who's Who lists, a pay-to-play source that is not independent. And no evidence of passing on any other WP:NBIO criterion. Nothing qualifying comes up in a BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The awards for volunteering and stamp collecting aren't notable ones, the books and journal articles don't seem to have attracted any meaningful reviews or citations, and his political and diplomatic activities don't seem to have any secondary coverage. This seems to be a vanity page packed with every possible award and achievement in the author's life, but I can't see any that could give a claim to notability. MCE89 (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, the entire "Hobbies and Volunteering" section is totally unsourced, and is likely written by the subject. fails academic, nauthor, nbio and gng.
Delete: Only hits I get are primary items or vanity websites. Stamp collecting doesn't seem to be notable, This reads as an extended resume. Long way from notability Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir, I received your message as of your proposal for deletion of the "Panayotis D. Cangelaris" article and I would like to know the specific reason, please! Furthermore, I noticed that the included picture was removed allegedly because of copyright violation (Linkedin). However, if some one has the copyright of this picture, that is me and no one else (and it is me who did provided it for free use). It was never copied from Linkedin or any one else. Could you, please, explain as well? By the way, I would like to reiterate that I too have the best intentions for the highest quality of Wikipedia's articles and I think that this article lives up anybody's expectations. However, any improvement is most welcome and anybody is of course free to do so. I thank you in anticipation for your interest and any reasonable reaction to my reply!
She's not just a teacher though, she's a botanist, who discovered new plants, so we need to look for publications in which she discovered plants. I suspect there could be sources in another language too given that she's Argentinian. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓18:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't speak Spanish and can only access snippets of most of these sources, but there are a lot of results under her name on Google Books. These nine results [51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59] all seem like they might contain SIGCOV of her, in addition to the dozens of books that seem to cite her work as a botanist or contain trivial mentions. Based on what I could find I strongly suspect she is notable, but hopefully someone who speaks the language and can actually access the sources can have a proper look. MCE89 (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added in details about Pastore. I found a reference that describes her as a member of the Instituto de Botánica: Darwinión, and a chronicle of her life that was published upon her death. There was also a session held in her honor at a 1952 meeting. These details are now cited in the article. Given the period and limited sourcing available, I think this is sufficient indication of notability. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a case of WP:BLP1E, the subject is only notable for their sacking from The Age. The rest of the sourcing that I've found, both in the article and through searches, is either not independent or not in-depth. I've considered the possibility that they might pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC and I don't see that either is the case. TarnishedPathtalk11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per WP:BLP1E the 'subjects notable for one event' policy must meet each of three criteria listed for the subject to be unsuitable for a page. They are: reliable sources only cover one event; the individual is otherwise low profile; and the individual's role in the event was not significant. I suggest Szego's career as an author and journalist elevates her above “low-profile individual”; and her role in the event clearly was not “not significant”. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A reading of WP:LOWPROFILE would suggest that they are indeed a low profile individual. Being a author or a journalist alone does not make someone not low-profile. In fact if they did have a high profile as consequence of those activities they would almost certainly pass WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NAUTHOR (the same policy), which they appear not to. TarnishedPathtalk23:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't agree with the contention that she is WP:BLP1E nor do I agree with the issue around the other sources. At the very least there is:
Wild Dingo Press, sells her book (see https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/shop/p/9780987381149). It's unsurprising that a book seller would have a profile page for an author that they sell the books of. It's not independent. It would also be a stretch to call two paragraphs significant coverage.
bookpublishing.com.au only mentions her in passing. It does not have significant coverage of her. Notably there is no claim that she won that award so I don't see a pass with WP:NAUTHOR.
The Age link you provide is her employee profile page, detailing articles that she wrote as a journalist for The Age. Firstly that's not independent coverage of her as an individual and secondly that doesn't go towards showing a pass of WP:NJOURNALIST. The Age were her employer, so it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her.
thejewishindependent is a podcast in which she is interviewed. This is not independent from Szego and more importantly counts as a primary source. This does not contribute towards establishing Szego's notability. Those issues aside it appears to be dominated by her sacking from The Age, going towards my argument of BLP1E.
The Guardian link is of the same nature as The Age link. Again not independent as they are/were her employer and again it's it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her which details the stories that she's written for them.
None of the sources you have provided above contribute to Szego's passing our general notability guidelines. In order to establish notability we would need multiple reliable secondary sources which are independent from Szego and which cover her in-depth. If WP:BLP1E wasn't a thing then she should pass on the coverage of her sacking alone, however WP:BLP1E is a thing and therefore she doesn't meet our general notability guidelines. TarnishedPathtalk12:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article on a poet and novelist, and cannot find significant coverage to add. I did find this in Booklife, but am not sure it is a reliable source. Some or all of his books are self-published, which wouldn't be a problem if there are multiple reviews in independent, reliable sources, but I can't find evidence of that. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO. I have reverted from a much longer version, here, but that was no better sourced and I don't see anything there to contribute to notability. Tacyarg (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search on my side also did not yield any coverage, suitable to define notability. Sources currently present are author profiles and book reviews, they are not third-party opinion items. I will be happy for somebody to dispel my belief by providing appropriate sourcing. Silvymaro (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the books have been self-published. True. Some have not. How is that a problem? There are enough articles and inclusions in numerous magazines and anthologies, as well as evidence of book fairs and literary events to justify the article. Not relating to the level of success of an author based on your definition of success should never be a reason for deletion. 47.185.0.198 (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE For your consideration, I have added several links attesting to the relevance and commitment to culture and literature of author Edgar Smith. I hope this helps. Kevlarcovered (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I have found only 3 reviews of two books - Arrimao here [60] and here [61], and La 90 here [62]. I don't think that's quite enough for WP:NAUTHOR. Two of them were published in acento, but by different reviewers, so I don't see that as an issue, more the lack of other coverage. If someone finds other reviews in independent, reliable sources (not Facebook), I'd be happy to rethink - otherwise, I think it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I think it should be drafted. He has won a lot of awards including the order of merit - Ordre des Palmes académiques which is major civilian award which likely makes him notable. The art as well, if they can be proved to be a museum or permanent collection would pass WP:NARTIST. There is lot potentially if it could be proven. There is lots more. The article itself is a mess and needs a significant copyedit and it also needs sourced. Some time in draft would give that space. If there is not enough coverage I could stubify it. scope_creepTalk09:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being a recipient of the Palmes académiques is not likely at all to make someone notable. More than 6,000 people receive this medal each year, and it used to be almost two times more until a few years ago. BilletsMauves€50013:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a writer and unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or politicians. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their books exist, and unelected candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates: the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and the notability test for writers is the reception of third-party attention being paid to their books, such as literary awards and reviews by professional literary critics in WP:GNG-worthy real media. But this just states that he exists, and sources its content entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage or analysis about his work. It also warrants note that even though he's German, and thus an article on the German Wikipedia would be expected to exist if he were genuinely notable enough for Wikipedia, the only interlang actually present here is in Portuguese, and cites absolutely no GNG-worthy sourcing that could be moved over here to salvage this either -- while even the Wikidata entry suggests that attempts to create articles about him in the Spanish and Romanian Wikipedias have previously been deleted on those Wikipedias for notability reasons, whereas no article about him has ever existed in the German Wikipedia at all. So even the Portuguese article exists only because the Portuguese administrators haven't caught and deleted it yet, rather than because he's got any kind of genuine claim to notability. (Does anybody here have enough Portuguese to take it to their AFD?) Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His book D might possibly be notable - there's a review in the Sydney Morning Herald [63] and one in Aurealis (that's referenced in the article). According to Austlit, there's also an article or review in The Australian: 'First-Time Author on a Fast Track to Fame' - though that may be one of his "media appearances", rather than a review. But there does not seem to be coverage about him, and with only one published book, he doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. WP:NAUTHOR doesn't require that an author have multiple published works, so I think he could strictly speaking scrape past NAUTHOR on the basis of his book D getting multiple reviews. But the book is only very marginally notable and he really has no notability outside of that. A couple of his short stories got minor awards, but none got any reviews as far as I can tell. So I lean delete as, even though the book was the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, I don't think it really qualifies as a significant or well-known work. MCE89 (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick check on newspapers.com and there appear to be several articles where the subject has WP:SIGCOV. These include Buffalo News stories in the article that are deadlinks but are available in archive. I’ll need a day or two to do a more thorough look. Note this article passed AFC. Nnev66 (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are at least three references with significant coverage in reliable sources (see below). These are all published in the Buffalo, New York area but that doesn't dissuade me from notability as the coverage is reliable and significant. It was difficult to evaluate this one because a number of the references were primary written by the subject and this wasn't indicated in the referencing (I fixed that). Again note that this article passed WP:AFC before it was published to the mainspace, a process which from my experience is a vigorous check of an article. Nnev66 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for adding non-primary sources to the article and the overall improvements you have made to it. I don't think I can access source [1] but based on the title it sounds like potential sigcov. And [3] definitely is. However I am uncertain if [2] qualifies as an independent source, since the subject was an adjunct professor at Hilbert College from 2001-2007 and the magazine featuring her was published in 2005. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - another day, another article up for deleting that I have a potential conflict of interest, for which I must disclose. The subject and I have both volunteered for not one, but two organizations: NYSBA and the Women's Bar Association, the latter from which we have received awards. We also have a public LinkedIn connection in common, one of my (former) best friends from high school. For those reasons, I'm not !voting one way or another, other than to say that she's very accomplished. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fair enough regarding InsomniaOpossum's comment that the Hilbert College source is non-independent since she worked there. I found another review of her book in Publisher's Weekly (link via Proquest). I also added an Attorney of the Year recognition she received in 2018. Nnev66 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
I have marked this article for deletion. While I'm a big fan of Mr. Beat's work, and would ideally like this article kept, I don't think that he passes WP:GNG right now. All of the non-social media sources are local sources, or not reliable at all, indicating that he has little to no national significance. Beat is a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL content creator; achieving 1 million subscribers is a much less notable feat than it was even 10 years ago. I completed a WP:BEFORE search but I couldn't find anything meaningful that wasn't already in the article. I don't see a WP:NAUTHOR pass either, since he's released only two books, and each only has one local review. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:4D29:6661:1D4E:6058 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete - I have little to add beyond the nominator's honest and thorough rationale. The article appears to have a lot of sources but most point toward the guy's own posts. He has a little notice from local newspapers but not enough to support an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There have been some keep !votes below, so I just want to make clear that I really only see up to one GNG-qualifying source in the article, which is a local publication's review of his book. My BEFORE search brought up only his own content or promotional sources. He has received some local coverage which is mostly promotional. It's not impossible there's better coverage, but most of the sources in the article are Youtube links or Twitter links. SportingFlyerT·C19:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The article's content and history can be kept back in the draftspace until sufficient further coverage is found, if that ever becomes the case in the future. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mr. Beat has coverage in local press, which counts towards Mr. Beat being a notable figure. Additionally, this coverage is more than many YouTubers who have pages on here receive. NesserWiki (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Mr. Beat is one of the more famous/notable YouTube historians on the site. If he was less notable, I may be in favor of deletion but this is not the case. Lertaheiko (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that something that only receives local coverage is automatically not notable. There are thousands of high schools, library systems and people with Wikipedia articles that will probably only ever receive local coverage, but a reliable, independent secondary source with significant coverage counts towards notability whether its a tiny news station or the BBC. Pointing to subscriber count as evidence of non-notability is about as useful as pointing to it as evidence of notability. (I will note that Mr. Beat posted a screenshot of this discussion to Bluesky (which is how I got here) but not in a WP:Canvassing manner probably with good intentions, but it's definitely become a WP:Canvassing issue regardless). Edit: Given that the nominator has clarified their justification for the deletion, I went through the sources again, and I feel like there's one source that definitely counts toward notability, the aforementioned Lawrence Journal article, and one source that might count towards notability, a sorta review of his SCOTUS book which includes some commentary beyond just the interview component with Mr. Beat. If we're following WP:THREE, then I would probably suggest Draftify given that he seems about one source off from notability. Based5290 :3 (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to or posting a a discussion is not in itself canvassing. Canvassing needs to be done with the intention of influencing the outcome. Given that the text of the post is just self-deprecating humor, I highly doubt that intention exists. Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with what the above editors have said. Local news coverage counts just the same as major outlets in terms of notability. As popular Internet personalities become more prevalent and the mainstream press becomes more separated from Internet culture, we as Wikipedia editors must reckon with the fact that a notable person might not always be covered in the mainstream press. So, if we keep on using big coverage in the press as being "notable", we end up with archaic standards that will most likely miss out on notable people in the future.
Comment - I am the IP editor who initially nominated this for deletion, and I'm surprised at the sudden burst of canvassing votes here. They should all be discarded for the purposes of determining consensus; consisting of a mixture of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and claiming I'm trying to discredit local sources: my point is that they are all WP:ROUTINE coverage of him. Doing stuff like local talks about his books, where he mostly does the speaking instead of it being about him doesn't amount to notability here. We need sources that discuss him specifically, simple as that. The only good source here is the Lawrence Journal, and a single article doesn't surpass the WP:THREE sources generally needed to clear the bar of notability. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:2081:789F:4237:C594 (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Mr. Beat is a relevant topic and a very prominent YouTuber with tons of credible sources about him, and CLEARLY it should be kept. Skcin7 (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I decided to look into the local coverage of the subject a bit more closely, since there have been statements that it's been largely promotional. While some of them do seem that way, such as the Lawrence Times article about a book discussion, this is hardly the only source. He has had an extended interview on KQTV[1], a television station in St. Joseph, Missouri, which is in the Kansas City area. To reference what the nominator was saying about the local sources not being great because they are routine, I would like to add that this interview does not appear directly connected with any planned event, such as a book release or announcement. I do not believe this counts as routine. His interview withKCUR-FM would also fall under this, since it is a reliable, third-party, independent secondary source that is also not simply announcing an event or product, but is an actual interview; while the written portion of the article is more about that, the actual interview delves much deeper. I will acknowledge that this article is a bit short, but I cannot in good faith agree that this article should be deleted. I think he does fulfill the GNG, and my vote is for it to be kept. ~Junedude433(talk)20:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is worth noting that Mr Beat posted this page onto his bluesky yesterday with the caption “I am printing this off and putting it on my wall to motivate me for the rest of my life”, likely prompting the influx of people to comment keep. IP should be aware of this and prevent heavy bias in favor of keeping. (Hell, he may be reading this very comment right now, in which case I’m sorry that your wiki page may be deleted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B14C:3B7F:ECFA:A361:729B:73A2 (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amendement to original rationale: Also should be deleted under criteria 9 of WP:DEL-REASON as an unsourced BLP which is external to notability policies including SNGs. Fails our policy on verification at WP:BLP. 4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that the subject is unlikely to pass WP:GNG, but I think they probably pass WP:AUTHOR for their book The Reluctant Metrosexual: Dispatches from an Almost Hip Life. I found reviews in the New York Times [65] and the Washington Post [66], and there are several other usable reviews referenced here [67] although frustratingly I wasn't able to find any of those originals from 2004. Their book is also cited or mentioned in probably a dozen academic books and journal articles, although admittedly not in any great detail. Together I think that's probably enough for a WP:AUTHOR pass. MCE89 (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Dclemens1971 and MCE89 I would feel a lot better about this if those sources had biographical content but they don't other than perfunctory coverage. The sources are about the book rather than the author. Fundamentally we don't have materials supporting a biography page. Given that it is only a single work, wouldn't this be better repurposed into an article on that one book? This would seem to be a better approach per the spirit of WP:Verifiability. We could always recreate a page on the author if and when a second notable work is created by the subject. We really can only create articles based on the available sources. Otherwise we are fundamentally allowing an unsourced BLP article page which I thought was a big no no on wikipedia.4meter4 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCREATIVE is clear that "Such a person is notable if:... The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews..." There's no requirement for biographical content in such reviews. Biographical content can be added from other sources, but the test of notability is met by what MCE89 identified. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 I get that, but that is not the cogent policy here. WP:BLPSOURCES external to notability policy but equally important is at play here. We could literally blank the page at present because its unsourced under WP:BURDEN and WP:BLPSOURCES policy. That's a problem relevant to AFD that goes beyond notability criteria. At some level we have to consider the practical application of all of our policies. Not just WP:SNG language. Policies don't exist in a vacuum.4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971 To do so in the middle of an AFD would be WP:DISRUPTIVE editing and WP:POINTY. Further, this is a BLP policy issue which falls under criteria 9 of WP:DEL-REASON so your assertion that notability policy is the only relevant policy at AFD is false. Deleting under a WP:BLPSOURCES failure rationale is perfectly acceptable under criteria 9. One can meet an SNG but still be deleted if it fails a WP:DEL-REASON criteria external to a notability issue.4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The book is notable, but the author isn't since one needs multiple notable works to demonstrate NCREATIVE, but since this information would be on said article anyway, I could convert it into an article on the book if that is what people wish. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted for further discussion on possibility of converting to an article on the book Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No apparent consensus after three relists. No prejudice against another nomination in 1 or 2 months from now.. Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for raising concerns about the article on Ram Krishna Bantawa. I firmly believe the article meets the requirements outlined in Wikipedia’s WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV guidelines. Below is an explanation supporting this assertion:
Notability as an Author (WP:NAUTHOR):
Ram Krishna Bantawa is a recognized author and lyricist in Nepali literature. He is known for his novel Saghan Tuwanlo (Shrill Mist) and novel Amalai Chithi (Letter to Mother-whose English translation is forthcoming.) His work has made a significant cultural impact, particularly within the Nepali community.
His lyrics and songs are available on platforms such as YouTube.
Saghan Tuwanlo is included in the curriculum of Tribhuvan University, highlighting its academic and cultural significance.His novels address meaningful societal issues such as women’s rights, untouchability, and Sati Pratha (the practice of widow immolation), further emphasizing his contributions to literature and social discourse.
Significant Coverage (WP:SIGCOV):
Independent and reliable media outlets, including Kantipur, Annapurna Post, and various Hong Kong-based Nepali newspapers, have provided coverage of Bantawa’s work. This demonstrates his influence in Nepali literature and music.
He has been featured in interviews and podcasts that delve into his life, literary contributions, and societal impact, providing further evidence of significant independent coverage.
Bantawa has received several awards and certificates from reputable organizations, including:Nepalese Literary Academy Hong Kong , Heavenly Path Hong Kong , Charu Sahitya Pratisthan , Hong Kong Nepalese Federation , Lyricist Association of Nepal
The article references independent and verifiable sources that discuss Ram Krishna Bantawa’s work in detail. Taken collectively, these factors satisfy the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia under WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV.
If additional information or sources are required to further support this assertion and enhance the article, I would be happy to assist.
I feel you know the person very well so you are aware of so many information. When i search on internet , I hardly find anything of significance covered in reputable media outlet about him .
regarding references, plz go through all the references, and let me know if a single source in reputable Nepali media from NPOV meeting WP criteria. If your have such sources plz put it here other than what you have kept in references. Plz note that sources in reference are not of significance. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rahmatula786,
Thank you for your message. I want to clarify that I do not personally know the person. The information I’ve provided is based solely on my research.
I understand your concerns regarding the importance of meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria. Unfortunately, there is limited online information due to the lack of archived articles in Nepali media. However, I have collected pictures of old newspaper articles about the author, including coverage from Nepali Hong Kong newspapers during a book launch press meet.
I believe the article is written from a neutral point of view. While I cannot attach the offline sources here, I’d be happy to share them via email. Additionally, I can provide relevant YouTube(https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Ram+Krishna+Bantawa) links of his Songs, Interviews. Please let me know how you’d like to proceed.
I look forward to your guidance and support, as I am currently gathering resources and information for my next article of Nepali Singer "Kuma Sagar" . Your insights will be invaluable in helping me refine my work. Please let me know how best to proceed.
According to Wikipedia's guidelines, contributors are discouraged from writing about individuals they personally know to maintain neutrality and avoid conflicts of interest. I can assure you that I have no personal connection with, nor do I know, the author.
In my case, I refrained from including details about the author's awards and certificates, as I was unsure about their accuracy and could not verify them through reliable sources all i had were photographs of certificates and some mentions in newspapers. However, I conducted thorough research and included information about the author's books, song lyrics, and album, as these are well-documented and publicly available.
I can provide you with ISBN of the books they were published through Sajha Publications and ASIA 2000 Ltd. Also you can search in youtube for his songs and interviews. I can additionally provide you with offline sources(Newspaper Articles, Magazines) relating to the author. Rasilshrestha (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched under three different names for this author and his book, Shrill Mist. I also reached out to a Nepalese friend. I've come up with zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thank you for letting me know.I am actively working on gathering reliable links and additional information to support it. I’ll share them in refrence of the article.
The reason your friend might not have found information about the novel could be because it is an older work, first published in 2008. The author is not as widely recognized as prominent Nepali literary figures like Parijat, Laxmi Prasad Devkota, or Bhanubhakta Acharya, whose biographies are included in school curriculum. Additionally, the novel hasn’t been published online, limiting its accessibility to a broader audience. However, I’ve heard that the author’s new book is being published or translated into English, which might bring more attention to their work.
It’s also worth noting that the author has spent a significant amount of time outside Nepal, particularly in Hong Kong. If you search for his name on YouTube, you’ll find his songs, which might provide some additional context.
For now, I can provide the ISBN number of the book or any other available details. I’m actively working on finding more reliable sources and digging through news archives to provide further information Rasilshrestha (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted the photos of news archive i have clicked (Ram Krishna Bantawa News Articles : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive) in archive.org Rasilshrestha (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. There is an unbolded Keep here and a previous visit to AFD which means that Soft Deletion is not an option. It usually all comes down to sources so a source analysis of what is present in the article would be helpful at this point. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.
Ref 1 : non neutral source ( media with no reputation has review of some book not a notable work , no findings on search on internet )
Ref 2 & 3 - not active link, neither found on google
Ref 4 - not at all a media of even minor entity
Ref 5&6 - he attends book inauguration program ( that’s all . Just his name mentioned)
Ref 7. Controversial piece about some legal issues being taken. Doesn’t support the article in any sense.
Rest sources - all are either repetition of above news or your tube material or some small contributions not covered in any genuine source. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what i heard, his book "Aamalai Chitthi" is currently being translated and is expected to be published soon. Once it becomes available, I believe I will be able to provide you with more relevant online sources for further reference. Rasilshrestha (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is now clear evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources newspapers as shown in the news archive link mentioned above in the external links section of the article. Passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - COI - looking at the Archies i wonder how so much personal info (like old newspapers copies) and he is planning to make an English version of some book , can be gathered unless editor knows and have approach with the subject. Recent update in the article also describes the same thing. Nothing but a Desperate attempt.Rahmatula786 (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I appreciate your concern, but as I mentioned earlier, I have photographs of offline sources that I have used for my research. Regarding the English translation, it is based on news related to Aamalai Chitthi (https://annapurnapost.com/story/451773/), where the translator Devi Panthi has spoken about it.
I assure you, this is not a desperate attempt, If it were, I would have included additional details of the author. Instead, my article focuses primarily on the subject's songs, novels, and books that he has written. For example, I have read Shrill Mist and am currently reading another work. The song I referenced is also publicly available on YouTube.
I collected photographs from various sources, including a news archive where old newspapers are stacked. Unfortunately, I couldn’t obtain any materials from Gorkhapatra, as they dont allow. Some of the newspapers I used were already in my possession at home, while others were gathered during my visit to a book launch event.
The event was held to celebrate the author’s return from Hong Kong and his book launch. It featured displays of certificates for his awards and documents with official letterheads. However, I chose not to mention these certificates or documents in my article, as I wasn’t entirely certain about their authenticity or relevance Rasilshrestha (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are related with him, how come you find or keen to find those stuff. Have you ever done such efforts to make any other article in Wikipedia. So far i can see , you are here just to make this article. If ur a genuine editor. You might have participated in various other articles, agenda . Did you understand it now. U have altogether 63 edits and almost all for this article only since May 5. That clearly shows what you are looking for . I guess u will come with some other explanations. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thank you for your concern. I’m currently a student in my final year, and I have a deep interest in Nepali literature, arts, and culture, especially Newar traditions and history, as I am a Newar myself. I also enjoy learning about historical topics and sharing knowledge.
I want to clarify that I am not connected to the author mentioned in the article, nor am I being paid for my contributions. If this were a paid effort, I believe the author would have hired someone more experienced than me. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I am still learning and this article has been my starting point.
I plan to work on more articles in the future and am currently gathering resources for my next article as i have already mentioned earlier. Regarding the current article, my intent has been to present information in a neutral tone. If I were biased or paid, my contributions would likely reflect that, but I have strived to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines.
Wikipedia encourages contributors to improve content where they can, and I believe my contributions are consistent with this principle.
While it’s true that I haven’t contributed extensively to other articles yet, everyone starts somewhere. My current focus on this article does not diminish my genuine intention to support Wikipedia’s mission of providing accurate, unbiased information.
If you have specific concerns about my edits, I’d be happy to discuss and address them transparently. I value constructive feedback and aim to contribute positively to the platform. Rasilshrestha (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation doesn’t justify how you gathered all those photos and newspapers pieces put in archives . Anyway i leave it for now. And want to see how other editors put their views. Rahmatula786 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I respect your concerns and your efforts to make Wikipedia a reliable and comprehensive source of information for everyone. As a newcomer, I would greatly value your feedback on how I can improve my article. Could you please guide me on how to make it more effective? Also, do you think there are any changes I should consider?
Keep: Seems offline sources are available as provided in [68]. The same source mentions that his book is included in the Tribhuvan University curriculum. Also suggest the original editor to add the list of awards with sources.nirmal (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot read Nepali but it looks like the GNG has been met here. Bearian, some sources have been added since your !vote, so I am pinging you in case you would like to re-assess. Toadspike[Talk]10:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, he insulted an older woman and dismissed her ability to read. Last time I checked, that's a grave taboo, the sort of thing that makes your Hajura'āmā box your ear. I'm done with this Sealioning. Bearian (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely apologize if my previous message came across as disrespectful. That was never my intention. I truly appreciate your friend's representation of Nepal at WOREC and admire her love for reading. If she’s interested, I’d be happy to lend her a book by the author. I only have two books with me one is the english translation of Saghan Tuwanlo and the other one is Aamalai Chitthi.
I’m new to Wikipedia and still learning how things work. I plan to write another article soon, perhaps about a Nepalese singer or a temple in my hometown. Once again, I apologize if I caused any offense and hope to move forward respectfully. Rasilshrestha (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. The consensus is almost around the corner. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently dedicating my time to working on a new article while contributing to Wikipedia during my free time. I plan to publish the article within the next three to four months and would greatly appreciate your guidance, support, and constructive feedback throughout this process.
Additionally, I would like to inquire about incorporating offline sources, such as old newspaper articles that are not available online. Should I upload these resources to the Internet Archive, as I did with this article, or are there alternative methods?
Strong Delete:I took a fresh look at the article. If anyone has doubts, I recommend reviewing it again. Without personal knowledge of the subject, it's hard to imagine how so much detailed information could be gathered. This clearly suggests a conflict of interest (COI), which violates Wikipedia's policies and another editor has also agreed on this matter . he has put COI tag in the article.Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination statement counts as your delete vote, so second vote struck. Also unproven coi allegations are not a valid delete argument at AfD, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rahmatula786,
Thank you for the information. I’m not sure how to change or handle the COI tag on the article, I have only added the category tags . I was aiming to include this article in the biography category, but it seems to have ended up in Articles for Creation instead is this the problem?. Any guidance on resolving this would be greatly appreciated.
I have assured you that I have no personal relationship or knowledge of the subject. I have compiled the article using the information available from sources and written it to the best of my ability. Please feel free to review the article again and point out any specific personal or biased details that you believe may require correction. Rasilshrestha (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated the article and already expressed these COI concerns above. Just in case you weren't sure, your delete position was in fact already accounted for. Unless you found new information, taking another look and restating that you haven't changed your mind might not affect the discussion a whole lot... Mlkj (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
FA
A
GA
![[68]](https://ia600609.us.archive.org/30/items/20240930-120248/20240331_160729.jpg){kind=link}