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.
I initially wanted to wait until either the webcomic concluded, or the most recent source is 10+ years old, but returning talkpage concerns made me decide to start this early. My argument for deletion is WP:SUSTAINED combined with a shift in subject matter of the work covered. The most recent source, a 2016 list entry by Paste, states that it had "recently become a more specific and pointed criticism of the most toxic parts of American exceptionalism," and this is the most up-to-date information we can cite on this webcomic. Sean Kleefield in his 2020 book Webcomics did mention Sinfest as an example, but in his blog he made clear he did not do any research for this. As editors, we have recently tried to expand on Ishida's/Sinfest's recent political and controversial aspects through primary sources, but this got (probably rightfully?) undone. Reliable sources are staying away from Sinfest and we don't know how to cover it anymore: the article is largely about a Sinfest that no longer exists, or only exists buried in its own archives. Typically when sources on a long-running webcomic dry up, it just means it's no longer in the zeitgeist, but I don't think that really applies here: I would perhaps make the vain suggestion that reliable sources don't "want" to consider this work notable. I would like to hear what other editors think of this argument and issue. Note that "this webcomic is bad/harmful" is not a deletion rationale tho. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SUSTAINED applies to brief bursts of newspaper coverage: the coverage already in this article passes sustained, with consistent coverage over a period of multiple years. Per WP:NTEMP once something is notable, it is notable for good, and even though the coverage has ceased the past coverage is well, well over sustained. The past Sinfest is the notable sinfest, we do not need to discuss the current one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In my opinion, the discrepancy between what Sinfest was in the 2000s and what it is now is so jarring that it has become an entirely different entity, functionally separate from what it was once was. I think we can all agree that reliable sources have not given meaningful coverage to the very disturbing turn the comic has taken over the past few years.
Ordinarily, it's completely fine for an article on a comic to lay stagnant if reliably sourced coverage dries up. However, in this case, we're left with an article that discusses the generally favorable coverage Sinfest received in the past, says nothing about its current iteration, and maintains a link to the website. Together, these facts mean that this page functions as a puff piece on a work of antisemitic propaganda, which it then directly links to.
I want to make it clear that I do not believe that this was the intent of any editor here; I know that Wikipedia has policies for a reason, and I have not gotten any impression of fellow editors here other than that they are committed to following Wikipedia's procedures and improving the site's coverage of this comic. I do think that, in this case, we might have to be a bit flexible in the application of policy. "Notability is not temporary" is certainly a good guideline in general, but in this case, we have been left with no way to talk honestly about something that it would be harmful to talk about dishonestly. For that reason, I think deletion is the best option.
I'll be honest here, I'm only an occasional editor of Wikipedia, and I'm not thoroughly familiar with the site's policies or precedents on issues like this. I feel about this similarly to the way I do when I hear about US Supreme Court rulings, which is that I have a strong moral conviction about what is right, but I don't know much about actual legal procedure. (I've made a couple comments on the Sinfest talk page about policy in the past, and later realized that I was mistaken about how the relevant policy actually worked, which is why I haven't posted there since.) For that reason, I chose to comment rather than explicitly support deletion. My position is based not on specific Wikipedia policy but on my moral conviction that Wikipedia should not be covering antisemitic propaganda without explicitly labeling it as such.Wehpudicabok (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics
The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Related Projects
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts
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.
Per an IP at WP:BLP/N, this article is "a complete PR/puff page with self-published sources, press releases, purchased awards, and myriad other issues. I looked up a bunch of policies to help clean it up but in the end I don't know what to do about it, given it's still just a complete mess, the entire title is fake, and is maintained by an SPA."
It isn't a page based on self-published sources, there are several independent sources including official government pages (Albania and Lebanon) and you can't purchase a Kentucky Colonelship.
I have used his self published books as a reference only to the books name, not to any relevant information about the person himself.
The claim on notability is based on several important sources mentioning him, including the Government of Lebanon, Albania,the Armenian orthodox church, the city of Petrópolis in Brazil, the Global Imams Council and so on
If his titles are fake is not the point of this article, there is even a source saying that he is a fake prince and a fake martial artist
I am the creator of the page, I'm just not logged in.
The list ONLY has 1,000 colonels, absence in the list doesn't mean anything!
"The Kentucky Colonel List and List of Kentucky Colonels (same list with two names) is meant to provide website users with a diverse permanent listing of up to 1,000 Kentucky colonels from all walks of life for our book, 100 of those people will be highlighted with a single paragraph. The Kentucky Colonel List project does not replace the International Kentucky Colonel Registry (a planned program that was delayed in 2020 coincident with the pandemic) which was merged into an International Goodwill Ambassador Registry, with colonels listed for the Commonwealth of Kentucky. " Kentucky Colonel: Official History & Legacy of the Kentucky Colonelcy - List of Kentucky ColonelsMasterKamalKhan (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to include the claim please provide a reliable source that is not self-published.
On second glance it says "The complete list of persons that have received the Kentucky Colonel Commission is lengthly to say the least; there are over 350,000 people that have received a Kentucky Colonel Commission from one of 55 of its 59 governors that have served the state since 1792" - I don't think being a Kentucky Colonel is something that should be in the article anyway. It's almost like adding that you were Time Person of the Year 2006. D1551D3N7 (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The sources cited are utterly worthless as evidence for the existence of this title, never mind this individual's claim to it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't say it is evidence of his titles, but it is evidence of notability, being received officially by the President of Albania and the President of Lebanon is very much note worthy. As I said, this article is not debating if his titles are real or not, I even used one source that says his titles are fake. Leo0274 (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that there are numerous third-party sources from Lebanon and Jordan, as well as the Vatican, that recognize the Ghassanid history and royal house. The House is currently under review by the ICOC, which does recognize the House as Royal and is evaluating the awards. The Augustan Society has recognized the house and orders and history. The Marionite Church recognizes the House and history, as well as the current Arab Christian princes. Arbitration courts have rules the claim in valid and under international law is to be recognized. Comments so far show more ignorance than knowledge, and should not be the basis for deleting. There are sufficient third party sources to meet the Wikipedia requirements. Xianboyd (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was featured by his title on news vehicles of Brazil, Lebanon, UAE, UK, Italy, Spain, Germany, USA, Israel, Jordan, Canada, Iraq, etc. If that's not notability, I don't know what it is! MasterKamalKhan (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the claim that the 'Prince' is recognised by the UN is complete fiction, for multiple obvious reasons starting with the fact that the UN doesn't involve itself in determinations of the legitimacy of hereditary titles, I think we can discount the Jerusalem Post piece as the regurgitated press release it appears to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, with all due respect, regardless of the UN recognition the article mentions the recognition by the Global Imams Council, the world's largest body of Muslim leaders. That alone is reason for notability. MasterKamalKhan (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there was any credible evidence that this 'Global Imams Council' actually was 'the world's largest body of Muslim leaders', that argument might just possibly be worth considering. As it stands, I can find nothing whatsoever which supports such a claim. The 'Council' seems to be almost entirely unnoticed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're obviously pro-Israel. But you cannot completely disqualify a news outlet because one wrong thing was found against it. If that's the case, all major newspapers would be disqualified. And again, there are two sources confirming the stated. MasterKamalKhan (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the wikipedia article there was absolutely zero mention of a recognition by the UN, again, the wikipedia article is not about Gharios' claims to any titles, it is about the man himself. A section about a controversy on his claims is welcome to stay published, just find notable and reliable sources of this controversy.
You can't disqualify the Jerusalem Post, the Albanian and the Lebanese Governments, the Global Imams Council and others as not notable sources. And, if Gharios is a fake, that makes him even more notable for having fooled presidents Leo0274 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The subject seems to be a grifter attempting to portray themselves as some kind of VIP but there is little substance behind it when one digs deeper. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used as a source a link from the presidential site of Albania about the official meeting with the president, and this article addresses Gharios as a Prince, the President also sent him a letter addressing him as Royal Highness, I tryed to link the web archive on the source, it is number source number 20, but it seems like it didn't work. Here is the link to the letter: https://royalblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/img_9887.jpg?w=728
There is also the presidential decree on Lebanon authorizing the Royal House to operate in the country, you may arguee that this is not a recognition of his titles, but it is evidence of notability. The page has been edited to remove the decree and other sources that I originally posted from the Lebanese Government, here are some of them:
You would do well to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We do not cite random blogs. We do not cite pdfs hosted on random websites. And we don't cite anything that merely repeats the title a man has given himself as evidence that he is a legitimate holder of that title. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Wikipedia has authority to determine if a title is real or not. We are discussing notability and here you will find more than enough independent third-party news outlets, official websites of Bonafide entities, political and religious leaders that recognize him and clearly consider him notable enough to officially acknowledge his existence.
According to the cited Wikipedia:Reliable sources:
"News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact.."
"Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format (See also Wikipedia:Verifiability § Newspaper and magazine blogs)."
You are correct, wikipedia does not judge notability based on what a person is or isn't, tiles or otherwise. We need articles about the person, not simply having their name mentioned in articles about other things... You've failed to give one article that is about this person in a reliable source, only having name drops in various things. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, with all due respect, I'm posting the individual news outlets and official websites so they can be addressed individually. I apologize if looks like I'm "bombarding" the discussion. MasterKamalKhan (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Al Ra'i (Arabic: الرأي; lit. 'The Opinion'), also spelled Alrai, is an Arabic daily newspaper in Jordan. The Jordan Press Foundation, owner of the Al Rai, is government-owned. It has been regarded as Jordan's newspaper of record.
A newspaper of record is a major national newspaper with large circulation whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered authoritative and independent; they are thus "newspapers of record by reputation" and include some of the oldest and most widely respected newspapers in the world. MasterKamalKhan (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MasterKamalKhan read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. You are doing yourself no favours by spamming this discussion with unformatted URLS and bold-face text. If the subject is notable, this can be demonstrated through a few (probably no more than three) high-reputation independent reliable sources discussing the Prince. Not interviews with him (we attach little significance to interviews with regards to establishing notability), not articles about him meeting some dignitary or other but articles discussing him, in depth. Article in credible sources, not websites that appear to publish flattery for a fee. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I've presented 14 (fourteen) news sources that are considered valid sources by Wikipedia. Just refer to them and you'll see their Wikipedia pages. I'm very sorry but your position disqualifying all the sources without presenting any valid arguments is absurd! Obviously, if he got awards (you have to prove that they were paid, since there's not even a single suspicion published anywhere) like the Honorary citizenship of Petropolis, or the International Sports Hall of Fame! You are literally accusing Evader Holyfield, Jason Statham and Royce Gracie of paying for the award??? Obviously, if he's officially meeting with heads of State and Religion being recognized by his titles, he's notable! Can anyone easily meet those dignitaries? MasterKamalKhan (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are valid, but they only mention him in passing, we need article about this person, not simple portals, photos or church websites. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used as a source a link from the presidential site of Albania about the official meeting with the president, and this article addresses Gharios as a Prince, the President also sent him a letter addressing him as Royal Highness, I tryed to link the web archive on the source, it is number source number 20, but it seems like it didn't work. Here is the link to the letter
There is also the presidential decree on Lebanon authorizing the Royal House to operate in the country, you may arguee that this is not a recognition of his titles, but it is evidence of notability. The page has been edited to remove the decree and other sources that I originally posted from the Lebanese Government
You can argue that none of that proves his titles are real, but you can't say it is not notable. The article is not about Gharios being Prince of Ghassan, the article is about the mand himself, add a section mentioning the controversy on his royal claims (if there is enough notable evidence of this controversy) Leo0274 (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personal communications cannot be cited on Wikipedia, we require published sources. Even if it could be verified (it can't), a letter from the President of Albania would be of no relevance to this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, being officially received by the President of Albania and having the meeting oficially publish in the Presidency website is not notable enough? We need to stablish objective parameters for what notability means. A presidential decree on Lebanon (or any other country) is quite notable. The Official website of the Armenian Orthodox Church seem pretty notable. Leo0274 (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous reliable and independent sources demonstrating Prince Gharios's notability. The main criticism seems to be "it sounds fake" without any evidence that such is the case. Unless the reputable sources can be shown to be falsified, I agree for keeping the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:4C84:1724:8060:7BCB:2538:C39D (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not discussing the validity of his titles or claims, but I presented several inarguably notable sources about him. You are just ignoring it. And if his titles are fake and he is a con artist, that makes him even more notable Leo0274 (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I was trying to say, mere mention of the name and title (I did not argue about the validity of the title) is not equivalent to significant coverage. He is mentioned, but not covered significantly. Prof.PMarini (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE! Prince Gharios is an internationally respected personality, receiving honours from several nations, the Holy See and the United Nations. He is received in audience by presidents, kings, high nobility, patriarchs and the Pope. Notable scholars confirmed the validity of his claim and titles. He is using his orders of chivalry not for personal purposes, but to raise funds for charities, supporting refugees and persecuted Christians in the Middle East. The Royal House of Ghassan is accredited to the U.N. ECOSOC and the Government of Lebanon, where his family is considered as princely and one of the most noble of this nation. Listen to the facts and the experts and not to some wannabe-debunkers and their fake-news! 2A02:8071:5330:78A0:8BE:3587:6509:FE (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that "The Royal House of Ghassan" is accredited by UN ECOSOC is completely bogus. The letter is in the JabalnaMagazine source given elsewhere in the discussion. It clearly states that the organization "Sovereign Imperial and Royal House of Ghassan Inc" has been given consulatative status whatever that means. This doesn't mean accredation or even recognition, it's just that Mr Gharios has registered a company with that name, hence the "Inc" at the end. D1551D3N7 (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page should not be deleted because it is true and legitimate. There are many people out there who may not like Prince Gharios and are doing all their best to have the page deleted. I vote that the page is real and should not be tampered with. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly Fawaz (talk • contribs) 21:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you claim on your user page to have been "Knighted by Prince Gharios", [9] I suspect we'd be best advised take your comments with a pinch of salt... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You would do well to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy instead. AfD discussions are not votes, and they aren't settled through endorsements from accounts created especially to participate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also said this before: the wikipedia article is not about Gharios' claims to any titles, it is about the man himself. A section about a controversy on his claims is welcome to stay published, just find notable and reliable sources of this controversy.
You can't disqualify the Jerusalem Post, the Albanian and the Lebanese Governments, the Global Imams Council and others as not notable sources. And, if Gharios is a fake, that makes him even more notable for having fooled presidents Leo0274 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any RS backing up notability. Seems to be a concerted campaign both before this AfD and during it (socks and SPAs) to get this person an article. DeCausa (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before: So, being officially received by the President of Albania and having the meeting oficially publish in the Presidency website is not notable enough? We need to stablish objective parameters for what notability means. A presidential decree on Lebanon (or any other country) is quite notable. The Official website of the Armenian Orthodox Church seem pretty notable. Leo0274 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. Read GNG. Millions of people are "officially received" by presidents or are subjects of presidential decrees. They count for nothing unless independent secondary sources are discussing those meetings in depth. Anything published by the government about these governmental activities is obviously not independent. Same goes for any other org, like the Armenian Orthodox Church, that has interacted in any way with the subject: not independent = what they say is worthless for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Leo0274 has an undeclared COI with the subject of this discussion. On this Reddit thread(archive) they state "Me and the Prince are coproducing a YouTube channel and online classes about monarchy, and I'm his secretary. The knighthood is for these services and for my efforts on the monarchist movement" D1551D3N7 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly NONE here is even reading the sources provided. I sincerely don't know why wasting everyone's time PRETENDING that there's a debate. You're just, nihilistically denying sources that are valid by Wikipedia itself. But clearly you made up your minds so go ahead and delete the page, but please don't pretend that this is an honest procedure sine you don't even read the articles provided or you'd have, at least, pretending you check anything. It's really sad... MasterKamalKhan (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not as sad as writing your own Wikipedia page or trying to revive some kind of link to a royal family that hasn't existed in 1400 years and then making not one but THREE "Equestrian Orders" and giving yourself the title of "Grand-Master" 😂 D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why I am Reverend Dr. D1551D3N7 Phd MISSP MBA MS MA of the House Baratheon First of His Name, King of the Andals and the First Men and Lord of the Seven Kingdoms. Colonel of Kentucky. Time Person of the Year 2006. Grand Master of the Royal Imperial Equestrian Order of Dinglebats. Lord of the Manor Pennythorne Scotland.
What is really sad are single-purpose accounts barging in with no notion of Wikipedia's notability and civility standards, and no interest in learning them. Once you actually read those standards, we can go from there. The main one here you seem either not to understand or purposefully ignoring is WP:GNG, which holds that a subject is notable if they have received "significant coverage" in multiple independent, third party sources with a reputation for fact checking and reliability. Ravenswing 00:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that simply by "wishful thinking" you seem to discredit sources that are perfectly valid to other Wikipedia pages. None of you are even reading the sources! It's really shameful! Again, go ahead and delete it and don't waste anyone's time pretending to be honest and unbiased! MasterKamalKhan (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have multiple sources that are each reliable, independent, secondary, and in-depth. 1. JPost is a one-sentence trivial passing mention and almost certainly just parroting a self-description anyway N. 2. Muslim Journal is another trivial passing mention regurgitating Masjid Muhammad's (primary, non-independent) description of his visit, written by an employee of Masjid Muhammad N. 3. Zenit does have some secondary background info on the subject, but is predominantly interview-based and thus primary and non-independent. 4. Al-Arab has a lot of details on Ghassanids but nothing more than a single sentence on Gharios; obviously content from Gharios himself is not secondary or independent N. 5. Actuall is a pure Q&A interview; see previous N. 6. An Nahar has a trivial passing mention of Gharios N. 7. Gentleman's Review is another Q&A interview N. 8. Tribuna is a simple namedrop N. 9. Idea isn't accessible but looks to be simply stating what Gharios said at a conference rather than anything about him. 10-13. The official websites of orgs that received, recognized, awarded, or otherwise interacted with Gharios are not independent sources N.A reminder that a source can be perfectly valid to use on Wikipedia but not acceptable to use for establishing notability. JoelleJay (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, most people here aren't going to dig through 15 different sources. I suggest you point out WP:THREE solid sources that you think best demonstrate notability, so the sourcing can be judged on quality rather than quantity. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pretender to a 1000 yr old defunct kingdom, is a new one at AfD. This is vanity spam, the individual is in no way notable. Sourcing is largely in un-RS as explained. We have confirmation of existence, but not notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Gnews shows two press releases, Gsearch is straight to his website, then social media, then an astrology website. This wikipedia article appears to be used as PROMO, to help get higher Gsearch rankings. I'd have tagged this A7 or G11 or... multiple criteria for non-notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Creator blocked for UPE. No coverage of the subject easily found and cited sources don't seem to say anything about the subject but I'm out of my depth assessing notability in this field but none of the clams in the article seem extraordinary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?17:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did some digging, which was a little interesting because of overlap with his name and that of at least one other person. The cited papers on the page currently have very few citations. IMO there is not anywhere near enough here for WP:NPROF. I also don't see any reviews for his book for WP:NAUTHOR. Qflib (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Qflib. Further, in a search via Newsbank (wider and deeper than Google) I did find some 20 articles in the Ogden, Utah, regional paper The Standard-Examiner that reference and/or quote Jones' opinion in relation to allergies, but to me they seem very much ROTM for a community doctor. Nothing to meet WP:PROF. I neither could find any book reviews that would meet WP:AUTHOR. That the page creator has been blocked for UPE leaves an unpleasant taste too. Cabrils (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of an activist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for activists or writers. As always, people are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage about their work in reliable sources independent of themselves. That is, you do not make a writer notable by sourcing her writing to itself as proof that it exists, you make a writer notable by sourcing her writing to coverage and analysis about her writing, such as news articles about her, analytical reviews of her writing in newspapers or magazines or academic journals, and on and so forth -- and you don't make an activist notable by sourcing her activism to the self-published websites of the organizations she has been directly affiliated with, you make an activist notable by sourcing her activism to third-party coverage about it, such as news articles about her, book content about her, and on and so forth. But this is supported entirely by primary sources with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage shown at all: 11 of the footnotes are just the publication details of her own writing, and a 12th is just the publication details of an anthology that one of her pieces was in; one is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which would be acceptable for use if the other sourcing around it were better but does not help to get her over GNG in and of itself per WP:INTERVIEWS; another is just a YouTube video clip of her speaking, which she self-published to her own YouTube channel; and all of the rest is content self-published by non-media organizations she's directly connected to -- which means absolutely none of the footnotes are GNG-compliant at all. Again, the notability test doesn't reside in the things she did, it resides in the amount of GNG-worthy coverage she has or hasn't received about the things she did, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this. Also note that normally I would just have sandboxed this in draftspace as improperly sourced, but another editor has already done that and the creator just immediately unsandboxed it right back into mainspace without actually improving the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of sourcing; there are simply no stories about this individual in RS. This [10] is a student newspaper and this is primary [11]. Most of the sources used in the article aren't useful either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to have started out as draft created by 110347nbtough in November 2020, who subsequently seemed to claim they were Bunasawa himself over on Wikimedia Commons here and here. The draft was then approved by DN27ND about a month later, even though the DN27ND account was only four days old and seems to have no experience as an WP:AFC reviewer. Moreover, DN27ND is an WP:SPA whose primary focus on English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and Japanese Wikipedia has been creating/editing content about Bunasawa; in other words, it seems that the account was specifically and only created for that purpose.I wasn't sure about the subject's Wikipedia notablity per WP:BIO and asked about the article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts#Nori Bunasawa. DN27ND was pinged into the discussion but never responded. It was then suggested on my user talk page that the article be nominated for deletion. I tried some more WP:BEFORE but found nothing resembling significant coverage. I also tried looking at the Japanese Wikipedia article ja:樗沢憲昭 and the Egyptian Arabic Wikiepdia article arz:نورى_بوناساوا but found nothing resembling significant coverage being cited in either of them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Potential COI issues aside, the subject evidently seems to be a notable coach at Olympic and World Championship level, and for US colleges. Other pursuits as a magazine publisher/author and film consultant (?) would probably not rise to notability themselves, but the coverage for all three careers being mostly in 50+ year old newspapers – paired with the subject being otherwise covered by not only non-English, but non-Latin-alphabet, media – would be the AGF reason for fewer substantial sources (which is satisfactory here). The article could do with some clean-up, but from a glancing view I would also say it is not short on sources for its coverage, and that the coverage generally indicates notability. Kingsif (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no conflict of interest. I'm not getting paid by Bunasawa. In order to get leads on sources and information, we do have a working relationship (as a reporter would on their subject) where I could reach out and obtain information. I do have drafts of other judokas in the works but am working on securing their contact information in order to get additional leads to sources and information.
There are multiple sources online in various languages (English, Japanese, Russian, etc.) which indicates notability.
Bunasawa's involvement as a leader of judo in the USA
Bunasawa is notable for his involvement in the sport of judo and for his involvement in the movie industry.
There are no COI issues and I sent him a draft on the article as a courtesy, in order to have a working relationship with him for leads on additional sources and for information regarding judo sports figures of which there will be wiki articles published in the future. DN27ND (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also advised Bunasawa and his newspaper/magazine publishing team to create a wikipedia account in order for them to release some of the photos that they own to wikimedia commons. DN27ND (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I received information that Nori Bunasawa and his newspaper/magazine publishing company owns the photos that he uploaded and that were deleted off of wikimedia commons. DN27ND (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being paid is not the only criterion for conflict of interest. See WP:EXTERNALREL. I think the fact that you have a working relationship with this person and especially that you showed the subject of the article a draft itself (presumably for feedback, considering you asked for leads on missing info) is concerning.
The tone in the article has issues with WP:WTW; "dream team", "talented group", "further his education" are unencyclopedic and lean towards WP:PUFFERY.
Whether or not there actually is a COI is debatable, but even the scent of one can ruin your credibility on Wikipedia. You really should be more cautious in future. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"dream team" is a common phrase that was originally used to describe the 1992 Basketball Olympic team which swept the competition, and then has been adapted by culture to apply to various sports and teams to mean a team that has won by a large margin over opponents. Given the context and the results of the 1969 World Judo Championships in Mexico city, (this only happed twice in the history of the sport) this is an appropriate phrase to use to describe the events.
The phrase is also used in other wikipedia articles
Would it be puffery to describe the 1992 US Olympic dream team as "talented"? Or would it be appropriate to describe any other sports team as talented on wikipedia?
"The team assembled by USA Basketball for the tournament in Barcelona in 1992 was one of the most illustrious collections of talent assembled in the history of international sport"
"USA Basketball officials sought to construct the team dubbed Dream Team III (Dream Team II was the moniker of the lesser-known 1994 FIBA World Championship team) with a winning combination of veteran players from the 1992 Dream Team that won the gold medal in Barcelona and some of the league's best young talent."
"When the first ten players of the 1996 United States Men's national basketball team roster were announced in the summer of 1995, that young talent, and first-time Olympians, included the likes of Penny Hardaway, Grant Hill, Shaquille O'Neal, and Gary Payton"
Regarding the phrase "further his education", there are sources that Bunasawa attended these universities after receiving a bachelors degree. If that isn't further one's education, then what is?
Are you saying that journalists never show their subjects a draft to ensure the correct sequence of events?
We're not journalists. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. We're actually allowed to describe people as talented, but not in Wikipedia's voice per WP:NPOV. You have to attribute those kinds of opinions to notable people, like "journalist x described y as talented". 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also "Dream Team" I can concede on, but other flowery wordings I'm relatively confident in. When you're already bordering on having a COI, you should be paranoid about writing stuff that borders on excessively flattering or flowery, but you're not doing adequate due diligence. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The selection of the word "talent" in that context was to summarize the accomplishments of those selected to be on the 1969 Japan World Judo team and in that particular year. How else would you summarize a collection of people that had multiple world titles, and had multiple Olympic gold medals? In retrospect, even most of the alternatives selected as backups went on to win world titles in subsequent championships. To choose the "talented" word, is this not appropriate considering the results that these players had?
Considering the results of sporting competitions, is it "flowery" to describe Lebron James, Michael Jordan, Tom Brady, Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson, etc., as talented without having to say "journalist x described y as talented".?These sporting figures have won multiple world and Olympic titles in their respective sport.
At the end of the day, we are not journalist but the human aspect still applies. Courtesy and respect towards one's subject goes a long way. Just because a writer chooses to show courtesy and respect towards the subject he is writing about, it doesn't mean there is a COI.
If a person chooses to take more college courses after achieving a Bachelor's degree, how would you describe that if not "furthering his education" ? There is newspaper evidence that Bunasawa was taking more university level courses while simultaneously coaching the varsity judo team.
There is also no "personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial" COI. It is common in journalism to keep good relationships (ie protection of anonymity of whistleblowers) with one's subjects/sources in order to further obtain information from them. There is precedence (especially in sports) of subjects denying access of information to journalists who may be rude, disrespectful, etc. Some of the information taken from newspaper sources, sports media sources (ie ESPN) require journalists to be able to contact sports figures for information. DN27ND (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not journalists. The info on wikipedia articles are not primary sources (birth certificates, actual signed contracts, actual college diplomas, identity cards, actual competition brackets etc). These are citations to newspapers and magazines, which are written by sports journalists or reporters. These are secondary and tertiary sources.
If wikipedia contributors are able to use primary sources, it would make writing these articles easier and actually more accurate (since I could just upload the proof)
Even though we are not journalist, having courtesy and respect towards one's subject could yield leads to information which would make summarizing events easier and more accurate. DN27ND (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since wikipedia contributors aren't allowed to upload primary sources, in essence we are using journalist's opinions (ie journalist from the NY times, OC register, People magazine, Asahi Shimbun, Wall Street Journal, etc) as sources of evidence. Do you think the vetting process to obtain a journalist / reporter pass from these companies is strenuous?
In essence, it would be way easier, "neutral", and encyclopedic if wikipedia contributers were able to use primary sources as evidence rather than secondary, or tertiary sources written by "experts" hired by these media companies. DN27ND (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the results of the 1969 Judo World Championships
Is that not a podium sweep where one team had a decisive victory over the other teams? That is the time of only 2 times this has happened in the sports history. If the phrases "dream team" or "talented group" is not appropriate to describe the sporting results. Perhaps those words need to be censored from all other wikipedia articles about sports where these words have been used to describe competition results. DN27ND (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That 1969 World Judo team had multiple World and Olympic champions on them. In the sport of judo, the World Championships are regarded as a more difficult achievement than the Olympics due to their respective qualification processes. DN27ND (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also many other newspaper and magazine articles that show Bunasawa's notability on the wikipedia article.
Rezell, John (March 3, 1988). "Top Judo Instructor comes to the defense of self-defense". Orange County Register.
"Judo". Orange Network. 385: 7. April 2023.
New Judo Instructor at 'Y' Here". Indiana Evening Gazette. February 21, 1975
"Instructor on Show". Rogers Daily News. April 1975.
I could scan these newspaper articles and send them to you. Or you can go into the library archives and look them up yourself.DN27ND (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: I didn't question the person's notability. I'm questioning COI and your understanding of Wikipedia's editing style. These walls of text and excessive bolding are not necessary; I can read. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the original poster (Marchjuly) did question notability and it is part of this page's discussion
People have occupations, other obligations, and commenting on wikipedia doesn't pay the bills. I'm not sure if Marchjuly was expecting an immediate response or what? DN27ND (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found 11 published reviews of 4 books (one mathematics, three Freemasonry). That would ordinarily be enough for a full keep from me, except that three of the books are edited rather than authored and that doesn't count for as much. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add later: I also found one more review of an authored work but in a Freemasonry journal (nine of the other reviews are in mainstream publications). Perhaps that counts less? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on WP:BIO1E. Axsmith's notability stems from a single incident: her firing following a 2006 blog post. There has yet to be the kind of steady coverage that shows a broader notability. There are also no writings or citations related to her work. Thus, the article does not meet WP:BIO. The lack of sustained coverage or impact in her field supports the case for deletion. It's crucial to remember that this platform's content focuses on subjects that have lasting significance.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be a writer for Daily Kos now, but that's not terribly notable. The firing got into the news cycle almost 20 yrs ago, but nothing since. I don't see sustained notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't have enough coverage from independent, reliable sources to show she's notable. The current information is too sparse to meet WP:N. Yakov-kobi (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the author is notable. I can't find enough independent reliable secondary sources covering his work. --Xexerss (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG - non-notable researcher lacks significant coverage, in both reliable and non-reliable sources. Article seems autobiographical, with 20/25 sources being written by the subject. Couruu (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this article needs significant alteration and removal of unreliable sources in places, the subject is the Villum Kann Rasmussen Professor, a named professorship, at IT University of Copenhagen. This seems to me to meet C5 of WP:NPROF, which is sufficient to establish notability. Again, the article needs substantial editing but the subject appears to be notable. Qflib (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keepWP:SK3 totally faulty nomination fails to even consider the appropriate notability criterion, WP:PROF, which is independent of GNG. Massive citation counts give him an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 and named professorships at two universities pass #C5. He also appears to pass WP:AUTHOR with multiple published reviews of his books. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proposing a WP:TNT in that case then. I missed PROF, and thank you for pointing it out - but given the sockpuppet's intense involvement in the article's current state, the extreme citespam, promotional tone, and general poor quality of the article, the article needs nuking from orbit and rebuilding by a SME. Couruu (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DINC. TNT is only for cases where there is nothing salvageable, far from the case here. The detailed descriptions of what his work is about lack independent sources and should be properly sourced or trimmed but otherwise the article looks factual and uncontroversial to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how he's notable under WP:GNG, nor do I believe there should be an exception for academics. It's also promotional - it's not really an encyclopedia article. SportingFlyerT·C22:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your failure to abide by established Wikipedia's guidelines and consensus is nobody's problem but your own, and is misplaced here, where to have any weight arguments should be based on those things and not on personal opinion. But, to be explicit: there are many published works that go in depth into his work (in particular the book reviews I alluded to above). Or are WP:BEFORE and WP:DINC, and the existence of sources beyond what is already in the article, another part of the established guidelines and consensus that you reject? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, being able to have articles on cricketers who appeared in any first class match were once Wikipedia's established guidelines and consensus. Consensus can change. SportingFlyerT·C07:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the clear WP:NPROF pass through both citations (80,000 citations, including twelve over 1,000 and one over 20,000) and holding a named chair, there is also a good argument for an WP:NAUTHOR pass as a brief spot-check returned a number of reviews for his books. Academics generally do not receive coverage in the same way as celebrities and politicians, but (especially for those like this, who are at the absolute top of their field) are mission critical for us to cover. Curbon7 (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:PROF as argued above, and with three books (one co-authored) that are each widely reviewed enough to meet WP:NBOOK individually, WP:AUTHOR is satisfied as well. One tap of the delete key removed the promotionalism, so WP:TNT is no longer a concern. I did some trimming on the articles about the books as well. XOR'easter (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
should be deleted due to the lack of significant independent coverage that meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG), relying instead on primary sources, company related news and not significant mentions. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect: to Nyasa Times, the company that the subject found. Subject has enough WP:GNG. For example here reported by the Telegraph, subject won theBlack British Business Person of the Year award in 2021. I also found this where subject is being the founder and the Chief Executive Officer of Malawi's leading online publication, the Nyasa Times that he found in 2006. This could be used to sustain the article per (WP:NEXIST). --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interviews are a poor way to establish notability and if he owns the Nyasa Times then it isn't independent enough to establish notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle Alternatively, it makes sense to redirect it to their company on Wikipedia that the subject found, thus Nyasa Times. Again, not all sources are interviews. Furthermore, this AfD was made by someone at random who was even reported at ANI here and there is even a discussion on their talk page about their nominations. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose a redirect. I looked at the references now. I presumed the sources you mentioned were the strongest sources. The strongest source appears to be the Yorkshire Evening Post but it isn't enough for notability in my opinion. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's regrettable that this page has remained on Wikipedia for so long. It relies exclusively on primary sources and blog posts. Drunvalo Melchizedek lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. There are no serious reviews of his self published books. Consensus was deletion after a previous nomination in 2012. Not much has changed. He might be well known in New Age pseudoscience circles but there is nothing of substance for a Wikipedia page. Ynsfial (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AFD is inaccurate as this is not the same page from 2012. It was recreated from scratch with available info in 2019. Also, the AFD does not actually give any specific grounds for deletion except what sounds like personal disdain, which WP needs to be above. In fact, the deletion submission itself admits topical notability. Whether said topical area is bad or good is not relevant to encyclopedic inclusion. - Keith D. Tyler¶12:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to give my AFD a second read. My specific grounds for deletion are clearly stated. Drunvalo Melchizedek lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, which I determined after checking for coverage of him online. Second of all, as an author and researcher, his work lacks serious reviews, though I recognize this is just one aspect of author notability criteria that he fails to meet. He doesn't seem to meet the others either. I'm not sure what you mean about topical notability. A TikToker every other teen is familiar with is well known to many people. But if there isn't much serious coverage of them they aren't encyclopedically notable. If you believe he meets the notability criteria, please provide a few credible sources this.Ynsfial (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have already added more references to this article to show notability. She has been written about in the Australian press with some brief bios in those articles. She advised the Federal Government and argued for innovative labour policies for women long before they were legislated by government such as paid maternity leave, flexible working hours, better access to child care. I will add more to her article later.LPascal (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this page for deletion again because the initial discussion lacked sufficient engagement and the sources provided were inadequate in both quality and quantity. There's a notable absence of substantial coverage of Imre Vallyon, his work, or his organisation in multiple reliable secondary sources. Meeting notability criteria typically requires presenting at least three such sources. The article from Stuff, while primarily focused on his legal issues, appears to be the only source that meets these criteria. Without it, the page is mostly information sourced by primary sources and a list of his self published books and ebooks.
In terms of Vallyon's notability as a writer, the two book reviews presented by Oaktree b in the previous discussion are clearly poor sources, as they seem to be paid content from freelance writers on unreliable websites. Additionally, Vallyon does not meet the criteria for notability as a criminal according to Wikipedia guidelines on crime perpetrators, despite the only significant coverage of him focusing on his legal issues. His organisation, FHL, does not seem to meet the notability standards either. Ynsfial (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Ynsfial - it seems pointless making multiple attempts to have this article deleted as the previous Afd covered the arguments in sufficient depth. I suggest you look at the deletion review process if you consider there is an issue. NealeWellington (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, deletion review is the wrong avenue here. It was a no consensus close, and closed over 2 months ago. It is perfectly fine to bring it back for another look. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Looks like an attempt to delete the history to me. It happened before that talented people did crimes (Roman Polansky etc.) and encyclopedia must show the good and the bad. There had been "no consensus" discussion before and my position here is that the person is a notable author and notable criminal and convicted felon at the same time. Also, I see it as a strange attempt from another editor and I have COI concerns here. If the page stays, I suggest to monitor it carefully for any future attempts to delete the historical record.--Saul McGill (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2024 (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. None of the Keep views offer P&G-based rationale, and the page clearly does not qualify for "Speedy keep" under WP:SKCRIT. However, after almost three weeks, there is limited support for deletion, with no consensus likely to materialize by drawing this out any longer. Owen×☎22:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The baseless accusations of bad faith and bias have me suspicious, and I also suspect that the keep side is engaged in stealth canvassing and votestacking to try and keep an article that clearly doesn't meet the Wikipedia GNG. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His books appear to be self-published but that would be ok if there were reliably published reviews of them. I couldn't find any. The sources in the article now include a book review, but of someone else's book and mentioning Ferris only in passing. The only in-depth source that we have is a local-news obituary, appearing to be a family-written obituary rather than a work of independent journalism. That's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you telling me that the book Métis and the Medicine Line: Creating a Border and Dividing a People, with the author listed as Michel Hogue on the cover, is really by Kade Ferris? Because that is the book whose review I was referring to. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Right. I clocked that the first time I read your comment, but the second time I read it, I read it the other way. I can add the other book reviews (of his book) and also quote from at least one other book I found. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see that the review in American Indian Children's Literature got removed from the article as a source. I am adding it back. While the site itself could be construed as a blog, the reason this particular blog qualifies as a reliable source per WP:BLOGS, is that it is produced by Debbie Reese, who is an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I expanded it to include more about the impact of his tribal history preservation work and the impact that has on reservations, ND and MN educational standards and added information about his mapping skills. oncamera (talk page)08:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His written work as an author and oral traditions that he embedded within his maps, blogs, and recorded videos for the state of North Dakota established notability. He was a respected tribal historian and elder knowledge keeper and professional work reflects that. oncamera (talk page)21:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been puffed up with some 30 footnotes, most of which do not seem to be the sort of in-depth independent and reliably-published coverage of the subject that could be used to pass WP:GNG. Of the ones that actually mention Ferris or his works in their title, "Kade Ferris's Gift" is an interview (not usually counted as independent), the Red Lake Nation News obituary reads like a family-written obituary (not independent), the Mendoza book review is in a blog (not reliably published), Teachings of Our Elders is by him not about him, and Archaeologist presents has no depth of coverage of Ferris. Perhaps, per WP:THREE, advocates of keeping the article could save us the effort of similarly evaluating all 30 of the footnotes and point us to three sources that are actually in-depth, independent, and reliably-published? I'm looking for a small number of high-quality sources, at most three, not many low-quality sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe, thanks for asking. I'd say that these sources are strong: 1) Obit from the Indigenous news press, BobaaMaajimowinan (Telling of the News in Different Places)Red Lake Nation News[12]; 2) Obit in the peer-reviewed academic journal, Minnesota History (can be read on JSTOR via WP:LIB) [13]; 3) The Extra, a newspaper covering Red River Valley, eastern North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota areas, on Ferris' book on Charles Bender [14]; 4) The Indigenous radio program, Minnesota Native News on Ferris' contributions to children's literature [15]; 5) Voice of America[16]; 6) Book review in American Indians in Children's Literature (which unfortunately is published thru blogspot, so it may not count since it's a blog) [17]; among others....please have a look at the improved article along with the current sourcing when you find a moment (sorry I don't have the time right now to list more). However there is less coverage but still solidly sourced: 3-minute PBS (Arizona) discussion with Ferris re: Indigenous reconciliation and cultural healing. The book review on Hogue's book on the Métis includes a quote Ferris as an expert on Métis culture. Some of the other sources are primary sources, such as press releases, or Indigenous human rights and environmental justice publications where he is called up on as an expert, for example this [18] from the Minnesota government's website. To my way of thinking he is clearly notable, and especially so in Indigenous Native American communities as an important leader and thinker, which is just as important as "mainstream American" culture. Netherzone (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This article was already extremely well cited, but I added an infobox and a little bit more. His notability stems from his tribal historic preservation work which is interdisciplinary (history, anthropology, archaeology, policy making, language advocacy, etc.) Yuchitown (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please address the discussion above about lack of high-quality sourcing, rather than merely asserting that "This article was already extremely well cited" when clearly it isn't? It has many sources but that misses the point. We need a small number of high-quality sources, and continuing to add larger numbers of low-quality sources only makes notability harder to discern by hiding the good sources in a big pile of dross. It would be better to remove both the low-quality sources and the material sourced to them so that we can focus on the essentials. The sources you added (his own dissertation and a web page about someone else that mentions him in passing) do not contribute to notability according to Wikipedia's standards for notability, which are not based on the work the subject might have done but rather on the depth of coverage of the subject in sources that are independent of him and meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate the suggestion that tribal newspapers are "low-quality sources." Like I wrote, his notability is based on being a THPO, so it's interdisciplinary. He was not just a writer. While several pieces (Red Lake Nation News, Minnesota Native News) focus on him specifically, even if these didn't exist, Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. He has contributed "part of the enduring historical record" of the Métis people. Yuchitown (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tribal newspapers are as reliable as any other newspaper. But when a local newspaper (tribal or not) runs an obituary that reads like the sort of obituary written by a family member to announce a death, rather than the kind of obituary that major newspapers write themselves when famous people die, it doesn't count much towards notability. For one thing, if it is indeed written by family, it is not an independent source. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.... even if these didn't exist, Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". He has contributed "part of the enduring historical record" of the Métis people. Yuchitown (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So much a part of the enduring historical record that the only Wikilink to him from any other article is a an unsourced sentence about him in an article about a village in Lebanon, stating that he is also of Lebanese descent, something that appears nowhere in the Kade Ferris article itself? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's an issue to you, you can help expand topics on Turtle Mountain, the Ojibwe or Metis history and credit/wikilink his article from those edits. Wikipedia needs more editors in that area. oncamera (talk page)10:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think the Métis have an interesting history that deserves to be better-known, but I have no special expertise in that area, and I have even less knowledge of Turtle Mountain or the Ojibwe.
Incidentally, I can find no evidence that Kade Ferris had any connection to Lebanon, outside of a few unreliable web sources. I have removed the link to him from the Lebanese village article. His mother was from Minnesota and his father was originally from the Turtle Mountain Reservation. I suspect his father, Albert Ferris, may have some notability as an artist. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just came across this AfD and don't entirely feel experienced enough with guidelines to vote either way, but I'd like to note that Ferris' work on map decolonization and geographic technologies (as THPO for the Red Lake Nation) was significant enough that he gave a full-fledged presentation at the Council for Minnesota Archaeology's 2023 annual conference, entitled "Creating a Virtual Database for Regional Tribal Resource Management and Consultation". I don't know if, for example, a program (with an abstract of his talk) from the conference (the most important one on Minnesota archaeology, as far as I know) would count towards GNG, but I do have such a document if uploading it somewhere could prove useful. Thanks. SunTunnels (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that giving a lecture or presentation at a conference is a stand-out event. Doing that is an ordinary part of an academic's job. The only exceptions would be instances where being selected to give the lecture is itself a high honor, like when a national academic society invites someone to do the Annual So-and-so Memorial Lecture. That can be an indication that the field regards the person's work as particularly important. XOR'easter (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please address the question of notability per cited sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎15:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
False. There are still zero WP:GNG-contributing sources: sources that provide in-depth content about Ferris, are written independently of their subjects, and are reliably published. None of the previous keep comments have even attempted to address those requirements of GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Kade Ferris was a distinguished archaeologist, anthropologist and historian, one of the first Indigenous archaeologists in the U.S. I've made some improvements, including adding a book review and an obit in an academic journal. He clearly meets criterion #2 of WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC and also nows meet GNG. As an aside, I find it really quite odd that the nominator would assume that It seems this page was made by friends of the article's subject especially given the fact that such a new editor, with only 40 total edits (the majority of which were to the article or this AfD) would make such a comment. I guess I'm also a little curious how they learned by their 20th edit how to produce an AfD so quickly. Nominator, do you yourself have a connection to the subject of the article and why would you make such a statement? Netherzone (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are tutorials on how to nominate discussions for AfD. I simply read them and the Wikipedia GNG in full. I also do think the keep side is possibly engaging in stealth canvassing to try and votestack to keep a article that clearly fails the GNG. The baseless accusations of bias have me suspicious. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Adding "Strong" in front of your !vote, or casting aspersions at the nom, will not give your view more weight. Highlighting sources that provide WP:SIGCOV will. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎19:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An obituary in a history journal and status as one of the first indigenous archaeologists are compelling. Good articles like this go a long way toward correcting long-standing biases on Wikipedia. 172.9.46.64 (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What biases are you referring to? Are you implying that this is bias instead of this figure not meeting notability guidelines? Do you have any evidence of bias or is this a baseless accusation? This article was not nominated for deletion in bad faith. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been discussions on here and elsewhere in response to a scholarly paper written about the bias against topics about Indigenous people and history. Wikipedia Signpost. And Netherzone did bring up questions about how this account with limited edits would know how to nominate for deletion which was not addressed by the OP. oncamera (talk page)22:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there is one "delete" vote and three "keep" votes plus one "leaning keep." The article has been vastly improved since nomination. This conversation has dragged on for more than two weeks now. Yuchitown (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How much canvassing was done to try and prevent this article which clearly fails the Wikipedia GNG from being deleted was done I wonder? Not one person who voted "keep" has explained how Ferris's article meets the GNG, which it does not. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed his concerns just now. I have read the Wikipedia GNG, the AfD tutorial, and the section about stealth canvassing on Wikipedia, something I suspect is going on here with the keep side. The baseless accusations of bias and bad faith have me suspicious, and no one can tell me how the article meets the GNG. It seems to fall back on my edit count, which has nothing to do with the AfD discussion at hand. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I never interacted with, knew, or worked for Ferris, but for a brief period I watched some of his work from afar. The history journal obit that IP 172.9.46.64 linked to is in my opinion good evidence of what I anecdotally have observed, which is that Ferris did some groundbreaking work that was recognized by his archaeologist and historian peers. Unfortunately for his Wikipedia article, Ferris also worked in an often-overlooked discipline (tribal historic preservation) that doesn't frequently make it into the kind of secondary sources that Wikipedia values for notability purposes. I think a good chunk of that is due to broader systemic biases, absolutely, but I suppose that's not what we're discussing here. Wikipedia's notability standards are likely different from what we as individuals may think makes a person notable. Even so, I think the journal Minnesota History writing "Kade was one of the first THPOs and native archaeologists in the country [....] His dedication to the work in the fields of history, archaeology, and tribal preservation led to his assistance in the development of many THPOs across the region" demonstrates notability by Wikipedia's standards. I can absolutely see how others may disagree, however. SunTunnels (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you agree the article doesn't meet the Wikipedia GNG. There are no systemic biases here. This article was nominated for deletion because it doesn't meet the GNG. Also I wonder how much stealth canvassing was going on to try and keep this article, since baseless accusations of bad faith deletion discussion and bias keep getting brought up. If there were bias why would I point out that Chief Bender clearly meets the GNG while Ferris does not? OldDiddlyBop (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. The last two sentences of my Keep post clearly state that I believe Ferris meets notability standards, in this case GNG. I believe, given what I understand about WP:GNG, that (for example) the Minnesota History obit presents non-trivial coverage of Ferris by a reliable source (MNHS's historical journal) independent from Ferris himself. That is my stated position for the moment and I'm happy to engage in further discussion around that.
Let me be clear in saying I do not believe you are personally biased in nominating Ferris' article here; I think you're just trying to improve Wikipedia in ways you believe are constructive, and I respect that. When I talk about systemic bias, I am referring to the very real issues Wikipedia broadly has in discussing and incorporating indigenous knowledge and indigenous history; see [19], or [20], or [21] for more. The way society at large treats indigenous knowledge, and the way it does or doesn't spotlight indigenous leaders and thinkers, is a real issue that I believe Wikipedia needs to grapple with at some point. But that's somewhat irrelevant to the specifics of this case; I just think it's good to be aware of, since it can affect how people like Ferris are written about in the kinds of sources Wikipedia values.
If you believe Ferris fails GNG, that is perfectly understandable and you are welcome to make your case for that viewpoint — indeed you have here done so, although I'm not certain that writing seven different comments on this AfD page within the span of an hour is the best way to go about it. But that's just my two cents. As for your suggestions that stealth canvassing is taking place, I'd appreciate it if you could either substantiate such claims or refrain from making them. I can only speak for myself, but I found this discussion while I was Googling Kade Ferris for unrelated reasons and came across his Wikipedia article. I have not communicated with any other Wikiuser off-wiki about this Ferris discussion, and you can check for yourself that my talk page doesn't have any Ferris-related content (as of when I wrote this reply). Cheers. SunTunnels (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The article has clearly been improved since it was nominated and I'm suprised it hasn't been closed yet. I can't really fathom any reason to delete it now that it has a massive number of sources and clearly meets GNG.
How has it been improved? How does Ferris have lasting notability and meet the Wikipedia GNG? BTW I do suspect there might be a little canvassing going on to try and keep this article. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OldDiddlyBop, How has it been improved you ask...... This is the state of the article when you nominated it for deletion: [22] - it was a short stub; and this is the state of the article now: Kade Ferris, which Rater Tool assesses at a "B" class. There is a very significant difference, and many reliable sources added in addition to the expansion of content. I'm not sure what you are looking at but it seems quite evident that the Heymann Standard clearly applies. WP:HEY. Read the sources in the current article to understand how he meets GNG, which cover more than five years.
Also, OldDiddly Bop, you never answered the question why you think this article was "made by friends of the article's subject" that kind of a claim would need to be backed up with diffs or evidence. And also please add diffs as to why you think there is canvassing going on. And why you think Votestacking is taking place. Please kindly respond to these inquiries and present evidence. Netherzone (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2024 (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.
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. None of the sources are about him. Sources (and much of the content) are about taitrs. Material on him is just resume type material. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to answer with respect to what you are seeing because there have been 104 edits to the article since I nominated this. But I did evaluate them at the time. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a lot was added after you nominated this, including several refs, but much of it was WP:PROMO, fluff, repetition, and stuff about the genre of theatre that, I think, has no direct relevance to D'Lima's career. I tried to reduce the promo, cruft, repetition and tangential stuff, but someone else should review the refs to see if they actually discuss Liima's life or career at all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new additions to the article since it's nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still no review of additions to the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Subject did receive an award Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism. Source 1 is a book review, source 2 is a blog, source 3 has a passing comment made by the subject himself, source 4 is a review by subject himself, source 5 is a bio written by subject himself, source 6 is more on bio written by subject himself, source 7 is a link to Ramnath Goenka Award and source 8 is a book written by subject himself. Many unreliable and primary sources here. Draftify would be an option to improve the page with secondary independent sources and remove primary sources like the reviews by the subject himself and the interview with the subject.RangersRus (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOI makes it under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I still do not find his books a significant monument or been a substantial part of a significant exhibition or won wide significant critical attention by well known peers and critics in secondary independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOI falling under NEWSORGINDIA is an interpretation that I respect but with which I disagree in this case (not great journalism but not simply unreliable). The fact that the author of the book is one of the film critics of the Hindustan Times also indicates the article in the TOI should be rather independent.-- -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank: The article from TOI doesn't look like a review at all; it seems more like a promotional piece or an announcement. Additionally, the article was published by PTI. I don't think he meets WP:AUTHOR. GrabUp - Talk16:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note about the Times of India: The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I should have mentioned that I hapeen to have been the creator of this page many years back. I actually didn't even remember I was the one who created it, as I've created numerous pages for notable Indian film critics. As someone who has worked on Indian cinema-related articles, I can attest to the relevance of his reviews on dozens of film articles, including several FAs. Him being an author as well as the winner of a notable award only consolidates my position. Shahid • Talk2me18:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are considered primary non-independent source. Independent sources helps to fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. If you use interviews as source for any statement made by the subject then the subject's statements needs to be cited with secondary independent source as well. Wikipedia:Independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh: Padma Shri does not establish notability. I wanted the names of some awards that establish notability and are given to more than 20 people every year. GrabUp - Talk15:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No award in the world "establishes" notability in and of itself; notable awards indicate notability, they attest to the recepient's notabiltiy. The notability is established by the professional achievments the award was given for. Shahid • Talk2me09:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not convinced that he meets any notability criteria. He fails WP:ANYBIO, as the award is not exclusive, with more than 20 people receiving it. Receiving the award first or last does not make it exceptional or add to notability. Regarding WP:AUTHOR, The Times of India is not a review, merely a short promotional or announcement piece with no author, published by the Press Trust of India (PTI), therefore, it does not meet WP:AUTHOR criteria. The person does not meet the General Notability Guideline, which is already known. Also, I don't understand how interviews with celebrities establish notability. GrabUp - Talk09:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer. Keep votes are more focused on the subject's notability because of an award (not national award) but there is no argument on the unreliability of the sources on the page that are blogs, interviews with no secondary sources as attribution and self written reviews by the subject himself and part of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Two keep votes consider him notable but have no argument as to why and the two other keep vote (including the creator of the page) do not have opinion on the argument about the page and the unreliable sources that fails WP:GNG. I think the page is at best Delete but Draftify is also an option if there is any scope of improvement with secondary independent reliable sources. If this page stays a keep, then likely it opens a Pandora box to use unreliable sources like blogs and interviews and self published reviews on other pages or newly generated pages. RangersRus (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don’t understand why they are not providing good arguments for their Keep votes. It looks like @Atlantic306 is just here to go along with the majority. The question raises because how can he call it a ‘national award’? Additionally, they are posting low effort delete votes and not giving any counterarguments, which raises some questions in my mind. GrabUp - Talk02:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are not obligated to satisfy me, but to build consensus, they should explain further why and how the subject meets some notability criteria. Being a "National award" does not establish notability, such as the Padmashri Award, which is a national award, but the majority of the recipients are not notable and don’t have articles. Giving low effort votes does not really help to build consensus in every AfDs. GrabUp - Talk13:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK and US a national award means it relates to the scope of a whole country not that it is given by the government. For example the Oscars and Grammy Awards are national awards that are given by private organisations, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The award is not exclusive enough to establish notability. Every year, more than 20 people receive the award. Are they also notable for this award? I don’t think so. GrabUp - Talk16:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they might be notable. The UK Awards are given by a private organization. National, especially in the Indian context, means the recepients may be chosen from across all states and not just locally. The Ramnath Goenka Award is given by a notable organization which has existed for almost a century. The award might not necessarily establish notability in and of itself (although I think it should), but everything else about the subject certainly does. Shekhar is also a member of the CBFC, he writes for notable publications, he hosts programs where big stars are being interviewed (see Hitlist on YT), he has authored two books which received media coverage. I can't see the harm in having a Wikipedia article on this person even with half of these achievements. I do admit I'm an inclusionist. :) I strongly believe WP can and should cover as much as possible. The spirit of WP, as I think of it, lies in its ongoing goal to become a robust center of knowledge, where minimal restrictions are put on inclusion of information. Shahid • Talk2me13:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh: Being a member of the CBFC does not meet any notability criteria. Writing for a notable publication does not meet any notability criteria. Hosting big stars in a program or interviewing them does not meet any notability criteria. Lastly, his book has not received enough media coverage to be considered notable, nor have his books been reviewed by any notable media organization that would allow it to meet WP:AUTHOR.
I want to ask where it is written in Wikipedia’s notability guidelines that being a member of the CBFC, writing for a notable publication, hosting big stars in a show, or taking interviews makes a person notable. I don’t have a problem with your intent to include everything on Wikipedia, but there are rules that should be followed. Why keep a subject that has not met any notability criteria set by Wikipedia guidelines? GrabUp - Talk15:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He does meet notability guidelines, because all these positions do not work individually but as a group. Going by your opening sentence, no critic/journalist is notable. Anyway, we should agree to disagree. Shahid • Talk2me09:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh: My comment was: Journalists or critics are not inherently notable; they have to pass some sort of guidelines, such as GNG, JOURNALIST, AUTHOR, or similar, for an article in Wikipedia. You said, "because all these positions do not work individually but as a group. Going by your opening sentence," where is it written that these types of works or positions make a person notable, whether in a group or individually? GrabUp - Talk11:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N, WP:GNG is my answer. We wouldn't have known all of this had this not been published in reliable sources. And above all, common sense is an option. I will reiterate for you: he has won a notable award, he is a member of the CBFC, he writes for several notable publications, he hosts programs where big stars are being interviewed (see Hitlist on YT), he has authored two books which received media coverage, he is a film critic whose reviews are being quoted, and his work has made him the interviewee, as we can see. If you're not convinced, which I think is going to be case anyway, let's agree to disagree. Shahid • Talk2me09:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three awards are now reported by reliable sources (another one added just now). I can't think of many non-notable writers/authors whose books get a full review on India's most popular entertainment portal. Shahid • Talk2me22:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t see the full review. These are promotional. The Asian Age article contains only statements from the subject and is not an independent article. The newly added source The Print is a press release and is not at all independent nor reliable per WP:PRSOURCE. Please share your “reliable sources” here. GrabUp - Talk01:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you can see it or not, it's there. The Asian Age is a legitimate interview. I really don't get the analysis here of independent or not given it's a film critic we're talking about. A notable one, of course. With all due respect, I don't accept your subjective analysis of the sources. Shahid • Talk2me09:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do interviews start to pass GNG? To pass GNG, independent in-depth coverage of the subject is required. How is this a subjective analysis? The article is just full of quotes from the subject or what you call interviews. Interviews do not help to establish notability at all. Read WP:INTERVIEWS, which states, "They may be used for sourcing some facts amid a mixture of sourcing types, but a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have." The subject actually does not have independent sources. GrabUp - Talk10:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've said enough on this. I'm really busy. You and the other user haven't managed to convince anyone except each other. Shahid • Talk2me11:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, The Print’s ANI press release was provided by SRV Media, a PR company known for sponsored promotional publishing. Therefore, this article falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and cannot help meet GNG. None of the sources cited in the article are reliable, independent secondary sources. GrabUp - Talk02:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You must be kidding - The Print is an online newspaper and the article cited is just used for the overage of the awards. All you said here is mere speculation. Shahid • Talk2me09:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That shows you have not seen any articles and are just arguing blindly. If you read the end of the article, it is clearly mentioned, “This story is provided by SRV Media. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of this article. (ANI/SRV Media)” And since you are acting like you don’t know anything, here is what SRV Media’s website says: “A well-written press release informs and positions your brand as an authority in your industry, enhancing credibility and trust among your audience.” GrabUp - Talk10:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I went to RSN about the source he wanted and mentioned that he wants to establish notability with that article, he immediately came to my talk page telling me to remove the word. Closer can see this. He says he has no time when I ask him to provide an independent, reliable source but has time to argue and tell people to remove things. After all this, he agreed at RSN that the article is a press release. GrabUp - Talk11:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is notable regardless of whether this specific article is a press release. I think we should let this AfD run its course and see what other people think. Shahid • Talk2me12:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources can’t really establish notability (unless any additional criteria is met). You are unable to provide any secondary independent sources but are claiming this article is notable. You are replying to everything but saying you have no time when asked to provide independent sources, and acting like you have, but actually have not. Anyways, I will leave it to the closer to decide. GrabUp - Talk17:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with your points when seen specifically, but disagree about the outcome where all the criteria are taken together. I think I have made my point clear and so have you. Shahid • Talk2me22:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article cites in-depth coverage of the subject's books and his criticism. He is mainly known for his work, which is common enough. The same could be said of the poet Homer or the playwright Shakespeare. Mayank Shekhar is clearly notable as a film critic. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not cite multiple reliable secondary independent sources with indepth coverage on subject's book. It is very clear to me that you did not review the page. Subject's comparison with Homer and Shakespeare is bizarre. RangersRus (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer. Please do not consider consensus based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. Keep votes have not made any logical and policy based arguments. The last keep vote by Aymatth2 before this note makes me suspicious of off-wiki canvassing who hasn't voted on an AFD for as far back as I can check and to just appear and make vote on this only AFD today just adds to suspicion. The creator of the page who voted for keep admitted that he is inclusionist and that is why his stance is amoral and disingenuous. Please assess the discussion and review the page and sources on the page for final consensus before closing this AFD. RangersRus (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Amoral and disingenuous"? As I've noted to the other user, please assume good faith on other participants here. The fact that they do not agree with you doesn't mean their arguments are not "logical". This is an AfD where no one is obligated to satisfy his voting peers. Please note it is your second note to the closer; I'm sure the closer will consider the entire discussion without us repeating ourselves. Also remember that if the article does not have enough good sources, although I think it does, it doesn't mean deletion is the right course of action; improvement is. With respect to inclusionism, beliving in it is totally allowed on WP as long as you follow policy - I have used above policy-based arguments and said that in my view this article meets notability guidelines. Shahid • Talk2me22:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enough good sourcing? Not a single independent, reliable secondary source is cited. Please share if you find any. Just promotional, Sponsored, NEWSORGINDIA, full of sayings of the subject. GrabUp - Talk02:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the Bollywood Hungama source, there is just a single piece, which cannot make the book notable as it requires multiple independent reviews. GrabUp - Talk02:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop replying to me in several places, especially when I call out another user for inappropriate conduct. You say the same above. Shahid • Talk2me09:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I wouldn't be opposed to draftifying if there is an editor who wants to work on the article. Source 1: A full review of the subjects book. reliable, independent, and significant coverage. Source 2: An WP:ABOUTSELF blog, reliable but not independent. Source 3: A passing mention which is a quote from the subject, reliable - not independent - not significant coverage. Source 4: This is by the subject themselves, reliable but not independent. Source 5: A piece about the subjects book, reliable - not independent as it mostly an interview. This is the Asia Age sources mention above. Source 6: By the subject, not independent. Source 7: By the subject, not independent. Source 8: One line noting they won the Ramnath Goenka award for 'Films and Television (Print)', this seems notable per WP:ANYBIO point 1 but that doesn't guarantee inclusion it only mean they are likely notable. Source 9: A press release, reliable but not independent. Source 10: A book by the subject, reliable but not independent. There are two more sources mentioned in this discussion. Two book reviews one by SpectralHues and another by Times Of India. SpectralHues is not a book review site, per it's 'Our services' page[23] it offers services including Content Management, SEO, SEM, Website Designing & Development, Social Media Marketing and Book Promotion. It's not a reliable or independent source. The Times India review is quite short and I fear could be promotional. So there is one reliable, independent source with significant coverage that has been mentioned so far, and that is a review of one of their works and I can't find any other online sources that would contribute. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New sources have been added to the article and mentioned below. Source 1: A review of the same book as source 1 in my first comment. Not significant coverage. Source 2: Again a review of the same book. Again reliable, independent, and significant coverage-ish. Source 3: A blog by the subject, obviously not independent. Source 4: Subject is named dropped in the article, not significant. Source 5: Again a passing mention, not significant. That makes two sources so far that are reliable, independent and have significant coverage, and both are reviews about a book not the subject. That might contribute to showing the book is notable per WP:NBOOK, but I still don't see enough for the subject of the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°16:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Update - five more sources have been added, just using a basic search online, including additional book reviews and pieces reviewing his film criticism and calling him a noted film critic. The latest vote seems like an effective source review, but my point has been all along - if the page can be improved, and it can, it needs improvement, not deletion. WP:BEFORE please. If I thought he was notable before, now I'm convinced of it. Shahid • Talk2me12:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources you are referring to as "Book Reviews" are not book reviews at all.
2. Are film critics 'retards'?: Just a passing mention, not a significant source, and no in-depth coverage, so no notability criteria are met.
3. Breakups, Twitter style: Again, it's just a passing mention, so it can't meet any notability criteria.
4. An Insider’s View of the Film Censor Board: Blog article by the subject himself, as it was under the domain of 'india.blogs.nytimes.com.' So, it is a primary source and does not meet any notability criteria.
I don't find any of these sources to be good for meeting any notability criteria, such as GNG. Obviously, passing mentions can't generate notability. GrabUp - Talk12:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 of the sources you added are from TelegraphIndia and these are Paperback Pickings section for advertising current and new books in the market as you can see the price tag in the source and briefing what the book is about. It is not a review by any well known critic. Three of these sources do not help with notability. Source by archived NY Times is an article written by subject himself (primary source and not independent secondary source). Rediff article is just passing mention and an opinionated one not written by any well know critic or journalist but by some one calling themselves Bolly wood and ends the article with "Till next week, love, Bolly." All these sources do not help. RangersRus (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For passing mention - it's not about the quantity but the quality. To me, listing him as among the critics who "bring sense, and a measure of cinematic sensibility, to their writing" is solid coverage. As for the Telegraph sources - whether book reviews or suggestions - they are discussed and given importance. As for the blog, it just supports him being a member of the CBFC. The fact is that his input as a film critic is often considered in daily newspapers. I can dig more, but I believe the subject is easily notable. Shahid • Talk2me13:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
