The Arts and Entertainment Work Group is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality and importance
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs... Specific discipline portals are listed in that section.
William Ely Hill (1887-1962) - Illustrator, created artwork for the book covers for F. Scott Fitzgerald and had a regular entry in the New York tribune along with being published on numerous occasions.
The general outline and collection has been started, but if you would like to expand and organize a discipline, here's what you do. Right below the page heading for the discipline insert this: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Work groups/Division banner}} and save. This will put a rough outline together for you and then you can edit it to conform to your area. See Writers and critics below for an example. If your project grows large enough where it's taking up a good portion of this page, you should probably move it to a subpage of this page.
You might also want to make a Members section for people to join your specific area!
Any article related to this work group should be marked by adding |a&e-work-group=yes to the {{WPBiography}} project banner at the top of its talk page. This will automatically place it into Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles. Articles can be assessed for priority within this work group by using the |a&e-priority= parameter. See Template:WikiProject Biography/doc for detailed instructions on how to use the banner.
Jubileeclipman (talk·contribs) I am interested in taking on UK celebrities with articles that are stubs or otherwise non-standard. Entirely rewrote Fearne Cotton to raise standard and remove fansite tag. I am working on Holly Willoughby which was merely a list plus trivia. Will also work on musicians, all genre, living or dead.
Delete - This promotional biography of an emerging artist. The article is trying to cobble together notability-by-association. It doesn't matter who or how many well known artists someone has studied with or interviewed or written about or allegedly curated into shows. The article has been ref-bombed mostly with things he's written about others; student newspaper profiles in the Daily Bruin(UCLA); blog-ish PR advertorials such as Cultbytes a "strategic communications agency" (PR agency "online publication"); and user submitted content websites "submit your music!". Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON; does not meet WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Saint Amadour. I can't remember how this came to be on my watchlist, possibly due to a previous article of this name that got deleted. If so, that does not seem to have been about the same person. There are potentially four claims to notability made here: As a visual artist, as a musician, as a writer and as a curator. None of those are substantiated. The article seems to be trying to inherit notability from minor connections to notable topics. The sources are poor. Many are just their writing, which provides verifiability that they have written, but proves no notability. The music coverage is minimal and one of the sources is a Tumblr blog. The visual/conceptual arts stuff is even thinner, most are just a single passing reference in coverage of group shows, mere entries on a list. There is potentially a fifth claim to notability in that they are described as an art critic here. What we seem to have here is a person who is trying various different things in and around the art world and who has yet to become notable for any one of them. Getting redirected to a (probably fictional) saint might seem like a bit of a kick in the teeth but it is the right thing to do, at least for now. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notablity not established; article appears to be wp:promo. Her name does appear in published sources but only in captions for her photography. The one piece of writing I found about her was about winning an honorable mention on pr.com, which is just a press release, not a published article. Yuchitown (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I saw this a few days ago while patrolling the NPP feed, and questioned the notability. She is a working commercial photographer who makes some very nice photographs, however she not a notable photographer per WP criteria for WP:NARTIST nor the general notability guideline. She lived in two houses that have been written about, and she took some controversial photographs of a young girl. The sourcing consists of her own website, some blogs or blog-like coverage mostly about the young girl, or about her two houses. Other sources include a self-published Lulu "book", and photo caption mentions. This is not the type of in-depth significant coverage needed for an encyclopedia article; she does not have the type of track record that we normally see for a notable photographer. The article seems to be WP:PROMO. Netherzone (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Keep - Thank you for the feedback. I found the book and it's not a self-published. It appears to be someone who is inspired by her work. I have also found sources related to photos she took of Britney Spears in 2009. I have not added the sources yet as I am still reading over them as some appear to be contentious, so I am being cautious as what is sourced. I am not related in any form to the artist, so I can attest it is not a WP:PROMO as suggested. This article is within the scope of WP:VISUALARTS; WP:NEWMEXICO; along with several others. I would kindly ask you to reconsider and assist me with the page. I am new to Wiki editing, so would this better suited for WP:DRAFT?
Delete: The PR.com article seems to be all there is; I don't find anything else. Not listed in the Getty ULAN [8], so delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK to delete for now, but concur with earlier post that Dani Brubaker's biggest claim to fame in terms of secondary coverage is related to photographs she took of Britney Spears in 2007. At first, it was rumored that Dani had put the photos up for sale against Britney's wishes as explained in this article on Today.com, but a later article in the same publication, "Britney is her own best publicist", claimed that Britney herself had been behind the sale of the "beautiful" photographs all along. In the end, it seems like a non-story and hardly seems like the main thing Dani Brubaker would want to be known for (particularly since along the way, it was suggested that Britney was planning to file a lawsuit against her). A further point is that it's not just photo credits; Brubaker also appears to have written at least one article in 2018 for Marie Claire. She is also mentioned in passing in this article, "Kids' Photography, Coming of Age" in Photo District News. All in all, it's just not quite enough to satisfy Wikipedia criteria for notability at this time. That said, given her strong portfolio as a celebrity photographer, it would not be surprising if Dani Brubaker does receive coverage about her life and work in the future; and if this coverage is in independent, reliable secondary sources (please see WP:RELIABLESOURCES), it would help satisfy the Wikipedia criteria for notability (please see WP:GNG). (And if #TeamDani is reading this, worth having a read of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY as well.) Cielquiparle (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you follow that link, it goes to Wikipedia:Too soon. Please read it. Such articles are deleted, but if/when the subject becomes more notable in real life a new article could be created in the future. As Cielquiparle recommends, please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. All these links explain Wikipedia's policies. Yuchitown (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ARTIST. No awards or recognition. Created by a single purpose editor so possible promo. Sources provided merely confirm where she has exhibited and not SIGCOV. This source seems to be the only indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are several articles in art magazines about her work and its significance. I added one today that I found. I think she meets criteria 2, 3, and 4d of WP:Artist. Nnev66 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review article improvements. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:40, 5 September 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
There is nothing notable about this man. Most of the source from the newspaper cited has nothing to do with him except ref 1. Naijaloaded and 9jaflaver has nothing to do with significant neither reliable as they were only just talking about his music and the rest source are just mere websites. And to the article creator “How did you come inform of the biography” knowing all this information without any source giving a clue of who the subject is? Gabriel(……?)18:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : One more question to the article creator. Who is “Muradmomi12”, a user who posted a fake template on your talk page Here claiming to have accepted the article. Is that your second account?. Remember lying won’t save you. So you can just be honest and things be sort out properly per Wikipedia policy--Gabriel(……?)18:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to state categorically that I have no affiliation with the subject whatsoever. Can you check my edit history and particularly, the articles I have written and contributed to here? They cut across different interests. I am mostly interested in seeing major subjects/articles from Africa feature on Wikipedia. I am not ashamed to have that interest, but apart from that, I have no conflicts of interest in writing about the subjects I choose. I am neither paid nor employed by any of the subjects I have written or contributed to.
About @Muradmomi12 , you need to check his edit and contribution history to know he has been warned severally about vandalism. I had no need for his approval or acceptance of my article. I am an Autoconfirmed user and have the user rights to move articles directly to mainspace. So I have no need for his/her help. If you check his history, you would notice he has been banned or blocked from wikipedia. If you compare my edit history and @Maradmomi12, our interests do not align. i would urge you rather to also check his history with yours and see if there are similarities.
On a final note, i sense that your nomination of this article for deletion was not in good faith. It appears this is vandalism and I hereby warn you to desist. Thank You. Cfaso2000 (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion on my article. The notability of the subject is proven by many mainstream independent articles as follows:
(1) A review in major Nigerian newspapers, of his books. Four major/independent sources reviewed his book, Swim or Sink: Policy dynamics in challenging environments. His biography was also cited by these newspapers (references 1, 4, 5, and 20).
(2) His Novel, Dead on Arrival(2013) was also featured in 2013 by Linda Ikeji(ref 17)and Bella Naija (ref 18) and also referenced in ref 1, 4, 5 and 20.
(3) He was recognized by the British Council in 2017 (ref 12, 13)
(4) He won a major award here (ref 14)
(5) He also won another major award here from Alliance for Financial Inclusion here (ref 11)
(6) He is also a musician and has an extensive discography (ref 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27). i have only included these for brevity sake. I found so many other songs he has put out.
(7) His financial inclusion work is also covered in major independent newspapers here (ref 7,8,9,10).
I hope this helps you to situate and agree with his notability.
Finally, please can you check the history of edits to give you an idea of where this article has evolved from?
On a final note, i sense that your nomination of this article for deletion was not in good faith. It appears this is vandalism and I hereby warn you to desist. Thank You. This clearly now shows you definitely don't know what Wikipedia policy is all about neither the good faith or vandalism. You joined wikipedia 9 months ago with less than 200 edits but thats by the way. You stated “Muradmomi12” is into a different interest of editing from yours and has been vandalising but I am still surprise how he found your talk page and to post a fake approve article template of your article, since you both are of different interest, but thats by the way since you already stated you don't know such editor. When I saw that it actually looked like a deceive to the public that one of your article was accepted. So I thought it might be from your handwork to deceive the community but it's fine. Meanwhile, that doesn't still change the fact why I nominated this article. It still doesn't meet the general notability guideline. His works are not notable and this is the only thing I can found about his subject novel which still has nothing to do with him Dead on arrival. Gabriel(……?)21:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I urge you to do a check of my refutations to your nomination for deletion in points 1-7 above and go through piece by piece and make your conclusions. I address your points in this latest response as follows:
(a) The fact that I joined Wikipedia 9 months ago and have only 200 edits is not relevant to the issue here;
(b) I have no business with how @muradmomi12 found my talk page to post a fake "approve" article template. Wikipedia is a public place and anyone is entitled to roam the space and indulge in their interests, but that "indulgence" should be ethical, free of conflicts of interest, and not infringing on the rights or freedoms of other users to contribute to the stock of knowledge here.
(c) Why does it look like a deception to the public that my article was accepted? because I am just only 9 months with less than 200 edits or what? Please check my edit history and other articles and subjects I have written about. Paul Oluikpe is not the first or only article or subject I have written about.
(d) Your assertion "it still doesnt meet general notability guideline" has no proof, but merely an arbitrary/sweeping rationalization. Please can you be specific about the sources, and can you refute piece by piece no 1-7 points which i made above? Have you actually read the sources ? This can help.
(a) The fact that I joined Wikipedia 9 months ago and have only 200 edits is not relevant to the issue here; If you had stick with the Article wizard for creation policy, your article of 2023 Philip Ikeazor won't have been nominated for an AFD by Star Mississippi. Meanwhile, I still stand by my reason and will allow other editors do their research. Have a nice day and no further response from me to you. Gabriel(……?)21:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 2 is his words at WSBI’s Scale2Save event, and likely, a press release. Source 3 is same as above and wouldn't tell us that he "works on financial inclusion". Tech finance, source 4, lacks byline and editorial standard, hence the post appears like a sponsored post. The awards are minor ad unrecognisable per WP:ANYBIO except the one from the British Council. But their count still doesn't make this article meet WP:GNG. Almost all the sources linked to Dead on Arrival, his book, are paid publication and some unreliable including Linda Ikeji's blog. Ofcourse, Nigerian world News doesn't perceive editorial policy and list works are by admin or individual. In light of WP: NMUSICIAN, the article's segment "musical work" were citations from unreliable sources per WP:NGRS. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!16:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your view. Here are my responses to your post.
(1) The phrase "likely a press release" stays in the realm of speculation, and not a certainty. We shouldn't make conclusions on that. The issue is, does it cover the subject significantly? and is it an independent source?
(2)Sources 2, 3, 7,8,9,10 all state categorically that he works in financial inclusion and at the central bank. The sources are Thisday, Independent, Daily Trust, Business Day, TechCabal-all sources identified in the Wikipedia list of reliable sources from Nigeria (Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources
(4) Sources 6, 11,12, and 13 reference the awards he won. These are credible sources (Loughborough University, British Council, The Alliance for Financial Inclusion and The Punch).
(5)Sources 1,4,5 and 20 covered extensively his book Swim or Sink: Policy Dynamics in Challenging Environments. They also ran a biography on him and also mention where he works. These sources are Nigerian Guardian, The Tribune and This Day all listed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources
(6) You said "Almost all the sources linked to Dead on Arrival, his book, are paid publication and some unreliable". This is inaccurate. Sources 1,4,5 and 20 mention the novel, Dead on Arrival plus Linda Ikeji's coverage and Bella Naija coverage and reviews.
Delete. I thought at first that he would pass WP:NAUTHOR with reviews of his book ([9], [10], [11]) in three sources rated generally reliable by WikiProject Nigeria, but in reading the sources, it seems two of them are based on one, or they are all based on an underlying WP:PRESSRELEASE. Look in particular at the final few paragraphs, which are in some cases nearly word-for-word identical. As a result, I do not believe these to be truly independent reviews and thus no pass of NAUTHOR. I also see no WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. As for the awards, they do not qualify under WP:ANYBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RedirectDelete - Seems to only be known on YouTube which is not considered a reliable source. Those should be deleted. If better sourcing can be found, please bring it to the table. Netherzone (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article, which began under the title Fictioner-revisers and was later renamed Reworked fiction, is about the idea of an author changing and republishing a novel work of fiction. None of the editors engaged on the talk page have found any reliable sources that talk about that idea as a thing, not even the article creator. I have found the term "reworked fiction" being used, but only as a description of a specific book. It isn't an idea or concept that anyone seems to have written about. This idea doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. Edited to clarify subject of article per comment below. Schazjmd(talk)20:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article (which would be more accurately titled "Author-reworked fiction") is about authors who have reworked their works of fiction, not only about authors who have reworked their novels. Of the three authors, and their works, cited by me in the article (Mary Shelley, Walt Whitman, Edward Fitzgerald), only Mary Shelley was a novelist.
On further thought, given that the term "fiction" tends to be used in a sense exclusive of poetry, and that two of the three authors listed here were poets, a more apt title might be something like "Author-reworked literature".
Delete – As I posted on the talk page, I agree with Rwood128 and Schazjmd. This article has no reputable source for the term. The examples (they have since been deleted) are works that have been revised, but do not validate the term or indicate that it is important. Any good work of fiction has been revised multiple times.—Anita5192 (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article's examples of authors and works were deleted by Rwood128. I have now restored them.
Obviously a serious practitioner of any art, such as the writing of fiction, revises his work before initially putting it before the public. That was not what I had in mind when I decided to write this article. Its topic is previously published works of fiction that have been reworked by their authors.
This article, if given a chance to show its fuller potential, is likely to interest readers who care about literature and authors.
If I may offer a suggestion, have you considered writing an essay about this topic and publishing it somewhere? I'm actually interested in the history and practice of authors reworking previously published stories. The problem for Wikipedia is that this isn't a topic that's resulted in sufficient citations to prove notability here. But since no one has really written about this topic, that presents you an opportunity to be one of the first to do so. But what you write just can't be published here. SouthernNights (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SouthernNights: Thanks for your constructive suggestion. Perhaps, when I have the leisure to adequately research the topic and find a suitable reliable-source publication, I'll try my hand at an essay. In the meantime, I will happily cede priority to someone else who takes up this intriguing topic.
Delete This is a totally originally term without any citations or literature to support notability. A search in the Wikipedia Library, for example, returned zero hits on articles or coverage for the term.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does appear the term reworked is used fairly frequently. See, for example: "Novelists rework Shakespeare's King Lear to explore" [13]. But this is different from what this article is concerned with. Angela Carter famously "reworked" fairy tales. And classical mythology is constanrly being reworked. Rwood128 (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can work out, the scholarship that happens on this topic is what we cover at textual criticism. If sourcing for this article exists it would likely be from the discipline of scholarly editing, but they seem to just assume that all literature exists in multiple versions, and they don't seem to consider multiple published versions to be any different from other kinds of texts. Even with a fair bit of digging I haven't turned up anything that makes a general statement about reworked fiction / multi-published-variant works (nor a term for them!), just scattered textual criticism of individual works with that kind of history. I don't think there's any need for a merge or a redirect here. These are completely different from derivative works, since those introduce a new author, so I particularly don't think that redirect would be appropriate. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's evidently done commendable work, such as the VA program, but I can't find significant coverage of her, or reviews of her books in reliable sources, to meet WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. She's also worked with some notable people, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although references have been added since draftification, this is a disputed draftification. I am mindful that AfD is not cleanup. This mantra is used often during AfDs where poorly written and/or referenced articles appear here, yet AfD often triggers such a cleanup. Seee WP:HEY. Normally I would have sent this back to Draft space, but WP:DRAFTIFY prohibits this under these circumstances. I would have done so because the subject appears notable, though this requires in depth checking. But I have to do this here. My nomination is to draftify which a piece of firm advice to the creating editor to request a review from an uninvolved editor, probably an AFC reviewer (noting that AFC is not compulsory) before it is moved again to mainspace. This nomination is made to give them a relaxed environment to make the necessary edits, rather than rushing against the seven day AfD deadline. I mentioned WP:HEY before. editors feeling this has happened should ping me, and, if I agree, I will withdraw the nomination, which, under certain restricted circumstances, will be able to be closed to keep the article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am author of article. Would be grateful if concrete grounds for deletion will be explained . I understand that some references are leaading to websites related to person about whom article is, but in these cases there are simply no other sources to reference and I tryed to add as many reference as possible. Please tak into account size of Georgian web, which is small and we have not too many internet sources to rely on. Thank you. Ggotua (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ggotua Please note that I have asked for the article's return to Draft: space, believing it to be premature for it to be in mainspace. Your work is incomplete, references are malformed, the article suffers from external links in the body of the article.
Moving back to Daft space will give you the time to perform improvement tasks in peace and quiet.
The subject appears to be a non-notable individual, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. Most of the sources cited in the article and on the talk page are passing mentions, interviews, primary, routine coverage, or hearsay, none of which provide in-depth coverage. The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, off-wiki evidence suggests potential undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry. GSS💬13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xegma Do you really research on topics or just go on voting 'delete' at AfDs? Did you check the talk page of this article? There are significant coverage in China Daily and The Telegraph and all are present in the talk page. Even nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. Unless it is a UPE issue, there is no reason to delete. It is a Keep. Hitro talk21:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles you are referring to seem to be paid promotional pieces, structured as interviews, which often include sections like "bio" and "CV" at the end of the article—something rarely found in genuine editorial news. It's a common feature of sponsored content. Additionally, the Telegraph article lacks an author byline, which raises questions about whether it was even produced by their editorial team. GSS💬03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The China Daily article, the one I am referring to, was written by Andrew Moody. I hope you are not implying that Andrew Moody, a renowned journalist and recipient of the Friendship Medal (China) from the Chinese government, was just an editor of paid promotional pieces.
The Telegraph article, which is almost 16 years old, appears to be written by Dominic White and must have been published on the old format of the website of The Telegraph which was significantly different from current one. Please check the other articles of same years, you won't find author bylines.
I see that this BLP article was created on Wikipedia in 2008 and being nominated for deletion now due to some recent UPE activities. IMO, it's more appropriate to restore the best version of the article rather than delete it entirely. If you have a case that this has been a UPE product from the start then I'll rest my case. Hitro talk15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HitroMilanese, I respect your expertise, but I must point out that all the articles you've mentioned are essentially interviews, which do not meet the standards of independent sources required by WP:GNG. For instance, the China Daily article explicitly states in the second paragraph, "Steve Tappin says," while the Telegraph article includes phrases like "But Tappin, whom I meet" and "Talking to him, it almost seems..." Similarly, the South China Morning Post piece follows the same pattern. These sources rely heavily on hearsay and fail to meet the criteria for WP:IS.
Regarding the absence of a byline in The Telegraph, I managed to find many articles, both older and from the same time period (even 2008), with proper author attribution, such as this. It's unfair to say the byline is missing simply because it could have been published in an older format of the website, where bylines were not prominently displayed.
Additionally, the article was created by a single-purpose account (SPA) with no contributions outside this topic. Given the subject's history of hiring freelancers to update his article, it is highly likely that the SPA either has a conflict of interest or was hired to create this article. GSS💬06:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an author of three books and many short stories, but I can't find evidence that any of the books passes WP:NBOOK, with at most one RS review each. (Kirkus for And The Dead Shall Live and Sherlock Mendelson; I'm not sure about IndieReader but it's the best we get for The Money). The best claim to notability via awards appears to be two nominations (not wins) for the Pushcart Prize for two short stories. I don't think this is sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR and I haven't been able to find better sourcing for WP:NBIO. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite having nine books to his name, I can't find evidence that any of them pass WP:NBOOK, and thus I don't think this is a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. I checked Kirkus, Booklist, and Publishers Weekly, plus some general searches for his name and some book titles, and only found four total reviews (one each for four books). I didn't find biographical coverage for WP:NBIO either. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article was just created on 3 September 2024, and only because of his appearance with Tucker Carlson where he said some controversial stuff. This is a WP:BLP1E - person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. WP:NOTNEWS also applies here, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. And editors trying to REFBOMB the lead with subpar sources to describe him as a Nazi apologist is not encouraging either. Isaidnoway(talk)04:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All three. None of those three sources directly and explicitly state that Cooper is a "Nazi apologist". Please see WP:HEADLINES - News headlines are not a reliable source. So since they fail to verify a contentious claim about a BLP, that makes them subpar. Those eight citations in the lead sentence are a classic example of WP:REFBOMB. For a BLP, Wikipedia prefers high-quality sources that actually verify the content.Isaidnoway(talk)11:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haaretz? You're using a clear biased source on the subject. Watch the interview - nothing you have written is even remotely true. It's just more ADL nonsense against someone who is merely questioning the narrative. ArmenianSniper (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ADL = Anti-Defamation League. An American based International born from the Jewish nationalists the B'Nai Brith in the wake of the death of convicted child murderer & then leader of the local Brith faction, Mr Leo Frank. 61.69.242.203 (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic BLP1E. You don't meet notability requirements on Wikipedia by appearing on a podcast. Not do you meet notability requirements by making abundantly false and disgusting comments. AusLondonder (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First off, "false" and "disgusting" according to whom? Questioning the narrative is neither of those. Everything Cooper discussed was referenced from various sources and this can be seen in his Substack. Truths you don't like doesn't make them false or disgusting. ArmenianSniper (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Abundantly false and disgusting"? Have you listened to the entire interview or have you ever listened to one of Cooper's podcast series? He does NOT deny the Nazi's murdered Jews. In fact, his "Fear and Loathing In the New Jerusalem" series covers Nazi atrocities to the Jews in great detail. This is classic 'cut and paste', intellectually lazy mob reaction. He currently has the most popular podcast on Apple Podcasts due to being one of the most intellectually rigorous historians regarding these subjects (he read 80 books and 1500 articles for his Israel series). It will likely grow. 160.2.133.235 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"And editors trying to REFBOMB the lead with subpar sources to describe him as a Nazi apologist is not encouraging either."
Keep What are the "sub-par sources"? See WP:RSPADL. I think most people with tens of thousands of paying Substack subscribers (purple check) and an extremely popular podcast are notable. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to the ADL. When I nominated the article there were eight citations in the lead sentence that I considered sub-par, they have since been removed. And people with tens of thousands of paying Substack subscribers (purple check) and an extremely popular podcast are notable, only if they meet the criteria outlined in our policies and guidelines for notability.Isaidnoway(talk)15:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK so irrelevant now. I know that editors have discussed standing up special notability guidelines for journalists/writers/etc. as we have for academics and some other groups, but I don't think that's actually happened yet. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "notable for one event" and "low profile individual":
I can see the argument for item 1 (Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event) or taking issue with the sources in general, but there's really no justification for deletion considering "each of three conditions" have not been met by a mile (you really don't cover points 2 and 3 enough at all) Clearly, the warning "often misapplied in deletion discussions" applies here: "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile," and this clearly fits the bill. Suggesting otherwise suggests that perhaps your emotions or personal views are getting in the way of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Wikipedia should include information about this person and their broad reach / cultural impact, particularly now that he's been all over the news. If available information is currently limited, this article should be flagged in some other way, not marked for deletion. Again, the phrasing of "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable" is extremely clear, even for the average user. 24.34.221.193 (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Tucker Carlson interview with Darryl Cooper. Cooper himself is not notable because of BLP1E, but this interview definitely seems to be notable because of the controversy it has brought Carlson and Musk. The White House has now weighed in with a denunciation. See [14]. However, it’s telling that the condemnation focuses more on Carlson "giving a microphone" to Cooper, than it does on Cooper himself. There is precedent for articles about specific interviews, see the article for Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin. The Cooper interview has caused a similar amount of controversy, even though unlike the Putin case, the guest was someone who is not otherwise notable apart from the interview.2600:1014:B08A:AA77:E890:70AA:7E06:BEF4 (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator, he is only known for his appearance on Carlson's show. There are insufficient reliable sources to describe his career. It would be helpful for example to know if someone Carlson calls a historian actually has a degree or any published work in history. TFD (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be considered a historian, a person typically needs to have at least a master's degree in history, demonstrate strong research skills, analyze historical evidence, and be able to communicate their findings effectively through writing and other mediums. It seems that Cooper fails this consideration, particularly in his apparent inability to "analyze historical evidence" and "communicate their findings effectively". Cooper's "findings" are basically his opinion and conspiracy theories. There is no criteria for a person to be considered a historian when the only appellation is an introduction by Tucker Carlson claiming that Mr. Cooper is “the most important popular historian working in the United States today.” Tucker Carlson was simply trying to provide credibility and puff up his guest so his listeners would believe Cooper. Cooper isn't a historian. Osomite 🐻 (hablemos)18:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator that he is only known for this one distasteful appearance on Tucker Carlson. That shouldn't pass notability; it should barely merit a mention on Carlson's show page. --FeldBum (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He had been on many popular podcasts about 10 month ago, where he was widely praised by all political spectrums for his analysis of the Israel/Gaza conflict. Simple search on YouTube can find the vids and glowing commentary. 2600:1005:A122:804:B164:2619:1DC6:E756 (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would feel less arm-wavy if you were to link to such praise and provide a sample quote from a reputable SME. "Just Google it" is insufficient, especially if the end result is random YouTube comments. NapoliRoma (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the sources on that article, and they're all primarily about his appearance on Tucker Carlson. The articles are largely about the views from the context of the interview. I don't really believe that it's enough for notability. If he had more continued notability across time then I'd be convinced, but so far it's just more of the same. seefooddiet (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The German version was created at the same time as the English version, and only because of Coopers appearance with Tucker Carlson, so the German article is also a BLP1E, as evidenced by the amount of content dedicated to the Carlson interview.Isaidnoway(talk)15:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single appearance on a streaming talk show, no matter how controversial, does not establish notability for the subject, nor do the other passing mentions. WP should not be in the business of promoting obscure personalities.- Donald Albury18:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The public attention he has created several times makes him notable. I also question the motives of the deletion request. Holocaust denial and praise of Hitler is is not controversial and must not be described as such! Also I have to say that I'm outraged that a Wikipedia editor has the guts to claim that it's other Wiki authors who "describe him as a Nazi apologist". As if this is a question? Again! Cooper has engaged in Holocaust denial and praised Hitler! Please don't accept this deletion request, when it looks that politically motivated! Greetings from someone who has studied history in Germany! Andol (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is still based too heavily on unreliable sources that are not support for notability, while the few reliable sources in the bunch are just about her being defrauded by the main subject of those sources, rather than about her doing anything noteworthy. Strictly speaking, this is a recent new creation that isn't substantively identical to the original version from 2022 (which did get draftified, but then got deleted as a stale draft before being recreated from scratch in 2024), so I wouldn't consider it eligible for G4 either, but not being eligible for speedy doesn't make it keepable. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a bit thin - both the Washington Examiner and American Conservative are considered only so-so in terms of reliability. I don't know the reputation of the European Conservative. But there is an article in the Washington Post and the EENews is a Politico publication. Not yet in the article is Vox discussing his book. There are articles in other publications that I am not familiar with. His book is published by a lesser-known publisher, Skyhorse, but it's not self-published. Lamona (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Do you mind if I ask for clarification about why it's been nominated for deletion? Is it because many of the references also refer to her company, rather than just her personally? I had assumed (perhaps wrongly) that because she is the founder and CEO of a global HR company which has seen rapid growth post COVID, and the founder of the industry on which its based (employer of record industry which allows companies to easily hire people all over the globe), that her notability would be inherently tied to the company's performance and notability. I'd be grateful for your clarification and guidance. Cheers, Kate. KWriteReturn (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KWriteReturn: This is a WP:BLP and consensus that is long established states that that person is not the company. Notabilty is not inherited from any other entity and there is nothing here to indicate why this person is notable. Looking at the first seven, in fact the 14 references. These are a mix of routine company news about employment, non-bylined paid-for articles, press-releases, funding, merging, expansion and acquisition news. It is all routine news. There is no WP:SECONDARY coverage to verify per WP:V that she is notable. It states in the WP:BLP policy "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.". There is nothing here. Nothing. scope_creepTalk06:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, because there are No allegations of notability, nor reliable sources, for this BLP. Look, in 2024, claiming that someone is a CEO and therefore automatically deserves a Wikipedia article, is untenable. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Amityville Horror. I did WP:BEFORE and there are a lot of reviews of The Amityville Horror and notices about his death. I wasn't able to find anything else about him outside of those two events. I checked Archive.org and Google but nothing was jumping out at me. Since I nominated this article if anyone finds some sources please ping me so I can add them to the article and I'll withdraw the nomination. Dr vulpes(Talk)00:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While Jay Anson published only two books, one of them started a major horror phenomenon. As for his own notability, he had an obituary in The New York Times (link), was the subject of a 1978 profile in the NYT (link), is the focus of this 1979 profile in Writers Digest (link), has entries in books such as Hooked on Horror by Anthony J. Fonseca, and is listed in the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia as one of the authors who helped start the emergence of a new type of horror in the late 20th century (link can be found through Wikipedia Library). And I'm still finding new articles through my research (note: it's easy to miss these articles about Anson b/c they were published in the late 1970s and early '80s). Add in the large number of reviews in a number of publications for Anson's two books and he easily meets WP:Author. Yes, the article needs major work but the proof of notability is there.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I found additional obituaries of Anson in the LA Times, The Times of London, and the Washington Post. I've also found a 1978 article in People magazine that goes into details of Anson's life while covering the lawsuits and questions over the book, a "Milestones" mention of Anson's death in Time magazine on 3/24/1980, a short obituary in Starburst Magazine, and the same in The American Annual: 1981. Finally and most significantly, he has a detailed entry in The Contemporary Authors New Revision Series (volume 29, 1990, page 19). I know User:Dr_vulpes said to ping if citations were found, but since the citations are unavailable without the correct subscriptions I'd be happy to add them to the article in the coming days if needed.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet yeah, I was able to find the obituaries which were pretty well done and in-depth. Glad you found the People magazine article! I guess Archive.org doesn't have it or I might have missed it. Just ping me when you've got them in there or if I can access them just point me at them and I'll go ahead and load them in. Then I'll pull the nom. Always makes me glad when people can find sources, it's really frustrating knowing that there's stuff out there that I can't easily access. Thanks @SouthernNights! Dr vulpes(Talk)07:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE - a major writer of the 1970s, even though he died shortly after getting success. It’s sometimes difficult to find online sources for someone who lived and died before The Internet. Bearian (talk) 03:36, 8 September 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 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.
Delete: I've tried .ch websites only in a search, and can only find what are brief biographical profiles on company websites. Nothing to suggest notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This Wikipedia article appears to have been created by a dubious source. I have added significant factual corrections and citations to improve this article. ChrisK5566 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. Nothing in terms of WP:SIGCOV. The only person advocating to keep the article is the subject himself, who likely paid for the article to be created in the first place given the author was blocked for UPE. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no clear evidence of notability. The subject has won three obscure prizes: that’s it. I also suspect paid editing: the article is by a new account, with links to google.pk. I would imagine that someone from Pakistan whose very first article is about a random Romanian poet was paid to publish. BiruitorulTalk13:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see any sources in English to support WP:AUTHOR. The subject has written multiple books but I see no in-depth reviews, just online bookshops and Wikipedia mirrors. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page. Fails WP:NBIO. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, who is not widely cited by peers or successors. As Author and Yoga instructor, subject has not created a significant or well-known work and I cannot find subject's work in multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work. Fails WP:GNG too. RangersRus (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources for the article and there is no ground for deleting this page. Lack of contribution does not necessitate deletion of a page. Such a practice will only contribute to removal of information about the lesser known people. I strongly oppose the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Versatilegeek (talk • contribs) 07:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the objection that “there are sources” my response as nominator is that I don’t doubt that the subject is the author of multiple books. What there is not is anything that demonstrates notability. We don’t allow bio articles sourced almost entirely to online shopping sites with dead links. In addition not a single detail of the subject’s life is even verifiable based on the refs in the article or anything else I can find in English. I don’t think it’s acceptable to retain an entirely unverified bio on the strength of a claim that “there are sources.” Mccapra (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, sources don’t have to be in English. They can be in any language but if they exist this discussion is the place to share them. Mccapra (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete - as above, clearly promotional content relating to a non-notable person. Furthermore, use of “expert” in disambiguation in article title clearly biased and inappropriate. Elshad (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this should be on LinkdIn, not a supposed encylopædia. It’s essentially an advert for a self declared “expert” fishing for media appearances. 141.195.160.217 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was only created in August 2023, her media appearances long predate that - this[18] is from 2015. I think it's important that media pundits have articles, it enables everyone to easily look at their credentials and assess their motivations. Orange sticker (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"easily look at their credentials and assess their motivations" Where she works already comes up on every article about her lol. Why would I need a Wikipedia page for this? Tweedle (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly not autobiographical as has been alleged - the creating editor, @Starklinson:, although they have chosen to remain as a redlinked editor without a userpage, has created and edited a wide range of articles over seven years (in contrast to the nominator of this AfD who appears to be proposing this AfD as their first edit). Appears to be a notable expert in the field, cited in many sources. The disambiguation, needed to distinguish her from Z G (actress), could perhaps be "(migration specialist)" to avoid any perceived subjectivity in "expert", so perhaps Keep and move. PamD08:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Not sure about "advocate". She describes herself on LinkedIn as "migration policy specialist". I think I'd still go with "(migration specialist)", which covers a wider range of activity than "advocate" but avoids the possible puffery of "expert". The category Category:Experts on refugees, which was created in 2015, is slightly odd, with no parent category in a "people by occupation" tree. It's difficult to find a descriptor which fits someone employed in a field, rather than various "activists" categories or disambiguators. PamD18:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence she is a migration 'specialist' or expert. This appears to be a confusion of one sided activism with actual non-partisan knowledge. Working for a pro-immigration ngo for asylum seekers is hardly expertise and this characterisation favours open border policy which is contentious in the public realm. Must be deleted and replaced with something like 'activist' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A10:D582:D18:0:AC59:B40E:AD1E:937B (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep surprised to see this as I recognised the name immediately, has appeared regularly on news programmes and is referred to as an expert as references and news search show. Orange sticker (talk)
Comment I noticed how this was nominated by, and many of the votes are by, new users who have made no other contributions to the project so searched Twitter and it seems the subject of this article made a tweet yesterday that received a lot of attention and then Twitter users brought attention to her Wikipedia page. I've looked to see if there is an appropriate template to flag this AfD but can't find one, but it seems to be this has been nominated in bad faith Orange sticker (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that we don't allow a brand-new editor to create an article in mainspace, but we do allow them to create an AfD. Perhaps this should be reconsidered? PamD11:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD and @Orange sticker, I've added a {{notavote}} notice. However, I must note that the first and third editors to !vote delete after nomination are editors who have been on Wikipedia 19 years and 9 years respectively, so while there are some IPs voting and the article was nominated by a very new user, I don't think it's completely accurate to state that many of the votes are by new users. TarnishedPathtalk12:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Yes but: did you see the editing history of the 19-year editor? 4 edits since 2019, of which one to their user page, one to their talk page. Not a very active editor. The 9-year editor does seem to be a regular contributor on a range of topics. PamD13:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree that it's highly unusual when a day old account makes such a nomination and then is followed by some IPs participating, I really don't think that's enough to make judgments about longstanding editors regardless of their recent history. TarnishedPathtalk13:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think rather than back or forth about who is editing perhaps engaging with the substance here would be preferable - to qualify as an ‘expert’, you would presumably need well read academic publications and so on. Every Think Tank employee in the U.K. doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, even if they are occasionally cited in the press. The subject has no published books, academic papers, etc; this is clearly below the threshold of noteworthy-ness. Plus the article is promotional in tone and I strongly suspect some connection, financial or otherwise, between the main editor and the subject 2A01:CB06:B852:BE75:69B1:C245:F364:C83B (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Activity level is not a requirement for a users vote to be considered legitimate. I find your arguments in this discussion to be highly suspect in their motivation, as you appear to be attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the vote rather than participating in the actual discussion. Badharlick (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely bad etiquette to assume bad faith as you are. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, provided they follow the rules set out in the policy. It does not exist for cabals of users to gatekeep others from contributing. Badharlick (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you, @PamD:. I only put (migration expert) because I didn't know what else to call her - that's how she's often referred to by the British press. I don't think 'expert' is necessarily biased, it just means she's done significant research on the topic. And I don't think 'activist' quite fits. However, if anyone has a better idea for the title, I'd be open to that. – Starklinson 13:13 UTC
ALSO, Wikipedia has a category Category:Experts on refugees, suggesting the language of 'expert' is not considered too partial for Wikipedia. I would also like to make it very clear that I have never received payment for my work on Wikipedia, nor have I ever made a page for someone as a favour. I know none of these people personally. – Starklinson 21:43 UTC
Delete: Appears in various media as a subject expert, but I don't find much coverage about this person. Source 2 is a "30 under 30 list" in a PR item. The BBC sources is an interview where she talks about things. Source 14 is ok-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As PamD explains, the accusation of autobiography doesn't hold water. And while some of the sources are interviews or trivial, there are multiplesources that are prose (not interviews) and that focus on Gardner as a person (are not trivial). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those articles constitute WP:SIGCOV. They are WP:ROUTINE coverage of her in her capacity as an employee of her organization. The National article in particular is primarily composed of her quotations. The only material we could extract on her encyclopedically is that she worked for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While it is difficult to imagine that consensus will be achieved on this one, there is clearly enough interest in this discussion to give it another try.
Note: Important procedural issues have been raised here, such as Pam's observation about allowing new editors to create AfDs but not articles in mainspace. That may need to be discussed elsewhere. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no!19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say anything in WP:SIGCOV about interviews not counting? Although I agree the BBC one probably wouldn't for notability I think it's evidence of expertise (or why would they interview her?) I would also count the PRWeek 30 under 30 article (yes, references like these are a bit promotional but I'd still count it). In addition to The National reference noted above, the following references in the article also have more significant coverage:
Smith, Ginny (8 February 2024). "Defenders of Democracy: Zoe Gardner". Sussex Bylines. (I don't know how reliable it is but it has editorial oversight)
Thanks for the WP:INTERVIEW link as I hadn't seen that - it reads to me that interviews are OK if the interviewer is an established journalist or at least independent of the subject. I don't know Sussex Bylines so can't tell what the situation is there. I tend to include articles for notability that have at least a few sentences about the person provided there are multiple other sources, which there appear to be here. This one may be an edge case in that regard. Nnev66 (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I voted delete on the original listing and I'd just like to clarify my vote now that this has been relisted. As far as I understand this is basically a spokesperson for a few NGOs (most notably Asylum aid and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles), who has had some occasional past media coverage as part of her role as a spokesperson for an NGO. Seems pretty clear to me that this is non-notable, unless we should start creating articles for every spokesperson on the basis they they've appeared in some media coverage as part of their job. Flyingfishee (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There seems substantial disagreement over whether the sources are or are not sufficient to establish notability. A detailed analysis of available sources would be a great deal more helpful than discussion of who is making arguments or why. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SeraphimbladeTalk to me11:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources appear to be blogs (Brexit Spot), or paid PR opportunities (30 under 30 - you buy a listing in these, its like a 'best european xyz') and are commercial work, aimed to promote the media career of Zoe Gardner. The one or two non-blog / podcast sources, a single mention in Thompson Reuters and one Huffington Post article, do not meet the criteria for significance. Zoe is not an academic - she hasn't finished her PhD, and appears to have no cited publications. So she is not an academic expert, and neither do most early career academics have wikipedia pages. She has appeared once or twice in the press as a talking head, mostly in extremely small blogs that do not meet the thresholds for significance or realiability. Some of these 'sussex news'? appear to be miniscule local blogs.
I appreciate the points about new users recommending deletion, but I do not see how in this case any other decision could be appropriate. Wikipedia isn't LinkedIn, and shouldn't exist to promote media careers that are not already well established, especially not with misleading language which implies Zoe is an academic expert or has published books on the topic. I do not see any compelling arguments to keep the article.
Regarding PamD's points about the creator of the article having made many edits - if you look through them, they are all of early stage professionals, actors, media figures and so on, and the institutions they work for. They are clearly working on an agency basis, dealing with little known authors, actors and media commentators. A thorough review of recent edits makes the commercial nature of their work obvious. I do not think this is a credible argument to keep the article, which is clearly suspect. Ieusuiarnaut (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is leaving draft articles online to show to clients to confirm they are happy with them. He's even left 'draft' in the title! This is blatant commercial misuse of Wikipedia by a media professional. All of these articles should be closely reviewed. Ieusuiarnaut (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ieusuiarnaut As you have only been an editor since 21 August you may not be familiar with the concept of "Draft", which is a standard way in which many editors choose to work on an article before it is ready for "main space". See WP:DRAFT for more information. Your accusation that @Starklinson: is an undisclosed paid editor is a serious WP:Personal attack. I invite them to respond to it here, and suggest that you become more familiar with Wikipedia's policies and practices before accusing any other editors of malpractice. PamD12:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @PamD:. I would like to reiterate – I have never received payment for my work on Wikipedia and nor have I ever made a page as a favour. I was recently invited by @Ipigott: to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red because I happen to create a lot of biographies of women. My recent focus has been on writers (particularly in the UK), though I don't limit myself to any one topic. Starklinson (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see your very first edits involved a similar argument over an (eventually deleted?) page for a minor YouTuber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Safiya_Nygaard_(2nd_nomination) - you have since continued to work almost exclusively on pages for minor media figures, both men and women. Regardless of whether this is a bizarre labour of love or paid work, Zoe's page does not include enough relevant, high-quality sources, she appears to hold no important public position, and is not widely known despite a few brief media appearances. The article, particularly but not only in its describing her as an 'expert', is written in a promotional style. It would not be out of place in a corporate biography or Linkedin page. The most substantial source, 'Sussex Byline', does not even have its own wikipedia page. It is not appropriate to give every early career think tank employee in the UK their own wikipedia page. Ieusuiarnaut (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accept assessing the article on its own merit, I do not accept WP:Personal attacks. Pulling up one of the first articles a user ever worked on over 6 years ago (the subject of which now has a Wikipedia page anyway) is not an argument and not how Wikipedia works. The vast majority of the articles I create get approved without issue, and the handful that didn't have not interfered with my ability to edit long term.
In addition, most Wikipedia editors do it as a hobby, or there wouldn't be rules about payment.
As @PamD: said, you seem to be making assumptions that certain things – like working on drafts until they're ready for publication, for example – are a problem.
@Ieusuiarnaut You are very new to Wikipedia, at least as a registered editor. You seem not to understand that the whole thing is indeed "a bizarre labour of love". We editors are here to improve the encyclopedia, by creating and editing articles (though a small minority seem to be here with the sole purpose of getting one article deleted). And recent page creations will tend to be for early-career people, as the long-established notable people in a field should already have articles. Hence many new articles are created for 20-year-old footballers, far fewer for those who've been playing professionally for 10 years. PamD10:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have attached the same Channel 4 section on 3 times, please adjust two of your links. HuffPost on Political matters is 'No Consensus', so that cannot be used to demonstrate notability. That just leaves three 'major sources' left. The BBC is a two minute segment and is just about her talking about related migratory issues, not about her specifically which does not make it useful enough to qualify for an article. The Channel 4 4min segment is fine maybe (I have not really looked at that am being generous) as justification. For The National, the real subject matter of this one is Jonathan Gullis (which would be best on his page) and his claims as the article would not exist on it's own without that, not Zoe Gardner in of herself to justify it as worthy of her article's inclusion (this also applies to the HuffPost). I would only really consider a good source which would be of near noteworthiness is the article entirely on her by Sussex Bylines, but that's another question as to whether or not your accept them as noteworthy. Tweedle (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the reasons given here by others and at the very, very least the "migration expert" title should be removed. This person has not published anything of their own and they don't appear in Google Scholar which should at least be a some sort of a prerequisite for being titled as "expert". Tweedle (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
