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.
Merge to Oregon Zoo as an alternative to deletion. It's only mentioned within the context of the Zoo. It's a really cool sculpture, but I can't find any indication whatsoever that it is notable itself within a fine art or art historical context, aside from being in Smithsonian's database of public sculptures, and a mention in a book authored by his wife about the sculptor's life and work, which is a non-independent source. The current sourcing only mentions the sculpture within the context of the zoo. A WP:BEFORE search finds no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In addition to the Oregon Zoo target article, some of the content can also be used to improve the Richard Beyer article (the sculptor who made the work.) I am glad the sculpture was restored, and that people and especially children continue to enjoy it. Netherzone (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. It does not pass WP:GNG - there's a passing mention in the local newspaper, a link to a database site, and two primary sources linked to the city. SportingFlyerT·C22:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the topic is notable enough for a stand-alone page. With wide coverage in the reputable source The Oregonian, the sculpture meets GNG. It may be in the Oregon zoo, but that's just a logical location for the work of art and not a merge magnet. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's not wide coverage, they just appear to be passing mentions, two of the three of which are from the days before and after it opened. SportingFlyerT·C03:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Generic small fountain/sculpture with minimal coverage insufficient to pass GNG. The Oregon Zoo has a variety of artwork and features that should be covered in the main article; separate pages aren't needed for details like a transcription of the plaque or a 30-year-old condition assessment. The Oregon Zoo's own website doesn't mention it and I can't even find a photo of it on Google or Flickr besides the low-res one on the Smithsonian database, so notability is not at all shown. Artworks aren't notable or need a separate page just because we have other articles about their location, artist, subject (nope, the newly written article is about the subject's father) or thematic topic (none of which are particularly long). Reywas92Talk15:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the zoo article. It only got coverage when it was donated, then seems to have been forgotten about, given the lack of media coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics
The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Related Projects
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts
The article fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (GNG). Although Ali Niknam is the founder of bunq, most of the available sources write about the company more than the individual Niknam. His other business, including team.blue, and philanthropic efforts receive minimal coverage that depends mostly on primary sources, interviews, self-published works, and specialty outlets. The fact that there isn't substantial, in-depth coverage by independent, credible sources also creates the problem that the article reads more as a promotional bio than an encyclopedic entry. Even in the credible sources such as De Tijd and FD.nl, Niknam's significance is presented as being through his connection to bunq, and his billionaire status is presented based on the company's valuation itself rather than standing alone. According to WP:NOTPROMO and WP:BLP1E, this article fails to create independent notability. I also checked his sources which are also presented below and not showing any sign for independent notability.
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}}.
Comment: The last AfD was closed less than two weeks ago as keep. Several sources cited in that discussion as counting towards the GNG are not mentioned in this source assessment table. Discussing this again immediately does not seem appropriate – the essay WP:RENOM suggests If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months.Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the last discussion. There were many ip editors voting keep. This article seems heavily influenced by bunq marketing team. Tarrymucks (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of the five "keep" voters in the previous discussion, only one was an IP editor; there were only two IP editors who took part in the entire discussion and one of them did not !vote. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails independent significant coverage. Mostly sources seems self published which talks about his billionaire status. Sources that are actually independent are focused on bunq.Tarrymucks (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, previous AfD closed as Keep very recently, as nom well knows (they participated in it). if you disagree with a close, you take it up with the closing admin, and if not satisfied with their answer you can go to WP:DRV. But just restarting an AfD is disruptive. Fram (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, previous discussion was recently closed as keep after being reopened a 3 time. I find this very strange, on one side some of the sources are not notable or independent enough, on the other, the ones that are notable refer also to his company? If a person has a company evaluated at 1.6 billion[1][2] and does not participate in major politics or scandals this seems appropriate. Wikipedia:GNG also states that "no fixed number of sources [are] required" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spokeoino (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined a speedy deletion request on this—voicing the titular character in a major TV series is obviously a credible claim of significance—but sourcing this meagre is clearly not appropriate in a BLP. ‑ Iridescent17:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She is apparently a BAFTA-nominated individual and has written a book [9]. That source doesn't help notability, but at least confirms these facts. The BAFTA nomination would suggest notability, but I don't have enough coverage found to !vote at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unsalt the “Kelly Hyman” page and move to that title. A lot has changed in the seven years since the page was deleted and salted. SIGCOV which post-dates the prior deletion now exists on the article. FrankAnchor15:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks Notability. Fails GNG. 4 out of 2 sources are written by subject himself ( can’t be used for notability). One is press release and another one is a blog written by his friend. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I would like to respectfully clarify a few points and highlight the efforts already made to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:GNG).
I have invested significant time and effort researching and compiling information about Basu Gautam, and I understand the importance of maintaining Wikipedia’s standards. While it is true that some of the initial sources include self-authored content and a press release, these were added to provide context rather than to establish notability.
However, I want to emphasize that my work did not stop there. I have actively sought and included additional sources, and I am in the process of further expanding the references with reliable, independent, secondary sources that offer significant coverage. These sources aim to address the notability concerns directly.
I deeply value Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and verifiability, and I am fully open to constructive suggestions for improvement. If you are aware of specific independent sources or ways to enhance the article's compliance with GNG, I welcome your input.
Please note that I am committed to improving this article and ensuring it aligns with Wikipedia’s content policies. I kindly request time to make these updates, as I believe the subject has contributed in ways that merit encyclopedic recognition.Please revisit page again GlobalEmpathy (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD discussion isn't intended to evaluate whether the article is currently good enough -- just whether it is possible to find multiple independent reliable sources that significantly cover the article subject (whether they exist at all), regardless of the subject's importance. Essentially for the article to be kept it needs to be shown that there are reliable sources describing the subject in some detail, or that they can be assumed to exist (mostly the former). If you're planning to find better sources later you could also propose it be draftified (moved to Draft:Basu Gautam), where it can be worked on without having to be in the main article space. See the policy on suitability for inclusion for details. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination for deletion should be reconsidered as Basu Gautam meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines through substantial independent, reliable, and verifiable sources that significantly cover his contributions. Below is a comprehensive breakdown of why the article should be retained:
The subject has been extensively covered by reputable third-party sources, including:
✅ Kathmandu Post – A widely respected publication featuring his views on sustainable tourism and peacebuilding.
✅ OnlineKhabar – A major Nepali news platform discussing his work on sustainable development.
✅ Gorkhapatra – A national newspaper reporting on his environmental initiatives.
✅ Annapurna Post – A well-known news source covering the activities of the Lumbini World Peace Forum.
✅ MyRepublica – Documenting his leadership in international peace conferences.
These sources are independent and non-affiliated with Gautam, ensuring an objective validation of his impact.
----
2. Proven Impact in Peace and Environmental Advocacy
Basu Gautam is not just a passive contributor to social causes; he is a recognized leader in:
🌍 Lumbini World Peace Forum – A global platform fostering peace and cross-cultural dialogue.
🌱 One Million Trees Plantation Drive – A large-scale afforestation project addressing climate change.
Both initiatives have been widely covered by media outlets, showcasing their real-world significance beyond mere self-promotion.
----
3. Recognized by Governments and International Bodies
A critical aspect of Wikipedia’s notability criteria is recognition by credible institutions. Gautam has received:
🏆 Peace Ambassador Title – Bestowed by Sarno Municipality, Italy, covered in international media.
🏆 Youth Inspiration Award 2018 – Awarded by Global Youth Parliament.
🏆 Youth Icon Award – Conferred by Global Law Thinkers Society, Bangladesh.
Such distinctions aren’t self-attributed but come from respected external bodies, reinforcing global credibility.
----
4. Meets Wikipedia’s Inclusion Criteria
As per Wikipedia:Notability (People) guidelines, the subject qualifies because:
✅ Significant Media Coverage – Multiple news sources provide independent, in-depth discussions.
✅ Sustained Contributions – His work spans decades in education, peacebuilding, and environmental activism.
✅ International Recognition – Honors from governments and institutions further validate his standing.
Since multiple reliable sources exist, Gautam’s notability is well-established, negating any claim that the article lacks merit.
----
5. No Justification for Draftification or Deletion
The argument for deletion is misplaced, as:
❌ The article is not promotional—it is well-sourced and fact-based.
❌ There is no lack of independent coverage—reputable sources substantiate his achievements.
❌ Draftification is unnecessary, as the article already meets inclusion standards.
If minor improvements are needed, editing and refinement are better solutions than removal.
----
Conclusion: The Article Should Be Kept
Basu Gautam is a nationally and internationally recognized figure in peace and environmental activism. His notability is well-documented through independent sources, governmental recognition, and sustained contributions.
🔹 Instead of deletion or draftification, minor improvements can be made, but the subject’s notability is unquestionable.
Thank you for your feedback regarding the notability concerns. We understand the importance of meeting Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines (GNG) and the need for reliable, independent secondary sources to establish the subject’s significance.
We respectfully want to clarify that extensive work has gone into sourcing and verifying information. In total, 23 references have been provided on the page, and a substantial portion of these are from reliable, independent sources, not authored by the subject or affiliated individuals.
While earlier versions may have relied on primary materials such as blogs or press releases, these have been largely replaced or supplemented with third-party coverage. We kindly request a review of the references currently cited on the page, which include recognized media outlets, news articles, and other independent publications. With Kindest Regards, Global Empathy
For your reference, the article in question is available here:
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. English-language references are either authored by Gautam, connected to Gautam Lumbini World Peace Forum (of which Gautam is president [10]), or only have trivial coverage.
I also machine-translated the non-English references:
A machine translation of [11] includes "Rise Media Network is the media partner in the One Million Tree Plantation and Conservation Campaign", indicating this article is not independent.
Notability Justification for Wikipedia Approval: Basu Gautam
Basu Gautam is a Nepalese peace advocate, environmentalist, and founder of the Lumbini World Peace Forum (LWPF). His work in promoting nuclear disarmament, sustainability, and interfaith dialogue has garnered attention in both national and international media. Below is a summary of independent coverage establishing his notability per Wikipedia's guidelines:
----
Independent Coverage in Reliable Sources:
1. The Annapurna Express (Nepal’s leading English-language weekly)
[3]LWPF collaborates with ICAN – Independent news article detailing Gautam’s partnership with the Nobel Peace Prize-winning ICAN for nuclear disarmament.
[Personal Essays/Columns] – Gautam has written for reputable outlets like OnlineKhabar and MyRepublica, showing thought leadership.
----
Nepali Language Coverage (Machine Translated Highlights)
Annapurna Post, eLumbiniKhabar, MeroLifestyle, Hamrakura – These articles consistently document Basu Gautam’s campaigns, awards, and peacebuilding efforts, indicating sustained and significant coverage in domestic media.
----
Conclusion
Basu Gautam has received significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, both nationally and internationally. His work has been recognized in English, Nepali, Italian, and Arabic-language media, demonstrating broad impact and sustained relevance in peace and environmental activism.
Therefore, Basu Gautam meets the notability requirements for a standalone Wikipedia article, per Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (GNG), having substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. GlobalEmpathy (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of independent, reliable sources supporting the subject's notability. A brief internet search reveals that most available sources are interviews or press releases, which are not considered reliable for establishing notability. Additionally, presentations at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) do not, on their own, confer notability. Ibjaja055 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could hardly even find confirmation that this person is an author. [20] is about all there is. One source isn't enough for AUTHOR. The article now in wiki only has a primary source. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vote FOR keeping, and AGAINST deleting : Yes, of course the initial article is short on details.
The brief volume of content often happens in brand new articles. I was motivated to create the initial page because when one searches in en.wikipedia.org for "Chris Kennedy", one often instead gets search results for "Christopher G. Kennedy". The difference needed to be clarified. I trust that I and others will eventually expand the content of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by LP-mn (talk • contribs) 2025-03-17 00:10:46 (UTC)
And how are you expecting such expansion to happen? What proper, independent, reliable, non-autobiographical biographical sources exist for this person anywhere? You have not cited a single one. At the moment, the article contains two explicit advertisements exhorting the reader in the imperative, and an autobiography, which is totally against basic Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard policy. You should not be writing advertisements here. Uncle G (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and other reasons. The article has purely been crafted as a coatrack for external links, and when it was supposed to be improved a copyright violation was introduced. The creator unfortunately lacks judgement on the usability of sources, and the above reply removes the last hope for the article. Geschichte (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two items with pretty good citation levels is below what I'm generally looking for in WP:NPROF. University-wide teaching awards do not contribute here. On the other hand, one book tends to fall under WP:BLP1E so far as WP:NAUTHOR goes; I did not anyway find reviews on a cursory search. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. For someone at this level of seniority, two well-cited publications (one a textbook) with the rest falling off steeply is below the bar for WP:PROF#C1, and nothing else in the article looks to contribute to notability. I did find one published review of the book, and hints that there might have been another by Garman in [21] (from which any book reviews are now missing), but even if I could find the second review it wouldn't be enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To my mind a notable econometrician. His founding of/chairing of the Midwest Econometrics Group (MEG) is I think very notable within the US academic econometrics community and his role as the guest editor for a special edition of a highly prestigious econometrics journal - the Journal of Econometrics is important, as his work on Splines in ecmetrics via his book and papers ... and these seem to me together sufficient for notability. His published academic work in econometrics is very wide ranging....and I have used some if it in different contexts.... His later post-retirement books and media / opinion piece work seem to me less notable (but my bias is towards the academic side) and I don't know how notable his work as an independent Midwest Voices columnist on the Kansas City Star online edition might be from a journalistic point of view. (Msrasnw (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: I can find references to the WWE wrestler and this author [22] from about a century ago, but nothing for this person. I don't see anything we'd use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - if there are reliable sources, they are buried under the thousands of sources about the famous wrestler and the notable but less famous ace. In such cases, the burden of rescuing it falls upon the article creator. Bearian (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I didn't find anything particularly notable in WP:BEFORE, although the subject's name is indeed mentioned in some books. However, that does not establish the subject's notability, so the subject completely fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bio of a one-book author that appears to fail notability guidelines for WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Single valid reference about this person is an announcement in a small college daily. The other refs provided are her PR agent, blogs, and several of her own bi-lined articles. All the remaining references cover the book, not the author. None of this is enough significant coverage to meet GNG. It seems there could be enough refs for a page about the book where a redirect might be appropriate. — CactusWriter (talk)22:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no substantive RS coverage of the subject. The subject authored a "Wall Street Journal best-seller" but I'm not sure what that is and whether that meets WP:AUTHOR notability. The page was created by an editor who is creating lots of promotional pages for figures related to Dave Ramsey. Thenightaway (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Ramsey Show is the second-most popular radio show in the US. The hosts are well known across the country and have their own podcasts that have large audiences (which you can see from their YouTube views). I created this article because Kamel's notoriety and place as a co-host on the show warranted it.
What about this article sounded promotional? Was there too much biographical info? Are we not supposed to write that books are bestsellers? Are we not supposed to mention that certain recording artists have x amount of top 40 hits or that movies from a certain actor have made billions of dollars, for that matter? Because I've seen those in articles on this platform as well. What is the standard?
I really want to know because I don't think this article deserves to be deleted. I'm happy to adjust to fit standards, and have attempted to do so in the past. But it seems like the "promotional" standard is based on a sliding scale.
And I don't just edit Ramsey-related articles. I have edited and created articles on a variety of subjects from pop culture to music, American history, Disney, etc. Ramsey was just something where I saw a need and filled it. 2719Hyperion (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On top of his two bestselling books and his role as a co-host on the second-most listened to radio show in the US, John Delony recently hit over one million subscribers on his YouTube page. I would argue that qualifies as notoriety, as only a relatively small percentage of YouTube pages hit that milestone.
These standards seem to have a lot of inconsistencies. I have seen many biographical articles that are less in depth than Delony's and the tone is very similar. I can rewrite, eliminate the "promotional" language, and resubmit for review. I don't think this article should be deleted. 2719Hyperion (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no substantive RS coverage of the subject. The subject authored a "Wall Street Journal best-seller" but I'm not sure what that is and whether that meets WP:AUTHOR notability. The page was created by an editor who is creating lots of promotional pages for figures related to Dave Ramsey. Thenightaway (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Ramsey Show is the second-most popular radio show in the US and the hosts are well known across the country and have their own podcasts that have big audiences (which you can see from their YouTube views). I created this article because Coleman's notoriety and place as a co-host on the show warranted it.
What about this article sounded promotional? Was there too much biographical info? Are we not supposed to write that books are bestsellers? Are we not supposed to mention that certain recording artists have x amount of top 40 hits or that movies from a certain actor have made billions of dollars, for that matter? Because I've seen that on this platform as well. What is the standard?
I really want to know because I don't think the article deserves to be deleted. I'm happy adjusting to fit standards, and have attempted to do so in the past.
And I don't just edit Ramsey-related articles. I have edited and created articles on a variety of subjects from pop culture to Disney, music, etc. Ramsey was just something where I saw a need and filled it. 2719Hyperion (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ramsey Solutions and/or The Ramsey Show, not seeing anything which suggests that the topic is of stand alone notability. GNG is not met and I don't think that any of the SNG are either... Best selling alone does not meet AUTHOR (you could buy your own books after all). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't merging these articles with The Ramsey Show article make the latter a bit large? And I have seen quite a few biographical articles that contain thinner information than Coleman's. Why are those okay?
The Coleman article should not remain in mainspace because as a subject he fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. But there's a valid reason per WP:ATD to redirect to a notable topic he is associated with, and it will preserve the page history if Coleman becomes notable in the future. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no substantive RS coverage of the subject. There is nothing to indicate that they are notable. The page was created by an editor who is creating lots of promotional pages for figures related to Dave Ramsey. Thenightaway (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Ramsey Show is the second-most popular radio show in the US. The hosts are well known across the country and have their own podcasts that have big audiences (which you can see from their YouTube views). I created this article because Kamel's notoriety and place as a co-host on the show warranted it.
What about this article sounded promotional? Was there too much biographical info? Are we not supposed to write that books are bestsellers? Are we not supposed to mention that certain recording artists have x amount of top 40 hits or that movies from a certain actor have made billions of dollars, for that matter? Because I've seen those in articles on this platform as well. What is the standard?
I really want to know because I don't think this article deserves to be deleted. I'm happy to adjust to fit standards, and have attempted to do so in the past. But it seems like the "promotional" standard is based on a sliding scale.
And I don't just edit Ramsey-related articles. I have edited and created articles on a variety of subjects from pop culture to music, American history, Disney, etc. Ramsey was just something where I saw a need and filled it. 2719Hyperion (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From a brief search there seem to be more than enough reviews of his books to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Reviews of Pre-Capitalist Iran: A Theoretical History: [23][24][25]. Reviews of Kurds and the State in Iran: The Making of Kurdish Identity: [26][27][28]. Reviews of Kurdish Nationalism in Iran: The Forgotten Years (1947-1979): [29][30]. MCE89 (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The sources in the article aren't sufficient for WP:GNG. An article on huffpost, links to social networks and a page claiming the subject's academic background. If something more substantial comes up, I'll change my vote. Svartner (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article currently only has one source, but it's the Danish Biographical Dictionary (Dansk Biografisk Lexikon), so he meets WP:ANYBIO#3. There is more info in that source and in the Danish Wikipedia article which could be added. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per ANYBIO, though I did not find any usable coverage in Norwegian. According to DBL, the middle name should be spelled with one N. Geschichte (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the subject of this article and am requesting a courtesy deletion. The only notable aspect to my career in terms of wide in-depth press coverage is only one event, and no other coverage reveals substantial public interest in my career - the rest are run of the mill sources or passing mentions. There has been a banner at the top of the page for seven years asking for additional citations for verification, and none have come forward that changed its status. I would ask for the community to delete my page, which I had no hand in creating. JHHM (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I mean, I wouldn't want something describing a sexual harassment online, guilty or not. Seems to be enough written about the individual as a curator [31], nothing in the Getty ULAN [32]Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wrote a rather extensive book on the curation process "Curating from Z to A", although I see no book reviews, for it, appears to have had an extensive career with several notable art institutions. As explained above, the sexual harassment items are not something one would want to be kept online, but I see no reason to delete the article otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Article is generally well written and sourced. Appreciate the nominator being transparent. Boredintheevening (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple references show significant, not trivial, coverage in independent secondary sources, discussing her early life (references 1-5), professional career and her views and contributions to the discussion of the housing crisis. An important notability factor (WP:AUTHOR) relies on the following: The person's work (or works) has won significant critical attention. Her book has received has significant critical attention, including book reviews in major sites including Vox and Bloomberg News (ref 9), which stated that Demsas "has distinguished herself within the supply-side camp." Her overall work has led to multiple high profile interviews, including on Bloomberg (ref. 9), NPR (ref. 11) and Ezra Klein's NYTimes interview (ref. 12), indicating her work has had significant attention. Per WP:NAUTHOR, references 8 & 9 show she is known for originating a significant new concept, further enhancing her notability. Included in the article were her opinions on the housing crisis; there is no Wikipedia injunction against discussing a subject's views. There is no Wikipedia injunction against using the subject's self-authored published works in reputable publications to verify the information presented. The references discussed above were used to verify Demsas' views, not to establish notability. And, only 4/23 references even fall within that purview. In brief: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple publishedsecondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (Wikipedia:Notability (people)). The article meets all criteria.
I note that the first reviewer (Ipigott]) did not see a problem with this article, and later removed a tag stating that this article may not achieve notability, claiming that "del tag - no longer applicable." Mwinog2777 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that she meets WP:AUTHOR. A search of Newspapers.com shows a lot of columnists in other newspapers basing columns on articles by Demsas in The Atlantic and critiquing what she has written. So far I've found examples in The Indianapolis Star, The Herald-Palladium, Sun Journal (Lewiston, Maine), and The San Francisco Examiner, by 5 different columnists. I'll try to add them to the article. (Before searching, I had thought this might be a case of TOOSOON, as she joined The Atlantic only 3 years ago, in 2022. But it's clear that she very quickly had a big impact.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing the kind of coverage required to meet WP:NJOURNALIST. Some participants above are citing discussion of her work ([40], [41]) as WP:SIGCOV of her, which it's not (that's more of an WP:NACADEMIC criterion). These are mentions, not independent reviews of her body of work required to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Meanwhile, the Bits and Deets article should be deleted as an unreliable blog that scrapes personal info and aggregates it as SEO bait. The rest of the sources appear to be her own work or WP:INTERVIEWs. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Interviews: "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." The multiple interviews listed were done by highly reputable outlets, including the New York Times and NPR. The interviews were presented as investigative journalism with the interview material often interspersed with the interviewer's own analysis and thoughts. Please review the interviews.Mwinog2777 (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, mixed up PBS and NPR, my bad. But, disagree, both interviews had in-depth comments by interviewers, particularly the Ezra Klein, even with only a cursory glance.~~~ Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article has sources but not a single one treats the subject other than passing mentions of her as a member of a cast. A further search reveals only primary sources and a raft of social media entries. Fails both points of WP:NACTOR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Fails both points of WP:NACTOR." according to the nominator? What points? How does she fail them if her roles are significant and the productions, notable? -Mushy Yank. 15:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Michael Gervais meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a notable psychologist specializing in high-performance mindset training. He has been featured in major publications like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Forbes, demonstrating significant coverage in reliable sources. As co-founder of Compete to Create and a consultant for elite athletes and organizations, his work has had a substantial impact. His podcast, Finding Mastery, further establishes his influence in the field. Given the depth of coverage and professional significance, he meets Wikipedia’s notability standards. Mercurydry (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Geschichte (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and note to closer: the title Michael Gervais is WP:SALTED to admin only. So in case, this was kept, kindly move the page (for non-admins, kindly make a request on WP:RM/T) to the said title as this current title includes unnessesary disambiguator. Thanks and no opinion on the AFD. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this article was created to circumvent the recreation of a blocked/salted topic. There may be some reliable sources here that justify stub, but said stub should be created after requesting the salting to be reverted, not by circumventing it with a sockpuppet account. Cortador (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : The Fr Wiki article is only a list of national catalogue listings used a sourcing and a list of books. The sourcing is even worse than what's here... I can only find this review of one of his books [42]. I don't see enough sourcing to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This review in the Naval War College journal (?, I'm not sure if it's a magazine or a formal academic jouranl) seems to help this person pass AUTHOR [43]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep per the two reviews Oaktree found, bearing in mind that most sources about the subject are likely to be a) offline and b) in French. – Joe (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Right now looking like No Consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this person is notable enough. I couldn't find enough reliable sources to prove its notability. فيصل (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found and added several sources, which are overviews of Arab women writers and literature, tertiary sources rather than secondary. The content within them about this writer is short, but the fact that they include her, and the way they write about her writing, leads me to think that secondary sources exist. The last source currently in the article, at magazine.jouhina.com, is unfortunately a deadlink and not archived (as far as I have been able to find). From what I can see on the Wayback Machine of other articles in that magazine, it would have included critique of her writing, by the author of the article and others, and biographical detail, and would certainly count as SIGCOV. Perhaps a WP editor will have access to it offline. I have tried googling her Arabic name (I do not read or speak Arabic!), and there is one source the title of which translates as Writers from the Arabian Gulf, with the content described as "Arab authors; women Arab authors; Persian Gulf countries; biography." Even if I could read Arabic, only a snippet view is available on Google Books, but if anyone has access to أدباء وأديبات من الخليج العربي offline, it may also be useful. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if he is notable. Most of sources seem to be either primary or only tangentially related to him. I am unsure whether he meets WP:CREATIVE; points 3 and 4 are relevant. I am not sure if the attention he got was critical and whether his work has been covered in enough periodical articles. (I see [44], but not much more.) Even if The Little Red Book of Selling had made him notable, he would seem to be a bit too BLP1E-ish, as the rest of the coverage is more-or-less trivial or primary. Janhrach (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit23:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see plenty of good sources. I remember the incident that lead to his being banned from the airline, so BLP1E doesn't apply. There are issues with the article, but they can be resolved through ordinary editing. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: Do you think he meets points 3 or 4 of WP:CREATIVE? I did not express that well, but WP:CREATIVE was intended to be the main point of my nom. I am willing to withdraw this nom if there is a convincing argument that he does. Janhrach (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);
I don't see multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, but I haven't really done a thorough search. Like I have written, I have found [45], but the other articles I have found were blogs (or similar), not articles from periodicals. Janhrach (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (may return with !vote) This is a typical promotional article for someone whose main skill is promoting. He writes those books a friend of mine calls "business porn": which promise great wealth not unlike that of megachurch leaders. I removed some irrelevant promotional statements, but there are undoubtedly more. I am not sure that the speaking awards (e.g. "Certified Speaking Professional (CSP) Award") are of value because the organization appears to be a speakers' bureau. Two of the book awards (IPPY) are indeed awards but he is among other winners, in one case one of 66. A fairly snide article in Time magazine was used for one "cute" quote but ignored 4 paragraphs of negative review of his work. (I fixed some of that.) The reviews by Jack Covert seem to be in a personal blog, albeit a pretty ambitious one. His books have sold many copies, and I can see some presence in library collections. I confess that I have little regard for this category of output, along with all of the self-help books. I just thought I should be honest about my prejudice. Lamona (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has had best-selling books although I do not find the two NY Times pages that are listed here. I do find a 2003 NYT best seller list for "paperback advice" books. It seems odd that an older list turns up in a search on his name but the two newer ones listed here do not. I cannot find anything that is independent to fill in his bio, other than being banned by an airline for bad behavior. The link to 800ceoread is a blog post on a book sales site. As I note above the various positive quotes were cherry-picked. Given the degree of PROMO and the lack of independent sources I tend to have doubts about the sources on the article that I cannot find. Lamona (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, because there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Most references are primary or technical sources rather than in-depth third-party discussions of Don Libes himself. The article reads more like a CV than an appropriate Wiki biography Neurorocker (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete. The nominator has not fully understood the notability criteria for academics, WP:NPROF, and it appears has also not done a detailed WP:Before. Understandable since they are relatively new, but still not the best. That aside I cannot find enough citations of his papers to convince me that he passes WP:NPROF#C1. There are some reviews of his books, so there is some WP:NAUTHOR contribution. I could not find his CV, which may be available to DOE or NIST personnel. Hence I don't know about awards. I lean delete, unconvincingly. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: for policy based input please. A Google Scholar page cannot be used to prove or disprove notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi15:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for biographical sources, and there just aren't any. This person's software is documented, not least by this person. ☺ But this person xyrself is not. Which is why the article gives almost half its length to expect and in the other half has claims that I cannot source. For example, the claim to being first to port a piece of software is not sourceable. The original paper is silent on whether it was the first, and no-one else appears to have recorded it as such since. I cannot find a source that doesn't come from Wikipedia that records this person doing this at all, the available sourcing on this person's work being that poor.
In fact, only people named Don Libes have written about Don Libes, everywhere.
Excluding books where the author is Don Libes outright, I found a CRC Press book with a potted biography that looked promising, until I saw "Prepared by Don Libes." at the foot of the text. The person who wrote what Wikipedia now has is Donlibes (talk·contribs), replacing a much shorter article — which was, it transpires, written by Don Libes, since it was copied from xyr NIST autobiography (Don Libes BIO at the Wayback Machine (archived 2007-05-02)) with first-person pronouns replaced by third person.
It is impossible, as we can see, for anyone to write a biography if one isn't one of these Don Libeses, which isn't how Wikipedia works. ☺
FA
A
GA
