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.
This three-sentence stub that is fully encompassed and addressed at Pablo Picasso fails the WP:GNG test for a standalone page. However, the page creator contested a WP:BOLD merge so I am seeking AfD consensus for a redirect to Pablo Picasso. (A merge is unnecessary since the content was already merged.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/speedy redirect What a bafflingly pointless page. CyberTheTiger, why did you create this and why would you object to a merge? Absurd to think a separate page is needed for a couple sentences and then to demand an AFD for this non-article when the content goes in the main article just fine. Reywas92Talk20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, as nominator I am fine with delete since I don't think this will be common search term. Just did the merge to spare the community some process and yet here we are. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, he lived there... This isn't needing an article. One sentence is enough in the main article. Everyone has to be from somewhere. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a couple years ago the Museum of Modern Art held an exhibition dedicated to that particular era in Picassos life. And the museum also published a book called "Picasso in Fontainebleau". Cyber the tiger 🐯 (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge already completed, and of the opinion that where someone lived and worked is an essential part of their life and artistic history. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect after merger. As noted by a couple of folks above, this article title was the exact title of a major exhibit at MoMA a few years ago, with the obligatory glossy book. Saw the exhibit twice. Bearian (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I for the life of me can't find any reliable sources. the place and sculpture exists, but I don't think that it's notable. The only source I can find is
but I don't think this is particularly reliable. Everything else I could find online was not independent, or was covering a replacement of one of the sculptures with a bronze copy. I think this is a WP:TNT, WP:GNG, and is full of WP:PROMO in current form. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it now includes its Memorial Art Gallery page as a reference. Artworks usually are verified as notable if they include their sourced holding museum reference, so please check for these if you make further artwork AfDs (thanks). Additionally, the museum website page includes its own list of references. The museum page and its references, along with many of the other cites such as newspapers and The Brooklyn Rail reference included in the nomination, meet GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's simply untrue that a holding museum page for an article typically establishes notability, as many museums have brief data pages for most all their artwork and even this one lacks significant coverage needed to pass GNG. But the linked [8] in addition to the Brooklyn Rail is certainly enough for notability of the sculpture series. Reywas92Talk14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, museums have pages for their artworks. Please look at the museum link again, it contains further references towards the bottom. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's how I found the link I mentioned. But having a museum page doesn't mean a page is presumed to be notable, many don't have a bibliography or substantial analysis. Reywas92Talk18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, please have a read of the museum link. It's a full presentation with multiple photographs and its own references. Museum pages are not primary references, they are simply recognition that a particular artwork (or in this case, group of works) both exists and is prominent enough to be brought into and remain in the collection of their prominent museum. Museums don't just take in any work, they closely and expertly judge notability for inclusion, which is why a single museum source is usually enough to provide notability to an artwork. In this case the artwork is also fully in public space, to be visited at any hour of the day or night, and was granted this exposure by the museum which, of course, puts its own reputation on the line when making such decisions. Thanks for asking for further discussion, an exchange of points-of-view. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of thousands of museums that have judged millions of artworks to be in their collections. Significance to display at a university gallery – or even the Met, with 1.5 million works and perhaps as many webpages about expertly judged objects – is not the same as notability on Wikipedia or the need for a standalone page here. No, a single source is not acceptable, and there is no basis for this claim in WP:N. Reywas92Talk22:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, absolutely over done, over the top article about a run-of-the-mill sculpture in a park. I laughed out loud at the line about "Despite being a world famous artist." If it is necessary to have 9 of the 16 sources be the person who made the sculpture, then that is not a "world famous artist" and this is not a notable sculpture. There is clearly not enough coverage in independent sources to support a separate article about this sculpture. This sculpture can be covered in probably two sentences in the article on the artist. Asparagusstar (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed "world famous artist", good catch. Aside from that, it's not one sculpture, or a "sculpture in a park", as you imply throughout your comment. It's a series of sculptures. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed you "upgraded" your delete to 'Strong delete', even after I fixed your main objection. Pointing out again, the sculptures are not just a "sculpture' in a park but a series of sculptures placed in the outside public space of the major art museum in Rochester, New York. Aside from the museum cites the sources seem to easily meet GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is at least this editor's 5th comment here. Their incorrect claims have already been addressed by multiple editors. Their multiple attention-seeking comments are adding nothing to this conversation other than filibustering and wasting other editors' volunteer time. Asparagusstar (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe she meets WP:ARTIST. Could not find coverage in google news or books. The awards do not appear major (and not reported in press). She is not part of a permanent collection of notable galleries. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am looking her up in Australian art sources to check notability. In the meantime, as most of her career has been in Germany and she has received more exposure there, is there any way to refer her article to German Wikipedia and see if the German editors can find her as a notable artist there? LPascal (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article Anne Pincus does not have sources either (other Wikipedia sites have different criteria, and don't always require sources etc). Her own website, shown in the External links section, has a Press section which lists reviews of her exhibitions in publications like Süddeutsche Zeitung and Abendzeitung. Those articles have links to the newspapers' websites - I've just searched Süddeutsche Zeitung and found a 2021 review, but on first glance neither seems to go back far enough for reviews before that. I think as far as galleries are concerned, we'd also need to search in German galleries ... RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the writer is known within the contemporary art scene in the UK and is currently active suggesting there may be more additions to the page in future. While I agree that searching for the author turns up lots of his own writing, a look at other art critics, writers and journalists with Wikipedia entries returns similar results. In terms of independent coverage, this article does include links to notable outlets that have sought his views on art stories and artworks. Suggestions for improvement rather than deletion may be a better course of action. Londoneditor284 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — Londoneditor284 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - although this person is mostly only known within the contemporary British art scene, they have contributed numerous articles, interviews, and features in multiple outlets and have been quoted in many sources (as can be seen from the citations). They are clearly significant enough within their own field to warrant keeping this article. Any suggestions to improve the article would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.218.212 (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — 80.45.218.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Quotations in sources are not enough to demonstrate notability (except in a limited case for certain academics), and authoring articles isn't either. What SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources can you offer? Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me do some digging and get back to you. The nature of the subject (someone who writes about other people's artwork for a living) makes it difficult by definition to have many SIGCOV sources. I feel this should be taken into account? 80.45.218.212 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could Dclemens1971 help in finding any better sources for this person/article? I've looked at pages for other critics too but can't seem to see how they fit the criteria if we are super-strict with SIGCOV Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote. LizRead!Talk!03:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
It's what we should expect from a person who's not notable, I suppose. And as already mentioned, please strike through your duplicative !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting this AFD discussion. Since there are several strong Keep arguments, I'm giving this discussion a little more time for supporters to locate RS that provide SIGCOV. If nothing appears, then I assume this article will be headed towards deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like more references have been added linking to interviews on BBC Radio London, a 'talking head' spot on a BBC documentary, and a reference from the Royal Academy of Arts. I think this person is notable enough for Wikipedia. I will find more references too. Likeabutterfly (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been adding some more references and a good point was raised about WP:SIGCOV so I've looked at other notable UK based art critics - Jonathan Jones, Adrian Searle, Alastair Sooke, Mark Hudson and Waldemar Janusczak are the ones I could find who have Wikipedia entries. In all of the above I found they are all heavily reliant on WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. It's unclear to me how a practising art critic, or more broadly a journalist, can be eligible for a Wikipedia entry without heavily relying on WP:PRIMARYSOURCE? I did try to find whether this has been discussed on forums elsewhere within Wikipedia but I wasn't able to. I appreciate I'm relatively new here so happy to be directed to a relevant discussion if it's already been had. Londoneditor284 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing that helpful discussion and I agree we shouldn't base arguments at AfD on the existence of other potentially policy-violating pages that haven't been nominated yet. However, the critics in my last comment are among the most notable art critics in the UK and if the bar for WP:SIGCOV is set so high that no UK-based art critic would be eligible for a Wikipedia entry then that would appear excessive given the UK has a significant art scene and critics play an important part in it. Londoneditor284 (talk) 09:07, 15 January 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
A fairly promotional biography for a consultant/PhD whose work is almost exclusively self-published. ("Psychegenics Press" appears to have published only works by Wenger; "Project Renaissance" is described as Wenger's own organization.) I don't see any evidence that he meets WP:NACADEMIC; his work does not appear to be very widely cited, and he did not appear to hold any qualifying academic appointment. I thought there might be a pass on WP:NAUTHOR for his one book published by a mainstream publisher, The Einstein Factor, but I could not find any full-length published reviews, including searches in JSTOR, Ebsco and ProQuest. And for WP:GNG/WP:NBIO, there is no WP:SIGCOV of him in independent sources. The sources are limited to: his own writing, a WP:USERGENERATEDobituary, an obit from an organization he was affiliated with, his officialbios, or places to buyhis books online and WP:SPSblogposts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the pen name of an individual who is known for writing an anti-Korean manga series. While the series is absolutely notable in itself (and its article is quite interesting), that doesn't warrant an extra article about its anonymous author who is only known for creating that specific work. Anonymous03:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the discussion on WP:FTN, there is an inherent issue here. While the claim to notability is of him as an author and autistic advocate, all of what he have from him is through the thoroughly discredited practice of facilitated communication - which basically means that none of this is actually him. While this would not be disqualifying if we had sources to address this, none of the sources do. It's impossible to write this article without implicitly giving credence to FC and violating WP:FRINGE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article creator here. The article is not about/endorsing facilitated communication or any fringe theory. The article is a biographical article and is backed by the sources provided. Also, for what it's worth, the article, as backed by sources, suggests the individual does not use facilitated communication, but rather types on a tablet computer. I don't think there's any violation of WP:FRINGE here. I see no reason not to keep. —siroχo01:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the article itself is not about facilitated communication, it is remarkable that no source I can find has commented on whether or not facilitated communication is still being used by the person in question. This is especially concerning considering the video evidence that is out there that Ido Kedar does not offer tablet communication independent of those with whom he has had an acknowledged FC/RPM relationship.
We are cautioned to look for WP:FRIND sources whenever questions that relate to WP:FRINGEBLP come up. And, like it or lump it, there is a significant part of this story (even including that the story exists at all) which is being driven by a fringe theory. I would like nothing more than for a third-party WP:FRIND source to appear that would evaluate and state with clarity what the situation is. Do we have a situation here where FC/RPM was used and then Ido Kedar transitioned away (if so, this would be the first documented case of this that I think would have ever been seen)? Or do we have a case where FC/RPM is still going on making a lot of this questionable.
This is a WP:BLP, so we are tied by Wikipedia's rules to follow what reliable sources say about the subject. But given the problems of FC/RPM, it seems to me that we may be in a situation where literally no reliable sources have been written on this person. This includes sources from locations that would otherwise be considered reliable. When it comes for WP:FRINGE claims, we have seen some of the best publishing outlets fall flat on their faces and end up WP:SENSATION instead of reliability. Obviously, that is a huge risk here too.
Getting a source which clearly indicates whether FC/RPM is still being used by Ido Kevar would be great. But I have found none which do so.
Keep. Meets WP:GNG per coverage significant coverage in the Los Angeles Times, NBC Los Angles, CBC, and others. Moral panic about the possibility of the dreaded WP:FRINGE!!! is not a criterion for deletion (good heavens, what if some people believe the wrong thing!!!??). If there is relevant, reliable, BLP-compliant coverage poo-pooing this man and his works, by all means cite it as well. But until then, there appears to be enough secondary, independent, reliable coverage of the subject to warrant a brief, respectable biographical article. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a guy manages to convince some news outlets that he has psychic powers, or that he was an alien, and they cover his psychic powers with limited credulity, and there is no source debunking said psychic powers with respect to the individual, we would be forced to have an article that says in wiki voice that a man can do things that are impossible, because we have no source that says otherwise with respect to this individual. This is why an article that violates WP:FRINGE is sometimes a problem worthy of deletion - if it can be fixed, then yes, if not, no.
I say this in jest but I would honestly bet if I scraped mid twentieth century newspapers enough I could probably find something like that. Even further, this is worse, because every single word and everything about him is potentially suspect because if he uses FC he didn't even say it! This is therefore not an actual article on him. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
good heavens, what if some people believe the wrong thing!!!?? I am amazed that this argument is being made. Our first commitment before anything else should be to present the best information according to the best sources. If we cannot verify even the most basic of facts about a person (such as whether they are communicating what some claim they are communicating or not) because literally every word attributed fails verification as being said by them, then it is highly irresponsible of Wikipedia to WP:ASSERT anything about the person beyond such points as "this person exists". This is a biography which is based almost entirely on works that are not independently verified. To be clear, yes, there is obvious and considerable doubt that the journalists at The LA Times, NBC Los Angeles, and the CBC actually verified that they were communicating with Ido Kedar and not his handlers. This kind of "public interest story" rarely gets the attention necessary even in erstwhile reliable outlets (we see this again and again with fringe-adjacent subjects). How do we write an article on a topic when we cannot even verify the most basic facts about the topic? jps (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this is someone trained by the founder of the Rapid prompting methodSoma Mukhopadhyay and is now an independent communicator, then he is the first one ever and the main stream news should be beating down his door with coverage of this amazing miracle. Since that has not happened we know that this is just another story from the FC community offered up with no proof of independence. We must treat this as we would any other claim of a miracle with no evidence such as someone who is dead communicating with a medium and we are supposed to believe them because they say so. We do not need to have a R/S to disprove mediumship. I would be fine with keeping this article if we were to give the authorship to the person who is facilitating Kedar. As Animalparty states, there is R/S but the authorship is not Kedar. Sgerbic (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The sourcing indicates that he is notable, and gives us something to write about him, and that is all we need. What we write doesn't actually have to be "true", it just has to reflect what our sources said about him. Even if his words are not his own, and "someone grabbed his fingers", he would still be notable, because sources have chosen to report - that's core Wikipedia policy (in other words, we verify that reliable sources said something, not that they got it right). If there are documented doubts about his communication, they can go in the article (and if not, not). Elemimele (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When there is no proof the person as discussed in the article does not actually exist that is, quite different. If there was the same amount of coverage about a medium talking with an alleged person from the afterlife we would have to give the same amount of coverage if the news do? Absurd. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't' provided any reliable sources that explicitly state "that none of this is actually him"; and we don't delete articles because "none of the sources do". If you want to challenge any of the sources used in the article based on the argument that they don't say what you want them to say, then please go ahead and do that, otherwise this living person easily passes our criteria for a stand-alone article.Isaidnoway(talk)19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaidnoway The reliable sources say he uses or used facilitated communication, which no one has ever moved on from and is basically a ouija board when it comes to the process and accuracy of stuff coming from him. Unless all these sources are wrong and he never used FC, nothing about this person is actually from him. Again, see medium example. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to RPM. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. As essentially all of this biography constitutes an extraordinary claim, we need much better fringe-contextualizing sources in order to present anything in wikivoice. I found some mentions of Kedar's book in Controversial Therapies for Autism and Intellectual Disabilities: Fad, Fashion, and Science in Professional Practice, though I don't have access to the full chapter. There are also a few mentions in Review of Communication Alternatives in Autism: Perspectives on Typing and Spelling Approaches for the Nonspeaking by Katharine Beals[9] that appropriately characterizes the facilitation methods he uses as "especially worrying". I don't think these are enough for a biography, but they could support a paragraph in the RPM article. JoelleJay (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NIGERIANPROMO... Ungh, another one that is a "mastermind" [10] and a consulting founder [11]. Flowery language for nothing to show. I don't see any critical reviews of anything written by this person. Entrepreneur isn't notable, civil engineer by training implies he doesn't work as one, which is also non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This profile meets notable criteria if you contextualize within their regional and industry specific impact. With very substantial online following and at least 7 national level publications, it is important to recognize that documentation standards often reflect systemic biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinschukwudera (talk • contribs) 21:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject does not meet WP:GNG due to the lack of reliable, independent, and significant secondary sources. The provided references, including social media handles and promotional articles, fail to establish notability. The article appears to be promotional in tone and content, and the achievements cited do not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion.--Jaypung (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Without resorting to WP:OTHERSTUFF, I will like to draw attention to the amount of blue-links at Template:Democratic_State_Chairs. State chairs in Democratic Party are generally less important than state secretaries/presidents in Indian political party like CPIM which is one of the only six national parties. State presidents/secretaries are highest position in state unit of a party.
Multiple reliable media have covered Uday Narkar. What this article needs is improvement, not deletion. Besides People's Democracy is indeed a reliable sources for this because the citation covers just the event of state conference and election of Uday Narkar as state secretary. Besides he is also the member of Central Committee of CPIM. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the article it seems like the relevant criteria here is almost certainly WP:NAUTHOR rather than WP:SIGCOV. That said, I don't think the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR either. They've written too many books for me to do a thorough search for reviews of every single one, but none are with major publishers and I wasn't able to find any reviews in reliable publications — just a handful of reviews on blogs (e.g. [12][13][14][15]). The author is also very briefly mentioned in a couple of books like this one about the Sherlock Holmes fandom, but nothing to suggest they meet WP:NAUTHOR criteria 1. Overall a lot of low quality sources, but nothing to suggest the kind of significant or well-known work or body of work that WP:NAUTHOR requires. MCE89 (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination for an IP address user. I did a search and found some potential sources online, but the IP user disagrees. Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This man does not seem to be notable, the only content about him that are not from his own companies are podcasts interviews. 🄻🄰16:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is already on the Arabic Wiki, then it can be speedy deleted per A2. However, the tag {{Not English}} can be placed there and translated for further review. Conyo14 (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After translating the page, it seems that the article was written in part or in whole using an AI tool such as ChatGPT, based on its vocabulary biases. The article needs to be rewritten even now to match Wikipedia's editorial tone, that is, if it stays. — Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 20:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your concern, Mike Sy wants to have its english version as well, as he has command over both languages and currently he is living in china and having more notable links that can be cited are in chinese.
As I am friend of Mike Sy, We will proceed for english version in neutral tone, then we will amend arabic version as per english or if any senior wikipedian can do it for us that would be highly appreciated. WalkerJ007 (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable academic. I cannot find any evidence that he passes WP:GNG. Regarding WP:NAUTHOR, his books (many of which are his translations of others' works) do not appear to be widely reviewed and I could not find more than one review for any of them. As for WP:NACADEMIC, he holds a non-tenure-track role, has an average h-index for his level/discipline, and does not meet any other requirements. As for WP:ANYBIO #1, the Ordre des Palmes Academique does not seem to be a rare award (see here) and the only evidence I can find that he was awarded it is his own webpage. All in all, no qualification on any standard. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did find one published review of one book [16]/[17]; that's not enough for WP:AUTHOR. And the citation record examined above is obviously not going to pass WP:PROF#C1. The knighthood can be verified at [18] but I'm not convinced it's enough either, and I see no evidence for any other form of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual. A lot of the sources are unreliable or primary. Doesn't meet WP:NBASIC and the creator of the article appears to have a COI. Frost00:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Do credible peer-reviewed sources (or those managed by editors) over a period of time (at least since 2017) like The Poetry Society (UK), The Bombay Literary Magazine, Poetry Magazine, etc. count? As it is, one of his poems has been handed out in schools in the UK as part of a UK Dept for Education project. The same poem was presented at COP26, the United Nations Climate Conference, in 2021. His work is also known in the UK, with his forthcoming pamphlet having created somewhat of a buzz. Through The Poetry Society's partnership with the University of Hertfordshire to support their MA Animation students in producing animated films, one of Kashyap's poems was made into a short film. Several other videos of his poetry readings have also appeared on YouTube through different organisations. I'm curious—would any of this not count?
Hi! To clarify, things like "created a buzz" can't really be measured objectively – while it is a bi counter-intuitive, what we call "notability" is closer to "whether there is enough independent material to write an article" than to "how famous the person is". However, peer-reviewed sources commenting on him or his body of work would definitely count for notability. I haven't looked at them individually, but that is indeed very promising. The poetry readings aren't necessarily useful, as they would still be primary sources and wouldn't give more information than "X read this person's poem", except if there is significant commentary/analysis on the poems. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! As mentioned before, I've made sure to use statements from different websites, such as where work is reviewed and not just published, with comments from editors of journals, or people who review his work. I suppose this will increase once Kashyap's new pamphlet is out (probably around May) but until then, there are a considerable amount of sources, including news articles and press releases, that have made a mention.
Also, since it is not an autobiography, nor am I connected to the subject of the article, I'm removing the autobiography tag from the top of the page. I removed one other tag, which mentioned a lack of backlinks(?) to this page –- this I did after finding links (for this page) to several other pages. Please do let me know if there's been an issue! Also, I intend to add more discussion about the subject from a few more sources I've found. Could you please review in, say 24 hours, with the point in mind that there'll still be some material to add? Thank you!
Delete. I don't see notability yet. Two pamphlets and a zine, published by small non-notable presses, that's not enough for notability. In addition, much of the content (as the nominator and others saw) lacks proper sourcing. Like, this is supposed to verify that one of the subject's poems was nominated for an award--but this is a website that publishes one of the subject's poems, and the note about the nomination no doubt came from the author, before we even get to the notability of the award, "Sundress Publication’s Best of the Net", there's the question of a. why isn't there better sourcing and b. is a nomination for this worth mentioning in the first place. And that can be repeated for many of the factoids and instances of namedropping in the article. So, "His third pamphlet, Notes on Burials, won the Poetry Business New Poets Prize in 2024, judged by the poet Holly Hopkins"--yes, but who is Holly Hopkins, and how is that Poetry Business Award (the author's writing of the article notwithstanding) a notable award contributing to notability? Drmies (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, being nominated for both the Pushcart Prize and the Best of the Net is something big in the poetry world. People like Amitav Ghosh have won Pushcart Prizes, and there are more than a few famous poets I've read (and could name) who've been included in the BotN anthology. I remember seeing a blog post mentioning the same, and tried retrieving it best as I could – however, since you mentioned, here's a twitter/x link (from a different journal) nominated Kashyap's name: https://x.com/AtlasAndAlice/status/1707414323545493536. And oh, the magazine you noted: https://x.com/Briefly_Zine/status/1576968035248009217. As for the Poetry Business award, here's the Poetry Business article you could take a look at – I understand they're a big name in the UK, and the current UK Poet Laureate and the previous one were both first published by the said press. Friend, I understand you're making efforts to keep Wikipedia as reliable as one can, and I thank you for asking the right questions, and I understand the bit about notability. I'm still curious though that while many pages/articles with much less information are kept up, how is this one not good enough compared to those? Thanks again! GreenBlast4 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, when your first hit is pr.com [19], we have issues. Rest of the sourcing is pretty much PR items. I find no book reviews, this is PROMO, virtually a linkedin bio. Neither of which is appropriate for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cool family history project, but doesn't seem like it has attracted any attention that could confer notability. Nothing to be found in any of the Australian sources that I would expect might cover something like this. MCE89 (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:MILL. What a horrific page. It's as if someone inserted random words into a AI generated tweet thread. It's probably an autobiography, which everyone knows in 2025 is frowned upon here. And literally millions of people, including yours truly, are related distantly to the early modern kings of England and Scotland. Bearian (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amendement to original rationale: Also should be deleted under criteria 9 of WP:DEL-REASON as an unsourced BLP which is external to notability policies including SNGs. Fails our policy on verification at WP:BLP. 4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that the subject is unlikely to pass WP:GNG, but I think they probably pass WP:AUTHOR for their book The Reluctant Metrosexual: Dispatches from an Almost Hip Life. I found reviews in the New York Times [21] and the Washington Post [22], and there are several other usable reviews referenced here [23] although frustratingly I wasn't able to find any of those originals from 2004. Their book is also cited or mentioned in probably a dozen academic books and journal articles, although admittedly not in any great detail. Together I think that's probably enough for a WP:AUTHOR pass. MCE89 (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Dclemens1971 and MCE89 I would feel a lot better about this if those sources had biographical content but they don't other than perfunctory coverage. The sources are about the book rather than the author. Fundamentally we don't have materials supporting a biography page. Given that it is only a single work, wouldn't this be better repurposed into an article on that one book? This would seem to be a better approach per the spirit of WP:Verifiability. We could always recreate a page on the author if and when a second notable work is created by the subject. We really can only create articles based on the available sources. Otherwise we are fundamentally allowing an unsourced BLP article page which I thought was a big no no on wikipedia.4meter4 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCREATIVE is clear that "Such a person is notable if:... The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews..." There's no requirement for biographical content in such reviews. Biographical content can be added from other sources, but the test of notability is met by what MCE89 identified. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 I get that, but that is not the cogent policy here. WP:BLPSOURCES external to notability policy but equally important is at play here. We could literally blank the page at present because its unsourced under WP:BURDEN and WP:BLPSOURCES policy. That's a problem relevant to AFD that goes beyond notability criteria. At some level we have to consider the practical application of all of our policies. Not just WP:SNG language. Policies don't exist in a vacuum.4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971 To do so in the middle of an AFD would be WP:DISRUPTIVE editing and WP:POINTY. Further, this is a BLP policy issue which falls under criteria 9 of WP:DEL-REASON so your assertion that notability policy is the only relevant policy at AFD is false. Deleting under a WP:BLPSOURCES failure rationale is perfectly acceptable under criteria 9. One can meet an SNG but still be deleted if it fails a WP:DEL-REASON criteria external to a notability issue.4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The book is notable, but the author isn't since one needs multiple notable works to demonstrate NCREATIVE, but since this information would be on said article anyway, I could convert it into an article on the book if that is what people wish. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think even calling them an "academic" is a massive stretch - as far as I can tell they were a part-time research scholar for a few years after they finished their Masters. So obvious fail on WP:ACADEMIC. No secondary coverage, so can't meet WP:GNG. And the articles they've written aren't going to meet WP:JOURNALIST. So unless the award they were shortlisted for is a massive, massive deal, which it doesn't seem to be as far as I can tell, not seeing what notability guideline they could satisfy. MCE89 (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wondered if his cheese books might meet WP:AUTHOR but didn't have any luck finding reviews. All the coverage of him that I could find was in trade publications or was in the form of brief quotes (e.g. [24][25]). I'm not familiar enough with the awards and honours he's won to assess whether any might be significant enough to confer notability, but I don't see a strong case. MCE89 (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- There are many articles like this that should be deleted and no one is arguing for them to be deleted. There are biographies of athletes, new actors in the same situation and no one is suggesting deleting them. I don't think it should be deleted. The person has very good sources and the writing is different now than when it was first deleted.
First, let’s deal with the Nobel Prize nomination. For starters, any one of thousands of people can nominate anyone else, so a nomination by itself doesn’t mean much. Second, I really doubt the “G. Floran” on page 3 is our man Gârz. For one, he didn’t even begin publishing until the early 1990s, and the nomination is from 1974. For another, Eugène Ionesco, the nominator, was a diehard opponent of the Romanian Communist regime — while at the very period of the nomination, our man Gârz was a faithful acolyte of the regime, serving as a loyal officer in its secret police. So unless this was an elaborate Absurdist joke, Ionesco did not nominate an unknown apparatchik for the world’s most prestigious literary award.
Second, let’s quickly dispense with this. Anyone can publish anything on academia.edu. Unless we have evidence that this piece appeared in a peer-reviewed journal or similarly prestigious publication, it’s not quotable.
Finally, let’s have a look at the threeremainingsources. For starters, they appear in a magazine nobody has heard of. I know this isn’t the most scientific way to measure such things, but it has under 800 Facebook likes; by contrast, the leading Romanian popular history magazine has 656,000. It’s basically a one-man show revolving around its founder, who occasionally writes articles, together with some of his friends. Our man Gârz (who, by the way, died three years ago, as one of the links attests) was basically a second-rate spy with third-rate opinions, such as: “I came into the world in that ancient land of Transylvania, where words like ‘fatherland’ and ‘ancestor’ are learned together with ‘mother’”; or “No American politician since 1950 has entered the White House without the approval of the military-industrial complex”.
In sum, far from being a contender for the Nobel, our man Gârz, once he got around to writing in his late 50s, was the author of a series of dubious books published with obscure houses. Aside from three articles in an utterly marginal magazine, he never garnered any attention from anyone, certainly not from respectable outfits. There is no reason we should keep around his biography. — BiruitorulTalk16:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to me that the article creator has conceded that the purported Nobel prize nomination was a case of mistaken identity, and the rest of Biruitorul's nomination rationale is equally convincing. Jfire (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability criteria #4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
According to World Cat the digital marketing textbook is available in 197 libraries. Translation into Greek is unusual (and I imagine this requires a lot of effort) which further indicates its impact. Teacher2019 (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG. There is an attempt to meet ACADEMIC criterion 7(a) with her quotes in media organizations, but these are relatively few (and multiple of them in deprecated/unreliable outlets per WP:RSP), so I don't see a pass there. Her H-index of 10 is on the low side for someone at her career level and in her field. As for the claim that she meets criterion 4, there's no evidence that having a book in 197 libraries is unusually high or significant (I doubt it is given the literally tens of thousands of higher education institutions there are worldwide), and there's no evidence that translation of a book into another language is notable, particularly in an era of machine-assisted translation. I'm confused by the FT and Tableau sources offered above, neither of which mention Hanlon at all. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting points.
She joined academia relatively recently, so it's not surprising the H index is 10. The longer you've worked in academia, the higher the index.
The book was translated into Greek by scholars, not machines.
The FT and Tableau sources serve to show the volume of female / male authors in this area. Over 90% are male.
This argument is irrelevant to the question of her notability, since the sources do not mention her at all, and that's what we're looking for. There is no notability criterion for "female author of business textbook." Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER. While I have found/confirmed/added a number of sources to the article, none deal with the subject in any meaningful depth. To the extent that the only biographical information at all is a somewhat "throw away" comment in a piece by historian Nollaig Ó Muraíle - where he gives a very rough age (60ish) as of 1724. Otherwise the only "claim to fame" is that the subject was involved in transcribing someone else's work. While being able to read/write/copy someone else's work was probably far more significant (in the 1720s) than it might now be in the 21st century, absent other biographical coverage, it isn't enough to meet WP:NWRITER. Which, among other things, expect that someone would have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant [..] or collective body of work". (Transcribing two works by Seathrún Céitinn isn't a "major role in co-creating a significant [..] body of work"....) Guliolopez (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I've soft-deleted the other two but given the additional sources that turned up in this case, I'll relist this one in the hopes there's anything else. Has anyone checked Irish-language sources? Also, the relevant standard for a scribe would be WP:NARTIST. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: mentioned as a "scribe who left a vivid impression of his life and personality" (with analysis of his work, more than 1 page) in The Irish Classical Self: Poets and Poor Scholars in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, also see Galway: History & Society - Page 192; + coverage on the page. Notable and verifiable. More sources exist. Please do better BEFORES when you nominate historical personalities. -Mushy Yank. 16:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the writer is known within the contemporary art scene in the UK and is currently active suggesting there may be more additions to the page in future. While I agree that searching for the author turns up lots of his own writing, a look at other art critics, writers and journalists with Wikipedia entries returns similar results. In terms of independent coverage, this article does include links to notable outlets that have sought his views on art stories and artworks. Suggestions for improvement rather than deletion may be a better course of action. Londoneditor284 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — Londoneditor284 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - although this person is mostly only known within the contemporary British art scene, they have contributed numerous articles, interviews, and features in multiple outlets and have been quoted in many sources (as can be seen from the citations). They are clearly significant enough within their own field to warrant keeping this article. Any suggestions to improve the article would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.218.212 (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — 80.45.218.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Quotations in sources are not enough to demonstrate notability (except in a limited case for certain academics), and authoring articles isn't either. What SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources can you offer? Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me do some digging and get back to you. The nature of the subject (someone who writes about other people's artwork for a living) makes it difficult by definition to have many SIGCOV sources. I feel this should be taken into account? 80.45.218.212 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could Dclemens1971 help in finding any better sources for this person/article? I've looked at pages for other critics too but can't seem to see how they fit the criteria if we are super-strict with SIGCOV Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote. LizRead!Talk!03:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
It's what we should expect from a person who's not notable, I suppose. And as already mentioned, please strike through your duplicative !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting this AFD discussion. Since there are several strong Keep arguments, I'm giving this discussion a little more time for supporters to locate RS that provide SIGCOV. If nothing appears, then I assume this article will be headed towards deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like more references have been added linking to interviews on BBC Radio London, a 'talking head' spot on a BBC documentary, and a reference from the Royal Academy of Arts. I think this person is notable enough for Wikipedia. I will find more references too. Likeabutterfly (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been adding some more references and a good point was raised about WP:SIGCOV so I've looked at other notable UK based art critics - Jonathan Jones, Adrian Searle, Alastair Sooke, Mark Hudson and Waldemar Janusczak are the ones I could find who have Wikipedia entries. In all of the above I found they are all heavily reliant on WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. It's unclear to me how a practising art critic, or more broadly a journalist, can be eligible for a Wikipedia entry without heavily relying on WP:PRIMARYSOURCE? I did try to find whether this has been discussed on forums elsewhere within Wikipedia but I wasn't able to. I appreciate I'm relatively new here so happy to be directed to a relevant discussion if it's already been had. Londoneditor284 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing that helpful discussion and I agree we shouldn't base arguments at AfD on the existence of other potentially policy-violating pages that haven't been nominated yet. However, the critics in my last comment are among the most notable art critics in the UK and if the bar for WP:SIGCOV is set so high that no UK-based art critic would be eligible for a Wikipedia entry then that would appear excessive given the UK has a significant art scene and critics play an important part in it. Londoneditor284 (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a copy of Draft:Moe Dimanche which the creator of both articles, User:NovembersHeartbeat, submitted to Articles for Creation back in September. This user has now made a new article, Moliere Dimanche, to bypass the AfC process, and redirected Moe Dimanche to lead back to this article. I have suspicions about WP:COI that I have expressed on NovembersHeartbeat's talk page (Dimanche is running to be Governor of Florida, which provides a clear motivation). NovembersHeartbeat also created Dimanche v. Brown for a legal case Dimanche was prominent within, and I am now also considering this for deletion. I would like some external advice on whether any of these articles pass WP:GNG as I am not well versed on American legal stuff like this. Spiralwidget (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement:
My contributions to Wikipedia have been neutral, informative, and edited by Admins. I like editing on Wikipedia because I like spreading knowledge. My contributions include the Federal Magistrates Act, the JUDGES Act, and I'm currently putting together a page on the concept of Unsettled Law. These are topics that serve public interest and make people wiser, and why people rely on wikipedia more than any other source of enlightenment. This user SpiralWidget on the other hand has had his pages deleted because he abandoned them for 6 months. I take the spread of knowledge seriously, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.
Redirects and Related Articles: The user SpiralWidget says he has conflict of interest concerns, which were addressed when he first started editing the page Moe Dimanche. I think his primary reason for nominating the article for deletion is because it is a duplicate page. However, the wikipedia deletion policy specifically says
"If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand."
But SpiralWidget moved the redirect page anyway because he wanted a formal discussion. The redirect Moe Dimanche was created to aid navigation for users searching under this common nickname. As for Dimanche v. Brown, it is a separate topic with its own independent notability, as demonstrated by coverage in legal publications and its significance in state-level jurisprudence. These articles serve distinct purposes and are appropriately created.
2. Conflict of Interest: I have no personal or professional connection to Moliere Dimanche. The article was written to document a notable public figure in compliance with Wikipedia’s WP:COI and WP:NPOV guidelines. This was already explained to SpiralWidget, even though I do not owe him an explanation. I came across Mr. Dimanche's YouTube videos after a judge in my city reopened a death investigation into a death of an inmate at a local prison. The only videos I could find on that inmate were done by Mr. Dimanche's Youtube channel and I learned more about him and asked why there wasn't a wikipedia page about him. So I decided to do it, as I began to follow what was going on with him.
I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I hope my contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marginally Keep While I share suspicions that this is self-promotion by the primary contributor or meatpuppetry by the subject, I find that this does meet the general criteria for inclusion. Though not all the detail is necessary, the case cited does lend credence to the idea that the case and the subject of the case is notable enough; the precedent set is not nontrivial. Given the numerous local sources (admittedly probably pushing their own agenda), I think it marginally meets the threshold for inclusion. I would strongly advise User:NovembersHeartbeat to back off for a few days and likewise recant/strike his remarks about "vandalism". This is not "your" article. It is open to anyone to edit and improve within our guidelines. Buffs (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep When I first came across this draft in AfC, I refrained from reviewing as the notability seemed marginal–it could've gone both ways. However, I do feel that there are some significant coverage of him as an artist, but this article needs to be ridden of fluff and promotion. [26] I also found this book by Nicole R. Fleetwood that discusses his art in detail. Catalk to me!02:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My presumption is that the subject of the article wrote this article or is heavily involved in its creation. I'll concede it is possible that the creator is telling the truth about their identity and they simply find the figure admirable. Shortly after at least some content was removed for copyright infringement, the subject's photograph and the subject's artwork were re-uploaded by the subject into Wikimedia Commons and released into the public domain. This is simply too great of a coincidence to ignore. All of this new user's edits are related to the subject. Frankly, the only evidence I can weigh in favor that this article was not written by Dimanche is this little viewed canvassing attempt I found on Twitter to oppose the deletion. This is a clear violation of the conflict of interest rules, specifically those around political advocacy and the rules against canvassing. When weighing my response against the weak keeps, please consider this might be part of what is influencing my delete vote.
The claims are artist and plantiff in an important court case. His candidacy as of now, in of itself, would not qualify him under WP:POLITICIAN and that does not seem to be a fact on which the article creator is basing their argument that the subject meets the various notability criteria.
On the note of his time as an artist, the writer does make a strong effort to attempt to demonstrate WP:GNG through mentioning various, wider distribution publications in which Dimache is mentioned or the subject. A Google News search indicates these are the ONLY third party coverage and while they are not all published on the same day, the similar content strikes me as creating an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers. For example, the Salon is a literal republication of The Conversation's piece on the Dimanche. These duplicative citations, combined with mentions such as taking a job at Winn-Dixie lead me to believe these are an effort to mask a lack of notability. I cannot consider him to have met the guidelines for artists.
Thank you for raising concerns about the article on Ram Krishna Bantawa. I firmly believe the article meets the requirements outlined in Wikipedia’s WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV guidelines. Below is an explanation supporting this assertion:
Notability as an Author (WP:NAUTHOR):
Ram Krishna Bantawa is a recognized author and lyricist in Nepali literature. He is known for his novel Saghan Tuwanlo (Shrill Mist) and novel Amalai Chithi (Letter to Mother-whose English translation is forthcoming.) His work has made a significant cultural impact, particularly within the Nepali community.
His lyrics and songs are available on platforms such as YouTube.
Saghan Tuwanlo is included in the curriculum of Tribhuvan University, highlighting its academic and cultural significance.His novels address meaningful societal issues such as women’s rights, untouchability, and Sati Pratha (the practice of widow immolation), further emphasizing his contributions to literature and social discourse.
Significant Coverage (WP:SIGCOV):
Independent and reliable media outlets, including Kantipur, Annapurna Post, and various Hong Kong-based Nepali newspapers, have provided coverage of Bantawa’s work. This demonstrates his influence in Nepali literature and music.
He has been featured in interviews and podcasts that delve into his life, literary contributions, and societal impact, providing further evidence of significant independent coverage.
Bantawa has received several awards and certificates from reputable organizations, including:Nepalese Literary Academy Hong Kong , Heavenly Path Hong Kong , Charu Sahitya Pratisthan , Hong Kong Nepalese Federation , Lyricist Association of Nepal
The article references independent and verifiable sources that discuss Ram Krishna Bantawa’s work in detail. Taken collectively, these factors satisfy the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia under WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV.
If additional information or sources are required to further support this assertion and enhance the article, I would be happy to assist.
I feel you know the person very well so you are aware of so many information. When i search on internet , I hardly find anything of significance covered in reputable media outlet about him .
regarding references, plz go through all the references, and let me know if a single source in reputable Nepali media from NPOV meeting WP criteria. If your have such sources plz put it here other than what you have kept in references. Plz note that sources in reference are not of significance. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rahmatula786,
Thank you for your message. I want to clarify that I do not personally know the person. The information I’ve provided is based solely on my research.
I understand your concerns regarding the importance of meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria. Unfortunately, there is limited online information due to the lack of archived articles in Nepali media. However, I have collected pictures of old newspaper articles about the author, including coverage from Nepali Hong Kong newspapers during a book launch press meet.
I believe the article is written from a neutral point of view. While I cannot attach the offline sources here, I’d be happy to share them via email. Additionally, I can provide relevant YouTube(https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Ram+Krishna+Bantawa) links of his Songs, Interviews. Please let me know how you’d like to proceed.
I look forward to your guidance and support, as I am currently gathering resources and information for my next article of Nepali Singer "Kuma Sagar" . Your insights will be invaluable in helping me refine my work. Please let me know how best to proceed.
According to Wikipedia's guidelines, contributors are discouraged from writing about individuals they personally know to maintain neutrality and avoid conflicts of interest. I can assure you that I have no personal connection with, nor do I know, the author.
In my case, I refrained from including details about the author's awards and certificates, as I was unsure about their accuracy and could not verify them through reliable sources all i had were photographs of certificates and some mentions in newspapers. However, I conducted thorough research and included information about the author's books, song lyrics, and album, as these are well-documented and publicly available.
I can provide you with ISBN of the books they were published through Sajha Publications and ASIA 2000 Ltd. Also you can search in youtube for his songs and interviews. I can additionally provide you with offline sources(Newspaper Articles, Magazines) relating to the author. Rasilshrestha (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched under three different names for this author and his book, Shrill Mist. I also reached out to a Nepalese friend. I've come up with zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thank you for letting me know.I am actively working on gathering reliable links and additional information to support it. I’ll share them in refrence of the article.
The reason your friend might not have found information about the novel could be because it is an older work, first published in 2008. The author is not as widely recognized as prominent Nepali literary figures like Parijat, Laxmi Prasad Devkota, or Bhanubhakta Acharya, whose biographies are included in school curriculum. Additionally, the novel hasn’t been published online, limiting its accessibility to a broader audience. However, I’ve heard that the author’s new book is being published or translated into English, which might bring more attention to their work.
It’s also worth noting that the author has spent a significant amount of time outside Nepal, particularly in Hong Kong. If you search for his name on YouTube, you’ll find his songs, which might provide some additional context.
For now, I can provide the ISBN number of the book or any other available details. I’m actively working on finding more reliable sources and digging through news archives to provide further information Rasilshrestha (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
I have posted the photos of news archive i have clicked (Ram Krishna Bantawa News Articles : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive) in archive.org Rasilshrestha (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. There is an unbolded Keep here and a previous visit to AFD which means that Soft Deletion is not an option. It usually all comes down to sources so a source analysis of what is present in the article would be helpful at this point. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.
Ref 1 : non neutral source ( media with no reputation has review of some book not a notable work , no findings on search on internet )
Ref 2 & 3 - not active link, neither found on google
Ref 4 - not at all a media of even minor entity
Ref 5&6 - he attends book inauguration program ( that’s all . Just his name mentioned)
Ref 7. Controversial piece about some legal issues being taken. Doesn’t support the article in any sense.
Rest sources - all are either repetition of above news or your tube material or some small contributions not covered in any genuine source. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what i heard, his book "Aamalai Chitthi" is currently being translated and is expected to be published soon. Once it becomes available, I believe I will be able to provide you with more relevant online sources for further reference. Rasilshrestha (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is now clear evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources newspapers as shown in the news archive link mentioned above in the external links section of the article. Passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - COI - looking at the Archies i wonder how so much personal info (like old newspapers copies) and he is planning to make an English version of some book , can be gathered unless editor knows and have approach with the subject. Recent update in the article also describes the same thing. Nothing but a Desperate attempt.Rahmatula786 (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I appreciate your concern, but as I mentioned earlier, I have photographs of offline sources that I have used for my research. Regarding the English translation, it is based on news related to Aamalai Chitthi (https://annapurnapost.com/story/451773/), where the translator Devi Panthi has spoken about it.
I assure you, this is not a desperate attempt, If it were, I would have included additional details of the author. Instead, my article focuses primarily on the subject's songs, novels, and books that he has written. For example, I have read Shrill Mist and am currently reading another work. The song I referenced is also publicly available on YouTube.
I collected photographs from various sources, including a news archive where old newspapers are stacked. Unfortunately, I couldn’t obtain any materials from Gorkhapatra, as they dont allow. Some of the newspapers I used were already in my possession at home, while others were gathered during my visit to a book launch event.
The event was held to celebrate the author’s return from Hong Kong and his book launch. It featured displays of certificates for his awards and documents with official letterheads. However, I chose not to mention these certificates or documents in my article, as I wasn’t entirely certain about their authenticity or relevance Rasilshrestha (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are related with him, how come you find or keen to find those stuff. Have you ever done such efforts to make any other article in Wikipedia. So far i can see , you are here just to make this article. If ur a genuine editor. You might have participated in various other articles, agenda . Did you understand it now. U have altogether 63 edits and almost all for this article only since May 5. That clearly shows what you are looking for . I guess u will come with some other explanations. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thank you for your concern. I’m currently a student in my final year, and I have a deep interest in Nepali literature, arts, and culture, especially Newar traditions and history, as I am a Newar myself. I also enjoy learning about historical topics and sharing knowledge.
I want to clarify that I am not connected to the author mentioned in the article, nor am I being paid for my contributions. If this were a paid effort, I believe the author would have hired someone more experienced than me. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I am still learning and this article has been my starting point.
I plan to work on more articles in the future and am currently gathering resources for my next article as i have already mentioned earlier. Regarding the current article, my intent has been to present information in a neutral tone. If I were biased or paid, my contributions would likely reflect that, but I have strived to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines.
Wikipedia encourages contributors to improve content where they can, and I believe my contributions are consistent with this principle.
While it’s true that I haven’t contributed extensively to other articles yet, everyone starts somewhere. My current focus on this article does not diminish my genuine intention to support Wikipedia’s mission of providing accurate, unbiased information.
If you have specific concerns about my edits, I’d be happy to discuss and address them transparently. I value constructive feedback and aim to contribute positively to the platform. Rasilshrestha (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation doesn’t justify how you gathered all those photos and newspapers pieces put in archives . Anyway i leave it for now. And want to see how other editors put their views. Rahmatula786 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I respect your concerns and your efforts to make Wikipedia a reliable and comprehensive source of information for everyone. As a newcomer, I would greatly value your feedback on how I can improve my article. Could you please guide me on how to make it more effective? Also, do you think there are any changes I should consider?
WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show certain specific markers of achievement supported by WP:GNG-worthy third-party coverage about them in media and books -- but this article is completely unreferenced, and is not making any strong notability claims. The main attempts at notability claims are that he's been municipal poet laureate of a small city, which isn't an automatic notability freebie without sourcing for it, and that he's been a recipient of various minor and/or unspecified literary awards that aren't highly prominent enough to confer instant inclusion freebies without sourcing for them. An award has to be notable in its own right before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so notability doesn't derive from the presence of the word "award" (or sticking the word "prestigious" in front of it) in the article text, it derives from the quality of the sourcing you can show to demonstrate that the award is a sufficiently notable and/or prestigious one in the first place. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on his sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
