Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Biography
General information
Announcements
Departments
Work groups and subprojects
Things you can do
Biography article statistics
Arts and Entertainment Work Group

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
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 7 17 39 83 2 148
FL 3 3 6
A 1 1 1 3
GA 9 38 85 422 81 635
B 53 157 426 1,327 3,245 5,208
C 18 170 799 7,446 2 17,005 25,440
Start 4 96 1,170 26,082 12 62,212 89,576
Stub 1 16 340 31,138 6 46,041 77,542
List 4 4 182 1 166 357
Category 32,536 32,536
Disambig 31 31
File 384 384
Project 8 8
Redirect 1 451 1,667 2,119
Template 929 929
NA 1 1 2
Other 1 18 71 90
Assessed 92 499 2,869 67,154 35,648 128,752 235,014
Unassessed 3 38 562 603
Total 92 499 2,872 67,192 35,648 129,314 235,617
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 1,031,913 Ω = 5.20


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... Specific discipline portals are listed in that section.

Navigation
Articles
Announcements/To Do (edit)
  • Notability questioned:
  • FAC:
  • FAR:
    • none •
  • FARC:
    • none •
  • GA Noms:
  • Review:
    • none •
  • Article requests::
  • John_Buscema: There's a debate between the current version and this version - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Buscema&oldid=181851662 - requesting input to arrive at a consensus integrating both versions.
  • Pierce O'Donnell — California's 22nd congressional district candidate[1] Los Angeles lawyer Buchwald v. Paramount screenwriter [2] author ISBN 1-56584-958-2 ISBN 0-385-41686-5 [3] California Fair Political Practices Commission[4][5][6][7]
  • 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.
  • Misc:

Add this to-do list to your User page! {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Arts and entertainment/Announcements}}

Directions for expanding any division below

[edit]

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!

Tagging articles

[edit]

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.

Members

[edit]
  1. I am ready to work on the biography articles of Indian or Biography actors Jogesh 69 (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. come help with the Bronwen Mantel article Smith Jones 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lovelaughterlife (talk · contribs) Worked extensively on some biographies; reverted vandalism some others
  4. Francoisalex2 (talk · contribs)
  5. Dovebyrd (talk · contribs)
  6. Artventure22 (talk · contribs)
  7. Truth in Comedy (talk · contribs)
  8. Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs)
  9. DENAMAX (talk · contribs) Maxim Stoyalov
  10. Ozgod (talk · contribs)
  11. Eremeyv (talk · contribs)
  12. Susanlesch (talk · contribs), mostly inactive
  13. EraserGirl (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Shruti14 (talk · contribs) will help when I can
  15. 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.
  16. Jarhed (talk · contribs) 21:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Mvzix (talk · contribs)
  18. Cassianto (talk · contribs)
  19. Iamthecheese44 (talk · contribs)
  20. Georgiasouthernlynn (talk · contribs)
  21. Fitindia (talk · contribs)
  22. BabbaQ (talk · contribs)
  23. Woodstop45 (talk · contribs)
  24. Willthacheerleader18 (talk · contribs)
  25. The Eloquent Peasant (talk · contribs)
  26. Lopifalko (talk · contribs)
  27. Terasaface (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC) Working on BLP of artists primarily working in the fields of Studio craft[reply]
  28. Corachow (talk · contribs)
  29. Yorubaja (talk · contribs) 14:23:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  30. Ms Kabintie (talk · contribs)
  31. JamesNotin (talk · contribs)
  32. Ppt91 (talk · contribs)
  33. Slacker13 (talk · contribs)

General

[edit]

Infoboxes

[edit]

Requested articles

[edit]

Actors

[edit]

Architects

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Architects


Illustrators

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Illustrators

Painters

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Painters

Photographers

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Photographers

Sculptors

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Sculptors

Comics artists

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Comics artists

Visual arts deletions

[edit]
Visual arts deletion sorting discussions
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists


Visual arts

[edit]

Irony of Negro Policeman

[edit]
Irony of Negro Policeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N. There are many reliable sources that mention the painting, but they lack significant coverage. Several of the sources currently in the article don't mention the painting at all, but are just used for general info about the painter, Jean-Michel Basquiat. The ones that do mention it only do so with one or two sentences, or, in one case, is a press release. Some of them looked to me like clear indications of notability at a first glance, such as NPR's "Jean-Michel Basquiat Painting Sells For Record $110.5 Million", but at a closer look, it turns out it is about a different painting.

I searched a bit and mostly found more of the same: reliable sources that only mention the painting in passing - confirming its existence, but not notability - and a few self-published, unreliable sources with analysis. The best I found was this, which contains a couple of paragraphs about Irony of Negro Policeman. I'm unfamiliar with the publication, Swamp, and can't tell if it's a reliable source or not. Nevertheless, if that is the only source that maybe contributes to notability, it's too little.

It seems like this was created some time ago as part of an effort to give as many Basquiat paintings as possible their own articles. I'm sure quite a few of them indeed are notable, but this one and potentially others don't seem to be. Uriahheep228 (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I've added some sources, but a search of the painting in g-books and g-scholar reveals a lot of mentions as well as a decent amount of in-depth discussion. This and this each have several paragraphs analyzing this particular piece. this describes the piece as one of his most well-known works, which seems to be supported by the fact that it's singled out in several newspaper reviews about gallery exhibits. Zzz plant (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first of those sources has almost two paragraphs. The second has about one and a half. The third is behind paywall, so I can't tell. It's still pretty weak, but if there are more sources with a similar amount of coverage they could build up to notability, at least if it's not the same information that is repeated. I also got a lot of search hits about gallery exhibits etc, but they lack significant coverage. They just mention that it was part of an exhibition. Uriahheep228 (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I take the point about us not wanting separate articles about too many individual paintings but the politically charged subject matter makes it plausible that this is significant enough for an article. The Books and Scholar searches show that sources are covering it as more than just an item on a list of works. They are talking about it individually, about what it means as a statement and as an artwork. I don't think we can delete this. A merge to Jean-Michel Basquiat could be arguable but I think there is potential for this to be its own article. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zzz plant. There isn't much unambiguous SIGCOV, but there are so many sources that provide ~1-2 paragraphs of analysis that I think they togther add up to a GNG pass (here are a couple more: [8] [9]). This journal article is the strongest source I could find. MCE89 (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick D. Kim

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Nick D. Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The lack of independent sourcing to establish notability is still an issue since the 2009 discussion. Sources are still not present to establish his notability.

Since that discussion, he has been mentioned in many books, but those are passing mentions crediting him for the pictures used in them. Roast (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Critic Review Aggregator

[edit]
Cult Critic Review Aggregator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non notable publication. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Noting WP:NEWSORGINDIA, refbombed to PR rehashes, dead, and primary sources. Even most of the PR rehashes are for other things and do not even verify content here. Part of a promotion platform with the likes of Tagore International Film Festival, World Film Carnival Singapore, Luis Bunuel Memorial Awards, Cult Critic Movie Awards, Calcutta International Cult Films Festival and Virgin Spring Cinefest. Buy an award, earn a review on Cult Critic. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Visual arts, Entertainment, Games, Technology, Computing, Internet, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: using this revision for source numners.
    Sources [1], [2], [7], and [13] make brief insignificant mention of subject (simply mention that Cult Critic gave movie awards at a film festival). Similarly source [9] makes brief mention as part of a listicle article and so doesn’t give notability.
    Sources [3], [6], [10], [11], and [12] are simply reviews or lists of reviews/rewards. This means they are not independent and do not give notability.
    Sources [4], [5], [8], and [13] all were inaccessible to me and so I can’t comment on them.
    My own attempt at WP:BEFORE using google news and a standard google search did not reveal sources that could convey notability. However, it did reveal that Cult Critic has ran a couple of film festivals/awards cerimonies. If someone can convince me that this conveys notability I may be inclined to change my opinion (and thus !vote). Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 20:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With the film festival/award, it's somewhat a case of "who is reporting and in what context". It's not ideal, but an argument could be made for notability if the award results were reprinted by multiple notable outlets. This specifically refers to reprints like this, where a major outlet reprints the list. The gist behind this is that major outlets like say, Variety or Locus are going to be selective in what award results they reprint, so they're not going to reprint some random film festival or award. For example, Dead Meat is a notable YouTube channel and has a pretty well received awards ceremony, but few outlets reprint the results because even with the channel's substantial following they just can't justify it. (Even Bloody Disgusting only reported on the awards once.) Of note, what wouldn't count towards this would be local papers writing about how their local person won an award. The focus there isn't really the award and local coverage of that nature is typically seen as a weak source at best.
    With that in mind, I took a look for the award/festival in specific and didn't find anything that would establish that the award is notable. No opinion on the aggregator as of yet, but the site's award/festival cannot help in establishing notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A search didn't really take long, as there is really nothing out there. What coverage exists is pretty light and not enough on its own to establish notability. I'm aware that the site is based out of India and that Google doesn't always properly search Indian sources, but there's not really anything to help argue that more/better sourcing exists. If anyone can find anything, I'm open to changing my argument. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless Flag

[edit]
Homeless Flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted in 2023 via unanimous AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/Homeless International Flag). I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV in independent sources to back up claims of this flag being since adopted outside of this one particular non-profit or the person associated with it. I have decent access to Swedish newspaper archives and cannot find any mentions. Also worth noting that author has declared COI. Zzz plant (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Homeless Flag meets WP:GNG through independent, reliably-sourced coverage:
- National broadcaster TV4 – “Kavian var hemlös – nu lägger han all kraft på att hjälpa andra” (3 Dec 2021): at 07:00 – 07:30, the host zooms in on the flag and explains its public display while Ferdowsi adds that “people see the Flag and Hemlösa.se every morning".
- Daily newspaper Dagen – “Premiär för melodifestival för hemlösa” (4 Feb 2015): reports an event where the flag served as the official emblem, quoting politicians and describing its symbolism.  
- The emblem is twice trademark-registered with the EUIPO, confirming its distinctive, legally protected status.
These sources provide significant coverage, not mere passing mentions, in broadcast and print media wholly independent of the subject, and demonstrate real-world adoption beyond a single NGO. In line with WP:SYMBOLS a unique flag with documented media attention, public use and formal recognition is prima facie notable. The article should therefore be improved, not deleted. Csamu88 (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the previous commentor's rationale. This article does seem to meet the WP:GNG guidelines and has been used widely for notable events pertaining to the topic. I definitely believe this article should be significantly improved but I think that it is too notable for deletion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - Trademark has no bearing on notability, and the above characterization of TV4 source is a stretch - it's briefly visible and briefly discussed on a talk show segment. Even if they gave more in-depth coverage, it's shown by Kavian Ferdowsi (the person who designed the flag) during an interview, so it's a primary source - which can't be used to support GNG. Dagen shows only that the organization associated with the flag uses it at an event they're organizing. I couldn't find any RS suggesting that anyone aside from Hemlösa or Kavian Ferdowsi has adopted this flag (or even paid much attention to it). Zzz plant (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Visual arts - Proposed deletions

[edit]

Visual arts - Images for Deletion

[edit]

Visual arts - Deletion Review

[edit]

Performing arts

[edit]

Comedians

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Comedians

Dancers

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Dancers

Directors

[edit]

Musicians

[edit]

Magicians

[edit]

Writers and critics

[edit]
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

FAs and GAs
Announcements/To do (edit)

Members

[edit]

Categories

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Writers

Comics writers

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Comics writers

Romance authors

[edit]

Lists

[edit]

Poets

[edit]
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Poets

Stubs

[edit]

Authors / Writers deletions

[edit]
Authors / Writers deletion sorting discussions


Authors

[edit]

Stephen A. Werner

[edit]
Stephen A. Werner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tagged this BLP about a teacher and writer with notability concerns in 2023, and started a discussion on the Talk page. Two years on, the article has not changed much and no other editors have commented. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added a citation to a book review in the Homiletic & Pastoral Review, but cannot find more to add. There are few other references in the article which are not to Werner's own work. There are three reviews in local papers of his plays, which I can't access. There is also an article in American Catholic Studies which accompanies the statement "Werner is particularly knowledgeable about Catholic history in the St. Louis area", where the actual text in the article reads "The vast knowledge of the entire region possessed by our great friend Steve Werner greatly enhanced my confidence and made it possible to urge students to consider sites beyond the St. Louis metropolitan area. Steve took us on scouting trips to such locales as St. Mary's of the Barre"; this is not significant coverage of Werner. I do not think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Sharma (author)

[edit]
Gaurav Sharma (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A promotional article for a non notable author, by using aggressive PR techniques, unverified claims, paid for advertising articles, with a high chances of COI & UPE involved. All the books by the subject seems to be non notable but still the editor created articles for all of them. The subject clearly fails wp:NAUTHOR.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God of the Sullied Zuck28 (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. the book discussions:
Astaire (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deanne Panday

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Deanne Panday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) View AfD

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL fitness trainer with no significant achievements and no WP:SIGCOV. Sources are mostly, passing mentions, routine coverage, interviews and gossips around her notable relatives. The article was created by a blocked SPA. Zuck28 (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Health and fitness, Nepal, India, Delhi, Maharashtra, and Scotland. Zuck28 (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: As I stated in the previous nomination, the subject clearly meets the requirements of WP:GNG by receiving significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Notable examples include a detailed articles in DNA (300+ words), an article by Time of India (350+ words), Business Standard, NDTV, Hindustan Times, and MidDay, among others. These are independent, reliable secondary sources that provide substantial detail about her career, publications, and public influence, not mere name-drops or trivial mentions. As WP:GNG states: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. In this case, multiple substantial articles from mainstream publications combine to satisfy the notability criteria. Therefore, the subject meets both WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. GSS 💬 14:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can’t see your comment on the previous nomination. Did you participate in the last AFD?
    This DNA article you mentioned is non-bylined promotional article to advertise her personal training service.
    The Times of India article is also clearly advertorial piece with a disclaimer "Disclaimer: This article was produced on behalf of Life Health Foods by Times Internet’s Spotlight team."
    Business standard article is a book review without the name of the reviewer, clear promotion.
    NDTV article is more focused on the Book and Salman Khan, not the subject of the article.
    The Hindustan Times article is about the opinions of multiple people, and she got trivial coverage, fails Wp:SIGCOV.
    midday article is just a photo gallery, without any critical assessment of her career.
    This proves the article fails wp:GNG and Wp:SIGCOV both. Zuck28 (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, I did participate in the previous AfD, but regardless, notability is determined based on policy and the quality of sources, not continuity of participants. Regarding the sources: while it's fair to assess for promotional tone or disclaimers, dismissing all coverage as non-notable misapplies WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The DNA India article, which is over 300 words, discusses her career, influence, and clientele. The absence of an author byline does not disqualify its reliability or editorial status, as many editorial articles are unsigned unless marked as sponsored. As for the Business Standard article, it was written by journalist Asmita Aggarwal (credited by name), so the claim that it lacks one is factually incorrect. The article engages directly with her book and fitness philosophy, not simply as a product plug but in a substantive profile format. The NDTV piece, while it includes Salman Khan, is centered around Deanne Panday’s book launch and includes her quotes and ideas this qualifies as non-trivial coverage. Similarly, the Hindustan Times and Mid-Day articles offer independent mentions. Per WP:GNG, notability is assessed holistically. If depth in any one source is limited, multiple independent sources may be considered collectively. In addition to the previously mentioned sources, here are more in-depth, independent articles that further support her notability and provide substantial coverage suitable for expanding the article; Economic Times, India Today, HT, Indian Express, HT. In my view, these sources align with the requirements under WP:GNG and provide further opportunity to expand the article. GSS 💬 16:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Caste

[edit]
Robert Caste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability or SIGCOV found in Independent sources. The sources provided are written by Caste himself, which means that they are not independent of the subject; plus it is debatable on how significant the actual coverage of Caste himself is. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Said Raihani

[edit]
Mohamed Said Raihani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not convinced this person is notable. The incredibly sparse references don't indicate anything. All his published works appear to be through self-publication companies, not through an actual publisher. Searches for this person doesn't turn up much other than indications they're adept at self-promotion. And a final thing is the edit history of this article is almost entirely full of SPA accounts that appear, edit the article heavily for a day or two, and then never log in again. It very much looks like the same person just keeping creating new accounts to edit. The whole thing smells purely of self-promotional advertising and resume. Canterbury Tail talk 20:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rollo Tomassi

[edit]
Rollo Tomassi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. All of the subject's books are self-published. Regarding WP:RS/WP:SIGCOV based on the current citations:

  • Coverage of his appearance of Dr. Phil-- passes (more or less, WP:FOXNEWS)
  • A podcast interview-- not independent or reliable
  • The subject's website-- not independent
  • The Washington Examiner article-- listed as dubious on WP:RSP but I would say passes
  • A trivial mention in the NYT-- not WP:SIGCOV
  • The subject's YouTube channel-- not independent
  • A Dr. Phil appearance -- not independent or reliable

I do recognize that Tomassi is the subject of interest in online domains, which can be challenging to demonstrate. The strongest argument for passing on those grounds would be "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique," but per WP:BEFORE I could not find any notable sources crediting him as originating the "manosphere" or subsequent significant coverage of it. Vegantics (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per above nom; I don’t think his TV appearances necessarily pass the thresholds that were originally mentioned.MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Connaughton

[edit]
Jeff Connaughton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposing draftify; the sourcing in this article is extremely poor for a BLP. Only one source for a really long article. Possible LLM generated; this user has admitted to LLM use before. [12] grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I have never seen a single case where a person photographed by Platon (photographer)—specifically for a Time magazine cover or an in-depth media feature after 2010—was considered non-notable by Wikipedia standards. check this link [13]. Why did you request deletion on Jeff Connaughton and attempt to have me indefinitely blocked without even conducting a basic search? Is this what you consider a sincere and constructive approach to discussion? Is it fair? Packer25 (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you made a WP:BLP without adding any references except a book by the subject, yes, it's very fair to start a deletion discussion. You haven't done your work as article creator. If you try again, see WP:BACKWARD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is important to respectfully but clearly address the assertion that Jeff Connaughton does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Upon even a brief examination of the public record, it becomes evident that this claim is not only inaccurate but fundamentally misinformed. Mr. Connaughton has been the subject of extensive coverage in a wide range of reliable, independent publications, and his professional activities have intersected with the highest levels of American politics, law, and finance.
As a former aide to then-Senator Joe Biden, a White House lawyer during the Clinton administration, a chief of staff to Senator Ted Kaufman, and a co-founder of one of Washington’s most prominent bipartisan lobbying firms, Connaughton has had a demonstrably significant career in public service and political advocacy. These roles alone, given their national scope and policy impact, would place him well within the bounds of notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia of record. However, his public visibility does not end there.
In 2012, Connaughton authored "The Payoff: Why Wall Street Always Wins", a critically acclaimed exposé on financial regulation and systemic corruption in Washington. The book received wide attention and was reviewed or discussed in major outlets including The New Yorker, Forbes, Politico, Business Insider, Truthout, and numerous national radio and television programs. These were not mere passing references; they were extensive articles and reviews that treated Connaughton as a credible, authoritative voice on matters of political reform and Wall Street influence.
The New Yorker published a full-length profile, Politico ran a dedicated review and commentary, and Business Insider repeatedly featured his insights. Truthout published op-eds by Connaughton himself, which indicates not only sustained attention but also the platforming of his views as part of a broader public discourse. These sources are independent of one another, editorially reliable, and collectively reflect enduring public interest in his work and ideas.
In light of this, the suggestion that Jeff Connaughton does not meet notability standards simply cannot be supported by evidence. If Wikipedia’s notability criteria are meant to ensure that included subjects have received significant attention from reliable, independent sources, then Connaughton’s record not only satisfies these criteria but arguably exceeds them.
It is fully appropriate to invite community discussion on these matters, and differing interpretations of policy are expected in any collaborative environment. But it is essential that such interpretations be grounded in the facts. In this case, the factual record clearly supports the conclusion that Jeff Connaughton qualifies for a standalone article under Wikipedia’s guidelines. Any position to the contrary would appear to overlook the substantive and well-documented public footprint of his career.
Packer25 (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please write this response in your own words; do not use an LLM for it. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to respectfully emphasize that Wikipedia's policies, including WP:LLM and WP:LLMDISCLOSE, do not prohibit the use of large language models in editing; rather, they encourage transparency and accuracy when such tools are employed. It is entirely acceptable to use these tools, provided that one clearly discloses their use and manually verifies all facts and sources. What truly matters in any contribution is not whether the words were typed by hand or assisted by a model, but whether the information is neutral, verifiable, and supported by reliable references. In today’s digital environment, where AI tools are already deeply integrated into search engines, research platforms, and writing software, drawing an ethical line between LLM-assisted editing and traditional methods is no longer meaningful or useful. Moreover, I must express that making my comment invisible to other editors is deeply inappropriate. Such an action is not only a violation of good faith collaboration, but also runs counter to the principles of fairness, openness, and moral decency that we as a community strive to uphold. Silencing an editor's properly argued and policy-compliant viewpoint in this way undermines the integrity of our collective work and discourages respectful discourse, which is essential to the spirit of Wikipedia. Packer25 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article creator has been indeffed. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would normally be happy enough with draftify as an ATD, but it seems a little pointless in this case as the creating editor has now been blocked (so the draft will likely be {{db-g13}} in six months), there are now no sources cited at all, and, as the probable unchecked output of an LLM, the content cannot be trusted. Better to start from scratch. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - thanks to the sterling rewrite by Dcpoliticaljunkie. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or delete. If I were even slightly more cynical today, I would just be saying delete per SunloungerFrog, but the possibility that someone could decide to fix up the draft - however unlikely - has me preferring draftify. Weirdguyz (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rudraneil Sengupta

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Rudraneil Sengupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of significant coverage in secondary and reliable sources. The subject fails Wp:NAUTHOR and wp:GNG. Creator is currently blocked as a sock puppet. Zuck28 (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tarita Shankar

[edit]
Tarita Shankar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A promotional biography of a businesswoman masquerading as an educator fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Just a detailed resume WP:NOTRESUME. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Marc Nelson

[edit]
Robert Marc Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a lawyer and author, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for lawyers or authors. As always, notability doesn't hinge on the things the article says, it hinges the quality and depth and WP:GNG-worthiness of the referencing that's used to support the things it says -- people don't get articles for having had jobs, they get articles for having had their work in those jobs covered and analyzed as significant by third party reliable sources, such as media and books. But this is referenced almost entirely to content self-published by companies or organizations the subject was directly affiliated with, which are not support for notability, and the only media source present at all is a single article of the "local man does stuff" variety in the community hyperlocal of an individual city neighbourhood, which is not enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's all he's got for third party coverage.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than just primary sources created by his own employers. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He was in charge of the ADR institute of Canada, a national organization, and described as one of the leading experts in his field. His book, Nelson on ADR, is cited as being "the most comprehensive guide on ADR," and is taught at major institutions around Canada. He also taught courses all around the world, passing notability for academics. Additionally he was responsible for introducing ADR to Russia and Albania, and introducing new legislation in Albania. He opened the ADR center in Tehran was cited as being "widely covered" in Albanian media. He also acted before the Supreme Court of Canada in the landmark case Rodriguez v. British Columbia AG. From all that, I infer him to be notable and passing the guidelines. PD8 (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leading an organization is not an instant notability freebie, if the article isn't supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable source media coverage about that work. Appearing before the Supreme Court of Canada on a case is not an instant notability freebie, if the article isn't supported by GNG-worthy reliable source media coverage about that work. Writing a book is not an instant notability freebie, if the article isn't supported by GNG-worthy reliable source media coverage about that work.
And on and so forth: it's not the job titles he's had that establish the notability, it's the amount of GNG-worthy reliable source media coverage that he has or hasn't received about his work that establishes the notability. An article cannot be supported by content self-published by the subject and his own employers — it has to be supported by third party coverage about him in media that he didn't have personal editorial control of. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject Fails Basic GNG and does not show notability to be included in an encyclopedia. Leading an organization is not an instant notability freebie - I support this.

Rosalind Ross (writer)

[edit]
Rosalind Ross (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Half of the sources referenced in the article are tabloid-style sources listing supposed "facts" about Mel Gibson's girlfriend. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. She has received no coverage demonstrating her own notability in WP:RS. Aŭstriano (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Film Creator: Although I am not necessarily disagreeing with you (per below), note that the guideline article includes the caveat: "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.". Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, while I am unconvinced that the subject has a sufficient amount of WP:SIGCOV, and some of the existing citations are of questionable quality (like the legit.ng source), i'm inclined to think she may pass WP:FILMMAKER guideline on the basis of point 3:
"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, 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);"
However, that does not mean that the subject can be given a free pass if they do not also meet WP:GNG, which I am not yet wholly convinced by. I also searched contemporary newspaper archives with little discussing her independently. Either way, I am on the fence, but leaning weak keep. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Here's another film person whose biggest work was bombed by the critics - we're taking 42% from Rotten Tomatoes. Bad reviews can make a person notable, but is that and boyfriend to a notorious antisemite what she really wants? Bearian (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Comaford

[edit]
Christine Comaford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD declined by IP. Fails WP:GNG. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also talk page for some discussion on sourcing. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think she just squeaks through.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Washington Post
 Yes Yes No Passing mention. ✘ No
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
No Yes Yes ✘ No
Yes No ✘ No
Yes Yes ? Unknown
Yes No affiliation with Comaford. Secondary report of the original article by Comaford. Yes Yes ✔ Yes
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}}.

Cremastra (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaus Kimla

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Nikolaus Kimla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional and of questionable WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been updated with more credible sources. Let me know if there's any additional changes you would like to see made. Colleenm83 (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Old-AgedKid (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so Soft deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keith N. Hamilton

[edit]
Keith N. Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:CLERGY (note that the role of bishop in the LDS church closer to that of a Catholic Priest or a Methodist Minister, serving a only a local congregation, than to that of, e.g., a Catholic bishop, which is presumed notable). Sources consist of two articles mentioning Hamilton joining and leaving the Utah Parole board and his current employer's website. Jbt89 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Feedback on WikiOriginal-9's sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - [1] ticks all the boxes, but I don't think [2] is independent - they advertise his book at the bottom of the article (and the news site shares a parent company with the publisher). I think [3] - even though it's ultimately somewhat routine political coverage - provides enough detail to be considered significant. I also found some more sources in newspapers.com, I'm adding them to the article now. I think this passes GNG. Zzz plant (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MixSingh

[edit]
MixSingh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Fails Wp:GNG and Wp:NMUSIC. No SIGCOV is available, just passing mentions and routine PR articles for the releases. There are two award nominations as well but both of them are non-notable and just nominations. Also, the article's creator was blocked as a sock and UPE. Zuck28 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Authors proposed deletions

[edit]

Tools

[edit]
Main tool page: toolserver.org
Article alerts are available, updated by AAlertBot. More information...
  • Reflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references
  • Checklinks - Edit and repair external links
  • Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links.
  • Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Arts_and_entertainment&oldid=1300559139"