The Arts and Entertainment Work Group is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality and importance
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs... Specific discipline portals are listed in that section.
William Ely Hill (1887-1962) - Illustrator, created artwork for the book covers for F. Scott Fitzgerald and had a regular entry in the New York tribune along with being published on numerous occasions.
The general outline and collection has been started, but if you would like to expand and organize a discipline, here's what you do. Right below the page heading for the discipline insert this: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Work groups/Division banner}} and save. This will put a rough outline together for you and then you can edit it to conform to your area. See Writers and critics below for an example. If your project grows large enough where it's taking up a good portion of this page, you should probably move it to a subpage of this page.
You might also want to make a Members section for people to join your specific area!
Any article related to this work group should be marked by adding |a&e-work-group=yes to the {{WPBiography}} project banner at the top of its talk page. This will automatically place it into Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles. Articles can be assessed for priority within this work group by using the |a&e-priority= parameter. See Template:WikiProject Biography/doc for detailed instructions on how to use the banner.
Jubileeclipman (talk·contribs) I am interested in taking on UK celebrities with articles that are stubs or otherwise non-standard. Entirely rewrote Fearne Cotton to raise standard and remove fansite tag. I am working on Holly Willoughby which was merely a list plus trivia. Will also work on musicians, all genre, living or dead.
I don't see how this is one topic, and not just a grouping of topics across two characteristics (mosaics from certain regions / influences, and certain regions in Asia) which have no real common ground. I could find no good sources for this topic as a whole (looking for this gave results about mosaics in Asia Minor, which is not the same of course). Fram (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the article lacks a common bond of mosaics in the different regions, I think some of the content is good. Mosaic is overwhelmingly about Europe (and it should make better use of summary style with its subpages), but the Middle Eastern and Western Asian section is relatively short and there is nothing at all about East or Southeast Asian mosaic art. This is a new article from a new user, so I would recommend they consider merging some information or working on it as a draft. Reywas92Talk15:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was recently redirectly through an AfD, then recreated by the lone voice in that discussion in favor of keeping. The same issues still apply. There is zero in-depth coverage of a flag by this name. Restored the redirect and was promptly reverted, so here we are again. Pinging all the editors who participated in the first AfD: Syphax98, Red Phoenician, OwenX, Toadspike, 4meter4. Onel5969TT me10:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of additions since the redirect. It looks like several sources have been added. "Complete Flags of the World" is a one-sentence mention that the cedar tree has long been a symbol of the Maronites. "The orange and the ‘Cross in the Crescent’: imagining Palestine in 1929" is a good journal article, but where it mentions Maronites it is mainly focused on the cedar symbol and how it ended up on the Lebanese flag. "Why Do Catholics Eat Fish on Friday?" is the same, explaining why the modern Lebanese flag has a cedar on it. "Double vision in Beirut" is a one-sentence mention in an opinion piece. Page 262 of "Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World" does describe a "Maronite flag", but doesn't seem to (from my searching in the Google Books preview) spend more than a sentence describing the flag itself. "Flags and arms across the world" seems to have almost exactly the same text as "Why Do Catholics Eat Fish on Friday?", which does mention that the Maronites used a white flag with a cedar on it but not much more. I can't search in the "National Eucharistic Congress" source and jeancharaf.org seems to be a dead link. Searching for "drapeau" in "Voyage en Orient, Volume 1: Les femmes de Caire; Druses et Maronites", the only mention about this subject seems to be the sentence "Ce sont les signes qui distinguent les drapeaux des Maronites et ceux des Druses, dont le fond est également rouge d'ailleurs." This sentence doesn't have any context and is very confusing to me – I suspect there was an accompanying image not present in the linked version. The last two sources are cited for mentions of the flag, not analysis, so I presume they contain none.
Some of these sources may already have been present in the pre-redirect version, it's hard to tell. Anyhow, I still don't think the concept of a Maronite flag has received any coverage beyond passing mentions, mostly in sources explaining how the modern Lebanese flag came to be. Thus, I still believe this should be redirected to Flag of Lebanon. Toadspike[Talk]17:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion review (DRV) is only for reviewing whether the close accurately reflected the consensus reached in the discussion, not for relitigating the issues discussed in the AfD, so it is probably not what what Red Phoenician was aiming for. Also, if the recreated page is a duplicate of the original, it can be speedy-deleted under WP:G4, but the new sources probably make this different enough that G4 does not apply here. Toadspike[Talk]01:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can only find mentions and primary sources on this sculpture. The artist is most likely notable, and it was suggested to the article's creator to do an article on them, in which this could be included, but they have decided not to. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969TT me12:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A before search reveals lots of hits for a music album by the same name, but nothing about this artwork. As noted in the nomination, the artist may be notable, but there is not an article on them to redirect or merge this with. Delete for now unless someone creates an article on the artist before this AfD closes. Netherzone (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Promo for non notable sign. Lacks independent coverage about the sign itself. Gets mentioned or pictured in coverage about protests around the detention of Jimmy Lai but no real indepth coverage of the sign itself in independent reliable sources. Soapbox for a cause. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find the article poorly written and quite confusing, but I disagree that it is a straightforward WP:SOAPBOX. Firstly, I believe the source assessment is inaccurate. I simply took a look at the first source cited in the article, and it is already a full-length piece from SBS Australia that introduces the neon sign itself. It provides SIGCOV on where it was exhibited in Sydney, how the curator Tarrant and artist Cole conceived it, the themes behind the sign, the volunteer efforts and crowdfunding that made the exhibition possible, and the Hong Kong government's response on the exhibition, with only minimal references to other topics like Jimmy Lai's Nobel Prize nomination or his arrest. From a quick Google search, I also found numerous articles discussing the neon sign, including coverage from Radio Free Asia,[8]Vision Times,[9]Photon Media,[10]The Points [zh],[11]Yahoo! News,[12] etc., not to mention ongoing media attention regarding social activists using the neon sign for protests.[13][14] What I found "confusing" about the article is the mention of another short documentary film with the same name, which focuses on the creation of this neon sign. This film has also received media coverage like from Bitter Winter[15] and The Points[16], and it has been screened at/won awards in the British Urban Film Festival,[17]Berlin Independent Film Festival,[18] and Munich New Wave Short Film Festival.[19] So I believe both the sign and the film have met GNG, but I do not think they warrant two standalone articles since they cover essentially the same subject, one comprehensive article would suffice. And if we combine the sources, it would present a strong case for notability. However, a rewrite is necessary to clarify that there are two subjects sharing the same name in the article. Merging the content to Jimmy Lai or the Apple Daily raids and arrests is not feasible, given the current length of the former, and adding mentions of both the neon sign and the short film to the latter would seem WP:UNDUE. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜08:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources you specifically mention. SBS Australia, Radio Free Asia, Yahoo! News are all just echoing what Mark Tarrant is saying and he commissioned the sign and coproduced the film. There is a lack of independent coverage there. Yue points out the problems with Vison Times and Bitter Winter as deprecated sources but adding Tarrant is a writer for Bitter Winter. Photon Media only has passing mentions "... and a neon sign that read "Jimmy Lai in Chains" in protest." and "They also displayed a neon sign made by the artist and toured last year with the words "Hong Kong", "Jimmy Lai" and "Prisoner of Conscience"." No depth of coverage. Second SBS lacks any depth of coverage. The Witness is not a reliable source and only says "protesters held up photos of "Next Digital" founder Jimmy Lai, and neon signs protested, demanding his resignation as a non-permanent judge." and " and neon signs with "Prisoner of Conscience" and "Jimmy Lai in chains" written "Prisoner of Conscience" and "Jimmy Lai in chains"." Second Points media is just a routine announcement which lacks any depth of coverage about either the sign or the film. CFHK Foundation is not a reliable source and only mentions the film is screening, no depth of coverage. Berlin Independent Film Festival and Munich New Wave Short Film Festival are primary so don't help with GNG. Screening at small festivals and winning minor awards is not part of NFILM. A whole lot of nothing that is just part of a news event. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable content to Jimmy Lai. Of course anti-Beijing outlets are going to cover an art piece made in support of a pro-democracy figure who was arrested under Beijing's laws. The only outlet cited in the article and in the above comment that isn't outwardly opposed to Beijing is the Yahoo News Taiwan article, but even then it's just citing Radio Free Asia. I don't see any argument (yet) about how this topic has standalone notability. Yue🌙18:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After giving it a second thought, I am leaning towards a merge. Firstly, Yue is correct, I completely forgot that Vision Times and Bitter Winter are deprecated here (since they are still usable on zhwiki). However, I do not think the political stance of pro-democratic media outlets should be considered, let alone the motives behind their coverage choices. Every media outlet naturally selects content that aligns with their readership and editorial guidelines, and it would be unrealistic for a pro-Beijing outlet to cover a work that supports a dissident. I am also largely unconvinced by Duffbeerforme's source assessment above. While SBS and Radio Free Asia interviewed Mark Tarrant, they also spoke with others, such as visual artist Kacey Wong, volunteers from the exhibition, and the Information Services Department of the Hong Kong government. Okay, assuming the volunteers are involved parties as well, Wong and the government spokesperson clearly are not. These are comprehensive and full-length secondary sources that present a balanced view of different perspectives. I fail to see how this coverage is not significant or independent. The same rationale applies to the articles from The Points and Yahoo! News, which quoted Mark Tarrant but have no ties to him or the exhibition. For the other sources, I clearly labeled them as providing ongoing media attention for possible article expansion or to show that the film was screened/won at festivals. I am confused by why they were included in the source assessment as well, and I will not waste time asserting that what you wrote is entirely accurate but unrelated to why I cited them in the first place one by one. (Though The Witness [zh] is a RS on zhwiki, you may refer to an RfC I initiated last year if you are interested in the rationales. I am not reiterating them here as it was never a source I cited to establish notability.) The actual reason for my change of mind is simply that by excluding sources from Falun Gong-affiliated media like Epoch Times, Bitter Winter, or Sound of Hope, I struggled to find sources that demonstrate the notability of the short film. I initially !voted against a merge due to the potential for expanding the article, which could make the already-lengthy merge targets seem UNDUE, and the art piece and short film have a much stronger causal relationship with each other than with Jimmy Lai personally. However, since the secondary subject is no longer notable, and the remaining four sources supporting the art piece's notability make it a marginal case with little to expand upon, I believe a standalone article is unnecessary per NOPAGE if we are only covering the primary subject. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜11:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Prince of Erebor: That seems like the best target, especially given how long Jimmy Lai's article already is. Perhaps a section titled "Reactions" or something more specific? (I can't think of a better heading at the moment) Yue🌙03:20, 1 April 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
Keep: The article now quotes two separate reviews. If anyone has a copy of Vector #188, a third review could be added as well. Three reviews easily meets notability guidelines. Guinness323 (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
questionable notability, as it relies predominantly on sources too closely associated with the subject and lacks significant independent coverage in reputable publications. Additionally, the article presents a promotional tone Mapsama (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He has at least two other books, Inside the house of money: top hedge fund traders on profiting in the global markets and The Invisible Hands: Top Hedge Fund Traders on Bubbles, Crashes, and Real Money, but my searches could not find any reliably published reviews. Two reviews of one book isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR for me, we don't have the citation record needed for WP:PROF#C1, and I don't see the significant coverage in independent sources needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only independent sources I can find are ones that mention her in passing. Created over a declined AfC in 2015 by a single-purpose account editing about Perkins and her publishing company. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸04:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but stubify. Underneath the promotional tone is a lot of important work in publishing award-winning Lesbian writers. The Lambda Literary Awards are the Pulitzers of queer writing, and her imprints have for over a dozen years published many notable women's literature, including Cecilia Tan. I don't know the subject, but I met Tan once or twice at SF Cons. Can I take a crack at this? Thanks for your patience. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC) P.S. I've started to work on it. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC) P.P.S. I cut out what can't be sourced or is out of date, and added a source. I considered a merger but upon further reflection took it back. Discuss. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
? What does the nominator think about the subject's citation record? It appears to contain hundreds of sources that are not connected to the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Only independent sources are a newspaper article announcing a lecture he was presenting about his book and a blog post from the director of the Duke University Cancer Center, not an expert on the biography of Columbus. - Donald Albury15:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm finding basically nothing that isn't self-published except for one or two sentences in a couple of books. Pretty much nothing on scholar at all.OsFish (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete fails A7. No indication of significance in the article or literature. All I'm finding in my BEFORE are his books, interviews, and profiles. Anerdw (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR on the basis of being the author of multiple notable works. Reviews for The Violence of Financial Capitalism: [20][21][22][23]. Reviews for Capital and Language: [24][25][26]. Reviews for Capital and Affects: [27][28][29]. I didn't do a deep search for non-English language reviews, but there are definitely plenty of additional reviews of his books under their original non-English titles as well, e.g. [30][31]. His citation record is also pretty good and I found a few additional scholarly works directly about his ideas [32][33], which suggests to me that he might have a case for WP:NPROF, although I haven't looked closely enough to say so with confidence. But I think he clearly passes WP:NAUTHOR regardless. MCE89 (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MCE89. Thank you for finding so many sources and presenting them so clearly. This is easily enough to meet NAUTHOR#3, and possibly even criteria 1 and 2. Toadspike[Talk]23:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Weak Delete I have this article watchlisted because I do generally think it's wise to keep an eye on the pages of holocaust deniers so that we can avoid Wikipedia hosting, you know, holocaust denial, but this guy's definitely a good example of WP:BLP1E. While I do think it's good for Wikipedia to cover notable pseudohistorians, including notable holocaust deniers, I don't think we need to have a page for every holocaust denier with a Podcastle subscription. Should evidence be presented this man is a more significant holocaust denier then I guess I'll go back to keeping him on my watchlist but otherwise I think deletion is the best course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223 While Cooper gained noterietay from the Carlson interview, the number of sources since the last article was deleted in September have increased. Aside from receiving 10s of millions of views on popular shows & podcats like Carslon and Rogan, Cooper hosts 2 popular podcasts of his own and has a substack with over 160k subscribers. I think that this page is clearly unfinished and some of the sourcing should be fixed. It also entirely focuses on his recent comments with Carlson and Rogan. This is a better argument to expand the page than to delete it. Cooper's popularity is clearly growing, he does now fit the criteria for a notable person. I think it is important for wikipedia to cover this person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Showing up as a guest in the walled garden of right-wing podcasts isn't an automatic indication of notability nor is having a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but his popularity is. Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. Many of Cooper's associated personalities are equally as notable and have wiki pages. Comic Dave Smith for example. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your comparison to Dave Smith (comedian) is actually a good one for demonstrating why Cooper is not notable. Smith has many reliable sources talking about a variety of actual event appearances such as festivals and such. His advocacy for Trump made it into Reason for goodness sake. The SPLC has a profile on Smith and has documented his conflict with the holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Dave Smith is clearly notable by Wikipedia's standards because reliable sources treat him as such. Showing up on Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan while being a far-right podcaster is not intrinsically notable. Having a blog is not intrinsically notable. In fact the contrast between Cooper and Smith reinforces why we should not have a page about Cooper. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a point of order, the previous version was not deleted – The result was redirect to Tucker Carlson#Darryl Cooper World War II controversy. I'll look at the newly created version and sources a little later and get back.Isaidnoway(talk)13:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Merge My opinion hasn't really changed here, eventhough the article has grown. Nearly all of the citations fall into two groups: first-party/non-notable, like the subject's substack or podcast homepage, or specifically about a single opinion/appearance--and all from September 2024. There are now two citations about a second podcast appearance, this time on Joe Rogan, but it's still basically the same problem; the subject is only notable when he makes a fuss or controversial statement on someone else's program. Basically, when you get down to it, this is person is known for two slightly viral moments. I know that BLP2E isn't a "real" policy around here, but this feels more like an extension of BLP1E. I'm assuming the subject will continue to make enough noise to eventually meet notabilty guidelines; I just don't think here's there yet based on the current article. --FeldBum (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neill Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[[[Neil Ferguson]] more an “anti-historian”[34] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neil Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[35] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just your opinion. There's also a number of other quotes and information now in the article, his Joe Rogan appearance, the many, many articles criticizing his point of view. Eric Carpenter (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since I was pinged as a "participant" in the last nomination, I wanted to clarify that my only contribution to that was deletion sorting. Other than this comment, that is also the case for this nomination; I had no opinion on the old article and also offer no opinion for this version. WCQuidditch☎✎20:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. The previous article only focused on the Tucker Interview, which is why it was considered WP:BLP1E. Cooper’s work has been widely discussed in major outlets including The Times (UK), Vox, Axios, Yad Vashem, and The Free Press, which reflects the notability standards set by Wikipedia for public figures. Additionally, many of the personalities he associates with such as comic Dave Smith have wikipedia pages despite equal noterietay at best. These factors—his independent contributions to historical analysis, his partnerships with notable figures, and his coverage by reliable secondary sources—clearly demonstrate that Cooper meets the criteria a notable person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete here's very little reliable sourcing for Cooper except that he is a podcaster who made several controversial appearances on right-wing talk shows promoting holocaust denial. These controversies are best covered in articles about the hosts.
Keep: A certain level of prudence is required to productively apply notability guidelines. Cooper is a writer and podcaster with a large audience who has been involved in several controversies. This is enough for him to be notable, and the point of notability guidelines is fundamentally to filter out what's not notable. Not to provide material for (admittedly) politically-motivated quibbling over alleged edge cases as if the norms themselves were the point. Note also the almost inevitable meta-level political bias that sneaks in when editors are free to apply different levels of scrutiny to different topics based on their own biases. A serious effort to remain unbiased would involve opening discussions on politics-related articles with an encouragement for users to check their biases at the door - instead we have editors more or less stating that they are here to enforce their political preferences. Anyway, it's three events now and it was two events last time when WP:BLP1E was applied. HonestManBad (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bad in any way that's relevant to this discussion. It's not a single tweet but a thread of 35 tweets - an article of sorts, you could say - not that it matters. The reactions from significant figures and publications are what makes the events notable. HonestManBad (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: BLP1E doeesn't apply because there are at least 4 events that have received coverage in secondary sources: 1) The 1/6 tweets, 2) the Hitler tweet, 3) The Tucker Carlson appearance, and 4) The Joe Rogan appearance. While it is true that none of these in themselves would make someone notable, the fact that these events have been covered in secondary source does. Additionally, Cooper has tens of thousands of paid subscribers on Substack, making him one of the highest earners on the site.[41]Mr. Squidroot (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a podcaster interacting with other podcasters and making some noise for bigoted tweets is not proof of notoriety. The article also seems like a puff piece. A lot of sources are subpar, unreliable, and some were also pulled from ChatGPT. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see no links in Jstor or Gscholar about this individual, the rest of the sourcing doesn't seem appropriate for a scholar. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the evidence I presented at the first AfD which was closed as no consensus and “a train wreck” by Liz. Read it and your eyes will bleed: meatpuppets and sockpuppets galore with lots of personal attacks. The nominator was subsequently banned. I will try to dig up my refs and post them here tomorrow. The subject of this article tried to find common theological ground between Islam and Hinduism which was anathema to partisans on both sides. This AfD is off to a more civil start — fingers crossed. —A. B.(talk • contribs • global count)21:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that was mainly used by the Keep supporters during the last AfD was that the subject is a winner of Rashtrapati Award, but that award is political, not an academic award. There are no sources that have justified the existence of this article. CharlesWain (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Created by a WP:SPA in 2009. The creator contributed the bulk (62%) of the edits to the article and has not edited since the article was created. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Lacks significant coverage with few cites to reliable, independent sources. Reads like a resume and is little more than a promotional accomplishments listing designed to sell or "puff piece." Many unsourced statements. Geoff | Who, me?17:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. References limited to self-published sources. Lacks significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent publications. WP:BEFORE search turned up little beyond self-published sources, book lists and one TED talk recording. Geoff | Who, me?19:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with nomination. Jenna is linked to sources besides her own. She is an advocate for the truth as shown in the substack article referenced on her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeJMyhre (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nomination. Tried my own search and only found references from primary sources (author, publisher) + her Tedx talk. Don't consider reviews from Kirkus reviews to be significant due to potential to pay for review.
I also pointed out that the conspiracy theorist label was wrong. They claimed that I was not presenting a neutral point of view. Below are my comments:
My comments were a neutral point of view. The text I was trying to change said:
"Jenna McCarthy is an American conspiracy theorist." with no links or arguments to support the claim.
I tried to change it to "Jenna McCarthy has been called an American conspiracy theorist." which is true without argument or need for support.
I then also included an article from Jenna McCarthy that explained what are and are not conspiracy theories. This of course was her opinion which was explained in my edit. To not include any relevant arguments and simply claim that 'she is a conspiracy theorist' is not a neutral point of view. You can't remove my edits trying to correct your current bias and claim that I don't have a neutral view 24.143.78.9 (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article no longer mentions the "conspiracy theorist" label. In any case, this is not relevant to whether the article should be deleted.Geoff | Who, me?16:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The body of work consists of material that in the past has been censored and dismissed as "conspiracy based". But as with most COVID "conspriacies", much of it has turned out to be true. No downside to keeping, and not a good look to continue censoring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmatich (talk • contribs) 16:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This looks like the person we're discussing [43] and would be a book review, but one isn't enough. I don't find anything else about this person, this likely doesn't pass AUTHOR. (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, she does appear to be a prolific writer, according to Baker & Taylor Author Biographies: McCarthy is a writer whose work has appeared in more than 40 national and international magazines including: Allure, Parenting, Shape, Fit Pregnancy, Babytalk, Glamour, Seventeen, New Parent, Real Simple, New Woman, Self, and in anthologies such as the popular Chicken Soup series. She's had a decent amount of book reviews, and she co-authored (with Pierre Kory), a top-ten national bestseller. I found a lot of newspapers that quoted her and/or mentioned her books, but no significant coverage about her – that I could find. So I'm neutral on whether to keep or delete the article.
If It Was Easy, They'd Call the Whole Damn Thing a Honeymoon: Living With and Loving the TV-Addicted, Sex-Obsessed, Not-So-Handy Man You Married. Publishers Weekly. 8/22/2011, Vol. 258 Issue 34, pages 57-58
If It Was Easy, They'd Call the Whole Damn Thing a Honeymoon: Living With and Loving the TV-Addicted, Sex-Obsessed, Not-So-Han:dy Man You Married. Kirkus Reviews. 10/15/2011, Vol. 79 Issue 20, page 1905
If It Was Easy, They'd Call the Whole Damn Thing a Honeymoon: Living With and Loving the TV-Addicted, Sex-Obsessed, Not-So-Han:dy Man You Married. St. Petersburg Times, 10/23/2011, page 7L
Jenna McCarthy discusses her book, "If It Was Easy, They'd Call The Whole Damn Thing A Honeymoon". 2011, Today Show
Poppy Louise Is Not Afraid of Anything. Publishers Weekly, 2/13/2017, Vol. 264, Issue 7, page 73
Poppy Louise Is Not Afraid of Anything. Booklist, 2/15/2017, Vol. 113, Issue 12, page 83
The Parent Trip: From High Heels and Parties to High Chairs and Potties. Foreword Magazine, May-June 2008
Keep. (presumably) writing nonsense about covid is not a reason for deletion. The question is whether she's notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Given her publication list she seems notable as an author to me, hence she should be kept. Keep in mind notability of authors/journalists/writers is not an assessment of the quality or correctness of their work.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Searching newspapers.com, I found one review, of The Parent Trip[46], and several other articles where she, or one of her books, is quoted [47], [48], [49]. So there's the review I found, the one that Oaktree b and Bearian found, the Foreword Magazine review, St. Petersburg Times review, and the Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly reviews that Isaidnoway found. That's not a lot, for such a prolific author, but it's probably just enough for a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: have expanded with book review, radio series review, photo-essay and forthcoming memoir, all sourced. PamD09:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently has 8 references, with 4 from The Guardian and 1 from The Independent, both of which the subject has written for. Additionally, 2 references are written by the subject themselves. However, the article still lacks WP:SIGCOV]] as the sources primarily focus on reviews related to the subject, lacking the in-depth coverage essential for a BLP. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on improvements by PamD, I have removed the older January 2013 and December 2020 tags. Let's see how this goes. — Maile (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evening Standard has a substantial review of Twenty-One Locks, "Jeannie's dreams of escape" by Rosamund Urwin, 8 July 2010. That adds to the other reviews and is independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added that review plus another Independent one. Best I can tell she started writing for the Independent circa 2019, nearly a decade after the reviews in that publication so they had no problems with being (small i) independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. As always, neither writers nor musicians are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about their work -- but four of the nine footnotes here are just his own work being cited as metaverification of its own existence, two are blogs, one is a mere directory entry, and the only two nominally reliable sources in the bunch (one book and one improperly cited newspaper article) both just briefly namecheck Donald Walker without being about him in any sense, which is not the kind of coverage we need to see. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to High places in cyberspace. I have found three reviews of his book High places in cyberspace: in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies[50], in Semeia : an Experimental Journal for Biblical Studies[51] (p 166), and in the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion[52]. So it looks as though the book is notable, per WP:NBOOK. We could either write an article about the book, or keep the article about him, adding references including the book reviews. There are certainly newspaper articles which verify that he worked as a defence lawyer, which don't contribute to notability but would probably be better sources than a law report. I haven't yet found secondary sources about his work with OASIS or ISO standards. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could move the current article to the book title, to maintain history, and make the article about the book, which per your sourcing looks notable. Onel5969TT me20:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability. Of 11 refs, almost all are from his own works; one is an interview with him, one is an entry from Contemporary Authors: A Bio-Bibliographical Guide. He has written 45 books. It is not easy to find reviews other than publisher abstracts or Goodreads blurbs or equivalent; one of his better-known ones (caveat: I am not knowledgeable about this) appears to be Toxic Nourishment, and a search for reviews returns mostly sales sites. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His works are widely cited, as a search on Google Scholar indicates, with many of his papers and books having several hundred citations (which is significant for an individual). So disagreed w/r/t notability of Eigen.
However, I think you are rightfully calling attention to --- if implicitly --- to another issue: The page on Eigen has an insufficient number of external sources. Purely based on a cursory reading of this page one will likely --- and thus correctly --- come to the conclusion that Eigen is an isolated figure. In actuality, he is an important member of the psychoanalytic community, and he teaches worldwide (as his Seoul seminars indicate).
The article does not reflect that, however, and I am grateful for you bringing this to my/psy-community's attention. Once I have more time, I will try and add some external sources and appraisals.
I've declined a speedy deletion request on this—voicing the titular character in a major TV series is obviously a credible claim of significance—but sourcing this meagre is clearly not appropriate in a BLP. ‑ Iridescent17:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She is apparently a BAFTA-nominated individual and has written a book [53]. That source doesn't help notability, but at least confirms these facts. The BAFTA nomination would suggest notability, but I don't have enough coverage found to !vote at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She was nominated for a British Academy Children's Award in the Performer category in 2019 for her role in Horrid Henry[54], and has also voiced named characters in the two other series mentioned in the article, plus 20 of 35 episodes of The Sandman (podcast) and all episodes of Tinpo (as well as named characters in other series that don't have WP articles like an animated version of Isadora Moon, 50 episodes of Mush-Mush and the Mushables and 35 episodes of Marcus Level. That would see her meet WP:NACTOR, but I have so far found very little independent sourcing, even to confirm her roles. I'll see if I can find more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:NACTOR#1, with significant roles in multiple notable TV shows. I have added reliable sources (per WP:RSP) to verify her roles, and the BAFTA website verifies that she was nominated for Best Performer in 2019. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I agree with RebeccaGreen that the subject meets notability for WP:NACTOR#1 and interestingly most of the independent WP:RS coverage is for her 2023 book "How To Talk So People Will Listen" which also discusses her voice acting roles. Nnev66 (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unsalt the “Kelly Hyman” page and move to that title. A lot has changed in the seven years since the page was deleted and salted. SIGCOV which post-dates the prior deletion now exists on the article. FrankAnchor15:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two items with pretty good citation levels is below what I'm generally looking for in WP:NPROF. University-wide teaching awards do not contribute here. On the other hand, one book tends to fall under WP:BLP1E so far as WP:NAUTHOR goes; I did not anyway find reviews on a cursory search. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. For someone at this level of seniority, two well-cited publications (one a textbook) with the rest falling off steeply is below the bar for WP:PROF#C1, and nothing else in the article looks to contribute to notability. I did find one published review of the book, and hints that there might have been another by Garman in [55] (from which any book reviews are now missing), but even if I could find the second review it wouldn't be enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To my mind a notable econometrician. His founding of/chairing of the Midwest Econometrics Group (MEG) is I think very notable within the US academic econometrics community and his role as the guest editor for a special edition of a highly prestigious econometrics journal - the Journal of Econometrics is important, as his work on Splines in ecmetrics via his book and papers ... and these seem to me together sufficient for notability. His published academic work in econometrics is very wide ranging....and I have used some if it in different contexts.... His later post-retirement books and media / opinion piece work seem to me less notable (but my bias is towards the academic side) and I don't know how notable his work as an independent Midwest Voices columnist on the Kansas City Star online edition might be from a journalistic point of view. (Msrasnw (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Keep The article has been expanded since its creation. The contributions made by Msrasnw, consisting of valuable content including his publications, serve to further establish the notability of the subject. Gedaali (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While he has (as mentioned above) a couple of well cited papers, the dropoff is fast and the total number of citations at 1359 is weak. His own page does not indicate anything notable except some prior students; notability is not inheritable from his prior students. I don't see indications that his book(s) have had an impact. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The only type of sources I can find was this one here [1] and it is a book that he wrote. It seems like it's sort of notable for someone to write a book and have other sourcing. But, thoroughly scanning Google I could not find any other sort of citations besides that one. I would just draftify this until better sourcing is needed. Editz2341231 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bio of a one-book author that appears to fail notability guidelines for WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Single valid reference about this person is an announcement in a small college daily. The other refs provided are her PR agent, blogs, and several of her own bi-lined articles. All the remaining references cover the book, not the author. None of this is enough significant coverage to meet GNG. It seems there could be enough refs for a page about the book where a redirect might be appropriate. — CactusWriter (talk)22:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately someone recently removed a review of her book from the references without explaining why. There is sufficient coverage of her work to justify this page. She is an author. Her work is the thing that matters. Who gives a fuck about where she was born or what her favourite colour is. What has she written and how has it been received is what is encyclopedic content. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I think the more notable subject is her true crime work, but there seems to be enough individualized coverage to support an article on her. The Stenson article does not contribute to notability, so I have to make this a weak keep. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Has had one popular book, which received RS reviews. I do not find it on best seller lists. I just don't think a single successful book (but no awards) suffices. Lamona (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple articles by major media organizations, including NPR, the Tampa Bay Times, and the Minnesota Star Tribune, qualify this article as notable due to the Wikipedia notability criteria of significant coverage by multiple sources. Orlando Davis (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple references show significant, not trivial, coverage in independent secondary sources, discussing her early life (references 1-5), professional career and her views and contributions to the discussion of the housing crisis. An important notability factor (WP:AUTHOR) relies on the following: The person's work (or works) has won significant critical attention. Her book has received has significant critical attention, including book reviews in major sites including Vox and Bloomberg News (ref 9), which stated that Demsas "has distinguished herself within the supply-side camp." Her overall work has led to multiple high profile interviews, including on Bloomberg (ref. 9), NPR (ref. 11) and Ezra Klein's NYTimes interview (ref. 12), indicating her work has had significant attention. Per WP:NAUTHOR, references 8 & 9 show she is known for originating a significant new concept, further enhancing her notability. Included in the article were her opinions on the housing crisis; there is no Wikipedia injunction against discussing a subject's views. There is no Wikipedia injunction against using the subject's self-authored published works in reputable publications to verify the information presented. The references discussed above were used to verify Demsas' views, not to establish notability. And, only 4/23 references even fall within that purview. In brief: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple publishedsecondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (Wikipedia:Notability (people)). The article meets all criteria.
I note that the first reviewer (Ipigott]) did not see a problem with this article, and later removed a tag stating that this article may not achieve notability, claiming that "del tag - no longer applicable." Mwinog2777 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that she meets WP:AUTHOR. A search of Newspapers.com shows a lot of columnists in other newspapers basing columns on articles by Demsas in The Atlantic and critiquing what she has written. So far I've found examples in The Indianapolis Star, The Herald-Palladium, Sun Journal (Lewiston, Maine), and The San Francisco Examiner, by 5 different columnists. I'll try to add them to the article. (Before searching, I had thought this might be a case of TOOSOON, as she joined The Atlantic only 3 years ago, in 2022. But it's clear that she very quickly had a big impact.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think added refs are examples of WP:SIGCOV. Quotes of her work in independent secondary sources are helpful to expand the article (and I'm thankful to you for doing this research), but there must be some coverage that is directly about her (preferably about her early life, education, career) to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing the kind of coverage required to meet WP:NJOURNALIST. Some participants above are citing discussion of her work ([56], [57]) as WP:SIGCOV of her, which it's not (that's more of an WP:NACADEMIC criterion). These are mentions, not independent reviews of her body of work required to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Meanwhile, the Bits and Deets article should be deleted as an unreliable blog that scrapes personal info and aggregates it as SEO bait. The rest of the sources appear to be her own work or WP:INTERVIEWs. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Interviews: "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." The multiple interviews listed were done by highly reputable outlets, including the New York Times and NPR. The interviews were presented as investigative journalism with the interview material often interspersed with the interviewer's own analysis and thoughts. Please review the interviews. She meets criteria for WP:NAUTHOR as there are multiple reviews of her book, her body of work, as it encompasses her previous columns and essays.Mwinog2777 (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, mixed up PBS and NPR, my bad. But, disagree, both interviews had in-depth comments by interviewers, particularly the Ezra Klein, even with only a cursory glance.~~~ Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Capps interview in Bloomberg/CityLab is really a Q&A interview; I wouldn't count it as a "review" for NAUTHOR purposes. The Discourse piece would count as a review. If we can get to another real review, I'd say we have an NAUTHOR pass, but it's not there yet. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first part of the Bloomberg/CityLab article reads like a review of the book to me, albeit on the shorter side - one can ignore the interview that comes after for notability purposes. Perhaps an open question is when the book is cited by multiple news media sources if these count towards being "widely cited by peers or successors", i.e. NAUTHOR#1. Nnev66 (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
WikiProject guides
Directories and summaries
Culture and the arts
Geographical
History and society
Science, technology
Wikipedia assistance