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.
Doubtful claim to notability: mentioned in a handful of local news articles in 2016, has seen no coverage in last 8 years. Not a single other article links here (this itself doesn't make it not notable, but suggests it has no enduring significance). PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, essentially. It's true this isn't about an event so of course it doesn't directly apply, but this only received a flurry of hyper-local news coverage and is routine. SportingFlyerT·C06:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all can figure out that in your opinion these articles you've created should be kept. You do not need to make three comments to explain this. Based on your previous two responses, I am going to suggest to you that any further responses to me beyond the two you have already made are unlikely to change my opinion that this should be deleted. Asparagusstar (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Shouldn't AfD discussions unfold naturally to assess the community's voice and decisions? The article has now been turned into a redirect in the middle of the AfD process and the content redirected into a a new article, "Travel Portland" containing the exact same content. This seems irregular, and for as long as I've been participating in deletion discussions, I've never seen this type of procedure occur before. Is it standard best practice? Just curious, no comment on the notability of the subject at this time. Netherzone (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as it says at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, "You should not turn the article into a redirect." and "Participants in deletion discussions should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another page unilaterally before the debate closes."Asparagusstar (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to save the community time and energy discussing the necessity of a standalone entry when I was fine with the content living at the more general Travel Portland article and I am the primary author of both entries. By all means, feel free to restore a previous version of Mr. Dude, makes no difference to me. If editors agree the topic is notable, great! If not, then a redirect to Travel Portland would make sense anyway since Mr. Dude would almost certainly be mentioned there. Seems like a waste of time to me, but if we must follow a procedure, go for it! ---Another Believer(Talk)19:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer, it probably is best for you to undo your own redirect. The guideline does state You should not turn the article into a redirect during an AfD discussion. If the article title changes during an active AfD discussion, it can be really quite confusing to the XFDcloser. It is also confusing to other editors who come here to participate, it certainly was for me. Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep A large series by an undoubtedly notable artist. A quick google search finds Lebanon and the Split of Life: Bearing Witness Through the Art of Nabil Kanso By Meriam Soltan · 2024, a large monograph on his woerk, which is bound to have coverage, but only has a few pages on preview. As he is a Lebanese artist, there is no doubt more in Arabic and probably French. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I'm not really in favour of citing works we haven't actually read and/or confirmed the content we believe it contains. If we haven't read it, we can't cite it. Even if it is true that this work does contain enough to meet the GNG, that's just one ref. I agree this is an important artist, that doesn't mean everything they did is individually notable. JMWt (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This seems to be a popular subject in art, but nothing for a "Nabil Kanso" that I can find... Either primary sourcing or wiki mirrors. Literally hundreds of paintings with this subject, but I don't see much critical notice for this series. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a poor redirect target: that paragraph is sourced to Kanso's (defunct) personal site, and the site "apocalypsepainting.com" (which has an expired certificate) stating that the material is "From interview". So none of it is reliably/independently sourced. Jfire (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am definitely in favor of straight up deletion. Good points. I am mostly just pointing that paragraph out to say that anyone who wants to work on this has the alternative of trying to improve that paragraph. Asparagusstar (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To put it simply, the fact that there exists an article for "Clop" on Wikipedia is unbelievable. Clop, as a subgenre of a subgenre of pornography, fails to meet any expectations of relevance or importance a Wikipedia page ought to have. This kind of page explaining a specific form of internet phenomena belongs on Know Your Meme. At best, it warrants a small subsection on a larger Brony or MLP-related article. If there's going to be an entire Clop article, there may as well be articles for Sonichu and Sneed's Feed and Seed. Patriot of Canuckistan (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep the existence of an article being "unbeliavable" in your opinion doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. Fact of the matter is that the topic clearly meets WP:GNG and even received academic attention. Skyshiftertalk19:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has 17 sources, which ones do you have an issue with, or in which section? The FiM fandom article is already 170k bytes and around 10k words, I assume this was spun off as others felt there was enough sources for notability and that it would be too clunky as just a section on that page (see also other articles linked in the fandom section of Template:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic). I'm also not sure I understand what you're trying to say is "unbelievable" here, there are a lot of articles about pornographic subgenres on here (see Template:Pornography). Ringtail Raider (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A vanity page and likely autobiography (user = P.D.C., who has edited primarily this page and other pages related to the Cangelaris family) of a non-notable individual; fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. No evidence of passing any criterion of WP:ACADEMIC. No evidence of passing WP:NAUTHOR; his books appear to be self-published. No evidence of passing WP:GNG; the sources are limited to passing mentions in government documents/directories and mostly a long run of mentions in various Who's Who lists, a pay-to-play source that is not independent. And no evidence of passing on any other WP:NBIO criterion. Nothing qualifying comes up in a BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The awards for volunteering and stamp collecting aren't notable ones, the books and journal articles don't seem to have attracted any meaningful reviews or citations, and his political and diplomatic activities don't seem to have any secondary coverage. This seems to be a vanity page packed with every possible award and achievement in the author's life, but I can't see any that could give a claim to notability. MCE89 (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, the entire "Hobbies and Volunteering" section is totally unsourced, and is likely written by the subject. fails academic, nauthor, nbio and gng.
Delete: Only hits I get are primary items or vanity websites. Stamp collecting doesn't seem to be notable, This reads as an extended resume. Long way from notability Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir, I received your message as of your proposal for deletion of the "Panayotis D. Cangelaris" article and I would like to know the specific reason, please! Furthermore, I noticed that the included picture was removed allegedly because of copyright violation (Linkedin). However, if some one has the copyright of this picture, that is me and no one else (and it is me who did provided it for free use). It was never copied from Linkedin or any one else. Could you, please, explain as well? By the way, I would like to reiterate that I too have the best intentions for the highest quality of Wikipedia's articles and I think that this article lives up anybody's expectations. However, any improvement is most welcome and anybody is of course free to do so. I thank you in anticipation for your interest and any reasonable reaction to my reply!
Delete. Can't find anything that would fulfill WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:PROF. His books all appear to be self-published and the articles don't seem to have had substantial citations or widespread publication. Separate from the discussion here, but I concur with the nominator that P.D.C. may also have a COI (seems like a single purpose account, and the initials are the same as the subject of this AFD). nf utvol (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not finished. It’s meant to be about possible historical flags for Rhine confederation, aswell as give context to the white green blue flag and discuss its origins tae prevent misguided edits to confederation page itself ToadGuy101 (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On second thought and an attempt to find sources, there appears to be no basis for this article to pass GNG. Much as I enjoy the guy's videos, one youtube essay from Noj Rants does not confer notability. CR (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any decent sources with significant coverage. [8] is not independent, and [9] is unreliable and almost certainly copied from Wikipedia itself anyway. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references at all in the article, and my search was as unsuccessful as those before me. Even if the claims in the article were supported, this is just basic art director employment that does not meet WP:ARTIST standards such as an artist whose work "(a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention." Asparagusstar (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics
The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Related Projects
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts
WP:BLP of a media entrepreneur, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for media figures. As always, founders of television channels are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but this is referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources and glancing namechecks of the subject's existence in coverage about other things, with no evidence shown at all of any GNG-worthy coverage with him as its subject. There's also been some conflict of interest editing in the past, as the article has been edited numerous times by "Yeldeeb", and was first created by an anonymous-IP WP:SPA with no other edit history at all besides this (and thus likely to have been either the subject himself, or an employee he paid to get him into Wikipedia). But of course, even people who do properly clear our inclusion standards still aren't entitled to create or control their articles themselves. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED, George here is only known in connection with his famous son Leonardo DiCaprio. His "acting debut" is a very small few second cameo, his work as a writer/artist (not really clear) fails WP:ARTIST and his work as a filmmaker fails WP:FILMMAKER, getting a small stint editing on local newspapers does not make you notable. Source 5 in the article shows he's worked on... three comics? Don't know if it's even reliable as a source but clearly not noteworthy in itself. jolielover♥talk14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am a member of the Women in Red project, and as part of that initiative, I actively work on creating more Wikipedia articles about notable women. Regarding the subject in question, they are also notable as an author. Moreover, reliable sources such as 'Newsclick', 'Sahapedia', 'BBC', and 'Forward Press' have covered them in-depth, clearly demonstrating that the subject meets WP:GNG. Best! Baqi:) (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Membership in the in Red project does not imply the ability to produce non-notable subjects. Aside from the BBC, Newsclick, Sahapedia, and Forward Press are unreliable sources that are deficient in credibility. WP:RS. AndySailz (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per full professor at two notable universities (one established more than a century ago) and female academic in a place where professors are rare clear pass of the average professor test. (p.s. to AndySailz -- responding to every comment at AfD w/o supporters w/o specific rebuttals is rarely the way to make a winning argument) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)09:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I do not see anything that passes the average professor test here. Being a professor, even at well-established universities, is exactly the thing that does _not_ pass this test. Citations are low, and none of the other criteria seem to be passed. It looks more likely that the subject here passes WP:NAUTHOR, but this would generally require reviews of her books, which I did not find. Following in case better evidence of notability emerges. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Russ Woodroofe : Hey Russ, thank you for your comments. As an author, Hemlata has written several books, and you can check out their reviews by clicking on the following links: Link 1, Link 2, Link 3Link 4Link 5 and Link 6. These reviews are from reliable sources as well. I appreciate your time and interest. Thanks again:) Baqi:) (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Russ Woodroofe — I don't see a WP:GNG pass, and I'm not convinced that she clearly passes any of the WP:NPROF criteria. Based on the sources so far my sense is that she surely must pass WP:NAUTHOR, but I don't think the sources that have been found are quite enough to actually demonstrate that yet. Of the six sources about her books above, (1) only has a paragraph about her book (which is not nothing, given that it's a retrospective on the best books of the year in what seems to be a reliable publication, but is not a full review), (2) only has a brief mention of her work, (3) and (5) are interviews, (4) is not really a review, and (6) is probably the closest but spends a lot of time just repeating her poems. My feeling is that based on everything implied by her career and by how she is described in the sources, there surely must be at least two full length reviews of her work out there (maybe in more academic or literary publications?). But I can't find any in English and searching in Hindi using Google Translate was proving to be beyond my abilities. So I would like to say keep, but I would like to see a full-length review of one of her published works first. MCE89 (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject clearly meets WP:GNG. Additionally, reviews of their books are available in reliable sources, demonstrating that they also meet WP:NAUTHOR. Furthermore, as a female academic in a region where professors are rare, they clearly pass the average professor test. Taabii (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is extensive, in-depth coverage on the subject in numerous reliable sources. Moreover, the subject is a seasoned journalist whose articles and columns have appeared in prominent publications such as Outlook Magazine, Sabrang India, The Sunday Guardian, DailyO, among several other reputable websites. For additional exclusive coverage on the subject, please refer to [11], [12], and [13], [14], [15] and [16]. Thank you. Baqi:) (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The references you mentioned are not reliable. On The Sunday Guardian the subject is himself an editor, so it is considered as self published. And others are not reliable. AndySailz (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:PROF. The movement of which he is part is clearly notable with millions of followers; there no evidence that he is notable. As a "scholar", he doesn't seem to have any evidence of passing the PROF test. I admit that the term "scholar" is confusing in this context, because I think he is more like an imam or ayatollah, but not exactly those kinds of clerics. If you can clarify this, or show that the sources are in fact reliable, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article failing WP:GNG and WP:ITSA. It lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and cited books appear to be either self-published or fail to establish substantial academic or journalistic recognition, also the subject does not meet WP:PROF or WP:ANYBIO, as there is no evidence of influential scholarly contributions or widespread impact beyond his religious community. NXcryptoMessage03:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: When I created this article, I believed that the sources I used were entirely reliable. However, after the admin Significa Liberdade edited the article, they removed all unreliable sources, for which I sincerely appreciate their efforts. [17]The subject is an author, and to be honest, I also struggled to find completely reliable sources. Therefore, I have decided to draft the article so that I can take the time to find better sources. Baqi:) (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's Complicated, Read Below -- (how's that for wishy-washy! sorry closing Admin!) The entire article's pass/fail to me is based on WP:PROF#C6: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." -- without this, I don't see anything in WP:PROF or WP:GNG or anything else to save the article. So we come to the (actually quite rare you'd be surprised) position of determining what "major" means about colleges etc. -- at the height of the seminary it had 1,800 students, which I think is on the KEEP side of what "major" would generally mean. But I looked at the negative side: "does the institution have 1,000 students today?" not close: 200-300. Does the institution have consisent and significant major press coverage about it? [18] Christianity Today 2022 article would be one good point for it, but I'd think that a "major" university would have at least one press article per year about it that I could defend as "significant" but except for some bit stories about the success (and failure) of their basketball teams, I can't find anything. So without setting a precedent about any College presidents of even a smidgen of greater notability, I will !vote Delete -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)09:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. C6 is reserved for major research universities; tiny Bible colleges that only offer associates and bachelor's are very far from that standard. This person is not an academic and so doesn't qualify for any other NPROF criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. I don't think this school is up to the level of #C6. So, as for high school principals (who often lead larger institutions and also don't qualify for #C6) we need to go by WP:GNG instead, but we have no evidence of notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He still falls far short of WP:PROF#C1 in a high-citation field. The article is also a copyvio of his self-written Psych Today profile, or maybe more likely both of them were made as copies of each other by the same author (so we also have apparent undeclared COI/AUTOBIO in the mix). Because some claims from that source are dubious (specifically the claim to be a Harvard Fellow not backed up by the list of past members of the Society of Fellows [19]) we also have a problem with circularity and reliability of sourcing on a WP:BLP. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I searched for peer reviews of his academic publications but didn’t find any notable results. Most of his books appear on marketing platforms, and there don’t seem to be any independent reviews available. 50.39.138.50 (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Klbrain Where did you find his H-Index? I found another person with almost the same name but related to AI research on Google Scholar who has H-index of 2. Here it is:
As to the publication of psychologist Sayyed Mohsen Fatemi, he has 43 publications but only 73 citations which doesn't speak in favor of his notability as an academic:
It appears that the statistics on ResearchGate are more comprehensive than on Scopus. However, I still believe this person doesn’t have sufficient notability for a standalone Wikipedia page.50.39.138.50 (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that the "article subject" probably also created the article for self-promotional purposes, but now that he is facing a federal prison sentence he wants it removed, it seems he is wanting it both ways. At the time the article was created, he fought off an AfC rejection and then fought and won an AfD at the time. After material on his egregious behavior was added to what was, admittedly, a puff piece for a mostly self-published author, he already tried again as an anon IP (there are several anon IP edits, all geolocating to Sante Fe, New Mexico, where he is apparently living at this time, close enough that they could easily be a dynamic IP from the same location) to AfD the article [20], which resulted in @Cullen328: giving it semi-protection, and that only after it was reverted for a whitewashing attempt. On top of that, one of his anon IP posts put up distractors on articles about other convicted federal felons [21]. All that said, while I think if he was marginally notable before he became notorious, he is definitely notable now. The story was posted on the US DOJ page and was all over the Montana press: posting just a few examples now. [22], [23] On the other hand, If the article is deleted, I also recommend that it be tagged as a WP:SALT so that it doesn't just get recreated as another puff piece when he gets out of the federal pen. Montanabw(talk)01:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person was apparently happy with this article when he was presenting himself as a notable author. Now that he has been convicted of a crime that is especially unseemly for an author specializing in biography amd history - stealing things from a historical society and trying to sell them - he now wants the article deleted. Coverage of his crime by reliable sources adds to his notability. This looks like a case of whitewashing to me, and yes, I did semiprotect the article for that reason. If the article is kept, it will need to be cleaned up because many although not all of its 24 current references are mediocre. Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I certainly understand the schadenfreude of turning a promotional article which abuses the encyclopedia into an millstone upon its author, but I don't think there's a policy-based argument to keep. He's not a notable author, neither is he a notable thief. pburka (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Pburka:, just curious if the WP:CRIM criteria, "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual" would alter your view. I've never heard of anyone stealing historic items from a museum archives to sell on eBay. I mean, maybe it's been tried before, but certainly isn't a common crime. Montanabw(talk)04:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Theft of antiquities and collectibles is not unusual. I think it's a stretch to call this crime unusual in its execution (simple theft) or motivation (money). pburka (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply. It says "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, ..." If one drills down into what we mean by a "non-public figure", one comes to Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. "A low-profile individual [and non-public figure] is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable" (emphasis mine). D'Ambrosio sought media attention by giving interviews about his writing, he did book tours and signings to promote his work, and as of the writing of the article was engaged in these high-profile activities, even if he now wishes he were low-profile. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would not have accepted the article at AfC if I did not believe at the time that he was a notable author, although perhaps by only a narrow margin. I still believe that, although with a bit less certainty. My apologies to the community for not keeping an eye on the article and pushing back more strongly against any promotional language or tone. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Hungarian journalist; there are no WP:GNG-qualifying sources in the article or in a WP:BEFORE search. Contested PROD, so bringing it to AfD. Source analysis follows:
Considerations before making a decision about this article:
1) Referring to Klopfstein as a "non-notable Hungarian journalist" would be an inaccurate portrayal of his contributions. Beyond his research and advocacy work, Klopfstein has published hundreds of opinion pieces and news articles, reviewed by independent editors at Hungary's most widely read newspapers (e.g., HVG, Népszava, Mérce, Euractiv, Kitekintő, Stop.hu), as listed by Declemens1971. In addition, his articles have elicited significant responses from opposing political perspectives.
2) Among the trivial mentions listed by Declemens1971, several articles authored by Klopfstein's political opponents focus exclusively on his work. This highlights his impact on public discourse. To ensure an accurate evaluation, inviting a Hungarian-speaking editor with expertise in press freedom and human rights advocacy in Central Europe would be beneficial.
3) Declemens1971 identifies Civilek.info as an "opinion blog," which may stem from a lack of familiarity with the Hungarian media landscape and/or linguistic nuances. Civilek.info is a right-leaning online news portal with a separate opinion section.
4) Describing Klopfstein solely as a journalist overlooks the breadth of his career. In addition to journalism, he has a well-documented history of political activism, research, and advocacy.
5) Guidance is requested on verifying roles like protest organizer or political activist when not directly documented in mainstream international publications. Notably, Klopfstein has been quoted by highly reputable outlets, including The New York Times and The Guardian, where he is explicitly named as a protest organizer.
6) The phrase "brief mentions in media interviews about his website" misrepresents Print-it-Yourself, which is not a mere website but a social movement involving thousands of volunteers across Hungary. As a co-founder, Klopfstein has been extensively quoted in major international newspapers in multiple languages (Politico, The New York Times, The Guardian, taz.de).
6) Characterizing widely cited research papers from leading think tanks such as the Budapest Institute and Globsec as "non-independent" reflects a misunderstanding of public policy research. These papers are peer-reviewed and authored by recognized experts in the region.
7) As stated in the article, Klopfstein operates under multiple aliases, including Kornél Klopfstein, Kornél László, and Kornél J. László. Relying on a single Google search may be insufficient to identify WP:GNG-qualifying sources. Nevesnevtelenek (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Partial list of interviews about or with Kornel Klopfstein-Laszlo (articles including more than a "sound bite"):
General notability guideline(/WP:BASIC) -- lack of secondary/independent sources + no significant coverage. Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines for academics either. Comment(s) on talk page show that verification of any information is an ongoing issue. Tagged for peacock, advert, and tone since Feb 2010. I tried to fix the issues prior to filing this AfD. Puppies937 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed all sources cited but none is reliable to meet WP:GNG or other criteria. Described as a writer, there is no good review of his book(s) other than a single review by the newspaper where he is a reporter. Mekomo (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion The subject has been featured in multiple media sources. While these sources indicate some level of recognition, the depth and independence of the coverage vary. Arab News provides independent coverage of his contributions to women's football, while sources like the SSC's social post and the Al Arabiya video do not constitute in-depth independent coverage under Wikipedia's WP:GNG guidelines N No or few suitable sources that could be cited.
Authorship of Notable Works
Authored 4 books, Japanese Football, Asia's Arabs, The Pink Field and Women's Football.
only 9 ratings for his three works on googlereads Source
Conclusion While the subject has authored multiple books, the limited number of ratings and reviews on platforms like Goodreads indicates insufficient recognition or critical reception. These works do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines without broader independent reviews or recognition. NLikely not notable
Conclusion The subject has held significant roles, including editor at Kooora.com and a women’s football expert in Saudi Arabia. However, these roles alone may not establish notability without broader independent recognition. NLikely not notable
General Conclusion
The subject has received some media attention and held notable professional roles, but the lack of independent, in-depth coverage and critical reviews suggests that they do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
A vanity page and likely autobiography (user = P.D.C., who has edited primarily this page and other pages related to the Cangelaris family) of a non-notable individual; fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. No evidence of passing any criterion of WP:ACADEMIC. No evidence of passing WP:NAUTHOR; his books appear to be self-published. No evidence of passing WP:GNG; the sources are limited to passing mentions in government documents/directories and mostly a long run of mentions in various Who's Who lists, a pay-to-play source that is not independent. And no evidence of passing on any other WP:NBIO criterion. Nothing qualifying comes up in a BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The awards for volunteering and stamp collecting aren't notable ones, the books and journal articles don't seem to have attracted any meaningful reviews or citations, and his political and diplomatic activities don't seem to have any secondary coverage. This seems to be a vanity page packed with every possible award and achievement in the author's life, but I can't see any that could give a claim to notability. MCE89 (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, the entire "Hobbies and Volunteering" section is totally unsourced, and is likely written by the subject. fails academic, nauthor, nbio and gng.
Delete: Only hits I get are primary items or vanity websites. Stamp collecting doesn't seem to be notable, This reads as an extended resume. Long way from notability Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir, I received your message as of your proposal for deletion of the "Panayotis D. Cangelaris" article and I would like to know the specific reason, please! Furthermore, I noticed that the included picture was removed allegedly because of copyright violation (Linkedin). However, if some one has the copyright of this picture, that is me and no one else (and it is me who did provided it for free use). It was never copied from Linkedin or any one else. Could you, please, explain as well? By the way, I would like to reiterate that I too have the best intentions for the highest quality of Wikipedia's articles and I think that this article lives up anybody's expectations. However, any improvement is most welcome and anybody is of course free to do so. I thank you in anticipation for your interest and any reasonable reaction to my reply!
Delete. Can't find anything that would fulfill WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:PROF. His books all appear to be self-published and the articles don't seem to have had substantial citations or widespread publication. Separate from the discussion here, but I concur with the nominator that P.D.C. may also have a COI (seems like a single purpose account, and the initials are the same as the subject of this AFD). nf utvol (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage. At least three sources are reporting by periodicals that have employed him. Another is an academic paper that I tried to read (my Spanish isn't great) but I didn't see any major analysis of his oeuvre. The rest are interviews or blurbs. Bearian (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
She's not just a teacher though, she's a botanist, who discovered new plants, so we need to look for publications in which she discovered plants. I suspect there could be sources in another language too given that she's Argentinian. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓18:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't speak Spanish and can only access snippets of most of these sources, but there are a lot of results under her name on Google Books. These nine results [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57] all seem like they might contain SIGCOV of her, in addition to the dozens of books that seem to cite her work as a botanist or contain trivial mentions. Based on what I could find I strongly suspect she is notable, but hopefully someone who speaks the language and can actually access the sources can have a proper look. MCE89 (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added in details about Pastore. I found a reference that describes her as a member of the Instituto de Botánica: Darwinión, and a chronicle of her life that was published upon her death. There was also a session held in her honor at a 1952 meeting. These details are now cited in the article. Given the period and limited sourcing available, I think this is sufficient indication of notability. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a case of WP:BLP1E, the subject is only notable for their sacking from The Age. The rest of the sourcing that I've found, both in the article and through searches, is either not independent or not in-depth. I've considered the possibility that they might pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC and I don't see that either is the case. TarnishedPathtalk11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per WP:BLP1E the 'subjects notable for one event' policy must meet each of three criteria listed for the subject to be unsuitable for a page. They are: reliable sources only cover one event; the individual is otherwise low profile; and the individual's role in the event was not significant. I suggest Szego's career as an author and journalist elevates her above “low-profile individual”; and her role in the event clearly was not “not significant”. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A reading of WP:LOWPROFILE would suggest that they are indeed a low profile individual. Being a author or a journalist alone does not make someone not low-profile. In fact if they did have a high profile as consequence of those activities they would almost certainly pass WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NAUTHOR (the same policy), which they appear not to. TarnishedPathtalk23:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't agree with the contention that she is WP:BLP1E nor do I agree with the issue around the other sources. At the very least there is:
Wild Dingo Press, sells her book (see https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/shop/p/9780987381149). It's unsurprising that a book seller would have a profile page for an author that they sell the books of. It's not independent. It would also be a stretch to call two paragraphs significant coverage.
bookpublishing.com.au only mentions her in passing. It does not have significant coverage of her. Notably there is no claim that she won that award so I don't see a pass with WP:NAUTHOR.
The Age link you provide is her employee profile page, detailing articles that she wrote as a journalist for The Age. Firstly that's not independent coverage of her as an individual and secondly that doesn't go towards showing a pass of WP:NJOURNALIST. The Age were her employer, so it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her.
thejewishindependent is a podcast in which she is interviewed. This is not independent from Szego and more importantly counts as a primary source. This does not contribute towards establishing Szego's notability. Those issues aside it appears to be dominated by her sacking from The Age, going towards my argument of BLP1E.
The Guardian link is of the same nature as The Age link. Again not independent as they are/were her employer and again it's it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her which details the stories that she's written for them.
None of the sources you have provided above contribute to Szego's passing our general notability guidelines. In order to establish notability we would need multiple reliable secondary sources which are independent from Szego and which cover her in-depth. If WP:BLP1E wasn't a thing then she should pass on the coverage of her sacking alone, however WP:BLP1E is a thing and therefore she doesn't meet our general notability guidelines. TarnishedPathtalk12:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, above discussion and online research that rendered 2 books (no reviews), a sacking, and a couple articles about George Szego. Nothing significant for a career spanning decades. Maineartists (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen editors cite multiple reviews in the past as sufficient reason for a keep (not that I'm accusing you of doing that here as you've obviously stated there are no reviews). I'm not sure that multiple book reviews, by itself, is a WP:NAUTHOR pass. I presume the editors are basing their keep vote based on criterion 3 which states 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), but to me it would appear that when they are doing so that they are disregarding the first sentence of that criterion. TarnishedPathtalk00:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found hundreds of search results for her in The Wikipedia Library, but the overwhelming majority of them were her bylines on articles she has written, and yes, there was SIGCOV about her, but it was not independent, because her byline was on those articles as well. Just because she was fired from her job doesn't automatically bestow notability on her, because that news cycle about her getting sacked has already come and gone. Maybe in the future, she might pass GNG for a BLP, but right now she does not, she's a BLP1E.Isaidnoway(talk)06:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I think it should be drafted. He has won a lot of awards including the order of merit - Ordre des Palmes académiques which is major civilian award which likely makes him notable. The art as well, if they can be proved to be a museum or permanent collection would pass WP:NARTIST. There is lot potentially if it could be proven. There is lots more. The article itself is a mess and needs a significant copyedit and it also needs sourced. Some time in draft would give that space. If there is not enough coverage I could stubify it. scope_creepTalk09:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being a recipient of the Palmes académiques is not likely at all to make someone notable. More than 6,000 people receive this medal each year, and it used to be almost two times more until a few years ago. BilletsMauves€50013:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The changes made are minimal on links or inaccurate statements and I did not create the article. I do not know who created it. This article should be checked and formatted before thinking about deleting it in my opinion.
The changes made are minimal on links or inaccurate statements and I did not create the article. I do not know who created it. This article should be checked and formatted before thinking about deleting it in my opinion.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is more or less a lazy nomination; what notability guideline does the subject not meet? Not whether the nature is promotional. See WP:IGNORINGATD. Whether a cursory search was made should also be evident. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. This page was created 15 years ago by a SPA and tinkered with, but not improved much since then. I tried to fix it and gave up. (I've done more than my share of rescues in the past 3 months, so don't give me side-eye.) He might be notable, based on a couple of searches that I did. I actually don't think it's too promotional. Two more thoughts: (1) are LinkedIn links no longer used in External links? and (2) since the SPA hadn't been active in over 10 years, who would take over to userfy this page if needed as an ATD? Bearian (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick check on newspapers.com and there appear to be several articles where the subject has WP:SIGCOV. These include Buffalo News stories in the article that are deadlinks but are available in archive. I’ll need a day or two to do a more thorough look. Note this article passed AFC. Nnev66 (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are at least three references with significant coverage in reliable sources (see below). These are all published in the Buffalo, New York area but that doesn't dissuade me from notability as the coverage is reliable and significant. It was difficult to evaluate this one because a number of the references were primary written by the subject and this wasn't indicated in the referencing (I fixed that). Again note that this article passed WP:AFC before it was published to the mainspace, a process which from my experience is a vigorous check of an article. Nnev66 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for adding non-primary sources to the article and the overall improvements you have made to it. I don't think I can access source [1] but based on the title it sounds like potential sigcov. And [3] definitely is. However I am uncertain if [2] qualifies as an independent source, since the subject was an adjunct professor at Hilbert College from 2001-2007 and the magazine featuring her was published in 2005. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - another day, another article up for deleting that I have a potential conflict of interest, for which I must disclose. The subject and I have both volunteered for not one, but two organizations: NYSBA and the Women's Bar Association, the latter from which we have received awards. We also have a public LinkedIn connection in common, one of my (former) best friends from high school. For those reasons, I'm not !voting one way or another, other than to say that she's very accomplished. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fair enough regarding InsomniaOpossum's comment that the Hilbert College source is non-independent since she worked there. I found another review of her book in Publisher's Weekly (link via Proquest). I also added an Attorney of the Year recognition she received in 2018. Nnev66 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It should be deleted because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Despite a few references, most of the coverage is either too minor or doesn't offer significant independent insights into Nadia Shahram's career. The sources listed, such as a 2005 alumni magazine and brief mentions in larger outlets like Fox News, are not enough to establish her as a notable figure. Even with some recent improvements and additional sources, the overall coverage is still limited and mostly self-promotional or not directly about her work, which doesn't rise to the level required for inclusion on Wikipedia. Taha Danesh (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit14:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
