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.
The article is entirely reliant on primary sources from Starkid Productions, and a BEFORE yields no significant coverage of this subject, with only trivial mentions of its existence popping up across both reliable and unreliable sources. This is better off redirected or merged to Starkid Productions, the company that produced this musical, as there is no indication of GNG being met with this subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A search for sources shows no sources from reliable sources; all sources are from blogs or college newspapers, neither of which are reliable. All development information is primary and thus does not indicate notability of the subject. The only third party source that shows notability is the Billboard sales performance, but this is a single source and only covering sales figures. This subject lacks SIGCOV and doesn't meet the GNG, and is better off redirected or merged as an AtD to Starkid Productions, the parent company which produced this musical. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While this is not about the cast album but the show itself (whose cast recorded the show), the cast album did make the Billboard national chart making it pass criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM. I also found this additional review [8] Ultimately, the spirit of the WP:NALBUM SNG should apply here. This show charted so we should keep the article.4meter4 (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 The review hails from a student-published newspaper, so that one is also unreliable. From a glance at their about page, they don't seem to have a high journalistic standard (Anyone can apply and write for them) so I'm not sure if it's usable at all.
Still, my concern is that the album itself is what's notable here, not the show it's attached to. The show received no coverage, with only the album doing so. Notability for the show is not Wikipedia:INHERITED from the album either: "notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent."
If we were to consider the album separate from the show, and make an article solely about the album, that still wouldn't fly: "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." Given all that exists for coverage on the album is the Billboard source, there isn't really enough to build a reasonably detailed article beyond a track listing and a line saying that the album ranked #1. No matter what outcome is taken, this subject doesn't have the sourcing to meet independent notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh no. WP:NALBUM is clear that we keep all albums that place on a national chart regardless of the sourcing. That is the WP:SNG guideline. Period. University newspapers are often used on wikipedia, and are generally considered reliable. They are structured just like newspapers not attached to universities (editorial staff; both student and faculty), have the same legal recognitions under the law as professional journalists, and in this case, are over seen by a nationally recognized school of journalism. There's no reason to question the reliability of the newspaper at Boston University; particularly when its a review of theatre work. Regardless, repurposing this about the album is possible, but maybe not what best serves the encyclopedia. The content would be nearly identical and I don't see the value in differentiating between the two here as cast albums are simply audio recordings of a staged musical. 4meter4 (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 I'm a bit confused since I was primarily citing music notability policies with my above argument, barring the usage of INHERITED. "...a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" hails from Wikipedia:NRECORDING, and "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting" is from NALBUM.
While NRECORDING states that albums charting is an indicator of notability, there's nothing in these notability guidelines that state it's an instant keep. Even ignoring that, my previous argument about an album split-out still stands. There's not enough coverage of the album to be non-stubby and not just a track listing, and the musical itself doesn't inherit notability from the album that charted per INHERITED, as, inherently, the album is a separate subject from the original musical.
It's something akin to (and forgive the oddly specific example, this is the first thing I have off the top of my head) Detective Pikachu (film) and Detective Pikachu (soundtrack), where the soundtrack has individual coverage of its own development, reception, etc; it logically wouldn't include content from the film Detective Pikachu (Such as the film's plot and development) since these two subjects have inherently different coverage and subject matter, and those items from the parent subject would not be relevant to the spin-out and vice versa.
This is entirely an aside here, but is there a specific policy for college newspapers? Last I checked they were generally unreliable since they're typically student-run and edited (Meaning literally anyone can write for them and no one with proper journalistic experience if fact checking.) Perhaps it's different if the editors are entirely faculty with journalistic experience in the field, but given we can't tell what's been edited by a student or faculty member unless they outright say it for some reason, I'm not sure how reliable that would be in the long term. This isn't really me arguing against it and more just me stating my gripes; if this is clarified somewhere else please let me know because I genuinely am not familiar with that policy if it exists. I'm mostly just basing this off how we usually determine reliable sources. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most university newspapers have an overseeing faculty advisor/editor who works as a part of the editorial team of the paper. That faculty member is always part of the journalism faculty if a school has a journalism school. Sometimes there is more than one faculty advisor, and generally the paper doesn't get published without their approval of each issue. I think you'll find though that universities with respected papers like The Harvard Crimson, The Tufts Daily, The Cornell Daily Sun, etc. are routinely cited across the encyclopedia by just checking the "what links here" section of those articles. You'll see there are tons of articles that wikilink to those pages because they are used as sources on a routine basis. It would be a tough sell to the reliable sources noticeboard to consider a university paper not reliable when it follows the same protocols editorially as a professional newspaper.4meter4 (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 as a general question: How can it be guaranteed that they receive editorial oversight from a faculty member? I know some papers often have their digital content overseen by dedicated student editors rather than faculty outright. This is obviously on a case-by-case basis, but in cases like these, how would it be determined if site content is usable? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no notability of this term is shown in the article; it mostly appears to be a gallery of a few drawings. A BEFORE search of the term was fruitless as it doesn't appear to be an actual recognised term and I'm just getting lots of results for art of molecules. Fails WP:GNG. CoconutOctopustalk18:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. It is not well known at all. It is very niche, my hope is to expand that niche and to make it more known.
Here are some sufficient links to examples of molecule art. If you would like me to include these as references and citations to strengthen the integrity of the article, do let me know.
Etsy and similar sites are not reliable sources; neither is TikTok. I'm also not seeing evidence of any use of the specific term "Molecule Art" on these sources, rather just examples of art that happens to use molecules in it, which certainly exists, but I don't believe is notable. CoconutOctopustalk19:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Etsy and tiktok are not good wikipedia citation or reference sources, but in the conversation about being recognised as an art form, the evidence presented is sufficent. It is referred to as "[name of molecule] - art", "Molecularts", "Chembroidery" and "Molecule art" in a few already listed places as a generalisation. Would it not be useful to define an umbrella term?
@Cmspeedrunner: Wikipedia is not designed as a place to write an article about everything that is "recognised as an art form," you must demonstrate notability. The article wasn't brought to this deletion discussion because the nominator said it was a hoax--then evidence that it at least exists would be much more useful, but that it has "absolutely no notability." JJPMaster (she/they) 19:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have demonstrated the notability above with the links. Coconut Octopus replied by saying it was invalid due to the lack of the term "Molecule Art", this does not demonstrate a lack of notability but a lack of a centralised definition, which this article is attempting to do. Cmspeedrunner (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this "art movement" or "art form" does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG for inclusion in the encyclopedia. A BEFORE search does not find any art historical or art critical coverage for this movement. A Google Books search finds zero hits, and a search of Oxford Art Online, The Concise Dictionary of Art Terms, Encyclopedia of Aesthetics and the Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics show no results for "Molecule art". I noticed that all the images used in the article were uploaded as the article creator's "own" artwork and released as the copyright holder. If that is the case, then WP:NOTAWEBHOST might also apply. Netherzone (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) As far as I can tell, we don't have any other article that is about "List of paintings of x origin being held in museums in y country". This feels like WP:ARBITRARYCAT, and it's really not notable that Western European paintings specifically are held in Ukraine when Western European paintings are held in museums around the world and when Ukrainian museums have collections of paintings from around the world.
2) Most of the history discussed in the article is not about Western European art in Ukraine specifically, but about the history of artworks in Ukraine in general (several mentions of art museums with Oriental art). This is an interesting topic, but it doesn't justify the existence of an article dedicated specifically to Western European art in Ukraine.
3) The article has been marked as completely lacking sources for 15 years, probably because there is a lack of sources dedicated to the topic of "which Western European paintings are held in Ukraine" (only one I could find was a book published in 1981, but the information in that list is almost certainly out of date after 40 years).
Delete: I tend to agree with the nom, this isn't really helpful when Western European art is held around the world. I really don't see notability for most of the museums, they aren't that well-known. We're not listing paintings in the Louvre or the MoMA, that are world-famous. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the list part of this article is unhelpful. National museums house stuff from across the entire globe, it's what they do, and which museums house what isn't really encyclopedia material. Where there's a particular documented controversy about a country's culture being housed in another country's museums (Elgin marbles is an extreme individual case) then we can have an article, but I don't think there's any special controversy about the fact there are Western European paintings in Ukrainian museums. So I agree to this extent: the list could be deleted. But the introductory material to the list, about the history of museums, galleries, and art-works is actually quite encyclopedic and interesting. Could the article be trimmed of its "list" material and status, and moved to a more appropriate title? Elemimele (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and potentially merge with pages describing other Trump statues. While the Portland and Philadelphia ones are confined to a particular timeframe, I think there is notability in the fact that statues have popped up since 2016 and perhaps pages can be merged into a single "Trump Statues" page with some editing to remove extraneous details. Nnev66 (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe an article like sculptures of Donald Trump could make sense? Clearly there is a lot of coverage on the numerous works of art (both positive and negative) which depict Trump. And while the individual pieces might be problematic from a NOTNEWS standpoint, the overall subject of Trump in art almost certainly has encyclopedic value.★Trekker (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article dedicated to a single Stolperstein, which is a Holocaust memorial stone, placed in the UK. There have been over one hundred thousand of these stones placed, and the single stone placed in the UK is already covered in the inclusive article List of places with stolpersteine, and in fact that article doesn't even link here in any way. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it was the very first stolperstein in england and therefor has a unique meaning is an important symbol. it is very nessesary for people to know it.--Donna Gedenk (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This particular Stolperstein is unique because it is the only one in the United Kingdom. This has made this particular one the subject of signifcant coverage, and has also made it the site of activist activities which get in the news such as [9], [10] Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with 4meter4 on this. There is coverage, so we can have an article. The fact there are a lot of Stolpersteine elsewhere doesn't matter. This is the English Wikipedia so we are allowed to focus extra attention on things of especial relevance to those living in English-speaking countries, of which the UK is one. The first-and-only Stolpersteine on UK soil has very high cultural significance. Elemimele (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And please just talk about the sources and don't try to label me. I could do the same thing by pointing out the nature of your contributions (we are discussing it here), which are clearly associated with ethnonationalist ideas, deprecated here on Wikipedia. I am active on the Italian-language Wikipedia, not here. Here on the English-language Wikipedia I am limiting myself to these topics, because I was surprised by how much certain users have imposed certain clearly POV ideas in recent years. --Syphax98 (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The crwflags website couldn't be considered a reliable source. The Lebanese Armed Forces website does not refer to any "Maronite flag" and calls this version "العلم اللبناني في الفترة الانتقالية (1918-1920)" ("The Lebanese flag in the transitional period (1918-1920)"). The Minbladeh website (also non reliable anyway) makes no reference to a "Maronite flag" and defines this as the "Flag of the region of Lebanon after the fall of the Ottoman Empire (1918-1920)". Some sources refer to the fact that this version was used widely by the Maronite community (which was the main religious community in favor of the formation of an independent Lebanon"), but sources rarely refer to it as the "Maronite flag". The article itself refers to the fact that this flag was designed by Shukri El Khoury and Naoum Labaki, active in the Mahjar (an Arab cultural association); the activity of these two intellectuals was never aimed at creating a separate Maronite identity, but rather an Arab and Lebanese identity that transcended religious boundaries. --Syphax98 (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2024 (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:PROMO, not a pass for WP:BASIC. No reliable source in the article, nor ones I could find online searching for "Michael Cohen"+"UFO" to try to avoid all the references to Trump's personal lawyer, gives significant coverage to Michael Cohen. Instead they only cover his paranormal/aliens output and give him a trivial mention (e.g., in this piece, "Those who smell a hoax point to several suspicious aspects of the video, including the fact that the man who posted the piece, a paranormal enthusiast named Michael Cohen, has been involved with several other videos of UFOs and other phenomena that are of questionable authenticity.").
Delete. Not only are there no sources and lots of WP:OR, Mencken's biographies hardly mention it. WP:NBOOK states that coverage (such as reviews when the book came out) creates only a presumption of notability, but it is our task to decide whether the book is encyclopedically notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That can go for literally any topic. We can decide to delete an article for any reason, but there's no compelling extra reason to delete this article here when it passes NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was offensively opinionated so I removed that and now it's a sourced stub. It could be much longer if someone wanted to go and find more sources (and mine the existing ones, or read the book). But as is it is an ok stub. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's better, but if the purpose of AfD is to separate the wheat from the chaff, at least in Menken's WP wheat field, this stub is definitely chaff. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have to agree with PARAKANYAA in that this does pass NBOOK. If a source is considered to be something reliable that could give notability, it doesn't really matter how major or minor the source is - all that matters is that it could give notability. To that end, these sources do accomplish that and give notability, so the book technically passes NBOOK at this point. What we should be looking at would be the following:
Is there enough out there to flesh this book out beyond a stub?
Does the existing sourcing give off a strong enough suggestion that more sourcing is available, just not readily available on the internet?
The first is one I'm still trying to answer, but the second question is the one I'm more concerned with because answering that would give me a more clear answer to the first question. And so far, the answer seems to be that there is more out there - it's just not readily available on the internet or at least isn't coming up easily in searches. For example, this news source mentions it as one of the two books that put Mencken on the map, so to speak, and that it also helped make Shaw more of a household name. Then there's this 2002 review of a biography on Mencken. It mentions much of the same - that it helped put both authors on the map - the review also mentions a bit of the biographer's literary criticism of Mencken's Shaw book. So there's more out there - we just have to dig for it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)
This book by Oxford University Press mentions that there were many reviews, further bolstering my belief that there's more coverage out there - it just isn't easy to locate, either because of how generic this title is or because it's just not available on the internet. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)14:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, SchroCat, Gog the Mild - what is your opinion on the article now - I've greatly expanded the article. I've started looking for sourcing using just "George Bernard Shaw" and "Mencken" - this has helped immensely. It seems that when places do cover Mencken on Shaw, they are almost always discussing the book itself.
As far as outlets go, this source mentions that outlets that reviews the book include the Boston Globe, New York Times, San Francisco Bulletin, Brooklyn Eagle, Baltimore Sun, New York Post, and The Nation; the last outlet seems to have done a rather extensive review. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go to work now, but I'll try to expand this more later. I want to check the academic/scholarly paper databases - the amount of times books discussed or mentioned this book, I think there's likely to be quite a bit out there that I could easily find. There's definitely more out there not as easily locatable, but it does exist. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No independent coverage of this individual that I could find (some interviews, but interviews are primary sources and fail WP:SECONDARY, and self-published coverage). Article has been tagged as unsourced since January 2024. Jaguarnik (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sourcing found for a poet with this name, an obituary and stories about a drowning. I don't see critical reviews of any of the works listed either. Otherwise, article is all primary sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can prove to myself that his books exist (looking up in libraries), but that is about all. I can find issues of the Yale Review that list him as "michael kelleher is director of the Windham-Campbell Prizes". It turns out that is a position in the Beinecke library. But I find no biographical information about him. Lamona (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet notable as a musician, filmmaker or writer. A WP:BEFORE search in English and Portuguese turned up very little coverage in reliable sources, just primary sources, blogs and passing mentions in secondary sources. Some of Reis' family are apparently notable, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am submitting a request to retain the Wikipedia page for Ana Reis, as her work has significant cultural, artistic, and historical relevance that justifies her inclusion in Wikipedia. Ana Reis is a notable artist with unique contributions to the art world. Although there may be limited online information readily available about her, this should not detract from her established importance.
The scarcity of online references does not accurately reflect her accomplishments but rather relates to documented personal circumstances, which may have contributed to her underrepresentation in digital sources. (Redacted) These elements, though private, have affected the availability of Ana’s contributions and thus hindered the broader recognition she rightfully deserves.
Despite these challenges, Ana Reis’s contributions to the art community have resonated deeply with her peers, and her work has been recognized in several exhibitions, publications, and private collections. Her notability is rooted in her artistic achievements and the influence her work has had on contemporary art. I respectfully ask that these factors be taken into account when reviewing her page for retention.
Thank you for considering the broader context surrounding Ana Reis’s significance. Her page serves as a vital source for those interested in learning more about her unique contributions to art and culture. Sanguedereis (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beside online sources what else is needed? Fellow artists can provide statements and testimonies as well as links to existing works can be provided. Where can these be sent or uploaded to? And is there any deadline for this?
Additionally please be aware person in question is under ongoing and systematic attacks, (Redacted). There are plenty of bona fide artists with scarce sources deemed not too reliable, and it's not positive either for person in question, to request further silencing and invisibility. That is in a way or another enabling and endorsing the abuse against them. Thank you. Sanguedereis (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A book "awaiting publication" is not notable, this appears to be PROMO. There are hardly any sources to be found about this person when I look. Sourcing in the article isn't helpful either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This case concerning Ana Reis's recognition isn’t due to any lack of relevance or a genuine artistic dimension but rather to complex life circumstances that have severely limited her access to fair opportunities and visibility. her background is marked by high-profile abusive influences and substantial evidences are available to prove that. She faced systemic obstacles that have stifled her career in ways that very few people experience. However, being very active from 2000 until 2026, both her network and collaborations show an artist with a substantial history of work,, including mention by utmostly respected musicologist who has noted her contributions. However, these connections haven’t shielded her from isolation and undue obscurity.
Due to aforementioned undue influences, she worked alone, with no fundings or grants, no publicity, no 'promos' whatsoever as someone mentioned above, no producers, no promotion machines. Over the years she struggled immensely to have valid and thorough media coverage for her work that deserves deeper considerations and study in its inner world of imagination and symbolism. Equally, aforementioned undue influence/s have occupied most her life keeping her, much against her will, away from her own professional and creative activities, under severe devaluation and micromanagement. This caused her to over the years lose reliable social networks, professional support, and public exposure. Her work and impact became underrepresented, often leaving her vulnerable to having her career and reputation questioned or undervalued, which cause rightful feeling of demoralization and injustice.
The controversial situations she has been denouncing touch a subject taboo, the cruelty of narcissistic mothers towards their daughters, who often become invisible and unheard under a stifling, toxic parent who wants all the spotlight and the daughter is left 'inexistant'. And that is also why it is so important to recognize her contributions and unique originality of her work, rather than allow further erasure. Evidences of her past collaborations and testimonials from many fellow artists over the years, are being requested and underway, as this may greatly help to an accurate acknowledgment of her creative works. Ana is worthy of a fair chance to be seen for her artistic contributions rather than being made invisible. What some have said in the remote past that 'the press ignored them' is on Wiki too and taken as fact, but that's an affirmation of absolute falsehood and doesn't correspond at all to real facts (Redacted), and it's thoroughly disappointing when a privileged person presents false complaints but does exactly the same they complain about, to who they should never sabotage the light they receive. Thank you. Sanguedereis (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note Some comments in this discussion have been redacted as breaches of WP:BLP. Please do not post contentious but unsourced material about living persons. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly not sure about this article; it's been speedily deleted in the past (I have alerted the previously deleting admin to its existence), and most of the sources deal with the book Tate wrote. Notability is not inherited. I dream of horses(Hoofprints)(Neigh at me)22:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR with multiple reviews of multiple books. I am not clear why the nominator mentioned notability not being inherited here as there is no indication that Tate is related to anyone on Wikipedia. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Christie Tate meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for authors (WP:AUTHOR) through multiple lines of evidence:
Significant book success:
"Group" was a New York Times bestseller
Selected for Reese Witherspoon's Book Club, a major cultural platform
Translated into 19 languages, showing international impact
Received significant reviews in major publications (Washington Post, Chicago Tribune)
Multiple published works:
Two traditionally published books ("Group" and "B.F.F.")
Essays in major national publications (New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune)
Winner of the New Ohio Review's 2019 nonfiction contest
Sustained media coverage:
Featured profiles independent of book promotion
Coverage in Harvard Crimson
Significant coverage in Chicago Tribune beyond book reviews
Subject of broader cultural discussions about memoir writing and privacy
Professional recognition:
Her work has sparked discussions about memoir ethics and privacy in mainstream media
Significant impact in the memoir genre, particularly regarding mental health and therapy
Regular contributor to major national publications
These factors demonstrate sustained, independent coverage beyond mere publicity for her books, meeting Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Her impact on contemporary memoir writing and mental health discourse provides clear evidence of lasting cultural significance.
Keep. Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR with multiple reviews of multiple works; I don't think notability is not inherited applies to works in cases of authors or other creative types. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - recommending this article for deletion for the following reasons.
Seems like a promotional page by a very ocassional contributor to some industry news, with plenty of links to his own website (cited as a source) and references to prominent or notable collaberators who are all not listed on wikipedia.
Suspicious edits by 81.175.147.23 who appears to only be active on this page (this IP address is based in the same town as Mr Watson) as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DorianRichard1985 which also appears to be the subject, and created this article. There have been no meaningful edits except by these two contributors, who both appear to be Mr Watson.
This is a promotional page with poor source links, some unverifiable, created to promote the career of an ocassional opinion columnist. Does not meet Wikipedias standard for notability, nor source quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No GS trace at all for "Michael Robert Watson", so either he publishes under a different name or his work has received no attention. The detailed education history without sources usually says the article was written by someone who is/knows the subject. Does anyone know if "ZerO books" is the same as Zero Books? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per comments below, I checked GS for "Mike Watson"; the highest-cited works I could find had 21 citations (Can the Left Learn to Meme?: Adorno, Video Gaming, and Stranger Things) and 13 citations (The Memeing of Mark Fisher: How the Frankfurt School Foresaw Capitalist Realism and What to Do About It), but I might well have missed something as there are so many other Mike Watsons; I don't think these citations would meet WP:PROF, but reviews should be sought to address potential notability under WP:AUTHOR. If the article is kept it needs to be moved to "Mike Watson ([disambiguator])". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concern here is the article appears to be self-authored, with two key accounts in its creation having only ever edited this article (one IP, one logged in). This would be less of an issue if it was an especially noteworthy subject but at the moment Wiki runs risk of being a promotional page or 'find my articles online' site. Many many academic / media figures who are more prolific, many more citations, do not have wikipedia pages. Also there is some unsourced biographic information here. All in I think it should be deleted unless new high quality sources can be found and more credible evidence of Mr Watson's relevance / impact 85.68.25.118 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until the encyclopedia actually prohibits writing autobiographical content, rather than strongly discouraging it, suspicions that the article might be authored by the subject are not valid grounds for deletion. However, I've just put all four book titles into JSTOR and come up with nothing, so I'm not arguing for retention unless someone can show that WP:AUTHOR is met by reviews that JSTOR does not index, or GNG is met. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Indisputably they are one and the same. They have often used that stylising for many years and the content mentioned in this article would make it obvious anyway. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Espresso Addict: He publishes as "Mike Watson", hence all the references mentioning that name. Yes, "ZerO books" = Zero Books (sometimes styled "Zer0 books"). (I don't have, as the Brits say, a dog in this fight. I chanced on the article because Mike Watson had a column in the London Guardian.) Angusta (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed COI in my comment below. Merely because I do advocacy work for authors on my monthly blogposts about indie authors has nothing to do with the issue. Also, would you prefer wikipedia articles about authors be written by editors without opinions about authors? Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who drafted the article. There is absolutely no COI here -- though I did email Steinberg about a few things and did encourage him to submit one of his photos to wikicommons. Also Steinberg informed me that a few years ago he had drafted a wikipedia article for himself – and he forwarded that draft to me. But I mostly ignored that. It was almost entirely unusable.
I consider myself somewhat of an expert in the field of writing about sexuality. Also, I have a background in indie publishing and have written a few author profiles for Wikipedia over the decades.
Here is my personal opinion about why this living person meet the criteria for notability.
1. He made an invaluable contribution to the pro-feminist men's movement in the 1980s and possibly 1990s. In the 1980s pornography was a hot political topic in the USA. Conservatives were arguing about it. Feminists were arguing for it and against it. In the meantime some pro-feminist men were having conferences, publishing books and anthologies. Steinberg was one of the pioneers of this movement.
2. Steinberg's photography book/anthology Erotic by Nature was groundbreaking in the 1980s -- and it is still in print today. It received widespread distribution through Bookpeople and the book itself sold the concept of erotic photography as a legitimate form of fine arts photography. The book was an attempt to put into practice the ideas and aesthetic of the men's movement who were confronting the issue of pornography -- offering this as an alternative.
3. He has been writing about sexuality, sexual politics and new forms of sexual expression for decades. Most of his articles were for (now defunct) weeklies, but some appeared in national magazines like Playboy. Many of these articles were open to new kinds of sexuality. He has also written a lot about hot-button topics like sex trafficking, transgender rights, mostly from the perspective of a "liberated male."
4. He has devoted the latter part of his life taking erotic photographs and showing them at various exhibits and erotic festivals. Unlike many fine arts photographers, Steinberg has taken photographs of nontraditional subjects, like older people, gays, disabled people, transgender. I have listed some critics who have reviewed/interpreted his aesthetic sensibility.
Now, let me put on my wiki hat for a bit.
That first point (pro-feminist men’s movement) is extremely hard to document and source. (Believe me, I tried). The only thing I could find was several anthologies on the subject which he contributed to and/or edited. https://www.nearbycafe.com/loveandlust/steinberg/erotic/about/index.html Ultimately I ended up not mentioning this part for the article. Steinberg mentions a few of the conferences he participated in some of his writings, but I can find next to nothing from secondary sources.
One problem is that unlike feminists (who often were academics and organized many events through their universities) many of these men's conferences were looser and definitely not-academic. They didn't think too much about recording these things for the historical record. Wiki has some articles about men's movements, Men's Rights Movement and Men in Feminism, but really very little about men's response to porn or how to reconcile porn with feminism from a man's point of view. (See the article on sex-positive feminism; it mentions a lot of female names but almost no one who is male!)Ironically, Steinberg is probably a leading figure for the men's pro-feminist movement and sex-positivity. How do I know this? On that page alone, I count at least 15 names of thinkers/activists/intellectuals (all of which have received wikipedia articles) who have explicitly praised Steinberg's writings! (Joanie Blank, mentioned in the article, was in fact the person who financed Erotic by Nature. One of the writers pictured in the article, Tristan Taormino, even invited Steinberg on a recent podcast).
I should ask: is there a double standard here? Why does Wikipedia have so many articles on feminist response to porn and female authors who have written about sex-positive feminism but almost no males?
Finally, longevity counts for something in publishing. Publications come and go; that is especially true for alternative newspapers and especially true for sex-oriented publications. Should wikipedia discount publications from the pre-digital era simply because they are unavailable? Steinberg is one of the few writers/columnists on sexual issues who has digitized many of his writings on sexuality from the 1980s and 1990s and put them online. Wikipedia readers should have the ability to know that people like this actually existed -- and that his archive of writings from that time period exist and remain accessible.
By refusing to acknowledge the importance of contributions of people like David Steinberg, Wikipedia editors are removing bits of history from the public. I have done my best to draft an article on a somewhat sensitive subject in accordance with Wiki's policies. Frankly, I fail to understand why notability would even be a problem here. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to step back for now. But I wanted to reiterate about COI that I have NEVER done paid editing for any wiki article subject and never received remuneration for anything I have done at Wikipedia. I expect to receive no sort of benefit (financial or otherwise) from Steinberg as a result of writing this article, and none was promised to me. My ebook publishing company (Personville Press) doesn't have any interest in publishing any of Steinberg's works although I admit I am extremely fond of his writings. My contact with the subject, as stated in my above statement, was minimal and mainly to check up on dates and verify some things. Robert J Nagle (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought of one more thing -- that maybe is self-evident. The article itself mentions that Steinberg was designated as " Erotic Photographer of the Year" in 2010 by Leydig Trust (which sponsors the Sexual Freedom Awards). The Sexual Freedom Awards has its own wikipedia page; I guess that means wikipedia has already rated these awards as notable. In the article I mentioned that the Seattle Erotic Art Festival has given Steinberg the honorary title, "Master of Erotic Art" for "impactful photography (which) focuses on capturing the diversity of our human sexuality by showcasing a broad range of people. From the SEAF website itself, it says, "The Masters of Erotic Art program showcases artists who have made meaningful contributions to the history and development of erotic art." These are two separate well-known organizations in the field of the erotic arts which have recognized Steinberg's contribution to the field. [14]
These properly sourced details were mentioned in paragraph 2 of the article, so I assume that the other editors saw this already. I have provided other justifications about notability in the previous longer comment. But frankly, I don't know just those two award designations don't confer notability. Robert J Nagle (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. There is enough here to close as Delete but I wanted to allow some time to respond to the argument of the article creator. They claim the sources are sufficient so a source review would be helpful here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!09:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Ref 1 Salon.com. is an interview, not independent
Ref 2 Sexual Freedom Awards is a primary source
Ref 3 Seattle Erotic Art Festival. is a primary source
Ref 4 Eros During Times of Social Change is an interview not independent
Ref 5 is a primary source written by Steinberg
Ref 6 is a commercial link to purchase his book
Ref7 can’t access this but a foreword is unlikely to be significant coverage
Ref 8 Nearbycafe.com. his own words, primary source
Ref 9 ditto
Ref 10 ditto
Ref 11 ditto
Ref 12 ditto
Ref 13 ditto
Ref 14 interview
Ref 15 interview
Ref 16 Nearbycafe.com. his own words, primary source
Ref 6 links to public statements made by several other notable people about Steinberg and specifically his book which appeared on the promotional material related to the book (which are copied on the author's own website).You can easily view it in these same quotes in the opening pages for the Kindle ebook. Based on my experience as a publisher, it is very rare that people are misquoted in blurbs and other promotional material. Publishers take these things very seriously; they can get sued! Whether these statements are sufficient to establish notability -- I'll let others decide. What's significant is that a lot of people -- several of which are already on wikipedia -- have made statements about this person's writings.
With regard to interviews, it's a pretty standard way for a journalist to write about any author. Often the preface by the interviewer will try to contextualize a writer's contributions (that was particularly true in the Salon article). (Ref 1) Wiki specifically allows the use the self-published sources as long as 5 conditions are met See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves and as I mentioned before, some well-vetted articles on authors on Wikipedia make use of actual quotes by the author often. One time I counted the number of times author John Updike was quoted in the wiki article about him, I think the number was 18. Robert J Nagle (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has zero independent sources that provide any nontrivial content about the article subject. Most of it is just blog posts he made or articles he wrote. The rest discusses that he was elected to local government as a district councilor. The BBC covered one of his opponents. Here's the only text the BBC wrote about the article subject: Mr Humphries is contending the Droitwich Central ward against John Hartley of the Conservative Party and Chas Murray of the Liberal Democrats.
Delete: The removal of a large proportion of the text and references by the article creator shortly after this AfD commenced makes any notability even less evident, but the subject's term on Wychavon District Council for Droitwich Central falls far short of the WP:POLITICIAN criteria, and his essays on the Homiletic & Pastoral Review site, Mind Matters and Times of Israel blogs do not demonstrate attained WP:AUTHOR notability. AllyD (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. In addition to the sources in the article, here are a couple book reviews from SAGE: [15] and [16]. Best.4meter4 (talk)
Keep and augment. Part of the issue with the author is that it can be difficult to meet WP:AUTHOR when her working language is Irish, and that doesn't Google so well. I'll also point to her article in the Irish Language Wikipedia, which has clearly met inclusion criteria there. Yes - different wiki, different rules, but still ... - Alisontalk04:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Her works have been included in anthologies [17], and some analysis here [18] and here [19]. There's some coverage in Gaelic (?) sources if you limit it to .ie websites, but I can't tell what qualifies as a RS in that language. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Oaktree b I ran into that one as well but it turns out that she is part of the "Editorial collective" so it may not be considered independent. Then again, I can't imagine that there are many Gaelic speakers in Australia who aren't part of that collective. This is a tough one due to the minority language. Lamona (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was the one who got the article up in the first place, but I tend to agree now that more references are needed, as discussed above. As for notability, a significant problem for writers in Irish is that few reviews are available in English, though I would regard her as a poet worthy of inclusion on her own merits. If the consensus was that the article should be deleted, I would accept that, and see if I could come up with something new and improved. Colin Ryan (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At one point I attempted to create a page for an author whose book An Edge of the Forest won a few significant awards in the 1960s. The page was rejected on the basis that although there was notable coverage of the book, any coverage of the author was incidental and thus failed WP:AUTHOR. In this case, applying the same rationale, I can not see that the author meets WP:AUTHOR. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I still am seeing No consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Spinifex&Sand is right that when an author has only one notable work, and the coverage is of that work rather than the author, we typically have an article just on the notable work. But when there are multiple notable works, NAUTHOR#3 does actually allow notability to be inherited for an author bio, if there is coverage of their "collective body of work". After some digging I think I see two WP:NBOOK candidates:
I also found this profile in The Irish Scene, which suggests notability, and this interview which does not but could be useful in fleshing out the article if kept. I have a hard time getting excited about only 2 NBOOKs as a "collective body of work", but I think some would consider that sufficient. I lean keep because I think the profiles in the Irish Times, Anglo&Celtic Australia Magazine, and now The Irish Scene together squeak by for GNG. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist for a better consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
