The Arts and Entertainment Work Group is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality and importance
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs... Specific discipline portals are listed in that section.
William Ely Hill (1887-1962) - Illustrator, created artwork for the book covers for F. Scott Fitzgerald and had a regular entry in the New York tribune along with being published on numerous occasions.
The general outline and collection has been started, but if you would like to expand and organize a discipline, here's what you do. Right below the page heading for the discipline insert this: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Work groups/Division banner}} and save. This will put a rough outline together for you and then you can edit it to conform to your area. See Writers and critics below for an example. If your project grows large enough where it's taking up a good portion of this page, you should probably move it to a subpage of this page.
You might also want to make a Members section for people to join your specific area!
Any article related to this work group should be marked by adding |a&e-work-group=yes to the {{WPBiography}} project banner at the top of its talk page. This will automatically place it into Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles. Articles can be assessed for priority within this work group by using the |a&e-priority= parameter. See Template:WikiProject Biography/doc for detailed instructions on how to use the banner.
Jubileeclipman (talk·contribs) I am interested in taking on UK celebrities with articles that are stubs or otherwise non-standard. Entirely rewrote Fearne Cotton to raise standard and remove fansite tag. I am working on Holly Willoughby which was merely a list plus trivia. Will also work on musicians, all genre, living or dead.
This artist does not meet WP criteria for WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. There may be a conflict of interest involved. I had to remove promotional art selling websites three times that were being used as citations, and the creator kept adding them back; the COI template was also removed. Her German WP article is an autobiography. The sources are all connected to the artist (therefore non-independent), for example galleries where she has shown, her own website, an interview, etc. The collection that holds her work is a non-notable private collection. Visual artists do not have inherent notability; this one is simply doing what artists do, making paintings and trying to show and sell them, per WP:MILL. All a BEFORE search found is social media and more directly connected sources. Bringing the article here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a blatant violation of WP:NFCC8, and complete failure of WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRUFT. There are no independent reliable sources which justify having all NHL logo and colour changes in one list. Sportslogos.net and Sportslogohistory.com are fan sites which are not encyclopedic in purpose. Sources from the teams or league are not independent. Sources from The Hockey Writers are independent, but do not discuss the list as a whole and do not justify LISTN. Flibirigit (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established, article appears to be AI generated (both from the style but also I ran it through multiple AI detectors which almost universally agreed it's 100% AI) and the creator of the page was indefinitely blocked for plagiarism issues. Article survived a previous PROD but the basic issues remain. Perhaps a WP:TNT solution is possible if notability can be established from academic literature (and the Persian Wikipedia article on the same seems like it might be possible?) but as it is right now this is just failing to meet basic encyclopedic standards. M.A.Spinn (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Persian calligraphy, which is a viable and relevant target, as an ATD. This "calligram" article does not meet notability criteria as an art movement or style at this time. If I remember correctly, there were problems when it was first created - I'd have to look into the history, but it may have been a COI creation (in addition to the copyvio problems). Netherzone (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be anything notable about the rainbow crossings in California. They exist, just like they exist in many places around the world. Individual ones get reported in local news. Just like nearly everything gets reported in local news, be it new bakeries, school theatre productions, house fires, car crashes, ... A list of local stories about a common topic doesn't magically become a notable group topic. Fram (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Rainbow crossing. After four articles were made for individual rainbow crosswalks following news that they were ordered to be removed, I merged them to Rainbow crossings in Florida since this news affected them as a group and they aren't individually notable. This page replicates that, but colored crosswalks, including rainbow crosswalks, are pretty common now and aren't particularly notable even as they receive some routine local coverage. If there are too many of these to list in the main article, I'd suggest splitting the table there to a List of rainbow crosswalks and allow for a larger table with a bigger description column, but having articles for each jurisdiction is unnecessary and both of these can be merged. Reywas92Talk23:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to lose any sleep if articles about rainbow crossings are redirected/merged, but it is super disappointing how much pushback is being given to any attempts at expanding coverage on this topic on Wikipedia. There's pushback on standalone entries (even though we have some for similar individual Black Lives Matter street artworks), pushback on expanding the table in the parent article, pushback on forking out List of rainbow crossings, pushback on creating entries for U.S. states, etc. It's a shame there's not more interest in collaborating and actually improving coverage of an important topic. Since editors just keep putting up a wall of "no" here, I'm moving on to other topics. ---Another Believer(Talk)15:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, some of the BLM street murals perhaps could also be merged to main articles like List of Black Lives Matter street murals as well. Second, some of the BLM artworks like Black Lives Matter street mural (Indianapolis) are unique pieces of art that are actually copyrightable designs and there are not as many of those, whereas most of the rainbow crossings are nothing but six colors of stripes and have been copied to dozens of cities around the world. Some of the BLM art was designed and created by artists and are mostly on a much larger scale, whereas many of the rainbow crossings are very simple and now quite common. I love to see these in gayborhoods and elsewhere, but very few are actually artistically interesting, and routine local coverage that the streets department is using multicolored thermoplastic instead of white isn't always that significant. So, no I don't think there need to be either standalone articles or perhaps dozens of state- or region-based lists. I would support expansion and potential split of the primary list now though. Please realize that the issue isn't always a lack of interest in a topic, but that most editors don't think there need to be standalone permastubs or too many split lists about every little thing. — Reywas92Talk17:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer, the word "pushback" which you mentioned five times in your comment above is a jarringly negative term. Speaking for myself, I want to make it clear that I am not "pushing back" against anything whatsoever. Offering a viable and logical "alternative to deletion" in any deletion discussion is indeed positive collaboration (even if you disagree, it is not a "shameful" lack of collaboration nor a "wall of no." I know you mean well, however is not necessary to personalize or polarize this.
@Netherzone I mean no offense and I'm not trying to polarize. I was only pointing out that editors have decided to merge List of rainbow crossings, as well as multiple articles about individual crossings and now an article about a U.S. state with probably many dozens of crossings. Essentially, all discussions to date have resulted in traffic and content being redirected at Rainbow crossing while there's also reluctance to expand the table in the parent article. It seems contradictory to me. I just want to know how content about rainbow crossings can be improved. I am not bothered at all by these redirects or merges. I created Rainbow crossings in California based on Rainbow crossings in Florida. I thought this was a great idea! I also think some crossings have received enough coverage to be independently notable (particularly those in Orlando and Toronto), but others think otherwise and that's fine. I'm moving on. ---Another Believer(Talk)22:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Between coverage of the original dispute over the crossing and the subsequent hate crime investigation of its vandalism it's quite clear that this specific road-crossing is notable for reasons other than being a road-crossing in Toronto. Plenty of reliable coverage exists. It's unclear what grounds there are for deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD is to redirect it, not to delete it. A permastub is a lot less useful than integrating this into the wider perspective of the neighborhood and its LGBTQ+ history. Fram (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Clearly notable and there's plenty of secondary coverage about the installation, repairs, vandalism and hate crime investigation, addition of the trans pride crosswalk, etc. Article should be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer(Talk)14:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Church and Wellesley makes the most sense. An article about a couple of street crossings, albeit contentious ones, doesn't make much sense - but it does fit nicely into the article about the area. PKT(alk)15:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Individual crosswalks are not so notable they need standalone articles. These are pretty common now and routine local news doesn't need a separate page. Reywas92Talk17:56, 22 August 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
This article on a deceased New Zealand airline pilot lacks any references to WP:RS (two sources are present, the author's own former website and the UFO magazine Nexus Magazine). Cathie was known for self-publishing a number of UFO books from the 1970s to 1990s but awareness of him never advanced outside the obscure ufology subculture. A WP:BEFORE finds an obit [8] but nothing else aside from one-line quotes here and there in RS, and more extensive treatments in unambiguously non-RS. Probably more appropriate for a UFO fan Wiki than our encyclopedia. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is a book published by another UFO hunter a RS? [9]. You can find several listings about the world energy grid as well. Likely most of it is hokey, but seems to be enough for brief notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to add these sources I found as well [10], [11]. Seems to be mentioned in the same circles as the Ancient Aliens folks on TV. I'm not sure how much of it is real, but it's enough for an article I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The New Zealand Herald obit is the same one I mentioned in the OP. While it's a start, I think we need more than that. The book has ~10,000 sentences and mentions Cathie in two, which I don't think meets the spirit of WP:SIGCOV.Chetsford (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This BLP has had unresolved citation tags on it for the last 12 years.
The BLP is currently sourced to five non-RS (e.g. ufoevidence.com) or non-INDEPENDENT sources (the author's own books). A WP:BEFORE finds Randles widely quoted in RS on the subject of UFOs, but not subject to WP:SIGCOV. Actual, biographical treatments of the subject are limited to the usual UFO blogs and cruft sites. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For the simple fact that the 2008 AfD lists several book reviews and a biographical entry in the Gale source. Would seem to pass AUTHOR on these alone. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw no book reviews that would meet the WP:NAUTHOR criteria listed in the 2008 AfD. The 2008 AfD consisted almost entirely of WP:VAGUEWAVES like "clearly notable" and "everyone who likes UFOs knows her" and things of that nature. Chetsford (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Undisclosed COI aside, sourcing is really poor throughout. The parts of the article that contain references are mostly sourced from the subject’s own works (including memoirs which are not published anywhere, as far as I can ascertain) and a “Who’s Who” book which I would think best to extend caution on given the integrity of these genres of book as raised by MediaKyle at the AfD for Kasparek’s relative.
I’ve also had to remove material from the article which was cited to another source because it failed verification – it most likely employed some degree of original research. I imagine much of the other unsourced material is also OR.
I can find a couple of instances where Kasparek’s work has been cited in the occasional journal article and a single question/statement to the editors of the NY Book Review hosted on their website but no significant and reliable coverage regarding him. ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOVE BACK TO DRAFT this was moved into article space from draft more than once by the creator. The last move was very much done without properly addressing the reasons why it was moved back into draft space in the first place. Only a couple of additional sources were added. So it should either be deleted or moved back to draft. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope I refuse My Page to be Moved back to a Draft or even get Deleted and That it should Stay the way it is and I also don't know why The World's 1st Enclyopedia has to be so Strict on making Sure Articles look very Proper on Everything including Citations (I'm not saying Copyright and Vandalism shouldn't be One of those Things i know they're Both Bad and doesn't deserve to Exist at all) Devolver789 (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Against Deletion: You said "none in a search" that Is actually not True because I Searched for this Information on The Chrome Search Bar and Tried looking for Available Websites for This and I did. Devolver789 (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't find any sources that suggest Layton is notable. I wondered if Chechens: culture and society might be notable; ProQuest finds a reasonable short review in the ALA journal Choice from July 2015, but it'd need at least one more to meet WP:NBOOK. Adam Sampson (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Choice counts much towards notability; they are not very discriminate in what they review and their reviews do not have enough depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Did a search myself and couldn't find anything that would pass WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Not to mention that the prose and broken grammar used in the article is so challenging to decipher, it might be easiest to tear it down and start over even if the subject is notable. nf utvol (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely does not pass WP:PROF, my searches did not turn up any additional book reviews that would contribute to WP:AUTHOR notability, no evidence of WP:GNG notability, the unsourced state of most of the article brings WP:TNT into play, and the combativeness of Devolver789 suggests that, if kept, maintaining the article in an acceptable state of encyclopedicness is likely to be difficult. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ldm1954, but the proposed article on Dr. Ayfer Veziroğlu meets the notability requirements. She is the president, top leadership and top executive at a major academic society, the International Association for Hydrogen Energy. She particularly meets criteria #6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)6-The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. Regarding the coverage note, as stated in the proposed page, you will find that her work and leadership in the International Association for Hydrogen Energy have received extensive, in-depth coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources, which are listed and detailed in the proposed wikipedia page.
I understand the concern about ai-generated content. I can assure you that I wrote this article myself, based on research I conducted from various reliable sources. I have checked and visited every single resource in this page, show me any prove of ai information, at least in this page!.
Regarding the note of me having a close connection to the subject, I declare that have no close connection to her; I am committed to improving all hydrogen related articles because hydrogen is my passion, and would welcome any and all edits from other editors to ensure it meets the highest standards of neutrality. My primary goal is for this to be a factual and encyclopedic page. HydrogenEagle (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The notability of International Association for Hydrogen Energy (the organisation of which she is the President and CEO) has been questioned by Cabrils, see the associated talk page. Note that "President and CEO" is a common term used for the executive director who is employed by the organization and is in charge of operations, different from being elected as President of an established notable society such as APS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you 4meter4 for feedback, I have added more resouces to the page after editors feedbak in the deletion discussion, please check again. HydrogenEagle (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Xxanthippe for feedback, I have added more resouces to the page after editors feedbak in the deletion discussion, please check again. I appreciate if you point out 'the puffed content' to remove it from the page. HydrogenEagle (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article states that she took over as head of IAHE from her husband, its founder. To me that suggests that it is more in the nature of a family business than an academic society whose elected presidency is a significant honor. I don't think we can use WP:PROF#C6 and must fall back on other criteria. But we have no evidence of WP:GNG notability, her citation record is borderline for WP:PROF#C1 (noting that all her highly-cited articles are in the journal of the organization she runs), and I don't see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you David for feedback. I have added more resources to the page after editors feedbak in the deletion discussion to show her coverage from outside the IAHE, Dr. AyferVeziroğlu's academic notability based on her publication record and high citation count (not only IAHE), from independent sources, directly addressing the concerns about WP:GNG and WP:PROF#C1.
Regarding the comment that the IAHE presidency may be 'more in the nature of a family business,' I respectfully submit that the internal governance or succession process of a professional organization is outside the scope of an encyclopedia. There is no evidence in any published source to support the claim that the IAHE is a 'family business.'. The role's significance is demonstrated by the extensive, independent coverage Dr. Ayfer Veziroğlu has received from academic journals, news outlets, and other professional bodies, as now detailed in the article. https://www.iahe.org/en/board
The notability of the subject should be judged solely on the verifiable, published record, not on speculation about the nature of her personal or professional relationships. The updated page now provides ample evidence from reliable sources to justify her inclusion. HydrogenEagle (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person hasn’t held any notable academic positions, and her research doesn’t meet WP:PROF#C1. also, there are no reliable sources per WP:GNG, so she fail notability.Gedaali (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gedaali for feedback, I have added more resouces to the page after editors feedbak in the deletion discussion, please check again. HydrogenEagle (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mati Shemoelof is an established author and poet with a significant body of work published in both Israel and Germany. He has published 12 books, including poetry, prose, and essays, and his work spans multiple languages and cultures.
Shemoelof has written regular columns for leading publications such as Haaretz and Israel Hayom in Israel, The Jewish Independent in Australia, and currently writes for Berliner Zeitung in Germany. His writings and literary contributions have been covered by major media outlets, including The New York Times and prominent German newspapers.
In addition to his existing publications, Shemoelof is set to release his first book in English next year, along with a new book written in German to be published in Germany.
Given his international presence, ongoing literary activity, and the recognition he has received across various media platforms, deleting his Wikipedia page would overlook the notability and relevance of his work. His contributions to literature and journalism are well-documented, diverse, and continue to have a global impact. מתיאל (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't directly consider a person's work to make its own evaluation as to their notability. You need to establish his notability by showing where he has received elsewhere, in reliable sources, the sort of attention you're saying he should receive here. See WP:Notability. Largoplazo (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is a widely published author and poet whose work has been recognized in both academic scholarship and international media. His literary contributions have received independent, sustained attention across multiple years and languages.
Academic References
His work is discussed in Rachel Seelig’s monograph Strangers in Berlin: Modern Jewish Literature between East and West, 1919–1933 (University of Michigan Press, 2016), which situates his writing within the broader context of Jewish literary modernism in Berlin.
In the Brill volume Pillars of Salt: Israelis in Berlin and Toronto (2019), Chapter 3 describes him as “one of the more prolific Israeli literates in Berlin,” underscoring his importance in diasporic Israeli writing.
His prose piece The Berlin Prize for Hebrew Literature was included in the De Gruyter volume The German-Hebrew Dialogue (2017), edited by Amir Eshel and Rachel Seelig, confirming his direct engagement with scholarly literary discourse.
Israel Studies Review (Vol. 39, Issue 3, 2024) published an article that analyzes his engagement with German literary culture and examines his role within Berlin’s Hebrew-writing community.
The article “The ‘return’ of a diasporic Hebrew literary culture in Berlin” (Jewish Culture and History, 2021) identifies him as a key Mizrahi author shaping the revival of Hebrew literature in Germany.
The Jewish Independent (2023) published his essay “A Language I Do Not Speak,” in which he reflects on questions of identity, migration, and literature in Berlin.
His curated author profile on Literaturport, Berlin’s official literary portal, confirms his recognition as an established figure within the German literary field.
He was interviewed by the New Books Network (2021) about his book The Prize (Pardes), an international platform that engages with significant new contributions to world literature.
Independent scholarly attention from major academic presses and peer-reviewed journals.
Sustained coverage across time (2016–2024), indicating enduring relevance.
Cultural and literary impact documented in prominent international media and Berlin’s literary institutions.
The subject therefore meets the notability criteria through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. For these reasons, the deletion proposal should be withdrawn. מתיאל (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC) מתיאל[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. This article was previously deleted through AfD for lack of valid secondary sourcing. This issue still exists. The new sources from 2025 added to this article are all puff pieces generated by LLMs: "Long before Nicola Paparusso emerged as a leading advocate for diversity in fashion, his professional journey was firmly anchored in the spheres of politics and media—fields where strategy, communication, and influence intertwine." and "In today’s digital era, where viral fame can skyrocket overnight, the role of a discerning talent manager has become indispensable." I also suspect the subject to be engaging in Brown envelope journalism as the professionally taken portrait photo has been professionally retouched in Adobe and shared with all the new news articles from 2025 and magically appears in his infobox. The creator of this article swears that they don't have a WP:COI but I don't believe them (see their talk page for convo). Also, the Order of Malta has 13,500 knights and the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic has 160,285 members, therefore, the simple fact of having these orders does not confer notability in itself. I don't see any valid sources from Italian media either, just blogs. I also kindly request the deleting admin to salt this article, thank you. m aMANÍ1990(talk | contribs)11:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would prefer to see more sources outside of Nigeria to !keep. This was the best I could find [12]. Most of the sourcing in the article feels PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't seem to pull up any official sourcing for the SMOM award, I'm not very trusting of a Nigerian source as the only such confirmation. Could be a hoax for all we know. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The links above are mostly about the singer he represents, I'm unsure if they're RS (I'm not familiar with them), hoping others can weigh in. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Several Italian RS confirm that SMOM. An interview with the subject also indicates support from African institutions, like the Senegal’s Ministry of Culture, so I wouldn't be surprised by all the African coverage he's getting in West Africa. Furthermore, the subject has received national honors and has been covered in independent, reliable, and verifiable sources—particularly when corroborated by the Italian references. The subject passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.--Afí-afeti (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RELPEOPLE, subject does not appear to be notable. Coverage currently available is almost entirely limited to allegations of militancy/extremism, based on law enforcement press briefings. Such coverage alone does not seem sufficient to demonstrate significant, independent, and reliable sourcing required as per WP:GNG. —MdsShakil (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no significant in-depth coverage about the subject, and no evidence of notability. The article clearly fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This runs afoul of WP:CRIME; not meeting any of the criteria for perpetrators. There's nothing here to suggest notability beyond alleged criminal allegations of terrorist activity, and that is insufficient for notability based on our guidelines for criminal perpetrators.4meter4 (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Owning a bakery of local interest does not seem a claim to notability strong enough to merit an encyclopedic article.
In addition, I'd argue that, if anything is notable here, is the bakery itself, and not the person. This seems a case of someone who is known for a single event: having founded a bakery.
"When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." WP:SINGLEEVENT
Keep Aside from founding the bakery, which has received coverage in various media outlets including The NY Times, she has published books which themselves have received media coverage. She is clearly more notable than the bakery, which could perhaps have its own article if someone cares to make one. Thriley (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Amy's Bread and rework as needed. As per nom this appears to primarily be a WP:BLP1E, as even the books are based on the notability of the resturant/bakery. Nothing outside of the bakery seem to indicate she has done anything significant or noteworhty. It does look like her company, has come to widespread acclaim, with multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources, providing significant coverage of either the bakery or Amy herself. However, as it stands right now, this is all established because of her success as a busiensswoman and the acclaim she has received because of the business. The only reliable, sigcov that I found in the news was an interview about her daily life and her gardening[13] but there was nothing notable about that and if she wasn't known for her bakery (as established in the article lead), there is no reason given for why write about this persons private life. The books themselves are not notable, and fail WP:BKCRIT and they don't even rank all that well, such as Amazon showing all three books under the category of Baking Bread as not even in the top 500. All that to say, the books seem rather non-notable, and they gain their significance only from the association with the bakery. TiggerJay(talk)04:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:BLP1E is not accurate here at all. She’s gotten coverage for over 30 years from being a business owner, an author, and promoter of baking. She’s won awards- there are more nominations and wins to mention. Clearly meets GNG. Thriley (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that it passes WP:BASIC per the existing sources and possibly WP:GNG. Encourage the nominator to please slow down and familiarize yourself more with deletion processess before inappropriately prodding and nominating so many articles for deletion. You may also want to gain more experience with editing in mainspace and in participating in other tasks. Happy editing. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see what BLP1E or anything else wrong with this article. FWIW, several of my friends follow her on social media, and I've heard of her bakery. Bearian (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found two reviews of Thus Spoke the Bible: Basics of Biblical Narratives[14][15] and one review of Unsung Melodies from Margins[16]. Could pass WP:NAUTHOR if anyone else has better luck finding a few more reviews. MCE89 (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – With respect, I believe this article meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements under several established guidelines:
Under WP:GNG, there is significant, independent coverage of Antony John Baptist in reliable secondary sources. This is more than routine or passing mentions.
According to WP:AUTHOR, authors are presumed notable if their works have received multiple independent reviews. Thus Spoke the Bible: Basics of Biblical Narratives and Unsung Melodies from Margins have indeed been reviewed in reliable publications, which supports this standard.
WP:ANYBIO also provides that individuals with significant coverage in independent sources merit a standalone article. As both a priest and published author with reviewed works, Antony John Baptist fits within this scope.
The sources demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, offering in-depth treatment rather than trivial mentions.
In light of these points, I suggest that the best course is to improve the article with the available references rather than delete it. The subject clearly meets the threshold set by Wikipedia’s own guidelines, and keeping the page would align with policy.
Kindly provide the " multiple independent reviews" and "significant, independent coverage of Antony John Baptist in reliable secondary sources." Zuck28 (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I searched about the subject and found some book reviews of their works, which I believe are sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR. In addition, I also came across some good articles on Google Scholar, and the authority databases are also giving positive signals. You can see the book reviewshere, here, andhere. Thanks to MCE89 as well for providing some reviews. Baqi:) (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Baqi sources. Again, I don't know what the scope of Catholicism is in India, but the sources are perfectly adequate for an article. Svartner (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Meets, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:ANYBIO. Antony John Baptist has received significant, independent coverage in reliable sources as a Catholic priest, biblical scholar, and author. His academic and pastoral work focuses on contextual theology and the interpretation of biblical narratives from the perspective of marginalized communities such as Dalit women. His published works and leadership roles at NBCLC, CCBI, TNBC and CBCI constitute WP:SIGCOV, supporting his notability as both an author and priest.RevJackDaniels (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevJackDaniels (talk • contribs) 05:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of Wp:SIGCOV in Wp:RS, fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. The references are minimal and non-independent. Such content violates WP:NOTPROMO, turning Wikipedia into a free promotional tool for academics. Also, the article's title is misspelt, I don't understand whether deliberately or by mistake. Zuck28 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article title will need to be moved after this discussion closes to address the misspelling, but Duguid passes WP:NAUTHOR with multiple reviews for his books Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel ([19], [20], [21]) and The Song of Songs ([22], [23]), as well as many independent journal reviews for his co-edited series the ESV Expository Commentary. I expect he passes WP:NACADEMIC as well as a leading Reformed biblical scholar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ATLA Religion Database mentions Iain Duguid 63 times as an author of books, scholarly journal articles, and reviews, and as the recipient of multiple book reviews. He has been cited dozens of times in scholarly books and doctoral dissertations, according to Proquest. But as of today the WP article is deficient -- so some of these scholarly sources need to be cited and documented to show notability.Ungathering (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources used in the article show GNG - they don't just mention the word in passing, they have whole sources around the word and its connotation and significance. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As much of a deletionist as I consider myself, this isn't a neologism, and it's quite well used. An ngrams search shows the first uses in the 1940s, with generally increasing usage ever since. Not only that, but we actually have sources discussing this as a concept (not just as a word), so I think there's actually worthwhile content here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But why not redirect as I suggested? It's a mere paragraph, and there's just not that much to say about it outside the context of Orwell's biography generally. And indeed, this content is already there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to see the notability of this subject. He has a highly notable family and there is coverage of him in relation to his family, but not really individually. The biography he wrote might make the benchmark for an article for him, but it's pretty borderline. He doesn't seem notable as a theatremaker. Boneymau (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of his theatrical work, his Triad Stage Alliance was the first Australian company to perform on the Edinburgh Fringe. They also won a Fringe First for that performance. In my opinion, that gives Strehlow some degree of relevance, even if it's just for the Edinburgh Fringe. He also wrote a number of plays that were successful throughout Europe. That, on top of his biographical work, justifies the existence of a John Strehlow article. Dr. Johnny (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In 19 years on Wikipedia, I have rarely, if ever, seen such an over-written article. It is also badly under-referenced, except for a lot of incomplete references, usually missing titles and page numbers, to theatre reviews that are, apparently, not available online. I have greatly reduced the cruft/fluff/trivia, though I think the article should really be cut back quite a bit more. Two of the "citations" aren't even citations, just lists of critics who supposedly reviews his book, and nearly all very incomplete, missing the title of the source(!) and have no page number or url. I'm not convinced that running an Australian theatre company that was supposedly (cite needed?) the first to perform at the Edinburgh Fringe theatre festival, even if that could be verified, makes him or it notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The terrible current state can be alleviated somewhat by going back a year in the history (prior to the major changes emanating from Washington of all places). His book The Tale of Frieda Keysser was reviewed in Aboriginal History, The Monthly and The Weekend Australian. Maybe could be handled differently, eg by moving to an article on the book with some background on the author but that does not require deleting. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aboriginal History is a journal. Review is in Volume 36, 2012, four page (203-206) review by Regina Ganter from Griffith University. -- added by Duffbeerforme
The Weekend Australian, ~2190 word review by Nicholas Rothwell, 11 Feb 2012.
What is the title of the article in Aboriginal history? What is the title and page no. or url of the article in The Weekend Australian? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the article "False witness" in The Australian 10 November 2020 by Amos Aikman also helps. May be available online behind a paywall titled "Was Walter Baldwin Spencer a forger and a fraud?". duffbeerforme (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The article might be salvageable, but it's quite incomplete, and most of the references are unacceptable for Wikipedia in their current state. Ira Leviton (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the flow and citations need a lot of work as noted above, and hinge on the publication about family connections, his theatrical work is notable. SunnyBoi (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. If this person is notable, it is for the books, not the theatrical work, which is, in my opinion as someone who works extensively on theatre bios, run-of-the-mill; his company was a small touring company touring to mostly small venues -- a London-based company that never played in the West End, never was nominated for an Olivier Award or any other indication of notability, unless new sources show otherwise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. Despite having a decent amount of citations as per Google Scholar, (asaik) he has not made any foundational or major pedagocial publications. Neither does he hold any elevated academic positions which would make hime notable under the SNG ACADEMIC. There is also no secondary coverage of his person from outside of academia, so general noatbility is not cleared either. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak-keep. He is the top editor of a significant book series in his field published by Springer Publishing. While it doesn't exactly fit criteria 8 of WP:NACADEMIC; I do think the series is equivalent to editing a top journal in his field. Under the spirit of criteria 8 I would say he does meet NACADEMIC. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 22 August 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.
Keep – Disclosure: I am the subject of this article. My comments are based on independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of my career and published works.
Tom Brand’s career spans decades in agricultural broadcasting, including roles at KMA and KFEQ, and 12 years as Executive Director of the National Association of Farm Broadcasting (NAFB). This leadership has been covered in national trade publications such as Radio World, Agri Marketing, and Inside Radio.
He has received multiple nationally recognized honors — including the NAFB Horizon Award, the Honorary American FFA Degree, and induction into the St. Joseph Ag Hall of Fame — each documented in independent sources.
In 2025, Brand published two books, Welts on Your Butt a Calf Could Suck and I Never Heard of Johnny Fry, both covered in News-Press Now, The Bedford Times-Press, and American Ag Network.
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
I've assessed the sources in the article. I was unable to determine the reliability of most of them due to their being trade publications (see WP:TRADES) or being of poor quality (e.g. this blogspot). I'm not seeing significant coverage of the subject. Fancy Refrigerator(talk)22:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, HeartlandStoryteller, editors can only cast one bolded "vote" and you have already done so at the beginning of this discussion so I have struck this second vote. LizRead!Talk!21:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more participants to weigh in here and a review of these newly added sources if they are not already included in the source assessment table. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!21:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Some of these sources were also analyzed the first time around but my thoughts were written without reference to that. Overall these sources obviously heavily depend on press releases or interviews with limited journalistic transformation to make them proper secondary sources. It is important to me as well that you, HeartlandStoryteller, know that none of this is a personal attack against you (another reason why autobiographies are a bad idea because you don't WP:OWN anything once you publish it). And finally, you DON'T want to be WP:FAMOUS. Moritoriko (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per the convincing source analysis by Moritoriko. I concur that the sources are largely based on press releases and interviews and are not sufficiently transformative to be clearly independent. A significant factor indicating that analysis is accurate is the fact that there is not a single source with a by-lined author. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 27 August 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.
FA
A
GA
General
Directories and reports
Culture and the arts
Geographical
History and society
Science, technology
Wikipedia assistance