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 is largely an essay lackign a sourced defintion of "internet aesthetic" and collection of topics that aren't supported through any source suggesting their connection to this term. This is largely WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. There is one source from Vogue in 2022 that references "internet aesthetics" but not in connection to wide range of examples provided here. ZimZalaBimtalk05:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of this is synthesis. Just because an aethetic or design or fashion is popular in the modern day and is discussed on the internet does not mean it is an "internet aethetic". That's just how the world works now, not a substantive cohesive concept: "that usually originates from the Internet or is popularized on it" – very little in the last 20 years wasn't popularized on the internet, so this is a meaningless characteristic unless you are just fluffing up the most recent and niche trends. "micro-trends such as mob wife and tomato girl summer" Groan. Which sources actually bring the concepts here together? Reywas92Talk14:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all reasons above. At most, this might be best suited as a category for worthwhile articles such as Corecore, dark academia, light academia, and so on. Only problem is that the title is itself a wholesale invention. I don't think it's influenced the popular literature to remain as . Ornov GangulyTALK17:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nom and the arguments presented that the article is a synthesis of original research. Perhaps in a few years if scholarly books or articles are written about this topic it will become notable. At this time it is not. Netherzone (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with everyone else. History being a definition of aesthetic with a line from Vogue tacked on? Seems like a desperate, last minute high school essay more than an article. There are individual elements which might be able to stand on their own, but as a whole it's all over the place. Tengu99 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't understand why everyone wants this deleted, the pageviews showcase notability and I wouldn't consider it original research, maybe synthesis but ut has still managed to get 90k pageviews this year alone. This0k (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk(nest)06:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respect is fine but is not a policy or guideline. Many editors name essays as if they were canon, they are not. They are opinion and have nothing to do with deletion close decisions (or at least shouldn't). Sources have been found and listed for this topic, and that should be enough, per GNG, to keep the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move - There's a lot of well researched and cited information here. We should discuss moving them to their relevant pages, I wouldn't want us to lose all of this. But yes, the article name and scope is weird so it can be deleted. Egezort (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per This0k and search engine results such as this descriptor, and this art and popular culture site, and many more. Just search for the term and articles, dictionary definitions, videos, etc. appear. When a page receives 90 thousand views a year it has real-world connections and real-world definitions (readers aren't searching for this out of the blue or in a hypnotic state, they came here to find out about internet aesthetics). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly significant coverage of this, not in stuffy academic literature yet, but that's not a requirement for notability. I've spot-checked a couple of the listed aesthetics and found multiple people referring to them as 'Internet Aesthetics', or found them on lists of 'Internet Aesthetics' of course if things on this list are not called 'Internet Aesthetics' they shouldn't be there, and can be removed. (If that happens to leave us with the two that I picked at random, a delete might be appropriate!) JeffUK11:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move - Coverage about the topic exists but the information should be rewritten to fit an encyclopedic tone.
Weak delete: While there has been significant coverage, the article does not entirely read like something that should be on wikipedia. Aesthetics might be widely reported on and worthy of an article, but does wikipedia really need an entire list of all of these aesthetics? Perhaps the more notable ones can be included in a list category, instead of in an article. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ12:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this Atlantic article does a good job covering the rise of the Aesthethics wiki and defining internet aesthetics as a "a collection of signifiers or, more precisely, a “vibe.”" They do a good job discussing how these aesthetics allow for the articulation, and classification of many different feelings/moods/subcultures/etc. Towards the end they state:
It’s easy to dismiss aesthetics, particularly some of the wackier ones, as superficial and frivolous. But Alexander Cho, a digital-media researcher at UC Santa Barbara, told me that they can be “really important, especially for young adults in terms of creating or fashioning a self.” If you have a hunch about who you are, it’s incredibly easy now to search for images and ideas that help you refine that sense of self.
On the opposite end this Vox article on aesthethics criticizes them as fleeting, hollow and commercial. Prospect magazine did a similar article. I can definitely understand how compared to hippies, goth, punk, etc., these niche aesthetic subcultures can seem inconsequential and like short-lived trends of the past. But there is a long-term movement away from large-scale countercultures towards niche subcultures, which makes comparing them anachronistic. The physical ecosystems of the past (clothing stores, music concerts, magazines, etc.) could only sustain a limited number of subcultures, so people outside of the mainstream only had limited groups to join, and this inflated their numbers. The current digital ecosystem (social media sites, online shopping, etc.) can support a wide diversity of niche subcultures which the larger subcultures are splintering into.
Individually most of these aesthetics subcultures are not notable, but collectively they are a sizeable movement that currently has no other article to be discussed in. Photos of Japan (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. We have plenty of editors here who disagree over whether "internet aesthetic" is or is not a real "thing" but we rely on sources to determine this. We have a disagreement over whether there are reliable sources verifying the subject's notability while other editors see the article as OR. Could we get a source assessment to settle this dispute over whether there are adequate sources providing SIGCOV or not? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of the three sources cited by the last user, none of them use the term "internet aesthetic" (one says "internet aestheticization", though). To me this argues that the label is an attempt to tie together different things in an WP:OR way. I don't have a strong keep/delete opinion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Vox article uses both "online aesthetic" and "digital aesthetic". In reality these are just referred to as "aesthetic" most of the time, but when trying to discuss them and clearly differentiate them from regular aesthetics people sometimes put an adjective in front of them. This article could be renamed something like Aesthetic (internet). Photos of Japan (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely the problem with pretty much all sources attempted. They talk about aesthetics that happen to be common/connected to the internet, but that doesn't make them an "internet aesthetic". Just because people find examples of cottagecore online doesn't make it an "internet aesthetic. --ZimZalaBimtalk17:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the use of sources which don't use the term, a "definition" which is uncited (and possibly created by AI), and the random list of examples which talk about different aesthetics, all suggest WP:OR by synthesis, an editorial attempt to create a topic where nothing noteworthy exists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DesiMoore, you're 'draftify' should be a 'Keep', because whether or not if sources have been transferred to the page, if they've been found and mentioned in this discussion that confirms notability and GNG on the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There have been two recurring concerns brought up here: that the grouping of aesthetics here is WP:OR, and that internet aesthetics lack WP:SIGCOV. Discussion has been fragmented, so I will comprehensively address both here.
There are two practical methods for determining what counts as an internet aesthetic for the purpose of being incorporated into this article. For the first, any entry in the Aesthetics Wiki can simply be considered an aesthetic. The Aesthetics Wiki has wide currency as the space on the internet where aesthetics are being documented and catalogued, with multiple rs's that go in depth on internet aesthetics primarily referencing the wiki ([8][9][10]).
Just glancing at the references section and looking at their titles shows that "aesthetics" in the internet sense is in widespread use by reliable sources. However, the main concern people have is whether there is significant coverage to establish them as a concept. This is unequivocally the case with multiple sources delving in depth into aesthetics:
With these (and others) there is enough to write fairly sizeable history, definition, and criticism sections. A concern that has been raised is that these do not all use the term "internet aesthetic". Many terms are used: "online aesthetic", "digital aesthetic", "micro aesthetic", etc. Most commonly they are simply called "aesthetics" (it is tangential to the discussion of notability, but I believe this article should simply refer to them as "aesthetics" and be renamed something like Aesthetic (internet)). Regardless of what they call it, it is clear they are all referring to the same concept, and are referring to things which would be considered internet aesthetics by the two practical methods described earlier.
Issues concerning the article lacking a cited definition, or other content issues have been raised, but should be addressed through editing. The lack of a cited definition is not due to lack of sources trying to define aesthetics, but due to the difficulty in defining them. I am working on a summary of how different sources have discussed its usage, but it is a linguistically complex issue and will likely take a few days. Photos of Japan (talk) 08:39, 25 December 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
The article on Harshada Pathare fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for authors and filmmakers. The references cited are primarily from non-independent or low-quality sources, such as News24, Yahoo Finance, and promotional platforms like the Tagore International Film Festival’s own website. These sources lack the depth and reliability required to establish significant coverage or independent notability. Additionally, the article has a promotional tone, which violates Unambiguous Advertising or Promotion. The subject's notable achievements, including awards and books, are not adequately supported by independent, verifiable sources.
There is also a possible Conflict of Interest, as this subject has a significant creation and deletion history dating back to 2018, with five drafts and one main space article being deleted under G11. It is unlikely that this repeated effort to create the article is coincidental, especially considering the subject's limited notability as evidenced by their sparse Google presence. This raises questions about why multiple attempts have been made to establish this page, despite a lack of substantial independent coverage.
Upon further investigation, the creator of this page appears to have a pattern of creating articles with extensive personal data, often citing only one or two references. This raises concerns about verifiability and how the creator is obtaining such detailed information when it is not publicly available. These issues, combined with the lack of reliable, independent sources and a promotional tone, warrant deletion of this article for failing to meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability, neutrality, and verifiability. Kriji Sehamati (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately WP:NEWSORGINDIA inducates that, as they regularly do PR pieces for undisclosed pay most Indian news publications are insufficient to establish notability. So far there are only Indian news sources and primary sources here. Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this page does not meet notability standards WP:NBIO and WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Citations are just WP:ROUTINE. Also, this might be a case of article hijacking WP:AHIJACK. The article was originally about cricketer Rishabh Arjun Chandra Shah (born 11 September 1991). In 2021, it was redirected to the List of Durham UCCE & MCCU players. Then, in 2023, the redirection was removed, and the article was recreated as Rishabh Sanjay Shah (born 3 September 1991). Charlie (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be notable; neither does the cricketer, and there are other people of the same name who may be more notable than either, so a redlink would be better than a redirect so visitors aren't surprised at landing at a list of student cricketers. wjematherplease leave a message...14:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage of this individual in news media, simply being a subject matter expert in court cases isn't quite enough without coverage discussing the individual. Sourcing now is largely to court cases. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Rudraneil Sengupta does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies, as it lacks adequate independent and reliable sources to substantiate the subject's significance. While the article attempts to document his career and achievements, it is insufficiently supported by verifiable evidence from secondary sources providing substantial coverage of his life and work.
Of the references cited in the article, only the first citation meets the criteria for a reliable source. The rest of the references merely mention Sengupta in passing, failing to offer independent or in-depth analysis of his contributions. This is not enough to establish notability under Wikipedia's standards, which require significant, independent coverage from credible sources.
A quick Google search further confirms the lack of independent coverage. Most search results are either related to Sengupta's published works or are affiliated with organizations he has worked for. There is no significant independent recognition or detailed media coverage, which is essential to meet notability guidelines.
The article also claims that Sengupta has received awards such as the Ramnath Goenka Award and the SOPA Award, but these claims are not supported by verifiable sources within the article or by any independent third-party confirmation. Without proper citations, such assertions cannot be deemed reliable or sufficient to demonstrate his notability.
Much of the content appears to be derived from primary sources or editorialized interpretations of his career. Wikipedia's verifiability and neutrality policies require that biographical content rely on independent, third-party sources to ensure reliability.
Comment: Two of the five citations have URLs that go to top level pages, not pages that mention Sengupta. The other three citations are primary sources. There are a couple of statements in the article that are not supported by citations. I've added inline cleanup tags to assist the creator of the article. GoingBatty (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability; article has been tagged as possible nn since creation. Cannot find anything online other than amazon, abebooks & the like, none of which establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing now is more for an business person than a youtuber, and it's only funding announcements. PR items or funding announcements aren't helpful. Appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability on Wikipedia has a very specific, narrow definition. Please read the link and understand that you have to prove notability, not just assert it with you can google him. Please read WP:SIRS to understand the level of referencing required to prove notability, and then, as I requested previously, list the WP:THREE. - UtherSRG(talk)12:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further, each language Wikipedia has it's own rules regarding notability. The fact that the Hindi-language wiki even has an article about this subject is non-material. - UtherSRG(talk)12:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The individual who created this article submitted it multiple times before they were auto confirmed, and multiple times it was declined for not being Notable. The individual did not just suddenly become notable because the editor of the article became auto confirmed. The individual in this article does not show any notability to speak of. Not only should the article be deleted but WP:Salted as well.--VVikingTalkEdits15:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt – to quote my own reviewer comment at the draft: The sum of the information about him is as follows: He has notable relatives (that does not make him notable), he has self-published a number of books (which does not make him notable), he has had minor roles in a few TV shows (not something that makes him notable), he has donated to charitable causes, and he has a website. Neither of which is a criterion for notability. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't yield any independent sources. And the discussion at Draft talk:Vinayak Singh Oberoi as well as the article creator's talk page doesn't give me any confidence that they will understand or respect a "delete" outcome of a community discussion, so salting is probably necessary. --bonadeacontributionstalk10:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citation profile in GS[13] seems healthy (top citations 501, 413, 319, 272, 231, with a further 12 >100 citns) meeting my definition of WP:PROF by citations. There are also supposedly 12 books, with the ones listed being published by high-quality academic/general publishers, which are likely to have received sufficient reviews to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
255 JSTOR hits making finding book reviews a chore but here's four to be going along with: The World Trade Organization: A Very Short IntroductionJSTOR4092662; International Trade and Developing Countries: Bargaining Coalitions in the WTOJSTOR20097936; New Powers: How to Become One and How to Manage ThemJSTOR29777521; Deadlocks in Multilateral Negotiations. Causes and SolutionsJSTOR43122662Espresso Addict (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I have decided to withdraw my nomination from the current AfD about Amrita Narlikar. After considering the community’s feedback and rethinking my position, I believe this is the best choice. I am grateful for everyone’s time and effort in this discussion and respect the teamwork that makes Wikipedia better. I hope my withdrawal helps simplify the process and leads to a positive outcome. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article states he is "national poet of Azerbaijan" which suggests there will be coverage in Azerbaijan's press. Has anyone checked for reviews in Azerbaijani of his ten poetry collections, or of the five films for which he wrote the script? Just writing fails GNG without explaining exactly what searches have been attempted is unhelpful. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict, I am a Turkish user, so I checked the references. Azerbaijan is giving these titres to most of the people, so being "national poet of Azerbaijan" is not adequate for notability. Most of the links which are placed in azwiki are promotional. If you want further information, I can answer. Regards. KadıMessage12:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1- Offline source, I can not find it on Google Books.
2- 404 error.
3-Only listed.
4- kaspi.az is not a reliable source.
5- Interview with his son, not independent.
Most of the links are from YouTube. In Turkish books, his name is listed and mentioned in the sentences, again not adequate for notability. I can only say that this source is good but only one source is not adequate for passing GNG.--KadıMessage12:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable mainly for being Pierce Brosnan's wife. However, notability is not inherited. All reliable references to her exist because she is Pierce Brosnan's wife.
Comment I've found a few non-trivial newspaper articles that aren't just about her link to Brosnan. The second one mentions their relationship but it's more about her and her own career work. 1, 2. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the article is not fully referenced there are four sources with WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Two were noted by GoldenAgeFan1 and I found two others. While all but one mention Pierce Brosnan they are primarily about the subject. All are now in the article but were not before the AfD discussion. There may be more sources but it's difficult to find those that might be primarily about the subject given all the articles about the Brosnans as a couple. Nnev66 (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fabian, Allison (January 1999). "Keely Shaye Smith putting her passion to work". New Woman. Vol. 29, no. 1. New York: Hearst Magazine Media, Inc. p. 13. ProQuest206658619.
It's unclear to me why this man's fraud conviction makes him notable. There were many people who committed PPP fraud and while large, his is not the largest or most well reported. I see a smattering of reporting, of the routine kind of reporting you usually see that is rewritten SEC or DOJ press releases.
Furthermore, I don't see how he is notable for his finance activities prior to his conviction.
Keep I think it can be edited to remove some sources and info but after seeing sources such as, The Palm Beach Post, Business Insider, www.justice.gov, Dealbreaker, which are already cited on Wikipedia for multiple notable entities, the page can be kept. It also passes general criteria of notability as per WP:GNG. I can help editing. NatalieTT (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
inexplicably declined - despite no evidence of notability - being a "kindle author" is meaningless in the absence of actual meaningful coverage, of which there is none. GRINCHIDICAE🎄21:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (As I had to go and look to work out what you meant by 'Inexplicably declined'...) Your nomination for a speedy deletion was declined, with the perfectly clear explanation that "the Kindle award is enough to get past an A7, and the article is not promotional". Speedy Deletion is for a very strictly determined subset of articles. JeffUK15:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG, the Amazon source is not neutral, and the bookseller source alone isn't sufficient. There are a few mentions around of McLean attending book signings and the like, but they're also not really neutral as it's a commercial engagement being advertised. JeffUK15:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it meets sustained coverage, the Amazon article is not neutral, the Bookseller article is an just reporting on the exact same award (So even though it's more neutral, it's not sustained coverage) The only other article in a very very local paper about 'author signs books at local library' is around the time of the Amazon award (again, not sustained coverage). I just don't think it meets the test. Mostly there's just not enough here for us to write an article with. JeffUK10:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She seems to have different names/pseudonyms, I've found a few more sources that way and incorporated more info (edit: + over a wider range of years) but unsure if it's enough. – Starklinson10:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, there have been a lot of changes to this article since its nomination so it should get an additional review. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:HEY. Better sourcing than the version that was submitted to AfD, but admittedly I'm unsure whether the added sources pushes the subject solidly into the notable category. I'd err toward keep than delete here. Madeleine961 (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any critical reviews for any of this individual's books when I search. What's used in the article doesn't appear to be RS, mostly blogs. This writer seems to give advice on how to self publish in the few sources I've found. [15], seems to be in independent author, so that could explain the lack of much critical coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in Gscholar or Jstor either, appears to be a prolific writer though. Some sources says "award-winning author", but I don't know how much weight that carries. I don't see any awards won that I recognize, anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Total promo nonsense article, sourced to passing mentions with nothing meaningful in the way of actual coverage - and the only mentions of Rex are again, in passing, if even that. GRINCHIDICAE🎄19:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I was asked to review this article earlier. I tagged it as relying too heavily on primary sources. It seems like with how long this person has been around and the circles they trade in it would be easy for him to be notable by some metric, but his projects and interviews have no independent coverage and there's little to nothing I could find that discusses him in an impartial way. Reconrabbit20:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created the page so let me explain why. I will start like this.
In the early days of Instagram verification, before Instagram gave out verification, they didnt know how to select who was worthy of being verified and why those people were worthy and others were not. So they found a solution. One of the criteria they used to determine if someone was notable to be verified was to check out the number of DMs said person from other verified accounts. Getting DMs from verified accounts meant you were notable too. E.g an obscure music producer getting DMs from different big musicians meant he was notable even though he wasnt famous. Afterall some notable people work behind the scenes. Jimmy Rex's Show have had some great people on the podcast. In Wikipedia we call those "associates". Lots of people who have Wikipedia articles have been guests at his show. A non notable podcaster wont pull notable guests to his podcast.
There is something else I should point out. There was a debate about Giannis Antetokounmpo, and how his opening sentence should be worded. The bone of contention was whether he should be labeled as a Greek or a Nigerian-Greek. What put that argument to rest was a video from YouTube. In the video he said that he represents both Nigeria and Greece. These are the scenarios when Youtube videos can be employed. In Jimmy Rex's case, these notable guests are talking by themselves for themselves. You watch the video and see them. It is verifiable. When you say primary source, do you know that you mean that the words are coming from Jimmy Rex's mouth? And in this case, are they? Cokeandbread (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I created the article, I wrote a sub section about his controversy and I was asked to remove it because it was negative. Now, the article seems like a promo because it is too nice? Okay.
Delete Every single source is either a passing mention, not independent of the subject, or about a different subject entirely (referring to one of his guests). Plus, there is WP:TRIVIA being used to puff up the citations list: Guatemala is one of his favorite travel destinations? An NBA star crashed one of his parties? Who TF cares. Not notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Wikipedia article with minimal citations but clear notability. Deletion of notable Wikipedia pages because of fewer citations can set a dangerous precedent. Gracefoundme (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like there are plenty of citations, but many of them are weak in terms of reliability and are not independent of Jimmy Rex. Reconrabbit15:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gracefoundme: what do you mean "minimal citations but clear notability"? How is notability met if not via WP:GNG? GNG doesn't require a lot of sources of course but it does require enough depth. What are these sources to establish the level of coverage needed for GNG? Nil Einne (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From what I see I believe the Wikipedia article is notable. The creating editor seems naive so I think it is creator issue, not a notability issue. Keep and keep improving. Wallclockticking (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article currently is written. I'm of the opinion that controversy often makes a person notable. Recent examples of articles that I've saved because of bad reviews or controversy include Topaz (novel) and The Legend That Was Earth. Another article is Sangre Grande Regional Complex, often described as a white elephant. Many a bad broadcaster has achieved notability by having outrageous guests. I'm glad to change my !vote if critiques are added back in. Bearian (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because many influential podcasters are notable despite limited traditional media coverage. The reason why is because podcast is the new media and traditional citations don't yet know how to do justice to podcasters' influence. Their reach, engagement, and cultural relevance often exceed those of traditionally cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdhoul 138 (talk • contribs) time, day month year (UTC)
Keep as in its current state, the article covers his achievements and controversies, giving a balanced view that fits Wikipedia’s standards. Miss Dike16:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Almost evenly divided between editors arguing to Keep this article and those advocating Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable podcast person. There are no articles in RS about this individual; what's used in the article are trivial mentions or non-RS. I can't find any we can use either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer: The discussion may at present look evenly divided, but the "keep" !votes are either not policy based or offer sources that other !voters have rebutted. It is also unusual that this particular discussion has attracted so many "keep" !votes from accounts that are participating in AfD for either the first (Gracefoundme, Miss Dike and obviously the IP) or second (Wallclockticking, Abdhoul 138) time. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All sources seem either unreliable or non-substantial. I only saw one source that could be deemed as establishing GNG, but until we see more, this is most appropriately deleted. Madeleine(talk)19:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are either passing mentions, written by Jimmy Rex or interviews with him. There doesn't seem to be any independent sources for him. Fails WP:GNG. One of the references wouldn't open for me but that's not uncommon with American sites when accessing them from the UK. Knitsey (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the edits that I looked at were minor wording ("i.e. from [[subtropical or tropical moist lowland forest]] to [[subtropical or tropical moist lowland forest|subtropical or tropical moist lowland forests]]) which look to me like an attempt to build up some edit stats. Has anyone looked for WP:SOCK evidence? The "keep" responses here have some characteristics in common, IMO. Lamona (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been called a COI editor, a paid editor, a sock, a nonsense editor and all these bad names just because I decided to create an article. I have been on Wikipedia for 2 months and I have been called more bad names and accused of More insulting allegations within that time than I have been faced in years of my real life. I'm starting to think it isnt worth it. Cokeandbread (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bridget Thank you for your efforts. I also conducted a search for relevant sources initially, but I did not find them to meet the notability criteria. Both sources are primarily interview-based descriptions. The piece in Vogue India is a one-time article by Ridhima Sud, and the The Hindu article also revolves around an interview. Neither of these, on their own, can establish notability. While publishing with Penguin is a significant accomplishment, it alone does not satisfy the notability requirements according to Wikipedia's standards. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 15:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a reference for her job (chief digital officer) and her marriage. I doubt they will make much difference. I'm not casting a vote on this one. Knitsey (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PROD was contested. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The bulk of the article is just an unsourced list of his non-notable works. The article has had a notability tag for almost 9 years with no additions to support the subjects notability. cyberdog958Talk07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gscholar brings up two papers this person wrote, but I'm not sure that's enough for an academic notability pass. I don't see any reviews of this person's other books either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that he meets WP:NAUTHOR. You added references that the subject wrote, but none of it is about the subject himself. There is no evidence that he is widely regarded or cited by peers, originated a new concept, authored a body of work that itself is notable, or created a work that has been regarded as significant. cyberdog958Talk15:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Would like to see more input from the community on the recent edits. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The several archived reviews of the biography of Fleming in the article show that that book is notable. I picked one other book at random to search at the British Newspaper Archive and immediately found this review. I won't bother looking for more, since this author clearly meets the GNG, but I suspect many more sources exist. Toadspike[Talk]12:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
