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.
Fails WP:ARTIST. No awards or recognition. Created by a single purpose editor so possible promo. Sources provided merely confirm where she has exhibited and not SIGCOV. This source seems to be the only indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the article's first sentence states, Inner Mongolia does not have a flag. The article has not been reliably sourced for almost six years and this is unlikely to change because no notable flag has been claimed as the "flag of Inner Mongolia". The scope of the article is more akin to "flags used in Inner Mongolia" or "flags used by Inner Mongolian organisations", as there is a gallery of organisational flags and a brief write-up on two organisations'. However, none of this is sourced, and the actual scope of the article is extremely limited anyways, being nothing more than a mirror of a Wikimedia Commons gallery. Yue🌙06:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second prose paragraph almost perfectly matches the user-generated source at Flags of the World, the sole general reference. I don't think we need this article, but since I'm aware of my own personal bias against flags I can't trust myself to opine here from a basis in policy. Folly Mox (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect: I could not find any coverage by Mexican media and the only cited source is from the city government [8]. Similarly, the Spanish Wikipedia article also only cites primary sources and the Flags of the World entry. Per WP:PRIMARY, a standalone article cannot be predicated on primary sources, but they may be utilized for small sections. Therefore, Symbols of Colotlán should redirect and its corresponding information be merged to Colotlán. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 16:30, 14 August 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
Right. I should've said "would be relevant" (if there were notability). My point is that there is little or nothing of encyclopedic value in the current article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google Scholar shows a single-digit number of publications only one of which has more than one citation. This is far from enough for WP:PROF#C1 in any field, let alone his where the citation counts tend to be very high. The article does not suggest any other potential direction for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Full of puffy words and fluff, this is PROMO. Source 2 is an unreliable source per Source Highlighter (in red), so there is nothing left beyond a publication from the museum; I don't see how an AI programmer making shopping bots getting published in a natural history museum's journal helps notability. Unless it helps the animal in their daily tasks, this seems like a stretch and a rather fanciful one at that... Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article was PROD'd but the tag was removed by the article's creator who is also the author of this book. Given that it is self-published, I don't believe it has been reviewed or meets WP:NBOOK. Obviously, COI involved here and all of the editor's content creation. I know that this is not a valid deletion rationale but I thought I'd point it out in this statement. LizRead!Talk!02:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could not find coverage, I checked Google News and Newspapers.com. Book is self published and without outside sources doesn't meet GNG. Dr vulpes(Talk)23:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Malcom Kyeyune has been a columnist for Göteborgs-Posten (the dominating newspaper in western Sweden), Fokus (magazine) (one of the most important political magazines), w:sv:Dagens Samhälle and so on. While I'm sure the article can be improved improved (it really looks like it's been written to convince the reader of Kyeyune's importance), the nomination makes him sound like a someone who writes on social media and tries to use Wikipedia to inflate his own importance. Kyeyune has had regular access to key print platforms, across several publications. Nor am I entirely convinced this article is self-penned, looking at the main editor's contributions and how they connect across Swedish political topics. /Julle (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I know the original and primary author of the article and have met them so I can confirm they are 100% not Malcom Kyeyune. I do agree that there's a promotional tone in the current state though. AlexandraAVX (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only is the writer mostly involved in left-wing publications, he is in a sufficient number of mainstream international/English-speaking ones. 123 I think he's notable enough to meet notability criteria. Additionally I don't think there is any rule against authors about people based on them being right or left-leaning, or on their activities on social media. By all means though if anyone thinks the article warrants improvement go ahead of course. FelipeFritschF (talk)
Weak Keep if improved, the only secondary source with significant coverage is the ETC article, but there seems to be at least one other source here [9] (along with several other articles at Flamman). This is extremely borderline for WP:NBASIC but given his still somewhat significant role in Swedish political debate I'm leaning towards notability. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there is notability and the reasons listed for deletion are irrelevant to Wikipedia. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Notability doesn't hinge on keeping an active online presence we want to link to, though. External links are largely irrelevant in this context. The fact that he appears in podcasts might be relevant to include in the article, but it doesn't mean that it is the reason to keep it; he hasn't been any less e.g. a Swedish columnist for influential newspapers just because he also appears in podcasts. /Julle (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no clear evidence of notability. The subject has won three obscure prizes: that’s it. I also suspect paid editing: the article is by a new account, with links to google.pk. I would imagine that someone from Pakistan whose very first article is about a random Romanian poet was paid to publish. BiruitorulTalk13:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see any sources in English to support WP:AUTHOR. The subject has written multiple books but I see no in-depth reviews, just online bookshops and Wikipedia mirrors. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page. Fails WP:NBIO. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, who is not widely cited by peers or successors. As Author and Yoga instructor, subject has not created a significant or well-known work and I cannot find subject's work in multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work. Fails WP:GNG too. RangersRus (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources for the article and there is no ground for deleting this page. Lack of contribution does not necessitate deletion of a page. Such a practice will only contribute to removal of information about the lesser known people. I strongly oppose the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Versatilegeek (talk • contribs) 07:14, 28 August 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.
Delete - as above, clearly promotional content relating to a non-notable person. Furthermore, use of “expert” in disambiguation in article title clearly biased and inappropriate. Elshad (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this should be on LinkdIn, not a supposed encylopædia. It’s essentially an advert for a self declared “expert” fishing for media appearances. 141.195.160.217 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was only created in August 2023, her media appearances long predate that - this[12] is from 2015. I think it's important that media pundits have articles, it enables everyone to easily look at their credentials and assess their motivations. Orange sticker (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly not autobiographical as has been alleged - the creating editor, @Starklinson:, although they have chosen to remain as a redlinked editor without a userpage, has created and edited a wide range of articles over seven years (in contrast to the nominator of this AfD who appears to be proposing this AfD as their first edit). Appears to be a notable expert in the field, cited in many sources. The disambiguation, needed to distinguish her from Z G (actress), could perhaps be "(migration specialist)" to avoid any perceived subjectivity in "expert", so perhaps Keep and move. PamD08:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Not sure about "advocate". She describes herself on LinkedIn as "migration policy specialist". I think I'd still go with "(migration specialist)", which covers a wider range of activity than "advocate" but avoids the possible puffery of "expert". The category Category:Experts on refugees, which was created in 2015, is slightly odd, with no parent category in a "people by occupation" tree. It's difficult to find a descriptor which fits someone employed in a field, rather than various "activists" categories or disambiguators. PamD18:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence she is a migration 'specialist' or expert. This appears to be a confusion of one sided activism with actual non-partisan knowledge. Working for a pro-immigration ngo for asylum seekers is hardly expertise and this characterisation favours open border policy which is contentious in the public realm. Must be deleted and replaced with something like 'activist' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A10:D582:D18:0:AC59:B40E:AD1E:937B (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep surprised to see this as I recognised the name immediately, has appeared regularly on news programmes and is referred to as an expert as references and news search show. Orange sticker (talk)
Comment I noticed how this was nominated by, and many of the votes are by, new users who have made no other contributions to the project so searched Twitter and it seems the subject of this article made a tweet yesterday that received a lot of attention and then Twitter users brought attention to her Wikipedia page. I've looked to see if there is an appropriate template to flag this AfD but can't find one, but it seems to be this has been nominated in bad faith Orange sticker (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that we don't allow a brand-new editor to create an article in mainspace, but we do allow them to create an AfD. Perhaps this should be reconsidered? PamD11:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD and @Orange sticker, I've added a {{notavote}} notice. However, I must note that the first and third editors to !vote delete after nomination are editors who have been on Wikipedia 19 years and 9 years respectively, so while there are some IPs voting and the article was nominated by a very new user, I don't think it's completely accurate to state that many of the votes are by new users. TarnishedPathtalk12:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Yes but: did you see the editing history of the 19-year editor? 4 edits since 2019, of which one to their user page, one to their talk page. Not a very active editor. The 9-year editor does seem to be a regular contributor on a range of topics. PamD13:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree that it's highly unusual when a day old account makes such a nomination and then is followed by some IPs participating, I really don't think that's enough to make judgments about longstanding editors regardless of their recent history. TarnishedPathtalk13:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think rather than back or forth about who is editing perhaps engaging with the substance here would be preferable - to qualify as an ‘expert’, you would presumably need well read academic publications and so on. Every Think Tank employee in the U.K. doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, even if they are occasionally cited in the press. The subject has no published books, academic papers, etc; this is clearly below the threshold of noteworthy-ness. Plus the article is promotional in tone and I strongly suspect some connection, financial or otherwise, between the main editor and the subject 2A01:CB06:B852:BE75:69B1:C245:F364:C83B (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Activity level is not a requirement for a users vote to be considered legitimate. I find your arguments in this discussion to be highly suspect in their motivation, as you appear to be attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the vote rather than participating in the actual discussion. Badharlick (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely bad etiquette to assume bad faith as you are. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, provided they follow the rules set out in the policy. It does not exist for cabals of users to gatekeep others from contributing. Badharlick (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you, @PamD:. I only put (migration expert) because I didn't know what else to call her - that's how she's often referred to by the British press. I don't think 'expert' is necessarily biased, it just means she's done significant research on the topic. And I don't think 'activist' quite fits. However, if anyone has a better idea for the title, I'd be open to that. – Starklinson 13:13 UTC
ALSO, Wikipedia has a category Category:Experts on refugees, suggesting the language of 'expert' is not considered too partial for Wikipedia. I would also like to make it very clear that I have never received payment for my work on Wikipedia, nor have I ever made a page for someone as a favour. I know none of these people personally. – Starklinson 21:43 UTC
Delete: Appears in various media as a subject expert, but I don't find much coverage about this person. Source 2 is a "30 under 30 list" in a PR item. The BBC sources is an interview where she talks about things. Source 14 is ok-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As PamD explains, the accusation of autobiography doesn't hold water. And while some of the sources are interviews or trivial, there are multiplesources that are prose (not interviews) and that focus on Gardner as a person (are not trivial). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those articles constitute WP:SIGCOV. They are WP:ROUTINE coverage of her in her capacity as an employee of her organization. The National article in particular is primarily composed of her quotations. The only material we could extract on her encyclopedically is that she worked for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While it is difficult to imagine that consensus will be achieved on this one, there is clearly enough interest in this discussion to give it another try.
Note: Important procedural issues have been raised here, such as Pam's observation about allowing new editors to create AfDs but not articles in mainspace. That may need to be discussed elsewhere. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no!19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:56, 29 August 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.
Delete: This is about the best I can pull up [13], a blog post from a RS. Sourcing now in the article is of the same quality; the Times of India is a marginal-reliability source per Source Highlighter. With nothing better found, it's not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to M._M._Akbar#Debate_with_E._A._Jabbar. Page is WP:CFORK. 14 sources on the page. Source 1 is WP:ROUTINE news about subject seeking police protection. Source 2 is about debate between rationalist E A Jabbar and Islamic preacher M M Akbar. Source 3 is again news with passing mention. Source 4 and 5 are same about the debate. Source 6 duplicate of source 1. Source 7 is YouTube on the debate. Source 8 is also about debate. Source 9 duplicate of source 2. Source 10 is also about debate. Source 11 is YouTube blog of the subject. Source 12 is duplicate of source 7. Source 13 and 14 are user generated Facebook pages. No sources have any significant coverage on the biography of the subject or any other except for the debate. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article primarily cites TOI, which is not a reliable source to establish notability. I agree with Oaktree’s decision to delete the article. GrabUp - Talk07:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: simple google search with his Malayalam language name itself gives a lot of reliable sources [19]. Also Malayalam Wikipedia does exist for a long time. [20]
Wikipedia need to be balanced. The person whom he had debate with M. M. Akbar has English references than him just because he is an Islamic scholar and this person is an atheist. On Indian atheism topic he is notable.
So for English reference better tag with ‘need more English references’. Do not delete the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.59.127.107 (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Advice to IP which approached my talk page: Sorry if a IP is indulging in socking no point in providing advice at user talk page, hence here. Overzealous attitudes can be unhelpful and counter productive. I suggest the IP to voluntarily distance from topic area and first substantially improve acquaintance regarding checks and balances of various Wikipedia:Policies - it takes hard study work. Last but not least avoid WP:CANVASS, WP:SOCK, if any. Bookku (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : failed WP:GNG, This is a YouTube promotion ( WP:NOTPROMO ), Like self writing, there are many YouTubers like this in Kerala and he is only one person, so there is no need for an article --Spworld (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC
Weak delete: There is some coverage but it is mostly routine and hardly significantly about Jabbar himself. CFA💬04:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree more citations need to be added. The article passes WP:SET and satisfies GNG. He's well known in his domain, which itself is a growing domain globally. Rasnaboy (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear notability established. Important figure, and the article is supplemented by popular news. Zero reason to delete, and accusations of sockpuppetry are unfounded. 90.205.88.148 (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss whether to merge or not, WP:PROPMERGE outlines step by step, how to propose a merge and gather more input from community. AfD is not the right forum.
It is fine to discuss here, as I think that this and similar articles should be deleted. I'm not sure that it is necessary to merge, hence the "if relevant". --woodensuperman12:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that this has WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources or that they meet WP:NACTOR. The article itself lists roles in multiple TV series and TV movies, however I can't see reliable sourcing to support the claims. The only independent reliable source which has SIGCOV I could find in an WP:BEFORE was this. TarnishedPathtalk01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Not enough coverage to write a verifiable article and certainly not enough to establish notability. I can't find any significant coverage. The CBC article linked is about Tim Williams (actor), not this guy. CFA💬02:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources that could be added though? This person's notability has not been established in nearly a decade. I doubt something big is going to happen in the next six months before it is deleted. CFA💬14:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources? If there are sources they could be added now. This article was created 10:52, 24 December 2015. Draftification should generally be used for newish articles, not articles which haven't demonstrated notability after almost 9 years. TarnishedPathtalk10:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between Draftify and Delete. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRAFTNO does not say, ‘Articles older than 90 days shouldn’t be moved to draft.’ You may have been misunderstood it. It is a guideline for new page reviewers, stating, ‘Do not draftify articles older than 90 days without discussion through AfD. If there is consensus to draftify, then it will be draftified.’ GrabUp - Talk11:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:DRAFTNO does pertain to new page reviewers, I do think the general idea that draftification should be used for newish articles holds. I don't think it's appropriate to draftify biographical articles which have failed to established the notability of their subject after almost nine years. TarnishedPathtalk12:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not see a compelling reason to draft. Drafting is good when an article is not quite yet ready for main, but will or could be ready soon. I do not like to draft when there is a lack of sourcing and/or meeting the relevant notability guideline. If we draft, this article is likely to either end up back in main before it's ready (and then possible end up back at AFD), or sit in draft and end up deleted in six months. The subject does not meet notability and there is no indication they can or will do so in the near future. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two sigcov reviews of his books on ProQuest. 1 for Beatles For Sale, 1 for All Together Now. That's not quite there but I can't do an in depth check now - however, it's not nothing. I will vote after I have done a better check. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]