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.
While (some of) the webcomics that were part of Dayfree Press are notable, DP itself doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. There's this article in the The Comics Grid journal, which brings it up on p. 4 and 9 (and which could be considered sigcov, I guess). And there's also a Wired.com blog that says ~80 words about Dayfree Press. But I wasn't able to find more. toweli (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi toweli there are also mentions alongside other webcomic collectives in A History of Webcomics (2006) and Webcomics 2.0 (2008) also has a section on webcomics collectives. So combined with the Comics Grid Journal article you found...and possibly others (that don't mention Dayfree Press), my proposed solution as a WP:ATD (if you are interested) would be to create a new "List of webcomic collectives" article (if one doesn't already exist) and redirect Dayfree Press to that one. Happy editing! Cielquiparle (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Assuming there are enough sources, that sounds like a good idea and would allow Wikipedia to cover webcomic collectives which have received some coverage, but not enough for a standalone article. toweli (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the webcomics that are part of the alliance are notable, the alliance itself doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources; I was only able to find mentions. The article was previously kept at an AfD (well, VfD), but that was back in 2004 when standards were very different. toweli (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the existing relying on a single source and vagueness issues (likely due to translation), the information in the article could easily be included onto the existing articles – DIN 1451, Austria (typeface), Tern (typeface) and Road signs in Austria – with the provision of sources, weakening the article's basis.
Deletion was objected, a merged was proposed instead. However, it is not possible to redirect one article to 3 others. Created a topic at WikiProject Typography over 4 months ago with no response. The article has no notability on its own, and is poorly written/explained. EthanL13 | talk22:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is covered in DIN 1451 in more detail than is here. Nothing in that article gives me the impression that a separate article on DIN 1451 Engschrift would be needed. I did search and Engschrift is always defined together with DIN 1451. Lamona (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion, Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to DIN 1451, by condensing the Austria section into a single sentence and placing it under DIN_1451#Usage_examples (this is sourced - the article's only source refers to this). There is certainly no justification for a standalone article, as the target article provides better coverage for every other aspect. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a disambiguation would be the way to go, given the several different types where the term is accepted as a variant, and the fact that it also represents the original German term for shorthand [8]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!07:24, 16 September 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
Completely unreferenced article about the pseudonym of a writer of romance novels. As always, writers are not "inherently" notable just because their work exists, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about their work -- biographical information, reviews of their books by professional literary critics, evidence of noteworthy literary awards, etc. -- but this cites no GNG-worthy sourcing at all, and in fact the closest thing to a "reference" in it (until I stripped it just now) was the self-published directory profile of a non-pseudonymous writer who wasn't purporting to be the author of these books, and thus appears to have been a "publicize herself by piggybacking on an unrelated article" stunt rather than evidence of the notability of "Margaret Pargeter". Nothing here is "inherently" notable without proper GNG-compliant sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No particular indication of notability here. The subject has participated in some random conferences, which hardly makes him encyclopedically notable.
As a side note, someone should look more closely at the article creator and his activity. He seems deeply involved with an obscure movement called Empathism (do check out that article, though fair warning: your eyes may hurt), and has been creating stubs about even more obscure figures associated with this supposed literary current.
Anyway, to return to Chelaru: nothing about his record, and certainly not the mediocre sources, suggests that he should have an article here. Thus, delete. BiruitorulTalk15:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find any coverage for this person. The Romanian wiki article seems to be sources to CV's or biographies on various websites, hardly notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it falls dangerously below WP:GNG and all other known notability guidelines. Even his listed works do not mention him and the works do not have tittles, where they were published and their identifiers such as ISBN, ISSN. Piscili (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a lot of IP nonsense in the history of this article, so while I agree with the IP's PROD, I think this merits an AFD. Farmer has been cited, but since OA isn't sufficient I don't see WP:BIO level coverage StarMississippi21:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no significant coverage of Guy Finley, his work or his teachings in reliable secondary sources. Most of it is blog posts and primary sources. A 2007 discussion ended with a Keep result, but the votes all relied on notability determined by Google hits, a Google featured link and Amazon sales rankings. These are outdated standards. Ynsfial (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a great example of a clear WP:NBIO fail. None of the sources are reliable as they are blogs, and I couldn't find any other coverage of this specific Guy Finley (there were other hits but nothing of interest). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a vanity article for a little-known freelance writer. His only claim to fame is drawing widespread mockery and condemnation for his book about wearing blackface across the United States. Much more notable Canadian journalists do not have Wikipedia pages, and the achievements listed are negligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrashPandaMan (talk • contribs)
Keep - The critique overlooks the broader context of Sam Forster's contributions to the public discourse. While it's true that not every writer or journalist gains widespread recognition overnight, dismissing someone's work solely based on their level of fame or controversial moments is short-sighted. Forster’s book, which has indeed sparked debate, addresses sensitive and complex issues, and the ensuing reactions—both positive and negative—demonstrate that his work has provoked meaningful conversations.
It's essential to recognize that public figures who challenge societal norms often face harsh criticism, but that doesn't diminish the value of their contributions. Many notable figures throughout history were initially met with ridicule before their work was acknowledged as significant. Forster's willingness to tackle uncomfortable topics is an important part of his role as a writer. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a platform that reflects public interest, and Forster's coverage there simply mirrors the fact that his work, controversial or not, has sparked significant public attention.
Additionally, comparing Forster to other Canadian journalists based on fame is a false equivalence. The presence or absence of a Wikipedia page is not a measure of a person’s accomplishments, nor does it negate the relevance of their work. It's important to focus on the substance of what a writer has contributed to discussions, rather than focusing on how well-known they are or how their work has been received in certain circles.
---
This approach emphasizes the importance of intellectual discourse, the value of confronting complex societal issues, and challenges the assumptions about fame equating to worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daves598 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a self-promoting vanity page for a marginal figure, who is obviously continually editing it. There is a very long history of edit wars on the article, including their attempts to prevent coverage of their legal issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrashPandaMan (talk • contribs)
This nomination for deletion is part of ongoing vandalism of this page, which resulted it being locked down for a year. The nomination comes from one particular editor whose history shows he has targeted this particular page to delete large swaths of sourced content. His edit history also shows that he has targeted this page multiple times, contributing nothing but deleting large sections due to personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belladonna2024 (talk • contribs)
The account that keeps sabotaging this page (TrashPandaMan) and deleting huge segments without adding anything to it, is now aggressively vandalizing the page and repeatedly nominating it for deletion. His history of edits shows he has targeted two specific pages, this one and another page, and repeatedly vandalizing and nominating them for deletion, citing only his personal opinion that it should be deleted. Belladonna2024 (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no sabotage. This is a highly problematic article with irrelevant information of questionable notability. The edit history shows a clear record of other users attempting to clean up the writing and eliminate unnecessary and self-promoting information, followed by constant attempts to revert the explained edits. Th subject of this article is clearly watching it very closely, and has been for some time, as can be seen in the controversy over the inclusion of their failed lawsuit. Individuals should not be curating their own Wikipedia pages. TrashPandaMan (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the edit history, it appears clear that TrashPandaMan's account was created with the specific purpose of deleting sourced content of two specific pages, and nominating them for deletion. This user has repeatedly deleted large amounts of information without providing any sources to substantiate his opinion that this is a vanity page. It also appears evident, by the hostility of his comments, combined with deletion of large segments and frequent vandalism of the page, that user TrashPandaMan might be associated with the other parties involved in Hategan's lawsuit.
I am not responsible for creating this page, but I do not believe it is a "vanity" page considering that Hategan has made significant contributions to Canada's anti-racist history and has been directly credited to contributing to the shutting down of the Heritage Front. However, I agree that in light of recurring sabotage and vandalism by people seemingly intent on removing sourced content, that perhaps it would be for the best if the page was deleted altogether. Belladonna2024 (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the above reasons. The arguments for deletion seem to be that she isn't notable, which she clearly is (admittedly not for everything that's currently in the article) and that the article is a "vanity page" (per WP:AFDFORMAT "Accusations of vanity and other motives should be avoided and is not in itself a reason for deletion"). 199.212.64.213 (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Notability is demonstrated by the author having published books, and by his work being cited by others (see the first AfD). Better sources need to be found, no question. John (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can understand why this was submitted for deletion because there were no references on it originally. Unfortunately users over the years have been lazy. I have added some sources, there are also a lot of newspaper articles that mention Steuart Campbell (I have access to Findmypast and Newspapers.com) so I can expand the article with other sources. This for me is a keep. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Out of the 12 citations now in the article, a total of 5 appear to be independent coverage of the subject and his works. Coverage could therefore be better of this science author - but I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt particularly as Psychologist Guy has confirmed further sources which would support WP:BASIC. ResonantDistortion21:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google searches easily turn up hundreds of high-profile mentions. There are articles from Amnesty International, the UN, and various governments, and dozens of major newspapers that all mention him. Easily meets WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV criteria. For sects with that many media mentions, their founders and leaders would usually also be notable enough. There is also plenty of information about Hashem that would fit well into a standalone article. DjembeDrums (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Finding sources was really easy for this person, they have multiple books with multiple reviews, and numerous interviews. I removed a lot of the material that I couldn't find sources for other than her website and CV. Dr vulpes(Talk)03:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After rereading that I wanted to clarify that I'm not being snippy with @4meter4 I'm just so used to having to do deep dives into archives at AfD that this was a welcome change of pace. Dr vulpes(Talk)04:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. The only source she was mentioned was this. Aside that nothing else. The rest are just school profile while some of the source like the 4th one has nothing to show about than a home page of the site. Gabriel(……?)01:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article calls her "a Fellow of the International Federation of Library Association (IFLA)". I cannot verify this and do not know what it means; maybe the IFLA/OCLC Early Career Development Fellowship? Honorary Fellows of IFLA [17] would be notable through WP:PROF#C3 but she is not listed there, so it must mean something different. The early career one would definitely not pass that criterion; it is a different meaning of fellowship. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The biography has a lot of statements with no source to back them up. Which fails to meet WP:PROOF and could end up be a WP:NOR. Just checked the reference on ref 2 and it says 404 page not found. Gabriel(……?)05:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spent a lot of time looking at the IFLA fellows/honor programs: spoiler, could not find her on any list of winners, so cannot verify most significant claim (may be a confusion of member w/ fellow). There are honorary fellows in the society, which I would call a WP:PROF#C3 pass, but she is not on that list. (We're not going to solve today a perennial discussion about whether librarians can qualify via WP:PROF; I think yes, but it doesn't matter here because she doesn't have that award). I think the IFLA Medal would also be a C3 pass. The Scroll of Appreciation and Early Career Fellowships should count towards notability, but are not C3-type/level awards themselves. But none of them can be verifiably applied to Dr. Obi. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)23:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. It was moved from draft space to article space before it was reviewed and made live by the creator of the page
2. It was moved to draft space by other editors due to promotional tone, it seemed as it was written by someone closely connected to the subject
3. It was proposed for deletion and the final decision was to keep. However, the keep voters: 1 was a new account created just for this debate only (seems like it and it was an open IP, one was an editor banned for sock-puppetry)
4. There is someone constantly removing a section that is a bit negative about the subject
All this makes me believe that this page is being managed by someone closely connected to the subject. Additionally, i don't believe the subject is notable and most of the references are PRs and he is constantly self-promoting on the internet.
WikiProCreate (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a celebrity plastic surgeon [18], [19], [20]. I'm not sure any of these show notability. Discussion in AfD last time was also questioning the Academic notability, noting that 1000 citations was rather low for his field. I don't see that much has changed since the last AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He's been investigated by a few regulatory bodies [21], which doesn't affect notability. This information has been added/removed, suggesting this page is being actively curated by editors, likely for promo purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a cookbook author and filmmaker, not reliably sourced as having a strong claim to passing notability criteria for either occupation. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in media independent of themselves -- but the only notability claim on offer here is that her work exists, and the article is referenced to one (deadlinked but recoverable) short blurb that isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's all she's got for GNG-worthy coverage, and one primary source that isn't support for notability at all. The article, further, has been tagged for needing more sources since 2011 without ever having better sources added, and a WP:BEFORE search came up dry as all I found in ProQuest was the blurb and a small handful of glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of events. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, reviews exist for Lickin' the Beaters 2 from Library Journal[22] and Vegetarian Journal[23], and there are two shorter reviews for the two Lickin' the Beaters cookbooks from Broken Pencil magazine [24][25]. Broken Pencil also has a good number of reviews on her zines, e.g., one for The Day I Stopped Being Punk[26]. There's also an interview with her in Joe Biel's Beyond the Music: How Punks are Saving the World with DIY Ethics, Skills, & Values (Microcosm Publishing) on pages 150–152. With more research, I think we could probably find more reviews of her works that would warrant inclusion of this article (per WP:NAUTHOR). Best, Bridget(talk)15:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Sources provided are mainly primary, and the ones that aren't are (1) an obituary, (2) Find a Grave, (3) an article about an exhibition of his letters to a pen pal, (4) a couple of notices about a tribute by one of his students. None of the sources are about him in any significant way. ...discospinstertalk01:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I should've submitted for review. There are three newspaper articles concerning his work or renditions of it, two concerning performances of his poems by Northwestern, and another about an exhibit of his work after his death. Though I can easily link others. He seems to be congruent with a notable academic or creative figure. Hypnosef (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully disagree that none of the sources pertain to him in any significant way.
Source #5 fourteeneastmag.com details "the touring exhibition Poet to Poet: Living Letters, a 13-year correspondence between poet Abe Louise Young and poet Alan Shefsky. Their friendship was preserved in loose leaf papers of written word before Shefsky died from a brain tumor." The source explicitly pertains to his being a poet and his dying of a brain tumor. 2. #6 chicago tribune, details the two's friendship, their long correspondence, and his death from cancer. 3. prizer arts and letters, states that this touring exhibition travelled to Austin, Texas. 4. Sources 8&9 are his poems published in a well-known literary journal. The find a grave and obit were simply to establish birth and death years as they were less readily available than other information. I have also added ten different publications that thank Shefsky by name, though many more exist. These should be sufficient to establish his lasting impact in the academic community. He was a very well-known figure at Northwestern for years.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors here and a source review would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously-unreferenced article about a Romanian actor, journalist, writer and university lecturer. I have added three references, but all are mentions of his name only. According to the article in the Romanian Wikipedia (also unreferenced), he has written 29 articles, but I can't find reviews of them. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NJOURNALIST, etc. Tacyarg (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. None of the links in the article help establish notability. toweli (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a subjective opinion coming from a lack of awareness of Canada's television entertainment scene. Sebastian Cluer is one of the most well known and in-demand directors in his country, having directed, produced and developed many notable shows that have had massive success both in his home country and abroad. Lots of them are on airlines, including Still Standing, Bollywed, Property Brothers...and the list goes on. These along with receiving many nominations and wins, particularly with The Canadian Screen Awards, which are the country's equivalent to the Oscars and Golden Globes combined.
Sebastian was also instrumental in the success of the hugely popular and successful show Kenny vs. Spenny and has been appearing in commentaries alongside Kenny Hotz as of late.
Keep. Article does need improvement, but there are far too many Gemini Award and Canadian Screen Award nominations and victories listed here to deem him "non-notable" at all. That's top-level national awards, equivalent to Emmys and Oscars, which is a notability lock even if the sourcing still needs improvement, and the sourcing for that kind of stuff most certainly can be improved. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Is notable" and "delete" cannot coexist. Gemini Awards and Canadian Screen Awards are an inherent notability lock, meaning that every person with those awards on their mantle must be allowed to have a Wikipedia article. I'll grant that not everybody named in our Genie, Gemini and CSA articles already has an article yet, but everybody named in any of them must be allowed to have an article as soon as somebody gets around to it, and there can be no exceptions to that: it's a top-level national award that nails inherent notability to the wall right on its face per WP:ANYBIO's "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times", which means it's inherently notable enough that it locks notability down even if the sourcing is inadequate. The only legitimate grounds for deleting a Gemini/Genie/CSA winner would be if sourceability were completely nonexistent (e.g. a person whose article falsely claimed a nomination or win that they didn't really have). Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nominations suggest notability, but there just isn't enough coverage about him. I had to dig to even bring this up [27]. An interview that doesn't quite help notability. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When an author only has one book, and all the coverage is about the book and not biographical coverage of the author, it's the book that's notable, not the author. If you want to argue that she's a notable author for having written the "significant or well-known work", Sins of the Shovel... well, I can't stop you, but I don't think that's a good argument. -- asilvering (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I don't object to his outcome; I think the content would be basically the same. My preference is still for keeping this title, though, since it doesn't really matter either way and a) that it is what the original author of this article chose and b) it's quite likely the subject will write more books. – Joe (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the book is notable (amply demonstrated by the sources cited in the article), then so is the author per WP:NAUTHOR#3. Whether we cover them separately, together under the author's name, or together under the book's title is inconsequential. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not consensus. The author must be standalone notable as well. I've never seen that statement at Afd in more than 10 years. They are many many famous books where the author is virtually unknown, even in the modern period. They don't like the limelight, don't give interviews or readings or go to conferences or conventions. They are unknown and by any defintion they would fail WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk10:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAUTHOR has wide consensus and has been stable for years. It reads:
This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if [... t]he person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series).
The subject of this article has written a significant work, Sins of the Shovel: Looting, Murder, and the Evolution of American Archaeology, which has been the subject of at least six independent reviews in periodicals (cited in the article). Hence, they meet WP:NAUTHOR.
I alluded to the logic behind this above: if we can write an article on a book, we can write an article on its author – even if the content is just John Smith is the author of Notable Book, a [remainder based on significant coverage of the book]. Whether to call this article "John Smith" or "Notable Book" barely affects the content and is a question of article titling and framing rather than notability or deletion. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what it reads and what it means. I've done 100's of book and author Afd's, over the years. I'm acutely aware of the policy. They are one of the most common article types that gets sent to Afd. The author must be notable on their own to have the article. Notability is not inherited. That is long-establised consensus. I could point to 1000's Afd's where the statement has been made, following established policy. The book is certainly notable, but the author isn't yet. You just have to look at how the industry is structured. If you followed They must be standalone notable. List of books review. By your logic every self-published author would have have an article on here. scope_creepTalk11:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep, I think you're right about the outcome of AfDs, but I don't think that's an accurate conclusion about Joe's logic. Those self-published authors rarely get book reviews in reliable sources that would count for notability. Frankly, I think Joe's logic is perfectly correct (what does it matter if the article on a book is at the author's name or the book's title?), but it would be a really eccentric outcome for an AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite a common outcome for academics, at least. A common objection to WP:NPROF is that it lets us have articles on people for whom there could be little or no biographical sources available. Which is true, but following the logic above it just means that the notable entity is John Smith's work not John Smith. But actually calling the article that would be dumb, so we don't do it. – Joe (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Odd that this long-established consensus followed in hundred of AfDs isn't written down anywhere, then, and that the notability guideline for authors explicitly contradicts it. – Joe (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a handful of AfDs (or even one, honestly) for authors that have been kept on the grounds that an author has a single book with multiple reviews, I'd be very interested to see them. -- (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
asilvering, no specific AFD comes to mind right now but after closing hundreds (thousands?) of these discussions over the past 4 1/2 years, I'm sure that this has happened. There are authors, like Harper Lee, who, throughout most of her life, was notable for writing only onw book but it was a highly notable one. Also, many AFDs are sparsely attended and if there is a strong consensus that the book is notable and the reviews are prestigious, then it's likely that the article will be Kept. LizRead!Talk!19:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Harper Lee is a good index case. I've used that exact example before when explaining to AfC submitters what kind of coverage one might need to be notable on a single book. (Though, obviously, she's rather extremely notable, so it's not exactly fair. Someone half as famous as Harper Lee is still going to pass any kind of AfD with flying colours.) This is an early career archaeologist with a well-reviewed book. They're very much not in the same league. -- asilvering (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E are the relevant standards. For example, Harper Lee has been covered enough to not be a low-profile individual, and her relationship with the book is well-documented and substantial, even though she was for a long time covered only in the context of the one book. Also, the To Kill A Mockingbird is such a significant book that it is worthwhile covering both author and book. None of the reasons to cover Harper Lee apply here, at least so far as I can see. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the point of disagreement comes down to the interpretation of significant or well-known work in WP:NAUTHOR. Some seem to (reasonably) interpret that as meaning a work of literary significance, as with Harper Lee. For me, it is closer to the "significant" of WP:SIGCOV – just something that has been the subject of detailed coverage in independent reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to watch that delsort list pretty closely (as does David Eppstein, who below calls the redirect to book "our standard outcome") and I can't recall any, which is why I'm asking. -- asilvering (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the book, our standard outcome for authors of only one book but one that is arguably notable. And while we're at it refocus the article on the book to say something about the book based on its published reviews instead of merely being a rehash of the author's back cover blurb, sourced only to that blurb. As for the argument above over whether authoring one book should be enough for the author to also be notable: see WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the suggestion that a book is notable but not the author bizarre outside of the exceptional cases that scope creep describes (e.g., ghostwriting cases), but I can't see that here; Morgan is happy to appear on scholarly podcasts, blog about careers, write for popular magazines, etc. She's also listed in various places for her contribution to particular digs etc., so she's hardly unknown. And remember that this is a particularly widely reviewed book. Not many academics or first-time authors can boast a lengthy review in the New York Times. WP:AUTHOR does not say (as pointed out) that multiple books are required, and WP:1E doesn't apply, as no one is claiming that Morgan is notable for her role in some event (e.g., for an archeologist, a particular discovery); the claim is that she's notable for her creative output. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per the above discussion of the 'unorthodox' creation of the book article, we literally cannot delete this article. If the consensus is to go with the (bizarre, in my view) 'book not author' approach, a history merge would be necessary. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the book. Notability is not WP:INHERITED. A book can be notable but that does not, in fact, imply its author is notabble for a page. For that we would need multiple reliable independent secondary sources, with significant coverage in each, of the author. That has not been shown to exist and I don't see it in searches, so redirect will serve the reader best. Searching on the author will then take the reader to their notable work, which includes some author biography. (Not much at present). Note that a redirect preserves page history, which should allay Josh Milburn's concerns above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keeping the article or Redirecting this page title to the article on their book. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sins of the Shovel, with nothing preventing a future WP:SPINOUT. I find myself in this column because this stub article—as it stands now—reads like a résumé. I could find nary a personal detail in the sources, which without exception pertain to the book and not the author. What is lacking here today is inherent notability of the author apart from the book. In the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Anson (closed as keep), if not for the subject having died and obituaries written about him, the article otherwise had the same rationale as here for redirection (I'm not even sure that "... played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work ..." applies to Anson the author specifically, or to others who were more directly involved in the backstory of The Amityville Horror, such as George Lutz (redirect) or William Weber ... but I digress). StonyBrookbabble17:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite being a prolific writer of op-eds and magazine articles, Fontaine is not himself the subject of any WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. (The closest example is a press release-based WP:ROUTINEarticle about his appointment as president of CNAS.) As a result, there's no pass of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. No other SNGs appear to apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable academic whose credentials do not verify, and for whom most of the claims in the text are uncited. Even if there were sources he would not pass notability. Somehow the original nomination has got mangled so I am doing a second nomination. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely shocking that some ignorant (and perhaps ill intentioned) person is trying to delete the article about Canada's foremost expert on nuclear energy issues - who has worked for over 50 years to raise awareness of the risks of nuclear energy and nuclear waste. He is the most recognized activist on these issues in Canada and is in demand around the world as a speaker by groups fighting nuclear pollution. I'd be happy to provide many sources, but I'm completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing and would prefer to provide sources/background to an administrator. When the commenter above says "most of the claims in the text are uncited," he seems to be holding this article to a higher standard that hundreds of articles I've encountered (as a Wikipedia reader). When he says, "Even if there were sources he would not pass notability," he is revealing his profound ignorance about Dr. Edwards, his world-wide reputation and his life's work. What concerns me even more, though, is that there could be malicious intent here, trying to suppress the profile of a noted activist on a controversial topic. PLEASE - administrators, immediately look into what is going on here and put a stop to it if it is indeed malicious. Hundreds of Canadian activists are watching this closely and frankly, Wikipedia's credibility is on the line. PaceVerde (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This topic should definitely not be deleted. Dr. Edwards is an expert in nuclear energy issues and has a worldwide reputation. He is an excellent speaker, is extremely knowledgeable and is in demand around the world for his expertise. He is a prominent Canadian who should be represented in Wikipedia. I agree with the previous post, that Wikipedia should be sure that there isn't a nefarious person trying to shut down the discussion about nuclear energy. 45.78.126.149 (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)— 45.78.126.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Content copied over from earlier nomination: 'Hello, I am concerned about the designation of Gordon Edwards' article as an article for "deletion". I viewed of list of multiple recent edits to his article, which appear to be done by a possible 'bot'. Would an administrator please check whether this is the case or not? Many thanks, Nancy Covington MD' 08:09, September 2, 2024— Preceding unsigned comment added by Covingni (talk • contribs) 13:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC) — Covingni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (this remark was copied here by User:Ldm1954, not Covingni. LizRead!Talk!23:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Content copied from talk page of earlier nomination: "I have followed Dr. Edwards for years and find his information on nuclear to be very helpful. The article on Dr. Edwards is factual. This article should remain on Wikipedia. It is concerning that someone, who appears to be pro-nuclear, has asked for the article on Dr. Edwards to be deleted, as it is perhaps bothersome to them in all its accuracy? Wanda Laurin (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)" — Wanda Laurin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment For the closer: This "2nd nomination" was created because User:@Daffydavid: tagged the article for deletion, but (presumably) mistakenly started the discussion at the article's talk page. User:@Covingni:'s keep !vote (which was copied here already by Ldm1954) was the first edit to the "1st nomination" page. which is why there is a "2nd nomination." Daffydavid's rationale for placing the deletion tag was as follows: The only reference attached that appears to be valid indicates the person to be unqualified. Daffydavid (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC) and I would interpret this as a delete !vote for the purposes of this "2nd" nomination. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)01:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is better, but there are still serious issues which it appears led to the original AfD by @Daffydavid. For instance, source [1] is used to verify that he is both President & co-founder of CCNR, but in fact it only states that he is President. While your sourcing is better, there are still too many unsourced claims and it remains very weak on SIGCOV. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To me it does not matter if someone is pro- or anti- nuclear, QANON or a judge. The bar is the same and is in WP:N. That several WP:Single-purpose accounts make rude comments about Daffydavid or me is not going to change anything. As always, this is a discussion and proof of notability by reputable secondary sources is unconditionally required. This is of course at a higher level for living people. Just having a few mentions is not now and never has been enough. Maybe you can find enough, to date this page fails WP:PROVEIT by a long, long way.Ldm1954 (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to ask that of @Daffydavid since he made the nomination, albeit with a technical glitch as @GhostOfDanGurney indicates above (a best guess) -- but I do support the nomination. @Daffydavid clearly tried to improve it then gave up, I see no indication of ill-will on his part. I of course did the routine Google check, not finding enough for Wikipedia:Notability of a BLP. You can find the SIGCOV to prove me wrong, I never claim to be infallible. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Strange...in Wikipedia:Notability I find a whole subsection entitled: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." It points out that: "before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any." For this subject, there are ample sources that come up on a simple Google search including articles, quotes in mainstream media, guest appearances on major Canadian television and radio networks, etc. I am working on identifying the best ones to add and will do so as soon as possible. Please note Dr. Edwards is not a university professor and doesn't claim to be. He is an independent expert. PaceVerde (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC) — PaceVerde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
PaceVerde - what you posted is accurate, but a few of us have already searched for Reliable Sources and come up a bit short. You're welcome to perform your own search and add sources to the article or to this discussion, but without satisfying minimal requirements the article will likely be deleted. You're invited to collaborate and improve the article to establish his notability according to our WP:BIO guidelines.Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uses quotes from the subject, but the story is not at all about the subject, but rather the Canadian government potentially choosing a site on Lake Huron to store nuclear waste
Simply lists the subject's name as a faculty member.
✘No
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}}.
As this shows, the subject does not come close to meeting GNG. Using google, I found a couple of directories of articles he has written for The Hill Times and National Observer, as well as more articles similar to the one by Detroit Free Press in which he is quoted in his role as a scientist who advocates against nuclear power, but like Detroit Free Press, is not about the subject. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC) - !vote struck ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)04:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteself-struck. See new !vote below - as a mathematician, does not meet WP:PROF. As an anti-nuclear campaigner, I thought he might meet WP:GNG, but like David Eppstein, I am coming up short of any independent coverage that covers him. Not sure if there is off wiki canvassing here for keep voters, but ultimately it is the sources that matter, and we don't have anything that meets GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 7:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep - You are perhaps not very familiar with the Canadian media? Dr. Edwards is a Canadian and is known across the country as an independent expert on the nuclear industry. That is why his opinion pieces are published in prominent national publications like The Hill Times and the National Observer. That is why he was featured as one of the main guests/experts on not one, but two episodes of the national award-winning TV program The Nature of Things, hosted on our national Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) network by Dr. David Suzuki (perhaps you've heard of him?). One is The Friendly Atom, 1998 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpVgYrfSIAM, the other My Nuclear Neighbour, 2010 (looking for online link). On APTN News (Aboriginal Peoples television network) in 2019, a journalist introduced him as "probably the nuclear industry's most prominent critic in Canada" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW1CpAOr9HI (10min45). I do thank you for flagging the fact that his bio does not do justice to him. I am working to update and fill it out and will post new content and sources in the coming week or two. His short bio is also on the site of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Does that qualify as a source 'about' him? https://thebulletin.org/biography/gordon-edwards/ He has also provided invited testimony to legislative committees and expert sworn testimony (e.g. to the US Atomic Safety & Licensing Board, although mostly in Canada) about two dozen times. These date back to the 1970s and 1980s so the earlier examples do not have online sources (as far as I know). I believe I can footnote them without an online link, according to wikipedia guidelines? talk — Preceding undated by PaceVerde added 19:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC) Repeat vote.— PaceVerde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (you can only cast one "vote", I'm striking this duplicate vote. LizRead!Talk!03:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Here you will find listed and hyperlinked 29 interviews with Gordon Edwards as an expert commentator on the subject of the Fukushima accident. https://www.ccnr.org/index_fuk.html That's just on one topic. You may not be familiar with Canadian media, but these interviews are on Canada-AM, CTV and CBC News - it doesn't get any higher profile than that in Canadian national news coverage.
On this page https://www.ccnr.org/index_A-V.html you will find well over 100 links to video and audio files including Gordon Edwards' in-person presentations as a guest speaker, media interviews - again, in Canada's top national media, webinars, and a presentation at the United Nations (side event to the 17th Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKmZmIF6ms - where Dr. Edwards was one of two invited non-Indigenous speakers on a panel with 5 First Nations Chiefs and Grand Chiefs.
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's very helpful. So it sounds like someone being repeatedly interviewed in major media for their expertise/commentary would be significant evidence of their notability. PaceVerde (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not independent. It is the subject talking, and talking about himself is a primary source too. But the reason for the interview might be indicative of notability. If he approaches an organisation and offers talking points, maybe not - because that is again not independent - but if a major news network approaches him for comment, then the question is: why did they approach him? In particular, if he has been written about as an expert, they might approach him for that reason. But then, the source we need that demonstrates notability is the independent person who has written about him and his expertise. It was this kind of source I could not find. But if there are such sources, then I would change my view. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that last statement makes little sense - if the person was approached repeatedly by the media for comment, then clearly the media had a reason to do so, especially on national television (they don't just pick names from a hat). The existence of the hundred plus media interviews and documentaries with the person is in itself proof of notability. PaceVerde (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what I was saying is that often, as you say, someone is picked for interview based on established expertise. But not always, in fact. But assuming he was picked for his expertise, what we need to see here is the basis for that establishment of expertise. Why did they think he was an expert? What has been written about him? Where is he discussed? When they picked him as an expert, what was their basis for thinking he was an expert? That is what we need to see. Do you have those sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (note: searching works better on "gordon edwards nuclear" - that eliminates others with the same name. "Scientist" doesn't narrow it down to him.) He doesn't meet NPROF; there are few articles in G-Scholar and they are hardly cited. I don't think we can consider him as an author - he wrote some (many?) opinion pieces but I don't see proof that he became a kind of "opinion celebrity". The most that I can find is the student newspaper The Gateway, which has a handful of paragraphs about a talk that he gave. That doesn't really count as being "about" him. I can change my mind if some folks find other sources. Lamona (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the sources I cited above? (In my reply to Ghost of Dan Gurney.) The 29 interviews on national television about the Fukushima accident alone? And over 100 video and audio files of media interviews, public speaking engagements, press conferences, panel discussions and webinars in which he is a featured speaker and commentator? Please look at those, I have provided the web pages above where you will find all these links. Clearly he is a 'go-to' commentator on nuclear energy, or as you put it, an "opinion celebrity". PaceVerde (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an additional source 'about' Dr. Edwards: https://raven-research.org/dr-gordon-edwards-in-nb-to-talk-about-nuclear-energy/ This is on the website of a university-based research project, based at the University of New Brunswick and St. Thomas University in Fredericton, New Brunswick. The project was funded for 5 years by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), a research granting agency of Canada's federal government. PaceVerde (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - I note that the week is up today and this is due for closing. I have voted delete and remain unconvinced sources will be found, but I note the active attempts by new user PaceVerde to understand Wikipedia notability and to demonstrate notability. As the learning curve is steep, perhaps we can give this another week to see if they are able to find any suitable secondary sources. They are clearly familiar with the subject, and if anyone can find what is needed, it will be them, but they will need to understand what is required first. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, much appreciated. Yes, additional time is needed to confirm sources, understand the policies and make the changes. I also note that there is no consensus in this discussion. I hope there will be when edits have been completed. PaceVerde (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The no consensus close was disruptive editing by an account created today. I have reverted it. We will need an experienced closer for this AfD owing to the high level of disruptive activity. It would be a pity if we had to request page protection for it as it would prevent you from taking part, so I would make a plea to other SPAs to leave this alone and let the process work. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request Can someone more experienced than I evaluate the sources PaceVerde has provided here in their various comments? They seem to be mostly interviews, which I think are probably considered primary. But if that many organizations are interviewing him about Nuclear Energy then it's hard to see how he is non-notable in that field. It's a bit too complex for me. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete with a possible alternative to deletion being redirection to Anti-nuclear movement in Canada. (Note that the organization Edwards heads does not have its own article). I see a start towards GNG (or perhaps WP:NPROF C7), but it surely looks short of WP:SIGCOV. Disclosing that this article came back to my attention (after earlier seeing on delsort) as a result of the disruptive close by SPA. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A comment before this closes -- I am undertaking a source analysis and have also found some promising new sources myself, which I will post in full in the next few hours, if any closers can wait a bit. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've undertaken an expanded source assessment below addressing the newer sources linked in the article and this discussion, as well as some I found myself.
three quotes from Edwards but the sole content about him is "Gordon Edwards, president of the nonprofit Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, based in Montreal"
Primarily interview with Edwards, but does have a few minutes about him as introduction, including recapping the debate with Teller evaluated above (which is framed as a historically notable event)
248 words solely focused on Edwards' upcoming talks and his background, e.g., "The forums are to feature retired mathematics professor and media personality Gordon Edwards, who is currently president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. The 82-year-old Edwards obtained his PhD from Queen's University in the 1970s. He has been speaking about the potential perils of the nuclear industry for several decades."
? I can't access the full article, but by its title appears to be non-sigcov since it's an interview... though my gosh, having a featured interview in a printed scholarly journal is much rarer than getting a soundbite in a news article, and seems like a sign people are taking note of him. Likely also some biographical coverage as introduction here.
? Edwards is quoted for the epigraph of ch 3 on Nuclear Waste, and he and his ideas get about three paragraphs of discussion in that paragraph, plus one more in ch 4 on Nuclear Proliferation. But in the scale of a whole book that's not so much (ie no chapter just on him) and much of the focus is on his ideas rather than background.
? Cites Edwards 14 different times with small bits of discussion. The citations are all about him rather than about nuclear power, but each is just a sentence or two.
? Three sentences in a whole dissertation probably isn't enough for sigcov, but it did seem promising to find it there. The full discussion of Edwards is "The CCNR, the largest
anti-nuclear organization in Canada, was chaired by Dr. Gordon Edwards, who participated as an expert witness and prominent participant in the Royal Commission. Edwards oversaw every
opposition submission to the Royal Commission, which will be discussed below. When cross-examined by AECL lawyers toward the end of the process, Edwards admitted every anti-nuclear submission was neither information nor public information but propaganda 'in the non-pejorative sense.'"
510 words solely focused on profiling him as "a leading anti-nuclear activist in Montreal"
✔Yes
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 am personally persuaded of a keep here. There is a lot of borderline coverage, which starts to add up when it is considered as a body of forty years of expert quotations and mentions; I am particularly tantalized by how many dissertations make nods to him (more than just the ones I evaluate above). But the clincher for me is the 1989 profile of him in the Montreal Gazette as a notable resident; in conjunction with the coverage of some of his lectures and events (such as "Nuclear watchdog's views to be heard at forums"), I see GNG for him as an activist. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this extensive work. Not sure if it would belong in your table, but he is also co-author of the following:
Mathematical Sciences in Canada
Issue 38 of Background study - Science Council of Canada
Issue 37 of Background study, Science Council of Canada
Volume 37 of Science council of Canada : Background study
Authors Klaus P. Beltzner, Gordon D. Edwards, Albert John Coleman
Could be relevant to the comment above suggesting WP:NPROF. It includes his detailed bio (as of 1975). Also if one is considering his notability as an academic (college professor), he earned a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship (1961) - is that considered a "highly prestigious academic award or honor" (national or international)? According to WP:NPROF, that alone qualifies as notable. PaceVerde (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that Edwards is co-author of will be relevant to the deletion discussion, for the same reason that interviews are not relevant: Wikipedia articles are based on what other people say about him. If there are any reviews of his publications, however, those would be relevant. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm honoring an informal request to relist this discussion. Just an aside, positing conspiracy theories or speculating on some "nefarious person" serves to undermine the speaker's position and are, by and large, ignored by experienced editors who would be reviewing this AFD discussion. Focus on Wikipedia's standards of notability and whether reliable sources providing SIGCOV exist, either in the article or brought into this discussion. Right now though, a majority of participants are arguing for Deletion so those editors wanting to Keep this article would be wise to spend their time looking for better sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re your comment that "a majority of participants are arguing for Deletion," I count 8 keeps in this discussion. Three of them are near the top in a reply and two comments copied from an earlier nomination. Those individuals seemed not familiar with the convention of stating "Keep" at the start of one's comment, but they are clearly for keeping. At the moment I see 4 deletes and one weak delete. I am aware this is not a vote as per guidelines. PaceVerde (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I mean, we have confirmation of the Nuclear Responsibility group and he's written articles [28], but nothing about this person. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found several new sources in ProQuest, included in my source table above: I would describe several of them as being about him, especially the profile in the Montreal Gazette. Does your assessment include those? I only ask because I’m concerned I didn’t make my finds clear enough. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm persuaded enough by LEvalyn's expanded SA table to strike my delete !vote, but will stop short of changing my !vote to keep as I cannot verify the sources on ProQuest myself. Am now neutral. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)04:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have struck my delete above having reviewed the source analysis by LEvalyn above. I think it is still marginal, but I think the range of these sources is sufficient to take this over the line. My specific comments are as follows (I am just going to treat the sources as numbered from 1-19 in the table rather than duplicate the table, and I will not mention sources where we both agree they don't add to notability):
Source 2: I agree with you that this looks like it is off a press release so not independent.
Source 6: Edwards came to the student campus and this is the student newspaper report of it. The article is long, but what i actually says about Edwards as background is just “Dr Gordon Edwards, an expert on nuclear energy and the President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility,” which is pretty much off his website. I don’t think this is significant coverage about Edwards
Sources 11&13: Local press, articles as you describe them A lot of people will take these asis. I tend to be a little sceptical, but the range of local press across more than one locality is worth noting.
Source 16: This open access book does not appear to be independent. It says: "Gordon Edwards, quoted at the start of this chapter and whose work substantially informed this chapter, is President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility." (page 23)
Source 17: PhD thesis. I couldn’t find the coverage as I was only getting a preview. This may be a good one. Where it talks about Edwards, is this information from which a page could be written? The thesis does not have to be about him, but to be significant coverage, it must discuss Edwards, so that we have something the article could be written from. This is a definite maybe.
Source 18: MA dissertation. We usually only use PhDs, although, to be honest, I have some issues with that, as our standards are much lower when it comes to other things - but I won’t sidetrack onto that. You already had it as questionable, and it remains so.
Source 19: Agree. This one counts.
So all in all, there is one that I clearly agree on, one source that may also be very good. We need multiple sources to pass GNG, but my feeling is that given one clear one, and the range of the others, I don't think there is a clear case for deleting this article. Note, however, that the title is wrong. He is a mathematician, not a scientist (as per the amusing source among others). He is notable for heading up his campaign, and not for being a scientist. A page move would be in order after the AfD closes to a title that corrects that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in in such detail; you’ve given this AfD a lot of careful and generous attention. I think your enumerated concerns are fair except for the book, which really looks independent to me. Saying that Edward’s’ work substantially informed a chapter strikes me as scholar-speak for “Edwards is influential and I read a lot of his writing” not “I personally know or ever spoke to Edwards”. Edwards is not thanked in the acknowledgments nor is he quoted from anything but public sources so I would be surprised to learn he was involved with the book. (But, the source may still not be solid for GNG since he’s proportionately a small part of the book…)
I agree that “scientist” is wrong. I think “anti-nuclear activist” would be most accurate to how the sources refer to him, even during the period that he was also a math teacher. But I’m neutral on what the new title should be. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not swayed by the sources in the last table above; marginal sources one and all. If we had at least ONE decent story in a RS about this guy I might be ok with a weak keep, I'm just not seeing enough coverage to show notability. Still a !delete from me. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also note in the new SA, the article "Nuclear waste questions continue to multiple" is not a press release, it is a guest column in a newspaper, The Chronicle-Journal (Thunder Bay, Ontario), author identified as a climatologist with Lakehead University who is also vice-president on the board of directors of Environment North, a charitable organization. The fact it is published in a daily newspaper with a significant circulation and owned by a known newspaper publisher makes it independent. That would now make 4 independent, reliable sources about Edwards in the SA. [User:PaceVerde|PaceVerde]] (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, I will be getting to edits and additions of sources soon. There's a lot of work in double-checking and formatting correctly the source information, especially for 1970s to 1990s sources. PaceVerde (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - LEvalyn's work up above is persuasive enough for me, showing four reliable sources which cover him in enough detail. Others considered reliable but not necessarily with significant detail can be used for verification of facts. If kept, I'd recommend a move to note him as an activist, as that seems to be really what he's most known for. - The literary leader of the age✉03:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I created the article because I believe the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR due to the awards. Also worth saying is that the nominator of this discussion only had 11 edits before nominating this article, all of them made on a single day in 2022. Badbluebus (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, please assess new additions to the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's evidently done commendable work, such as the VA program, but I can't find significant coverage of her, or reviews of her books in reliable sources, to meet WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. She's also worked with some notable people, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Filled to the brim with primary sources and not enough independent sources to sustain a biography; the single book review is not enough. Appearing on podcasts is not a criterion for notability. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject appears to be a non-notable individual, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. Most of the sources cited in the article and on the talk page are passing mentions, interviews, primary, routine coverage, or hearsay, none of which provide in-depth coverage. The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, off-wiki evidence suggests potential undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry. GSS💬13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xegma Do you really research on topics or just go on voting 'delete' at AfDs? Did you check the talk page of this article? There are significant coverage in China Daily and The Telegraph and all are present in the talk page. Even nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. Unless it is a UPE issue, there is no reason to delete. It is a Keep. Hitro talk21:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles you are referring to seem to be paid promotional pieces, structured as interviews, which often include sections like "bio" and "CV" at the end of the article—something rarely found in genuine editorial news. It's a common feature of sponsored content. Additionally, the Telegraph article lacks an author byline, which raises questions about whether it was even produced by their editorial team. GSS💬03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The China Daily article, the one I am referring to, was written by Andrew Moody. I hope you are not implying that Andrew Moody, a renowned journalist and recipient of the Friendship Medal (China) from the Chinese government, was just an editor of paid promotional pieces.
The Telegraph article, which is almost 16 years old, appears to be written by Dominic White and must have been published on the old format of the website of The Telegraph which was significantly different from current one. Please check the other articles of same years, you won't find author bylines.
I see that this BLP article was created on Wikipedia in 2008 and being nominated for deletion now due to some recent UPE activities. IMO, it's more appropriate to restore the best version of the article rather than delete it entirely. If you have a case that this has been a UPE product from the start then I'll rest my case. Hitro talk15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HitroMilanese, I respect your expertise, but I must point out that all the articles you've mentioned are essentially interviews, which do not meet the standards of independent sources required by WP:GNG. For instance, the China Daily article explicitly states in the second paragraph, "Steve Tappin says," while the Telegraph article includes phrases like "But Tappin, whom I meet" and "Talking to him, it almost seems..." Similarly, the South China Morning Post piece follows the same pattern. These sources rely heavily on hearsay and fail to meet the criteria for WP:IS.
Regarding the absence of a byline in The Telegraph, I managed to find many articles, both older and from the same time period (even 2008), with proper author attribution, such as this. It's unfair to say the byline is missing simply because it could have been published in an older format of the website, where bylines were not prominently displayed.
Additionally, the article was created by a single-purpose account (SPA) with no contributions outside this topic. Given the subject's history of hiring freelancers to update his article, it is highly likely that the SPA either has a conflict of interest or was hired to create this article. GSS💬06:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I am posting on behalf of Steve Tappin, so I assume my vote would not count, but I just wanted to bring to your attention that Mr. Tappin meets the criteria for WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. As WP:AUTHOR, if there are multiple reviews of his work he would qualify. Below are some links to his book reviews
In addition WP:BASIC states that “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;” Tappin has over 40 articles online as you can also see some posted in the tal page. Also the following article is in depth:
Finally, as per WP:ENT he would qualify because he was the host of BBC TV show CEO GURU for a long time - over two years - and has been on at least 30 episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzsoth (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources presented above? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk!05:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: An assessment of the newly discovered sources would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!04:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the book reviews above and ones I found seem good for him to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Some of the other stuff looks promising but I haven't evaluated that as much. I found some more sources on ProQuest.
@Liz It's from the Evening Standard (admittedly a British tabloid, so take with a grain of salt, but I think it's funny), 24 October 2012:
"STEVE Tappin -- an erstwhile headhunter and one-time author who now styles himself as a "CEO coach", was caught out three years ago by a City blog which wondered if he had sexed up his Wikipedia entry.
The collaboratively-edited online encyclopedia then stated that Tappin was a mentor to some of the top names in British business including Sir Terry Leahy and Andy Haste -- then bosses of Tesco and RSA, respectively -- only for the companies to quickly distance themselves from Tappin's claims. The entry was subsequently toned down." Then it goes on to say something about the book and his Twitter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. They are probably referring to the editor Fuzzsoth who commented here and on the article talk page and on several user talk pages. I see so many articles like this about "consultants", I'm surprised to see the support for this one but the consensus is, what it is. LizRead!Talk!00:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, a lot of content was added to this article after its nomination. Could editors review the additions? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]