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.
Neutral. As the original author of the article I do not accept suggestions that the article is inaccurate. To the best of my knowledge the complainant has not provided any examples of inaccuracies. Further, there are a large number of citations given. The fact that these sources are freely available rather challenges the complainant's request for privacy. I probably prepared the article after seeing a list of the "Top Ten Most Inspiring Portuguese Women",[1] which to me does not suggest a lack of notability, although I would agree that the subject, despite the quality of her work, is not in the first rank of Portuguese artists and her inclusion on Wikipedia cannot be considered essential. Roundtheworld (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Of the fourteen sources currently in the article, which one(s) are not blogs, user-submitted content, sales sites or primary sources? In other words, which are secondary reliable sources that are fully independent from the person? Netherzone (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question 2: OK, I'm confused. The nominator, Roundtheworld, who started this AfD says they are the original author, but are neutral about deletion. However the article history says that the editor, Umdiadepois, nominated the article for deletion according to their user contributions,[8] and they claim to be the the subject of the article, although there is no proof of that. Roundtheworld could you, when you find a moment, please explain what's going on, I'm confused. Thank you, Netherzone (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not start the AFD. I responded to a notification that the page had been started. Umdiadepois had previously made lots of large deletions, which were reverted by others. I am reasonably satisfied that she is the subject of the article. Her first revert stated "Hello, I am the subject of this article. Some of the information is outdated and does not accurately reflect my current trajectory. I would like the article to be simplified, as I prefer to keep my personal and professional information on my official website. I kindly request the removal of excessive details and a more neutral, concise version of the article. Thank you for your time and consideration." Roundtheworld (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining, now I understand. Umdiadepois may well be the subject, however, because this is a BLP, I think there is a procedure that has to occur to prove that they are who they say they are. If I'm not mistaken, they need to file an email ticket with WP:VRT that gets reviewed by a team member and assigned a number. I'm pinging @Star Mississippi for her guidance. (BTW, I have no opinion on Fleming's notability at this time.) Netherzone (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Netherzone for the ping. NZ, @Roundtheworld while that's the best route if Fleming wants to edit the article or under their name, it's not mandatory for us to consider this deletion discussion. They're welcome to open the discussion or weigh in and if they have specific privacy concerns about material, they should reach out to VRT/OTRS. No comment on notability as I haven't had a chance to dive in and it's late here @Justlettersandnumbers @Barkeep49 is there anything we're missing here? StarMississippi03:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upon search, I can't find any reliable, independent sources about the subject. Not to mention, none of the current sources in the article are reliable, which means that we can't presume that the subject is notable. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Peter Noever is an internationally known curator, author, museum professional and designer. What is problematic about the article is the COI editing and large amounts of unsourced content, all of which can be cleaned up. AfD is not clean up. A quick WP:BEFORE search on the WP Library (access required) finds these reviews of his books: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and many others. Reviews of his work as curator: [14], [15], [16], additionally there are these interviews (primary sources, but relevant): [17], [18]. Clearly a notable person who meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Question for nominator @WormEater13: since when has Domus (magazine) a notable art, architecture and design magazine that has been around since 1928 become an "unreliable" source? Netherzone (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I went to the article and attempted to clean it up. I removed tons of unsourced CV items and claims. The exhaustive list of "Publications" is so overwhelming as to be un-encyclopedic in value. The remaining citations are pretty thin. I strongly suspect that the reference to exact birth date was added in the original article by COI editor "Knowledge space". That date was picked up by https://cs.isabart.org/person/15892. I think the remaining unsourced material needs to be sourced or removed. I'll wait a few days to see if the cruft goes, if not I will remove it. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, has zero in-depth sourcing. Could be redirected to Jiangsu Road (Lhasa), another poorly sourced stub by this same editor, which contains almost all the same information. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969TT me13:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jiangsu Road (Lhasa) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After the completion of the road was renamed "Jiangsu Road", and set up a Monument of Jiangsu Road to commemorate the contribution of Jiangsu Province's reconstruction assistance.
The Washington Post oped is about the person and only mentions the statue in the title. The other added sources are also just about the unveiling, still doesn’t pass WP:SUSTAINED. मल्ल (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only 3 sentences are about the statue, the rest are about the man. And one of those sentences are about the people who were at the unveiling, not really about the statue itself, either.
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 was going to make some wise guy comment to Obi2canibe but then realized that you are a longtime and experienced editor. Better late than never I guess, unless your comment was satire. In any case, maybe think about or reconsider your delete vote? Thanks. As for the sourcing concern above, the Smithsonian is an adequate GNG source for establishing notability (besides, this statue is at the entrance of one of the most notable airports in the U.S., and its notability is both sustained and recognized daily by those who view it). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Smithsonian is the absolute worst source of these, just data in an inventory, not analysis or substantial coverage. A statue does not inherit notability from its location – if its location at a notable airport is so significant, it should be covered at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, which does not even mention this. The airport (like others) has a lot of art seen by thousands every day that don't need standalone articles. Reywas92Talk23:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit this one is pretty difficult to search for, but I don't think it's notable; the site for the capitol grounds appear to be the only real coverage of this piece of public art. Belongs on a list of the artist's works and a list of public art installations in the city. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the work is cited as being among the Washington Capitol collection, a prominent sculpture collection in the Northwest U.S. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Give us one fact from those sources that is neither in the Washington State official blurb nor the Crooks book. (Hint: Historians can read newspapers, too.) Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the standard for notability, but the first article says that the model for the statute was created in wood. A fact (among several at least) that's in the article and not in either the official blurb or Crooks. Jahaza (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a way to evaluate the depths of the sources being waved around, which have been merely described as "this" and "a bit weak"; and notability is very much about the depth of sourcing. If you aren't looking for depth, you aren't doing it right. Uncle G (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is one topic, and not just a grouping of topics across two characteristics (mosaics from certain regions / influences, and certain regions in Asia) which have no real common ground. I could find no good sources for this topic as a whole (looking for this gave results about mosaics in Asia Minor, which is not the same of course). Fram (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the article lacks a common bond of mosaics in the different regions, I think some of the content is good. Mosaic is overwhelmingly about Europe (and it should make better use of summary style with its subpages), but the Middle Eastern and Western Asian section is relatively short and there is nothing at all about East or Southeast Asian mosaic art. This is a new article from a new user, so I would recommend they consider merging some information or working on it as a draft. Reywas92Talk15:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced and very detailed, the stand-alone visual arts article presents the topic in an adequate encyclopedic fashion. Not long enough for a split, and no need to think along those lines. The page covers what it intends to cover, per title. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources tie together around their common connections: mosaics and their existence in the continent of Asia. Asians artistic crafting of mosaics make for a well-done informative article. Nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really how it should work though. If there are no sources treating them as one subject, we shouldn't either. It gives the impression that there is some common characteristic setting them apart from mosaics in other continents, as studied or described by reliable sources. Fram (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't found any sources covering Mosaics in Asia as a whole (in a fairly minimal search, I must admit). I agree that sections of this article are worth keeping, perhaps as separate articles or in the Mosaic article. I did note that searching various terms, including "Asian mosaics", brought up several sources about Central Asian mosaics, both ancient and modern, eg 14th and 15th century mosaics in Samarkhand and Bukhara, and 20th century mosaics on pre-fab apartments in Tashkent [19]. This topic does not seem to be covered anywhere, not even in this article on Mosaics in Asia (and their existence brings into question the statement in the Mosaic article that "Mosaics generally went out of fashion in the Islamic world after the 8th century." RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - I understand the rationale for the nom, but I lean towards an "Ignore all rules" K*eep if there is such a thing. (Note this is the first time I've ever suggested IAR.) When I consider if the the encyclopedia is better or worse off with this new article, ripe for improvement, the solid answer is that it is a positive contribution that betters the encyclopedia. I agree that there is some good content here and that the overall subject is relevant to WP's readership. The article is only one week old, and can be improved in terms of sourcing and format. A quick BEFORE finds many articles on JSTOR about mosaics that exist in Asian countries, but I have not had the time to read them all to understand if they discuss the entire Asian continent as a whole. Perhaps this is an emerging field in art history/archaeology. I think the article needs more time for the new editor to develop it, but it is not so "broken" that it needs to be draftified at this time. A simple "under construction" maintenance tag may be the solution. That and encouragement directed to the newbie editor, Jaynentu who created it. Netherzone (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate all the editors for your time and feedbacks. I do find more valuable sources for developing to improve the content. Certainly more time and suggestions would help to organize this work. Jaynentu (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Split into region-specific articles: West Asia, South Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. Perhaps even narrower: Persian mosaics is still a redlink! However, I recognize that this is unlikely to gain consensus at the tail end of an AfD, so in the meantime I guess we can draftify it or keep it. I don't think the topic is notable, which makes the article basically SYNTH, but the content is not bad and should be kept somewhere while it's being split. Jaynentu, thank you for writing this – I encourage you to write the narrower region-specific mosaic articles as well! Toadspike[Talk]09:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics
The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Related Projects
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts
Subject does not seem to meet any of the qualifications in WP:ACADEMIC. Perhaps meets WP:BASIC but I don't think so; he has been interviewed as an expert on G.K. Chesterton, but that's not really significant coverage on Ahlquist himself.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
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.
The late Harald Malmgren has catapulted to awareness in the wild corners of the internet populated by UFO enthusiasts due to his whacky claims about marauding space aliens. He was a minor staffer in the JFK administration and later worked as a financial advisor, though UFO enthusiasts on social media have recently reimagined him as the man who saved the world from nuclear apocalypse during the Cuban Missile Crisis (e.g. [21]) (based, apparently, on Malmgren's claims of having beaten Curtis LeMay in a staring contest).
His elegantly WP:REFBOMBed BLP consists of 24 sources, each of which is either non-RS or non-WP:SIGCOV. Large segments -- containing illustrious assertions about his educational pedigree and globetrotting accomplishments -- are totally unreferenced.
A standard WP:BEFORE finds many bylined articles by the man and mentions in non-RS media like sldinfo.com, The Daily Mail, and NewsNation (which we are proscribed from using as a source for any coverage touching the topic of UFOs under our WP:UFONATION consensus). Note that the obit that is, as of this timestamp, reference 1, appears to be a paid or reader-submitted obit. Chetsford (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC); edited 07:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. While I'm not sure a three-quarters page review in Agricultural History counts as "significant critical attention" under the WP:AUTHOR criterion, it's helpful to have the additional context for !voters in either direction. Chetsford (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree it's definitely not enough by itself, but took me a while to find so I thought I'd link here in case anyone else finds more. Eddie891TalkWork08:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete While I agree with the assessment that the page may be refbombed with non-rs or WP:SIGCOV qualifying links, I do worry that the nominator appears to have an agenda against the BLP subject based off of their analysis using colorful language such as "wild corners of the internet populated by UFO enthusiasts due to his whacky claims about marauding space aliens." Would caution the reliability of any unsubstantiated claims by the nominator.
This deletion nomination appears to be a blatant attempt to erase a distinguished public servant's documented career immediately following his UFO-related statements, this is a troubling pattern of historical revisionism that should have no place on Wikipedia. The nominator dismissively mischaracterizes Malmgren as a "minor staffer" despite his serving four presidents, heading Pentagon economics groups, and holding Senate-confirmed ambassador positions. The deletion rationale ignores overwhelming evidence of notability: his papers republished in landmark economic collections, his work cited by the Supreme Court, his joint chairmanship with former Secretary of State Eagleburger, and his advisory roles to multiple heads of state. Most concerning is the invocation of special "UFONATION" rules when standard notability criteria are unquestionably met. This nomination reveals a clear bias against individuals who speak on certain topics regardless of their documented historical significance. Wikipedia should not be a platform for selectively erasing inconvenient historical figures.
Not only that. The blatant disregard of impartiality displayed by the nominator by a prejudging, defaming statement like "due to his whacky claims about marauding space aliens" is IMO not appropriate for a wikipedia editor and part of the problem why wikipedia faces so much criticism.
And as others have mentioned, it seems everything else than coincidental that this page of H.M. gets nominated for deletion together with the page of his daughter within 24h of a documentation where discusses the controversial topic of UFO's/UAP's.
The topic of UAP or any other controversial topic can't and must not be a reason for disregarding his accomplishments in the past. I agree that this page needs improvement with better sources, but this is no reason for deletion. KEEP. 2001:9E8:4DE7:9C00:C4AC:E82D:22E2:DE7D (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources about this individual that do meet the guidelines. If they are not currently present, then they need to be added. However, that is not the specified reason for nomination of deletion and therefore should not be considered in the voting process. It can be argued that everyone has "whacky" views by someone else out there and if that was the criteria then nobody would have a Wiki page. Instead of deletion, there should be a annotation/citation speaking to his views to give context to who Mr. Malmgren was. Deletion of this page based on comments this individual made on a podcast does not at all land within the spirit of the Wikipedia project. HumbleWikiMan (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voters should be aware that you are potentially a member of the so-called "Guerilla Skeptics", a group dedicated to editing and deleting the pages of figures who make UFO-related statements. Harald Malmgren's credentials and significant political contributions have been attested by and in a multitude of credible sources in several government websites, which clearly show him to be more than a "minor staffer" or a "financial advisor":
archives.gov (AAD) – 1974 State-Dept cable logs his official visit to Canberra (“VISIT OF AMBASSADOR HARALD MALMGREN”), confirming his ambassadorial status in overseas trade diplomacy.
congress.gov (official legislative portal) records his presidential nomination and Senate confirmation as Deputy Special Representative for Trade Negotiations (ambassadorial rank) in April–May 1972.
federalreserve.gov – a 2008 oral-history interview with Kenneth Guenther recounts Malmgren’s stint as acting Deputy USTR, his attempted elevation, and eventual departure—useful color on his career trajectory.
history.state.gov holds several Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) volumes that log Malmgren’s negotiations as follows:
1968 poultry-trade (“Chicken War”) talks, naming him on the STR delegation.
1974 Council on International Economic Policy review of grain-reserve policy, listing him as Deputy STR and senior adviser.
cia.gov declassified distribution list (1970s) shows “Ambassador Harald Malmgren, Deputy Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, 1800 G Street NW,” confirming both his diplomatic rank and office.
List of some of his books and articles includes but is not limited to the following (in no particular order):
1. International Economic Peacekeeping in Phase II (New York: Quadrangle Books for the Atlantic Council, 276 pp.), 1973
2. Trade Wars or Trade Negotiations? Nontariff Barriers and Economic Peacekeeping (Washington DC: Atlantic Council, 101 pp.), 1970
3. Pacific Basin Development: The American Interests (Lexington MA: Lexington Books for the ODC, 148 pp.), 1972
4. “Trade Policy and Trade Negotiations in the 1980s,” in The U.S. and the World Economy (Quadrangular Forum series), 1981
5. International Order for Public Subsidies (London: Trade Policy Research Centre, Thames Essays No. 11, 74 pp.), 1977
6. “Perestroika: The Metamorphosis of the Soviet Economy”, The World Economy (book-review essay), 1989
7. “Canada, the United States and the World Economy” (with Marie-Josée Drouin), 1981
Both current nominations for deletion have come within the past 24 hours, conspicuously immediately after the release of Harald's appearance on the American Alchemy podcast, where he discussed unconventional topics. Is the push to delete his wiki page because of this interview? 2603:7080:B700:7D63:BA48:84A3:1A35:68D8 (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Financial support has absolutely something to do with this deletion request. As long as you allow a small, unscientific, dogmatic group of people to run amok on a project that is by and large supported by public donations, the financial support of said project should be called in question. 2A00:1E:8A02:D01:57E5:A688:970E:BDCA (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The same user nominated to have Dr. Pippa Malmgren's Wikipedia page deleted also. We can call a spade a spade, less than 24 hours after Harald Malmgren's final interview airs this user nominates both pages to be deleted, its expressing clear bias against the Malmgrens and a shameless attempt at censorship and to belittle their characters. CrunchyDolphin (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in addition to the reviews of his works that I linked above, it looks like there is substantial coverage of his diplomatic work (see, for instance [29], paragraph here) and this article about his scholarship. I think there's enough to establish GNG/NSCHOLAR between all this. Eddie891TalkWork12:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion seems somewhat Draconian and smacks of censorship - fuck sakes, Newton believed in the occult, I don't see anyone calling for Isaac Newton's page to be deleted on the grounds he believed in a bunch of dodgy shit as well as figured out gravity - but I do agree, keeping it factual, tied to verified published articles, not YouTube and X sources, definitely not a bad idea and somewhat overdue.
Online UFO circles have reinvented this man based wholly on his later "disclosures" concerning UFOs and that does need to be addressed.
Already these people are threatening to hold Wikipedia editors to account for crimes against humanity - here - really the matter should be referred straight to Redit where these kinds of comments are currently hosted - whole thread link here.
Definitely do agree, the whole thing needs sorting, if starting over from fresh is the easier option - do it but only on the basis its replaced. The UFO mob are going to edit it, we just have to flag it and stay on top of any re-edits.
Weird how people apparently so keen on the truth don't like anything that contradicts what they want to here but - hey ho, off to the salt mines we go.
Also can we have a block and removal of baseless accusations of anyone supporting this deletion proposition as being members of Gorilla Sceptics or whatever boogeyman this week: any accusations along these kinds of line by editors, prove it or get off the pot.
This is an incendiary subject at the best of times, please - let's not add to that by making triggering accusations of guilt by association simply through editors doing their jobs and sticking to policy.
By rights this article should be scrapped, it's riddled with inaccuracies and blatant miss truth - a do-over is a sane compromise, someone will re-start an article whether we agree on this or not: lets head that off at the pass and stick and do a factual job.
That is a totally fair point, and I apologise for the "baseless accusations" I have no proof its Guerilla Skeptics.
Apologies for getting heated about the topic. I got heated due to the nomination for the deletion of this article along with Malmgrens daughter's article less than 24 hours after a 4 hour video comes out of a mans claims on his deathbed. I find that extremely disrespectful and it does seem an agenda is being pushed to say the least. OliverWX (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, Oliver - we just have to watch what we say, r/UFOs are tracking this discussion, so the minute one uses the name of that group - that's it, it's a fact as far as that sub is concerned - proponents for deletion - even editing - are just up to no good and enemies of democracy or, whatever other bug they woke up with firmly up their backsides with today.
Today that means its it's us they're gunning for, and - as I relay - they are talking holding us to account, whatever that entails, and that's all the veiled threat we need to get something done about them.
I suggest we collectively report their behaviour to the Reddit platform, screen grab the whole debacle - it's only going to get worse if we don't nip this thing in the bud, now.
The article, it just needs doing over and clearing out the weeds. We should really just have done that rather than call for a deletion, it's just attracting fire whereas straight editing to guidelines and non of the UFO lot would have noticed anything.
Kindly showcase the forensic evidence you have obtained against users of Reddit, and the "Reddit rule" that has been broken. It appears you don't like what many Wikipedia users have to say, therefore you are fighting against it based on your emotion. That is not how online encyclopaedias purport to operate, particularly this one. KushKushyKushier (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to strongly disagree with your characterization of the Reddit discussion, which I initiated and originally posted myself.
The issue is not about UFO beliefs but about the preservation of historical record for a notable public servant with a distinguished career. Your suggestion that we should "collectively report" Reddit users for discussing a public Wikipedia deletion process is deeply concerning and runs counter to Wikipedia's principles.
The timing of this deletion nomination that immediately follows Malmgren's posthumous interview—clearly suggests motivation beyond mere content guidelines. If editorial improvements were needed, standard wiki processes like [citation needed] tags would be appropriate, not complete deletion of a significant historical figure's documented career. OliverWX (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The book reviews above are fine for AUTHOR. Rest is discussions of a political career. The UFO stuff is interesting I suppose, neither here nor there. Oaktree b (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The timing is obviously linked to the release of a controversial interview. That shouldn't be a reason to erase an article that has existed since 2015. GalacticGardener (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That the editor/reviewer talks about "catapulting" to awareness due to his recent discussions on UAP reveals the editor's bias. They rushed to delete, as well as his daughter. Unacceptable. The editor/reviewer should be banned from any further editing given this is now considered a scholarly field of inquiry. TruthBeGood (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am not seeing any evidence of "his whacky claims about marauding space aliens". Where do I find this information to review? This seems like a biased opinion without supporting evidence. NIPeditor (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Harald Malmgren is an important figure in economics and history. His claims about UFOs are not relevant to his importance. Malmgren should have an article on wikipedia. The article could include statements he has made about UFOs, but including that information does not endorse any particular view on UFOs or anything else. The fact that the UFO community is extremely interested in Malmgren should have no bearing on this article. I have used and supported wikipedia for many years. The point of wikipedia is to provide information on topics and people that are significant. The information about what a person has done or said should be presented in a neutral way that allows readers to draw their own conclusions. Wikipedia should not be censored. Readers should be presented with information so they can decide for themselves whether Malmgren's statements about UFOs are true or made up. 4.35.159.225 (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How are we supposed to act in good faith when the deletion of this wiki entry is obviously in bath faith?
Weak delete Keep With largely the same caveats as Brenae wafato above. While this afd appears to have become a lightning rod for "skeptics vs believers" UFO discourse the key question before us is whether high-quality sources indicating notability exist. With the refbombing issue above and the absence of SIGCOV that would indicate deletion although I could be persuaded otherwise if good-quality sources to establish notability could be presented. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The timing of this in alignment with the release of a posthumous release of a video stating the USA is engaged in a UFO cover up after being found notable in the 2015 AFD is unfortunate. This article had been on my eye for a while to expand as he's so interesting and notable. Trivially expansive sourcing, and whatever the fate of this article, expect to find it right back in Article space shortly with sourcing as comprehensive as any of the articles I've worked on. We are all nothing if not slaves to reality and it's time for this comical assault on anyone who says even the tiniest "pro UFO stuff" as a minute tiny fraction of their life to be ended on this site.
Each of these excludes the terms "aliens" or "UFOs":
Expansive sourcing exists on regular Google search (limited to pre-2025 as well).
Such research should be compulsory before nominating for deletion. Strong trivial and easy keep. As I said: delete, and I'll rebuild it with double the sourcing as soon as I have a moment. Reality wins this fight, not the Fringe Noticeboard. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Google searches you point to list a variety of non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources such as bylined articles, or sources from non-RS like NewsNation (which is non-usable per WP:UFONATION. You can't just do a Google search for a guy's name and say "there must be sources - I got a lotta hits!" Chetsford (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then suggest that the article have additional sources, rather than delete the entire article, which has been on Wikipedia since 2015. Ophello (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Beyond the issues raised above, I believe having an article on the topic serves an important public service as a point to collect the contrary parts of the Malmgren story. If the current article does not contain a balanced view, that is an opportunity to improve it, as there are few other locations on the 'net where such information would naturally collect. As always, articles should be fixed, not deleted. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the question of whether someone's views are accurate or "whacky" really has no bearing on the question of notability. Similarly, the popularity that someone might have in "wild corners of the internet" has no bearing on the question of notability. Per Very Polite Person there's plenty of sourcing out there and there's no question that the article could be improved. Deletion seems out of the question.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo Wales - Very Polite Person's !vote is a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument. They point to Google searches and don't list a single actual source. Per WP:BEFORE, I did the same thing prior to AfD but actually read the results. These are things like bylined articles (fails WP:INDEPENDENT) or articles on non-RS (e.g. NewsNation which can't be used for UFO adjacent topics per WP:UFONATION. Punching someone's name into a search engine and getting a lot of hits does not demonstrate "plenty of sourcing". Chetsford (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This attempt to scrub Harald Malmgren from Wikipedia is so heavy-handed that Jimmy Wales himself stepped in to comment in favor of keeping this article. You should really think about what that says about your choices here.
Also, I will briefly comment on the absurdity of treating NewsNation as an illegitimate source when it comes to UFOs/UAP but a legitimate source when it comes to any other topic. It should be allowed in general.
But even if it isn't, here's the RS you claim doesn't exist:
Keep: the nature of the original request to delete shows extreme bias and lack of any reasonable objectivity. Allowing such intemperate censorship to succeed risks making this resource (Wikipedia) irrelevant.
It's somewhat draconian, absolutely agreed. However, the article is a complete pigs ear. We've already got a witch hunt going on about this over on reddit - now a former Moderator is editorialising you.
They've got users riled up demanding editors be called to account for their actions, very clear threats of reprisals should we not concede to the UFO communities version of Harald Malmgren: I wholly agree, deletion is ridiculous but are we really going to be bullied by a full on mob...?
We should be petitioning reddit for take-downs effective immediately as well as punitive actions against the agitators at work here - they're not joking some of them really do live in the kind of world they prattle on about - its us in the firing line.
Are you going to support us or throw us under the bus here: this article needs serious fixing and these UFO nits are equating our work with censorship.
Be balanced. That Guerilla Skeptics are bullying areas they think of as pseudo-science when ACTUAL science is being done on the matter questions YOUR motives. Act in a balanced way and you won't attract the "mob" as you call it (your use of the term questions your own attempt tb bias with emotion rather than logic). TruthBeGood (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your rhetoric about "witch hunts" and trying to petition Reddit for "take-downs" of legitimate discussion reveals a concerning lack of understanding about both Wikipedia's purpose and the current state of UAP/UFO research.
Your dismissive attitude toward what you call "the UFO community" ignores that this field has tons of declassified documents that include a lot of evidence towards "something" going on, which I am guessing you haven't even been bothered to look.
Absolutely. Funny how this guy asks for this page and Pippa's page to be deleted too right after Harald's 4hr death bed video drops on YouTube. Not suspicious at all. P Jp0202 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Harald Malmgren is a well-known, impactful individual who served in 4 different US Presidential Administrations. I would suggest one look into whether the wiki-user chatsford should have their editor rights removed. This is clear censorship and I see this user is obsessed with trying to delete multiple individuals related to Congress’ UAP legislation topic Observer157 (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Malmgren was a senior advisor to four US Presidents, Pentagon insider with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Oxford-educated economist whose work was cited by the Supreme Court.
According to policy and common sense, there are zero legitimate grounds for deletion. The timing is suspect - a man with unimpeachable credentials who held positions with access to highly classified information makes UFO-related statements, and suddenly his entire documented career is nominated for deletion. Unimpeachable references will accumulate as time passes. It is surely not the right time to delete. There are no grounds for deletion.
Keep Malmgren becoming notable for reasons not covered in his Wiki article is not a reason for deleting that article. Rather, the article should contain accurate information about him rather than the misinformation alleged to be spread elsewhere. If there are problems with the quality of his article, it should be improved. It would be preferable even to restrict who can edit it rather than to simply delete it. 2601:243:CF82:D350:9F1F:5DAD:44FF:B22 (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notorious hoaxes, delusions and hysterias all have a place in Wikipedia, as long as the article is properly written. Furthermore, we collectively have no credentials to independently judge Malmngren's claims nor is Wikipedians' place to do so. Subramaniantalk16:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! Y’all have no souls & are actually pathetic trying to delete digital access to an actual hero’s wiki page?! Access to (just part) of the digital legacy of apparently one of the most humble men who actually stopped nuclear war? The genie has been out of the bottle about NHI/aliens/UAP for a while, so what are yall even trying to suppress anymore? Go cowardly poke buttons on your computers elsewhere- this page is staying up- his daughter’s page better stay up as well. 73.115.16.180 (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid concerns are raised above about the content of the article. These do not affect the notability of the subject. Rjjiii (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Harald Malmgren meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines under WP:GNG and WP:BIO due to his significant, well-documented contributions as a scholar, diplomat, and senior aide to Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford. Contrary to the nomination’s claim that the article’s 24 sources are non-reliable or lack significant coverage (WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV), several references provide substantial, independent coverage in reliable sources. For example, Malmgren’s book International Economic Peacekeeping in Phase II (Quadrangle Books, 1972) is a peer-reviewed work cited by governments globally and discussed in academic reviews, establishing his influence in trade policy. Additionally, sources like The New York Times and The Washington Post (e.g., articles from the 1970s covering his role in the Trade Act of 1974 and the Tokyo Round negotiations) offer significant coverage of his diplomatic work, meeting WP:SIGCOV.
The accusation of WP:REFBOMB is overstated. While the article may include some weaker sources, this is addressable through editing to remove or replace them with stronger ones, per WP:ATD. Malmgren’s roles as a senior aide and advisor to foreign leaders and CEOs are verifiable through primary and secondary sources, independent of recent UFO-related claims, which are a minor part of the article. The nomination’s focus on these fringe associations risks WP:BIAS, as it sidelines Malmgren’s decades-long, well-documented career. Deleting a longstanding article (created in 2015) immediately after the man’s death and release of a deathbed video discussing a controversial topic would undermine Wikipedia’s goal of neutral, comprehensive coverage. This request is highly suspect and emotionally laden from its initial wording “whacky” and “marauding space aliens”, is evidentially intentional mockery.
KushKushyKushier (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I strongly believe that this article is notable under Wikipedia notability guidelines. And it is being unfairly targeted based on editor’s personal biases. Wikitehedia (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some editing out of fawning language praising his work. There are clearly attempts to make him look important by mentioning he worked with famous and important people, and got degrees from famous colleges. That does not establish notability. Nor does writing things or having jobs. But being being a Chair at one research university and a Professor at another satisfied notability as an academic, and some of his writings appear to have the recognition to support notability. Edison (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good call ArtemisiaGentileschiFan. I'd also note that none of the "Keep" arguments are policy based (e.g. "it serves a public interest" or "this article should be kept because it's being targeted by biased people", or "keep for obvious reasons", or "if you delete this I'll just rewrite it", or "keep because you all have no souls", or "keep because the timining of the nomination is disturbing", or "keep - the nominator is a secret CIA plant trying to stop UFO disclosure", [30] etc.). Chetsford (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Be fair Chetsford. Some of us have been persuaded by the presence of multiple reliable source reviews of the subject's books meeting the standard for WP:NAUTHOR. This does, however, demonstrate the problem with broad canvassing and I hope the parties doing the canvassing are paying attention to this:
When you fill up an AfD with garbage arguments it becomes harder for the closer to find the actually appropriate arguments within all the chaff. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once this AfD closes the BLP will be paired-down to what can be sourced. That will be his name, date of birth/date, and the fact he wrote a couple books. There's literally nothing else here that is supported by RS. That's not the intent of NAUTHOR. Chetsford (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's spooky how poorly Chetsford is handling this issue. Malmgren's article was deemed legitimate 10 years ago. Then, less than 24 hours after his deathbed confession/interview is published, Chetsford decided to try to scrub both Malmgren and his daughter from Wikipedia. Let me help you acknowledge that, UFOs aside, he is indeed a significant character:
Delete After the reddit posts, there are quite a lot of !votes here. But none of them seem to address the actual reason for nomination. The closest is Very Polite Person's keep vote, which contains four links, so if you were in a hurry, you might think it was a policy-backed argument, but a close reading of it reveals that it does not address the problem that only non-RS sources exist. VPP simply links to google searches, and implies that there's probably a good source in there somewhere even if they, personally, were unable to find one. That's obviously not enough. ApLundell (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has been present on Wikipedia since 2015. If the contention is with sources, let the criticisms be based on that and recommend improvements to the article or have the article locked. The justification for its existence should not suddenly be brought into question simply because it has become popular with certain groups. Original poster is clearly biased. Ophello (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, some editors new to Wikipedia seem to be voting to "keep" the article intact, but this discussion (and any deletion discussion) is only about whether to keep an article on the subject. The content that is not cited or cited only to primary sources, will need to be greatly cut down or, after this discussion concludes, removed entirely. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Since this page has been up since 2015, why was it noted for deletion now, if the information on the page is "innaccurate"? Is it because he just died recently? Deleting this page makes no logical sense. Pathetic. Keep this great man's page online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.216.191 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Strong Keep
I oppose the deletion of this article based on the following:
1. **Demonstrated Notability Across Multiple Domains**
Harald Malmgren served as a senior advisor to four U.S. presidents—Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford—and held ambassador-level roles confirmed by Congress. His work influenced U.S. trade policy during pivotal moments in history, including Cold War negotiations and international economic restructuring. His involvement in global affairs is documented in government sources such as *congress.gov*, *federalreserve.gov*, *archives.gov*, and *history.state.gov*.
2. **Reliable Sources Exist**
His books have been reviewed in academic journals and cited in publications from respected institutions. These sources meet the WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR notability standards. If some references in the article are weak, that is grounds for improvement—not deletion.
3. **Bias in the Nomination**
The nominator’s language (“whacky claims,” “wild corners of the internet”) raises concerns of WP:NPOV violations. Wikipedia should not promote dismissiveness or editorial tone when evaluating longstanding articles on public figures.
4. **Suspicious Timing**
This page has existed since 2015. Nominating it within 24 hours of Malmgren’s death and the release of his controversial interview creates the appearance of an ideologically motivated deletion.
5. **ATD – Fix it, Don’t Nix it**
Weak or outdated material should be edited, trimmed, or replaced—not deleted outright. This approach aligns with WP:ATD and the mission of Wikipedia to preserve and improve informative content, not erase it.
Withdraw as Nom Given the intensity off-WP canvassing, I withdraw the AfD nomination. There's an easier way to handle this that doesn't encumber a closer with all this rigmarole. I'll make a note to take care of this in a couple weeks.Strike withdrawal. I failed to notice there was already another Delete !vote and withdrawal is, therefore, not appropriate. Chetsford (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC); edited 21:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you need to "take care of" other than improving sourcing? You tried to remove an article that you know had no business being removed. And it was so egregious that Jimmy Wales weighed in. Do better. Somekindofmutant (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single piece of WP:SIGCOV in this BLP (a possible WP:VANITY BLP, I'm speculating, based on the licensing of the Sears glamor shot in the infobox). A standard WP:BEFORE finds nothing either. WP:POLOUTCOMES does not presume notability for the minor post of special assistant. Fellows of the RSA -- the only other possible claim to WP:N -- are apparently self-nominated persons who pay a $100 registration fee [31]. Chetsford (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable person. Most references are hard to analyze. Not related and ambiguous citations and mostly not a single reason for a notability. Yousiphh (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is an article about one of her books [32], confirmed on the second reference under the External Links section in the article. I'll keep looking. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Newspapers.com also turns up a number of reviews in American newspapers, e.g. of her first book, Equivocal Death: [34], [35], [36], [37] (2 pages); and the second The Anniversary: [38], [39], , [40], [41], [42], [43]. There's also a few more profile-y articles from around when the books came out that would enable the fleshing out of a true article, namely [44] (two pages, I didn't clip the second), and [45], [46], [47]. Mostly small papers, but all around the country. I think NAUTHOR (and GNG) is met here. Eddie891TalkWork08:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was deprodded without improvement with the rationale, "Take to AFD. Works are cited by journals advocating Austrian economics." Well, yes, they are. With a high citation count of a whopping 7. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG, nor do they meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969TT me14:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched for reviews of his two books but did not find any. So I think both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR are out, and if there is any notability it will have to be found through WP:GNG. But of the sources in the article as nominated, [1], [3], [4], [11], and [14] are self-written employee/contributor profiles, [2] is an abstract-only link whose abstract does not mention the subject, [5-10] are dubiously-reliable and non-independent interviews, [12] is an audio version of one of his coauthored books, [13] is a sales link for the other book. None count towards GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Horribly promotional and refbombed biography, with half of the references being broken links to bookstores that don't seem to actually sell his books, or sources that don't mention him. I found a couple of interviews (e.g. [48]) but had no luck finding usable reviews of any of his books in either English or French. MCE89 (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this guy really notable? I see that one of his books was reviewed by the Guardian, and another by the Tablet magazine - but that's pretty much it. The other links are just his personal profile on the Tablet and his blog on Wordpress. HPfan4 (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Book reviews as above seem fine, more than enough for AUTHOR. Could use more biographical info in the article, but that's not for AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article only concerns a trial lawyer and is entirely about this person's work for a law firm, Winston & Strawn. When checking the sources there are few independent WP:BASIC sources, and the subject overall fails that criteria, lacking significant coverage in independent (!) sources. It also doesn't help that the article is written in a promotional tone. It was created in 2013 by a single-purpose account. GuardianH06:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - under the cruft is a notable lawyer who appears to have been ripped off by a professional editor. I started to remove the promotional and NN trivia. Bearian (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Weak keep" I agree with Bearian that the subject likely is notable however TNT would be an acceptable alternative (especially if Bearian had not already taken an editor's pen to the article) based on nominator's very valid concerns about promotional editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, considering Bearian's fixes + notable cases + references i.e. justice.gov. Worth keeping live for time being. Good faith cleanup still required for the long haul. --Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability with the only sources being WP:PRIMARY listings of his books. Doing a WP:BEFORE, I could only find more self-published content and this press release, nothing counting for GNG.
Delete Obvious COI editor created the article about themselves, Jeromeenriquez matches the page title almost exactly (missing a space between the "ee" and also missing "john". All sources are self published or primary sources (the main source is a press release by the subject). Promotional language is quite clear throughout the article. Sources are from only two websites (goodreads.com and PRLog.org) PRLog.org is a distribution website for press releases.
@Jeromeenriquez like @Jlwoodwa said Amazon pages are not considered reliable sources per Wikipedia policy. What you need is a in-depth review in a newspaper/website about the books or the author (author would count more since they usually throw in a quick review of their books as well.) (good reads is ok for a couple of things like showing who the author is and other basic facts about that book, it can also is used to cite books. (Sometimes they have a online version of a book, so we cite the book using the good reads web address. In that case the book is the RS, good reads is just the middle man to us. Same thing applies to the Internet Archive.) If you cite a newspaper it would be best if it is at least national, if not international. Also we can use reliable sources that are in Portuguese. (Personally I prefer English sources, but I only know English). Sheriff U304:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the books appear to be self-published on Amazon and are less than 100 pages long (one of them being just 13 pages long!), which tend to be pretty big red flags in my experience. I wasn't able to find any RS reviews for any of the books either, and I don't see any evidence that the subject has created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. MCE89 (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been deleted multiple times under the title Mudit Srivastava. A previous PROD was contested by the creator, who then added a few references. However, none of the sources provide significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Junbeesh (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bolta Kagaz Thanks for sharing the links. However, the sources provided are primarily podcasts and YouTube videos, which are generally not acceptable for establishing notability on Wikipedia. According to WP:GNG, a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Information coming directly from the subject such as interviews or self-published content is not considered independent. If you come across third-party sources that provide in-depth, independent coverage, feel free to share them here and I'd be happy to take a look. Junbeesh (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article was created by the subject's son in 2006 (edit: looks like Cramer edited his article a few times under Dylanrcramer12 (talk·contribs) and Dylanrcramer (talk·contribs)) and has survived for nineteen years with a single source – the subject's own website. I found two news articles on Dylan Cramer (one, two), but they do not mention any major works or accomplishments. The book Journeys to the Bandstand has a chapter on him and his father, but is unlikely to mention anything that would make him notable (or there would be other news sources reporting on it). Cramer appears to be a local Vancouver musician who does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Iiii I I I (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject does not appear to meet any of the 12 criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. I searched newspapers.com as well and found many notices about upcoming performances and the like (mainly in Vancouver area) but I don't see any sigcov to support WP:BASIC either. Zzz plant (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a close call because the musician has gained respect from other musicians, and that generated some basic coverage among afficionados, but unfortunately I must agree with the in-depth conclusions by the nominator and previous voter. There simply isn't enough with which to build an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the book chapter and news pieces highlighted by the nominator I found two staff-written album reviews at AllMusic here and here. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:NMUSIC with the reviews found by the previous two editors, plus the chapter, plus there are long articles about Cramer and his first album (The First One, DSM, 1998, later re-released as Remembering Sonny Criss) in the French language newspaper Le Devoir (from the opposite side of Canada), one of which says "Il faut connaître Dylan Cramer. ... Cet album, il faut en goûter chaque note. Car Dylan Cramer a ceci qui est trės rare: chaque note mérite le doigté le plus fin qui soit." (You have to know Dylan Cramer. ...With this album, you have to savor every note. Because Dylan Cramer has something that is very rare: every note merits the finest fingering possible.) Plus, WP:MUSICBIO#5 says "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" - he has released 3 albums on Nagel-Heyer Records. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed PROD, and that’s totally fine. But the de-PROD-der did so with summary that prompted me to do another cursory search, but still didn’t come up with anything tangible. My PROD statement Subject fails WP:NPOL and current sources do not help to qualify for WP:GNG still stands. I particularly went through the cited sources to find GNG-passable sources but yielded nothing. There are no sufficient independent sources that provide substantial coverage of the subject to establish the minimum GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Seems to be plenty of secondary source and independent media coverage to me. Article could use some work, but that is not grounds for deletion. RedBlueGreen9323:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: City councillors are not notable by default per NPOL#1. Facebook post, Tweets and routine election news coverage is definitely not what is needed to meet NPOL#2 (which is basically GNG). Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia13:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Normally I'd vote delete for city councillors, especially newly-elected ones who haven't done much in office yet, but recent coverage of Sean Orr specifically has not been routine or minor. An elected official being at the municipal level is not a hard rule; if notability can be demonstrated by significant coverage, then the subject is notable (WP:GNG). Recent allegations of antisemitism and promotion of violence levied at Orr, and counter-allegations of libel and mischaracterisations, have earned Orr coverage at the national level beyond routine election and council coverage (e.g. CBC article on the accusations). Yue🌙05:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yue Kindly present the sources you think makes this subject pass GNG. I didn’t see any, hence why I nominated. Social media links or PR pieces with insignificant coverages that are clearly dependent on the subject do not substantiate notability as long as GNG is concerned, so kindly provide your own sources that makes you think this, thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC sources reads: In a Wednesday morning news conference, is not indepth and so, we can’t rely on it to establish notability. Even if we did, a source isn’t enough. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia19:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Vancouver city councillors are notable political figures in BC. Other councillors have pages with similar sourcing and levels of detail. RedactedSagan (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The multiple calls for deletion from a single user Vanderwaalforces for an article under 1 month old without first contributing any clean up tags to the article fails to follow general protocol of steps C. according to WP:BEFORE. With Vanderwaalforces's issue with the notability of the person in this article, I question why a tag such as {{notability}} was not added to the article at the time of doubt, instead of the more aggressive, unnecessary deletion action. Particularly when there has been evidence leaning towards GNG, just poorly cited initially.
Sean Orr is notable as a Vancouver public figure due to his writing, activism and occupation as a politician. He has more significant news coverage citations than many similar level politicians with articles. His win in the latest by-election was notable as part of a historic by-election in Vancouver where voters waited up to 3 hours to cast their votes (and a majority of whom voted for Orr)[1]. During his election campaign he has been endorsed by a number of well known politicians and public figures, such as Svend Robinson and Gabor Maté which in itself shows GNG.[2] The lack of GNG-passable sources that were included when this article has been recently created does not indicate the lack of GNG sources of this person, it simply indicated the article was a stub in need of further work, added citations and additional edits. ColourfulCreative :DFTBA! (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As long as NPOL is concerned, this subject utterly fails criterion one. For criterion two, which is nothing far from WP:GNG, and as far as GNG is concerned in itself, below is an analysis of the sources currently cited in the article in which the keep !voters claim it enough to pass GNG. There are three parameters that must be met by a source before it can be considered to substantiate notability per GNG, all of the sources fail at least one or two of the parameters.
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}}.
Keep. Article does need some improvement, as it is a bit more reliant on primary sources than it should be — update: far less so now that I've poleaxed the unnecessary list of social media endorsements and added real media sourcing for his prior candidacies — but Vancouver is a global city whose city councillors do get a presumption of notability under WP:NPOL #2. I'm also almost certain that the nominator only looked for within-the-past-month political coverage, and failed to search for any art or music coverage from the 2010s. Bearcat (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat Thank you for dropping this comment. I have some questions; NPOL does not cover municipal politicians or councillors whatsoever, was there a discussion somewhere that said councillors from "global cities" are presumptively notable under the same NPOL that doesn't give provisions for people of that status? I definitely cannot see how Orr passes WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:COMPOSER either, can you try to give direct address on these questions, please? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL #2 ("local political figures") absolutely covers municipal councillors: mayors and city councillors are literally who that criterion was written for. It's also a longstanding consensus, upheld by hundreds or even thousands of past AFD discussions on councillors in cities like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, London, Paris or Berlin, that city councillors in global cities are much more likely to cross the notability bar than city councillors in non-global cities — the article does still have to be more than just "So-and-so is a city councillor who exists, the end", but city councillors in global cities are very routinely kept so long as the article contains some useful and properly sourced context above and beyond "person who exists", as this one already does. See also WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat Of course, but that is immediately followed by who have received significant press coverage. With a note saying ... A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. ... (I claim the emphasis). This is a parameter that must be met before a "local politician" can be considered presumptively notable per #2. Orr currently does not meet this parameter for NPOL #2 based on my analysis of the sources cited in the table above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per longstanding consensus, city councillors in global cities pass the test as long as they have enough coverage in reliable sources to enable us to write more than just "So-and-so is a city councillor who exists, the end". Orr has that. He also had coverage a decade ago as a musician and photographer and writer that you wouldn't find on Google, as Google very routinely fails to find decade-old coverage. There are a couple of sources here that could still stand to be replaced if possible (e.g. the one citation that's just his "staff" profile on a website that he wrote for), but there are already GNG-worthy media outlets being cited here, covering him in the context of more than just simple verification of his vote total on election night — and for a person who just took office within the past couple of weeks, there will clearly be more coverage in the future as well. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assessment of GNG for this subject, I’m sorry. It is also clearly incorrect to me because not even a single source passes all three parameters required to meet GNG. With your assessment, this also means local politicians from my country are covered by NPOL#2. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just want to note that no sources has been brought forth by the keep voters. And I disagree that a mayor of a “global city” should be judged in the same vein as a state politician. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia17:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this BLP about a journalist, and have not found secondary sources to add. The existing references are mostly records of his journalism. He has won an award, but I don't think it is notable. He has been shortlisted for other awards, which you can see in this earlier version of the article. He has also set a world record for generating energy by pedalling, but I don't think this makes him notable - the only relevant discussion I could find is at Notability of Guinness World Record holders, where the two editors in the discussion agreed that breaking a world record doesn't make someone notable. I cannot see that he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:JOURNALIST. Tacyarg (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no good sources, and a search for more online is difficult; this is a surprisingly common name (I once had a professor who had the same name, spelled differently). Bearian (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to try to look through Wayback Machine archives for this particular one, but based on other ones I've checked in the past, the biographies were originally on SR, then imported to Olympedia when SR's Olympics site split. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Die Olympischen Kunstwettbewerbe 1912-1948 (The Olympic Art Competitions 1912-1948) covers the olympic artwork, but with little beyond. [53] He also gets multiple mentions in A Pacifist's Life and Death: Grigorios Lambrakis and Greece in the Long Shadow of Civil War[54], although these are not biographical of him. That's all I found so far. That is not a GNG pass yet, but may indicate there is more to be found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of people with the name Takis Sakellariou. There's also no Greek article on him, unfortunately, so it's not like we can just expand it with the corresponding article in Greek. If someone native in the language looked, maybe we'd get a more definitive answer if there's any articles that do pass GNG on him. Réunion!20:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There will certainly be namesakes, but what is the basis for saying there are a lot of them? Sakellariou is not unusual but neither is it a particularly common Greek surname, and the same could be said for the forename, Takis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Greek there is an extensive reference to Sakelariou here which comes from a book on the subject - I think it's a reliable source. Apart from that, however, I have not found anything else worthwhile. DeleteLord Mountbutter (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greece at the 1936 Summer Olympics or consider Grigoris Lambrakis, although mention at the page would be required. I have searched but unable to find any SIGCOV secondary sources for this subject. There is a more notable namesake in entertainment (actor and producer) and most sources refer to that one. However the sources I found above are confirmed to be this page subject. The problem is that these are just not enough. The history of the Olympic art competitions confirms his entry, but doesn't have anything to tell us about the man. Likewise Gkotzaridis (2016), that is, A Pacifist's Life and Death: Grigorios Lambrakis and Greece in the Long Shadow of Civil War, which I have now obtained a library copy of, only actually has three mentions of the page subject, the other mentions of Sakellariou in the work referring to one of five others with that surname: Alexandros, Aristeidis, Epameinondas, Petros and Vassileos. The most substantial of the references to the page subject reads: As for Takis Sakellariou, he was properly bedazzled and stirred - like so many others back at home - by the spectacle of Germans rooting for Greek athletes in Greek and some even succeeding in intoning the first verses of the Greek national anthem! and this is referenced to one of his works:
- Takis Sakellariou, "The Foustanela-dressed of the Gymnastics Academy and the Greek Champions: Mantikas, Syllas and Papadimas," Athlitismos, August 10, 1936.
That source, of course, is primary. The book also confirms his involvement in training, with As soon as he met Grigorios, the coach, Takis Sakellariou, sensed at once that he had in front of him a rare instance of an athlete, with remarkable jumping capabilities. He started to train him, believing firmly that he would grow into a wonderful jumper. The other mention also briefly mentions training. And that is it. We have no secondary sources covering the subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the one good source below, striking my redirect for now, as focus on the subject as a sports science pioneer may be more fruitful than as an Olympian. At the very least we should allow time for further searches. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am putting my redirect !vote back. The source below is excerpted from a local history book published by the Piraeus association. The website is similarly supported by the association. The claims about him being a pioneer are, it seems, overhyped, as there is no other evidence of this. He is of local interest, but it is a single source by an association promoting Piraeus. This is not enough for GNG and nothing else is coming to light. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. @Svartner and Sirfurboy: A search brought up that he literally had an in-depth story written on him this year, see this, which is 1,600 words on him by some Greek historical writer, titled "the pioneer of scientific gymnastics". In addition to it being SIGCOV, the fact that he still gets in-depth coverage today and that recent Greek writers were able to find so much on him strongly indicates that there would be further, offline coverage, as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this one meets SIGCOV in a secondary source, and is an excerpt from a book that appears to be reliable, and independent. Who are the Thematic Office of Culture? Almost certainly this gives us one good source. We need multiple to meet GNG, so one more will do it (given that we have the brief mentions too). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The website you found deals exclusively with Piraeus issues - it records the local history of the city. There is no in-depth coverage of this person anywhere else. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no in-depth coverage of this person anywhere else. – How do you know? Have you checked old Greek archives? What about 1930s newspapers? Not everything is on the internet... BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are sources that are inaccessible to us - it is as if they do not exist since they cannot be documented. The newspapers of the time are considered primary sources since they cannot prove notability. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inaccessible to you does not equate to non-existent. If you have not checked any Greek archives, then you have no right to claim that they do not exist. Neither are all newspaper sources primary and unusable like you claim. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. We have one source with clear sigcov and some other sources that mention him. For a topic so inaccessible, this is enough to convince me that WP:NEXIST applies. Toadspike[Talk]10:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. As always, writers and musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to pass certain defined notability criteria verified by WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them and their work in reliable sources independent of themselves -- for example, you don't make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his books to themselves as circular metaverification of their own existence, you make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his books to third-party media coverage about them, such as professional book reviews and/or evidence that they've won or been nominated for major literary awards. But this essentially just states that his work exists, without documenting anything that would meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:AUTHOR criteria, and it's referenced almost entirely to primary sourcing that isn't support for notability, such as his own podcast and the books metaverifying themselves. The only secondary source cited here at all is a (deadlinked but recoverable) Tiny Desk Concert, which just briefly namechecks his participation in the surrounding text without saying anything substantive about him, and thus isn't sufficient to get him over GNG all by itself. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability, except for a single glancing namecheck of his existence in a media source that is not about him in any substantive or notability-building sense. What bare minimum of GNG-worthy sourcing does that add up to? Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current article cites a total of nine references, eight of which focus solely on a single incident—his arrest and release. The remaining one is about his father. This is insufficient to meet the criteria of WP:GNG and does not establish the subject's notability as a Wp:Nscholar, writer, or religious figure.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ21:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vinegarymass911: Being arrested on just three occasions does not, in itself, constitute notability—particularly when the arrests lack in-depth coverage. There is no reliable evidence indicating that these incidents had any significant impact or received national attention.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ22:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Central Committee of Hefazat comprises over 200 leaders. Merely holding a leadership position in a notable organization does not establish individual notability, see WP:NOTINHERIT. He is not the Director of Jamiatul Uloom Al-Islamia Lalkhan Bazar; this claim is incorrect. He serves as the Assistant Director. All media coverage related to him appears to be routine reporting or breaking news. In-depth, substantial coverage is required to demonstrate notability.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ17:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. The focus of article appears to be that he was arrested because he's somebody's son and served "a long time" in jail. If that's not the point, then it needs to be written from scratch. Bearian (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has anyone seen if he passes one of the criteria for WP:PROF? The Prof Test is an alternative method of showing notability, so please ping me. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a young professor who has just gotten an under-40 years old award. The "extensive coverage" of his work is the newspaper reports generated from a single University of Cambridge press release. He appears to have only that single paper in Google scholar, which has mixed him up with a Canadian business professor. It is too soon for him to have an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His coverage was not the result of a ‘single University press release’ – it was the featured research story on the University homepage – and independently of that, it was covered by BBC, ITV, etc.
He clearly passes the criteria for WP:PROF (of which you only need to meet one):
1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline: His recent article is “in the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric”.
2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level: His research won the National Innovation Award, the Digital Health Award, and the 40 Under 40 Award.
3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association: Dr Macdonald is a Fellow at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of the Institute of Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability
7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity: His research has appeared in over 100 international news outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayneDavis07 (talk • contribs)
JayneDavis07, our criteria can be confusing for a new editor. Most researchers have multiple publications. What matters is not how many they have published but how other researchers have responded to those publications by citing them in their own papers. That is how we determine significant impact. Most awards, and definitely not young investigator awards, are not what we mean by "highly prestigious". Having newspapers cover ones research when publicized by their employer is common and not considered "substantial impact". "Fellow" is a term used in many different ways. In Macdonald's case the first Fellow is one of the terms used by Cambridge for their employees, so does not qualify. The second Fellow is just the name of the level of dues paying member of the ICRS, not an honorary award given for major contributions to a field. Macdonald is a promising researcher, and may well qualify according to WP:NPROF in the future, but not now. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the impact of his publications see here. He has only been publishing for a few years. We would need to see over a hundred citations per paper for impact, but he is just starting out so hasn't had time to develop. He does have 14 papers in Google Scholar, but his latest one is linked to another author. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete:
Fellow in the Cambridge system is not merely a term for employees. Fellows are voted in by the Governing body and are special honours for “distinguished, learned, or skilled individuals in academia, medicine, research, and industry.” There are different types of Fellowship at Cambridge (Visiting Fellow, Research Fellow, Fellow Commoner, Bye-Fellow, etc) – Dr Macdonald holds a full unrestricted permanent Fellowship and as a result is a full voting member of the Governing Body of the University – the highest honour.
Under the criteria for WP:PROF, Academics only need to meet one of 8 conditions.
1. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
With regard to condition 1 – Dr Macdonald won the 40 Under 40 Award in the Science category. The award has two rounds of voting – the first is an expert panel, the second is a public vote – the award programme is at the national level and is for the nation’s most influential and accomplished leaders.
7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
With regard to condition 7 – Dr Macdonald developed and launched a virtual reality public speaking platform to help individuals overcome speech anxiety. He made the platform fully open access, and it is used by people around the world. It is a first-of-its-kind platform – the only to be free and accessible on all platforms and operating systems. Accordingly, it received widespread global media attention - it was covered in over 100 media outlets - including The Times, The Guardian, ITV, BBC, etc, etc. This is outside of a conventional academics remit.
It makes the academic “significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice”.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JayneDavis07 (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. No consensus here yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not been able to find evidence that Chris Macdonald meets the criteria for GNG or NPROF. As noted by StarryGrandma, most of the publicity appears to be based on a press release from cambridge. Public press about a single VR program is not indicative of academic notability.
Responding specifically to arguments above concerning NPROF:
1. AltMetric is not good for determining academic notability as any mention on any site online can improve altmetric. If we're considering notability based on academics, then his work needs to be highly cited by other academics, which it is not.
2. The awards he has won do not appear prestigious on a national or international level, names notwithstanding. Think Nobel prize (international) or something like a Priestly medal (national chemistry award in US). I'm not even sure which 40 under 40 list he was included under because there are so many of these lists today and the specific list is mentioned nowhere in his bios. A public vote for an award is also not good criteria for academic notability.
3. Elected member/fellow of a society. A fellow at a uni is not the same thing. Reading through the types of fellow at Lucy Cavendish College, it sounds like he is just a professor (not the same thing as Cambridge wide fellowships --- each college has their own processes). Nor is being a "fellow" at a non-profit think tank funded by a bunch of corporations in the name of "responsibility"
7. Unlikely over 100 international news outlets covered his virtually reality public speaking VR work independently. This is also definitely WP:TOOSOON as the impact of the work that was released a month ago is not yet known.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - super promotional -- cannot find anything to support the keep. The 40-under-40 award is from a company whose only purpose is giving 40-under-40 awards...that is not they type that creates credibility. A lot of Cambridge fellows are notable even if their articles don't show it, so I did some look around. I just don't see it in the article or at large. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)09:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear editors, the article subject, Samia Gore, is requesting a soft deletion on English Wikipedia, claiming the content is promotional and inaccurately presented. I would also like to highlight that the notability is somewhat unclear. Thank you in advance for your thoughts on this! SG2025wiki (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easy keep [56], [57], plus the Essence article now used for sourcing. There are many more that come up, showing notability. Keeping the article also promotes gender equality and helps combat gender bias, as a person of colour in the USA. Oaktree b (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - while the subject is accomplished, she has not gotten MSM attention nor won a major award, either of which would be a completely objective test of notability (compare that to a Grammy Award winning musician, or an art curator who was lauded by a newspaper of record). Bearian (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this was a regular AfD I'd lean "Weak keep" as there are 6-7 references in what appear to be WP:RS covering the article content and they span a three year period (2020-2022). I'm confused though why there are COI and PROMO maintenance tags on the article. It doesn't appear promotional to me, and I'm guessing given there's sockpuppetry and IP address edits to the article that admins determined the COI. But as it reads today the article seems OK (although needs work) and I'd remove both tags. If the subject really doesn't want an article about them I'd respect that decision as it's an edge case. I'd also be willing to work on improving the article if it's kept. Nnev66 (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Orignal creator of this article was blocked for WP:COI and WP:PROMO. This persons fails WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR, due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Also most of the sources on this article are not about him, hence checked carefully. It may be created for undisclosed payments because this article creator also created articles on his multiple books which are also nothing more than promotion. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHORTheSlumPanda (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Vijay Nahar should be retained. There is sufficient coverage in a wide range of independent and reliable sources, satisfying Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline for authors, historians, and public figures. His work spans historical biographies, political commentary, and education-focused literature. Below is a list of significant sources that discuss his contributions:
----These references clearly demonstrate both the coverage and influence of Vijay Nahar’s work. While the Wikipedia article might benefit from improvements in structure, formatting, and inline citations, the subject himself meets Wikipedia's notability threshold. Therefore, the article should be improved, not deleGujjar.rudraa (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all sources are not about this subject. Some are about maharana Pratap, or other are about modi or vasundra raje, also the #2 TOI article is a reliable source but that talks more about the book written by him. And please remind that online listing of books for purchase like Amazon doesn’t confer notability. TheSlumPanda (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vijay Nahar is an Indian author and historian known for his biographical and historical works on notable Indian political figures and Rajput kings. His book Swarnim Bharat ke Swapndrishtha Narendra Modi has been referenced in multiple media outlets, including The Sunday Guardian, for its early commentary on Narendra Modi’s developmental vision and personal life aspects, including his marriage, which was highlighted during political discourse (The Sunday Guardian, Amar Ujala).
Nahar’s biography of Vasundhara Raje, Vasundhara Raje aur Viksit Rajasthan, is among the first dedicated publications on her political career and is noted in news profiles (Jansatta). His contributions to historical research include books on Samrat Bhoj Parmar, Mihir Bhoj, and Rao Akheraj Songara, which have been cited in literary platforms such as Sahitya Kunj and Sahitya Nama, and are among the few comprehensive modern works available on these historical figures (Sahitya Kunj, Udaipur Kiran).
In the context of Maharana Pratap, Nahar's writings have been used in regional discourse to support the view that Pratap was born in Pali, Rajasthan—challenging the traditionally cited location of Kumbhalgarh attributed to Colonel Tod (Bhaskar, Samvad). His contributions have also been recognized through awards and coverage in local media outlets, emphasizing his role in historical interpretation and education.
While online listings like Amazon do not independently confer notability, they help identify the range and accessibility of his publications. Furthermore, his books have been featured in school libraries in Rajasthan, according to a report by The Times of India (TOI). Gujjar.rudraa (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His book on narendra modi got media coverage like 1, 2. While the sunday guardian have only passing mention at last which is not enough. But if we talk about notability of this subject them i am still inclined toward deletion because of lack of Significant coverage about him in independent sources rather than sticking only on his modi book.TheSlumPanda (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
== Sources supporting notability ==
Lokmat Times – Photos of Gulab Kataria Ji – Features visuals and associations, including those connected to historian Vijay Nahar and other BJP figures.
Sahitya Kunj – Samraat Bhoj Parmar Sameeksha – A critical review of Vijay Nahar’s historical writing on King Bhoj, hosted by a Hindi literary platform.
Jansatta – Vasundhara Raje’s political profile – Refers to authors including Nahar who’ve written about Rajasthan’s leadership and political figures.
Punjab Kesari – Maharana Pratap Jayanti – Covers public celebration of figures about whom Vijay Nahar has authored biographies.
News Puran – Death Anniversary of Maharana Pratap – Discusses cultural memory around Maharana Pratap, a key figure in Vijay Nahar’s historical works.
Sahitya Kunj – Vijay Nahar Author Profile – A central repository of Nahar’s literary contributions and publications.
Most of the sources cited to support the notability of Vijay Nahar are from Hindi-language newspapers and online publications. However, these are established and widely circulated media outlets in India, such as Dainik Bhaskar, Amar Ujala, Rajasthan Patrika, Punjab Kesari, Jansatta, and the Hindi edition of Times of India. These outlets are considered reliable sources under Wikipedia guidelines for regional and vernacular coverage.
The references include interviews, book reviews, coverage of public recognitions and awards, listings of published works, and inclusion of his books in institutional libraries. Several sources document his contributions as a biographer of public figures like Narendra Modi, Vasundhara Raje, and Maharana Pratap. Many of these sources offer English summaries or have accessible translations. Gujjar.rudraa (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors willing to research the sources offered in the article and discussion. Would the two editors who have participated so far please take a step back and let other editors weigh in? Please let them comment without adding your opinions to their arguments. Thank you. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per Liz, again. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about author. I have searched about the subject but didn't find significant coverages.. That can pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR.
Although I did come across a few mentions about the person, they were news-related and not about the work for which the person is known as an author. Dam222🌋 (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am trying to find sources, not easy when I do not read Urdu. However, it looks like she may have had more than one bestseller - Mus'haf as noted (but not yet sourced) in the article, and Jannat Kay Pattay, mentioned in this [58] and this [59]. I will try to find better sources. I note too that on the Talk:Nemrah Ahmed Khan page, there is mention of other Romanised spellings of her name, including Nimra Ahmad. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree this page was previously deleted and salted. The preceding AFD is 18 years old. Since then, numerous independent references from credible sources have emerged regarding the subject. Consequently, it meets the criteria of WP:GNG.. Sore Shout (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the subject has potential for keeps one of which from the bibliographic achievements, the books being translated to numerous languages is notable, if a few more independent RS can be added aside from the numerous primary sources already cited, would increase its keep status potential.Villkomoses (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see how this attains NAUTHOR if the subject's claim to fame is Pranic healing, and that subject is itself non-notable. There is an unreferenced mention of pranic healing at Energy medicine#Beliefs; maybe one of the sources could be applied there prior to deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a keep argument, so long as what I have pointed out can be resolved, at worst I would suggest a Draftify rather than a delete, as given more RS just needs to be cited for it. Villkomoses (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case this article was kept, kindly move the page to Choa Kok Sui, which is a red link. as the current title includes an unnessesary disambiguation. Thanks and no Opinion on the AFD. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
