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.
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP based on lack of significant coverage in fully independent, secondary reliable sources. PR sources and connected sources do not contribute to notability. A BEFORE search only finds social media, user-submitted content and more PR. It seems very likely that the article may have been created and heavily edited by the Creative Director of the company per: [8] and other edits; WP:PROMO may also apply. Netherzone (talk) 14:57, 6 February 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
Many of the sources are written by the subject. Other sources are links to her Ted Talk or "Best of" lists that include movies for which she was screenwriter. What remains does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Truthnope (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer and activist, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or activists. As always, neither writers nor activists are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass certain specific inclusion criteria supported by WP:GNG-worthy third party coverage about them in real media -- for instance, you don't make a writer notable enough for a Wikipedia article by sourcing his books to themselves as verification that they exist, you make a writer notable enough for a Wikipedia article by sourcing his books to third-party coverage about them (book reviews, etc.) as evidence that they have been externally validated as significant by somebody other than their own publisher. But three of the eight footnotes here are the books being referenced to themselves on GoodReads or an online bookstore, one more is one of those crap "celebrity net worth" directories that aren't reliable sourcing, and the footnotes that do come from real media are all short blurbs, or articles that just quote him as a provider of soundbite on a topic, rather than substantive or GNG-building coverage. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat:@Bearian: Thank you for your feedback. I understand the concerns about the sourcing and notability of Joshua Maponga. I’ve made improvements to the article and would like to address the issues raised:
Improved Sourcing
:
I’ve removed unreliable sources such as GoodReads, online bookstores, and "celebrity net worth" directories.
I’ve added new citations from reliable, independent sources (leading publications in three African countries - Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe) that provide substantive coverage of Maponga.
Citations currently at 12, will be adding more.
Further Improvements:
If additional sourcing is needed, I’m happy to make further improvements. I’ve also applied tags such as improve citation to indicate areas where more work is needed.
I believe the article now meets Wikipedia’s standards and should be retained. If there are still concerns, I’m open to applying additional tags (e.g., notability) rather than deleting the article entirely. DownTownRich (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dragon Award nominees as WP:AtD for now. That's where Shami Stovall appears, and her being nominated seems notworthy, but in itself does not establish notability. This may well be a case of WP:TOOSOON, so I strongly feel a redirect is preferable to deletion. I don't know if the awards she has won are siginificant enough to establish notability in accordance with WP:ANYBIO. Daranios (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the awards, here is an explanation of the non-Dragon Award ones for anyone who is reading:
CYGNUS Book Awards, awarded by Chanticleer Book Reviews, a pay-for-review service for indie authors.
New Apple Book Awards, defunct presently, seems to be the same thing as Chanticleer Books. They advertise literary services for indie authors.
Reader's Favorite basically advertising in the form of an award, and is, again, ultimately a site that sells book reviews for indie authors.
Baen Fantasy Adventure Award, a legitimate award given by Baen's Books, but it's not a significant literary award.
This is the page for an author of novels. While she has created an extensive body of work, there seems to be little media coverage. All I've managed to find is an interview from 2009,a single book review in the same publication from 2010, and a handful of articles about one of her books winning Literary Review's Bad Sex in Fiction Award (plus a couple of stories in the New Zealand Herald12 about a divorce settlement, involving a woman with the same name who doesn't seem to be the same person.)
Per WP:ANYBIO, the only criterion which might get her over the line would be that she "has received a well-known and significant award", so I'm inviting editors to comment on whether the Bad Sex Award meets this definition. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only possibility I can spot for notability is the award for poetry. The rest of the article is a puff piece based upon PR and press release churnalism. I do not believe the poetry award to be sufficient for him to pass WP:BIO. I might have suggested a return to draft space, but no amount of editing can create notability 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no editorial oversight on those news references provided by the creator. Also the award has no wikipedia page thus Fails WP:NBIO. Jitujadab90 (talk) 19:00, 08 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article’s references are primarily press releases. Additionally, it mentions only one non-notable award, supported by just one or two references that do not meet the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO criteria. Baqi:) (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Contested draftification (and declined G11) on highly promotional bio of non-notable individual. Appears to be WP:ADMASQ. Sources demonstrate failure on WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. They are limited to:
WP:BLP of an activist and writer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, neither activists nor writers are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party analytical coverage about them and their work -- but the attempted notability claim here is that he exists and wrote a book, and the sole footnote is a magazine article where he was the bylined author rather than the subject. But as usual, you don't make a writer notable by sourcing his work to itself as verification that it exists, you make a writer notable by sourcing his work to third-party coverage about it (book reviews, notable literary award nominations and/or wins, etc.) as evidence that its significance has been externally validated by somebody other than its own publisher. Meanwhile, on a ProQuest search, I'm not finding much in the way of coverage about him: there are a couple of reviews of his book (mostly a single wire service article being reprinted in multiple newspapers), but not really enough reviews of the book to get him over GNG just on those alone, and otherwise I'm really only finding glancing namechecks of his existence as a provider of soundbite in coverage of other things rather than coverage which actually has him as its subject. He's certainly locally known in his own city, but nothing here is adding up to enough nationalized or internationalized prominence to exempt him from having to have a lot more and better referencing than just one piece of his own writing. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meslin's advocacy against corporate billboards in public places is well known around Toronto, but a documentary about him has attracted international attention, e.g. Al Jazeera, and a detailed article from the CBC about the documentary, among other coverage. Besides that work, I found this 1,400-word detailed write-up in Macleans about his work on democratic reform, and another from Macleans ([30]) which is a borderline passing mention, but there are plenty more articles in smaller publications about this work, e.g. [31], [32], [33], [34] (some of these are third-party reviews of one of his books, maybe the same wire service review Bearcat mentioned, but being picked up by multiple outlets suggests notability). There are also plenty of links around to his TED talks and speaking engagements, which suggest notability but aren't really useful as references. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dave Meslin is known in Toronto for his activism against corporate billboards, with international attention from a documentary covered by Al Jazeera and CBC. His work on democratic reform has some media coverage, including Macleans articles and TED talks. However, he lacks sufficient third-party analysis to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards, with limited independent coverage beyond local recognition and a few book reviews. YoYoSuryaPatra → talk 14:479, 08 February 2025 (UTC)
This article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for biographies (WP:BIO). The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The citations provided are either self-published, primary sources, or trivial mentions. The Los Angeles Book Festival award appears to be a pay-to-play contest rather than a widely recognized literary honor. The bibliography consists entirely of self-published works, which do not contribute to notability. Additionally, the National Geographic reference does not substantiate the claim regarding the winery. Given the lack of verifiable, independent coverage, this article does not demonstrate the subject’s encyclopedic notability and should be considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasEyes (talk • contribs) 03:01, February 6, 2025 (UTC)
Comment. Seems a pretty clear pass of WP:PROF to me and the article looks uncontroversial. Is there a particular reason given for the subject to request deletion? Espresso Addict (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Full professor with a Scopus | h-factor of 33. He has an honorary degree from Novosibrisk which might contribute to WP:NPROF#C3 (although it is unsourced) I am not certain. Citations look a bit weak for C1. I tagged it for unclear notability more than a month ago, nothing has changed. I feel it is time for more opinions about notability as I am on the fence with this one. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think, we should keep the article. I will try to find a source for the honorary degree from Novosibirsk - he told me in person, that he got one, but I don't have a source.
Courtesy request from article subject via VTRS 2024122010000181. The basis of the request is that the subject is not very well known, the sources used in the article are mostly so old as to be inaccurate and/or misleading and the lack of recent sources reinforces that the subject has no lasting nobility.
The quality of some of the sources lacks reliability even if the news sources themselves are generally reliable, the specific sources are not and are towards the gossip column end of journalism e.g. [35]Nthep (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I highly disagree with the subject, and reliable sources being old does not make it so that they don't work. There is no requirement for recent sources. Chicago Tribune and York Daily Record show notability alone. This was also a DYK in 2020. As for the pointed to source, I don't like sourced negative content being removed if it is still found to be true - especially removed by the subject. SL93 (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fact that the sources are "old" isn't a reason to delete. Moreover, as a widely published author and critic (e.g. books, plus pieces in Glamour, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Plain Dealter, Harper's Bazaar) who blogs on a "daily or near-daily basis" to over 9,000 followers (here), she doesn't appear to be an inherently private person. There are more than 3,000 hits for her in Newspapers.com, including WP:SIGCOV starting in 1970 and continuing well into the 1990s. See, e.g., here, here, here, here. Cbl62 (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single relialbe independnet source to meet WN ANYBIO or GNG. Generally not notable businesswoman/ columnist. Removed some dead or not related links. Classic WP REFBOMB and WP MILL. Cinder painter (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not entirely agree that the links that have been removed are unrelated. The article's history shows quite a bit was removed before this was posted in AfD. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DaffodilOcean The links were restored, and you can analyze them. I reviewed them again, and they appear to be primary, paid, interview-based, and unreliable sources (WP:MILL, WP:REFBOMB, etc.). I cannot find any reliable sources or a valid reason to justify the person's notability. Cinder painter (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why were sources removed? Dead links could be rescued using the wayback machine. Also, sources that shows that her books were reviewed by independent outlets were removed before this nomination. I do not have an opinion on the notability of this topic at this time. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia19:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reading Beans there was a classic REFBOMB with tons of sources about her book (I'm not saying all the sources were paid, but their similarity and flattering tone are suspicious) rather than about the person. To analyze the sources that may establish the person's notability, it's useful to remove excessive, unreliable, REFBOMBING sources. Anyway, the sources were returned back by other editors, and you can evaluate the topic's notability. Cinder painter (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed paid, interviews, PR sources, and dead ones. I also marked unreliable and primary sources. Awards are not notable, and bringing them back is very suspicious. The "Keep" votes don't address the subject's questionable notability, so I ask for a review of the available sources and clarification on which GNG criteria the person meets. Cinder painter (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some references were identified in the last AfD here, but most of them are quotes or brief mentions. There is no book review. None of them cover Basso in-depth and bio fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. I understand why Trade2tradewell, with a special interest and optimism for encompassing all knowledge that were popular 17 or 19 years ago here, first created this. What I don't understand is why this is still here, after literally decades of AfDs and Prods to get rid of all these articles about clearly non-notable people. Bearian (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED, George here is only known in connection with his famous son Leonardo DiCaprio. His "acting debut" is a very small few second cameo, his work as a writer/artist (not really clear) fails WP:ARTIST and his work as a filmmaker fails WP:FILMMAKER, getting a small stint editing on local newspapers does not make you notable. Source 5 in the article shows he's worked on... three comics? Don't know if it's even reliable as a source but clearly not noteworthy in itself. jolielover♥talk14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Note expanded bibliography, which establishes DiCaprio as an active editor and writer in the underground movement in the 1970s (extending into the early 1980s). -- stoshmaster (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. The entire underground comix movement was designed to change people's perceptions of what stories were "worth" telling in the comics format, so many products of that era fail a mainstream definition of "notablity". Nonetheless, the material produced during that era changed the comics industry forever, heralding the alternative comics movement and the rise of the graphic novel. That history has been well established. DiCaprio's role during that time as a writer, publisher, editor, and distributor is also well-established. Not to mention that he collaborated with such "notable" artists as Justin Green and Jay Kinney, and contributed to anthologies such as Arcade and Slow Death. -- stoshmaster (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are at least three good sources. However, there are several sources that need to be removed and the article tagged as needing better sources, if it is kept. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about the sources, obviously Leonardo DiCaprio's dad is going to have a plethora of articles about him no matter what he did. The issue is that he has no notability outside of being Leo's father. jolielover♥talk05:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This is a very new article from a very new editor (which did not go through AfC). The external link hyperlinked to Zebra Cross is actually a review, and should be a reference. The article creator needs to look for other reviews of her published books, or articles about her (not by her). This author may be notable - let's give the editor time to work on it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That should work. Creator moved it from userspace to draft then to main, I mistakenly thought this was a contested draftification, hence the AfD and not a draftify myself ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>13:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: When I created this article, I believed that the sources I used were entirely reliable. However, after the admin Significa Liberdade edited the article, they removed all unreliable sources, for which I sincerely appreciate their efforts. [36]The subject is an author, and to be honest, I also struggled to find completely reliable sources. Therefore, I have decided to draft the article so that I can take the time to find better sources. Baqi:) (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General notability guideline(/WP:BASIC) -- lack of secondary/independent sources + no significant coverage. Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines for academics either. Comment(s) on talk page show that verification of any information is an ongoing issue. Tagged for peacock, advert, and tone since Feb 2010. I tried to fix the issues prior to filing this AfD. Puppies937 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep argument here which makes Soft Deletion inappropriate. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is true that there are some book reviews, but I don't find that be sufficient to support an article about an author. There is one rather gossipy review in the SF Examiner; a single paragraph in Publishers' Weekly; a single page in Library journal. The Key West Journal and Communities also provide gossipy reviews, and neither is what I would consider to be a major publication of book reviews. Most of what is in the article about the person is from a non-independent source. Lamona (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Counting pburka's comment as a call for retention, I still don't see consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎01:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GNG dictates widespread coverage in independent sources. Doing a cursory search of the sources leads to Lamona's conclusion. There are references, but, for the most part, they are minor and few enough as to not satisfy the widespread coverage usually required. One single paragraph and one single page isn't enough to satisfy notability. GuardianH03:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:AUTHOR. The third guideline says that the author must have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" and said work has been the subject of multiple independent reviews. Having reviews alone is not sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthnope (talk • contribs) 05:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a case of WP:BLP1E, the subject is only notable for their sacking from The Age. The rest of the sourcing that I've found, both in the article and through searches, is either not independent or not in-depth. I've considered the possibility that they might pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC and I don't see that either is the case. TarnishedPathtalk11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per WP:BLP1E the 'subjects notable for one event' policy must meet each of three criteria listed for the subject to be unsuitable for a page. They are: reliable sources only cover one event; the individual is otherwise low profile; and the individual's role in the event was not significant. I suggest Szego's career as an author and journalist elevates her above “low-profile individual”; and her role in the event clearly was not “not significant”. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A reading of WP:LOWPROFILE would suggest that they are indeed a low profile individual. Being a author or a journalist alone does not make someone not low-profile. In fact if they did have a high profile as consequence of those activities they would almost certainly pass WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NAUTHOR (the same policy), which they appear not to. TarnishedPathtalk23:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't agree with the contention that she is WP:BLP1E nor do I agree with the issue around the other sources. At the very least there is:
Wild Dingo Press, sells her book (see https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/shop/p/9780987381149). It's unsurprising that a book seller would have a profile page for an author that they sell the books of. It's not independent. It would also be a stretch to call two paragraphs significant coverage.
bookpublishing.com.au only mentions her in passing. It does not have significant coverage of her. Notably there is no claim that she won that award so I don't see a pass with WP:NAUTHOR.
The Age link you provide is her employee profile page, detailing articles that she wrote as a journalist for The Age. Firstly that's not independent coverage of her as an individual and secondly that doesn't go towards showing a pass of WP:NJOURNALIST. The Age were her employer, so it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her.
thejewishindependent is a podcast in which she is interviewed. This is not independent from Szego and more importantly counts as a primary source. This does not contribute towards establishing Szego's notability. Those issues aside it appears to be dominated by her sacking from The Age, going towards my argument of BLP1E.
The Guardian link is of the same nature as The Age link. Again not independent as they are/were her employer and again it's it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her which details the stories that she's written for them.
None of the sources you have provided above contribute to Szego's passing our general notability guidelines. In order to establish notability we would need multiple reliable secondary sources which are independent from Szego and which cover her in-depth. If WP:BLP1E wasn't a thing then she should pass on the coverage of her sacking alone, however WP:BLP1E is a thing and therefore she doesn't meet our general notability guidelines. TarnishedPathtalk12:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, above discussion and online research that rendered 2 books (no reviews), a sacking, and a couple articles about George Szego. Nothing significant for a career spanning decades. Maineartists (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen editors cite multiple reviews in the past as sufficient reason for a keep (not that I'm accusing you of doing that here as you've obviously stated there are no reviews). I'm not sure that multiple book reviews, by itself, is a WP:NAUTHOR pass. I presume the editors are basing their keep vote based on criterion 3 which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series), but to me it would appear that when they are doing so that they are disregarding the first sentence of that criterion. TarnishedPathtalk00:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found hundreds of search results for her in The Wikipedia Library, but the overwhelming majority of them were her bylines on articles she has written, and yes, there was SIGCOV about her, but it was not independent, because her byline was on those articles as well. Just because she was fired from her job doesn't automatically bestow notability on her, because that news cycle about her getting sacked has already come and gone. Maybe in the future, she might pass GNG for a BLP, but right now she does not, she's a BLP1E.Isaidnoway(talk)06:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having found multiple sources (8 so far, just in a google search, and no, they are not publications she has worked for, they're in books and journal articles) where she is quoted or her stances affirmed or questioned, I believe that she does meet WP:NAUTHOR #1, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". The article as it stands does not reflect this, but can be improved. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Isaidnoway's comment above. If you're going to claim that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" on the basis of them writing two books then you're going to need to provide some sourcing that makes that clear. TarnishedPathtalk01:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being quoted is not independent from the subject. Isaidnoway addressed that above. We don't count sources which are not independent from the subject as counting towards notability. TarnishedPathtalk12:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: "Keep" clearly has the numbers, but none of these keep !votes have appropriate evidence backing them up. If there are independent sources about her and her views, let's see them, please. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Independent sources that cite her views include: Voices of Us[37]; The Bible and the Business of Life, p201-202 [38]; Rise of the Right[39]; Pandemic of Perspectives[40]; an article in the Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics[41]; Guy Rundle, 'Goodbye to All That', p 329, in The Best Australian Political Writing 2008[42]; and see Google Scholar's list of her works and the articles and books they're cited in [43]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of the articles in mention that you've provided appear to be mentions in passing. 6 mentions in passing is not what I consider would meet the criterion "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors".
The Google Scholar link shows Szego's articles and the number of times each has been cited. If you click on 'Cited by N', you see lists of the other books and articles which cite her - evidence that she has been widely cited by peers. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of her newspaper articles are getting between 2 and 4 quotes. I hardly see that as evidence of being regarded as an important figure in the field of journalism or being widely cited. Indeed when I look at that list the only sources that get more than 4 cites are the works of others, which would be mentioning her in passing. TarnishedPathtalk10:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I think it should be drafted. He has won a lot of awards including the order of merit - Ordre des Palmes académiques which is major civilian award which likely makes him notable. The art as well, if they can be proved to be a museum or permanent collection would pass WP:NARTIST. There is lot potentially if it could be proven. There is lots more. The article itself is a mess and needs a significant copyedit and it also needs sourced. Some time in draft would give that space. If there is not enough coverage I could stubify it. scope_creepTalk09:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being a recipient of the Palmes académiques is not likely at all to make someone notable. More than 6,000 people receive this medal each year, and it used to be almost two times more until a few years ago. BilletsMauves€50013:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The changes made are minimal on links or inaccurate statements and I did not create the article. I do not know who created it. This article should be checked and formatted before thinking about deleting it in my opinion.
The changes made are minimal on links or inaccurate statements and I did not create the article. I do not know who created it. This article should be checked and formatted before thinking about deleting it in my opinion.
Delete - I am not finding reliable sourcing for the majority of biographical claims made in the article. The article contained unsourced discography, awards and bibliography. (which i removed) Primary sourced list of exhibitions and paintings (removed). Fails WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll add that I did find a fairly detailed review of the film based on his novella in Variety[1], but subject is only mentioned in passing and this seems to be the only example of SIGCOV for the film. Even it discussed him in more detail this in itself wouldn't meet requirement for multiple independent sources of SIGCOV. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC) InsomniaOpossum (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
