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.
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]
Was recently redirectly through an AfD, then recreated by the lone voice in that discussion in favor of keeping. The same issues still apply. There is zero in-depth coverage of a flag by this name. Restored the redirect and was promptly reverted, so here we are again. Pinging all the editors who participated in the first AfD: Syphax98, Red Phoenician, OwenX, Toadspike, 4meter4. Onel5969TT me10:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of additions since the redirect. It looks like several sources have been added. "Complete Flags of the World" is a one-sentence mention that the cedar tree has long been a symbol of the Maronites. "The orange and the ‘Cross in the Crescent’: imagining Palestine in 1929" is a good journal article, but where it mentions Maronites it is mainly focused on the cedar symbol and how it ended up on the Lebanese flag. "Why Do Catholics Eat Fish on Friday?" is the same, explaining why the modern Lebanese flag has a cedar on it. "Double vision in Beirut" is a one-sentence mention in an opinion piece. Page 262 of "Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World" does describe a "Maronite flag", but doesn't seem to (from my searching in the Google Books preview) spend more than a sentence describing the flag itself. "Flags and arms across the world" seems to have almost exactly the same text as "Why Do Catholics Eat Fish on Friday?", which does mention that the Maronites used a white flag with a cedar on it but not much more. I can't search in the "National Eucharistic Congress" source and jeancharaf.org seems to be a dead link. Searching for "drapeau" in "Voyage en Orient, Volume 1: Les femmes de Caire; Druses et Maronites", the only mention about this subject seems to be the sentence "Ce sont les signes qui distinguent les drapeaux des Maronites et ceux des Druses, dont le fond est également rouge d'ailleurs." This sentence doesn't have any context and is very confusing to me – I suspect there was an accompanying image not present in the linked version. The last two sources are cited for mentions of the flag, not analysis, so I presume they contain none.
Some of these sources may already have been present in the pre-redirect version, it's hard to tell. Anyhow, I still don't think the concept of a Maronite flag has received any coverage beyond passing mentions, mostly in sources explaining how the modern Lebanese flag came to be. Thus, I still believe this should be redirected to Flag of Lebanon. Toadspike[Talk]17:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Charaf’s source is available via archive as sourced and National Eucharistic Congress is open to search. As for Nerval you have to read the entire quote: “—Allez où vous voudrez, dit-il; tous ces gens là sont fort paisibles depuis que nous sommes chez eux. Autrement, il aurait fallu vous battre pour les uns ou pour les autres, pour la croix blanche ou pour la main blanche. Ce sont les signes qui distinguent les drapeaux des Maronites et ceux des Druses, dont le fond est également rouge d'ailleurs.” Red Phoenician (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion review (DRV) is only for reviewing whether the close accurately reflected the consensus reached in the discussion, not for relitigating the issues discussed in the AfD, so it is probably not what what Red Phoenician was aiming for. Also, if the recreated page is a duplicate of the original, it can be speedy-deleted under WP:G4, but the new sources probably make this different enough that G4 does not apply here. Toadspike[Talk]01:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The previous AfD had a clear consensus to redirect, and I don't think it should be possible to overturn it in this way (with limited engagement with the new AfD) without the restorer of the redirect having made any effort to demonstrate that the changes to the article now establish notability. I.e. I don't think it makes sense to close this as "no consensus" simply due to lack of participation, since there is a preexisting consensus. Stockhausenfan (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The original reasoning was that there were not enough sources to back the existence of a flag. Now that there are plentiful sources on multiple flags the goalposts have been changed to require sources of even more detail. Must there be an entire book dedicated to the history of the Maronite flag? The sources include many vexillological books/articles which should be adequate. Furthermore the claim that the Maronite flag is identical to the Lebanese flag is disingenuous for two reasons. Firstly, it implies that Lebanon and its flag were created solely for the Maronites and disenfranchises other religious groups of Lebanon. Secondly, this implies that the Maronite Cross flag and flag under Bashir Shihab II have any relation with the Lebanese flag which is not true and to paint them as such would be misinformation. Red Phoenician (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can only find mentions and primary sources on this sculpture. The artist is most likely notable, and it was suggested to the article's creator to do an article on them, in which this could be included, but they have decided not to. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969TT me12:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A before search reveals lots of hits for a music album by the same name, but nothing about this artwork. As noted in the nomination, the artist may be notable, but there is not an article on them to redirect or merge this with. Delete for now unless someone creates an article on the artist before this AfD closes. Netherzone (talk) 15:31, 29 March 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
Fails WP:BIO. Not seeing any demonstrated notability for this person. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. And this is an obvious spam article. Skazi (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- (moderate to strong) -- Created by a seemingly single-purpose editor (User:Արշո; tagging for transparency and fairness' sake), and it just so happens to be an essay-like or ad-like submission? Wikipedia does not exist for aggrandizment, promotion, or advertising (not to mention it is against policy). Sans the allegedly promotional content, I'm not seeing what would bring us notability with this individual. A few fluff pieces by Russian blogsphere tabloids do not count as WP:RS. MWFwiki (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concerns and I have tried to write the article to the best of my ability with quality content. However, if there are issues with the notability or other aspects of the article, I don’t mind if it gets deleted. I appreciate the transparency and will be happy to improve or clarify the article if needed.--Արշո (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the references and determined that all but a few of them have a 404 error, and the remainder link to book-selling sites. Book-selling sites are not acceptable sources, according to WP:RS. (Reference 5 and 9 have a 404 error, and 3, 4, and 6 are book-selling sites.) Further, no independent, third-party publication or news source providing evidence regarding his published books and claimed prizes. Only ref no.2 can be opened, but it starts https://barta24.com/, and no such newspaper as Barta24 exists in the List of newspapers in Bangladesh.
Musa Al Hafiz had been characterized as a poet, researcher, and chairman of the Bangladesh Islamic History and Culture Olympiad. None of the above claims exist in the form of any such significant, independent, or neutral source. Wikipedia policy WP:NBIO declares that a piece of work or a contribution by a particular individual must be significant enough on the international or national level so that the individual deserves an article. But such recognition is absent here.
Tone in the article ("born once in a thousand years", "extraordinary poet is a rare gem") contradicts Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy since they are promotionally biased. There is no published source or evidence that can be used to support the assertion. It appears that it had been authored largely for self-promotion.
I could not trace any publication date and review copy of his books (such as Mukti Anonde Amio Hasbo and Mrityur Janmodin) in any national repository.
This piece clearly appears to be self-promotional. It therefore disregards the spirit of Wikipedia (WP:NOTPROMO). It does not provide useful content but instead misinforms people with unverifiable information.
Delete I've proposed this for deletion as it doesn't appear to establish more than a passing notability. The only two facts about her are that she is the co-founder of an organisation and a magazine. The stub hasn't been expanded in the last 15 years. Also, only one page appears to link to this page. Suggest a Wikidata page would be sufficient. Alternatively, the stub could be added to the page for the Society.
Weak keep: the Malayan Nature Journal pops up in Gscholar where this person is mentioned [8] as the editor. This [9] and [[10]] are both by the same author but appear to show notabililty. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Might meet notability as the editor of the Malayan Nature Journal, PROF, but I don't remember which point it is exacly (C3?) Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the information found by User:Oaktree b, her two early publications (writing as Gladys Keay) on mites were cited by others in the scientific literature. I have added those citations. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think this contributes to notability, particularly since those papers were written in a time when citation counts were lower. In my mind, the points raised by Oaktree b are the best discussion notes for a keep argument. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not meet WP:GNG. The coverage in the article and in BEFORE is limited to tabloid sources, trivial mentions, or unbylined coverage from WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources. The third reference (Times Now) is a paid article which is not independent or reliable for establishing notability. Junbeesh (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find articles about someone with the same name that works for a "Brothers and Sisters" agency in London, nothing about this person. Sourcing used in the article is not helpful, it's only one source and doesn't show notability anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with the above. The subject does not meet WP:GNG, as there is no significant, independent, and sustained coverage available to establish notability. The only source in the article is primary and does not demonstrate the depth required. Most search results refer to a different individual with the same name, further confusing the issue. Without reliable, in-depth secondary sources focused on this person, the article does not warrant inclusion. Bhw664488 (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article now quotes two separate reviews. If anyone has a copy of Vector #188, a third review could be added as well. Three reviews easily meets notability guidelines. Guinness323 (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leerbaert has written at least a half dozen books that have been reviewed in peer-reviewed academic journals. Unfortunately, most of what is in the article is unsourced, which violates BLP rules. I looked for more bio info based on what is in the article but have not found it. I will try to at least get the weightier reviews into the article, and will mark [citation needed] where I will be looking for sources. Lacking sources, though, the article will need to be greatly reduced. Lamona (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Example reviews:
Reviewed Work: Soviet Military Thinking. by Derek Leebaert
Immerman, Richard. 2019. Grand Improvisations: America Confronts the British Superpower, 1945-1957. Derek Leebaert. Journal of American History. Vol. 134. p. 818 doi: 10.1093/jahist/jaz636
Hirschey, Mark. 1984. What Role for Government? Lessons from Policy Research. Richard J. Zeckhauser Derek Leebaert. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 22. pp. 1122-1123
Comment I've made many changes to the article and have found some good reviews (good = reliable sources) for his books. I have yet to find anything independent for biographical information, so all of that may either need to be sourced to non-independent sources or be removed. I do not know what to do about the WP:COI, aka AUTOBIOGRAPHY. As the changes have all been done with an IP (and the same IP) I would suggest blocking that IP, even though it's easy to get around that. I'll add some COI notices. Lamona (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
questionable notability, as it relies predominantly on sources too closely associated with the subject and lacks significant independent coverage in reputable publications. Additionally, the article presents a promotional tone Mapsama (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He has at least two other books, Inside the house of money: top hedge fund traders on profiting in the global markets and The Invisible Hands: Top Hedge Fund Traders on Bubbles, Crashes, and Real Money, but my searches could not find any reliably published reviews. Two reviews of one book isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR for me, we don't have the citation record needed for WP:PROF#C1, and I don't see the significant coverage in independent sources needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only independent sources I can find are ones that mention her in passing. Created over a declined AfC in 2015 by a single-purpose account editing about Perkins and her publishing company. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸04:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but stubify. Underneath the promotional tone is a lot of important work in publishing award-winning Lesbian writers. The Lambda Literary Awards are the Pulitzers of queer writing, and her imprints have for over a dozen years published many notable women's literature, including Cecilia Tan. I don't know the subject, but I met Tan once or twice at SF Cons. Can I take a crack at this? Thanks for your patience. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC) P.S. I've started to work on it. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC) P.P.S. I cut out what can't be sourced or is out of date, and added a source. I considered a merger but upon further reflection took it back. Discuss. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as between the three book reviews, awards, and coverage about her agency and e-book house there seems to be enough for at least WP:NAUTHOR if not WP:BASIC. The article is a bit of a mess and would benefit from a re-write. Nnev66 (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
? What does the nominator think about the subject's citation record? It appears to contain hundreds of sources that are not connected to the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Only independent sources are a newspaper article announcing a lecture he was presenting about his book and a blog post from the director of the Duke University Cancer Center, not an expert on the biography of Columbus. - Donald Albury15:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm finding basically nothing that isn't self-published except for one or two sentences in a couple of books. Pretty much nothing on scholar at all.OsFish (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Weak Delete I have this article watchlisted because I do generally think it's wise to keep an eye on the pages of holocaust deniers so that we can avoid Wikipedia hosting, you know, holocaust denial, but this guy's definitely a good example of WP:BLP1E. While I do think it's good for Wikipedia to cover notable pseudohistorians, including notable holocaust deniers, I don't think we need to have a page for every holocaust denier with a Podcastle subscription. Should evidence be presented this man is a more significant holocaust denier then I guess I'll go back to keeping him on my watchlist but otherwise I think deletion is the best course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223 While Cooper gained noterietay from the Carlson interview, the number of sources since the last article was deleted in September have increased. Aside from receiving 10s of millions of views on popular shows & podcats like Carslon and Rogan, Cooper hosts 2 popular podcasts of his own and has a substack with over 160k subscribers. I think that this page is clearly unfinished and some of the sourcing should be fixed. It also entirely focuses on his recent comments with Carlson and Rogan. This is a better argument to expand the page than to delete it. Cooper's popularity is clearly growing, he does now fit the criteria for a notable person. I think it is important for wikipedia to cover this person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Showing up as a guest in the walled garden of right-wing podcasts isn't an automatic indication of notability nor is having a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but his popularity is. Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. Many of Cooper's associated personalities are equally as notable and have wiki pages. Comic Dave Smith for example. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your comparison to Dave Smith (comedian) is actually a good one for demonstrating why Cooper is not notable. Smith has many reliable sources talking about a variety of actual event appearances such as festivals and such. His advocacy for Trump made it into Reason for goodness sake. The SPLC has a profile on Smith and has documented his conflict with the holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Dave Smith is clearly notable by Wikipedia's standards because reliable sources treat him as such. Showing up on Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan while being a far-right podcaster is not intrinsically notable. Having a blog is not intrinsically notable. In fact the contrast between Cooper and Smith reinforces why we should not have a page about Cooper. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a point of order, the previous version was not deleted – The result was redirect to Tucker Carlson#Darryl Cooper World War II controversy. I'll look at the newly created version and sources a little later and get back.Isaidnoway(talk)13:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Merge My opinion hasn't really changed here, eventhough the article has grown. Nearly all of the citations fall into two groups: first-party/non-notable, like the subject's substack or podcast homepage, or specifically about a single opinion/appearance--and all from September 2024. There are now two citations about a second podcast appearance, this time on Joe Rogan, but it's still basically the same problem; the subject is only notable when he makes a fuss or controversial statement on someone else's program. Basically, when you get down to it, this is person is known for two slightly viral moments. I know that BLP2E isn't a "real" policy around here, but this feels more like an extension of BLP1E. I'm assuming the subject will continue to make enough noise to eventually meet notabilty guidelines; I just don't think here's there yet based on the current article. --FeldBum (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neill Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[[[Neil Ferguson]] more an “anti-historian”[11] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neil Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[12] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just your opinion. There's also a number of other quotes and information now in the article, his Joe Rogan appearance, the many, many articles criticizing his point of view. Eric Carpenter (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since I was pinged as a "participant" in the last nomination, I wanted to clarify that my only contribution to that was deletion sorting. Other than this comment, that is also the case for this nomination; I had no opinion on the old article and also offer no opinion for this version. WCQuidditch☎✎20:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. The previous article only focused on the Tucker Interview, which is why it was considered WP:BLP1E. Cooper’s work has been widely discussed in major outlets including The Times (UK), Vox, Axios, Yad Vashem, and The Free Press, which reflects the notability standards set by Wikipedia for public figures. Additionally, many of the personalities he associates with such as comic Dave Smith have wikipedia pages despite equal noterietay at best. These factors—his independent contributions to historical analysis, his partnerships with notable figures, and his coverage by reliable secondary sources—clearly demonstrate that Cooper meets the criteria a notable person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete here's very little reliable sourcing for Cooper except that he is a podcaster who made several controversial appearances on right-wing talk shows promoting holocaust denial. These controversies are best covered in articles about the hosts.
Keep: A certain level of prudence is required to productively apply notability guidelines. Cooper is a writer and podcaster with a large audience who has been involved in several controversies. This is enough for him to be notable, and the point of notability guidelines is fundamentally to filter out what's not notable. Not to provide material for (admittedly) politically-motivated quibbling over alleged edge cases as if the norms themselves were the point. Note also the almost inevitable meta-level political bias that sneaks in when editors are free to apply different levels of scrutiny to different topics based on their own biases. A serious effort to remain unbiased would involve opening discussions on politics-related articles with an encouragement for users to check their biases at the door - instead we have editors more or less stating that they are here to enforce their political preferences. Anyway, it's three events now and it was two events last time when WP:BLP1E was applied. HonestManBad (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bad in any way that's relevant to this discussion. It's not a single tweet but a thread of 35 tweets - an article of sorts, you could say - not that it matters. The reactions from significant figures and publications are what makes the events notable. HonestManBad (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: BLP1E doeesn't apply because there are at least 4 events that have received coverage in secondary sources: 1) The 1/6 tweets, 2) the Hitler tweet, 3) The Tucker Carlson appearance, and 4) The Joe Rogan appearance. While it is true that none of these in themselves would make someone notable, the fact that these events have been covered in secondary source does. Additionally, Cooper has tens of thousands of paid subscribers on Substack, making him one of the highest earners on the site.[18]Mr. Squidroot (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a podcaster interacting with other podcasters and making some noise for bigoted tweets is not proof of notoriety. The article also seems like a puff piece. A lot of sources are subpar, unreliable, and some were also pulled from ChatGPT. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources from a scan of the internet and available media shows that this should meet GNG. Per Mr. Squiqroot. This article should not be deleted, but more WP:BEFORE should have been done. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case this page was kept kindly move this page to Darryl Cooper (which is redirect to itself). Current title includes an unnessesary disambiguation. Ping me or the closing admin themself can do it if possible. Thank You and No opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Created by a WP:SPA in 2009. The creator contributed the bulk (62%) of the edits to the article and has not edited since the article was created. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Lacks significant coverage with few cites to reliable, independent sources. Reads like a resume and is little more than a promotional accomplishments listing designed to sell or "puff piece." Many unsourced statements. Geoff | Who, me?17:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. References limited to self-published sources. Lacks significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent publications. WP:BEFORE search turned up little beyond self-published sources, book lists and one TED talk recording. Geoff | Who, me?19:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with nomination. Jenna is linked to sources besides her own. She is an advocate for the truth as shown in the substack article referenced on her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeJMyhre (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Agree with the nomination. Tried my own search and only found references from primary sources (author, publisher) + her Tedx talk. Don't consider reviews from Kirkus reviews to be significant due to potential to pay for review.
I also pointed out that the conspiracy theorist label was wrong. They claimed that I was not presenting a neutral point of view. Below are my comments:
My comments were a neutral point of view. The text I was trying to change said:
"Jenna McCarthy is an American conspiracy theorist." with no links or arguments to support the claim.
I tried to change it to "Jenna McCarthy has been called an American conspiracy theorist." which is true without argument or need for support.
I then also included an article from Jenna McCarthy that explained what are and are not conspiracy theories. This of course was her opinion which was explained in my edit. To not include any relevant arguments and simply claim that 'she is a conspiracy theorist' is not a neutral point of view. You can't remove my edits trying to correct your current bias and claim that I don't have a neutral view 24.143.78.9 (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article no longer mentions the "conspiracy theorist" label. In any case, this is not relevant to whether the article should be deleted.Geoff | Who, me?16:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The body of work consists of material that in the past has been censored and dismissed as "conspiracy based". But as with most COVID "conspriacies", much of it has turned out to be true. No downside to keeping, and not a good look to continue censoring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmatich (talk • contribs) 16:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This looks like the person we're discussing [19] and would be a book review, but one isn't enough. I don't find anything else about this person, this likely doesn't pass AUTHOR. (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, she does appear to be a prolific writer, according to Baker & Taylor Author Biographies: McCarthy is a writer whose work has appeared in more than 40 national and international magazines including: Allure, Parenting, Shape, Fit Pregnancy, Babytalk, Glamour, Seventeen, New Parent, Real Simple, New Woman, Self, and in anthologies such as the popular Chicken Soup series. She's had a decent amount of book reviews, and she co-authored (with Pierre Kory), a top-ten national bestseller. I found a lot of newspapers that quoted her and/or mentioned her books, but no significant coverage about her – that I could find. So I'm neutral on whether to keep or delete the article.
If It Was Easy, They'd Call the Whole Damn Thing a Honeymoon: Living With and Loving the TV-Addicted, Sex-Obsessed, Not-So-Handy Man You Married. Publishers Weekly. 8/22/2011, Vol. 258 Issue 34, pages 57-58
If It Was Easy, They'd Call the Whole Damn Thing a Honeymoon: Living With and Loving the TV-Addicted, Sex-Obsessed, Not-So-Han:dy Man You Married. Kirkus Reviews. 10/15/2011, Vol. 79 Issue 20, page 1905
If It Was Easy, They'd Call the Whole Damn Thing a Honeymoon: Living With and Loving the TV-Addicted, Sex-Obsessed, Not-So-Han:dy Man You Married. St. Petersburg Times, 10/23/2011, page 7L
Jenna McCarthy discusses her book, "If It Was Easy, They'd Call The Whole Damn Thing A Honeymoon". 2011, Today Show
Poppy Louise Is Not Afraid of Anything. Publishers Weekly, 2/13/2017, Vol. 264, Issue 7, page 73
Poppy Louise Is Not Afraid of Anything. Booklist, 2/15/2017, Vol. 113, Issue 12, page 83
The Parent Trip: From High Heels and Parties to High Chairs and Potties. Foreword Magazine, May-June 2008
Keep. (presumably) writing nonsense about covid is not a reason for deletion. The question is whether she's notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Given her publication list she seems notable as an author to me, hence she should be kept. Keep in mind notability of authors/journalists/writers is not an assessment of the quality or correctness of their work.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Searching newspapers.com, I found one review, of The Parent Trip[22], and several other articles where she, or one of her books, is quoted [23], [24], [25]. So there's the review I found, the one that Oaktree b and Bearian found, the Foreword Magazine review, St. Petersburg Times review, and the Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly reviews that Isaidnoway found. That's not a lot, for such a prolific author, but it's probably just enough for a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Updating my vote based on sources that others have found. Given her writing on ivermectin, I do think it would be appropriate for the article to include some mention of McCarthy promoting use of ivermectin for COVID despite the lack of quality evidence. Whether or not that includes the specific label of conspiracy theorist will depend on secondary sources about her.
Keep or redirect to High places in cyberspace. I have found three reviews of his book High places in cyberspace: in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies[26], in Semeia : an Experimental Journal for Biblical Studies[27] (p 166), and in the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion[28]. So it looks as though the book is notable, per WP:NBOOK. We could either write an article about the book, or keep the article about him, adding references including the book reviews. There are certainly newspaper articles which verify that he worked as a defence lawyer, which don't contribute to notability but would probably be better sources than a law report. I haven't yet found secondary sources about his work with OASIS or ISO standards. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could move the current article to the book title, to maintain history, and make the article about the book, which per your sourcing looks notable. Onel5969TT me20:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability. Of 11 refs, almost all are from his own works; one is an interview with him, one is an entry from Contemporary Authors: A Bio-Bibliographical Guide. He has written 45 books. It is not easy to find reviews other than publisher abstracts or Goodreads blurbs or equivalent; one of his better-known ones (caveat: I am not knowledgeable about this) appears to be Toxic Nourishment, and a search for reviews returns mostly sales sites. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His works are widely cited, as a search on Google Scholar indicates, with many of his papers and books having several hundred citations (which is significant for an individual). So disagreed w/r/t notability of Eigen.
However, I think you are rightfully calling attention to --- if implicitly --- to another issue: The page on Eigen has an insufficient number of external sources. Purely based on a cursory reading of this page one will likely --- and thus correctly --- come to the conclusion that Eigen is an isolated figure. In actuality, he is an important member of the psychoanalytic community, and he teaches worldwide (as his Seoul seminars indicate).
The article does not reflect that, however, and I am grateful for you bringing this to my/psy-community's attention. Once I have more time, I will try and add some external sources and appraisals.
Keep There are four books published by Routledge about his work listed in the Further Reading section of this article. Even without looking further, that certainly meets WP:GNG. The use of primary sources for citations is probably due to not understanding Wikipedia's requirements, not to a lack of secondary sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two items with pretty good citation levels is below what I'm generally looking for in WP:NPROF. University-wide teaching awards do not contribute here. On the other hand, one book tends to fall under WP:BLP1E so far as WP:NAUTHOR goes; I did not anyway find reviews on a cursory search. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. For someone at this level of seniority, two well-cited publications (one a textbook) with the rest falling off steeply is below the bar for WP:PROF#C1, and nothing else in the article looks to contribute to notability. I did find one published review of the book, and hints that there might have been another by Garman in [29] (from which any book reviews are now missing), but even if I could find the second review it wouldn't be enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To my mind a notable econometrician. His founding of/chairing of the Midwest Econometrics Group (MEG) is I think very notable within the US academic econometrics community and his role as the guest editor for a special edition of a highly prestigious econometrics journal - the Journal of Econometrics is important, as his work on Splines in ecmetrics via his book and papers ... and these seem to me together sufficient for notability. His published academic work in econometrics is very wide ranging....and I have used some if it in different contexts.... His later post-retirement books and media / opinion piece work seem to me less notable (but my bias is towards the academic side) and I don't know how notable his work as an independent Midwest Voices columnist on the Kansas City Star online edition might be from a journalistic point of view. (Msrasnw (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Keep The article has been expanded since its creation. The contributions made by Msrasnw, consisting of valuable content including his publications, serve to further establish the notability of the subject. Gedaali (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gedaali: perhaps you could explain which notability criterion is satisfied by providing a listing of publications? Do you think every academic for whom we could list publications is notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While he has (as mentioned above) a couple of well cited papers, the dropoff is fast and the total number of citations at 1359 is weak. His own page does not indicate anything notable except some prior students; notability is not inheritable from his prior students. I don't see indications that his book(s) have had an impact. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The only type of sources I can find was this one here [1] and it is a book that he wrote. It seems like it's sort of notable for someone to write a book and have other sourcing. But, thoroughly scanning Google I could not find any other sort of citations besides that one. I would just draftify this until better sourcing is needed. Editz2341231 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bio of a one-book author that appears to fail notability guidelines for WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Single valid reference about this person is an announcement in a small college daily. The other refs provided are her PR agent, blogs, and several of her own bi-lined articles. All the remaining references cover the book, not the author. None of this is enough significant coverage to meet GNG. It seems there could be enough refs for a page about the book where a redirect might be appropriate. — CactusWriter (talk)22:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately someone recently removed a review of her book from the references without explaining why. There is sufficient coverage of her work to justify this page. She is an author. Her work is the thing that matters. Who gives a fuck about where she was born or what her favourite colour is. What has she written and how has it been received is what is encyclopedic content. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I think the more notable subject is her true crime work, but there seems to be enough individualized coverage to support an article on her. The Stenson article does not contribute to notability, so I have to make this a weak keep. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Has had one popular book, which received RS reviews. I do not find it on best seller lists. I just don't think a single successful book (but no awards) suffices. Lamona (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple articles by major media organizations, including NPR, the Tampa Bay Times, and the Minnesota Star Tribune, qualify this article as notable due to the Wikipedia notability criteria of significant coverage by multiple sources. Orlando Davis (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
