Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts

Please add MUSIC-related discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music, not here.

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Artists (in the visual arts only). It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Artists|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Artists (in the visual arts only). For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from April 2016) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Artists

[edit]

Niko de Weymann

[edit]
Niko de Weymann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable supposed polymath. Claimed notability in numerous fields but fails to meet relevant guidelines an any: fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NSPORTSPERSON, WP:NCREATIVE, WP:MUSICBIO. Cabrils (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Cooper (Model maker)

[edit]
Randy Cooper (Model maker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage, beyond listings and credits. Declined 5 times at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace repeatedly by User:Orlando Davis who states “ I don't agree with notability tags. The subject may take it personally. Deletion makes more sense, or leave it alone.” so here we are. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Film, and Visual arts. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: Fine-Scale Modeler, The Evening Independent, and Bay News 9 are all highly reliable and independent. The film credits and interview articles should be noted. Significant changes have been made after each time it was turned down. Orlando Davis (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With niche sourcing like Fine-Scale Modeler, one good way to establish it as a RS is to show where the source is seen as a RS by other RS, particularly academic/scholarly sources. Offhand I see it used listed in a further reading section in this CRC Press book and a note in this Taylor & Francis. I wasn't able to find much more. The magazine was owned by Kalmbach Media but was sold to Firecrown Media last year. It looks like this is probably usable, but I'd recommend running it through WP:RS/N to be certain.
    As far as interviews go, those are seen as primary sources regardless of where they're posted unless they're written in prose. The standard interview format is pretty much just question and answer, without any sort of accompanying article. As such, they almost always have little to no editorial oversight or fact-checking beyond formatting and spell-check. This is a very widely held stance on Wikipedia and is unlikely to ever change.
    Now, when it comes to film credits the issue here is that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the person working on a notable production or with notable people. The reason for this is that there can be hundreds to even thousands of people working on a film. According to this, over 3,000 people worked on Iron Man 3, so just working on a notable film isn't enough to establish notability - you need coverage in independent and reliable sources that specific highlight the person in question. So if there was a RS review that stated "Randy Cooper's work on IM2 was fantastic", that would count. However with his work being so specific, it's unlikely that he would be highlighted over say, the person or company who was overall in charge of VFX.
    Finally, I guess I'd be remiss if I didn't say that local coverage tends to be kind of seen as routine on Wikipedia as local outlets are more likely to cover a local person. So in this case what you will need to do is help establish how this coverage should be seen as more than just local, routine coverage. Viewership/circulation numbers are a great way of doing this. So for example, a local paper with a fairly low readership would be seen as kind of routine whereas say, an article in a major, well circulated paper would be seen as a much stronger source. Now to be fair, there's nothing official saying that local coverage can't be used, but it is typically seen as a weaker source and shouldn't be doing the heavy lifting in an AfD discussion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response.
    Bay News has a very high viewership (1.76 Million), (source 11). Charter Communications
    The Evening Independent was a major newspaper in the Tampa Bay area and was merged as the Tampa Bay Times in 1986, which has a circulation of over 100k not including the more widely read digital edition. 1)Times Publishing Company 2) Tampa Bay Times Orlando Davis (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fine Scale Modeler magazine is ok for sourcing, the rest either aren't online, trivial mentions or primary sources. I can't pull anything up. Just not enough sourcing for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Fonseca

[edit]
Sascha Fonseca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable photographer. Page was created by a single-purpose account with a clear COI (and who claims to be the subject himself). A WP:BEFORE search doesn't provide much information, and there isn't any evidence of notability from reliable sources. Fails WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. CycloneYoris talk! 09:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the subject is "non-notable."
As a wildlife photographer, I have received significant **international recognition**, including:
  • Winner of the People’s Choice Award at the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition, hosted by the Natural History Museum — one of the world’s most prestigious institutions in the field of natural history and photography.
  • Featured and interviewed by numerous independent, reliable international media outlets, including the BBC, CNN, Forbes, National Geographic, The Guardian, Smithsonian Magazine, and others.
  • Just days ago, my work was profiled in a full-length feature by the Süddeutsche Zeitung[1] — a leading German newspaper and an established reliable source under WP:RS.
  • My images are actively used by the WWF, the Snow Leopard Trust, and the Amur Tiger Center for conservation, education, and fundraising purposes.
While I acknowledge that the article was created with a conflict of interest, I have fully disclosed my identity on my user page and within this discussion. I have taken care to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and verifiability, and have cited only independent, third-party sources.
Based on the coverage and recognition outlined above, the subject clearly meets the criteria under WP:CREATIVE and WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, and I believe the article serves encyclopedic value and public interest. SaFo wiki (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sascha Fonseca meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria as a widely published and internationally recognized wildlife :photographer, particularly known for pioneering DSLR and mirrorless camera trap photography of elusive big cats such :as snow leopards, Amur leopards, and Siberian tigers.
1. Significant Independent Media Coverage:
Fonseca’s work has been featured in reputable, independent outlets including:
• Condé Nast, BBC, NatGeo, WWF
• Leading newspapers Telegraph, The Guardian, Süddeutsche Zeitung
This coverage demonstrates clear notability under WP:BIO and WP:GNG standards.
2. Prestigious Awards and Exhibitions:
• Winner in the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition by the Natural History Museum in London – one of :the most competitive and globally recognized photography contests.
• His now-iconic image of a wild snow leopard at sunset was shared by major conservation groups and widely :praised.
• Exhibitions include the UN Headquarters in New York, the Xposure International Photography Festival (UAE), and :global wildlife platforms.
3. Conservation Impact and Public Engagement:
Fonseca’s work raises awareness about endangered species and supports conservation through visuals rarely captured in the wild. His photos are used in research and education, and he regularly gives talks and participates in outreach.
4. Reliable Sources Exist and Can Be Added:
There is ample coverage available from independent third-party sources. If the article lacks inline citations, it can and should be improved—not deleted.
5. COI / Tone Issues Are Fixable:
If concerns exist around neutrality or conflict of interest, the appropriate step is to improve tone and structure—not removal. Wikipedia welcomes editing improvements and collaboration rather than erasure of notable subjects.
Conclusion:
Fonseca clearly meets the inclusion criteria. Deletion would remove a notable figure in modern wildlife photography from Wikipedia and disregard available documentation of his accomplishments. I strongly recommend keeping and improving the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaFo wiki (talk • contribs) 10:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC) — SaFo wiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: SaFo wiki (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
his accomplishments So now you are not Fonseca?
But on your userpage you claimed to be him. I am Sascha Fonseca
Also, are your responses written using AI / a large language model? If a newspaper used one of your photos that is not coverage of you. Polygnotus (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am Sascha Fonseca. SaFo wiki (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: Yes, I confirm that I am Sascha Fonseca, and all my edits and replies have been written by me personally — not using AI or automated tools. The references cited in the article are not just for my photos, but for published interviews, tutorials and features where my work and career are covered independently by reliable sources. SaFo wiki (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also apparently https://www.sueddeutsche.de/projekte/artikel/gesellschaft/schneeleopard-fotograf-e865408/?reduced=true per above. WP:GNG seems to be met, even if the article is very promotional and needs to be worked over -- the only issue is sustained coverage, but the articles above were written in 2022, 2023, and 2025. So it does seem sustained over a couple years at least. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris: Labelling someone a “non-notable photographer” without fairly evaluating the sources is not only dismissive, but also contrary to Wikipedia’s spirit of neutrality and evidence-based discussion. The article includes coverage from multiple independent, reliable publications — including a full-length profile in Süddeutsche Zeitung (one of Germany’s leading newspapers), and features in Condé Nast Traveller, Smithsonian Magazine, and Nature TTL.
I was awarded the People’s Choice Award at the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition hosted by the Natural History Museum, selected from 39,000 images, with over 60,000 public votes. That alone is widely covered and meets notability per WP:PHOTOGRAPHER and WP:CREATIVE.
Yes, I created the article and have declared my COI transparently. But dismissing a subject solely on that basis while ignoring strong sources and international recognition contradicts the principles of WP:NPOV and WP:AGF.
I welcome constructive feedback — but not characterizations that ignore facts or contributions made in good faith. 91.73.1.255 (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.sueddeutsche.de/projekte/artikel/gesellschaft/schneeleopard-fotograf-e865408/
Specifically in regards to WP:PHOTOGRAPHER Foncesca would meet the criteria "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," with regards to the snow leopard photo, which all of these articles are about I think. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm not convinced that this article meets WP:PHOTOGRAPHER or even WP:GNG. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, because the only reliable source I'm seeing with significant coverage is Conde Nast. I also have a problem with the COI. I think the subject can wait until more sources become available.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm just starting to look into the sources and I've already found two that are advertorials, not articles providing significant coverage. These are Native Advertising, in other words, WP:ADMASQ advertisements mascarading as news/journalism sources. World Art News is a promotional service platform that anyone can submit their work to for publication, at a fee; its pay to play, proven by their "About" description, Engage with this diverse audience through our promotional services. and Advertise with World Art News: Publish your Art, Press Release, Story and News and Additionally, we serve as a publisher, offering advertising, press releases, and other promotional services tailored to the affluent art community. all of which then link to the page that says for $99 Getting Started is Easy! My Modern Met is also an advertising platform mascarading as an art magazine or trade journal. Are you an artist, designer or photographer who'd like to have your work featured on My Modern Met? Did you see something interesting or inspiring that you think others might enjoy? Do you want to share it with the rest of the world? Great! Here's how: It's promotional click-bait, not serious art historical/art critical journalism. I am holding off !voting for now until I can take a deeper dive into the sources, but this is looking alot like WP:PROMO, and the COI is problematic. So far it seems like the subject is simply doing his job as a commercial photographer, like thousands of others. Netherzone (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not a commercial photographer — this is my personal passion and not my profession. I pursue wildlife photography independently, not for advertising or profit, and do not promote or sell products or services.
    I understand concerns about source reliability, and I agree that not all media outlets carry the same editorial weight. I’ve been working to improve the article by adding coverage from more established publications (e.g. Süddeutsche Zeitung, Nature TTL) and am open to feedback on further strengthening it with reliable, independent sources. 91.73.1.255 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    91.73.1.255, please log in if you are @SaFo wiki Sascha Fonseca. Thanks for clarification. Unfortunately I'm unable to read the Süddeutsche Zeitung without paying for a subscription. Perhaps there is another link? The Nature TTL citation is a tutorial you wrote yourself, so therefore not an independent source. Nature TTL seems to be something different than the British scientific journal Nature. The Forbes piece seems to be based off a press release. A question for you, if you are Sascha, are any of your photographs held in the permanent collections of notable museums or national galleries? If so could you please add links here that would verify that? It might help establishing notability per WP:NARTIST. BTW, I'm sorry if it feels like there is a lot of scrutiny going on in the deletion process, but this is just how the encyclopedia determines what is notable or not, based on it's own inclusion criteria that's been developed over the years through consensus. It may be helpful and of interest for you to read this content guideline: WP:AUTOBIO and also this essay: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, as it's really difficult to be objective if one is personally connected to the subject of an article. Netherzone (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netherzone: Thanks for your message. Yes, I’m Sascha Fonseca and have declared my COI. The Süddeutsche Zeitung article is paywalled because it’s a premium profile — I believe the fact that it’s behind a paywall reflects the value of the content, not a lack of coverage. I understand the Nature TTL piece is self-authored and will look to add more independent sources. While my work isn’t in permanent museum collections, it has been exhibited at the UN, Xposure, and other international venues. Appreciate the engagement. 91.73.1.255 (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please log in, it's confusing to other editors if you are contributing from both an IP address and with a user name. Also, the IP address reveals personal information that you may not want to be made public on this forum. Netherzone (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netherzone: Noted. But let’s focus on the content and sources, not which account I happened to be using. I’m here in good faith — that’s what matters. 91.73.1.255 (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep: covered in NPR [1] and People.com [2] Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And Conde Nast India [3]. The photo of the snow leopard appears well-documented. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The NPR and People pieces are almost identical, and seem to be based on the same press release. The Condé Nast piece is better. Might this be a case of WP:BLP1E or WP:TOOSOON? The photographs are exceptionally beautiful. Netherzone (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's featured in NPR, [4], ExplorersWeb, [5] the Natural History Museum (London), [6] the BBC, [7] MyModernMet [8] along with others, mostly due to his awards won which still qualifies as notability and substantial recognition, as per option 3 ("... In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews") in the WP:PHOTOGRAPHER guidelines. Additionally, he is featured on the Xposure exhibition's website for participating in the event, [9] which in my opinion seems to secure WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. In conclusion, I think that this is enough to qualify for WP:GNG and WP:PHOTOGRAPHER (for the photographer part, I believe that it specifically follows options 3 and 4 for notability) and that the article should hence be kept. One Hop2482 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding the sources - The more closely I examine the sources, they really seem to be the work of Public Relations PR Promo, that is based on this press release: [10], per this disclosure Compiled and prepared by Malik Merchant from (1) Press Release issued on February 9, 2023, by Wildlife Photographer of the Year (WPY), which is developed and produced by the Natural History Museum (NHM), London; (2) Media Kit that Simergphotos was provided access to by the NHM; and (3) Jay Sullivan’s informative article published on the NHM website. The press release issued on Feb. 9, 2023 by the NHM is here: [11] Many of the sources in the article and found online in a BEFORE are not independent journalism, they are iterations of the press release(s). Between that and the pay-to-play Native advertising or Advertorials, listicles, blogs and primary sources I'm leaning more towards D*eletion, per WP:PROMO, however I'm not !voting yet since I'm still trying to find THREE fully independent, secondary reliable sources that provide significant coverage that is not based on the press release. Netherzone (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netherzone: These claims are incorrect and frankly dismissive. The article includes multiple independent sources — *Süddeutsche Zeitung*, *Smithsonian Magazine*, *Condé Nast Traveller*, *The Guardian* — none of which are PR or pay-to-play. To call this a promo piece based on a single press release is reductive and ignores the broader context.
    If the standard here is three independent, reliable sources, that bar has already been met — and exceeded. I'm happy to improve formatting, but mischaracterizing this as marketing is simply not accurate. 91.73.91.130 (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not dismissive. You had requested more focus on the sources, and this is my analysis. It's not personal, and I'm not dismissing you or your work, which I find to be quite beautiful. I was commenting on the fact that when examined and actually read closely, it's quite clear that most of them, including the Smithsonian and The Guardian are directly based on the press release/media kit that was compiled and prepared by Malik Merchant from (1) Press Release issued on February 9, 2023, by Wildlife Photographer of the Year (WPY), which is developed and produced by the Natural History Museum (NHM), London; (2) Media Kit that Simergphotos was provided access to by the NHM ; and (3) Jay Sullivan’s informative article published on the NHM website. [12] Malik Merchant owns Simergphotos and Simerg.com, so it seems that they were doing the public relations work. Regarding pay to play PR, My Modern Met and World Art News are essentially mills for native advertising. Netherzone (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Besides the COI, this photographer stands out as having significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. However Wikipedia discourages the COI contributions. AndySailz (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Schwarz

[edit]
Pierre Schwarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:ARTIST notability guidelines —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 04:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Carreres

[edit]
Albert Carreres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks SIGCOV in independent sources. The two sources mentioned in this article only mention him in passing. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Stejskal (artist)

[edit]
Josef Stejskal (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article survived an AfD in 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stejskal) but doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG in that discussion. There are some results in Google books, but appear to be namesakes from the 19th century and other periods outside of this one's lifespan. C679 17:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Czech Republic, and Australia. C679 17:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep on the basis that he is held by National Library of Australia and Moravian Gallery, both important and discerning public institutions. I've added a few sources for that. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for adding the references, I don't see either of those covering Stejskal in detail. Excerpts: NL: "and a collection of theatre posters designed by Josef Stejskal (through the Esso Project)" SL (caption only): "above: Josef Stejskal, State Library staff member and designer of theatre posters" Additionally, they are not "independent of the subject". C679 06:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, and certainly coverage is in passing. However, I do note that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals 4 b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition and (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Also I don't see why the National Library report would be other than "independent of the subject" since he had no association with him when they collected his works. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to update: have also added info about artist holdings in National Gallery and State Library of NSW. Some acquired by public collections, some donated by third parties, some donations of artist. To me it establishes there's notability in relevant Aus art, library, theatre circles, but I acknowledge that sources remain thin. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the recently added sources help him pass WP:GNG. I haven't found any meaningful source, just databases. FromCzech (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looks like he's also held by the Library of Congress[20], but these are archival collections rather than art collections, so the inclusion is less useful for notability. Also, I'm not sure where we'd source any additional yet basic biographical information. Jahaza (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Earl Emmons

[edit]
Frederick Earl Emmons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject receives WP:SIGCOV in only one very specialist regional reliable source, Pacific Coast Architecture Database. WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources, in practice this means at least two. Following an online search, no further reliable sources, even at a regional level, giving significant coverage have emerged. --Boynamedsue (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahaza:In the UK that result isn't showing up. I suspect there might be some kind of google geoblock going on for the LA Times. Perhaps due to that business a few years back where US websites weren't meeting EU data protection standards?
That source strengthens the case for WP:SIGCOV, but aren't obituaries sometimes paid for in US papers? The fact it only contains interviews with family members is something of a red flag. Could you have a look and see if there is anything else a-couple-of-paragraph-length or longer coming from an LA paper specifically devoted to Emmons and his work rather than his death? If there is I think I should be able to withdraw.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes obituaries in American papers are advertisements, but that's why I wrote "reported obituary." This is an article written by an LA Times staff writer, not a paid obituary. Jahaza (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do see additional sources [23], Eichler: Modernism Rebuilds the American Dream pp. 118-19, and Sunnylands: Art and Architecture of the Annenberg Estate in Rancho Mirage, California p. 5. A difficult one because there's not nothing, but there's not a whole lot, either. I have no opinion since it's possible to make arguments in either direction here, would delete if I had to pick between keep or delete just because GNG might be but is not clearly established. SportingFlyer T·C 04:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My view was that those two did not give sigcov.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Dutrait

[edit]
Vincent Dutrait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP. No reliable sources online other than his profiles on various board game websites. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is also brief general commentary on Dutrait in this unlikely secondary source. Daranios (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for various credits of Dutrait can be found in various primary and secondary sources appearing in this, this, and to a lesser degree this search. Daranios (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juhani Seppovaara

[edit]
Juhani Seppovaara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Finnish photographer. No indication subject meets WP:NCREATIVE. Cabrils (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Allen Cohen

[edit]
Daniel Allen Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only reliable source is a former Forbes contributor (both of the Forbes articles were written by the same lady). The rest are not reliable sources. (Note that Yahoo is a syndication of LatestLY, which is WP:NEWSORGINDIA). 🄻🄰 15:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per lack of WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Agnes Gallus

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Agnes Gallus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article previously deleted in November 2024 before being recreated in draft form this winter and then moved back into mainspace about two weeks ago, but still not properly sourcing any meaningful claim to passing WP:NARTIST. As always, artists are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about them, but this is still based mostly on the exact same primary sources as the first time -- gallery shows sourced to the self-published websites of the galleries that held them rather than GNG-worthy coverage about the shows, a piece about her life and death written by her own daughter, and on and so forth.
The very few new sources that have been added still aren't reliable or GNG-worthy either, however: there's a PDF copy of a book that apparently has one of her drawings in it, where we would need to see media reporting "Agnes Gallus drawing selected for inclusion in book" as a news story to deem her notable for that, and there's her paid-inclusion obituary in the newspaper classifieds.
There's still nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, @Bearcat. I understand and appreciate Wikipedia’s policies around notability and reliable sourcing, especially in accordance with WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. That said, I would like to respond to a few points regarding the article in question:
Substantial Revisions: After the article was deleted the first time in November 2024, I significantly revised and expanded the content to better support notability. The second version has undergone considerable editorial improvement thanks to the thoughtful contributions of @buysomeapples, who helped refine its tone and structure.
New Sources: While I acknowledge that some sources may still be borderline under WP:GNG standards, I’ve actively worked to include more third-party references. Some of these include published catalogues, archived media pieces, and mentions in group exhibition reviews—not just self-published gallery pages. I’m continuing to search for stronger secondary coverage and am open to suggestions on more specific types of sources that would help meet the bar.
Concerns About Bias: I want to gently raise that the recurring deletion of this article—despite ongoing efforts to improve it—feels disheartening, particularly in light of the many articles on male artists with similar levels of coverage that remain on the platform. While I fully support Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing policies, I hope we can also be mindful of how systemic bias can unintentionally influence these decisions. My intention is not to accuse any individual editor but to invite a broader reflection on how we apply notability standards consistently across gender lines.
I remain committed to improving this article in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines and am grateful for any constructive advice or mentorship on how best to proceed. Harrietcyy (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does have a gender imbalance but it's guidelines are applied equally to everyone. If you know of any articles about male artists that don't meet guidelines, those should also be improved or deleted. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep I accepted the draft because it seemed to meet WP:NARTIST 4 and because Ref 1 seems substantial enough (Saskatchewan: Art and Artists) seemed substantial enough. I won't be bothered if this gets deleted though, it's a borderline case even if it is interesting. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear; Saskatchewan Art and Artists is a biographical sketch in a non-WP:GNG-worthy directory self-published by a gallery she was directly affiliated with — and even if we ignore all of those problems and accept it anyway just because it seems "substantial", it still takes a lot more than just one notability-supporting source to establish passage of GNG. So that wasn't a solid notability-locking source to begin with, and wouldn't be enough all by itself regardless. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, NARTIST #4d was the main thing that made up my mind but I can see how it's an edge case. I wouldn't say that it meets GNG at all. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 1 - Saskatchewan: Art and Artists is connected to two separate major Saskatchewan galleries, the Norman Mackenzie Gallery and the Regina Public Library (Dunlop Gallery) - her work was collected/shown at both of these galleries. These are professional, not personal affiliations. That’s what art galleries do - they publish biographical information about noteworthy artists in their collections. These are highly regarded galleries which makes her inclusion noteworthy.
Citation 3 - SKNAC - Saskatchewan Network for Art Collectors - is a separate organization. Again, evidence she is recognized by this group as a noteworthy artist in Saskatchewan.
Citation 6 - the publication of her work in Kate Waterhouse’s book is an example that her work was published in an independent booklet with no personal affiliation.
Citation 7 - her work was exhibited posthumously by SK Arts - a respected organization. This citation was added to address an earlier query from the previously deleted Wikipedia entry requesting “proof” she did in fact exhibit her work at notable galleries
Citation 8 - another posthumous exhibit organized by a separate organization, the Saskatchewan Arts Council, again, addressing query re: Citation 7
Citation 9 - again, addressing query re: her work in permanent collections, in this case the University of Regina - again, a separate organization. Her work is part of the prestigious “Presidents’ Collection” as part of a donation by Morris Schumiatcher, a noteworthy lawyer, art patron and art collector.
Clearly, there are several notability-supporting sources, as above, re: her work collected and exhibited in several notable Saskatchewan galleries and organizations, namely the Norman Mackenzie Gallery, the Regina Public Gallery, the Saskatchewan Arts Board a.k.a. Saskatchewan Network for Art Collectors, the University of Regina President’s Collection I do not understand how his is “borderline”.
If the concern is re: personal affiliations, I suggest removing Citation 2. Harrietcyy (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Drobychevskaja

[edit]
Elena Drobychevskaja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable artist. Primary sourced promotion lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ARTIST No reliable sourcing in the article. I am not finding any RS with a simple Google search. See source table below --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your second link throws no "security warning" for me. If there is a warning for you (you do not say what kind of warning, nor what tools you are using), will be for the archive service, not the cited website, bcdb.com, which is widely cited on Wikipedia.
The security warning for your 7th site is an expired certificate, and does not preclude its use as a source.
The nwzonline.de page is archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20160306054146/http://www.nwzonline.de/varel/ausstellung-im-caf-hafenblick_a_1,0,611902600.html - but you simply dismiss it as a "dead link".
The cavallo.de page is archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20160617055333/http://www.cavallo.de/ausstellung-rotes-pferd.304497.233219.htm - but you dismiss it as "redirecting to home page".
Why is an "archived defunct directory" discounted?
Since when did we count exhibition listings at a gallery as primary for the artist?
The artfontainebleau.net page is archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20120613220257/http://www.artfontainebleau.net/article-31285597.html - but you dismiss it as "404". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should have been more specific when I said the subject fails WP:ARTIST - This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. I use Firefox with AVG Internet security. I am not going to infect my computer researching the dead /stale links and redirects on this article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I am not going to infect my computer researching the dead /stale links and redirects on this article"
Oddly enough, neither did I; and nor do other editors who use the Wayback Machine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: From the above, and from discussion on the article talk page, it seems that the sources are nowhere near as problematic as they have been described. At least nine of the sources (by the nom's own figures) are not primary, and several of those that are (such as gallery exhibition listings, and the membership page of an organisation) are acceptable in the context in which they are used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Just having some non primary source does not pass any policy based notability guidelines. ("At least nine of the sources (by the nom's own figures) are not primary" Please don't tell lies about what I wrote). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not "LOTSOFSOURCES". I was addressing your unfounded claim of over-reliance on primary sources, and another editor's bogus assessment of the sources. Seems you're done with AGF here as well as the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So you lie about what I wrote and then expect me to assume good faith? All your !vote does is say there is some non primary sources. It didn't say any were good. It didn't say the subject passed any notability guideline. What you've done is criticise other good faith participants, so much for your AGF. My claim of over-reliance on primary sources is very well founded. What non primary source backs up more than minor points in the article? duffbeerforme (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any coverage about her or her work, such as reviews of her exhibitions (I tried to search in French and German too). I don't see that she meets either WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. The sources in the article are fine to confirm that the exhibitions happened, but don't show that others, apart from the galleries mounting the exhibitions, had anything to say about them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
kunst-und-kultur.de - ad laden interface No Artist posted CV? ✘ No
link throws a security warning ? Unknown
No No No IMDB - non -reliable source ✘ No
No generic home page for artists' group No fails verification - no longer a member? ✘ No
archive.today link throws a security warning ? Unknown
No passing mention in interview of another artist's show ✘ No
link throws a security warning ? Unknown
No Mohr-Villa Freimann No No Mohr-Villa Freimann list for exhibition - primary ✘ No
No local exhibition listing ✘ No
No No No gallery listing - primary ✘ No
No artfoutainbleau gallery No gallery listing - primary ✘ No
No dead link ✘ No
archived defunct directory? ? Unknown
link redirects to home page ? Unknown
No No No event listing - native advertising ✘ No
No No No gallery listing for show ✘ No
No No No listing for exhibtion at a shopping mall ✘ No
No No No user generated content ✘ No
fails verification ? Unknown
No 404 ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Another source analysis
No sources that help with GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Database listing, primary
2. Database listing, primary
3. imdb, not reliable
4. cv, primary
5. not a reliable source
6. passing mention, no depth of coverage
7. privacy warning. archive sent me to adult site. url implies event listing.
8. Gallery listing, primary.
9. Show announcement, primary
10. "Steffen Werner, 2013". Gallery listing, primary
11. Show announcement, primary
12. Show announcement, primary
13. cv, primary
14. Show announcement, primary
15. Gallery listing, primary.
16. cv, primary
17. Name on a list, no depth of coverage (Looks like pr announcement, primary)
18. cv, primary
19. a shop, primary
20. primary, bio of artist from gallery where she was showing
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Gottfried

[edit]
David Gottfried (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of significance. References are passing mentions, profiles and interviews. scope_creepTalk 07:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usa article that uses Gottfried self-published book to expand the article to two small paras. It is WP:PRIMARY. The whitepaper lists references but no reference list, so it can't be verified, which is curious. That is a particularly poor design of a whitepaper. It is also full of adverts and corporate spam. Regarding 2nd ref in the article that was added on the 19 May. It is a passing mention at most. Its not in-depth either. These references are extremely poor and prove most of all that the dude lacks WP:SIGCOV that is independent, indepth and secondary. scope_creepTalk 00:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Headbomb: How goes it? I don't think notability is inherited. Is there a better argument here. I don't know. scope_creepTalk 19:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Allfather (Benison) (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep: Coverage from three different countries/locations [38], [39], [40], spanning a decade. With what's also in the article, we can easily show notability. My sources are a few interviews, but we have more than enough sourcing overall. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lxs Dos

[edit]
Lxs Dos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Mexican/American artist couple. can't find RSs that establish WP:ARTIST, and given their significant work was produced in the 2010s, such RS should already exist. Cabrils (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Cabrils: I have cited various RSs for LxsDos to prove notability i.e. "primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work" AND "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers" per WP:ARTIST. In addition to a New York Times article and other periodicals, LxsDos are also featured in a Routledge Companion published book (cited on the page) and the other is an academic text titled "Exploring the Transnational Neighbourhood: Perspectives on Community-Building, Identity and Belonging." This latter text features an analysis of LxsDos's most notable work and their work is also the book's cover. Very perplexed as to why this is not enough. Is there a minimum amount required? Philomena7 (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Philomena7,
    Thanks for the information. Perhaps if you can provide WP:THREE that would help? For example, while Lxs Dos are mentioned and quoted in the NYT article, I'm not sure the content is sufficiently substantive to meet the requirement of being the "primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews..." (my emphasis added)...? Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted! Thank you for this clarity. I have added another periodical source where it is the main source of the article. I am also new to writing articles, so I am still learning how much secondary source analysis is appropriate within the Wiki article itself. Would you be able to look over my new edits? Philomena7 (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Philomena7, that addition helps a lot.
    Could you please confirm you do not have a conflict of interest?
    Thanks, Cabrils (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No conflict of interest! My main motivation is that this article was part of a Wikipedia assignment for a university art history course I was enrolled in, and I dedicated time to learning about my assigned artist, finding sources, and learning Wikipedia’s writing approaches. So I’m invested in the sense that I want to make sure my project (even though I already got my grade for this last year) stays in mainspace. Philomena7 (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S I should also add that my grade had nothing to whether or not my article remained in mainspace. Contributing to Wikipedia just became something I was passionate about. Thanks for the input on my edits. Is there anything else I should edit/add? Philomena7 (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Birdsall

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ben Birdsall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not satisfied he meets WP:NAUTHOR as his work has not been widely reviewed (the best I found was a 1996 review of his first book in Kirkus). Search his name and you quickly run into other people called Ben Birdsall, so I'm not convinced he meets the WP:GNG criteria either.

The article was also created by a single purpose account that is very likely to be the man himself, hence the chunks of text that are uncited. In other words, this is a poorly sourced promo. Leonstojka (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Leadbetter, Russell (2016-06-10). "Whisky galore! Or: one man's distillery tour on a 50cc Vespa". The Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-05-12. Retrieved 2025-05-12.

      The review notes: "Ben Birdsall arrived on his loaded-up Vespa on Jura and met a couple of strangers sitting outside a hotel. ... West Yorkshire-born Birdsall had many such encounters on his Vespa-borne travels round Arran, Kintyre, Islay, Jura, Mull, Skye, the west and central Highlands, Speyside and, finally, the east Highlands and Orkney. He has now poured his writings, photographs and paintings of that trip into a rather nice book. ... Birdsall, who is 49, lives with his wife and daughter in Winterthur, a city in the Swiss canton of Zurich, where he teaches English "and paint and write in my spare time". Having written a book about his travels round Tuscany by Vespa, he originally envisaged his Scottish project as a painting trip with a few distilleries thrown in, but the idea gradually evolved in favour of the distilleries."

    2. Deering, Paul (1995-07-19). "How Sligo roots inspired novelist". The Sligo Champion. p. 21. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "A young Englishman of Irish descent who has links with Dromore West has had his first novel, set in Connemara published. Indeed, for author Ben Birdsall (28) it was the beauty of the West of Ireland and his summer and Christmas holidays spent here that drew him to put pen to paper. ... His novel, Blue Charm, is published by Blackstaff and is the story of one man's renewal through the joys, strangeness and humour of country life. Charged with the hidden rhythms and resonances of a fading Gaelic way of life, the novel catches a twilight society poised between a haunted past and an unsteady future. ... While the main character has an interest in art, so too has Ben, so much so that painting plays just as big a part in his life as writing. ... After leaving Durham University, Ben spent some years working on his uncle's farm in the Dromore West area but in the last two years he has been living in Tuscany, Italy, studying the Renaissance artists and painting their landscapes. ... Writing is certainly in the Birdsall blood. Ben's father, James has published two successful volumes of memoirs ... Timothy Birdsall, Ben's uncle, reached fame through his cartoon ... Ben's early writing career had a bit of a chequered history. In 1985 while a pupil at Sedbergh School, Cumbria, his play The Happiest Days the story of a revolt in a boys' school was banned before it was due to be performed on Open Day on the grounds that it was unsuitable for parents. A year later, Ben began reading English Literature at Durham University and his first attempt at a novel, The Wanderings of a Buadno-Marxist, was published in the student magazine."

    3. DD (1995-09-24). "What lies between the covers". Sunday Tribune. p. 20. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      This is a book review of Blue Charm by Ben Birdsall published by The Blackstaff Press. The review notes: "This may be the worst book on Ireland ever written. What condemns it is not the mistaken belief that the quality of the writing can disguise the absence of a plot; it is not Birdsall's conceit that he is accurately representing a little piece of Ireland; it is, rather, the brass neck of the publishers in thinking that they can pass off such a blatant piece of Paddywhackery as literature that really gets up the nose. When Birdsall confines himself to descriptions of nature or places he is quite a nice writer. However he is determined to make quite a large section of people in the West fit the faith and begorrah, fairy-believing cliche so beloved of much of the English middle-classes. ... Blue Charm is a joke, made worse by Birdsall's patronising treatment of the people to whom he purports to be strongly attached."

    4. Relich, Mario (1987-08-28). "Festival Review: Around the Fringe". The Scotsman. p. 9. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The review notes: "Staggart Lane: Collingwood Catdaddy Codpieces. This meandering new play by Ben Birdsall, an undergraduate from Durham University, has some very effective moments. There can be no doubt, as well, that the playwright shows great potential, but the smarties handed out to the audience at Masonic Lodge, Hill Street were easier to digest than the to find life meaningless, and therefore recklessly waste it. This theme is explored through an anti-hero who has problems with drugs. But he is prevented from facing what has made him an addict in the first place by officiously well-meaning do gooders who queue up to save him. These include, among others, an aerobic Christian, and an implacable Buddhist—both richly comic cameo roles."

    5. "Festival date for Yorks playwright". Telegraph & Argus. 1987-08-27. Archived from the original on 2025-05-12. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Edinburgh's famous Fringe Festival will next week be the venue of a new play by young Keighley writer Ben Birdsall. The play, Staggart Lane will be performed at the festival renowned as an outlet for new theatrical talents from August 24 to 29 at the Masonic Lodge Theatre. Now at Durham University, Ben, of Cross Hills, was a pupil at South Craven School before going to Sedburgh."

    6. "Author is nominated for literary award". Craven Herald & Pioneer. 1996-04-19. Archived from the original on 2025-05-12. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The first novel by Cross Hills writer Ben Birdsall has been nominated for a top literary prize. Blue Charm is one of five books shortlisted for the Author's Club First Novel Award. The prize is given annually to the writer of the most promising first novel published in the United Kingdom. ... Educated at Glusburn and South Craven Schools and later at Sedbergh, Ben gained a BA Hons degree in English language and literature at Durham University. Being of Anglo-Irish origin, he returns regularly to his family home in County Sligo, and has formed a deep attachment to the West of Ireland and its peo-ple. Indeed, his novel Blue Charm is based in County Galway."

    7. "Cross Hills: Author was thwarted during 'Happiest Days' but now he is in print at last. Novel success for Ben". Telegraph & Argus. 1995-07-21. Archived from the original on 2025-05-12. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "It is ten years since Ben Birdsall's first attempt at writing was thwarted by cautious teachers at his school. His play The Happiest Days, which told the story of a revolt in a boys' school, was banned from performance at Sedbergh School, North Yorkshire, because it was felt to be unsuitable for parents. Now the Keighley author is celebrating seeing his first novel in print. Blue Charm, which paints a vivid picture of life in Connemara, Ireland, has just been published by Belfast-based Blackstaff Press. ... His literary interest grew at Durham University where he read English Literature. His first attempt at a novel — The Wanderings of a Buddho-Marxist — was published in extracts in the student magazine Inprint. In his last year at Durham he wrote a dissertation on his own work."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ben Birdsall to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete First AFD nomination was delete. This second time, notability is still not established with the sources available. Many of these look like promotion or announcements. I don't think this is enough for notability or for a stand alone article. Plus much of the page is WP:OR which means someone close or even the subject may be writing their own biographical details. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 20:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are going to offer an argument, please evaluate the sources presented in the article and in the discussion. We don't want to make a closure based on impressions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet NAUTH:
  • he is not "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited". Most sources are primarily small, local papers (Sligo Champion, Telegraph and Argus, Charlston Mercury. (The latter appears to be very informal, and without paid writers.)) Two of the reviews blast him (see above) which indicates that he is not considered a serious author.
  • Nor, as per criterion 3: "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." I can see one independent source (The Herald). The #2 reference in the article is 1) an interview and 2) by the organization that published his book. And there is no indication that this is considered a "significant body of work."
  • The festival date article is not significant, and he was nominated for an award but did not win.
  • While much is often made of GNG when some sources are found, the policy is: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6] This policy does not say that if sources are found the subject is automatically notable. We need to analyze what the sources are telling us, and in this case I conclude that not even the cumulation of the sources adds up to notability. Lamona (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allin Kempthorne

[edit]
Allin Kempthorne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've AFD'd this, but actually I think it should be redirected to Wriggler (video game). There doesn't appear to be any independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage to the subject of this article. Sourcing is all tabloid news (The Mirror, The Sun, Metro) or passing mentions. Simply appearing on BGT (and not being recognised...) does not indicate notability. Simply being a bit-part actor in numerous films does not indicate notability. Additionally I have WP:PROMO/WP:COI concerns here.

They wrote the ZX Spectrum game Wriggler together with their twin when they were at school, and this game is clearly notable, but nothing else they have done appears to be notable.

Also nominating The Vampires of Bloody Island for deletion (no need to redirect this), which is the film Allin Kempthorne created. The only coverage that could be found for this is blatantly promotional ("we were forced to bring forward the release of this film because of an email campaign that no-one but us is the source for existing") and from sources of dubious reliability. Simply being nominated for a Twitter Shorty Award does not indicate notability.

Similarly also Learning Hebrew for the same reasons.FOARP (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because there are three articles under review, I think this needs more eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alinur Velidedeoğlu

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Alinur Velidedeoğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It was deleted a year ago, and not much has changed since then. There’s been the same routine coverage of events, interviews, and mentions. Since he’s an advertising executive, some routine media coverage is to be expected, but direct, in‑depth, quality coverage is still lacking. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability is easily satisfied through both the GNG and the SNG about creative artists. The sources are not routine coverage. His advertising work is covered in depth in two academic papers. He was in charge of Turkey's second largest and oldest political party's advertising campaign. The nominator did an AfC review for this article but did not mention at all any concern about "notability" in their review comments, all their concern was about the non-encyclopedic style and NPOV violations. What is the reason for this inconsistency? If there is a notability concern, they should have mentioned in their AfC review. The subject is also the producer of various notable productions, which received coverage in sources like The Hollywood Reporter, which is considered a reliable source. The second deletion discussion was poorly attended, with non-policy-based !votes. RE: "not much has changed since then", please compare the two versions. Also, please see @Fram's comment in the first deletion discussion. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was declined by Article for Creation on May 3 for being too promotional in tone. Article was then moved to main space by the creator with the comment The article waited too long in the AfC queue, and I disagree with the feedback it received. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if there are any concerns. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, but not exactly... I'm not the article's creator. It was created in 2007, and I wasn't active on Wikipedia at the time, and I have no connection to the user who created it. The AfC reviewer and the nominator of this AfD are the same user, and for some reason, they believe not much has changed between this version of the article and this earlier version. Also, they didn't say it was promotional; they said the style violates the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. I wasn't sure whether that meant it was too promotional or too defamatory, as there are paragraphs that could be interpreted either way, and all based on reliable sources. Note that the sources that I used are not tabloids, but mainstream Turkish newspapers, columnists, commentators and academic papers. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The two versions that need to be compared are the one declined at AFC 12:03, 3 May 2025 edit and the draft moved to main space 20:07, 3 May 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alinur_Velidedeo%C4%9Flu&diff=1288613775&oldid=1288553988 You are correct that the article was declined as not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone. I misspoke in my previous post when I stated the article was declined as being too promotional in tone. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination statement of this AfD incorrectly states that not much has changed since the prior nomination, that's the reason I asked those two versions to be compared. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment I declined the speedy deletion, because the current article is substantially different from the one deleted, which consisted of only two of the current paragraphs. The opinion of a AfC reviewer does not constitute a deletion discussion, there is no need to have any improvement after that. No opinion on the notability, but given that it is harder to assert notability for people outside the english language world (and english references) and the efforts of TheJoyfulTentmaker in improving it, I suggest, that it is draftified/userfied if not kept - Nabla (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 14:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Artists&oldid=1292841953"