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.
Searching topic shows only local news articles, with a brief period of coverage. It should be merged into "List of Black Lives Matter street murals," where there are dozens of entries with the same amount of information as this article. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG does not discriminate against local news sources, and coverage from reputable regional publications is valid in establishing notability. Furthermore, WBUR is not a local news outlet; it is based on the other end of the state and is a widely respected NPR affiliate that provides in-depth reporting on cultural and public affairs topics with a reach far beyond Boston. Multiple reliable sources have covered the mural. It should be kept. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The article has been expanded in exhausting detail but it's clear there is not much to say about the subject - it exists, it was quickly vandalized a few times, and nothing has happened to it since then. Nothing suggests it's any more worthy of an article than the other entries at List of Black Lives Matter street murals. Astaire (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree that WP:GNG does not discriminate against local news sources and the argument that it is "not any more worthy of an article" along the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not valid. The difference is that this mural has an appropriately cited and relevant article for it. If those murals had an appropriately cited and crafted article they would be similarly worthy of keeping. Oppose deletion.Nayyn (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and HEY. Disagree with nom. The topic has received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources and the article has been expanded enough to make a merge to the list of murals inappropriate. This article should be further expanded and refined, not deleted. ---Another Believer(Talk)23:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a photographer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for artists. As always, artists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage about them in media -- for instance, you don't make an artist notable for gallery shows by sourcing them to the self-published websites of the galleries, you make an artist notable for gallery shows by sourcing them to media reportage (art reviews, etc.) treating the gallery shows as news. But this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources (the galleries, academic staff profiles, etc.) that aren't support for notability, except for one magazine article that briefly namechecks Barrie Jones as one participant in a group show, which is a valid start but not strongly enough about him to singlehandedly get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source in the mix. Also this started life in draft form before being moved into mainspace by its creator without any form of AFC review, and has already been stripped of copyrighted content that was copy-pasted directly from one of his staff profiles. As well, the title is unnecessarily overdisambiguated — since none of the other people listed in the disambiguation page at Barrie Jones are photographers, just "photographer" would suffice and "Canadian photographer" is overdoing it — further suggesting that the creator lacks functional understanding of Wikipedia's rules and practices. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt Barrie Jones from having to have proper WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him and his work in real media. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm holding off on !voting for now until I can do a deep search for sources. However, I have a hunch that he's notable and the issue is that the article as it stands needs improvement. I'm basing this "hunch" on the fact that he has 23 works in the collection of the National Gallery of Canada (I added a citation for that fact) and the notable awards/honors. I had a look at his website, and saw that there is a long list of reviews (see: [8] and expand the section on "Selected periodicals and reviews"). The bad news is that none of these reviews are linked online and they are mostly from the 1970s to the 1990s, and who knows if they are for solo shows or group shows. I'll do my best before this AfD closes to see if I can find and verify enough of these to pass GNG. Not holding my breath, but maybe. Netherzone (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I had success finding verification for four permanent collections, so this puts him over the bar of criteria #4 of WP:NARTIST; these have been added to the article along with citations.[9] I did not have any luck finding the reviews mentioned above because none of them have been digitized, so one would have to do a "paper search" in a brick and mortar library in Canada. Based on the four collections and the induction into the Royal Canadian Academy of Art, and the King Charles III Coronation medal for significant contribution to the arts, I think he meets what is required for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thanks to @Netherzone's suggestion, I have added a few more exhibition records retrieved from an exhibition catalog published by the Art Gallery of Windsor, Ontario, see: [10]. All of the periodicals and reviews mentioned by @Netherzone were listed in the catalog's bibliography. This catalog was published pre-internet in 1991, and I am working on digitizing it through the library of the University of the British Columbia. I am also working on making available another exhibition catalog, Vancouver Work[11] through the library that includes substantive exhibition records and reviews of Jones. JonDonDon (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
self promotion, unreliable sources, artist of absolutely no relevance. See discussion page. (proposed by 95.90.127.86, 18:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)) --Achim Adotz (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No encyclopedic relevance. The abundance of references is confusing and mostly leads to dubious websites of hotels, shops, tanning salons, Facebook and self-promotional sites. No external reviews to be found. Planetblue (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not speedily, based on lack of notability, failure to meet WP:NARTIST and significant WP:PROMO. No significant exhibitions, and the only evidence of works in a permanent collection is the statement that his delightful paintings have been placed on permanent display in various pizzerias which doesn't qualify as a notable museum or national gallery. This highly promotional COI entry has been heavily edited by the artist and his partner based on the first-person prose, and the user name "Atelier ZoooooZ" (ZoooooZ is the artist's moniker). Statements point to self-promotion such as: As artists, we know only too well that an original, handmade, genuine work of art is a lifelong dream for many people...But that's exactly why we, Mumzy Maria Uberstein and Zoooooz Roland Zulehner, have launched a special campaign. and The artwork is simultaneously used as advertising as part of the campaign and Because even as artists we have to make a living and can't give everything away., etc.. Most of the article consists of unsourced puffery, and an excessive number of images uploaded by the artist, WP:NOTWEBHOST. Appears to also fail WP:GNG, as most of the citations are sourced to Facebook, pay-to-play publications, and user-submitted content. Even if reliable sources could be found, the article would qualify for WP:TNT. Netherzone (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears that the artist, who is also the creator of the article, goes by two WP user names: User:Atelier ZoooooZ which is a shared account with his artistic partner (as per a discussion on Commons, and their Commons user page); and also by User:Beweinding who created this article and states on their user page that they are Roland Zulehner. Not sure if that is relevant to this AfD, but wanted to point this out. Netherzone (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found this article highly entertaining, as it reaches new heights of irrelevance. I laughed, I cried (of laughter), I cried some more (of laughter). Sentences like "The Arslan Kebap Restaurant is a place where cultures merge and form a community." should be kept for eternity, somewhere. Otherwise delete. 95.90.127.86 (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support to avoid a speedy close and give the artist time to copy the article if he hasn't done so already. He has put in a great deal of time and design effort to put the page together, just hasn't fully understood how Wikipedia works. It is an encyclopedia, which means no editorializing and must be sourced to reputable sources and not blogs and Facebook links. To Roland, what do you think are the best sources? Have enjoyed the photos of your work. A nice try in writing and illustrating a page, likely just missed the mark of it being an encyclopedic approach to summarizing notable artistic creations. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia will have a new article about Roland, pls keep in mind that he is more of an entertainer than a contemporary artist. He once wrote a book (Ich geh eins trinken) about having a drink. Yes, that's all there was, a whole book where Roland describes in great lenghts how one picks a bar, orders a drink. Even how to drink drinks. Best book ever. Also he wrote a book about how to get rich with Facebook. Two months later he wrote a book about why one should delete his or hers Facebook account. All his books were very entertaining, very funny to read. 95.90.183.207 (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A single article from Pepperdine University [12] about Taj as an alumnus qualifies as a source; the rest are press releases, links selling art, or links from the artist's own website. Recent edits from new editors also seems suspicious.OhNoitsJamieTalk13:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t really see any reason why this article should be kept. There doesn’t appear to be any notability about the subject and I agree on the fact that some of the content seems a bit suspicious. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This artist does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST nor WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Seems to be a commercial artist with a social media presence but no secondary, independent sigcov in published reliable sources. The Pepperdine profile of him is not independent since it is promoting one of their alumni - it's a connected source. Netherzone (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. The Pepperdine gazette article cited by the nominator as acceptable is not. Any half-decent publication of a half-decent college regularly publishes promotional material about its alumni, and rightly so. But these are not acceptable sources. -The Gnome (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics
The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Related Projects
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts
A medical doctor with some self-published books, but seemingly no peer-reviewed research. Doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR. I've been unable to find them on Scopus; references seems to be mostly from connected sources. Klbrain (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I`m currently working to add more reference for the Mr. Mohammad Amin Nezami, there are not only self-published book, there are 40+ publication, that can be found on https://www.allcancercare.com/publications.html
additionally if you look over these reference below, then this articles is very useful for the presence of Mr. Mohammad Amin Nezami
I am not sure if he is notable. Most of sources seem to be either primary or only tangentially related to him. I am unsure whether he meets WP:CREATIVE; points 3 and 4 are relevant. I am not sure if the attention he got was critical and whether his work has been covered in enough periodical articles. (I see [13], but not much more.) Even if The Little Red Book of Selling had made him notable, he would seem to be a bit too BLP1E-ish, as the rest of the coverage is more-or-less trivial or primary. Janhrach (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Basically unsourced since 2006. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Mentions found on the internet all look self-sourced. 'D.M. poet honored in national competition' article shows he came 17th in a contest. Went to AfD in 2014, sources found were not reliable. Blackballnz (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, because there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Most references are primary or technical sources rather than in-depth third-party discussions of Don Libes himself. The article reads more like a CV than an appropriate Wiki biography Neurorocker (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. Subject has been nominated and deleted before as seen here. Now made under another name. Subject still does not have sufficient independent in-depth sources to demonstrate notability. Article also seems to have a heavily promotional tone. Creator seems to be WP:SPA with a lot of delete articles here. ImcdcContact12:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article lacks the widespread coverage in independent secondary sources required by WP:GNG. He is best known for a blog, but there is very limited coverage of that in any significant sources. GuardianH05:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a few reviews of his books [15][16][17][18], but I'm not convinced they're enough to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. A couple of them are also in the Taipei Times, which is an outlet that the subject apparently regularly writes op-eds for, so that probably makes them slightly less than fully independent. I could be convinced to keep if there are better quality reviews of his books out there though. MCE89 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reason why we are here is altogether 7 articles made back to back in row about this person and his books. None of the books are notable and most of them are either nepali/ english or english/ nepali translation. Author is hardly known in Nepalese context, though he has some media coverage. The context is indicating that articles are being created for promotional purpose. My speedy deleteion tag was declined and suggested to go for AFd. Here are the other articles created Swapnabhumi (Nepali novel) , mirty diary, Sex desire and Taboo, Sex, Gender and Disability in Nepal, Mochan, Running from the DreamlandTulsi Acharya.
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.
Acharya, Tulasi (2016). Unheard melodies are Sweeter than Heard Melodies. Public Voices.
Acharya, Tulasi (2020). Disability and sex.
Acharya, Tulasi (2023). Employing Professional Standards Through Policy Reformation. Routledge.
Acharya, T., Dhungana, G. K., Traille, K., & Dhakal, H. (2023). Senior Citizens in Nepal: Policy Gaps and Recommendations. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, 9. https://doi.org/10.1177/23337214231179902
Acharya, T., & Dhungana, G. K. (2024). Impact of technology in classrooms in the colleges of Kathmandu: Challenges and policy recommendations. International Journal of Higher Education, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v13n4p10
Acharya, T. (2024 December). Flood. MSU RoadRunner Review, Winter 2024, 7th issue. The Metropolitan State University of Denver.
Acharya, Tulasi (2022). Emerging Nepali Writers. The Kathmandu Post.
Paudyal, Mahesh (2020). When Americans Dreams Shrug off. The Gorkha Times.
^ {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); External link in |doi= (help)
^
^
^ {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); External link in |doi= (help)
^ {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); External link in |doi= (help)
^ {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); External link in |doi= (help)
Comment: hard to find book reviews, this was all I could find: [19], but seems to be a prolific writer in journals, would they pass academic notability? Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also see a lot of book reviews of the books by Tulasi Acharya and the discussion of the author when I Google his name.
Commment. I see little sign of the kind of academic impact that we're looking for in WP:NPROF, in particular, the articles of the subject do not appear to be highly cited. WP:NAUTHOR is still somewhat plausible. Most of the links provided by the IP editor above are not reviews, OTOH, but articles by the subject here, which do not contribute to notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As the admin who declined the earlier speedy deletion request mentioned in the nomination statement, don't take my decline as any kind of endorsement. My decline was based purely on the article not meeting the (intentionally very restrictive) WP:G11 criteria; it doesn't change the fact that this particular walled garden of articles constitutes some of the most blatant COI promotion I've seen on Wikipedia for a long time. ‑ Iridescent17:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a good discussion. The only reason why I provided with so many references was because I was suggested by one of the editors here in the community. They suggested I should support each and every statement. I found all those sources/resources from the author's website: www.tulasiacharya.com. I think it is good to keep or delete depending on the reliability of the sources. Traillek (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have participated Dr. Tulasi Acharya's webinars and read many books written by him. Dr. Acharya meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for authors. His works have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. His academic book, "Sex, Desire, and Taboo in South Asia," was critically reviewed in "South Asia Research". His novel "Running from the Dreamland" has been reviewed by Publishers Weekly's BookLife, underscoring its relevance in South Asian immigrant narratives. Additionally, his Nepali-language novel "Mochan" has been positively received in literary circles. These instances of independent coverage affirm his notability as an author.
In addition to this, he is also leading Nexus Institute of Research and Innovation, helping communities from the charity of selling his books. His works and literary contribution have been featured in multiple media outlets, including interviews and discussions that provide independent perspectives on his impact in literature and academia. I think it will be a great contribution to add this author to Wikipedia articles for community to know the notable person. I find this discussion very irrelevant. Therefore, the deletion of his page from Wikipedia is unnecessary.
Non-notable film producer. Mainly known for being the husband of actress Elizabeth Banks. They did form a production company together, but WP:NOTINHERITED. His "writing career" does not seem notable either.
There are some articles about him, but they are mainly the "who is Elizabeth Bank's husband" type of tabloid news. Natg 19 (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED - yet another article with sources not on point or by the subject; one source isn't even primarily about the spouse but regarding Bruce Willis, making the subject two degrees of separation from notability. We have deleted hundreds of articles recently about spouses of minor nobility and celebrities. This is no different, except that his job(s) are even more ordinary and the subject isn't involved with philanthropy. I can't emphasize enough that anyone with a few bucks and lots of free time can get producer credit, like my domestic partner. Bearian (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article. The French wiki page is tagged for sourcing issues. Not clear this topic meets WP:GNG. Was created by an editor permanently blocked for misrepresenting sources/adding unverifiable or false material (ie making up content). Not saying that is what happened in this particular article, but that past history makes the need to verify this content/source the article more pressing than in other cases if we are going to keep this in main space. 4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at BnF alone tells me that he is notable. I tried to find references, - some are still missing but I have other projects. Help wanted. The are digitilazations of some plays, others are at Google books, some won prizes, one was immediately made a silent film. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found and added a few sources from Google Books. Looking at Newspapers.com, I see that reviews of his plays were published in papers in Cleveland, Ohio in 1927 [20], London, England in 1924 [21], and Montreal, Canada in 1942 [22]. The last is in French, but the fact that there are two long reviews in English, in far-flung places, is to me a strong indication that there would be plenty of reviews published in Paris. I'll add more refs, if I have time. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article fails GNG as it lacks significant coverage from reliable sources. If such coverage is found, ping me, and I will reconsider my !vote.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Her name is often given just as Rajlukshmee Debee (same birth year established here). It looks like she got an obituary in Indian Literature. On the one hand that is kinda brief and by a friend (Debjani Chatterjee), but on the other it was published in a significant journal. here she is described as "a major voice in Indian poetry and women's writing". There's a dearth of coverage but some indications of significance. Will keep looking. This and this maybe have some review content? It looks like The Touch Me Not Girl got a couple of reviews ([34], [35]). I also imagine there might be more coverage in Bengali. Eddie891TalkWork13:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page. Clear COI issues since page was created by an author who's named exactly as one of the subject's companies (see Bahabeach). A WP:BEFORE shows a lack of coverage from reliable sources, and notability is also somewhat lacking. No clear indication that subject warrants an encyclopedic article. CycloneYoristalk!19:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allow the article to continue, you will see there are many more articles to be added in the up and coming days to that adds to the validity of this subject. Ho many more articles are in Wikipedia with even less content than this one. Let's give it a some time and allow even more content to the full article. Bahabeach (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not about whatever content is in the Wikipedia article, but whether there are Reliable sources that cover Dario Roberts. Hmr (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked the sources, none of them were WP:RS (mostly advertorials), so I deleted them. Seems unlikely that better sources will appear. The account denied having a COI, but given the evidence (account name, edits), that denial is hardly credible. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really relevant to whether this article should be deleted, Chrisahn, but you may be interested to know that the account made some edits in 2019, which were deleted. Those edits were on another subject which was also connected to Dario Roberts. Considering those edits as well as the recent ones, the denial is not remotely credible. JBW (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Latestly, which Yahoo appears to have syndicated, is a low quality content feed, the Forbes contributor piece isn't RS either and lacks WP:SIGCOV at that. Nothing points to notability at this time imo Hmr (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article has existed as a stub, more or less unchanged from its original form, since 2007. It cites a single-entry bibliography which includes only Universets varmedød og andre selvmord (apparently his only notable work), and a permanently dead link to a "tribute" about him written by Thomas Hylland Eriksen. The Norwegian Wikipedia article about him also includes a single other source, which is a database that lists the details of his birth and death.[37]
I checked Google Scholar([38]) to see if I could find any scholarly sources on Borgzinner, but only found two: one which gives him a passing mention in a journal article about another person;[39] and another which provides a single quote from the book Universets varmedød og andre selvmord in a broader article about the Norwegian art scene in the 1980s.[40] I also checked the Wikipedia articles that linked here to see if they had any other sources, but they entirely consisted of uncited entries in listacles and indexes.
Weak Delete There is content there, but overall I agree with the fact that there isn’t really any coverage and therefore this article should be deleted. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't find anything in my searches for Borgzinner or Universets varmedød og andre selvmord either. Possible that it's deeper in undigitized Norwegian sources so ping me if so. czar13:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems quite speedy to go from tagging the article as a stub that needs further work on Feb. 17 (after several years of edit inactivity on the page) to moving forward with a deletion discussion on Feb. 22. - that said, I do see the very reasonable logic for deletion. As CZAR has raised, and given the medium/format that Borgzinner worked in, I think that there may be undigitized sources out there - and I wonder if we couldn't take more time to consider this possibility as we search for sources, and then revisit the deletion discussion.Boredintheevening (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I managed to find an archived version of the dead link that wasn't a redirect, and have now added it into the article. The eulogy itself provides very little biographical information about Borgzinner, it's mostly about Hylland Eriksen's relationship with him. Short of a mountain of significant coverage in undigitised sources, I'm still not thinking he is a notable subject. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is what appears to be a promotional article, with very questionable sources ranging from blogs to an Amazon listing. Does not appear to pass WP:NAUTHOR, nor WP:MUSICBIO. When conducting a before search, I've had no luck coming up with anything even remotely approaching WP:SIGCOV. Kylemahar902 (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear paid-for WP:ADMASQ for a non-notable motivational speaker. No pass on any WP:NBIO SNGs, and I only see one source that might be WP:SIGCOV, but it appears non-independent given the promotional material that it includes. (Plus, seen in today's light the headline "From Diddy dreams to transforming teens" is quite unfortunate.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer would note that the above user is the paid editor who created this article. Emirdy, could you please point to the reliable sources in this article? Thanks. Kylemahar902 (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Distinctly promotional (though short of being outright spam) & no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. Checking references, I found citations to promotional websites, an interview with Taylor, sites selling his books, at least one reference to a page which doesn't even mention him, a dead link ... etc ... Not a single one that I saw went anywhere towards showing notability in Wikipedia's terms. JBW (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's becoming clear that while the article has some coverage, as it is right now is WP:TOOSOON and it lacks the widespread secondary and independent coverage that would generally qualify for notability (as others have already pointed out). Emirdy's comment demonstrates WP:CRYSTALBALL. GuardianH16:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced BLP about a writer, and have added three sources. One is the publisher's website, however, so not an independent source. The other two are both reviews in Kirkus. I haven't been able to find three good sources, and don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. I did find this in the Daily Herald through ProQuest, but it reads like a press release from the publisher. Tacyarg (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Couldn't find anything on Proquest for any of his books. The Daily Herald piece is clearly a press release from the publisher, and the two Kirkus reviews are from the Kirkus Indie program, which means they are paid reviews and therefore not usable for the purposes of WP:NAUTHOR. Didn't find anything else to suggest notability. MCE89 (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for authors. While the Kirkus reviews may not be considered strong independent sources per WP:NAUTHOR, additional evidence supports the subject’s notability. The author has been featured in multiple crime fiction podcasts, including *Spear-Talk* and *Second Sunday Books*, where he has been interviewed alongside other established thriller writers. Additionally, he has contributed articles to *Thrilleresque Magazine*, an independent literary publication recognized in the crime fiction community.
Furthermore, the author is one of the few Western writers to have visited and written about North Korea, a topic that has been central to two of his published works. His experiences in North Korea have been discussed in both *Spear-Talk* and *Second Sunday Books* podcasts, as well as in his referenced article in *Thrilleresque Magazine*.
I am continuing to search for independent sources, particularly given that the author has spoken on *espionage thriller* panels at *Bouchercon 2024* and *Bouchercon 2022*, one of the most recognized literary events in crime fiction. Given the subject’s multiple published works, ongoing media coverage, and contributions to the crime fiction genre, I request that the article be retained. 2601:241:8E00:87B:8159:B6BD:E466:6C67 (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following my initial response, I have found and added additional independent sources related to the author's latest book, *Midnight in Delhi*, which has received multiple positive reviews in the U.S. and India. Notably, *Best Thriller Books*, one of the leading independent book reviewers in the thriller genre, has reviewed the novel. These new references further reinforce the subject’s ongoing recognition in the crime fiction community. I am continuing to search for more independent coverage to strengthen the article. 2601:241:8E00:87B:8159:B6BD:E466:6C67 (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Following my previous response, I have added multiple independent sources confirming the author's participation in major crime fiction literary events. Notably, A.C. Frieden has been a featured panelist at *Bouchercon 2018 (St. Petersburg)*, *Bouchercon 2019 (Dallas)*, and *Bouchercon 2024 (Nashville)*, with an upcoming panel scheduled for *Bouchercon 2025*. These conferences are widely recognized as some of the most prestigious gatherings in the crime fiction genre. Independent references from *CrimeReads*, *Lone Star Literary Life*, and *J.T. Ellison’s official website* confirm his participation, further supporting his standing in the field. These sources are **third-party, reliable, and independent of the subject**, meeting Wikipedia's WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR standards. Additionally, I am continuing to search for further independent sources, particularly reviews of Frieden's novels in established media outlets. Given the subject’s multiple published works, confirmed speaking engagements at industry-leading events, and coverage in respected literary publications, I request that the article be retained. 2601:241:8E00:87B:F8CE:427D:F4AB:EDC8 (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both nom and MCE89 have provided significant evidence that the subject of this article lacks the widespread independent secondary coverage required by GNG. The article is also contains promotional material which looks like a WP:RESUME. Nearly the entire bibliography is composed of self-authored, self-published, or otherwise primary sources that are disqualified for consideration towards notability. GuardianH05:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deletion. The assertion that the subject lacks widespread independent secondary coverage overlooks the significant credibility of Down & Out Books, a leading crime fiction publisher. Notably, Down & Out Books is the official publisher of the Bouchercon Anthology, the official annual publication of Bouchercon, the world's premier crime fiction conference. Additionally, Down & Out Books has published works by over 200 authors, including #1 New York Times bestselling author C.J. Box and Edgar Award-winning authors David Housewright and Naomi Hirahara, among others. The publisher’s association with such acclaimed writers underscores its legitimacy and prominence in the crime fiction community. Down & Out Books has published four of the subject’s works, including the most recent, which was published in both the U.S. and India in November 2024. This international distribution further demonstrates the subject’s professional recognition and reach.
Dismissing the bibliography as "self-authored, self-published, or otherwise primary sources" misrepresents the nature of Down & Out Books. While it operates as an independent press, it is not a vanity or self-publishing operation. The publisher maintains a rigorous editorial selection process, professional production standards, and industry-wide distribution, aligning with reputable publishing practices.
Given the publisher's prestige, its role in publishing multiple works by the subject, and the subject's international reach, the article meets WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR guidelines. Concerns regarding promotional language can be addressed through standard editorial improvements rather than deletion. 2601:241:8E00:87B:F5B2:D640:8893:3CB1 (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the prior nomination on him, the "keep" votes were based on (presumed notability of) other existing Survivor winners (until recent years of AFD noms on certain winners).
A recap article by EW details his cameo appearance in Survivor: Game Changers, but then that's just a recap article, despite the magazine being highly reputable. (BTW, the author of the article has expressed his opinions in other articles.)
I'm kinda cautious about using an ABA Journal article to verify his notability. The source was probably promoting his then-upcoming interview, which is a primary source, one of which to never use to verify this person's notability per GNG. (Will describe some other sources soon.)
I don't wanna argue with others back and forth similar to the other AFD discussion. Nonetheless, I fear similar arguments made in that discussion would be inevitable.
As said in that discussion, if WP:BLP1E isn't applicable to you, then how about WP:BIO1E instead, WP:NBASIC, WP:PAGEDECIDE, and/or WP:BIOSPECIAL? Furthermore, WP:BLP should also apply. Indeed, I'm not confident (yet) about his notability for his Survivor: South Pacific gameplay and its compliance with the BLP policy itself.
Sure, his roles in Survivor have been significant, but his amount of major roles IMO hasn't come close to meeting WP:NACTOR. Well, he's been a post-Survivor television writer, but whether he meets WP:NAUTHOR isn't the main issue. Rather WP:NBASIC and WP:BIOSPECIAL should supersede his (non-)compliance with WP:NAUTHOR. George Ho (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wwew345t, this discussion is not about George Ho, but about the article. Feel free to take your concerns to his talk page, but following him around AfD is not productive. I'll also note your comment on this talk page. win8x (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also voted keep based on WP:NACTOR there are plenty secondary sources that establish his notability the primary sources are there to complement the artcile furthmore he doesnt meet all 3 critiera for BLP1E Wwew345t (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Patch article was an opinion piece by an ordinary citizen (who is a Patch member). The NY Daily News article is a recap of an episode. So is the one by The Republican (MassLive). Recaps are (summarization of) primary sources, which are discounted by GNG, so I gotta treat those recaps as such. I'm unsure how and why you reply too much and argue with me and others back and forth. George Ho (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC); edited, 00:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources by definition get their info from a primary source hence where they are called secondary sources the fact thats its a summarization of a primary sources makes it a secondary source Wwew345t (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a primariy source unless its an interview of someone with first hand knowledge of the event in question a receap of what happned in a tv show doesnt qualfiy as that Wwew345t (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this page and that page about what a secondary source is, well.... CBS recaps episodes... Actually, used to, but I consider CBS somewhat a primary source. (Trying to find other sources explicitly categorizing recaps as either primary or secondary sources.) George Ho (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
according to wikipedias definition of secondary sources stuff that is made after the fact with hindsight are considered secondary sources and the recaps are covering the events of episodes that had happened a couple days prior so by a very loose definition I believe they are secondary especially since no one is actually interviewed in said re caps Wwew345t (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Itd be a lot easier to determine if they listed who wrote the recap unfortunately they dont so it could be anyone that works for cbs regardless of wether or not they had anything to do with Survivor Wwew345t (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, other certain articles about Survivor winners have been redirected per multiple AFD discussions. Well, two other articles were technically deleted from the public eye per AFD. I'm not trying to push you into changing your mind/stance about redirecting. Nonetheless, I wonder whether you can think further about pros and cons on deleting and on redirecting (and other methods seen in WP:ATD).
(Technical) deletion would result in deleting all revisions of the page. On the other hand, redirecting is... still redirecting, but it preserves historical data of pages. Plus, it helps readers realize why the page would no longer be in the current article status and decide what to do about the (redirect) page. Furthermore, redirecting is more of a compromise between keeping and deleting, especially when the AFD result is enforced. George Ho (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The article notes: "John Cochran’s dream Hollywood run continues. After winning Survivor: Caramoan, he landed a comedy writer job on the CBS series The Millers. And now the 28-year-old Harvard Law graduate is getting a shot at creating his own show with the help of his mentor, The Millers creator Greg Garcia. ... Cochran co-executive produces with Amigos de Garcia’s Alix Jaffe. ... Cochran had been a huge Survivor fan since the reality series’ first season. He handed out Survivor newsletters during high school, wore a Survivor-style buff on his arm and at Harvard Law, he won the Dean’s Scholar Prize for writing an essay about the Survivor jury system as compared to the one employed by American courts."
The article notes: "CBS is developing a multi-cam legal sitcom that hails from “Survivor” winner John Cochran and former “Modern Family” writer Dan O’Shannon, Variety has learned exclusively. ... Cochran appeared on the 23rd season of “Survivor,” finishing in 8th place. He returned for the 26th season, winning the season and the $1 million prize. Following a post-show interview with host Jeff Probst, Cochran revealed his desire to be a comedy writer. He was subsequently contacted by Greg Garcia who offered him a job on the writing staff for the CBS series “The Millers.” Cochran also developed “Bob’s Your Uncle,” a comedy pilot for CBS and CBS Studios with Garcia executive producing. He has also written for the CBS comedy “Kevin Can Wait.”"
The article notes: "Survivor champion John Cochran has followed through on his pledge to become a writer in a big way. ... Cochran, who studied law at Harvard, first revealed his plans to forgo becoming a lawyer and instead pursue writing during Survivor’s live reunion show, which aired May 12."
The article notes: "John Cochran did not stand a chance in hell of winning Survivor: Caramoan, and I told him exactly that right before the game began. After all, who in their right mind would want to align with the guy after he betrayed his entire alliance by refusing to go to rocks in the recently aired Survivor: South Pacific, ensuring not only their destruction but his own. So, naturally, after being told there was no point in even going out and playing, not only did Cochran go and win Caramoan, but he did so in epic fashion—completing a perfect game with zero votes cast against him all season while also receiving every single jury vote for the win."
The article notes: "In Oakton, John Cochran was watching from the start, as a 13-year-old in 2000, and he calls himself a show superfan. Now, he is a part of Survivor history. Cochran, 26, won the 26th season of the show (there are two per year) in a live ceremony announcing the winner in Los Angeles last week. The episodes were filmed last year on Caramoan in the Philippines, where Cochran had to eat nasty things and do all the other physical and mental torture tests required of the contestants. He collects $1 million for his troubles. Cochran also competed in season 24 in 2011 but did not win."
The article notes: "It’s not hard to pick Harvard law graduate John Cochran out of this Louboutin-heeled crowd. He has played the role of fish out of water all his life. On Survivor, he used that to spectacular effect, winning a million dollars in May in a script seemingly lifted from Revenge of the Nerds. ... Some people may be surprised to learn that the ultimate outsider is now part of the Hollywood dream factory, closer to cool kid status as a writer on The Millers, a new CBS sitcom ... But Cochran proved to the world that the most important muscle is the brain. (Naturally, he won the Dean’s Scholar prize at Harvard for his essay on the quirks of Survivor’s jury system.)"
Sources #1 and #2 seem to be more about (promoting and verifying notability of) the then-upcoming sitcom than about the person himself, IMO, despite those article happiness. (Per Cunard's reply below and WP:SIGCOV. George Ho (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Source #3 significantly covers him as the Caramoan winner. I admire your quoting the excerpt about his educational life, but the source mentions it like a summarization of his cover letter or something like that and mentions post-Survivor writing career like a mere resume in prose.
I already explained why I discounted source #4 as a primary source, didn't I?
Source #5 still does the same thing as source #3. Source #6 doesn't convince me why his Harvard background (and essays)... or his career writing for short-lived series and a Star Trek animated series is worth visualizing and teaching readers about him. Rather it still verifies his notability as a Survivor winner. George Ho (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the sources being more about "the then-upcoming sitcom than about the person himself", Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." These sources each provide significant coverage about John Cochran. The 2015 article in Deadline Hollywood and the 2017 article in Variety are in reputable publications. They are not promotional sources. They are independent reliable sources. The third source provides significant biographical coverage about him in The Hollywood Reporter, another reputable source. The fourth source contains non-interview content so is not merely a primary source. The author provides commentary and analysis about what the subject did on the show. The fifth and sixth sources provide further biographical background about the subject.
Sure, those publications are highly reputable. Well, I'm trying to find a policy or guideline that can help me refute your argument about reliability of sources being sufficient, but no such luck yet.
Regarding the sources being more about "the then-upcoming sitcom than about the person himself", Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." These sources each provide significant coverage about John Cochran. Struck my comments about sources #1 and #2. Still, I dunno whether they verify his notability as a writer as much as his post-Survivor activities themselves, IMO. But I'm not gonna argue further about those sources.
The fourth source contains non-interview content so is not merely a primary source. The author provides commentary and analysis about what the subject did on the show. Well, every questionnaire that Dalton Ross wrote does, but that even non-notable contestants were given similar questionnaires, like Gabon winner (AFD) and Island of the Idols winner (AFD).
The fifth and sixth sources provide further biographical background about the subject.Not all articles, if not "not everything", should be included/preserved in the project, ya know? To put this another way, even so, I can't help wonder whether his pre-Survivor background should suffice to verify his notability. Even non-notable contestants have their own backgrounds.
The first two sources about his writing career and the extensive coverage in reliable sources about John Cochran's appearances on Survivor are enough for him to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Regarding "every questionnaire that Dalton Ross wrote does, but that even non-notable contestants were given similar questionnaires", that does not exclude the source from contributing to Cochran's notability under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". The Entertainment Weekly is an independent reputable source and Dalton Ross is a reputable journalist. His analysis and commentary about John Cochran contribute to demonstrating notability. Dalton Ross's coverage about the other contestants gets those contestants closer to passing the notability guideline but may not be enough to establish notability if there are not other sources that show those contestants do not fall under WP:BLP1E. Cunard (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Making an accusation that the creator of the article, MichaelQSchmidt, a Wikipedia Administrator with over 61,000 non-automated edits, is an undisclosed paid editor is a pretty bold statement. Aside from that, the subject of the article meets WP:CREATIVE #3 for his role as producer, co-director, and writer of Quantum Quest: A Cassini Space Odyssey and possibly for Earth: Final Conflict but I haven't been able to independently verify his involvement in that series (but I haven't tried very hard). RecycledPixels (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The tone is promotional, but if one is going to claim paid advertising, then one needs to prove it. The issue is whether the tone can be fixed by ordinary editing. That's all. Bearian (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator- the article has had the banner claiming it was made for payment since 2022. I had assumed that there was some official process that determines that; I am a new editor. I don't claim to have evidence that the article was paid for: I mean no harm to MichaelQSchmidt. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Live and learn. Here's what happened, and a good learning curve on this one. The article was created in 2008. It wasn't until 2022 that it was tagged for possible paid editing. With a gap of 14 years, how would anyone know it was paid editing? You see, when articles get tagged for anything, and without any backup proof, a tag is just a tag unless there is some proof. — Maile (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me, please, to disagree with your observation about the importance of the length of time, i.e. "With a gap of 14 years, how would anyone know it was paid editing?" Well, information does not necessarily appear quickly. We might learn an article was made by a paid editor, or some other pertinent information, a considerable length of time after the article's creation, something for which I believe no examples need be given. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might also add that anyone can slap a tag on an article. They don't have to prove the tag is correct, or that they even know why they are tagging. Just tag it. — Maile (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Creative career clearly pushes subject above WP:N easily, and the claim the article was created and paid for by the subject is based on...one drive-by IP post in 2022, with @MrOllie: needing to explain why they tagged it in August of the same year. It's an accusation so poor nobody commented on it because they presented no evidence for it at all. After your poor Chanel and Travel Portland noms and this removed vote!, Plotinus, I strongly suggest doing more in article space right now because your nominations and rationales are baffling. Nathannah•(chatter)01:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template says 'created or edited' and that is the case here - there's been a promotional SPA active on it for years - as is common in these cases, it is photo rights on their uploads that tell the tale. It's not based on an IP post, and I did not have MichaelQSchmidt in mind. - MrOllie (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What else do we have? We have listings on a general theme, in which our subject is mentioned, such as this list of alumni, or routine listings of events, e.g. of speaking appearances, such as this; plus, news items that are similarly about something else and not of our subject, e.g. this report about an upcoming movie, whose screenplay is written by Kloor (mentioned once), or this one about a NASA project where our subject is listed as "workshop attendee", or a Captain's Log entry on a "Star Trek interactive science exhibit" where our subject is name dropped once, and so on. Anything else trawled up belongs to the aforepresented categories.
The strong aroma of vanity, whether intentional or not, is not a problem. After all, anyone can see there is no need for two photo-portraits or that we do not get year of birth. Nor is the fact that a major curator of the text is a kamikaze account. The problem is that we do not have enough sources. And arguments to the tune "Oh, he's obviously notable" do not wash. -The Gnome (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notability case for this writer/columnist is unclear. They've produced one book with a couple of reviews that represent the only secondary sourcing on this page (and are mainly about the work, not the author, and so do not really report a standalone BLP). The other two sources are primary references from institutions – one where the subject works and another that gave them an award, without any evidence of secondary coverage lending weight or notability. It's unclear which, if any notability criteria might apply. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I left the citation at the end of the page earlier. Why shouldn't editorialists be notable? He'll sure become notable after suggesting that following a policy that killed 2M Indians should be fine. Selbsportrait (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not about whether someone has a certain job or said a bunch of really hot takes. The notability guidelines require covering in reliable secondary sources, and only one out of the five sources is secondary. Two of them are his own work. Blagai (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. His only reason for notability is his recent article comparing the mass migration of Muslims and Hindus during the Indian partition in 1947 to the proposed forced migration of Palastinians from the Gaza Strip.
I concur with the deletion too but saying "comparing" would be understating it. He has advanced a Gaza transfer on the lines of the 1947 mass migration. Theofunny (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of reviews alone doesn't make the book a "significant or well-known work", and while those reviews contribute to the notability of the book, they are far more trivial as sources for the purposes of supporting a BLP, which should really feature some secondary sources focused on the biographical subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usually if it's just one notable book, we just redirect the article on the author to the book and put whatever relevant biographical info in there. I don't think I've ever seen an author bio close as keep as WP:NAUTHOR pass when there was an extant book article. The edge case tends to be when we don't have a book article to redirect to in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any major secondary sources for notability. His book also does not seem significant or well-known enough to make him meet NAUTHOR, especially since there are only a couple reviews. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The timing of this AfD nomination by a PIA-topic-banned user is certainly suspect, but the decision should be based on merits. Relisting for additional source assessments. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎12:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED, George here is only known in connection with his famous son Leonardo DiCaprio. His "acting debut" is a very small few second cameo, his work as a writer/artist (not really clear) fails WP:ARTIST and his work as a filmmaker fails WP:FILMMAKER, getting a small stint editing on local newspapers does not make you notable. Source 5 in the article shows he's worked on... three comics? Don't know if it's even reliable as a source but clearly not noteworthy in itself. jolielover♥talk14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Note expanded bibliography, which establishes DiCaprio as an active editor and writer in the underground movement in the 1970s (extending into the early 1980s). -- User:Mikeross22 (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. The entire underground comix movement was designed to change people's perceptions of what stories were "worth" telling in the comics format, so many products of that era fail a mainstream definition of "notablity". Nonetheless, the material produced during that era changed the comics industry forever, heralding the alternative comics movement and the rise of the graphic novel. That history has been well established. DiCaprio's role during that time as a writer, publisher, editor, and distributor is also well-established. Not to mention that he collaborated with such "notable" artists as Justin Green and Jay Kinney, and contributed to anthologies such as Arcade and Slow Death. -- User:Mikeross22 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are at least three good sources. However, there are several sources that need to be removed and the article tagged as needing better sources, if it is kept. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about the sources, obviously Leonardo DiCaprio's dad is going to have a plethora of articles about him no matter what he did. The issue is that he has no notability outside of being Leo's father. jolielover♥talk05:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep I agree with the above needs better sources and some expanding. I say keep for now and maybe re-nominate in the future if its not expanded on much better sources found. ContentEditman (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that he isn't notably significant on his own, and while his son gives him some notability, it's not enough. I believe he fails to meet most of the criteria outlined in WP:BIOLililolol (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]