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.
Absolutely no notability of this term is shown in the article; it mostly appears to be a gallery of a few drawings. A BEFORE search of the term was fruitless as it doesn't appear to be an actual recognised term and I'm just getting lots of results for art of molecules. Fails WP:GNG. CoconutOctopustalk18:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. It is not well known at all. It is very niche, my hope is to expand that niche and to make it more known.
Here are some sufficient links to examples of molecule art. If you would like me to include these as references and citations to strengthen the integrity of the article, do let me know.
Etsy and similar sites are not reliable sources; neither is TikTok. I'm also not seeing evidence of any use of the specific term "Molecule Art" on these sources, rather just examples of art that happens to use molecules in it, which certainly exists, but I don't believe is notable. CoconutOctopustalk19:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Etsy and tiktok are not good wikipedia citation or reference sources, but in the conversation about being recognised as an art form, the evidence presented is sufficent. It is referred to as "[name of molecule] - art", "Molecularts", "Chembroidery" and "Molecule art" in a few already listed places as a generalisation. Would it not be useful to define an umbrella term?
@Cmspeedrunner: Wikipedia is not designed as a place to write an article about everything that is "recognised as an art form," you must demonstrate notability. The article wasn't brought to this deletion discussion because the nominator said it was a hoax--then evidence that it at least exists would be much more useful, but that it has "absolutely no notability." JJPMaster (she/they) 19:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have demonstrated the notability above with the links. Coconut Octopus replied by saying it was invalid due to the lack of the term "Molecule Art", this does not demonstrate a lack of notability but a lack of a centralised definition, which this article is attempting to do. Cmspeedrunner (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) As far as I can tell, we don't have any other article that is about "List of paintings of x origin being held in museums in y country". This feels like WP:ARBITRARYCAT, and it's really not notable that Western European paintings specifically are held in Ukraine when Western European paintings are held in museums around the world and when Ukrainian museums have collections of paintings from around the world.
2) Most of the history discussed in the article is not about Western European art in Ukraine specifically, but about the history of artworks in Ukraine in general (several mentions of art museums with Oriental art). This is an interesting topic, but it doesn't justify the existence of an article dedicated specifically to Western European art in Ukraine.
3) The article has been marked as completely lacking sources for 15 years, probably because there is a lack of sources dedicated to the topic of "which Western European paintings are held in Ukraine" (only one I could find was a book published in 1981, but the information in that list is almost certainly out of date after 40 years).
Delete: I tend to agree with the nom, this isn't really helpful when Western European art is held around the world. I really don't see notability for most of the museums, they aren't that well-known. We're not listing paintings in the Louvre or the MoMA, that are world-famous. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the list part of this article is unhelpful. National museums house stuff from across the entire globe, it's what they do, and which museums house what isn't really encyclopedia material. Where there's a particular documented controversy about a country's culture being housed in another country's museums (Elgin marbles is an extreme individual case) then we can have an article, but I don't think there's any special controversy about the fact there are Western European paintings in Ukrainian museums. So I agree to this extent: the list could be deleted. But the introductory material to the list, about the history of museums, galleries, and art-works is actually quite encyclopedic and interesting. Could the article be trimmed of its "list" material and status, and moved to a more appropriate title? Elemimele (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and potentially merge with pages describing other Trump statues. While the Portland and Philadelphia ones are confined to a particular timeframe, I think there is notability in the fact that statues have popped up since 2016 and perhaps pages can be merged into a single "Trump Statues" page with some editing to remove extraneous details. Nnev66 (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article dedicated to a single Stolperstein, which is a Holocaust memorial stone, placed in the UK. There have been over one hundred thousand of these stones placed, and the single stone placed in the UK is already covered in the inclusive article List of places with stolpersteine, and in fact that article doesn't even link here in any way. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it was the very first stolperstein in england and therefor has a unique meaning is an important symbol. it is very nessesary for people to know it.--Donna Gedenk (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And please just talk about the sources and don't try to label me. I could do the same thing by pointing out the nature of your contributions (we are discussing it here), which are clearly associated with ethnonationalist ideas, deprecated here on Wikipedia. I am active on the Italian-language Wikipedia, not here. Here on the English-language Wikipedia I am limiting myself to these topics, because I was surprised by how much certain users have imposed certain clearly POV ideas in recent years. --Syphax98 (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The crwflags website couldn't be considered a reliable source. The Lebanese Armed Forces website does not refer to any "Maronite flag" and calls this version "العلم اللبناني في الفترة الانتقالية (1918-1920)" ("The Lebanese flag in the transitional period (1918-1920)"). The Minbladeh website (also non reliable anyway) makes no reference to a "Maronite flag" and defines this as the "Flag of the region of Lebanon after the fall of the Ottoman Empire (1918-1920)". Some sources refer to the fact that this version was used widely by the Maronite community (which was the main religious community in favor of the formation of an independent Lebanon"), but sources rarely refer to it as the "Maronite flag". The article itself refers to the fact that this flag was designed by Shukri El Khoury and Naoum Labaki, active in the Mahjar (an Arab cultural association); the activity of these two intellectuals was never aimed at creating a separate Maronite identity, but rather an Arab and Lebanese identity that transcended religious boundaries. --Syphax98 (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2024 (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 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.
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
Not yet notable as a musician, filmmaker or writer. A WP:BEFORE search in English and Portuguese turned up very little coverage in reliable sources, just primary sources, blogs and passing mentions in secondary sources. Some of Reis' family are apparently notable, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am submitting a request to retain the Wikipedia page for Ana Reis, as her work has significant cultural, artistic, and historical relevance that justifies her inclusion in Wikipedia. Ana Reis is a notable artist with unique contributions to the art world. Although there may be limited online information readily available about her, this should not detract from her established importance.
The scarcity of online references does not accurately reflect her accomplishments but rather relates to documented personal circumstances, which may have contributed to her underrepresentation in digital sources. (Redacted) These elements, though private, have affected the availability of Ana’s contributions and thus hindered the broader recognition she rightfully deserves.
Despite these challenges, Ana Reis’s contributions to the art community have resonated deeply with her peers, and her work has been recognized in several exhibitions, publications, and private collections. Her notability is rooted in her artistic achievements and the influence her work has had on contemporary art. I respectfully ask that these factors be taken into account when reviewing her page for retention.
Thank you for considering the broader context surrounding Ana Reis’s significance. Her page serves as a vital source for those interested in learning more about her unique contributions to art and culture. Sanguedereis (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beside online sources what else is needed? Fellow artists can provide statements and testimonies as well as links to existing works can be provided. Where can these be sent or uploaded to? And is there any deadline for this?
Additionally please be aware person in question is under ongoing and systematic attacks, (Redacted). There are plenty of bona fide artists with scarce sources deemed not too reliable, and it's not positive either for person in question, to request further silencing and invisibility. That is in a way or another enabling and endorsing the abuse against them. Thank you. Sanguedereis (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A book "awaiting publication" is not notable, this appears to be PROMO. There are hardly any sources to be found about this person when I look. Sourcing in the article isn't helpful either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This case concerning Ana Reis's recognition isn’t due to any lack of relevance or a genuine artistic dimension but rather to complex life circumstances that have severely limited her access to fair opportunities and visibility. her background is marked by high-profile abusive influences and substantial evidences are available to prove that. She faced systemic obstacles that have stifled her career in ways that very few people experience. However, being very active from 2000 until 2026, both her network and collaborations show an artist with a substantial history of work,, including mention by utmostly respected musicologist who has noted her contributions. However, these connections haven’t shielded her from isolation and undue obscurity.
Due to aforementioned undue influences, she worked alone, with no fundings or grants, no publicity, no 'promos' whatsoever as someone mentioned above, no producers, no promotion machines. Over the years she struggled immensely to have valid and thorough media coverage for her work that deserves deeper considerations and study in its inner world of imagination and symbolism. Equally, aforementioned undue influence/s have occupied most her life keeping her, much against her will, away from her own professional and creative activities, under severe devaluation and micromanagement. This caused her to over the years lose reliable social networks, professional support, and public exposure. Her work and impact became underrepresented, often leaving her vulnerable to having her career and reputation questioned or undervalued, which cause rightful feeling of demoralization and injustice.
The controversial situations she has been denouncing touch a subject taboo, the cruelty of narcissistic mothers towards their daughters, who often become invisible and unheard under a stifling, toxic parent who wants all the spotlight and the daughter is left 'inexistant'. And that is also why it is so important to recognize her contributions and unique originality of her work, rather than allow further erasure. Evidences of her past collaborations and testimonials from many fellow artists over the years, are being requested and underway, as this may greatly help to an accurate acknowledgment of her creative works. Ana is worthy of a fair chance to be seen for her artistic contributions rather than being made invisible. What some have said in the remote past that 'the press ignored them' is on Wiki too and taken as fact, but that's an affirmation of absolute falsehood and doesn't correspond at all to real facts (Redacted), and it's thoroughly disappointing when a privileged person presents false complaints but does exactly the same they complain about, to who they should never sabotage the light they receive. Thank you. Sanguedereis (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note Some comments in this discussion have been redacted as breaches of WP:BLP. Please do not post contentious but unsourced material about living persons. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly not sure about this article; it's been speedily deleted in the past (I have alerted the previously deleting admin to its existence), and most of the sources deal with the book Tate wrote. Notability is not inherited. I dream of horses(Hoofprints)(Neigh at me)22:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR with multiple reviews of multiple books. I am not clear why the nominator mentioned notability not being inherited here as there is no indication that Tate is related to anyone on Wikipedia. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - recommending this article for deletion for the following reasons.
Seems like a promotional page by a very ocassional contributor to some industry news, with plenty of links to his own website (cited as a source) and references to prominent or notable collaberators who are all not listed on wikipedia.
Suspicious edits by 81.175.147.23 who appears to only be active on this page (this IP address is based in the same town as Mr Watson) as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DorianRichard1985 which also appears to be the subject, and created this article. There have been no meaningful edits except by these two contributors, who both appear to be Mr Watson.
This is a promotional page with poor source links, some unverifiable, created to promote the career of an ocassional opinion columnist. Does not meet Wikipedias standard for notability, nor source quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No GS trace at all for "Michael Robert Watson", so either he publishes under a different name or his work has received no attention. The detailed education history without sources usually says the article was written by someone who is/knows the subject. Does anyone know if "ZerO books" is the same as Zero Books? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per comments below, I checked GS for "Mike Watson"; the highest-cited works I could find had 21 citations (Can the Left Learn to Meme?: Adorno, Video Gaming, and Stranger Things) and 13 citations (The Memeing of Mark Fisher: How the Frankfurt School Foresaw Capitalist Realism and What to Do About It), but I might well have missed something as there are so many other Mike Watsons; I don't think these citations would meet WP:PROF, but reviews should be sought to address potential notability under WP:AUTHOR. If the article is kept it needs to be moved to "Mike Watson ([disambiguator])". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concern here is the article appears to be self-authored, with two key accounts in its creation having only ever edited this article (one IP, one logged in). This would be less of an issue if it was an especially noteworthy subject but at the moment Wiki runs risk of being a promotional page or 'find my articles online' site. Many many academic / media figures who are more prolific, many more citations, do not have wikipedia pages. Also there is some unsourced biographic information here. All in I think it should be deleted unless new high quality sources can be found and more credible evidence of Mr Watson's relevance / impact 85.68.25.118 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until the encyclopedia actually prohibits writing autobiographical content, rather than strongly discouraging it, suspicions that the article might be authored by the subject are not valid grounds for deletion. However, I've just put all four book titles into JSTOR and come up with nothing, so I'm not arguing for retention unless someone can show that WP:AUTHOR is met by reviews that JSTOR does not index, or GNG is met. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Indisputably they are one and the same. They have often used that stylising for many years and the content mentioned in this article would make it obvious anyway. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Espresso Addict: He publishes as "Mike Watson", hence all the references mentioning that name. Yes, "ZerO books" = Zero Books (sometimes styled "Zer0 books"). (I don't have, as the Brits say, a dog in this fight. I chanced on the article because Mike Watson had a column in the London Guardian.) Angusta (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sourcing about this author found, nor is what's used in the article of any help. I don't find critical reviews of his works; there's an art professor with the same name that pops up, does not appear to be this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while he’s certainly up and coming as a novelist, it’s perhaps too soon. This page is poorly written. I don’t see a large fan base on social media. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed COI in my comment below. Merely because I do advocacy work for authors on my monthly blogposts about indie authors has nothing to do with the issue. Also, would you prefer wikipedia articles about authors be written by editors without opinions about authors? Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who drafted the article. There is absolutely no COI here -- though I did email Steinberg about a few things and did encourage him to submit one of his photos to wikicommons. Also Steinberg informed me that a few years ago he had drafted a wikipedia article for himself – and he forwarded that draft to me. But I mostly ignored that. It was almost entirely unusable.
I consider myself somewhat of an expert in the field of writing about sexuality. Also, I have a background in indie publishing and have written a few author profiles for Wikipedia over the decades.
Here is my personal opinion about why this living person meet the criteria for notability.
1. He made an invaluable contribution to the pro-feminist men's movement in the 1980s and possibly 1990s. In the 1980s pornography was a hot political topic in the USA. Conservatives were arguing about it. Feminists were arguing for it and against it. In the meantime some pro-feminist men were having conferences, publishing books and anthologies. Steinberg was one of the pioneers of this movement.
2. Steinberg's photography book/anthology Erotic by Nature was groundbreaking in the 1980s -- and it is still in print today. It received widespread distribution through Bookpeople and the book itself sold the concept of erotic photography as a legitimate form of fine arts photography. The book was an attempt to put into practice the ideas and aesthetic of the men's movement who were confronting the issue of pornography -- offering this as an alternative.
3. He has been writing about sexuality, sexual politics and new forms of sexual expression for decades. Most of his articles were for (now defunct) weeklies, but some appeared in national magazines like Playboy. Many of these articles were open to new kinds of sexuality. He has also written a lot about hot-button topics like sex trafficking, transgender rights, mostly from the perspective of a "liberated male."
4. He has devoted the latter part of his life taking erotic photographs and showing them at various exhibits and erotic festivals. Unlike many fine arts photographers, Steinberg has taken photographs of nontraditional subjects, like older people, gays, disabled people, transgender. I have listed some critics who have reviewed/interpreted his aesthetic sensibility.
Now, let me put on my wiki hat for a bit.
That first point (pro-feminist men’s movement) is extremely hard to document and source. (Believe me, I tried). The only thing I could find was several anthologies on the subject which he contributed to and/or edited. https://www.nearbycafe.com/loveandlust/steinberg/erotic/about/index.html Ultimately I ended up not mentioning this part for the article. Steinberg mentions a few of the conferences he participated in some of his writings, but I can find next to nothing from secondary sources.
One problem is that unlike feminists (who often were academics and organized many events through their universities) many of these men's conferences were looser and definitely not-academic. They didn't think too much about recording these things for the historical record. Wiki has some articles about men's movements, Men's Rights Movement and Men in Feminism, but really very little about men's response to porn or how to reconcile porn with feminism from a man's point of view. (See the article on sex-positive feminism; it mentions a lot of female names but almost no one who is male!)Ironically, Steinberg is probably a leading figure for the men's pro-feminist movement and sex-positivity. How do I know this? On that page alone, I count at least 15 names of thinkers/activists/intellectuals (all of which have received wikipedia articles) who have explicitly praised Steinberg's writings! (Joanie Blank, mentioned in the article, was in fact the person who financed Erotic by Nature. One of the writers pictured in the article, Tristan Taormino, even invited Steinberg on a recent podcast).
I should ask: is there a double standard here? Why does Wikipedia have so many articles on feminist response to porn and female authors who have written about sex-positive feminism but almost no males?
Finally, longevity counts for something in publishing. Publications come and go; that is especially true for alternative newspapers and especially true for sex-oriented publications. Should wikipedia discount publications from the pre-digital era simply because they are unavailable? Steinberg is one of the few writers/columnists on sexual issues who has digitized many of his writings on sexuality from the 1980s and 1990s and put them online. Wikipedia readers should have the ability to know that people like this actually existed -- and that his archive of writings from that time period exist and remain accessible.
By refusing to acknowledge the importance of contributions of people like David Steinberg, Wikipedia editors are removing bits of history from the public. I have done my best to draft an article on a somewhat sensitive subject in accordance with Wiki's policies. Frankly, I fail to understand why notability would even be a problem here. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to step back for now. But I wanted to reiterate about COI that I have NEVER done paid editing for any wiki article subject and never received remuneration for anything I have done at Wikipedia. I expect to receive no sort of benefit (financial or otherwise) from Steinberg as a result of writing this article, and none was promised to me. My ebook publishing company (Personville Press) doesn't have any interest in publishing any of Steinberg's works although I admit I am extremely fond of his writings. My contact with the subject, as stated in my above statement, was minimal and mainly to check up on dates and verify some things. Robert J Nagle (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought of one more thing -- that maybe is self-evident. The article itself mentions that Steinberg was designated as " Erotic Photographer of the Year" in 2010 by Leydig Trust (which sponsors the Sexual Freedom Awards). The Sexual Freedom Awards has its own wikipedia page; I guess that means wikipedia has already rated these awards as notable. In the article I mentioned that the Seattle Erotic Art Festival has given Steinberg the honorary title, "Master of Erotic Art" for "impactful photography (which) focuses on capturing the diversity of our human sexuality by showcasing a broad range of people. From the SEAF website itself, it says, "The Masters of Erotic Art program showcases artists who have made meaningful contributions to the history and development of erotic art." These are two separate well-known organizations in the field of the erotic arts which have recognized Steinberg's contribution to the field. [11]
These properly sourced details were mentioned in paragraph 2 of the article, so I assume that the other editors saw this already. I have provided other justifications about notability in the previous longer comment. But frankly, I don't know just those two award designations don't confer notability. Robert J Nagle (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has zero independent sources that provide any nontrivial content about the article subject. Most of it is just blog posts he made or articles he wrote. The rest discusses that he was elected to local government as a district councilor. The BBC covered one of his opponents. Here's the only text the BBC wrote about the article subject: Mr Humphries is contending the Droitwich Central ward against John Hartley of the Conservative Party and Chas Murray of the Liberal Democrats.
I accepted this at AFC after requesting the create protection was lifted in mainspace. I now have strong doubts that Gertoux has anything other than faux-notability, and believe that I was in error. I have subsequently, with consensus, removed undue weight from thge article. However, I am struggling to check and verify references in the detail required. At AFC I needed simply to accept based on what I believed was a greater than 50% probability of surviving an immediate deletion process. It has done that - there was no immediate deletion process. Now I am looking in greater detail I have found that it has an impenetrable referencing scheme, which often links in a tortuous manner to Gertoux's own works. Quotations in the references often do not match the alleged fact that is cited. Some I have removed. However, when studied in detail, each references appears susceptible to challenge in some manner. My conclusion is that this is a WP:SOAPBOX and a WP:COATRACK for the ideas and concepts attributed to Gertoux. Furthermore that he fails WP:BIO, WP:NPROF, and WP:GNG. If deleted it should again be salted 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His only claim to fame is not finishing his PhD, and accusing his professors of the "great French academic conspiracy against fundamentalism". The reason for not allowing him to continue his PhD wasn't his religious affiliation, but his insistence to peddle WP:FRINGE fundamentalist claims in his dissertation. Because which church he attends in his leisure time is not relevant to getting a PhD. Belonging to a tiny religious movement could be frowned upon, but it is ultimately a private matter which does not concern writing a dissertation. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, being personally a fundamentalist does not concern the university: that's what he is during his leisure time. Writing a fundamentalist dissertation does concern the university. MIVILUDES is more of an organized whistleblower than an organization exercising political or juridical power. E.g. when I was a Christian fundamentalist I managed to get a BSc from the University of Amsterdam, which is considered a bastion of atheism by many. When a professor wrote to him that he is a fundamentalist, the professor meant that his dissertation is fundamentalist. Otherwise, French professors don't tell him which church he should attend. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeffro77 I am grateful. I was unable to see the prior article(s) when I reviewed this since I do not have admin goggles. While they might or might not have changed my acceptance they would have meant that I would have made an even more detailed study than I did. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment on JWs coatrack presumption: Since the 19th century, Bible Students have used the form Jehovah in their worship and in general in their movement, and since 1931 they have been using the name Jehovah's Witnesses for their denomination for almost a century, I do not believe that they need Gertoux's support to justify the inclusion and use of the term Jehovah, or that they are interested in it because I typed in the web search engine and found that the JWs cite George Wesley Buchanan, Everett Fox,[12] and dozens, but never Gertoux. Regarding pronunciation, JWs have always affirmed:
that the form Yahweh is the form most accepted by scholars
that there are other pronunciations such as Iao (i.e. 4Q120) or Yaho, and others, and it is not possible to know the original pronunciation
that they use Jehovah because it is well known and familiar
that it is possible to use the pronunciation of an individual's choice
JWs use both Jehovah and Yahwen in their publications
Even Gertoux claims that he limits the Yehowah pronunciation only to the 1st century CE,[13] because going further back is a mythical rather than a scientific quest. So can Gertoux give support to the JWs, to use the pronunciation proposed by him, when the JWs do not need it? Reference has been made to soapbox and coatrack, which is not clearly what this is about, or, how to prove that it is? Although there is no clear relationship in the coatrack and soapbox, I can well think that researchers who have also attracted attention in these contexts are relevant, JWs are a fairly large community. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that JWs have been using the form Jehovah for a long time has no bearing on an attempt to make their (and similar groups') views appear more legitimate by a purportedly independent scholar presenting that view as 'mainstream'. The assertion that "JWs use both Jehovah and Yahwen [sic] in their publications" is intentionally misleading, and they actually only use Yahweh in their literature when quoting other sources or suggesting that the form Yahweh is inferior to the form Jehovah. (The denomination's Watchtower Library uses Yahweh a total of 732 times compared to Jehovah appearing 360,095 times.) See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Gerard Gertoux.--Jeffro77Talk12:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding to: "is intentionally misleading, and they actually only use Yahweh in their literature when quoting other sources or suggesting that the form Yahweh is inferior to the form Jehovah", this it is not true [14]. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though this is straying outside the point, the objection is also wrong. The 1 January 1982 issue of The Watchtower referenced above (on page 9) quotes The Illustrated Bible Dictionary (which uses Yahweh), and then alludes to that quoted form again (the only times Yahweh appears in that issue) before suggesting Jehovah as the preferred alternative on that page and then in more detail on page 14. That issue of the magazine uses the form Jehovah 83 times. This also goes to the reliability of the editor cherry-picking sources to push the narrative about the 'correct' pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton.--Jeffro77Talk08:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More irrelevant material on the rejected thesis
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment on the doctoral thesis rejected: it is interesting that his doctoral supervisor worked for 3 years and developed the thesis for the defense. The other reporters had also accepted it. At the last moment Gertoux changed his thesis, only to have it rejected? Then his next doctoral supervisor and again the same reporters who already knew the thesis would accept it again for transfer, and then tell him that they could not accept it? Obviously the rejection was not because of its content. Anyone in France knows about the treatment of minority groups. On the other hand, people with no doctorate, no master's degree or even no bachelor's degree have become top academics: Freeman Dyson, Louis Smullin, Walter Russell Mead, Andrew Casson, William Gillan Waddell, Jack Edmonds, John Strugnell, etc. so a rejected dissertation would not be an obstacle to the existence of a WP article. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can unfortunately not build upon your personal opinions about the topic, or what you "obviously" find to be true, only on opinions and analysis presented in reliable, secondary sources. Therefore, please provide such sources. Geschichte (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Gertoux's book The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is Pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah. It Story has been included among the references of articles in The Encyclopedia of Christianity, the Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity and the Μεγάλη Ορθόδοξη Χριστιανική Εγυκλοπαίδεια (ΜΟΧΕ). Some reviews of two Gertoux's books:
Winedt, Marlon (2004). Lind, Sarah (ed.). "Biblical Studies § OT § Gérard Gertoux. 2002. The Name of God Y.EH.OW.AH Which is Pronounced as It is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah: Its Story. University Press of America. Translated from the French Un historique du nom divin. Un Nom Encens (L'Harmattan, 1999)". TIC Talk. Newsletter of the United Bible Societies Translation Information Clearinghouse. 57. United Bible Societies.
Gee, John (June 2004). "Gertoux, Gérard. The Name of God Y.EH.OW.AH Which is Pronounced as It Is Written I_EH_OU_AH. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2002. Pp. 328. Paper. $47.00. ISBN 0761822046". Review of Biblical Literature. Society of Biblical Literature. ISSN1099-0321.
Comment: The substantial amount of extraneous comment about some mythical being named (probably) Jehovah is not germane to this discussion and distracts and detracts from the pure policy based discussion on whether Gerard Gertoux ought to be kept of deleted. It is pure blether, dancing very close to bludgeoning. This discussion is not about a mythical being. It is about the deletion or retention of the article. Since I am the nominator I do not feel I ought to be the one to collapse it. "Soneone else" should be, after mature reflection. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I am unfamiliar with studies of the Tetragrammaton, nor biblical studies in general, judging by WP:PROF...
Gertoux does not appear to be or have been a fellow of a major scholarly society with a prestige comparable to the Royal Society, nor has he ever assumed the highest-level office of a scholarly journal or a major institution of research.
In other words, if Gertoux's most notable work, which this article seems to suggest was the proposal of an alternative theory of the ancient vocalization of the Tetragrammaton, has not had a significant impact on related fields of studies or outside of academia, then this article should be deleted & salted per WP:NACADEMIC.
While I have little knowledge on the subject to determine whether the scholarly sources citied are sufficient enough to invoke criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC, I would like to note that the wiki pages of at least four cited academics: Pierre Villard, Claude Obsomer, Thomas Römer, Max Reisel, were all created by @Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco. Again, I am not arguing that these articles are WP:COATRACKs; they may very well meet WP:GNG independently of Gertoux.
Keep : Gertoux has had a remarkable influence for his Tetragramaton studies in the academy, as commented on by many scholars in independent and secondary, or even tertiary sources in an encyclopedia (not if it is necessary to bring an avalanche of citations and comments to his work, but there are some on the discussion page Talk:Gerard Gertoux#Requires editing#Scholars' opinions). I have read of only two who have written that they disagree with Gertoux Tetragrammaton's thesis (unfortunately one is self-published and the other person does not deepen his critique). In this sense Wikipedia:GNG is fulfilled. Gertoux does not object that only Yehowah is the ancient pronunciation, but rather that it was one of those used in the first century CE, among which there was probably also Yahweh and Yaho. Most scholars would not abandon the Yahweh form for Gertoux's argument, but agree that his study offers vision for research, and this has resulted in it being selected among reference works such as the encyclopedias mentioned above. D. N. Freedman said that Gertoux "probably solved the puzzle". Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes: Gertoux "has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a problem in their academic discipline".
As for the argument that the sources are not good, I advocate for Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Academics: "many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as 'academics' for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources". In any case, the alleged problem of the sources could perhaps be solved by reworking, or cutting the main text.
Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals: It is satisfied 1 for being recognized for his studies on the Tetragrammaton, it is satisfied 2 for "originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique", i.e. arguing that Yehowah was used in the 1st century, it is probably satisfied 3, for having 5 reviews (2 in French and 3 in English) of the same book, only in different language.
Comment: In theology and church history, people do not have the same citation count as in fields like biology, medicine, physics, etc., because the density of publication in the field is so much lower, and there are many fewer than 1% as many journals and papers, and correspondingly few opportunities for even the most notable person to be cited. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the coatrack: on the discussion page of the Gertoux article, reasons were expressed as to why it was presumed to be a Coatrack. However, since the deletion nomination, the editors have worked hard on the article and it has undergone drastic changes to address the alleged problem. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It remains a coatrack. A great deal of the original fluff and clutter and other extraneous material has been torn down, it is true. That does not remove the rationale for the nomination. There is a point where answering every point in a discussion becomes WP:BLUDGEON. You have been told about this on your talk page by me, and by an uninvolved editor, albeit that they told you after you had made this additional comment. The is a request, here, to cease and desist, while recognising that you will plough your own furrow. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The closest approach to a notability claim made in all the above is that one book was recognized. That's not enough for WP:AUTHOR. (And the claim is not even very solid. The Religious Studies Review, for example, is a superficial notice.) No other relevant standard (WP:PROF or WP:GNG) is met either. Given the article's history, salt it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like Timtrent, I initially also though that this can be salvaged as a short-ish biography on the grounds of WP:BASIC at least, but no. Not enough secondary coverage for a sensible encyclopedic biography.—Alalch E.17:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found coverage of him in one independent source, a Publishers Weekly article.[15] It looks like all of his books are self-published. I didn't find any other significant coverage of him or his books. Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Schazjmd(talk)22:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The CNN source used in the article is a RS, and the Publisher's Weekly cited above seems ok; two sources about an author, that's more than what we see in some articles about authors here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
probably delete (weak delete) I didn't really conduct that much research, though it doesn't seem like he's that notable. not significant coverage by major outlets, review websites. has zero books that are so ubiquit that they show up everywhere, including LibraryHub's bookmarks, kirkus, publishers weekly, end of the year lists. no major literary awards according to isfdb and sfadb. even nominations. best he has is nominations for locus, which isn't good enough to keep unless he wins one. royal not listed as a 2011 nominee for locus award for scifi, fantasy, ya, first, or any category here https://www.sfadb.com/Locus_Awards_2011Create a template (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(unsigned misplaced comment) I can confirm that all of his novels were self-published. The publishing company is Mathias Publishing. He owns this company as a fictitious business name. The business is not registered in his home state of Oklahoma. I am in favor of deleting the article as it does not meet the requirements for ‘notable’. I apologize if I’m not using proper editor quotes and references. I contributed to this article 8 years ago correcting misinformation and guesswork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biouxtai (talk • contribs) 02:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC) moved into place by 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really feel bad for arguing for a delete since the guy has gone through so much and come out the other side, but he just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. When I looked back around 2020-ish, I couldn't find anything and didn't find anything now either. The CNN source is from iCNN, which allows users to submit articles. If the article gains enough attention CNN might pick it up (in which case it would become usable as a source) but that wasn't the case here. I wasn't certain about the Locus Poll Award, but as Duffbeerforme stated, this seems to be a Locus Award where voters can submit their own write-in candidates. This is different from the other Locus Awards, where the list is chosen from books the publication has reviewed and is far more selective. Now if they'd won the award that would certainly be something to contribute to notability, but that wasn't the case here either.
I really hope that the guy is doing well and continues to do well, because overcoming the stuff he's been through is frankly amazing. It's just unfortunate that he never gained coverage in places Wikipedia would see as reliable and counting towards notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)19:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published author. Almost no visibility (I searched library holdings; copies in bookstores; reviews in standard sources). The Publisher Weekly article is nice, but not sufficient for notability. Lamona (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, being the manager of a non-notable influencer isn't notable... The influencer doesn't seem to have an article here. [17] is a PR item, a non-RS. The rest of the article reads as a CV of a production company person, which seems PROMO at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He is not notable for an article. Of all footnotes in the article just two discussed the subject in WP:SIGCOV and I am not sure of the reliability of those two sources. His notably heavily relies on his management of a social media influencer with purported over 160 million followers on TikTok and being 5th most followed on Instagram. This manager fails WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is insufficient information to support the subject of this article's notability. Even before I began culling this page of non-WP:RS sources, this article had no citations supporting much of the personal life and religious sections. As such, this subject does not meet the guidelines of sufficient coverage and verifiability. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and augment. Part of the issue with the author is that it can be difficult to meet WP:AUTHOR when her working language is Irish, and that doesn't Google so well. I'll also point to her article in the Irish Language Wikipedia, which has clearly met inclusion criteria there. Yes - different wiki, different rules, but still ... - Alisontalk04:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Her works have been included in anthologies [18], and some analysis here [19] and here [20]. There's some coverage in Gaelic (?) sources if you limit it to .ie websites, but I can't tell what qualifies as a RS in that language. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Oaktree b I ran into that one as well but it turns out that she is part of the "Editorial collective" so it may not be considered independent. Then again, I can't imagine that there are many Gaelic speakers in Australia who aren't part of that collective. This is a tough one due to the minority language. Lamona (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was the one who got the article up in the first place, but I tend to agree now that more references are needed, as discussed above. As for notability, a significant problem for writers in Irish is that few reviews are available in English, though I would regard her as a poet worthy of inclusion on her own merits. If the consensus was that the article should be deleted, I would accept that, and see if I could come up with something new and improved. Colin Ryan (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At one point I attempted to create a page for an author whose book An Edge of the Forest won a few significant awards in the 1960s. The page was rejected on the basis that although there was notable coverage of the book, any coverage of the author was incidental and thus failed WP:AUTHOR. In this case, applying the same rationale, I can not see that the author meets WP:AUTHOR. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I still am seeing No consensus here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
