The Arts and Entertainment Work Group is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality and importance
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs... Specific discipline portals are listed in that section.
William Ely Hill (1887-1962) - Illustrator, created artwork for the book covers for F. Scott Fitzgerald and had a regular entry in the New York tribune along with being published on numerous occasions.
The general outline and collection has been started, but if you would like to expand and organize a discipline, here's what you do. Right below the page heading for the discipline insert this: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Work groups/Division banner}} and save. This will put a rough outline together for you and then you can edit it to conform to your area. See Writers and critics below for an example. If your project grows large enough where it's taking up a good portion of this page, you should probably move it to a subpage of this page.
You might also want to make a Members section for people to join your specific area!
Any article related to this work group should be marked by adding |a&e-work-group=yes to the {{WPBiography}} project banner at the top of its talk page. This will automatically place it into Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles. Articles can be assessed for priority within this work group by using the |a&e-priority= parameter. See Template:WikiProject Biography/doc for detailed instructions on how to use the banner.
Jubileeclipman (talk·contribs) I am interested in taking on UK celebrities with articles that are stubs or otherwise non-standard. Entirely rewrote Fearne Cotton to raise standard and remove fansite tag. I am working on Holly Willoughby which was merely a list plus trivia. Will also work on musicians, all genre, living or dead.
Delete: The Freedom Wall (India) was the subject of a few brief, local news reports in 2022. It was a short blip, with no lasting importance. The topic is also not very notable and does not meet the platform's standards for inclusion. It also fails the WP:NOTNEWS guideline, which advises against articles on temporary topics.--AstridMitch (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created by a single purpose editor. Google news comes up with a different person, and google books comes up with 1 line mentions of this person. Fails WP:ARTIST. LibStar (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a WP:NPROF/WP:NAUTHOR pass. With Elizabeth Rankin, she has been a prominent curator/art historian in post-apartheid South Africa. For an example, one of the book reviews I've added to the article says It is not the first time that they have paired up to write the definitive book on aspects of South African art and artists - that is, the books Hobbs has written are known as the "definitive work" on the subject. I'm confident there will also be biographical information on her available in South African newspapers. -- asilvering (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In a BEFORE search, I am finding precisely nothing on this photographer/filmmaker other than his own user-submitted content, social media, YouTube uploads and the like. Zero significant coverage. Does not meet WP criteria for GNG, or NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rozendaal, just a small town, yet a municipality by itself.
those comprising several villages, none with the name of the municipality; in that case the name of the municipality may not be as well-known outside it as the villages; for example:
Recent politics have led to a great number of mergers between smaller municipalities or with cities. Unlike municipal flags, village flags are not registered in the flag register by the High Council of Nobility. This means that village flags do not have official status. Village flags, like village arms, are used only out of tradition. Granting is (usually) done by the municipality, which decides on it at a council meeting. AlexphangiaTalk16:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not totally sure about this. At first I also thought this might be a hoax, and any the sources I am finding were maybe based on the wikipedia article, but the page history[8] shows that the article is based on an earlier article by the "Flag Society of Australia." And here are some photos of the flag flying in Australia[9], though maybe that's just flown by somebody who fell for a hoax? Elspea756 (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
I initially wanted to wait until either the webcomic concluded, or the most recent source is 10+ years old, but returning talkpage concerns made me decide to start this early. My argument for deletion is WP:SUSTAINED combined with a shift in subject matter of the work covered. The most recent source, a 2016 list entry by Paste, states that it had "recently become a more specific and pointed criticism of the most toxic parts of American exceptionalism," and this is the most up-to-date information we can cite on this webcomic. Sean Kleefield in his 2020 book Webcomics did mention Sinfest as an example, but in his blog he made clear he did not do any research for this. As editors, we have recently tried to expand on Ishida's/Sinfest's recent political and controversial aspects through primary sources, but this got (probably rightfully?) undone. Reliable sources are staying away from Sinfest and we don't know how to cover it anymore: the article is largely about a Sinfest that no longer exists, or only exists buried in its own archives. Typically when sources on a long-running webcomic dry up, it just means it's no longer in the zeitgeist, but I don't think that really applies here: I would perhaps make the vain suggestion that reliable sources don't "want" to consider this work notable. I would like to hear what other editors think of this argument and issue. Note that "this webcomic is bad/harmful" is not a deletion rationale tho. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SUSTAINED applies to brief bursts of newspaper coverage: the coverage already in this article passes sustained, with consistent coverage over a period of multiple years. Per WP:NTEMP once something is notable, it is notable for good, and even though the coverage has ceased the past coverage is well, well over sustained. The past Sinfest is the notable sinfest, we do not need to discuss the current one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In my opinion, the discrepancy between what Sinfest was in the 2000s and what it is now is so jarring that it has become an entirely different entity, functionally separate from what it was once was. I think we can all agree that reliable sources have not given meaningful coverage to the very disturbing turn the comic has taken over the past few years.
Ordinarily, it's completely fine for an article on a comic to lay stagnant if reliably sourced coverage dries up. However, in this case, we're left with an article that discusses the generally favorable coverage Sinfest received in the past, says nothing about its current iteration, and maintains a link to the website. Together, these facts mean that this page functions as a puff piece on a work of antisemitic propaganda, which it then directly links to.
I want to make it clear that I do not believe that this was the intent of any editor here; I know that Wikipedia has policies for a reason, and I have not gotten any impression of fellow editors here other than that they are committed to following Wikipedia's procedures and improving the site's coverage of this comic. I do think that, in this case, we might have to be a bit flexible in the application of policy. "Notability is not temporary" is certainly a good guideline in general, but in this case, we have been left with no way to talk honestly about something that it would be harmful to talk about dishonestly. For that reason, I think deletion is the best option.
I'll be honest here, I'm only an occasional editor of Wikipedia, and I'm not thoroughly familiar with the site's policies or precedents on issues like this. I feel about this similarly to the way I do when I hear about US Supreme Court rulings, which is that I have a strong moral conviction about what is right, but I don't know much about actual legal procedure. (I've made a couple comments on the Sinfest talk page about policy in the past, and later realized that I was mistaken about how the relevant policy actually worked, which is why I haven't posted there since.) For that reason, I chose to comment rather than explicitly support deletion. My position is based not on specific Wikipedia policy but on my moral conviction that Wikipedia should not be covering antisemitic propaganda without explicitly labeling it as such.Wehpudicabok (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG as sources either do not provide significant coverage or are not independent of the subject. Nominator Maplestrip/Mable and comment by Wehpudicabok are correct that this also fails WP:SUSTAINED as the only potentially reliable sources I see here, like Publishers Weekly, only provide coverage during a relatively brief time period, and the lack of sources means this fails WP:NPOV and WP:BLP with several poorly sourced claims about a living person's "perspectives" on "American politics, organized religion, and radical feminism."
Source assessment: Here is a a source assessment table showing the first 10 out of 11 sources in the article. The 11th source[10] is another example of insignificant coverage, with just two sentences on this topic in a listicle of 29 other items. Elspea756 (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned in a single short sentence in an article on another topic
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
As nominator I cannot stand by this source assessment. I would consider many of these sources perfectly usable, notably the Publisher's Weekly articles, the paragraphs in Wired and Paste, and the WCCA, had Sinfest simply left the zeitgeist. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you really start an article about a webcomic with that little? The 2013 source is nothing, just sinfest's name used once as an example alongside another comic.
Are we looking at the same source??? The 2013 work contains several pages of actual analyses of Sinfest's panel usage and formatting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What else would they write about? Plot recaps? In your eyes, what would count here?
Fictional works are typically notable based on outside reception of them. Analyses of a comic like this is a very strong sign it is notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any webcomic being mentioned in a "fairly technical" book is an accomplishment in my reading, especially with several pages of coverage. The other book shows Sinfest being taken of note - it is not cited to Reddit threads other than to say that the comic's change in tone was controversial on the internet. Where else would he have gotten information on it being controversial on the internet?
Also, it's not sourced entirely from Reddit posts, it is citing Reddit posts to say there was a lot of online controversy over this. What else would you cite???? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iunno man, I only get involved in Wikipedia a few times a year. Try finding a source for the changes to Sinfest over time on your own time. Maybe discuss that with the people who watch for changes to the Sinfest page. Lot of productive things you could do if you want to save this page. Maybe find a newspaper to publish an article about Sinfest. In the mean time, my vote remains delete due to no WP:Sustained. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, the decision between whether NTEMP overrules SUSTAINED or vice-versa depends on how short-term the sources were; say a week versus a few years. I recognize that my argument is a very atypical application of SUSTAINED that almost goes into WP:IAR territory. Regardless, I want to note that I agree with PARAKANYAA that the 2020 is a fine source, but willalso say that because Sinfest is merely an example of something that can happen with a webcomic, without much depth, it is not particularly useful for an encyclopedic article about Sinfest itself. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My rebuttal to sustained is that sustained does not mean "sources must exist that cover every appreciable moment of something", it means "it making the news for two days and then never again". Coverage over years is sustained by definition. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a huge difference between the Stonetoss and Sinfest pages, though, which kind of illustrates my point. The Stonetoss page immediately identifies it as a neo-Nazi webcomic right from the first sentence, and the claim has several citations to reliable sources. If similar reliable sources existed to identify Sinfest that way, we would simply add them, and then I would vote to keep. We cannot do that, because as far as I can tell, reliable sources do not cover Sinfest and haven't for many years. Wehpudicabok (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Sinfest very much lacks WP:Sustained if you can't even source such a large and obvious part of the comic. Has anyone here read the recent articles? It's openly anti-semitic and not trying to hide it. It would practically make Jack Chick say 'that's a bit much' 05:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)~~ 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because one aspect isn't covered doesn't mean it fails sustained.
Also, sustained doesn't even apply to the comic as a whole, it applies to events. If the owner had made one very controversial comic that would be an Event and need sustained coverage, but the reasons Sinfest is notable aren't related to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Sinfest had sustained notoriety it would be possible to keep the article up to date. It is not possible to keep the article up to date. Therefore Sinfest does not have sustained notoriety.
If it has coverage over several years, it is still notable, even if the coverage ends. That is what WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NTEMP mean. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently contains many statements about sinfest's early political leanings who's sources would not be accepted in the modern Wikipedia... I have a low opinion on the sourcing of this article. At least an article about the layout and formatting would be sourced correctly. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are two competing arguments happening in this thread and I think it's confusing the issue a lot. Argument 1 - The comic has significant older coverage, but has changed direction dramatically since then, and the article does not mention that at all. This is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to edit. Argument 2. The comic has never had significant older coverage. That would be a reason to delete, but I am personally a (weakish) Keep on this front. There are a variety of sources, even if the coverage isn't particularly "deep", and it appears to have held at least a minor cachet in the early 2010s webcomic scene. That said, the self-promotion citations (site news and patreon link) should probably be taken out. (aside, I am leery of the "source assessment" table, as it strikes me as a means to paint "objectivity" on the various sources by applying fancy formatting. is this a new thing to wikipedia? I've never seen it before.) Hornpipe2 (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the comment that "The comic has significant older coverage, but has changed direction dramatically since then, and the article does not mention that at all. This is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to edit.", editors have done so. Other editors have then removed those edits, because they were not reliably sourced. This is what we've been discussing. There's no way to talk honestly about what the comic is now, because no reliable sources have covered the change. And this is a particularly disturbing change to omit, because the comic has veered into explicitly antisemitic propaganda. If you have coverage of the change from reliable sources, by all means, add them. Wehpudicabok (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't plan to edit the page, no, but it sounds like AfD is not the venue for this discussion then? I'm pretty firmly opposed to "we should delete it because an edit war is preventing the article from being corrected". Hornpipe2 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm saying and it's not what happened. Some editors made good-faith edits to cover the change, then others pointed out that the changes have to be reliably sourced, and the sources that had been used didn't meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. As far as I can tell, there simply aren't any reliable sources that have covered the change. It's not an edit war; there's just no way to make it better unless reliable sources start covering this topic, which they are unlikely to do. And finally (this is my own opinion, not Wikipedia policy), it is unethical to cover antisemitic propaganda without calling it that. Wehpudicabok (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I am sorry to have mischaracterized your statements, I do not mean any ill will here. I agree that it is unfortunate that the article does not (and cannot?) cover the comic's turn into antisemitism and transphobia - things I too find reprehensible - but speaking purely from the perspective of article deletion, my understanding of the policy is simply that articles are not to be deleted for reasons like this. Hornpipe2 (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. To be honest, I'm not as familiar with Wikipedia's deletion policy as I'd like to be, which is why I keep emphasizing that some of what I'm saying is not based on that policy. If this were an ordinary webcomic, I'd be fine just leaving it as it was years ago; and if this were a culturally prominent piece of far-right propaganda, I'd be editing the article to reflect that. It's only because it's in the specific overlap of "gray area of notability" and "far-right propaganda" that we have this problem. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the 2013 book seems to prove is that Sinfest exists. I could write an article about it if you'd like using that source. Ahem "Sinfest is a webcomic".
In the old days you could get GNG with more original research than Wikipedia is willing to tolerate in the modern era. I helped clean up a lot of original research FROM the GNG article, including a list of characters. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2013 source has plenty of analytical coverage of Sinfest. What are you even talking about? It's multiple pages discussing and analyzing a comic from it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And? It's really, honestly, not enough. Wikipedia has far too many pages about non-notable webcomics that popped up during a brief span of time in the 90's-00's when webcomics were 'hot'. It was a fad, and Wikipedia would be better if many of these irrelevant articles were removed. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the article no longer reflects what Sinfest has become, and editorial policies restricting its update to reflect this seismic shift. Ssteedman (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a reason for events. If Ishida had made one extremely controversial comic 10 years ago and it wasn't mentioned before or since, that would be a sustained issue. This is a comic strip. The coverage is already over multiple years - just because something isn't covered anymore does not make it non notable. Read WP:NTEMP
Plenty of notable TV shows or series have less coverage as they go along. We do not delete a notable work because its later versions have less coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's 'way less coverage' and there is 'completely a non entity among major publications'. And I'm not joking about that, have you read any of the recent strips? If we can't find a source for that extreme of an event, it was probably never an important thing in the first place.
It's like, you've got two football players. A major league one and a elementary school league one. Both get a wikipedia article because they're mentioned in a newspaper. Years go by without their pages being updated. Both of them suddenly say something racist. The major league football player is covered in a national newspaper and his page is updated to include the controversy. The elementary school one isn't, and his page isn't. Do we really need a page for the elementary kid who grew into an adult that no one official cares about? 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not based on how popular something is, it's based on if it is covered in reliable secondary sources.
Your example is false because local coverage is typically given less weight in notability. Sinfest has coverage in Publishers Weekly, a respected national publication, and several books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Let's say they get an article in the same national newspaper and are even listed alongside each other. One goes on to have sustained notability. The other does not.
Sinfest does not have sustained notability. You've got a single book from 2013, and a few low quality secondary sources. The book from 2020 is unresearched per the author of that book's blog, and is largely just a citation of some uncitable Reddit threads. You do not have notibility.2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are two football players, one of who goes on to be a household name, and one of whom is successful but less famous, and they both have continued coverage in newspapers, yes, they should both have articles. We do not only have articles on famous things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the thing. One doesn't have continued coverage and one does.
You said it in your own words.
and they both have continued coverage in newspapers,
The difference is that Cerebere's changes can be sourced. And I think that pretty clearly shows the difference between an actually notable, sustained notability, for a comic and... well... this. Which is not sustained. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that depends on what happens in the comic. Has to be enough coverage to keep any major tonal shifts in the comic over the course of it's life updated. If you can't manage that, it's not actually notable.
NTEMP and SUSTAINED are not contradictory. Sustained means that it must have more than a single-event burst of news coverage to be notable, while NTEMP means that once it has cleared that bar it is forever notable. None of the coverage is the "single-event" burst of notable that SUSTAINED applies to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have One. Book.
That sounds like a single burst to me. The great webcomics fad of the 00's.
The other book is fine. The source analysis is incorrect, the Publishers Weekly source is not a "press release" and is fine, the Wired and Paste sources are enough to be SIGCOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this deletion discussion has seen enough arguments between 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 and PARAKANYAA; I'm afraid that you two may continue talking in circles around eachother until one decides to stop responding. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A possible solution: what is wrong with Sean Kleefeld's 2024 "On Tatsuya Ishida" post as a source for citations in the article (as previously mentioned above)? The author has written an (already cited!) book on comics, is seemingly something of an authority or expert in the subject matter, etc. I guess that blog publishing is self-publishing, but, this isn't self-promoting - more of an "addendum" or errata to the book, in my mind. If this was permitted it seems it'd let the article be further edited towards "correctness" and this discussion could be put to rest. Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am reading further about Wikipedia's allowable use of self-published sources and I now believe this self-published article by this expert author meets the criteria for usage except it runs afoul of Biography of Living Person: Avoid self-published sources - you cannot use a self-published third-party source to support a claim about a living individual. I'm not sure if it would be possible to carefully select parts of this that cover specifically the comic itself and not the artist, but the title doesn't give much hope :P
That said, I encourage people to read the guidelines on self-published sources and especially cases where the subject is writing about themself: it seems likely to me that a handful of posts from the author on their site would suffice to meet both the goals of documenting the current artist's viewpoints while remaining on the right side of the allowable sources discussion. The reverted version (see first post in this thread) cites some Patreon posts and other items from the author themselves: perhaps there's some usable gems in there. Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while I'm not usually in favor of reading WP:SUSTAINED in such a strict manner (especially for stuff like media or events, which often only have a few bursts of coverage), it's necessary here to avoid having a page that totally misrepresents its subject. If this strip were truly notable, there'd be at least one or two sources commenting on its current nature. The fact that there isn't indicates the page should be deleted. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People are no longer posting regular updates about Badgers (animation), do you suggest that to be removed as well? I am really having a hard time understanding this retroactive hyper-scrutiny applied to a webcomic which was literally written about in book(s) as the best solution to an out-of-date overview. It's flatly the wrong tool to resolve the issue. Hornpipe2 (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hornpipe2:Badgers (animation) is not still being published. Again, this is a rather weird case as this almost never happens with media. But having this article as-is is not really in line with our fundamental policies. Ideally, some reliable source would cover this comic strip's transformation and we could keep the article, but that hasn't happened yet. If it does I'll switch to keep. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability isn't temporary and the book sources combined with the smaller mentions in other sources add up to GNG. Most of these deletion votes are motivated by a dislike of the comic/comic author. WP:SUSTAINED does not mean continuous coverage all the time, just that coverage is not for one event/a few weeks. Sinfest has attracted coverage over multiple years. The canvassing needs to be noted too. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2024 (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
If all of the unsourced claims of supernatural abilities were removed from this article, I'm not sure what would be left. Until recently, this was a redirect to a book but has become the focus of a single purpose editor. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical Information and Publications: Key details about his early life that are supported by verifiable sources such as books can be found online from Google Books. Geswith (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical Information and Publications: Key details about his early life that are supported by verifiable sources such as books can be found online from Google Books and credible news from Nigeria such as Punch newspapers. Geswith (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A WP:BEFORE search does not reveal significant coverage in reliable sources. The current sourcing of the article is not enough to meet notability criteria for WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, nor WP:NAUTHOR. The three book citations were all written by him, and about him and are self-published by Xlibris Corporation, not a reliable publisher. One source is a wikipedia mirror wiki (user submitted content) and the "All Christian Quotes" website is also user-submitted content. There is one possible reliable source (Punch) but that is not enough to pass WP standards for notability. The article is WP:PROMO and largely unsourced, it may contain original research or possibly be a COI creation. Netherzone (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BASIC. Haven't found a single independent source about him. A7 may apply here because I do not see a credible claim of significance. CFA💬23:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
these are independent sources.
kindly check this one:
Okeke, Chukwuemeka. (2018). Spiritual Leaders of Modern Africa. African Scholars Press. ISBN 978-978-12345-6-7.
Offers insights into the lives and influences of contemporary African spiritual leaders, including Iyke Nathan Uzorma. [Reference to specific pages: p. 102-110 for discussion on Uzorma’s influence.]
Nwankwo, Stella. (2021). The Role of Charitable Works in Modern Christianity. Faith and Hope Publications. ISBN 978-987-65432-1-0.
Discusses Uzorma’s philanthropic efforts through Mercy Store House. [Reference to specific pages: p. 78-85 for information on his charity work.]
Johnson, Elizabeth. (2019). Biographical Profiles of Notable Nigerian Figures. Lagos Publishing House. ISBN 978-978-43210-9-8.
Contains a biographical profile of Iyke Nathan Uzorma, including his early life and career. [Reference to specific pages: p. 56-65 for detailed biography.]
Adeyemi, Solomon. (2022). Religious Transformations in Nigeria. West African Press. ISBN 978-978-87654-3-2.
Examines religious figures and transformations in Nigeria, including Uzorma’s role in the broader context. [Reference to specific pages: p. 90-100 for context on Uzorma’s religious journey.]
i have been researching him for a long time. most of his claims have been substantiated by people all over the world. Geswith (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero evidence of notability. The only source that could potentially indicate that turned out to be just a press release. Given the article creator's tendency for posting AI-produced garbage I don't think a closer examination is necessary. Tercer (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few minutes ago I indicated in the discussion of two dissertations why I didn't think she was notable enough for an article. Athel cb (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think distinguished professor at a community college should count for WP:PROF#C5 and we have no documentation of that title, nor evidence of any other form of notability. Searching Google Scholar for her publications found nothing of note, instead mostly finding publications by some five other people named Janet Frost (themselves not cited heavily enough for WP:PROF). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Creator blocked for UPE. No coverage of the subject easily found and cited sources don't seem to say anything about the subject but I'm out of my depth assessing notability in this field but none of the clams in the article seem extraordinary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?17:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did some digging, which was a little interesting because of overlap with his name and that of at least one other person. The cited papers on the page currently have very few citations. IMO there is not anywhere near enough here for WP:NPROF. I also don't see any reviews for his book for WP:NAUTHOR. Qflib (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Qflib. Further, in a search via Newsbank (wider and deeper than Google) I did find some 20 articles in the Ogden, Utah, regional paper The Standard-Examiner that reference and/or quote Jones' opinion in relation to allergies, but to me they seem very much ROTM for a community doctor. Nothing to meet WP:PROF. I neither could find any book reviews that would meet WP:AUTHOR. That the page creator has been blocked for UPE leaves an unpleasant taste too. Cabrils (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of an activist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for activists or writers. As always, people are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage about their work in reliable sources independent of themselves. That is, you do not make a writer notable by sourcing her writing to itself as proof that it exists, you make a writer notable by sourcing her writing to coverage and analysis about her writing, such as news articles about her, analytical reviews of her writing in newspapers or magazines or academic journals, and on and so forth -- and you don't make an activist notable by sourcing her activism to the self-published websites of the organizations she has been directly affiliated with, you make an activist notable by sourcing her activism to third-party coverage about it, such as news articles about her, book content about her, and on and so forth. But this is supported entirely by primary sources with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage shown at all: 11 of the footnotes are just the publication details of her own writing, and a 12th is just the publication details of an anthology that one of her pieces was in; one is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which would be acceptable for use if the other sourcing around it were better but does not help to get her over GNG in and of itself per WP:INTERVIEWS; another is just a YouTube video clip of her speaking, which she self-published to her own YouTube channel; and all of the rest is content self-published by non-media organizations she's directly connected to -- which means absolutely none of the footnotes are GNG-compliant at all. Again, the notability test doesn't reside in the things she did, it resides in the amount of GNG-worthy coverage she has or hasn't received about the things she did, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this. Also note that normally I would just have sandboxed this in draftspace as improperly sourced, but another editor has already done that and the creator just immediately unsandboxed it right back into mainspace without actually improving the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of sourcing; there are simply no stories about this individual in RS. This [15] is a student newspaper and this is primary [16]. Most of the sources used in the article aren't useful either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to have started out as draft created by 110347nbtough in November 2020, who subsequently seemed to claim they were Bunasawa himself over on Wikimedia Commons here and here. The draft was then approved by DN27ND about a month later, even though the DN27ND account was only four days old and seems to have no experience as an WP:AFC reviewer. Moreover, DN27ND is an WP:SPA whose primary focus on English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and Japanese Wikipedia has been creating/editing content about Bunasawa; in other words, it seems that the account was specifically and only created for that purpose.I wasn't sure about the subject's Wikipedia notablity per WP:BIO and asked about the article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts#Nori Bunasawa. DN27ND was pinged into the discussion but never responded. It was then suggested on my user talk page that the article be nominated for deletion. I tried some more WP:BEFORE but found nothing resembling significant coverage. I also tried looking at the Japanese Wikipedia article ja:樗沢憲昭 and the Egyptian Arabic Wikiepdia article arz:نورى_بوناساوا but found nothing resembling significant coverage being cited in either of them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Potential COI issues aside, the subject evidently seems to be a notable coach at Olympic and World Championship level, and for US colleges. Other pursuits as a magazine publisher/author and film consultant (?) would probably not rise to notability themselves, but the coverage for all three careers being mostly in 50+ year old newspapers – paired with the subject being otherwise covered by not only non-English, but non-Latin-alphabet, media – would be the AGF reason for fewer substantial sources (which is satisfactory here). The article could do with some clean-up, but from a glancing view I would also say it is not short on sources for its coverage, and that the coverage generally indicates notability. Kingsif (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no conflict of interest. I'm not getting paid by Bunasawa. In order to get leads on sources and information, we do have a working relationship (as a reporter would on their subject) where I could reach out and obtain information. I do have drafts of other judokas in the works but am working on securing their contact information in order to get additional leads to sources and information.
There are multiple sources online in various languages (English, Japanese, Russian, etc.) which indicates notability.
Bunasawa's involvement as a leader of judo in the USA
Bunasawa is notable for his involvement in the sport of judo and for his involvement in the movie industry.
There are no COI issues and I sent him a draft on the article as a courtesy, in order to have a working relationship with him for leads on additional sources and for information regarding judo sports figures of which there will be wiki articles published in the future. DN27ND (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also advised Bunasawa and his newspaper/magazine publishing team to create a wikipedia account in order for them to release some of the photos that they own to wikimedia commons. DN27ND (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I received information that Nori Bunasawa and his newspaper/magazine publishing company owns the photos that he uploaded and that were deleted off of wikimedia commons. DN27ND (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being paid is not the only criterion for conflict of interest. See WP:EXTERNALREL. I think the fact that you have a working relationship with this person and especially that you showed the subject of the article a draft itself (presumably for feedback, considering you asked for leads on missing info) is concerning.
The tone in the article has issues with WP:WTW; "dream team", "talented group", "further his education" are unencyclopedic and lean towards WP:PUFFERY.
Whether or not there actually is a COI is debatable, but even the scent of one can ruin your credibility on Wikipedia. You really should be more cautious in future. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"dream team" is a common phrase that was originally used to describe the 1992 Basketball Olympic team which swept the competition, and then has been adapted by culture to apply to various sports and teams to mean a team that has won by a large margin over opponents. Given the context and the results of the 1969 World Judo Championships in Mexico city, (this only happed twice in the history of the sport) this is an appropriate phrase to use to describe the events.
The phrase is also used in other wikipedia articles
Would it be puffery to describe the 1992 US Olympic dream team as "talented"? Or would it be appropriate to describe any other sports team as talented on wikipedia?
"The team assembled by USA Basketball for the tournament in Barcelona in 1992 was one of the most illustrious collections of talent assembled in the history of international sport"
"USA Basketball officials sought to construct the team dubbed Dream Team III (Dream Team II was the moniker of the lesser-known 1994 FIBA World Championship team) with a winning combination of veteran players from the 1992 Dream Team that won the gold medal in Barcelona and some of the league's best young talent."
"When the first ten players of the 1996 United States Men's national basketball team roster were announced in the summer of 1995, that young talent, and first-time Olympians, included the likes of Penny Hardaway, Grant Hill, Shaquille O'Neal, and Gary Payton"
Regarding the phrase "further his education", there are sources that Bunasawa attended these universities after receiving a bachelors degree. If that isn't further one's education, then what is?
Are you saying that journalists never show their subjects a draft to ensure the correct sequence of events?
We're not journalists. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. We're actually allowed to describe people as talented, but not in Wikipedia's voice per WP:NPOV. You have to attribute those kinds of opinions to notable people, like "journalist x described y as talented". 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also "Dream Team" I can concede on, but other flowery wordings I'm relatively confident in. When you're already bordering on having a COI, you should be paranoid about writing stuff that borders on excessively flattering or flowery, but you're not doing adequate due diligence. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The selection of the word "talent" in that context was to summarize the accomplishments of those selected to be on the 1969 Japan World Judo team and in that particular year. How else would you summarize a collection of people that had multiple world titles, and had multiple Olympic gold medals? In retrospect, even most of the alternatives selected as backups went on to win world titles in subsequent championships. To choose the "talented" word, is this not appropriate considering the results that these players had?
Considering the results of sporting competitions, is it "flowery" to describe Lebron James, Michael Jordan, Tom Brady, Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson, etc., as talented without having to say "journalist x described y as talented".?These sporting figures have won multiple world and Olympic titles in their respective sport.
At the end of the day, we are not journalist but the human aspect still applies. Courtesy and respect towards one's subject goes a long way. Just because a writer chooses to show courtesy and respect towards the subject he is writing about, it doesn't mean there is a COI.
If a person chooses to take more college courses after achieving a Bachelor's degree, how would you describe that if not "furthering his education" ? There is newspaper evidence that Bunasawa was taking more university level courses while simultaneously coaching the varsity judo team.
There is also no "personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial" COI. It is common in journalism to keep good relationships (ie protection of anonymity of whistleblowers) with one's subjects/sources in order to further obtain information from them. There is precedence (especially in sports) of subjects denying access of information to journalists who may be rude, disrespectful, etc. Some of the information taken from newspaper sources, sports media sources (ie ESPN) require journalists to be able to contact sports figures for information. DN27ND (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not journalists. The info on wikipedia articles are not primary sources (birth certificates, actual signed contracts, actual college diplomas, identity cards, actual competition brackets etc). These are citations to newspapers and magazines, which are written by sports journalists or reporters. These are secondary and tertiary sources.
If wikipedia contributors are able to use primary sources, it would make writing these articles easier and actually more accurate (since I could just upload the proof)
Even though we are not journalist, having courtesy and respect towards one's subject could yield leads to information which would make summarizing events easier and more accurate. DN27ND (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since wikipedia contributors aren't allowed to upload primary sources, in essence we are using journalist's opinions (ie journalist from the NY times, OC register, People magazine, Asahi Shimbun, Wall Street Journal, etc) as sources of evidence. Do you think the vetting process to obtain a journalist / reporter pass from these companies is strenuous?
In essence, it would be way easier, "neutral", and encyclopedic if wikipedia contributers were able to use primary sources as evidence rather than secondary, or tertiary sources written by "experts" hired by these media companies. DN27ND (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the results of the 1969 Judo World Championships
Is that not a podium sweep where one team had a decisive victory over the other teams? That is the time of only 2 times this has happened in the sports history. If the phrases "dream team" or "talented group" is not appropriate to describe the sporting results. Perhaps those words need to be censored from all other wikipedia articles about sports where these words have been used to describe competition results. DN27ND (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That 1969 World Judo team had multiple World and Olympic champions on them. In the sport of judo, the World Championships are regarded as a more difficult achievement than the Olympics due to their respective qualification processes. DN27ND (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also many other newspaper and magazine articles that show Bunasawa's notability on the wikipedia article.
Rezell, John (March 3, 1988). "Top Judo Instructor comes to the defense of self-defense". Orange County Register.
"Judo". Orange Network. 385: 7. April 2023.
New Judo Instructor at 'Y' Here". Indiana Evening Gazette. February 21, 1975
"Instructor on Show". Rogers Daily News. April 1975.
I could scan these newspaper articles and send them to you. Or you can go into the library archives and look them up yourself.DN27ND (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: I didn't question the person's notability. I'm questioning COI and your understanding of Wikipedia's editing style. These walls of text and excessive bolding are not necessary; I can read. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the original poster (Marchjuly) did question notability and it is part of this page's discussion
People have occupations, other obligations, and commenting on wikipedia doesn't pay the bills. I'm not sure if Marchjuly was expecting an immediate response or what? DN27ND (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the "working relationship" described by DN27ND consitutes a conflict (at least in regard to Wikipedia editing) per WP:COI is porbably something that needs to be further discussed at WP:COIN. I will start a discusison about it sometime within the next few days. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't scan any newspaper articles and then upload them to either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons because doing so is likely going to be considered a copyright violation. Please also don't reproduce verbatim any of these sources are any Wikipedia page, except perhaps as short and properly attributed quotes in accordance with MOS:QUOTE because that too will almost certainly be considered a copyright violation. If you can find these sources online somewhere (perhaps a site like Newspapers.com), you can perhaps posts links them as long as there are no WP:COPYLINK issues. You can also summarize these sources in your own words at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Nori Bunasawa (the link is WP:RED because the page doesn't exist yet). I will ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request to see whether anyone might be able to find the Orange County Register, Indiana Evening Gazette, Orange Network and Rogers Daily News articles and provide either a link or an assessment of them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the sources that are online, I've already linked them to the page.
'''Orange County Register, Indiana Evening Gazette, Orange Network and Rogers Daily News'''
These sources are not online and some of the Japanese sources are not online either. I received them as newspaper clippings. The dates and issues are included. You could try to call the local libraries in those counties and can talk to the librarian about sending you those papers.
Orange County Register has a webpage. Perhaps they might have online achieves. I have photographs of the newspaper clippings.
The Indiana Evening Gazette has online achieves. I have not looked at it because I have access to the scanned newspaper clippings.
The Orange Network is associated with the Orange County Japanese American Association. You can give them a call or search their website to see if they keep their old issues on pdf.
Rogers Daily News is the local paper from Rogers, Ark. that was published from 1927-1981. You can try to call the local library in that city, perhaps they have archives
I have them as clippings, scans, and photos taken by a camera phone.
There are actually much more newspaper articles that were written about Bunasawa in the newspapers, such as a time one of his teen students used judo in self defense against an assault, and many much more. Just because some of the sources are from 25 to 35 years ago, and before the time of the internet, doesn't make Bunasawa a less "notable" sport and martial arts figure.
The information is all there if you want to do the research and look hard enough. Also finding people (through connections) who have saved these newspaper clippings, especially for people who existed before the internet does wonders when writing up a biography.
There are also a few other english language papers in California stating that Bunasawa was a pre-medical student while coaching Judo. I haven't included all the sources and kept it general via "furthering his education" as some papers cited stated that he was a uni student in the USA.
If its THAT important to you, you can call Bunsawa's assistants to see if you can obtain his university diploma at Waseda University, then cross reference the dates of the newspaper sources that stated that he was a student in the USA, then voilà, you have inferred that he "furthered his education"
You can look in the biographical section of his book as well
DN27ND, to be blunt, no one is going to read through all of this confusing content you posted, it's overwhelming. You need to be concise. There are a lot of AFDs to look through and this is just one. Editors are much likely to rely on the source analysis table below, which concisely presents information in a way everyone can understand. LizRead!Talk!05:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem
Just added a new source that reinstates all the info already cited in the article
Keep The subject of the articles is notable as a US coach at the Olympic, World, and collegiate levels. He is also involved in the movie industry and has multiple credits. His The Toughest Man Who Ever Lived. Is in the process of being adapted into a motion picture.
Citations on his coaching career
Rezell, John (March 3, 1988). "Top Judo Instructor comes to the defense of self-defense". Orange County Register.
"Judo". Orange Network. 385: 7. April 2023.
New Judo Instructor at 'Y' Here". Indiana Evening Gazette. February 21, 1975
"Instructor on Show". Rogers Daily News. April 1975.
Citations & evidence on his involvement in the motion picture industry
I have added the following source assessment table for many of the additional sources cited above by DN27ND. It doesn't cover all of the sources DN27ND mentioned, but I'll keep searching online for links for those not in the table. I used Google translate for the one Russian source since I don't understand Russian, but am able to read the Japanese sources unassisted. The assessments are mine and I tried to give detailed explanations as to the reasons why I made them. The table's last column "Count source toward GNG?" is an assessment done by the table itself. An explanation of it's computed can be found at Template:Source assess#"Overall" assessment.
Bunasawa in mentioned by name twice, but the main focus of the article is Willard Robertson and the Ichiban Sports Complex. Bunasawa is mentioned as being won of several "experts" Robertson brought in to work at the complex. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV but might be OK to use as a RS for certain article content.
Four-page article titled "Title techniques" in the July 1978 issue of Black Belt (magazine)
? Three of the four pages are photos of Bunsawa demonstrating some technique, but the first page is part interview and part biographical material. Not sure this qualifies as sigcov per se, but it seems enough of a RS to support some article content. The quoted parts of the article though probably need to be treated as WP:ABOUTSELF.
? Original article is probably a good source for content about the movie, but there's nothing in the article about Bunasawa; so, trying to use this to support content about Bunasawa's involvement with the film seems to be WP:SYN.
? Looks to be similar to IMDb, and bascially just a cast/crew list for the 1990 film Martial Marshal (seems to also be called Judo Justice). Bunasawa isn't mentioned at all
? Appear to be an IMDb type site. Bunasawa in listed by name in the "Cast" section as playing "Gonji Tamashita" but nothing more.
? Not close to being sigcov
?Unknown
https://4kou.jp/news/434/ (link is to high school's alumni association's website which scanned and reposted the article. An April 2021 archived version of the article from the Asahi Shimbun website can be found here.)
September 2020 article/feature in the Saitama edition of the Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun
The Asahi Shimbun is certainly a RS, but this seems to have appeared only in a local edition of the paper for Saitama Prefecture. It's also primarily about the one of the area's local high school's and the school's alumni. There are five half-pages and Bunasawa is mentioned (there's a photo of him as well) on the fifth half-page along with others (including his older brother) who were involved in the school's judo club. This could be a RS to support article content about Bunasawa having a brother, going to this particular high school, or some other associated article content.
? There's more converage about Bunasawa in this particular article than there's is in perhaps many of the other sources mentioned above, but it doesn't seem to be sigcov.
? Appears to be a UGC type of site, but might be considered reliable for articles about judo competitions。Bunsawa is mentioned by name once for finishing runner up in the light-weight class of a 1969 judo tournament in Fukuoka, Japan.
Site isn't considered reliable per WP:SPUTNIK but not clear whether that applies to judo. The Wikipedia article about the site states it's frequently described as a "propaganda outlet" that's currently banned in the EU. This might have more to do with other things than judo though. The article is only a few paragraphs long and quotes Bunasawa a couple of times (as an "expert" perhaps) on how non-Japanese judokas can prepare to beat their Japanese counterparts at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.
? This would appear to be UGC content with very little if any kind of rigorous editorial control. I don't think the OCJAA would knowingly post anything false, but they might not have the capability to the type of strenuous fact checking expected of a RS. It's certainly doesn't seem to be a major news publication; it doesn't even seem to be close to the level of the Rafu Shimpo. It's published in Japanese and its target audience is most likely Japanese-Americans, Japanese nationals or other Japanese speakers living/working in the area. The April 2023 issue in which the the article "Judo" is supposed to appear isn't available any longer on the OCJAA website, but the cover can be seen here. I tried to see if I could find an archived version of of the issue from an archived version of the main page like this one from June 2023 or this one from April 2024 and work backwards, but had no luck.
? Hard to assess whether the article is sigcov, but from looking at some recent issues still available online like july 2024, June 2024, May 2024 and April 2024, the "magazine" appears to be mainly advertisements and event listing with a few stories/interviews thrown in. There's a good chance the "Judo" article was an part interview and part general interest piece that had some biographical information about Bunasawa but nothing resembling the sigcov to help establish Wikipedia notability.
?Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Lean delete per table above, unless it is updated with other sources. The COI is a contributing factor. DN27ND, please do not try to convince me otherwise of COI, you had several essays worth of space to do so and you have not yet. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you and what are your qualifications? The wikipedia article created on Bunasawa is very well sourced. If there is doubt, the onus is on you to do your research. The Bunasawa is way more sourced than many articles on wikipedia. Regarding the table, there are no requirements for contributors to make one. You and people who doubt the authenticity or notability should make one. This is a blatant attempt of censorship. DN27ND (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the main papers which state that Bunasawa has coached at the Olympic & World level are these ones
Rezell, John (March 3, 1988). "Top Judo Instructor comes to the defense of self-defense". Orange County Register.
"Judo". Orange Network. 385: 7. April 2023.
New Judo Instructor at 'Y' Here". Indiana Evening Gazette. February 21, 1975
"Instructor on Show". Rogers Daily News. April 1975.
Fears, Randy (October 1975). "U.S. Judo team". Rogers Daily News.
Weak keep. I found 11 published reviews of 4 books (one mathematics, three Freemasonry). That would ordinarily be enough for a full keep from me, except that three of the books are edited rather than authored and that doesn't count for as much. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add later: I also found one more review of an authored work but in a Freemasonry journal (nine of the other reviews are in mainstream publications). Perhaps that counts less? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 21 July 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.
I don't think the author is notable. I can't find enough independent reliable secondary sources covering his work. --Xexerss (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
should be deleted due to the lack of significant independent coverage that meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG), relying instead on primary sources, company related news and not significant mentions. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect: to Nyasa Times, the company that the subject found. Subject has enough WP:GNG. For example here reported by the Telegraph, subject won theBlack British Business Person of the Year award in 2021. I also found this where subject is being the founder and the Chief Executive Officer of Malawi's leading online publication, the Nyasa Times that he found in 2006. This could be used to sustain the article per (WP:NEXIST). --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interviews are a poor way to establish notability and if he owns the Nyasa Times then it isn't independent enough to establish notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle Alternatively, it makes sense to redirect it to their company on Wikipedia that the subject found, thus Nyasa Times. Again, not all sources are interviews. Furthermore, this AfD was made by someone at random who was even reported at ANI here and there is even a discussion on their talk page about their nominations. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose a redirect. I looked at the references now. I presumed the sources you mentioned were the strongest sources. The strongest source appears to be the Yorkshire Evening Post but it isn't enough for notability in my opinion. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's regrettable that this page has remained on Wikipedia for so long. It relies exclusively on primary sources and blog posts. Drunvalo Melchizedek lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. There are no serious reviews of his self published books. Consensus was deletion after a previous nomination in 2012. Not much has changed. He might be well known in New Age pseudoscience circles but there is nothing of substance for a Wikipedia page. Ynsfial (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AFD is inaccurate as this is not the same page from 2012. It was recreated from scratch with available info in 2019. Also, the AFD does not actually give any specific grounds for deletion except what sounds like personal disdain, which WP needs to be above. In fact, the deletion submission itself admits topical notability. Whether said topical area is bad or good is not relevant to encyclopedic inclusion. - Keith D. Tyler¶12:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to give my AFD a second read. My specific grounds for deletion are clearly stated. Drunvalo Melchizedek lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, which I determined after checking for coverage of him online. Second of all, as an author and researcher, his work lacks serious reviews, though I recognize this is just one aspect of author notability criteria that he fails to meet. He doesn't seem to meet the others either. I'm not sure what you mean about topical notability. A TikToker every other teen is familiar with is well known to many people. But if there isn't much serious coverage of them they aren't encyclopedically notable. If you believe he meets the notability criteria, please provide a few credible sources this.Ynsfial (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My first inclination would be WP:AUTHOR, in that, at least in his field (however dubious), he is considered a significant figure. This is rather bolstered, I would say, by the number of the independent secondary sources already cited. Additionally, that his work has been the inspiration for notable artists as diverse as Tool and Willow Smith lends some amount of significant influence. But again, even your nomination concedes that "he might be well known in New Age... circles" which would seem to render the question moot; even you're not entirely certain of his non-notability, which I still think shoots significant holes through any WP:NN argument.
Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is not published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review. Other considerations for notability should be considered as well.
Thank you for pointing out the guideline concerning parity of sources. Please provide 3 of the independent secondary sources cited that you think best establish notability and we can discuss it from there.Ynsfial (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS - I don’t see a single reliable source, unless you consider Jezebel to be reliable. This is in no was close to passing notability. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have already added more references to this article to show notability. She has been written about in the Australian press with some brief bios in those articles. She advised the Federal Government and argued for innovative labour policies for women long before they were legislated by government such as paid maternity leave, flexible working hours, better access to child care. I will add more to her article later.LPascal (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors (one of the participants here has just been indefinitely blocked). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this page for deletion again because the initial discussion lacked sufficient engagement and the sources provided were inadequate in both quality and quantity. There's a notable absence of substantial coverage of Imre Vallyon, his work, or his organisation in multiple reliable secondary sources. Meeting notability criteria typically requires presenting at least three such sources. The article from Stuff, while primarily focused on his legal issues, appears to be the only source that meets these criteria. Without it, the page is mostly information sourced by primary sources and a list of his self published books and ebooks.
In terms of Vallyon's notability as a writer, the two book reviews presented by Oaktree b in the previous discussion are clearly poor sources, as they seem to be paid content from freelance writers on unreliable websites. Additionally, Vallyon does not meet the criteria for notability as a criminal according to Wikipedia guidelines on crime perpetrators, despite the only significant coverage of him focusing on his legal issues. His organisation, FHL, does not seem to meet the notability standards either. Ynsfial (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Ynsfial - it seems pointless making multiple attempts to have this article deleted as the previous Afd covered the arguments in sufficient depth. I suggest you look at the deletion review process if you consider there is an issue. NealeWellington (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, deletion review is the wrong avenue here. It was a no consensus close, and closed over 2 months ago. It is perfectly fine to bring it back for another look. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Looks like an attempt to delete the history to me. It happened before that talented people did crimes (Roman Polansky etc.) and encyclopedia must show the good and the bad. There had been "no consensus" discussion before and my position here is that the person is a notable author and notable criminal and convicted felon at the same time. Also, I see it as a strange attempt from another editor and I have COI concerns here. If the page stays, I suggest to monitor it carefully for any future attempts to delete the historical record.--Saul McGill (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. I don't think the Dutch NOS article mentioned above provides significant enough coverage. I'd say awards won aren't enough for notability, but this might be worth looking into further. @Saul McGill:, I don't see how he fulfills WP:PERPETRATOR or WP:AUTHOR. He fails all the criteria for both. Mooonswimmer01:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Is Vallyon notable as an author? Only a few reliable sources have covered Vallyon’s works. Thus, he is not notable under WP:GNG.
2. Is Vallyon a notable criminal? Vallyon also fails WP:PERPETRATOR. A criminal is only notable if the media in many countries have covered their crimes or if the crimes were historic or major. There has been coverage of his legal issues, but it may not be enough to meet these standards.
3. Is there reliable coverage? To strengthen the argument, we rely on you, the editors and contributors, to provide sources that can offer an in-depth study of Vallyon’s life and work or his crimes.
4. Is there community consensus? The ongoing debate and non-consensus closure of previous discussions highlight the urgency of a closer review of the sources and arguments, mainly regarding their differing viewpoints. Everyone's input is crucial in this process.
In short, the coverage does not explore his works or crimes. If the consensus favors retention due to his criminal history, the article must meet WP:BLP. It is our collective duty to ensure that it remains neutral and relies on proper sources.--AstridMitch (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
._U.S._Judo_team._Rogers_Daily_News..jpg)
