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.
Add this to-do list to your User page! {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Arts and entertainment/Announcements}}
Directions for expanding any division below
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!
Tagging articles
Any article related to this work group should be marked by adding |a&e-work-group=yes to the {{WPBiography}} project banner at the top of its talk page. This will automatically place it into Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles. Articles can be assessed for priority within this work group by using the |a&e-priority= parameter. See Template:WikiProject Biography/doc for detailed instructions on how to use the banner.
Jubileeclipman(talk·contribs) I am interested in taking on UK celebrities with articles that are stubs or otherwise non-standard. Entirely rewrote Fearne Cotton to raise standard and remove fansite tag. I am working on Holly Willoughby which was merely a list plus trivia. Will also work on musicians, all genre, living or dead.
I propose merging to Text-to-image model because both of these articles talk about the same concept, and AI being called art is very controversial CWikiedits1 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Additionally, the article only talks about AI image generation which is not the only form of AI "art". I think that since both articles are talking about the same technology, and the history of the same technology is in one article but not the other, a merger would work well CWikiedits1 (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Agree that the title "AI art" is contentious and should be changed despite WP:COMMONNAME, but Disagree with fully merging both articles since there are differences of scope. Although I do also Agree that information solely related to image generation should be moved to a different article named "AI images" (or something of the sort) DaniPine3 (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Disagree This AI art article is about art made with AI. That is, the notable use of AI by notable artists, notable art museum exhibitions, etc. It includes all types of visual art (not just images), and it includes all types of AI throughout art history (not just text-to-image models). Any information that is not about notable art but instead about the topic of like random hobbyists using text to image models to make memes or whatever should just be moved to Text-to-image model. I was planning on working on this after the latest "requested move" discussion is finished, but will start working on this ASAP if that would be helpful. Asparagusstar (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I have taken many paragraphs out of the AI art that were about the general topic of text-to-image models, and moved them to the article Text-to-image model. Asparagusstar (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
And I have reverted most of these massive removals of (largely) well-referenced content, since your conception of the term disagrees with multiple RS, see here and WP:NPOV. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:44, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - That the idea of AI art is controversial is an argument to have the article, not to get rid of it. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 00:53, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose While I'm usually pro-merger, the text-to-image article is primarily about the technology, while the AI art article is primarily about the phenomenon and philosophy. These seem distinct enough with enough content to justify separate articles. I also see Asparagusstar has done a good job transferring a lot content to make the difference between the topics more clear-cut, otherwise I probably would have supported a merge before that. Reywas92Talk 05:05, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. We've got three broad subjects: the technology, the general social usage of it to create any images at all, and how it has intersected with art. That looks like enough content to fill at least two articles, and too much for just one. With sections including "Antecedents", "Early history and use in conceptual art" and "Analysis of existing art using AI" in the art article, AI and art might be a better title for that one. --Belbury (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose but agree that "AI art" is a way of saying "AI simulated art" because art should always be defined as fully coming from the actions and intent of a creative human. No AI is an artist. But way too many needless merger discussions with the new merge location. Merge is a lazy path to deletion in many cases while in others a way of shortening a topic to one or two sentences in a longer article. True merges should be rare, and rarer still for notable and long-term topics. For this one an RM would work better. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose as Text-to-image model is different from this. Agreed that concept is same, but the AI art is technologically different from the target. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 04:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment The Flags of the World used as a reference (not the only one, by the way) in the article is NOT the deprecated website, but the book by H. Gresham Carr published by Frederick Warne & Co.. Article also refers to a book by Howard N. Cole. Suggest proposer withdraws. DuncanHill (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Look at reference 2. DuncanHill (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Or now reference 1. I have removed the bad source but left the others. DuncanHill (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Still, one source is not enough to demonstrate that it meets WP:GNG. The Howard N. Cole source in the Field (badge design) section only gives details about the object on the flag, not the flag itself, so not significant coverage Froglord(Finnfrog99)(talk) 10:33, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Using the source identified in the Field (badge design) section, we could easily make a symbols section on that article Froglord(Finnfrog99)(talk) 10:34, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment, Finnfrog99, you may not have come back to this page to read the above, please note that DuncanHill has shown that your nom misidentified the book Flags of the World as a website and, in light of that, instead of leaving that rationale for deletion you may want to strike or re-edit the nomination. Thanks. There is also a quote on the page from another source, Badges on battledress: post-war formation signs and regimental flashes. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Western Union (alliance) per DuncanHill, Randy Kryn, Jahaza, and my arguments about flags above. Flags of the World is not the website. Flag article is not notable enough to stand on its own but does merit inclusion in main article. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Only source seems to be completely unrelated. Doesnt even have the words star, dark blue, formal or flag Froglord(Finnfrog99)(talk) 23:08, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment. The referenced source is not completely unrelated. This is something completely unrelated. Again, it is bad practice to nom for deletion solely because the present sourcing is poor. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment please provide further deletion rationale beyond stating that the present sourcing is poor. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
First source isnt significant coverage on the flag, second is an image repository. No indication of notability Froglord(Finnfrog99)(talk) 23:12, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to ECOWAS. Nominating solely based on quality on the state of current sources is not good practice. I agree, not notable on its own, but similar to Flag of the Caribbean Community it can be merged into main international org article. Not going to restate all of my arguments for all 9 flag AFDs. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Caribbean Community in a new section titled "Flag". I don't think primary sourcing is too big of an issue here, but a niche subtopic like this one is probably more suited as a section in the parent topic's article. Yue🌙 (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Caribbean Community. See Wikipedia:primary, primary sources are not inherently bad. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. CARICOM flag falls under this. Not notable enough per guidelines for an independent article. In agreement with Yue on new "Flag" section. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Not something that is actually used - or written about: the very comprehensive Norwegian archives have 1 search hit for "nordisk råds flagg". Geschichte (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect as an ATD to the Nordic Council. Didn't find anything in Icelandic sources. Alvaldi (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
One source is WP:FOTW. Other is Arab News, which the WP:RSP says is usable only for sources unrelated the saudi government. Saudi Arabia is a member of this org, so unusable Froglord(Finnfrog99)(talk) 23:17, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment.Arab News is not a deprecated source, and it is not totally unusable. Please see the 2020 RFC at WP:RSP. For example; it would be unwise to use it for articles like Saudi-led intervention in the Yemeni civil war, or Mohammed bin Salman. Further, again: it is bad practice in AfD to nominate solely based on the fact that current sources in the article being weak. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment An article having bad sources, or only one source in the present moment is not sufficient reason for deletion. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to UNESCO or Flag of the United Nations#Derived flags. The source added just says "The light blue flag features a white emblem representing a stylized classical building with the letters UNESCO. The organization was founded in 1945 and became associated with the UN in 1946. It is based in Paris." There is not enough substance in the sources to justify a standalone article. Reywas92Talk 05:10, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per added source and a WP:COMMONSENSE approach that the flag represents a major part of the United Nations (note that the UN has its own flag) and its internationally known component World Heritage Sites list. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
That makes no sense and this is the kind of non sequitur, non-guideline-based argument that brought you to ANI recently. The added source was literally just one short sentence of decription stating what's on the flag, not significant coverage about its history or usage whatsoever. Just because the organization and one of the programs it runs are significant does NOT mean that its flag is notable or needs its own article when, again, there's no actual coverage about it. Really strange to call it "common sense" to keep a separate article as short, uninformative, and poorly sourced as this one, particularly when we're able to preserve the content elsewhere too. —Reywas92Talk 22:39, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
The article about the UNESCO flag is up for deletion, not for merging, which would have been a better option, and the nomination mentions one source and please note that another has been added. The flag has been used since 1945, and there is not much more to say about it other than it has merit and tradition as a flag, and the logo itself is also used at the World Heritage Sites. Nothing at all wrong about citing WP:COMMONSENSE as additional reasoning, in whatever context it's brought up in, although your right to criticize its use also comes with being a Wikipedian. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Dude, an AFD nomination can be voted upon and closed as merge! Just because the nominator proposed deletion does NOT mean keep or delete are the only votes available to you, and you are still welcome to approve of merging in your comment. I am baffled why you're still mentioning the sources since the original one is not really reliable or significant and the added one has nothing to it. I am further baffled by your mentioning of the logo's use – again, this can be described in the main article(s), and just because something is in use doesn't mean it needs a standalone article – "there is not much more to say"! If there are usable sources about the logo rather than the flag, maybe this should be renamed Logo of UNESCO. —Reywas92Talk 03:03, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
If a nomination is to delete my choice of Keep is countering such an extreme position. As for your idea of renaming the page Logo of UNESCO, I would support that suggestion. Finnfrog99, would that be an option you could support? Randy Kryn (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I am only suggesting that IF there are usable sources about it, otherwise the simple fact that there is a logo with a certain design, about which there is no cited discussion, can be covered in the main article. —Reywas92Talk 15:11, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete - can't see how this topic passes WP:GNG. C679 09:57, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
DeleteThis artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
Lack of notability and weak sources. Discussion should probably be had as to whether the sources demonstrate notoriety, are accessible, and qualify as reliable secondary sources. It is not clear to me whether these are catalogs that his works appear in or articles written about the artist. LightningScout(Talk) 03:02, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment I deprodded the article based on the list of references from his site. Among them, there is one that is seven pages long, Tucker, Arlene, "Timothy Hutchings, Unsung Video", Umelec Magazine, 2009, pg 32-39, ill.Kelob2678 (talk) 07:55, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 07:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Week keep for now. I'm currently seeing if I can verify some of the references, although the 2001 ArtForum article doesn't seem to exist. Nighfidelity (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
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
sourced mainly to own site and fringe outlets such as exopolitik, with no significant independent coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:FRINGEIndrasBet (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. He appears to be a crackpot with no significant following or notablity. Athel cb (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Found this source that mentions him in passing, hilariously a blog post about using him as an example to teach critical thinking. Doesn't pass. The referenced source from the Telegraph is behind a paywall. Other sources in the article are social media posts and WP:SELFPUB. Very much a crackpot. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, doesn't meetWP:NBIO and only technically meets WP:BASICAnonymousScholar49 (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't see any reliable, non-primary sources covering this person. There's also been a lot of WP:COI editing on this article which has been reported at WP:COIN. Strangely, while the article says he was on HGTV, I cannot find much to verify this- perhaps it was just a guest appearance? TheAwesomeHwyh 17:14, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Mar Jennings appeared on season 1, episode 12 of the White Room challenge on HGTV. You can find evidence of it on the link here below. Scroll down to cast and crew.
Fails WP:BIO: the only two sources are a show-affiliated advice website and an awards organisation’s judges page, with no independent coverage, and the article presents her EFT and NLP credentials without context. IndrasBet (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: from what little I can see, the first nomination from 2006 was on the same subject–the then-creator responded by blanking that iteration of the article and it was G7 speedy deleted (the current iteration only dates to 2014). No opinion. WCQuidditch☎✎ 14:56, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: I had a go at a WP:BEFORE, and everything online seems to be either her own websites or material she's written e.g. for the BBC or as part of one of her programmes -- nothing independent. WP:ENTERTAINER is the most relevant subject-specific guideline here, and that requires The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, notable television shows, stage performances, or other notable productions (emphasis mine). I don't see that this is, yet, met. She's had minor roles in notable productions (e.g. e.g. this phone-in on This Morning), and major roles in non-notable ones (e.g her podcast), but I don't think the intersection has yet happened -- certainly not the multiple times that would be needed to satisfy ENTERTAINER. UndercoverClassicistT·C 15:27, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Subject has requested deletion (ticket:2026013010206448). The subject likely passes NPROF/NAUTHOR but doesn't appear to clearly pass WP:GNG, so nominating this for deletion under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. MCE89 (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Fine to delete under WP:BLPREQDEL, in my opinion. From an NAUTHOR perspective, a quick search on JSTOR and ProQuest didn't find much for his books, and while there could be more in places I haven't looked, I don't think it's to a level where we'd be blatantly leaving a hole in the encyclopedia by not being able to link his books together. Better to defer to the subject's wishes in cases like this. ScalarFactor (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. (Any limited notability/encyclopedic value not sufficient to out-weigh subject request.) Guliolopez (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. The case for notability is borderline (at best) so we should honor the request. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose deleting this article becauseof a lack of notability. There does not appear to be any reputable coverage of the subject at all and the subject matter does not appear to be significant. Lemonladybug (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: won notable award, is included in anthologies, good bio coverage in Scotsman source: notable. PamD 12:44, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
The nominator's statement "There does not appear to be any reputable coverage of the subject at all" is strange, given the Scotsman article. I note that the nominator also recently removed a mention of Arnott from St Andrew's Academy, Paisley, stating "removed unsources claim", when it would have been very easy to source it from her article or tag with {{cn}}. PamD 12:59, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The nomination rationale is borderline incoherent and doesn't explain why we should dismiss the sources already present in the article. The newspapers cited are certainly reputable. pburka (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per above. The practice of nominating every request without making sure that WP:BEFORE is performed is causing many extra AfDs. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep. A well source article. I don't see nom rationale is having any merit. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 04:04, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be notable by NPROF, NAUTHOR, or NBIO/GNG. Being an adjunct professor at Columbia doesn't meet NPROF, nor does authoring non-WP-notable books or speaking at commencements or interviews. It was tagged as promotional and autobio (written largely by the subject), draftified, and was then moved back into main. No secondary SIGCOV cited as of now. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 18:51, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: If it is kept, it should probably be titled Jeremy Ney. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 18:57, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete Notability yet to be achieved: far WP:TOO SOON. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2026 (UTC).
Delete per nomination, no significant secondary coverage found online, either for "Jeremy Binder Ney" or for "Jeremy Ney". I don't currently have access to Scopus or Web of Science, so it would be helpful if someone could check citation metrics at one or both of those. Ansgar Slopsbane (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. He definitely doesn't pass WP:PROF (low citation counts; "Editor-in-Chief of Harvard's Social Policy Lab" is not what #C8 is looking for) nor WP:AUTHOR (one book, not yet published, and most importantly without published reviews) and we lack the in-depth reliable independent sources needed for WP:GNG (nothing in the article rises to that level and searching found only non-independent sources). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete as the person doesn't pass WP:NPROF. He may pass this criteria in future but we can't Keep him for now. Completely promotional article. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 01:53, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete — no notability route gets there. The research record is well below an WP:NPROF impact pass, and WP:NAUTHOR needs reviewed work, which a single unpublished book can't start. The citations are his own bylines, affiliation bios, a publisher page and an interview, none of it independent coverage of him, so WP:GNG isn't met. This looks early-career rather than non-notable, so WP:TOOSOON. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete or DraftifyAbstain. Completely unsourced with masses of promo claims. Independent of whether he is notable, pages like this do not belong, and claims at the last dePROD that there are sources on a different language wiki are irrelevant. If someone does a WP:HEY rescue by adding sources OK, but the awful WP:BLP violations are not acceptable; all unsourced material must be removed.Ldm1954 (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I rewrote the entire thing from scratch now, Ldm1954. I only kept the family and education part that matched what was on the Danish wikipedia version and built out from there with reliable source coverage. I think this article is most representative of his notability, from one of the biggest newspapers of record for the country. SilverserenC 01:36, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
I have changed my vote to abstain, as this is not an area I often review. It seems there is now enough SIGCOV, but I personally don't like the long red list of films/ect that he has worked on, none of which have any sources, or the Bibliography (why no ISBN and full details?). Ldm1954 (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Those can be added, but that's just content issues at this point, not a notability issue. I'm currently working on the other unreferenced BLPs. SilverserenC 02:32, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep I've deleted all of the original body text that was there and rewritten the entire article from scratch with reliable sources. Olsen, alongside his brother, appears to have fully revolutionized the film and theatre industry in Denmark over the past several decades, creating the first ever stunt school, among many other accomplishments. These are all heavily discussed in basically every newspaper of record in the country over that time period and I only picked some of the major ones to present. His notability doesn't seem in question whatsoever. SilverserenC 01:32, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. The Forbes items are bylined "YEC Women" (WP:FORBESCON) and the Entrepreneur, CNN and HuffPost citations are her own columns. The WSJ and Publishers Weekly entries are bestseller chart listings rather than reviews, so neither book has independent critical attention. The BBC, Time, CNBC and Financial Times pieces just quote her as a body-language commentator instead of covering her. LogosUnspoken (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment (paid COI, see my user page.) Her new book Conversation debuted at No. 5 on the New York Times Advice, How-To & Miscellaneous list dated October 25, 2026: https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/2026/10/25/advice-how-to-and-miscellaneous/ The nomination mostly went off old sources or ones she wrote. The best recent independent ones:
The past year also has coverage in Spain and Luxembourg (La Vanguardia, El Confidencial, L'essentiel). I've put a few sourced additions in an edit request on the article's talk page. Scott at Science of People (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep, subject of AfD has received significant coverage in this article in Austin Monthly and this article from WDET, coupled with the sources provided by the COI user above the subject appears to meet WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
As stated in my PROD nomination a week ago, this article has somehow survived an entire decade since the non-notability tag was placed on October 2016 and since then, I could find not a single reliable source that demonstrates notability. This is even barring the state of the existing sources which at best, are single mentions within primary sources or full on databases. Encouraging messages like this left on my talk page in the prior PROD also doesn't exactly help the case for notability here. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I mean, if you can't find any reliable sources User:SuperSkaterDude45, then I guess there is not good notability. Trusting you, I will say DeleteRusso-winner1234 (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Reads like a resume, lack of reliable sources. Delete. IgelRM (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete - for lack of significant coverage. I think that 10 years more than enough time to fix notability concerns. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Almost entirely unsourced and written in an unencyclopedic style with editorial asides and clever turns of phrase abounding. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator AfD discussion has revealed sources that demonstrate WP:NCREATIVE is satisfied. I'm persuaded to keep. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Google Books search results reveals his works consistently being reviewed from the 70s to 2000s satisfying CREATIVE 1 or 3. Unclear without being able to look at the passages directly to determine whether the GNG is satisfied. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Stubify. As Morbidthoughts says, there do appear to be reviews of his work and reports of him winning awards out there. But most of the article at the moment is completely unsourced BLP - and I note that most of it was contributed by user Lesharrop, whose final edit was to blank the page. Perhaps revert to the revision before Lesharrop's edits, which does appear to all be sourceable? Adam Sampson (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I would actually be willing to withdraw the AfD if that's workable. It's not that I want living poets' bios off WP. Just... this situation looked like TNT at best at first-blush. If there's consensus for stubification I would not stand in the way of it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep but stubify as above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep and stubify. I agree that notability isn't the issue. It deserves a "do-over". Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: Founded a notable literary magazine . Works are reviewed as explained, and here also . Needs a rewrite, could be stubified I suppose. I would send it back to draft, but it's too old at this point. The Anne Elder Award also confers notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Further discussion of the Helix magazine here as well, that was founded by this person. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep: I think it just needs to be stubified. mentions him on an Oxford Reference. This site claim one of his books won an Anne Elder Award as already discussed above. There are not too many references about him on the web though so writing the full article may take some time. I think the site can survive as a stub for now. Ahmed-Ayhu (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment I don't think I can simply close an AfD I opened but I am persuaded by the Keep and Stubify argument and no longer am seeking deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
You might be able to withdraw this nomination yourself (WP:WDAFD) since there aren't any !votes besides "Keep" and no real substantive comments unrelated to deletion. (WP:WITHDRAWN) -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. WCQuidditch☎✎ 03:43, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - Recently, a book has been published about him, further supporting his notability. I have not looked at the neutrality of the current article Dajasj (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I've just read the page, he looks to be notable enough outside of bunq to warrant an article. I'll mildly side with **Keep**. The Voivodeship King (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Does not inherit notability from Bunq and does not appear to meet the notability guidelines otherwise. Some information in #bunq could potentially be merged into Bunq#Regulations and anti-money laundering. mdm.bla 19:26, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for a clearer consensus. Opinion is divided between keep, redirect to bunq and delete, and the recent biography deserves more discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Last AfD was 13 years ago. I don't think simply being a FRCGP is an automatic pass for notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. A search for sources finds a namesake lawyer. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete: Some reviews of the asthma book, but I don't see enough to show a pass at notability. The rest appears non-contributory to our notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
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.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or{{subst:csp|sock username|sockmaster username}}.
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:NAUTHOR. Selective mentions only in Assam Movement related articles, news and some snippets in Google books(which can't be accessed to establish notability). The Assam Movement article doesn't even mention him for once. Searching for a BEFORE I found nothing impressive to cover GNG despite mentions. The existing two sources in the article are not reliable as the first source carries only mentions, and the second source is just about book launch which is penned by his own daughter. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 08:08, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete - No sign of notability. LegacyWiki (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep/ comment: , , and . These are reliable sources that cover him and generate SIGCOV. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Source 2 and 3 are trivial mention. Source 1 is not reliable. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 18:55, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - going through Google Books search it is evident that this was a notable figure at the time. Take for example mentions like from India Today in 1990: "Nibaran Bora , 68 , the brain behind the six-year pro - Assamese movement which brought the AGP to power", EPW "Nibaran Bora , a well known figure in Assam since over four decades", Link ".. Nibaran Bora the one time brain behind the Assam agitation and the founding father of PLP ...", Thought (1959) "... Nibaran Bora , a veteran trade unionist , ", Calcutta Journal of Political Studies "... Nibaran Bora , the veteren leader who founded Purbanchaliya Lok Parishad in 1978 , left the party on 25 September 1981 ...", other mentions "... Nibaran Bora , the 59 - year - old leader of the Purbanchaliya Lok Parishad ( PLP ) is one of the legal minds behind the movement . A former Socialist , Bora's PLP is one of the few political parties that has thrown itself fully into ...", "... Nibaran Bora who , as the Hon . Members know very well , has retired from poli- tics , was arrested at his home on 5th Agust , 1966 and put to jail ..." (1966 Assam Assembly debate). And so forth. There is apparently a Nibaran Bora Smriti Raksha Samiti (Nibaran Bora Memorial Association) --Soman (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
@Soman I too can see some mentions in Gbooks. But we can count them as we can't access them. Those are snippets only and snippets can't be counted as SIGCOV. Can you access three sentences even from the books? Dylan Reed (Ping me) 03:13, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Lean keep with the hopes that broader passages can be surfaced to indicate coverage in Gbooks. Would go looking myself but am tied up at the moment, and only here for my daily round of snatching from the flames.
Keep per Soman. It is clear that he was influential in the Assamese nationalist movement, most sources are probably offline and not in Latin script. Additional coverage to what is shown above includes more than 100 words here, and coverage of the event about him by the organization mentioned above. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
@Kelob2678 Your first link is an interview, nothing sigcov. And second link is about his memorial which carries his son's interview. I can read the language. If I could have found any two sources to meet 100-word coverage, I wouldn’t have nominated it for deletion. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 08:08, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
The relevant content is this, largely about his party, but it should be in scope for this article. The quotes are not from an interview, but are used as a representation of his thinking on the matter, at least, I understand it this way.
Purbanchaliya Lok Parishad, presided over by Nibaran Bora, is still more strident in its localism. Bora, a former Socialist who advised tea garden-owners on "labour relations" till recently, is the "think tank" of the movement. Thumping the table, and shaking his salt-and-pepper head, Bora dramatically argues how "India" exploited Assam over the years. He resents deployment of paramilitary units in Assam, and demands withdrawal of the "Indian Army" from "Assam's soil". Mrs Gandhi, he says, must express her regrets publicly for police firing at Duliajan, though "regretting is not in her blood". Of all the groups currently engaged in fishing in the Brahmaputra's troubled waters, Bora's Purbanchaliya Lok Parishad is the best organised. Its area-of operation stretches to other north-eastern states as well, particularly Meghalaya and Manipur, where secessionist sentiments run high.
Also covered here (Ctrl-F for "Nibaran Bora" returns 31 hits). Kelob2678 (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
@Kelob2678 Can we keep an article bout a person about whom we don't know when and where he was born and died? This basic we don't have. Do you?
Bare mentioning bout his organisation isn't ny SIGCOV. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 10:08, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
In general, we can have a page on someone whose birth/death date are not known. He was born circa 1920. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Well you are somewhat right about this. But about GNG for the person, I don't get anything searching for native language sources and online journals too. You would only find about the organisation which he formed with Nagen Hazarika, Girin Bora etc. This kind of coverage doesn’t get counted towards GNG or SIGCOV. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 03:36, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
What about another source I linked? It says, "In the period of 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, Nibaran Bora was perhaps the most talked about and influential leader, activist and writer in Assam". Kelob2678 (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I have that book offline. That book too doesn't speak much besides a few trivial mentions of one or two sentences. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 03:26, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It's not clear that anyone has been able to access sources that show WP:SIGCOV instead of a supposition about Google Books snippets. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep per sources presented by @Soman. Khalitate (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Have you even read the nomination? Dylan Reed (Ping me) 18:11, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: It's very sad that no Keep voters are yet not able to address the nomination rationale. All are just voting Keep without accessing presenting any source for SIGCOV. Very sad to find that such a person doesn't have sufficient coverage. I have heard about the person. But my personal thoughts don't serve Wikipedia's notability, I wished, someone would find minimum one SIGCOV as "who was he, where he was from, where he lived and died..." per general introduction. Sadly I too don't have any offline information from where he came and died. All we can find is he formed an organisation named "Purbanchal Lok Parishad"{PLP} with others that ended up with merging with AGP". Dylan Reed (Ping me) 18:27, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
@DylanMReed I consider it more disappointing to care more about sticking to one’s imagined idea of what’s relevant for an encyclopedia on the basis of definitionally arbitrary rules cooked up a decade and a half ago (that haven’t really changed at all in that time because of the relative conservatism of the site establishment) than actually seeking to improve it according to any real degree of nuance or deliberate consideration.
The sources seem to support the idea that he was a critical figure in the Assamese nationalist movement. That’s more than enough for me. Genuinely I don’t care if we can find enough 500-word sources that cover him specifically in long form profile to satisfy our complex. We have no idea what’s out there, and I think that half the time WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST is simply another bullshit excuse for the prosecution to have to do next to no work of their own right to win their case, which is already an incredibly low bar per ONUS.
I’d understand if the claim were being made about someone with a website living in modern-day Assam, but it isn’t. The guy barely managed to live to see the beginning of the internet and I don’t have the time nor resources to go to Guwahati to ask around an archive and prove you wrong. Do you? Are you interested enough to try? Or is your principal interest effectively cleanup, which you’re not supposed to be doing anyway?
TLDR: Don’t shit on people’s argumentation or hide behind policy when you’re institutionally absolved from having to make the same effort that they do.
@CSGinger14 I don't care for my personal interest here. I wanted to expand the article before nominating. But I have no source I can attach. Even before Bora, there were many people from Assam and North-east India, where we have a good number of sources. But in Bora's case, there is not any accessible source. Unless you can access a source, you can't be sure whether it is a mention or a 50-word paragraph coverage about the person. Yes, you heard it right. Two paragraphs of 50-words are enough to satisfy GNG as there is no such policy that makes a border of words.
You can check my AfD history. I mostly try to keep an article. Simply deleting is not my motive here.
Rather than arguing, kindly bring at least two accessible sources with just 50-word paragraphs about him. I would happily withdraw my nomination. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 03:08, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
@Dylan Reed I found 10 sources of about 30 words (some exceeding that) on the man. I raise you the fact that paywalls are a barrier to confirmation, which doesn't make him any less notable, but which does make it really easy to say that he isn't in spite of widespread coverage in professional sources. It's not about how easy it is to write an article with the material. It's about the extent to which the material proves their notability, which doesn't always cleanly follow our preexisting notion of GNG. Here you go:
"[Page 36] In the period of 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, Nibaran Bora was perhaps the most talked about and influential leader, activist and writer in Assam. Apart..."
The General Notability Guideline is a standard for when it's extremely difficult to establish notability. This man is plainly notable in Assam, without question. Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to find this many sources calling him a critical figure in this movement. It doesn't matter whether we have enough material to write about him at length, because deletion isn't cleanup. If all you can say is 'he was a key leader in the Assamese Nationalist Movement' cause that's been reported in 20 professional publications, then that's what you say. This isn't a case of SOURCESMUSTEXIST, the sources do exist, it's just they don't satisfy an essay that was designed for cases where you barely have two sources. Denying that fails to understand the fact that the rules are principles, and that we're ultimately damaging the encyclopedia by removing this information.
This is all I can do for you in English, because, as I said, I don’t have the time nor resources to go to Guwahati to ask around an archive.... I encourage you to go looking in Assamese media, cause I can't read it, but I suspect there's about the same number if not more sources there saying the exact same thing. More likely than not, if these sources are unsatisfactory to you, the only place you're going to find reporting of that length is in print media publications in Assam, which I suspect hasn't broadly digitized old reports. That's why I raised the point I did above. Sometimes it's a slog to prove notability and hitting a wall at the open internet doesn't mean we can just assume print media isn't a thing. The GNG is pretty obviously not meant to be applied for cases like this.
This piece by Indian Express reads only one sentence as "Nibaran Bora, the president of the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad, said that three demands — detection of foreign nationals, deletion from electoral rolls and deportation from the state — are non-negotiable."
The second source is not an acceptable source. Please see here.
I have that book and I have already answered above that that page also doesn't cover anything towards GNG.
The paper says one line that is too focused on Bora's youngest son Partha Pratim Bora who was ULFA's first foreign secretary. Not towards GNG again.
Who will accept 20 words to be counted towards GNG?
You said passing mention. I have nothing to say.
Again passing mention. So I have nothing to say.
I have my own library and as I was a teacher I needed to study books. There is one book(in Assamese language) about him which is written by his daughter. That book too can't be used as a source as its preface clearly reads that the book is a memoir of Bora by his daughter.
Believe me, I landed at the article to expand, as I have heard much about him from my uncle who was his friend and worked together. Sadly, I couldn't expand and saw that the article seriousely has a GNG issue. I didn't tagged for notability, but nominated for AfD with hope that someone could really bring at least two sources counting towards GNG, though WP:THREE is best practice but not mandatory. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 06:42, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Respectfully, I think that several of these are more opinion than objective determinations (others I'll concede), but the principal point behind raising this many mentions in reliable secondary sources is to point out that the GNG is a failsafe when a subject isn't clearly notable from outside coverage. Every single one of these sources underlines that he was a key figure in the movement. That's my central argument, even though I consider the sourcing that's been raised thus far to be more than sufficient irregardless. Given that it's doubtful many Assamese press outlets have digitized their records, I'm hard pressed to accept delete on account of a dearth of online sourcing when there are this many mentions of him notwithstanding.
@CSGinger14 I think I have figured out why Bora doesn't have SIVCOG available. See Assam Movement (which is heavily backed by reliable sources) article for a clearer look. That very page even doesn't mention Bora for once. A twenty-year-old article, but doesn't even mention him. We can conclude that no available source supports Bora.
Regarding your concern "Given that it's doubtful many Assamese press outlets have digitized their records, I'm hard pressed to accept delete on account of a dearth of online sourcing when there are this many mentions of him notwithstanding." - I would like to make you clear that at Bora's time (say Assam Movement era) there were only three newspapers in Assam i.e. Dainik Asam(Assamese), The Assam Tribune(English) and The Sentinel(English). All three are still not developed as a proper newspaper. They three have still lots of issues to meet Newspaper standards. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 07:44, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
I don't think that is a reasonable conclusion to draw. Even if they are only passing mentions, I'm loathe to believe that this many professional outlets managed to make reference to this guy decades after his passing as a central figure if not the central figure just for him to turn out to be of no consequence whatsoever. I also don't think we should take the proper/improper development of an article's content as indication of anything to do with the subjects actual notability.
Also, there are only two newspapers in Tanzania, one nominally independent and one government controlled. Is it reasonable to conclude that, if they're functionally the only sources available, we should have next to nothing on the website about Tanzania?
"..many professional outlets managed to make reference to this guy decades after his passing"?
Do you want to know why?
He was mentioned because of his son Partha Pratim Bora. Please check this. You would find the sources as accessible. His son is meeting GNG but he isn't. Please don't blame me if I end up creating an article about his son Partha Pratim Bora as he has SIGCOV. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 08:02, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Please do, I don't dispute his notability per the sources provided, and we could thereafter consider a proper merge/redirect ATD; but once again many professional outlets managed to make reference to this guy decades after his passing as a central figure in the Assamese nationalist movement.
@CSGinger14 I understand your position and logic. But the fact is what we can't ignore. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 08:55, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
@CSGinger14 created Javed Bora page with reliable sources by notable writers. I will update the page with more content with some offline sources I have. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 01:56, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
@Kelob2678 What are your thoughts on this? Do you think the information is best left independent or merged? My only concern is that the content of the many sources provided would have to be sizeably reduced to avoid UNDUE concerns.
I prefer to have this as a standalone page. Firstly, it is unclear whether sources on the son dedicate enough content to the father, if they don't, editors may argue that conflating them together is OR. Secondly, if we assume that the first point is not an issue, I just do not see how the son is more notable than the father (based on what is written), so one can equally argue for the merge of his page into this one. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
@Kelob2678 Javed Bora is more notable than his father because he was a top militant leader. And there are tons of writings or books about Assam's militancy issue. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 19:55, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
@CSGinger14 Please check the sources. It indicates "Javed Bora, son of Nibaran Bora..." by many sources. I have provided mostly accessible sources and the page Javed Bora already reviewed by a senior NPP. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 03:44, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
@DylanMReed, User:RoySmith/Three best sources ("WP:THREE") is about how many sources Roy is personally willing to look at for an AFD, so if you want him to !vote keep, you need to give him your three best, rather than a dozen weak sources. It says nothing at all about how many sources are required by the GNG ("no fixed number...but multiple sources are generally expected") or would constitute a best practice. You may also be interested in reading out our WP:UPPERCASE problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Delete. Passing mentions in Assam Movement coverage fail WP:NPOL and WP:NAUTHOR; inaccessible Google Books snippets cannot carry notability. Kukuryza (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Some sense of this person's importance, but we still don't have SIGCOV about them. For the two lines of text, this could just be merged into another article, not sure where though. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
May be merged/redirect to Javed Bora page? What's your rationale? Dylan Reed (Ping me) 16:07, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
@Jishara I have clarified about your three sources above. The source from Times of Assam was never recognised as a reliable source per this diff. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 16:04, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I disagree with you as to the sources (also, I didn't list just three sources), and you appear to have linked to a SCOPUS profile and not a diff Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
You might disagree. It's you own opinion. But we still haven't found any SIGCOV and GNG and can't accept GBook snippets as coverage which we can't access. Behind Paywall is another issue, but a source we can't access isn't a source. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 16:10, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Please address th nom rationale instead of shooting "passing mentions".Dylan Reed (Ping me) 09:04, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 14:43, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to Assam Movement. Multiple reliable sources mention the subject of this AfD in passing in relating to the Assam Movement. However, I did not find any reliable sources that give significant coverage for the subject of this AfD. If this individual is mostly notable to a single event, WP:BIO1E applies, therefore a redirect to the notable event can be an alternative to deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 22:47, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Citations are the subject's own ministry site, affiliated theology organisations and blogs. Kqol•talk 23:10, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I don't see anything particularly wrong with this article. Bearian (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep As Bearian noted the article seems fairly well rounded. There's a number of academic sources present, more than half of which (having not done a completely comprehensive review) I'd suspect cover the subject in at least 100 words, if not more.
I also don't think it's reasonable to discount a fair number of the additional sources entirely simply because they're Christian organizations. Just because they're also Christian doesn't mean they're affiliated or biased in some manner when discussing the topic, that they can't discuss the individual in a neutral, detached manner (beyond the fact of their implying the existence of a God, which is an unreasonable lens for us to look at this issue from seeing as we're trying to establish notability for a theologian). I think that takes a really narrow and somewhat diminutive view of theology, which isn't really practical at all; obviously the sources covering them are going to be broadly Christianity-focused in nature. Were we hoping for an expose in the Wall Street Journal?
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete did a Google search and I did not find any reliable sources. Catfurball (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - I still don't see anything egregious about this article. It certainly could be improved, but AfD is not an improvement factory. Bearian (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: "I don't see anything wrong" is not much of an argument - which sources justify the inclusion of this article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:08, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
On second review, the man probably doesn't make GNG, but does have a pretty clear pass vis-a-vis WP:NACADEMIC, given the fact that he's been extensively cited in a wide variety of dissertations as effectively the expert authority on Thomas F. Torrance.
Keep: per Bearian and CSGinger14. Likely meets WP:NACADEMIC. Gommeh(talk🎮sign) 20:19, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final call for an actual source analysis. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 17:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep per above. Though I really hope the article has been improved to cover the reviews of the subject's books. THEZDRX(User) | (Contact) 12:56, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
FA
A
GA
