Listing A. Kugan |
|||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Living people== |
==Living people== |
||
<!-- bof --> |
<!-- bof --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Kugan}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sterling Beaumon}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sterling Beaumon}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernesto Mordecki}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernesto Mordecki}} |
Revision as of 16:53, 4 March 2009
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Living people. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Living people|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Living people. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/32px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png)
Purge page cache | watch |
Wikipedia's inclusion policy for articles on individuals can be found at WP:BIO.
Wikipedia's policy on writing about living people can be found at WP:BLP.
![]() |
{{{linktext}}}
|
Living people
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 08:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. Kugan
- A. Kugan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I declined the A7 speedy on this, because the circumstances surrounding Mr. Kugan's death is covered in general media. Coverage is here and here for example, if the article is kept they may be used to source the article. Nonetheless, I am bringing this to AFD, and recommending deletion since I think the article violates WP:NOT#NEWS. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unfortunate, but fails WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BIO1E, and possibly WP:SOAP. JohnCD (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I nominated it for the speedy, and i still don't see an assertion of notability, but still, this seems to be a WP:NOT#NEWS and probably WP:1E. --GedUK 19:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. A7. So non-notable his first name isn't in the article. THF (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet inclusion criteria. Per WP:BIO1E the information should be included in an article about the event. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:34, 6 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Xclamation point 06:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sterling Beaumon
- Sterling Beaumon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A minor actor, both in age and in terms of actual impact. Much puffery, but nothing solid underneath. CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - You are not a minor actor when you appear on the cover of a movie DVD [1]. His resume is impressive having accumulated numerous commercials and guest appearances on popular TV shows. He played the main role in a 2008 children's movie. Articles on all his co-stars exist. Fighting for Justice (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the 'movie' is a straight-to-DVD film, then yes, you could very well be a minor actor. In other words, that proves nothing. The 'numerous commercials' also means little--certainly not lasting fame--nor do the 'articles on his co-stars', as they're not the subject of this discussion. Some look like they should be nominated at AFD, but that's neither here nor there. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of major actors have movies that go straight to DVD's. This movie was like that on purpose, it was never intended to go into the big screen because it was based on a children's book. If you go to You Tube you'll see that the movie had a major debut. His numerous guest appearances is strong evidence that he's had in impact. Fighting for Justice (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of major actors who are down on their luck work on straight-to-DVD films, also, but that's neither here nor there: working on a straight-to-DVD conveys no fame or importance to the actor. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - IMDB lists 18 items for this actor including multiple appearances on programs such as Lost, Bones, Scrubs, Heroes, Cold Case, House, and more. If this guy doesn't meet "notable" standards, then there's a lot of deleting that needs to be done with actors here... Proxy User (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, important roles such as 'Brat #1' and 'Kid with gun'. And yes, much deletion needs to happens, but they're not relevant here. And, of course, having a series on minor parts on TV programmes doesn't impart fame.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - He's got two roles like that. You fail to recognize that he starred in a movie and had notable roles in notable TV series. Fighting for Justice (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and find reliable sources: I'm sure there are some. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - IMDB is a reliable source, and it's pretty clear that this actor has had substantial roles in many notable television productions. Proxy User (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, IMDB isn't a reliable source, since it's a user-added compilation, much like a, well, Wiki. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - This article features him, and he is a significant enough actor for Variety to take notice. Some more sourcing would be good but this is enoug to scrape by for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Variety is a trade publication, so I fail to see how that argues for wide repute. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Lost, Bones, Scrubs, Heroes, Cold Case, House, 7th Heaven... That's a lot of TV. Proxy User (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, it's a lot of TV. He's got more experience then some adult actors. Aside, from acting he sings and figure skates. He's very notable. It's not like he did one movie and that's it; like in this child actor Drew Mikuska. Fighting for Justice (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll have to offer more proof than assertion about this so-called notability. Having a series on minor parts on TV programmes doesn't impart fame.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We use trade publications all the time to establish notability within whichever area the subject falls. Variety does not cover every single actor. By using Variety, we can gauge this person's notability within his field of endeavor which is acting. A character actor might never get mainstream coverage because he isn't a star, or drugged out and puching papparazzi in the face. Yet may still get recognition within his profession, and bbe notable and noted in trade publications. -- Whpq (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Signal is a newspaper, but it's local. If that were all it took, we could use the Lafayette Journal & Courier to source my notability, and we wouldn't have had the arguments against it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lots of tiny roles, but I see nothing in IMDB that adds up to meeting WP:CREATIVE. THF (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- According to Kristin Dos Santos at E!, Beaumon has a record deal and will also continue to appear in Lost.[2] --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 15:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. The only arguments for "keep" are inherited notability; he appears notably in a notable show, and hence is notable. That's not adequate. (And Variety does cover every actor whose agent requests coverage....) I may be able to rebut other comments, but I don't see a real argument for a keep yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence has not been presented that he is the star of either movie which the claim was presented above, and even if he was the star of two (marginally) notable movies, that wouldn't be enough. Thinking it over, THF said it best, above..."lots of tiny roles." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Black Kite 11:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ernesto Mordecki
- Ernesto Mordecki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete No independent proof of any notability, no reliable sources, no anything. The prod was removed by an editor who just said that "30+ articles" means notable, which it clearly doesn't as nonnotable academics get published in nonnotable publications all the time. Notability has to be shown, not just assumed from a claim made by someone's resume. The article needs some reason why anyone would care. This is not LinkedIn or Facebook. And this is another prod removed by someone who goes around removing prod tags for no reason that comes close to meet WIkipedia standards. Someone really needs to look into prod removal abuse, as it just wastes everyone's time having to list these. DreamGuy (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Mordecki is not shown here to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). --Boston (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete WP:PROF and agree; maybe a notification to users who removed PRODs or CSDs which subsequently failed afd?-- Chzz ► 15:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. There's also probable conflict of interest being that the main contributor is User:Mordecki.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Subject meets criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics) as demonstrated by the added external reference to [3]. I suggest that the issue of Ethnocentricity should be consider, as I believe that an American professor with the same number of published articles would meet the grade for notability. I also note the COI are not grounds for deleting and article. Esasus (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick google search finds 916 links [4], most of them referencing academic articles written by Prof. Mordecki. Notable? Yes. Esasus (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please carefully read Wikipedia:Notability (academics). It might make things clearer. Most mature academics will have presented dozens of papers and will have had many of them published. They still aren't necessarily notable. Your accusation about ethnocentricity is unjustly defamatory. This may be a case of WP:system bias but that is not the same thing. WP:COI is not a reason for deleting an article but it is justification for scrutinizing it rather than regarding it with leniency. --Boston (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is absurd. The person who removed the prod is using the person's own resume as if it were somehow an independent reliable source of notability. On top of that he tossed in a ridiculous claim of ethnocentrism, which has nothing to do with anything. He in fact knows that I have nominated articles of white people and so forth for deletion based upon lack of notability, because he's on those talk pages attacking me there as well. DreamGuy (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not attacking you, so please don't characterize my comment is such a way. Also, I think you may be confusing "ethnocentrism" with "racism". I notice that DreamGuy has been just been blocked for 55 hours for his disruptions on another matter [5] so we will have peace for the weekend, but watch out for sockpuppets. Esasus (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 04:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 04:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Citation impact seems to indicates some degree of notability. Possibly meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed).--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Autobiography, containing a Ph.D., an Erdos number, and what appears to be a rotating departmental chairmanship. Dozens, if not hundreds, of Uruguayans must have done the like. What's he done, that anyone outside the University of the Republic (where they can read his web page) should care about him? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. As with Eric Yurken (two comments above), I find the Google Scholar hits are ok. He has some pretty well-cited papers on optimal stopping that are also cited in books that appear themselves recognized. The citation numbers are more impressive when considering the papers are pretty recent. Not an amazing researcher by the numbers (especially since this isn't really a pure math area), but it's certainly plausible he has made a "significant impact in scholarly discipline". He's probably no worse than the many academics whose articles are kept in AFDs (yup not really a ringing endorsement, but whatever...)--C S (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletechanged to KeepAccurate citation numbers can be gotten for Scopus or WoS if he publishes in international journals , as he does., There ar 9 papers in scopus, with citations 6, 3, 1, 1, and the rest zero. Mathematics citations come slowly, but this still is simply not a significant record of research, and by no means enough to make him an authority in this field. Science, unlike politics, is international and so are the standards. To have half of one's papers unreferred to completely is sufficient evidence of non notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)- there's something seriously wrong with your search. There are over 100 cites for just one paper alone. I flipped through a dozen or so pages of the Google Scholar cites for his mostly highly cited paper and they are all legitimate citations (no self-ref and omitting cites from preprints). Certainly more than 6. --C S (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have repeated the Scopus search, and matched it against the GS results. Scopus does seem to have missed any of the articles. --including one in CRASP--an Elsevier publication! The GS results show notability.DGG (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't seem to access Scopus at the moment. In any case I tried WoS, which I often find misses a bunch of citations. It lists his most cited paper as having 26 cites, which doesn't match any of your results. Looking through the cites for that paper, it is definitely missing some number of legitimate cites (including ones from the books) that I found on Google Scholar. If I had to guess (I'm too lazy to go through and count), it looks like the actual number is about double. Again, not a shoo-in by any means, but far better than your comments would suggest. --C S (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will recheck this evening. DGG (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. As several comments already said, the evidence of his impact isn't especially impressive, so this is a borderline case. But rather than searching for his name, I tried searching for "optimal stopping" in Google scholar, and while he wasn't the first hit by any means, his name was in the first 10 hits. Obviously it would be better to have a more direct statement by a reliable third-party source saying “he is an established expert in this area” but this search result strongly implies the same thing to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment DGG (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep On the strength of his citations, and the results of David Eppstein's "optimal stopping " search, which gets about 10, 800 gscholar hits - so having a paper coming in #9 means something.John Z (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Remember BLP applies. MBisanz talk 00:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Syring
- Patrick Syring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I nominated this article for deletion in August 2007 shortly after its creation as a clear violation of WP:BLP1E. Since then the subject, a low-level diplomat who made an appalling voice mail, pled guilty to a minor charge against him after the judge criticized the indictment as weak, he got a year of prison, has been released, and the press coverage disappeared. The page is still an orphan, only one link in an article that mentions it en passant. I'm hoping that now that the event isn't immediately in the news and all over blogs, and that there is more of a Wikipedia consensus that this sort of article is highly inappropriate, we can get the correct result and delete this article this time. THF (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BIO1E and rename Dlabtot (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, although we could make an article about the event and make this a redirect, as WP:BIO1E suggests. Avram (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- The story has plenty of notability, I say leave it as it is, or rename to the court case with a redirect from his name. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Well sourced in reliable sources, so this article easily passes our requirements for verifiability and notability. Reyk YO! 05:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above but it seems premature to declare WP:SNOW right out the gate. JBsupreme (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The last AfD closed as keep, and nothing's changed, so WP:NOTAGAIN.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nothing's changed, reliable sources. Time for "a type of precipitation in the form of crystalline water ice". yandman 10:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:RECENT. Had Syring been a notable person before jumping into this bizarre, awesome folly, 1) he would be worth having an article on in the first place, and 2) his opinions and the IRL-trolling incident they spawned would actually have been important. He wasn't, and so he didn't, and so it wasn't (at least not very). This is not a biographical article; this is an article on one particular, damning incident with enough of the surface trappings of a biographical article that it's possible someone might accidentally mistake it for the sum of a life. In the long term, this event will fade into a footnote to James Zogby and the Arab American Institute, and so those are the articles where (sourced) mention of this incident should find a home, if anywhere. Always when dealing with BLP issues on these private individuals who blunder onto the media's stage for their fifteen minutes of infamy, the question should not be, Is this notable? (per WP:NOTE), but should instead be, Is this noteworthy? (per WP:RECENT, the spirit of WP:BLP, and common sense). --Dynaflow babble 10:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Patrick Syring threats to the Arab American Institute or Patrick Syring anti-Arab comments (or similar), and rewrite from the perspective of the event, not the person, per WP:BLP1E-- cover the event, not the person. I think the series of events is notable, but the current article focuses too much on the otherwise non-notable Syring. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appalling and vicious attacks by a "diplomat" can be both newsworthy and encyclopedic. Thoughtful renaming of the article might be appropriate. Edison (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move discussion on naming to article's talk page. Event is notable. Article is well sourced. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Rename as part of a well-documented series of recent anti-Arab political expression in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.69.49 (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but severely trim for BLP compliance. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cice Rivera
- Cice Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
IMDB shows her as having one role where she played a character with a name. The one book Amazon shows for sale was published by Authorhouse, a vanity press. I don't see how she meets the notability requirements for any of her claimed careers. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 08:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cice Rivera at IMDb
- A Rainbow Behind a Shadow (Authorhouse, 2003) ISBN 978-1403301239
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Dori (Talk • Contribs) 08:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. THF (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Also appears to be a bit of conflict of interest.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Issue regarding lack of coverage in RS not addressed. MBisanz talk 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Philip A. Haigh
- Philip A. Haigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
not at all notable, no references whatsoever to be considered notable, autobiography Troyster87 (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Autobiographical? Yes. No references currently given in the article? Yes. Article has previously been deleted via PROD? Yes. But none of those are the questions being asked here. The question is, is he notable by WP's policies? And the answer, from the small amount of research I've done, is absolutely. I've put what I've found over on the talk page for someone's writing pleasure.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Dori (Talk • Contribs) 08:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy unless it's rescued. The nominator mixes up two concepts. A lack of sources makes something hard to verify and potentially unverifiable, but people can be notable through other means than the WP:GNG even if the sources to prove it are not yet apparent. Based on the information on the talk page I suspect Dori's claim it can be improved is true, but if it's eventually deleted, it should be for the right reasons. Unverifiability, not notability issues. _ Mgm|(talk) 11:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep minor notability, but notablility nevertheless. I googled him and found references to two books, which I ahve listed. I cannot vouch for his outdoor hobbies etc. which thus remain unreferenced. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To answer comments on my rationale, this article should still be deleted, any claims of notability are refuted by lack of reliable sourcing and verifiability. Read WP:AFD.Troyster87 (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lack of verifiable sources to support article content. BLP should not exist unless the article content has strong sources to verify content. Additionally, there is no evidence that sources exist to write a comprehensive article about the person. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of independent sources. Stifle (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I'm unsure how "non-notable" can be considered an insult. Unless you've got a politician's ego, of course. yandman 13:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry Ray Hall
- Jerry Ray Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable mediator and unsuccessful political candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. No WP:RS that his mediation efforts satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. Google search reveals an obit for a different Jerry Ray Hall, but nothing else that I can see, save his unsuccessful candidature. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should like to add that the article creator's response has been to attempt to blank the Afd and then insult me and Wikipedia on my talk page. Not terribly reassuring from someone whose user name is User:Amediator. Remind me not to hire him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable, no references for a biography. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can find nothing on the net about his work with Panama, apart from a Yahoo! groups thing I can't get into. I can find his unsuccessful candidature. I can find nothing in connection with mediation. There may be more in the name of his company, but I can't find this. With no references given in the article, I have to judge on what I can find, which is very little. Peridon (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable beyond a very narrow niche, and that's assuming any of that is actually true, since he gave no sources whatsoever. §FreeRangeFrog 05:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's funny that you would insult the subject by calling him a "non-notable mediator" and then get upset when the article creator insults you in return. Good for him, frankly. However the subject does seem to fail the relevant guidelines, so we still need to delete the article. RenegadeMonster (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, good for him. Actually, I'd considered whether this article was written by Hall when nominating it for deletion and decided it wasn't: it seemed to be too poorly written for someone with his claimed academic background. Obviously, in retrospect, he did write it. I will be more careful in the future in how I describe articles when nominating for deletion, especially if I suspect they're vanity pieces. No point in adding insult to injury. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought mediators were supposed to mediate not insult. The author is 'Amediator', which says something to me about the whole subject. Peridon (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 08:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Cranmer
- Bob Cranmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Bob Cranmer has not demonstrated notability. The closest thing to notability would be this incident: "As being a member of the first Republican majority in Allegheny County government since the Great Depression, Bob is primarily known for his famous "split" with his Republican running mate Larry Dunn and subsequent governing alliance with Democrat Mike Dawida." Here are some articles covering the split. Regardless of this event, I don't believe that Bob Cranmer is notable. There also seems to have a conflict of interest issue as the author is Cranmr (talk · contribs). Lastly, Cranmer does not fall into WP:POLITICIAN as he falls under second-level sub-national politician (as the former County Commissioner of Allegheny County) when first-level sub-national is the cut off. OlYellerTalktome 10:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I concur, this is not a notable politician. Also the last line of the article leads me to believe that this was just copied from some other web site (and that they didn't bother to format the text). --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not notable and self-promotion. It is indeed substantially copied from the website of his employer, Pugliese Associates, Government affairs consultants, but has probably been altered just enough to avoid speedy deletion as copyvio. JohnCD (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject is probably notable. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania is a major county with population over a million, and political leaders in a jurisdiction of that size are likely to have substantial news coverage. Ray (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable. --Revolución hablar ver 14:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite. May or may not meet WP:POLITICIAN, but meets WP:BIO by virtue of substantial independent press coverage.[6] WP:POLITICIAN is an inclusive standard, not an exclusive one: Gary Coleman doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, either, but is still notable. WP:COI violations are not independent grounds for deletion, just for page-scrubbing. THF (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do no think that anyone has claimed that Gary Coleman's notability is based on his career in politics. Can you point out for me (completely for my own benefit and future editing) where a policy is marked as an inclusive standard as opposed to an exclusive one? I guess I don't see how it's different if WP:POLITICIAN would be the only reason that a subject would be notable (theoretically, not in this case). My talk page would probably be the best place to reply to that request as it's just for me and not part of the discussion of this article. Thanks. 18:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlYeller21 (talk • contribs)
- I can respond here, since it expands upon my reasoning. I'm agreeing with you that you are correct that a "second-level sub-national politician" is not notable by itself. But here, Cranmer's notability would be based on substantial coverage by independent reliable sources, not by virtue of his resume. WP:POLITICIAN is a policy of convenience that allows editors to sidestep the debate of whether a particular lieutenant governor has had that level of press coverage (which would otherwise be a problem when we're talking about 19th century politicians from states without century-old newspaper archives available on line), but it doesn't mean a politician who doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN automatically gets deleted. THF (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do no think that anyone has claimed that Gary Coleman's notability is based on his career in politics. Can you point out for me (completely for my own benefit and future editing) where a policy is marked as an inclusive standard as opposed to an exclusive one? I guess I don't see how it's different if WP:POLITICIAN would be the only reason that a subject would be notable (theoretically, not in this case). My talk page would probably be the best place to reply to that request as it's just for me and not part of the discussion of this article. Thanks. 18:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlYeller21 (talk • contribs)
- Comment Made some general improvements to the article as part of Article Rescue Squadron. Magnetic Rag (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve per THF above. Referenced news items are now in the article, and subject is clearly notable, though the article got off to a rocky start. Give this article some time, and it will be worth keeping. MuffledThud (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Has received significant coverage, and the article now demonstrates this. decltype 20:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:LUC really coming into play, but someone should do a WP:BLP check. THF (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep improved article as meeting WP:PEOPLE even if weak for WP:POLITICIAN. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:46, 3 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 05:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rebeka Kim
- Rebeka Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable novice level figure skater. Does not pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:FIGURE's notability guidelines. Kolindigo (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Ray (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Notability through being the subject of most popular Korean television network biography documentary. Needs english language citations, though.Vulture19 (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Is the Nestle Nesquic Cup an important event in figure skating? It seams to be an international competition. Also what is the difference between novice and junior level in figure skating?09er (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Nestle Nesquic Cup was a very minor, non-notable event. There are many small, non-notable international competitions. In figure skating, junior level skaters can compete at high-level international competitions such as the World Junior Figure Skating Championships, which is at the ISU Championship level. They can also compete on the ISU Junior Grand Prix, which is the junior-level version of the Grand Prix of Figure Skating. Beginning this season, the ISU Junior and Senior Grand Prix Finals have been combined. That's pretty high level. Novices, on the other hand, do not have high-level international competitions. Novice level skaters are not notable because they cannot compete on the highest level of sport. Kolindigo (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Does not meet WP:ATHLETE, but does barely meet WP:N standards.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. A single KBS documentary does not create encyclopedic notability. Only 524 Ghits. THF (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The arguments for deletion within this article centred on a misapplication of WP:ATHLETE, since hurling is not an Olympic sport, so we have to look at the highest available amateur level. In this case, the consensus appears to be that these players meet that "highest" standard. One comment I would make is that many of these are 1-3 line stubs that say basically the same thing, and redirects to some list of players might be more efficient until their careers provide them with more specific coverage. That is, however, and editorial issue since there is no consensus here for me to take such an action. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Moran
- Joe Moran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A young fellow who plays hurling with his local club. Notability that I can perceive: zero. (I got to his page while looking for Joe Moran, unrelated author of the fine book Queuing for Beginners; since there was no article about him, I later went on to create one.)
I am also nominating the following related pages because they're about his teammates and thus are similarly about young sportsmen of (as yet) no discernable notability:
- Ray Ryan (hurler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Barry Johnson (hurler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Tadhg Óg Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Aidan Ryan (hurler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Darren Crowley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Adrian Mannix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ger O'Driscoll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cian McCarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Chris Murphy (hurler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Alan Kennedy (hurler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Craig Leahy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions and the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. / Morenoodles (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. As I read the articles, the team in question plays in the top level of the sport, i.e. division 1 of the National Hurling League, which suggests the team members meet WP:ATHLETE. JulesH (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I see nothing in National Hurling League or related articles that indicates it is a professional league, which means that Moran et al. do not qualify under WP:ATHLETE unless they have competed in the Olympics. THF (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You know that hurling isn't an Olympic sport, right? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That just means that amateur hurlers aren't per se notable unless they meet other WP:N criteria. The top Wiffleball players don't get Wikipedia entries, either. THF (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- What WP:ATHLETE says about amateur athletes is that the following are notable; People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships. So if you have played at the highest amateur level of your sport you can qualify. It doesn't matter if your sport doesn't have Olympic Games or World Championships (or didn't when you played). This is why a hurler like Christy Ring, a Gaelic footballer like Peter Canavan or a 1960s/1970s rugby union player like Colin Meads who have references to show their notablility most definitely qualify for inclusion. Tameamseo (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparing Hurling to Wiffleball demonstrates your total lack of understand of the topic Gnevin (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes: many more people play Wiffleball and Ultimate frisbee than hurling. Which proves my point. THF (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No it proves that more people living in America than Ireland. I'm sure more people play Wiffleball than Rugby union or drive F1 cars should we delete all the Rugby players and racing drivers too ? When was the last time 80,000 people turned up to see a Wiffleball or Ultimate game? Gnevin (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides WP:ILIKEIT, where is the objective dividing line that distinguishes Wiffleball from hurling under WP:ATHLETE? That's all I'm saying. We include top professional athletes and amateur athletes who compete in worldwide championships. A Christy Ring does not meet WP:ATHLETE, but gets an article because he meets WP:BIO. If someone wants to create a Cork County hurling team article, that perhaps meets WP:N. THF (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The dividing line is 80,000 people in Croke Park, units of the GAA across the world, RTÉ and TV3 Ireland broadcasting live game. Hours of radio air time, Thousand of websites. Christy Ring doesn't meet athlete catch a grip would you ? Sports players don't have to be paid to be notable. If you had your way you'd probaly delete everyone in Category:Hurlers because they don't met your concept of a paid sports man. Gnevin (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF, please, I've already said that Christy Ring is notable, and I'm open-minded about this. Educate me: is there a reliable and comprehensive hurling website akin to http://www.baseball-reference.com that articles about minor players can cite? If so, that in conjunction with your argument might persuade me to change my !vote. THF (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I can interrupt...a hurling statistics website with player profiles does exist, but unfortunately it only covers the Championship phase of the season, which runs from May to September. So due to the fact that these hurlers are replacing the 2008 panel who are on strike and none of them has played before this year, profiles of Cork hurlers you'll find there are people like Seán Óg Ó hAilpín who played last year but are now on strike - and Adrian Mannix et al won't be included till May. However, I think there are now enough sources on for example Ray Ryan (hurler) to establish notability. Tameamseo (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF, please, I've already said that Christy Ring is notable, and I'm open-minded about this. Educate me: is there a reliable and comprehensive hurling website akin to http://www.baseball-reference.com that articles about minor players can cite? If so, that in conjunction with your argument might persuade me to change my !vote. THF (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The dividing line is 80,000 people in Croke Park, units of the GAA across the world, RTÉ and TV3 Ireland broadcasting live game. Hours of radio air time, Thousand of websites. Christy Ring doesn't meet athlete catch a grip would you ? Sports players don't have to be paid to be notable. If you had your way you'd probaly delete everyone in Category:Hurlers because they don't met your concept of a paid sports man. Gnevin (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides WP:ILIKEIT, where is the objective dividing line that distinguishes Wiffleball from hurling under WP:ATHLETE? That's all I'm saying. We include top professional athletes and amateur athletes who compete in worldwide championships. A Christy Ring does not meet WP:ATHLETE, but gets an article because he meets WP:BIO. If someone wants to create a Cork County hurling team article, that perhaps meets WP:N. THF (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No it proves that more people living in America than Ireland. I'm sure more people play Wiffleball than Rugby union or drive F1 cars should we delete all the Rugby players and racing drivers too ? When was the last time 80,000 people turned up to see a Wiffleball or Ultimate game? Gnevin (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes: many more people play Wiffleball and Ultimate frisbee than hurling. Which proves my point. THF (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - These don't appear to be notable athletes. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. --Revolución hablar ver 14:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete alll. No evidence of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I might add that none of the pages seems to have been edited since I listed it above, and that as far as I remember the sole claim that was referenced in any of them when I drew up this AfD was that some relative(s) of one of the players had also been a hurler. Morenoodles (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Keep A quick Google search has just enabled me to add numerous references to Joe Moran. I'll add to the others when I have time. Like Colin Meads, Peter Canavan or Christy Ring, there are references demonstrating their notability, and they have played at the highest level of their sport (with the Cork inter-county team) as per WP:ATHLETE. Tameamseo (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Playing at the top level and currently in the middle of a bitter strike. Gnevin (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. All of these references are pure WP:LARD that barely mention Moran, and result in article sentences such as "He did not start for Cork in their loss to Dublin but was drafted in at right half-back against Tipperary." It is impossible to believe that the ARS doesn't have anything better to do. Might I suggest filling in red-links at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law/United_States_federal_judges? THF (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ARS ? Gnevin (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article rescue squadron. THF (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly ARS is it now. Why do users expect a 10,000 word article. 30 interviews ,a sponsorship deal and a book as reference on players who have just started playing at the highest level ? Gnevin (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly? Somebody used the {{rescue}} tag. We don't require "30 interviews," but we do require "significant independent coverage" in a biography, which doesn't exist here. THF (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How many reference do you want for player who's played 3 games ? Gnevin (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that response essentially acknowledging that a player who has played three amateur games of a sport at the local level isn't notable? THF (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's asking how many reference you would like for a player who is playing the second most popular sport in Ireland in the most important league of that sport, a sport which will draw 80,000 people to All-Ireland final but a player who only play 3 games at the highest level. Don't let the word amateur fool you. Hurling is amateur in name only Gnevin (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that response essentially acknowledging that a player who has played three amateur games of a sport at the local level isn't notable? THF (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How many reference do you want for player who's played 3 games ? Gnevin (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly? Somebody used the {{rescue}} tag. We don't require "30 interviews," but we do require "significant independent coverage" in a biography, which doesn't exist here. THF (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly ARS is it now. Why do users expect a 10,000 word article. 30 interviews ,a sponsorship deal and a book as reference on players who have just started playing at the highest level ? Gnevin (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article rescue squadron. THF (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep as per WP:ATHLETE cos played at the top level for his sport, but I see the point about the criteria for notability being stretched. I decided to Keep because inter-county GAA players, although amateur, are notable at a national level (and sometimes at an international level) and citations exist at this level. --HighKing (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All Non-notable, no reliable sources that are individualized to any of these players, they do not meet WP:ATHLETE exception. If there are some individual profiles of some of the stars, then they might make the cut. See athletes like Colt McCoy or Brian Orakpo, who, just for being a college football player, which has an enormous following, are not considered notable under WP:ATHLETE, but their individual coverage met general WP:N notability requirements.--2008Olympianchitchat 17:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the basis for saying that there must be 'individual profiles' of a player and "sources that are individualized to" him before be can be considered notable. "Significant coverage" is all that is required by WP:N. It should be more than trivial but it is NOT the case that it has to be exclusive and individualized solely to the person. Tameamseo (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I agree, but it needs to be significant coverage of the subject of the article, not significant coverage of the sport or event to meet WP:N.--2008Olympianchitchat 05:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so you agree there doesn't have to be a profile of each player? Would you agree that the sources now added on for example Ray Ryan (hurler) are sufficient to demonstrate notability? Tameamseo
- Sure, I agree, but it needs to be significant coverage of the subject of the article, not significant coverage of the sport or event to meet WP:N.--2008Olympianchitchat 05:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the basis for saying that there must be 'individual profiles' of a player and "sources that are individualized to" him before be can be considered notable. "Significant coverage" is all that is required by WP:N. It should be more than trivial but it is NOT the case that it has to be exclusive and individualized solely to the person. Tameamseo (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(talk) 08:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there should be sufficient sources about the player himself.--2008Olympianchitchat 22:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but do you mind answering specifically the two actual questions I posed? I'll copy them here; "OK, so you agree there doesn't have to be a profile of each player? Would you agree that the sources now added on for example Ray Ryan (hurler) are sufficient to demonstrate notability? " Thanks. Tameamseo (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there should be sufficient sources about the player himself.--2008Olympianchitchat 22:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Adrian Mannix Indpendent reliable sources now added for this article. Tameamseo (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ray Ryan Multiple independent reilable sources added to Ray Ryan (hurler), including full article about him in the Sunday Tribune national newspaper. Notability should be obvious. Tameamseo (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More now added, including another national one devoted to his comments, from the Irish Independent this time. Tameamseo (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I understand the arguments being made for "delete", but it appears the article has been improved somewhat; that the sport, while odd to me as a Yank, seems to be quite popular; and since it's in encyclopediac form (ie, not being used as a vanity site), I would suggest it's no different than other articles on sports or sports statistics. Ks64q2 (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not an AFD debate for the sport itself, but rather a player. --Sc straker (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep These are notable athletes playing at the very top level of their sport. The sport itself gets widespread coverage in Ireland along with coverage in UK, USA and Australia. The present definition of notability for amateur athletes states "competed at the highest amateur level of a sport". All of these players have competed at "Inter-county" level which is the highest level you can compete at in Hurling. Surely this means all of these players are notable therefore under amateur notability ?ManfromDelmonte (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the entire guideline on amateur sports, it says that the "highest level" means "the Olympics or World Championships." All other amateur athletes need to meet general notability guidelines.--2008Olympianchitchat 22:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No is says People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships. For usally read normally but not always Gnevin (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2008 Olympian, you are misquoting the critereon. Its says "usually considering to mean Olympic Games or World Championships" as GNevin has pointed out. Your reasoning is based on a misreading of the notability cirtereon. ManfromDelmonte (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No is says People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships. For usally read normally but not always Gnevin (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the entire guideline on amateur sports, it says that the "highest level" means "the Olympics or World Championships." All other amateur athletes need to meet general notability guidelines.--2008Olympianchitchat 22:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This whole AFD seems to have been based on the misreading of a wikipedia notability criteron. The critereon states that amateur players who have played at the highest level of their sport are notable. These players have all played at inter-county level (the very highest level in hurling world-wide) and therefore fullfil this criteron to the letter of the law. A number of delete comments are on the basis that they have not played at the Olympics which isn't what the notability critereon states is a "be all and end all". ManfromDelmonte (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think it's a great pity that the nominator appears to have misunderstood how WP:ATHLETE relates to Gaelic games. The article Gaelic Athletic Association says in its first line that it is an amateur sports association, and a little more reading would have revealed that inter-county competitions are the highest level of competition in GAA sports. A little further reading would have led the nominator to understand that these amateur sports have a massive following in Ireland, something which will be unfamiliar to those from countries such as the USA or the UK where the most popular sports are played by highly-paid professional teams. I think that the time is long overdue for a revision of WP:ATHLETE so that it displays less systemic bias towards the sporting structures of some larger countries. However, that doesn't mean that I will !vote to keep all these articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Split vote:
- Keep Joe Moran, Ray Ryan (hurler), Tadhg Óg Murphy, Adrian Mannix: all these articles have references to demonstrate that they meet the criteria in WP:ATHLETE
- Delete
Barry Johnson (hurler),Aidan Ryan (hurler),Darren Crowley,Ger O'Driscoll, Cian McCarthy, Chris Murphy (hurler), Alan Kennedy (hurler) and Craig Leahy. These articles are wholly unreferenced, so their claims to notability are not supported by any reference, and wikipedia has no business publishing wholly unreferenced biographies of living people (see WP:BLP). No prejudice to recreating these articles at a future date if they are referenced to establish notability. As Jimmy Wales wrote, "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."" It's time to stop pussyfooting around this one and simply delete BLP articles which mock wikipedia's core policies by failing to even provide a reference for the subject's existence, let alone evidence to support the assertion of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have struck out my "delete" !votes for the articles which are now referenced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... and now that the remaining two are referenced, I have struck them all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Comment So all unreferenced articles on wikipedia should be AfDed ? ManfromDelmonte (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that BHG is talking about unreferenced articles about living people. Morenoodles (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Morenoodles is correct. We have a policy of removing unref material from BLP articles, and in cases where the article is wholly unreferenced the only way to remove it is to delete the article. I think that summary deletion should be reserved for extreme cases (poss hoax etc), but none of this should be any surprise to even a new editor. The edit box when starting a new article is clearly preceded by the following warning:
- I believe that BHG is talking about unreferenced articles about living people. Morenoodles (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So all unreferenced articles on wikipedia should be AfDed ? ManfromDelmonte (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references will likely be deleted quickly.
- That warning is there on your first new article and on your thousandth and on your hundred-thousandth. When there's such a clear warning, why do some editors appear surprised when this actually happens? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On notability: You cite WP:ATHLETE. This is actually one section within Wikipedia:Notability (people). Near the top of the latter, we read: Basic criteria / A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. / If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. [...] For Ryan, the secondary material has some volume and depth, and that's why (in the comment close below) I retract my nomination for the deletion of the article on him. However, as far as I have seen, Joe Moran, Tadhg Óg Murphy, and Adrian Mannix are mentioned only fleetingly. For example, several of the sources given to show that this or that player played in this or that match are actually articles that say who's expected to play, and that even in this context merely mention the name of the player (rather than, say, explaining why he's likely to play). Ryan aside, I'd call the sum of all this "trivial coverage". (And as you say, eight other players could be entirely fictional for all we know.) Morenoodles (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On notability reply Your whole argument stand or falls on if playing at the top of you chosen sport is worthy of note. Is it? Not mention these player are playing during a strike.Gnevin (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Morenoodles, please take a moment or two more to read Wikipedia:Notability (people) a little more carefully. You quite accurately cite the basic criteria, but WP:ATHLETE is part of the WP:BIO#Additional_criteria, which begins "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards.". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On notability: You cite WP:ATHLETE. This is actually one section within Wikipedia:Notability (people). Near the top of the latter, we read: Basic criteria / A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. / If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. [...] For Ryan, the secondary material has some volume and depth, and that's why (in the comment close below) I retract my nomination for the deletion of the article on him. However, as far as I have seen, Joe Moran, Tadhg Óg Murphy, and Adrian Mannix are mentioned only fleetingly. For example, several of the sources given to show that this or that player played in this or that match are actually articles that say who's expected to play, and that even in this context merely mention the name of the player (rather than, say, explaining why he's likely to play). Ryan aside, I'd call the sum of all this "trivial coverage". (And as you say, eight other players could be entirely fictional for all we know.) Morenoodles (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Emendation. It was me who made this nomination. I'm impressed by the article on Ray Ryan (hurler) as this now stands, and would like to retract my suggestion that it should be deleted. Morenoodles (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I will give them the benefit of the doubt. I will be the first to admit that I know very little about the sport. Assuming that Gnevin is correct and Hurling can draw 80,000 people to a match, hurling is not just a recreational sport. The sport is just regionalized. So is sumo wrestling, American college football, darts and even cricket. Also, WP:ATHLETE does not say amateur athletes have to participate in the Olympics. 09er (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Every player now has at least 2 references from the national media. Gnevin (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Not quite: Barry Johnson (hurler) and Darren Crowley are still unreferenced. I'll strike out my delete !votes for the others, but those two articles still don't make the grade. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh! Got them now Gnevin (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. I have now struck out the last names from my !vote to delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh! Got them now Gnevin (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Not quite: Barry Johnson (hurler) and Darren Crowley are still unreferenced. I'll strike out my delete !votes for the others, but those two articles still don't make the grade. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong keep for all These are notable athletes playing at the highest highest level of their sport (Ireland's second most popular). They are most certainly notable at a national level. I think WP:ATHLETE should be revised so that similar, unnecessary nomiations don't arise in the future. Derry Boi (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Binyam_Mohamed#Release. Although there were those in this discussion that favoured retention on the basis of notability, very little reason was given. The sources in the article may be reliable for the purposes of establishing facts, but it has not been established that these sources confer notability. As such, the discussion tends towards deletion on the basis that notability is not inherited. In the interests of aiding our readers, I have set up a redirect to the appropriate section of the related article. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yvonne Bradley
- Yvonne Bradley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:BIO./WP:ONEEVENT. There are six footnotes WP:LARDing the article, and none of them are significant independent coverage about the subject of the article; they are all about one of her barely-notable clients that quote her in passing, and the article is a strung-together collection of those quotes. According to the Mohamed article, Bradley wasn't even the client's lead lawyer: that was Clive Stafford Smith. I tried redirecting this to Binyam Mohamed, which this article is entirely redundant of, but an editor recreated the article. THF (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Yvonne Bradley is an extremely notable U.S. lawyer. During Bradley's visit to London in February 2009, she was interviewed in all the media including BBC News, Channel 4 News and The Guardian and met the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, and, without exception, she distinguished herself as a formidable advocate. How THF can describe Binyam Mohamed as "one of her barely-notable clients" is laughable. Or is THF being serious?---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Uh, it doesn't get any better than this for WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrog 00:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Really? The article has zero biographical facts other than her current job title. The cited "profile" is exactly two sentences long. That's not WP:N. THF (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... Here she is front and center on the B-B-freakin-C, in an article about a topic that has garnered immense media attention. Are you telling me you don't think that's enough? That and the profile on the Guardian? If the issue is that biographical details on the article are not backed up by the given references, I'm sure they can be removed or trimmed down. A bio doesn't need to be fully biographical per se if the intent of the article is to document notability, which I think in this case is fair to say is well established. §FreeRangeFrog 00:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing in that cite about her, it's about her case. Merge with the existing article about the case rather than creating two redundant articles. THF (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Contrary to what THF says, that cite gives the following biographical facts about her: "After six years as a regular officer in the judge-advocate general's branch of the US Air Force, Lt-Col Bradley worked for a further seven years for an organisation providing legal representation to death row inmates. She now has a law practice near Philadelphia, which she put on hold while pursuing Mr Mohamed's case. She volunteered following an appeal for military lawyers to take up the cases of Guantanamo detainees in 2005."---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I read that sentence when I wrote what I wrote, and I don't see anything there that contradicts my statement that the only sources mention her in passing. A sentence and a half with a couple of resume details doesn't equate to independent notability. THF (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By my count, that's three sentences. THF doesn't have a case!---PJHaseldine (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A sentence and a half about Bradley, a sentence and a half about the Mohamed case -- and that's before we get to the frivolous position that three sentences confers notability. There's no reason that sentence and a half (or three sentences) can't be in the Mohamed article. THF (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot do better than repeat what FreeRangeFrog said above: "Uh, it doesn't get any better than this for WP:BIO."---PJHaseldine (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the editors of Learned Hand would disagree. If it didn't violate WP:POINT, I'd nominate Yvonne Bradley for featured article status with your endorsement as the pinnacle of Wikipedia biographies.THF (talk)
- Enough said, THF, let other Wikipedia editors now decide whether Yvonne Bradley is or is not notable enough to be included as a WP:BIO.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the editors of Learned Hand would disagree. If it didn't violate WP:POINT, I'd nominate Yvonne Bradley for featured article status with your endorsement as the pinnacle of Wikipedia biographies.THF (talk)
- I cannot do better than repeat what FreeRangeFrog said above: "Uh, it doesn't get any better than this for WP:BIO."---PJHaseldine (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A sentence and a half about Bradley, a sentence and a half about the Mohamed case -- and that's before we get to the frivolous position that three sentences confers notability. There's no reason that sentence and a half (or three sentences) can't be in the Mohamed article. THF (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By my count, that's three sentences. THF doesn't have a case!---PJHaseldine (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I read that sentence when I wrote what I wrote, and I don't see anything there that contradicts my statement that the only sources mention her in passing. A sentence and a half with a couple of resume details doesn't equate to independent notability. THF (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Contrary to what THF says, that cite gives the following biographical facts about her: "After six years as a regular officer in the judge-advocate general's branch of the US Air Force, Lt-Col Bradley worked for a further seven years for an organisation providing legal representation to death row inmates. She now has a law practice near Philadelphia, which she put on hold while pursuing Mr Mohamed's case. She volunteered following an appeal for military lawyers to take up the cases of Guantanamo detainees in 2005."---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing in that cite about her, it's about her case. Merge with the existing article about the case rather than creating two redundant articles. THF (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now. She is on the cusp and future cases and legal situations could easily put her into a clearly notable light, but as for right now it does not appear to be justified. JRP (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This lawyer is notable. Unionsoap (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - The Guantanamo tribunals are notable. She is not. This is a disturbing trend I'm seeing, where a lawyer is getting a wikipedia article for no other reason than taking part in a case that is worthy of a wikipedia article, as though notability were contagious. Just because her case was notable does not mean that she is. The article is also loaded with POV puffery. "Promises Kept" as a section? Yow. If you stripped out the POV stuff, there would be very little left. If you then took out her WP:ONEEVENT single notable case, there'd be nothing left but her name, rank
and serial number. TJRC (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Juan Ciuro
- Juan Ciuro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE and couldn't find any news sources on him. The page was initially created by his publisher, who was then blocked for spamming. Shortly thereafter, User:JLKDallas appeared and created the identical article in the same odd fashion. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If this is the best job a self-promotional editor can do, it doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE, and I'm not inclined to look for further evidence of notability. THF (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:00, 3 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. yandman 16:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
George Carruthgers (kickboxer)
- George Carruthgers (kickboxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This was originally a proposed deletion that was about to expire. I removed the prod tag because I saw an objection to the deletion on the talk page. However I do believe the article should be deleted. There are no third-party reliable sources to show why this person is notable, furthermore much of the information is not verified which is a clear violation of WP:BLP. There is a spirited defense of the article on the talk page, but I'm not convinced of its veracity. -- Atamachat 21:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —- Atamachat 22:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —- Atamachat 22:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —- Atamachat 22:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No references, absolutely no Google footprint even when one spells his name right. THF (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The 'karate career' is copied from here [7]. Much of the detail in the 'profesional career' (and the stuff on the talk page) from here. [8]. I don't think he satisfies WP:Athlete, and I'm not sure what the notability guidelines for chiropractors are - certainly seems to have published a lot. I think with a lot of work this article would make a reasonable stub. pablohablo. 11:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, no reliable sources, does not meet WP:ATHLETE exception.--2008Olympianchitchat 17:43, 2 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Charles_Randal_Smith#William_Mullins-Johnson. The material here is clearly considered worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, but the concerns over WP:BLP1E within this debate suggest that a merge/redirect of content is necessary. I am not competent to perform the merge, but the material is available in the history, which will not be deleted. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Mullins-Johnson
- Bill Mullins-Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
According to WP:BLP1E, articles such as these where the person is notable for one event should be included in an article on the event with the name redirected. In this case, Mr. Mullins-Johnson is only notable for having been wrongly convicted. I'm not sure if his specific case is notable enough to have its own article, but the pathologist that caused his wrongful conviction has dozens of other similar cases to his name, thus there may be cause to include this information in an article about him or the wrongful convictions he has caused. Adam Zel (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Adam Zel (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Adam Zel (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep — while the wrongful conviction was a single event, the news story ran for over a year in Canada, and still occasionally pops up. There have been a series of similar high-profile wrongful convictions in Canada, they remain a current topic (see the info box at the bottom of the article for the other names), and many of the names are familiar to the average Canadian. David (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One further thought: this might be a matter of different cultural perspectives. In Canada, the notability of the victim of a wrongful murder conviction (where the victim has served a significant amount of time) is huge — they're national lead stories for weeks or years, and names like Donald Marshall or Steven Truscott are probably better known than most of our medal-winning Olympic athletes (the Mullins-Johnson case is more recent, but it still belongs in the same group). I can understand why an American Wikipedian might be puzzled at the notability of stories like these, since for the U.S. media, wrongful-conviction stories are usually minor (if they go national at all) and quickly dropped, and compensation for the victims is strictly limited (in Canada, it can amount to over a million dollars, and the compensation hearings are major national stories in themselves). David (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how the fact that the series of similar wrongful convictions remaining a current topic makes this article an exception to BLP1E? As I said in the nomination, if the series is notable, which I think it may be, then they should all be included in one article together. Report on the event, not the person. Adam Zel (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See my additional comment above, Adam. BPL1E applies only if the person remains a "low-profile individual." If a single event results in long-running notability — say, winning the Tour-de-France, or assassinating a major public figure — then it's not applicable. Wrongful convictions don't generally result in long-running notability in the U.S., but they do in Canada — the last national news story to mention Mullins-Johnson, according to Google News, was only a couple of weeks ago [9] David (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. [...] Cover the event, not the person." (Emphasis not mine). Adam Zel (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to play devil's advocate, would you then nominate the John Wilkes Booth article for deletion? Perhaps you could argue that he was also notable as an actor, so how about Mark David Chapman? No rules can be applied purely mechanically, or else we could just use bots to delete articles — you have to apply some human judgement, no matter how the policy doc is written. I understand that the final consensus might be one that I don't agree with, but clearly just quoting chapter and verse of BLP1E isn't going to resolve this or any other RFD — it's just one of many pieces of input we have to consider. David (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a large body of work studying Booth's life, motivation, etc. No such body exists here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly the kind of judgement I'm talking about. There's not the same large body for Mark David Chapman, but there probably have been books written about him, so I'm assuming that no one's arguing to delete that article. Is the Steven Truscott article safe for the same reason (famous for only one event, but several books written and, I think, a television movie)? Obviously, there's a lot more to discuss than just BLP1E. David (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both Booth and Chapman have books written about them among a great deal of other works. Mullins-Johnson does not. Adam Zel (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a large body of work studying Booth's life, motivation, etc. No such body exists here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to play devil's advocate, would you then nominate the John Wilkes Booth article for deletion? Perhaps you could argue that he was also notable as an actor, so how about Mark David Chapman? No rules can be applied purely mechanically, or else we could just use bots to delete articles — you have to apply some human judgement, no matter how the policy doc is written. I understand that the final consensus might be one that I don't agree with, but clearly just quoting chapter and verse of BLP1E isn't going to resolve this or any other RFD — it's just one of many pieces of input we have to consider. David (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. [...] Cover the event, not the person." (Emphasis not mine). Adam Zel (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See my additional comment above, Adam. BPL1E applies only if the person remains a "low-profile individual." If a single event results in long-running notability — say, winning the Tour-de-France, or assassinating a major public figure — then it's not applicable. Wrongful convictions don't generally result in long-running notability in the U.S., but they do in Canada — the last national news story to mention Mullins-Johnson, according to Google News, was only a couple of weeks ago [9] David (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how the fact that the series of similar wrongful convictions remaining a current topic makes this article an exception to BLP1E? As I said in the nomination, if the series is notable, which I think it may be, then they should all be included in one article together. Report on the event, not the person. Adam Zel (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure deletion is the best course of action here, but perhaps merging the content or redirecting it to another article is. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to and Rewrite as R. v. Mullins-Johnson, the underlying court case per WP:BLP1E, which, as Dpm64 notes, is notable. THF (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks THF. That's an interesting suggestion, but it runs into two other problems: (1) there's not just the initial trial and its resumption years later, but also the forthcoming hearings for compensation; and (2) while Bill Mullins-Johnson's name is well known, the trial name isn't. BIO1E gives some guidance here: "In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved." "R. v. Mullins-Johnson" gets 43 Google hits (mostly legal sources); "Bill Mullins-Johnson" gets 352 hits. David (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Bill Mullins-Johnson page will redirect to the case after the moving, so the Google search problem isn't an issue. Any civil compensation hearings can be covered in an "Aftermath" section. I'm not proposing losing any content, just for standardizing how we handle articles of this type. If there wasn't an AfD pending, I would just be WP:BOLD and do it. THF (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete The point of WP:BLP1E is to recognize that in some instances the amount of media coverage is not the best indication of whether information about the person is best offered in a separate encyclopedia article about the person. Although the coverage is widespread, the person is known for the one event so information about the person is best offered in an article about the event. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to an article about the event will allow people looking for information to find it. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Coverage has been sustained over a period of time. As for the name of the article, it is perfectly fine. This article is about Mullins-Johnson and his wrongful conviction. It is not about a wrongful conviction, and oh, by the way, Mullins-Johnson is involved in it in some way. He is the primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (move content and redirect) to the section in Charles Randal Smith. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom and Flo. There is no real need for this BLP to have an article. Wizardman 21:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment It's probably a bad idea to look at this article in isolation: need to consider it together with Donald Marshall, Jr., Steven Truscott, Robert Baltovich, David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, and James Driskell, all of whom are notable for the same reason, and often discussed together in Canada. David (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to the appropriate section in Charles Randal Smith. This individual's wrongful conviction is fairly noteworthy in Canada (and thus is a likely search term, hence the proposed redirect), but not at the same level as those mentioned by User:Dpm64; those other wrongful convictions were specifically related to the individual, whereas Mullins-Johnson's was one of a series of criminal charges (some leading to wrongful convictions) related to the evidence given by Smith. In other words, it is the event (the conviction) that is notable, not the individual, and all similar events related to Smith should be grouped together. I'll note that Charles Randal Smith needs some work as well, mainly in linking available sources to the information in the article. Risker (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John R. Palmer
- John R. Palmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article makes several claims to notability, but none of them seem anywhere close to fulfilling the criteria at WP:BIO. It claims his songs have been heard "in Scandinavia, across North America, and in the Caribbean during the St. Lucia Country Music Festival." Only the last item is a real claim, and I can find nothing about this festival except in connection with him. His one book was published by vanity press iUniverse. He hosts a syndicated radio show which is "on hiatus." His "political career" consisted of announcing a run for city council then changing his mind. He apparently has done some environmental work that was "accessed thousands of times from inside Ottawa City Hall," but it's all worded very vaguely and doesn't seem notable at all. Lastly, he also coined a word on the Internet. Even taken as a whole, these achievements don't seem anywhere near our notability criteria. This article reads like a resume more than anything else, especially as it includes information on things like which colleges he got into. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search does verify Editor:Clarks claims. Article's purpose may be self satisfaction. Too ambiguous and vague. Unless new infomation is added, as of now, I would say...Delete--Buster7 (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)...My initial DELETE was since it looked like the article was self composed (I admit I failed to check history)..but now that Editor:BMW has staightened that out, I would like to withdraw my support of deleting. That is unless BMW IS John R Palmer????[reply]
- Delete. There are no sources supporting the claims in the article or establishing notability. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. (original editor) This is an article that I first started ages ago, and yes became a bit of a pet project. In 2003 when Mr. Palmer actually ran for city Council against the toughest opponent in the city, I was a senior student in journalism. The City of Ottawa website (a city of almost a million people) makes numerous mentions. A simple g-search will turn up plenty of hits. I have slowly added ref's from the local papers as I can find them - unfortunately, the journalism databases do not always hold them. The Ottawa Citizen (the large city newspaper) has featured him in relation to the 2003 election, his work on Ottawa Transit. Canada's National Broadcaster, CBC also has a few hits. He actually wrote articles for the Nepean This Week newspaper. iUniverse is, according to the New York Times, not and "vanity press". A good number of wikilinks. Sure, I probably threw some cruft into the article that I was able to glean through small articles, internet searches, and *gasp* press conferences where I was able to ask questions in open forums. As Mr. Palmer sells the full rights to his songs, I was not even permitted to list the ones you might have heard on the radio on the page - this is not something I can fix easily. Before this becomes WP:TLDNR, I wanted to clarify some of the misinformation above. Many other editors have added and edited this article over the past 6 years or so. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 07:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- iUniverse is a print-on-demand self-publisher who charges an upfront fee to the author for publication. That is the definition of a vanity press. And I still don't think losing (by a lot) in a city council race is grounds for political notability. And finally, with a name this common, Google hits really aren't meaningful at all. Even in the first few pages of results for "john r. palmer," many are clearly not him. I'm still not seeing non-trivial coverage from a variety of sources. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, searching for "john palmer" and "john r. palmer" restricted to ottawa.ca returned only items about the results of his city council election bid and this, which mentions him only in one sentence. I'm not seeing "numerous mentions" here. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the terminology is slightly more nuanced. See this page for more details. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting link, thanks. I guess by those definitions they are a "subsidy publisher" then. At any rate, the point is that they are not a traditional selective publisher and simply having had a book published by them is not any indication of the book's notability even on a very minimal level. -Elmer Clark (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 05:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article content and references do not establish evidence of life achievements that indicate an encyclopedia article is warranted. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:29, 5 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neil P. Munro
- Neil P. Munro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While it's not difficult to find works with Munro's byline, it is difficult to find works about Munro—which is what matters for WP:CREATIVE. I haven't been able to find sufficient sources to show that he meets the standard. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article is irretrievably POV. NPOV and BLP demand that we delete it. Even if he's actually notable, a fresh start is needed. Powers T 15:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Powers. Drmies (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Neil Munro; OK, Wikipedia must have criteria for exclusion & inclusion, but I do think I meet this test; "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Here is the borderline example, which I must and do beat; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ed_Lowe_(journalist) My articles have spawned discussion at the left-of-center blogs, such as the Deltoid blog (those peope don't like my stories about the lousy Lancet studies on Iraq war-deaths. FWIW, my sidebar story on the Lancet=study ethics problems got the main author sanctioned by Johns Hopkins U.), as well as on the right-of-center Powerline, Weekly Standard and National Review blogs. I was the repotter who jump-started the articles about Obamas's unverified crdit-card donations, and the Pentagon's growing interest in cyber-war [back in 98, ii think, and those cyber-war articles prompted a 'Dear Colleague Letter' in the Senate). I've also been widely cited in D.C. debates on stem-cells. You can also find online discussions about my fake-photo articles, and my immigration articles. My work for NJ is mostly behind the subscription wall, but it is widely read in DC, many of whose political adovcates broadcast it via their e-mail lists. If nothing else, you can check me out on Google, and I rank above the Socttish novelist of the same name. That alone shows that I've met the "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" test. For "neil munro" and "national journal," I've got 17,600 mentions on Yahoo, 3,580 on google and 1,590 on MSN. I meet the 'creative' criteria for being "widely cited by their peers." I can also claim to meet "played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject ....of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." That's especially true of the Obama, cyber-war, fake-photo and stem-cell stories. The POV argument is reasonable charge. I suppose I should write the description it in a flatter style. I should also include that fact that I authored a poorly written, low-selling but useful book, titled "Electronic Combat." St. Martins published it, and kept about 90 percent of the revenue. I meet your reasonable & needed tests for notability. I hope you also meet your tests for fairness. I hope my next text meets your requirement for POV. Neil —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilPMunro (talk • contribs) 05:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: NeilPMunro (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
- Since you're reading policy pages, you might want to read up on Wikipedia:Autobiography as well. Powers T 13:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might also want to read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, Other stuff exists, and Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. While they're essays (i.e., not official WP policies), they contain plenty of useful information.
- A word of advice: if you really want the article on you stick around, the strongest argument you can make is to add links to third-party articles written about you to the article's talk page. That's articles about you personally, not articles responding to articles you've written or articles citing articles you've written. This is a common issue with journalists; there's often plenty of reliable sources about their work, but little to nothing about them personally. And in order to write a biographical article, that's what's needed. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep and stub. The current article doesn't even have anything that can be stubbed, but there's a case to be made for notability because of press coverage of Munro & Cannon's expose of the Lancet and there may be a couple of other pieces out there. I'll flag the article for rescue. THF (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per LtPowers. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 09:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 03:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as notability is not established, and the obvious COI issue. Adam Zel (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 05:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Sinek
- Simon Sinek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems to be an an advert for a consultant, and a resume Nate1481 22:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481 22:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481 22:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article needs serious pruning (I started a bit already), but articles like [10] and [11], and this search, make a strong enough case for inclusion. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup per Drmies Camw (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep needs cleanup but is notable. RP459 (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - sources don't seem to be strong enough to confer notability. May be misinterpreting, though. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:33, 1 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Non-notable plus subject requested deletion? Bye bye article. Wizardman 17:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naomi Westerman
- Naomi Westerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Repeat WP:BLP violations about claimed sexuality and ethnicity and also non notable trivial things about subject. IP editors keep changing reversions back, but their only source she is gay and a gay activist is a website, it could be Westerman's or it could be from any one. No sources for notability. No articles from reliable sources about her. Only source in the article is a out of print book with Naomi Westerman, "collaborator," there's no reviews or any thing to say this is the same person. One article at Google News has Naomi Westerman in it, it is an obituary from America, a different person. The subject is not notable by WP:ENTERTAINER, the article says she has uncredited or minor roles in shorts and other films bu no reliable source for it or for acclaim or any thing about the roles. RetroS1mone talk 17:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I base this pretty much on visiting her official website (as publicized on the article page). Nothing against the young lady, and she seems to be starting out a career quite nicely, but if her own web page can't convince me of her notability (Youtube videos and a filmography of small films, activities as an "understudy" etc.). That, and when the intro paragraph to the article states: "From the Internet Movie Database, in 2002 she acted in a seven-minute clip called Clinic." --Quartermaster (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even if there were reliable sources, there's nothing really notable in the article itself. Just a bunch of vague items such as "National Poetry Competition", "Short Film". --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep' Ms Westerman is a successful stage actress and has played lead stage roles, TV, and been in press articles. A national women's magazine called her "Britain's Ellen Page' in August. Google shows many hits, two fansites, a Maxim news story saying she was considered for a Bond film. She came out to an American gay magazine (feature on the film). Cites for articles, reviews and awards won, and list of lead theatrical credits, scans of book page or a local news article from the time the poetry book was published, we can add. Assume Good Faith in asking for details and cites, not blanking. Site linked is a fansite put up by a relative not touched in a year. IMDB links to wrong Clinic. Editor who asked for article to be deleted seems to be the anon who vandalized it twice recently (adding pejorative uncited statements). We believe it is a certain person who knows her offline as prior edits showed personal knowledge. Wiki is not the place to settle personal problems. Editor's nom is based on the very heavy edits, adding uncited claims and blanking much of page, they did immediately before nominating. So heavily editing an article before putting it up for deletion is poor form surely?
Louis (her manager). 80.44.181.2 (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC) — 80.44.181.2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. Regardless of this, the version I'm currently seeing (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naomi_Westerman&oldid=246173448) still doesn't meet notability. If there's another version we should be using for this debate, please let us know. Thank You --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Maxim news story saying she was considered for a Bond film" claim is not quite what my search finds. My search finds an article on an unofficial fansite, quoting part of an undated interview (not news story) in Maxim, that the writer says was forwarded to him by someone with a pseudonym and that I cannot find in Maxim's archive when checking it directly, where the interviewee essentially gives no information at all, and upon which the fansite author bases obviously wild personal speculation with no fact checking at all. Saying that it's not the most reliable of sources is putting it mildly, and the aforequoted description is seriously in error.
And I cannot find any "Britain's Ellen Page" source anywhere. Uncle G (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if it matters much anyway. Being 'considered' for a Bond film is not great evidence of notability Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note — reported to WP:COIN. MuZemike (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. Louis' accusings are baseless, I am not an actor, I do not know Ms Westerman, I did not vandalize any thing, I saw this article bc an editor on the article also edited an article on my watch-list with blp violations so I checked out the other contributions. Try Google News archives, there is nothing about any Ms Westerman. No offense from me either but this person is not notable yet. RetroS1mone talk 02:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but regardless, the user in question's involvement in the article and in this AfD is a conflict of interest and needs to be taken seriously, especially when there is a potential BLP issue present. MuZemike (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. Louis' accusings are baseless, I am not an actor, I do not know Ms Westerman, I did not vandalize any thing, I saw this article bc an editor on the article also edited an article on my watch-list with blp violations so I checked out the other contributions. Try Google News archives, there is nothing about any Ms Westerman. No offense from me either but this person is not notable yet. RetroS1mone talk 02:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am her biggest fan since I saw her in C'est la Vie (french film) and I came to london to see her in theater. Starhunterfan (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please delete my page, as I'm not comfortable with some things on it being public, and I don't want to fight with someone who might be my stalker! (if you're not him I'm very sorry). Thank you! Naomi Westerman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naomi westerman (talk • contribs) 11:28, 19 October 2008 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to TalkSPORT. MBisanz talk 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Incenzo
- Tony Incenzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
tv sports reporter on skytv channel, fails WP:N, time given for sources to be cited, none given -Zeus-uc 20:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to TalkSPORT. --Sigma 7 (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 28 February 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete - Given references do not establish notability as they are not reliable.. Chillum 15:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Cotterill
- Tim Cotterill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete First prod read: "no sources since being tagged in May 2008, quick Google search shows no reason to believe this person is notable by Wikipedia standards. Worldcat search for the ISBNs listed as his books show no matches for either." A prod tag in agreement was added, saying: "Falls well short of WP:BIO, with no independent coverage in reliable sources. Even the cited books are self-published." Both of these prod tags, as well as the tags about no sources and etc., were remoeved by an editor who claimed he added sources but added more links to the artist's own site, a mere blog, and the claims to being world famous as written by the artist statement as put on the web page of a gallery selling his work. This is a massive failure of WP:RS standards (no reliable, independent sources), and the article was created by the artist himself. DreamGuy (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I like this guy for obvious reasons (and I'm about to jack his GFDLed images) but without RS this is really just a vanity piece. WP:NOTWEBHOST, and I can't see anything there that would squeeze him through WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrog 22:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Two delete votes changed in a row today on rescued AfDs. This is a far better sourced article, certainly worth preserving. §FreeRangeFrog 04:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I speedy'd it (but it got rightfully declined), but it still fails BIO and RS. Only sources are self-published. flaminglawyer 00:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This artist is creating a very unique and valuable ($$) contribution to the world of art sculptures. You can see images of his art on most of the over 13,700 google hits [12] that reference him. His art is carried by what must be hundred's of galleries from around the world. Subject meets the criteria for WP:CREATIVE; The person's work has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition; and/or is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries. Esasus (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If what you are claiming is even remotely true, then you should have no problems finding sources that meet WP:RS to document it. Considering you were the editor who removed the prod tags and added sources that dramatically fail WP:RS as your justification for doing so, I can only conclude that the above is just bluff and bluster. From your talk page comments and edit history it seems you make a habit of going around removing prods and voting keep on most everything. DreamGuy (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you making this so personal? Why do you feel the need to comment against every editor who has a different point of view than your own? Please allow other editors to make their comments without your harassment.Esasus (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So educating you about policies you either do not know or care to follow is harassment? Explaining why someone's arguments are wrong is somehow bad when I do it, but when you try (and fail) you think that's perfectly fine? You have a pretty odd idea of how you think things should work here. DreamGuy (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Esasus. You only need to glance through the available google news results to see that this is clearly a notable artist we're discussing. JulesH (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only 43 hits in Google news, which is extremely low for a supposed world-famous artist. Many are clearly just reprints of pres releases sent out by the author himself. I'm not seeing any in here that would meet both the nontrivial mention AND the independent, third party criteria of our rules for such things. DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but almost all of those 43 are reliable sources. Almost all of those 43 are specifically about this artist, and are not trivial mentions as they go into some depth about his work and its reception. They provide evidence that he was featured on a regional TV show. They provide evidence that his work has featured in significant exhibitions in a number of locations. Take together, they provide plenty of sources for this article, and clearly are sufficient to pass WP:N, so I don't understand what people seem to have against this artist? JulesH (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per policy, press releases are not independent of the subject. Can someone point to specific references that are believed to demonstrate notability? References to a page of search results are not helpful. Bongomatic 06:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. However none of the items I linked to are press releases, and very few (perhaps only one) of those in the google search are. JulesH (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per policy, press releases are not independent of the subject. Can someone point to specific references that are believed to demonstrate notability? References to a page of search results are not helpful. Bongomatic 06:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but almost all of those 43 are reliable sources. Almost all of those 43 are specifically about this artist, and are not trivial mentions as they go into some depth about his work and its reception. They provide evidence that he was featured on a regional TV show. They provide evidence that his work has featured in significant exhibitions in a number of locations. Take together, they provide plenty of sources for this article, and clearly are sufficient to pass WP:N, so I don't understand what people seem to have against this artist? JulesH (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only 43 hits in Google news, which is extremely low for a supposed world-famous artist. Many are clearly just reprints of pres releases sent out by the author himself. I'm not seeing any in here that would meet both the nontrivial mention AND the independent, third party criteria of our rules for such things. DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
frog break 1
Delete as nominated. Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. X MarX the Spot (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the work done by Schmidt MQ. Well done Michael. X MarX the Spot (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable independent sources cited - all his own, or galleries selling his stuff. Also, Wikipedia should not be used for self-promotion. JohnCD (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without a doubt. I have looked at all the citations given, and given my findings in detail on the article's talk page, but in brief, as JohnCD says above, they are "his own, or galleries selling his stuff". The claims above that it should be kept on the basis of lots of Google hits indicate, I think, a lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is about, quite apart from the questionable nature of those hits, as mentioned above by others. As for the comment "This artist is creating a very unique and valuable ($$) contribution ...", I wonder what on earth the writer thinks Wikipedia is supposed to be.
JamesBWatson (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer the above question: I think that Wikipedia is supposed to be a compendium of information compiled on Wikipedia for ease of reference for anyone who wishes to utilize it. The article on this artist is useful. Tim Cotterill art can be found "everywhere". He is notable by the prolific nature of his art. It seems to me that those arguing for delete are suggesting that because google hits show galleries selling his art, the article should be deleted because of self-promotion. An artist must be a self-promoter to be successful. This artist is successful. I seems to me that the real issue is Wikipedia:I Don't Like It.Esasus (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well not really. It's been explained that the issues here are WP:BIO and WP:RS. Whether WP editors like this fellow's tacky sculptures or otherwise is beside the point. No one has produced independent reliable sources which would support Mr Cotterill's inclusion in the 'pedia. I would humbly suggest you find such sources or desist. X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article and its incoming link in Frogman (disambiguation) serve to clarify an extra and possibly confusing re-use of the word "frogman" that people may find in the public media. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He is very notable. Even if the several The Gallery links publish a similar artist bio, it does not diminish that fact that all of these many Galleries are all third party sources which evidence that they display this artist. 13,700 hits! What is the debate? Keep this article. Wordssuch (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Above editor account was created today, exists solely to make some trivial edits, vote on a couple of AFDs, and to go around adding what appear to be bad faith deletion tags to articles I created. Looks like a clear sockpuppet/revenge account. DreamGuy (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is DreamGuy, and why is he so antagonistic?Wordssuch (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What, you thought that I wasn't going to notice and be a little upset at your going through the list of articles I created, many of which are years old and have been edited by hundreds of people, and putting completely pointless tags at the top of them claiming that they aren't notable and filing ridiculous speedy deletes and prods for reasons that if applied to this article would have had it deleted days ago already? Well, whatever. Petty harassment isn't going to work. This article will be deleted and the ones you tagged won't, because mine follow Wikipedia policies and this one doesn't. DreamGuy (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is DreamGuy, and why is he so antagonistic?Wordssuch (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Above editor account was created today, exists solely to make some trivial edits, vote on a couple of AFDs, and to go around adding what appear to be bad faith deletion tags to articles I created. Looks like a clear sockpuppet/revenge account. DreamGuy (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
frog break 2
- Delete Despite my earlier involvement in formatting and cleaning up this article, notability is not established by the references and no other significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the person who seconded the prod. The problem remains: it's still a vanity page with nothing from independent reliable sources to demonstrate WP:BIO. Listing his publications doesn't help the cause: third person reviews of his work (not on a blog or anything that is self published like a fansite) would. B.Wind (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per meeting the requirements of WP:CREATIVE in that the article's sources (added since nomination) now show "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries." His strange little frogs have been a significant part or the entire focus of dozens of exhibitions across the US. Its wild. Its bronze. And it croaks. Sad that the article has sat unattended since May, but it will greatly benefit form copyedit and expansion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of those exhibitions, galleries, or museums is notable? Note that I'm not claiming that none of them is, just that none is identified as such. There are dozens of non-notable exhibitions, galleries, and museums all across the US. Bongomatic 07:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually not a concern, as guideline states "substantial part of a significant exhibition", and has no requirement that the venue holding the exhibition has to itself be notable. If you insist I do some pointless search, I can likley find suitable articles about enough of the galleies apart from the frogman, to show that they themselves have enough notability. Sheesh. There are hundreds of them. Must I really do all that work for you? Let's use logic for a moment. Galleries do not show works if they do not have enough notability to interest patrons... or if patrons do not respond well, the work does not survive attemps to show at other galleries and quickly vanishes. This guy has been in hundreds. Stupid frogs. And the hundreds of exhibitions over 35 years aside, being notable enough to be on NBC shows a reliable source that further acknowledges his work as notable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a creative, but specious argument. There is no assumption that the random commercial enterprise (and that's what a gallery is) is notable. Most are not. While I don't think there's a guideline on notability of art galleries, one imagines that such a guideline would start with the idea that notable galleries (a) hold exhibitions that receive significant media coverage in independent reliable sources; (b) exhibit works of notable artists (this is seemingly circular until you remember that most artists do not claim notability simply by being exhibited at certain galleries); or (c), like anything, they receive significant non-trivial coverage about themselves. Hence, to demonstrate notability, the notability of the galleries must also be demonstrated. The inclusion of the word "notable" to "exhibition" and to "galleries or museums" in WP:CREATIVE cannot be interpreted to be meaningless, which the gravity-defying logic in the previous comment would do.
- The same logic applies to the notability of specific exhibitions. Bongomatic 08:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now who's making a specious argument? WP:CREATIVE is a part of WP:PEOPLE and has been refined over and over by better editors than you or I. I will not second guess these editors or wonder why they included that sentence "substantial part of a significant exhibition" in WP:CREATIVE to define a requirement of notability and then somehow "forgot" to demand that the exhibition or gallery itself had to be notable in order for that requirement to apply. In all their wisdom and years of refining CREATIVE, they did not. And despite protestations, the gallery itself need not meet a criteria that does not yet exist. You are quite welcome to write up a "guideline" to describe what nakes a gallery notable or not.. and then include that seperate notability requirement in CREATIVE... but until that guideline exists, I will happily accept what WP:CREATIVE does require and your own quite creative supposition falls apart. The article is about an artist. His work meets the requirements of guideline. The article is not about a gallery. Point of information, much of your idea was discussed at the failed proposal Wikipedia:Notability (artists)... but as a guideline it was rejected. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm . . . I guess we disagree over what a "significant" exhibition is. It seems obvious to me that to be "significant", an exhibition has to meet some hurdle other than "it happened". To refactor the original question above, what is the indication that any of the exhibitions is "significant"? Bongomatic 09:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might have looked yourself, no? Sheesh. At just a quck peek, Lamantia Gallery, Vinings Gallery, Christopher Bell Gallery, Borsini-Burr Gallery, Devin Gallery, Hallmark Fine Arts Gallery, Shaffer Fine Art Gallery, et all look like they may have enough on them to pass an imaginary WP:Notability (gallery). As for significant... a broader question, as what is significant to an art gallery is not significant to a baseball stadium. Does your new question mean that the exhibition has to be entirely dedicated to one artist's work? Or that the artist's work comprise a major part of an overall exhibition at a gallery? Does the exhibitian have to be significant to the artists in its area? Or is it expected that an exhibition only counts if its at some prestigious location? Does significant mean it must be significant the artists in its area? Or that it must shake the walls of the Lourve? It is rare that art exhibitions receive coverage outside the area where the exhibition is being held. It is a rare event (like the travelling King Tut stuff of some years back) that even gets press coverage... so notability must be considered in context with what is being considered. Damn frogs. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm . . . I guess we disagree over what a "significant" exhibition is. It seems obvious to me that to be "significant", an exhibition has to meet some hurdle other than "it happened". To refactor the original question above, what is the indication that any of the exhibitions is "significant"? Bongomatic 09:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now who's making a specious argument? WP:CREATIVE is a part of WP:PEOPLE and has been refined over and over by better editors than you or I. I will not second guess these editors or wonder why they included that sentence "substantial part of a significant exhibition" in WP:CREATIVE to define a requirement of notability and then somehow "forgot" to demand that the exhibition or gallery itself had to be notable in order for that requirement to apply. In all their wisdom and years of refining CREATIVE, they did not. And despite protestations, the gallery itself need not meet a criteria that does not yet exist. You are quite welcome to write up a "guideline" to describe what nakes a gallery notable or not.. and then include that seperate notability requirement in CREATIVE... but until that guideline exists, I will happily accept what WP:CREATIVE does require and your own quite creative supposition falls apart. The article is about an artist. His work meets the requirements of guideline. The article is not about a gallery. Point of information, much of your idea was discussed at the failed proposal Wikipedia:Notability (artists)... but as a guideline it was rejected. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually not a concern, as guideline states "substantial part of a significant exhibition", and has no requirement that the venue holding the exhibition has to itself be notable. If you insist I do some pointless search, I can likley find suitable articles about enough of the galleies apart from the frogman, to show that they themselves have enough notability. Sheesh. There are hundreds of them. Must I really do all that work for you? Let's use logic for a moment. Galleries do not show works if they do not have enough notability to interest patrons... or if patrons do not respond well, the work does not survive attemps to show at other galleries and quickly vanishes. This guy has been in hundreds. Stupid frogs. And the hundreds of exhibitions over 35 years aside, being notable enough to be on NBC shows a reliable source that further acknowledges his work as notable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of those exhibitions, galleries, or museums is notable? Note that I'm not claiming that none of them is, just that none is identified as such. There are dozens of non-notable exhibitions, galleries, and museums all across the US. Bongomatic 07:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
frog break 3
- Delete The sources in the article look impressive at first sight, but all appear to be promotional in nature and not reliable. The subject may well be notable, but currently, I can't see the evidence of it. --Dweller (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Several google news results. Notable. Also 4 magazines found here which means the artist exceeds all notability.
- "Western Art & Architecture" - Spring/Fall 2008
- "Art World News" - January 2008
- "Collect It!" - March 2008
- Arts d'Elles et d'Ils - November 2008 Ikip (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you trust the artist' own web page on that? If we had independent sources, sure. We don't know that these are not paid advertising, etc. And, as mentioned a zilliont ime above and on talk, the news results are primarily trivial and reprints of press releases. How sloppy. DreamGuy (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DreamGuy, I did not so naive to post these articles in an attempt to convince you, please.
- So you trust the artist' own web page on that?
- No, I trust me own eyes. Take two seconds to look at the site. The sculptor added photos and links to the articles in question. I know that the long article in Collect will not qualify as an indepent source to you, nor the Arts d'Elles et d'Ils, but I think other netural editors will see that notability policy has been met. Ikip (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Western Art & Architecture" is a paid-membership publication, so this artist's profile there is self-authored and therefore not a legitimate source. freshacconci talktalk 19:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you verify that Freshacconci? thanks Ikip (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just doing that now. freshacconci talktalk 19:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a link to his member's profile. At the top of the page there's info on becoming a member. Notice the text in the member's profile is identical to the text in the artist's profile he shows on his website as an independent feature in Western Art & Architecture. freshacconci talktalk 19:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just doing that now. freshacconci talktalk 19:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Collect It! and Arts d'Elles et d'Ils appear to be trade publications with a (possible) pay-to-play situation. It's difficult to find much about Art World News. This may be a legitimate third-party source, but as such would appear to be the only one. freshacconci talktalk 19:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I took a look at the info page for Arts d'Elles et d'Ils found here. My English-Canadian high school French is piss-poor, but the gist of what it says is that there is no selection criteria for appearing in this magazine. It may not be a paid listing but it's an open listing. Someone with more advanced French may want to double-check my translation, but if I'm correct, this is not a legitimate source. freshacconci talktalk 19:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- RE nominators messsage on my talk page User talk:Ikip: [13]
- Actually, there is some information that Freshacconci was nice enough to provide, but nothing conclusive. The Collect it! article in particular seems to be from an independent source. For BLP reasons, I would be careful about saying such things as "scammed by the guy, admit your impression was influenced by deceptive promotional tactics". I personally always try to assume that every new editor has the best intentions in mind. I believe every good faith editor is valuable, and has a lot to add to the project when he comes to wikipedia.
- Freshacconci is the person who argues that some of these magazines may be promotional, but he is voting weak keep, I think this is "intellectually honest". Do you?
- And just a suggestion, a couple of months ago I asked a nominator for deletion to close the nomination because the evidence I had provided. Instead he came back and argued even more for deletion. The tone of your message almost guarantees that I am not going to come back here in a good mood, ready to comprimise and admit I am wrong. In otherwords, I probably would have forgotten this AfD if it weren't for your message, but now I am back, one more person to shoot holes in your arguments, that isn't good for your quest to delete a "scam" and "deceptive promotional tactics". Ikip (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I took a look at the info page for Arts d'Elles et d'Ils found here. My English-Canadian high school French is piss-poor, but the gist of what it says is that there is no selection criteria for appearing in this magazine. It may not be a paid listing but it's an open listing. Someone with more advanced French may want to double-check my translation, but if I'm correct, this is not a legitimate source. freshacconci talktalk 19:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you verify that Freshacconci? thanks Ikip (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Western Art & Architecture" is a paid-membership publication, so this artist's profile there is self-authored and therefore not a legitimate source. freshacconci talktalk 19:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you trust the artist' own web page on that? If we had independent sources, sure. We don't know that these are not paid advertising, etc. And, as mentioned a zilliont ime above and on talk, the news results are primarily trivial and reprints of press releases. How sloppy. DreamGuy (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
frog break 4
(outdent) Weak keep Looking through the google search: on one hand, there's a huge list of legitimate sources who mention Cotterill in passing. On the other hand, they are all the result of press-release announcements (i.e. Cotterill or representative galleries have sent out the P.R. and papers decide to run it as is, or rewrite it based on the copy given). Were these the only sources available, and were considerably far less in number, this would be a clear delete. The sources would be trivial and not substantial. But as MichaelQSchmidt has pointed out below, the siginficant number of trivial sources add up to substantial coverage. The use of pay-for-play sources is discouraging and these should be removed. I'm always more comfortable with more substantitive sources, sources with some meat to them. But WP:NOTE doesn't require that. This article needs a good thorough edit and those editors with a connection to the artist should step back and let other, more neutral editors clean this up so it does not function as yet another promotional vehicle for the artist (note his linking to Wikipedia here. But in any case, whatever I may feel about this guy's work, he has some notability by the very basic definition of notability for Wikipedia. Also, I'd like to point out the bad-faith editing and stalking of DreamGuy engaged in by Wordssuch. The latter needs to be cautioned about such practices. We can all disagree here, but that kind of behaviour isn't helpful. freshacconci talktalk 20:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD notification on Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. Ikip (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD notification on Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. Ikip (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 19:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sloppy? There are sources offered by the proffered g-search (and discounting the articles about a different Cotterill) that were NOT the artist's website that show his work as being exhibited at numerous galleries worldwide. The January 2008 Art World News coverage of Cotterill was short, but it explicitly told how one of his works was to be part of a permanent installation. The article in Collect it! Magazine as written by Val Baynton was most definitely in-depth and significant coverage of the artist and his works. Continued refusal to recognize the notability of this fellow becomes more and more confusing in light of the overwhelming evidence. Further confusion is caused by dismissively ignoring the multiple in-depth articles, and then concentrating on some perceived flaw in the use of SPS... since they are specifically allowed in certain circumstances under existing guideline.
- The first proviso of WP:PEOPLE states "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."... and as a multi exhibited artist, and one whose works have become part of permanent istallations, he is worthy of notice PER GUIDELINE.
- WP:PEOPLE also grants that "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject", so you may not like it, but the use of primary sources is specifically allowed by the guideline. You are welcome to propose rewriting the guideline if you wish, but please don't dismiss it as inapplicable.
- Further, WP:PEOPLE states, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". What has been offered to editors are sources that are either "significant and in-depth" OR "more than trivial but less than exclusive" OR "that show his work as repeatedly and continually exhibited". Unless one simply does not like the artist or his works, it is painfully obvious that he meets the inclusion criteria.
- Damn frogs. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can we assume some good faith here? This is a discussion and you are attempting to make editors' minds up for them with logic games (i.e. if you don't agree with my logic then you must be !voting for deletion based on subjective criteria). As far as I'm concerned, none of the sources are conlusive yet. I'd like to look through some more sources. I've already found one pay-to-play source used. That indicates more could be as well. freshacconci talktalk 19:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies to you, as my response was to the nom's statement above calling another editor sloppy. My own searches have found multiple sources toward notability under WP:CREATIVE that are not pay-per-view. My concern is for his declaring the artist and his works as non-notable in direct contravention to guideline, and felt compelled to carefully point out the applicable guideline in response to his not acknowledging them. Yes, AGF all around. That being said, I trust your own diligent search will include world-wide library databases and newspaper/magazine archives that are not pay-per-view. Luck to you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I'm trying to do. This is part of what I do for a living. Research, that is, not hunting sources for Wikipedia. Nobody's paying me for that (yet). freshacconci talktalk 19:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From your comments above, that was my specific impression. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand by my statement that claiming those as reliable sources for notability was sloppy. Those were, in fact, paid ads and press releases. Anyone off the street who pays money could get in those. The artist is clearly trying to look more impressive than he is by quoting ads he bought as if they were independent news articles. It's a classic scam, and some people fell for it. That's extremely sloppy. Sorry if you're offended by that. Take it as a learning experience to avoid being duped in the future instead of blaming the messenger. 14:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment As I comment below, the practice of newspapers paroting press releases says something about newspaper standards, but that's a distinction we can make here. The fact is, numerous publication independent of the artist have mentioned this artist. Yes, the individual newspaper "articles" (I use the term reservedly and with tongue held tight) are trivial. But that there are more than a few adds up to substantial coverage by third-party sources, regardless of quality. There's nothing we can do about it if we follow Wikipedia policy. freshacconci talktalk 14:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Our criteria is for multiple independent (pres releases are not) non-trivial (mere mentions, etc., are not) sources establishing notability. NOTHING like that has ever been shown about this person. Far from it, in fact. The consistent lack of any independent nontrivial sources for someone who appears in so many shops is very telling. He's had all the chances in the world for people to take notice on their own, and they haven't. That's pretty clear cut indication that this person is not taken seriously by the art world at large. DreamGuy (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I'm trying to do. This is part of what I do for a living. Research, that is, not hunting sources for Wikipedia. Nobody's paying me for that (yet). freshacconci talktalk 19:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies to you, as my response was to the nom's statement above calling another editor sloppy. My own searches have found multiple sources toward notability under WP:CREATIVE that are not pay-per-view. My concern is for his declaring the artist and his works as non-notable in direct contravention to guideline, and felt compelled to carefully point out the applicable guideline in response to his not acknowledging them. Yes, AGF all around. That being said, I trust your own diligent search will include world-wide library databases and newspaper/magazine archives that are not pay-per-view. Luck to you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can we assume some good faith here? This is a discussion and you are attempting to make editors' minds up for them with logic games (i.e. if you don't agree with my logic then you must be !voting for deletion based on subjective criteria). As far as I'm concerned, none of the sources are conlusive yet. I'd like to look through some more sources. I've already found one pay-to-play source used. That indicates more could be as well. freshacconci talktalk 19:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sloppy? There are sources offered by the proffered g-search (and discounting the articles about a different Cotterill) that were NOT the artist's website that show his work as being exhibited at numerous galleries worldwide. The January 2008 Art World News coverage of Cotterill was short, but it explicitly told how one of his works was to be part of a permanent installation. The article in Collect it! Magazine as written by Val Baynton was most definitely in-depth and significant coverage of the artist and his works. Continued refusal to recognize the notability of this fellow becomes more and more confusing in light of the overwhelming evidence. Further confusion is caused by dismissively ignoring the multiple in-depth articles, and then concentrating on some perceived flaw in the use of SPS... since they are specifically allowed in certain circumstances under existing guideline.
frog break 5
- Keep per WP:HEY. Searches by disinterested editors appear to have found plenty of good newpaper articles that show this is a notable artist. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yes, he's mentioned in a number of newspapers, but as far as I can see they're all gallery listings, what's-on in town kind of things. That would be OK if the exhibitions were significant (ie museum shows). Fails WP:CREATIVE because the exhibitions aren't significant, and fails WP:BIO because the coverage is trivial. The NBC segment looks to me to be the definition of trivial.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We are in disagreement with interpretation of that portion of WP:CREATIVE. However, I am fine with the total body of worlwide coverage... the trivial, the more-than-trivial, and the substantive all adding up to notability per guideline. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't any interesting and famous things about him. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable per WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Note that the word "gallery" has two quite distinct meanings in connection with art. There are "galleries" which exist to display arts of the public, on the basis of merit: in other words effectively museums. Then there "galleries" which exist to act as sales points, on the basis of a commercial arrangement with the artist; in other words effectively shops. I have looked at the websites of all of the galleries mentioned above by Schmidt. Most of them clearly were and the others apparently were commercial galleries selling his works: in other words we are asked to think he is notable because he pays the owners of numerous shops to stock his products. This is not remotely the same as having his works displayed in several independent galleries, which display work to the public on the basis of perceived merit. Anyone could arrange to have their work sold by numerous art shops, so this is no measure at all of notability. Thus when Wordssuch says "Even if the several The Gallery links publish a similar artist bio, it does not diminish that fact that all of these many Galleries are all third party sources which evidence that they display this artist" he is mistaken: they are not independent third party sources, and the only thing they show "evidence" for is the existence of a commercial arrangement with the artist.
- Bearian says "searches by disinterested editors appear to have found plenty of good newpaper [sic] articles that show this is a notable artist". However, he does not tell us what newspaper articles or where. Certainly the articles listed by Ikip are not in newspapers in any reasonable sense of the word. Also they were not found by "searches by disinterested editors": Ikip simply quotes links on the artist's website.
- I have carefully gone through every one of the comments above and followed up a significant proportion of the links given, and it seems that virtually all of the comments in favour of keeping the article are based on ignoring, or failing to appreciate, the difference between on the one hand a source which indicates a high degree of commercial activity and success in gaining attention, and on the other hand an independent source which indicates a high degree of notability. Neither the article nor the comments above succeed in indicating that the artist has notability in Wikipedia's sense. None of the sources given as support for notability is an independent source.
- Finally the most remarkable (to me) comment of all: "this artist is creating a very unique and valuable ($$) contribution ...". Apparently the writer of this comment thinks that selling works for a lot of money makes one notable.
- GeorgeWeller (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of course, you need to ignore a few of the "keeps" simply because their !vote for keep is based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Nevertheless your distinction between critical notability and commercial notability is not a distinction Wikipedia makes per WP:NOTE. Most of the google hits point to publications independent of the artist. That they are merely repeating points forwarded by a press release perhaps says something about the newspaper industry but, regardless, they point to a minor notability. A few trivial sources wouldn't cut it, but there are more than a few here. We cannot make a judgment on the art, nor how the artist shows his work or earns his living. We may not like Paris Hilton or feel that her notability is deserved. But she is notable nonetheless. With the sources available, this artist just squeaks by. If you look at my userpage or my contributions you'll see what kind of art I'm interested in. If I were writing a book on important contemporary art, my criteria for inclusion would be quite different from Wikipedia's notability standards. But as original research, my book could include whatever I wanted it to include. This is an encyclopedia and as such we remain neutral and make no judgments on the subjects. Consider it a flaw if you must, but that's how Wikipedia defines notability. This will never be a major article and I can't imagine it could make it to featured article status, given the lack of sources with depth, but the available sources, trivial as they may be, point to a minor notability. freshacconci talktalk 14:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment misinterprets GeorgeWeller's distinction. Of course there is a distinction between commercial and non-commercial mentions of products (which is GeorgeWeller's point)—this is why paid notices are not considered independent reliable sources, and why independent news coverage is considered to be such. This is not a question of "critical notability" versus "commercial notability." A non-notable product doesn't become notable simply because it is sold in a number of outlets—that simply isn't a criterion for notability. Bongomatic 14:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're ignoring the rest of what I said. There is independent coverage, like it or not. They're trivial fluff pieces, but the number basically adds up to notability by Wiki standards. freshacconci talktalk 14:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Bongomatic: you are quite right. The Wikipedia Notability guideline says "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Contrary to what Freshacconci seems to think, information which comes from such sources is not "independent coverage". And no, I don't think Bongomatic was ignoring the rest of what Freshacconci said. GeorgeWeller (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment misinterprets GeorgeWeller's distinction. Of course there is a distinction between commercial and non-commercial mentions of products (which is GeorgeWeller's point)—this is why paid notices are not considered independent reliable sources, and why independent news coverage is considered to be such. This is not a question of "critical notability" versus "commercial notability." A non-notable product doesn't become notable simply because it is sold in a number of outlets—that simply isn't a criterion for notability. Bongomatic 14:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple fluff pieces absolutely DO NOT make someone notable. Where on earth could you get that idea? If that's ALL the person has, it's a clear cut case of NOT being notable. DreamGuy (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I got that idea from here. It states, in full: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Note the last sentence. Trivial coverage may not be sufficient to establish notability. It clearlyy states may not not is not, i.e. it's a guideline open to interpretation and concensus, as it states at the top of that page: "This notability guideline for biographies is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed." My interpretation of this guideline leans towards "keep" based on the multiple, independent sources, trivial as they may be. Sorry, that's my personal reading of the guideline, as crappy as this art is. freshacconci talktalk 14:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple fluff pieces absolutely DO NOT make someone notable. Where on earth could you get that idea? If that's ALL the person has, it's a clear cut case of NOT being notable. DreamGuy (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: A non-notable product doesn't become notable simply because it is sold in a number of outlets—that simply isn't a criterion for notability. -- is Special K notable? If so, why? THF (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
frog break 6
- I'm generally a deletionist, but this seems to me to be a Weak Keep and Improve under WP:CREATIVE: "The person has created [a] collective body of work [that] has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles". George Weller makes a very strong and persuasive argument why there is a distinction between a Cotterill and artists displayed in museums, but that just goes to the gallery prong of WP:CREATIVE. A commercial artist who sells popular collectibles (the spam filter won't let me link to Ebay here) is indistinguishable in that sense to a popular commercial WP:AUTHOR who sells his books to publishers who sell them to intermediate bookstores for resale--and we have lots of articles about minor genre authors who have sold much less than Cotterill has (recognizing that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not by itself a reason for inclusion). I don't see WP:CREATIVE as restricted to highbrow art. Cotterill's works are widely traded and known. There exist reliable sources (albeit not ones readily available on the web) from which an article can be written about his life and work. I think a number of the delete !votes are overreacting to the WP:PROMOTION violation, but WP:COI is not a reason by itself to delete an article. THF (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So find proof of multiple independent periodical articles instead of paid ads, press releases, and mere trivial mentions. So far nobody has been able to do it. And, honestly, COI is a strong indicator that an article should be deleted, as it shows that the person has to write about himself if he wants anyone to pay attention. No independent editor wrote this, just like no independent magazines cover him, and so forth. DreamGuy (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- COI is not a reason for deletion. That's it. Get over it. And the google search clearly shows the independent coverage. Multiple trivial sources count. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. freshacconci talktalk 14:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's NOT the way it is, and if yo make the claim that it is yo need to back that up with some actual Wikipedia policy. It's the exact OPPOSITE of what the policy says. Trivial sources do not count. It says so right in the policy. Period. DreamGuy (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- COI is not a reason for deletion. That's it. Get over it. And the google search clearly shows the independent coverage. Multiple trivial sources count. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. freshacconci talktalk 14:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So find proof of multiple independent periodical articles instead of paid ads, press releases, and mere trivial mentions. So far nobody has been able to do it. And, honestly, COI is a strong indicator that an article should be deleted, as it shows that the person has to write about himself if he wants anyone to pay attention. No independent editor wrote this, just like no independent magazines cover him, and so forth. DreamGuy (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS.--Cameron Scott (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Cameron Scott - it is improper to remove the list of magazine article and external links while the discussion is still in progress. Esasus (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Use the {{verify credibility}} or {{citecheck}} tags instead of removing sources. THF (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They've already BEEN reviewed and showed to NOT meet Wikipedia criteria. Complaining about their removal is just sheer stubborn wikilawyering and ignoring of policies to try to get one's own way. DreamGuy (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Freshacconci's frog break
- Final comment I can't believe I've spent so much time on this. Arguing "keep" for a guy who makes fucking glass frogs. I was going to work on the Stan Douglas article. You know, an artist who's exhibited internationally, who's been written about in all the major art publications, been part of bieniales, major musuem collections. An article that is pretty crappy at the moment. Oh well. Onwards and upwards. freshacconci talktalk 14:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another final comment - Somebody's law is relevant here (I wish I could remember whose): "If you have to write your own article, you're not notable." JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's just some twit's personal criteria for notability. Unfortunately, it has not become Wikipedia policy. If it were, this would have been a speedy delete. freshacconci talktalk 14:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not policy; but it's a witty reminder that if an article is self-promotion the references to establish notability need to be scrutinized with particular care. JohnCD (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why there's no article on me (the real me, not Freshacconci; Freshacconci stands a better chance for notability than the guy typing this [14], [15], [16]). freshacconci talktalk 15:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No real evidence of wider repute, nor any real sources attesting to such. Nor is a gallery showing an automatic indication of anything other than of having work displayed: without actual reliable sources explaining why he's exhibiting or discussing his work, it's meaningless. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "A" gallery showing? Perhaps. Hundreds over 35 years? Different story. Perhaps time to rewrite the part of WP:CREATIVE that does not require RS explaining "why" he's exhibiting his work... that part that only states that he must have done so. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wish to voice my own growing concern over my perception of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of the nom. It would seem a discussion best kept on this page was taken to the talk page of an editor who opined a keep... questioning their integrity and belief in the notability of this artist. diff 1. Bad form. And then to visit the page of an non-biased admin and question their interpretation of the ongoing discussion? diff 2. Bad form. That he chooses to ignore some arguments in favor, or dismisses other's interpretations of guideline is fine... but perhaps he might wait until the AfD is closed to make arguments best seen at a DRV? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never before encountered an editor as antagonistic as DreamGuy. He argues against every opinion that differs from his own, then takes his abuse to the editor's talk page, and even into other discussions. I consider his tactics that of a bully, and I find his obsessive ownership of the delete opinion to be disruptive to the discussion. He has also been deleting references and external links from the article while the article is under discusion. What is the proper procedure to deal with such a guy? Esasus (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, enforcing clear Wikipedia policies is a GOOD thing. Reponding to false claims by people who aren;t following policy should be welcomed so that people can learn from their mistakes. You're just upset someone dares to disagree with you and has spooted your longstanding campaign to go around making false claims about articles up for deletion.
- Delete per WP:BIO. Any article that starts right out by claiming "world reknown" had better produce something really strong to back that up. This isn't even close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a simple fix per WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. And it might be noted that while editors have been trying to address concerns at the article during this AfD, the nom is undoing them. Hard to improve an article to address concerns if its not being allowed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- an over-the-top claim needs to be referenced or removed, it is not a ground for deletion. I have also noticed that the nom is deleting improvemnets made to the article during the discussion. I wonder what the nom's COI is? Esasus (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That right there is a massive violation of WP:AGF. I have no COI. I just want Wikipedia policies to be accurately enforced. I couldn't care less about this spammer who made his own article about himself as an individual. I'm opposed to abuse of this project as a whole. Too bad so many abusers showed up to support this scam artist. DreamGuy (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Been removed. Easy fix. No one else thought to do it? Are some so eager to toss this on the bonfire that they do not consider how easy it is to improve?? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on the issue of repeated removal of external links and other information from the article -
- User:Cameron Scott have repeatedly removed the Magazine Articles and External links from the article while the discussion is going on. This is very bad form and should stop. How can the article be rescued if good faith attempts at improving the article are repeatedly sabatoged? Does the closing editor have a comment on the pratice of negative edits during a discussion? Esasus (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not bad form to remove items from an article under AfD. Improving an article includes removing items which do not belong. As Cameron Scott and myself explained in the edit summaries (and on your talk page), the removal of these items was necessary, as 3 of the magazine articles were not legitimate sources and half the links were repeats. I removed the 3 magazines and explained why, above and in the edit summaries. There's nothing disruptive about this. Improving an article is sometimes about removing things. freshacconci talktalk 00:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Input from Michael Q. Schmidt and Ikip shows the article can be improved if someone bothered to take the time to rewrite the article and add proper references. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are twice as many comments headed "delete" as headed "keep". It seems to me that all of the arguments given by those who favour keeping depend on failure to grasp that none of the sources offered to establish notability are independent sources. The following passage from Wikipedia:NOTE was quoted above, but I will quote it again for convenience of reference: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. All of the sources cited fail by this criterion, being either quotes from the artist's publicity, material from people paid by the artist to promote or sell his work, or in other ways derived from him. Further, Wikipedia:SELFPUB says: As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. Companies which promote an artist's work as a commercial deal, and publicity magazines which reproduce press-releases verbatim usually do no scrutinizing of evidence and arguments at all. Finally, Wikipedia:SELFPUB also goes on to say: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons (my emphasis). If I give you what I want published, and you publish it, how much different is that from self-publishing? Not very. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Ruppert
- Michael Ruppert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Subject is non-notable. Article cites no legitimate sources. A Google News search indicates there is some occasional coverage of Ruppert in passing, but only as one of regrettably many conspiracy theorists, or as a disgruntled Ross Perot supporter. Nevard (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--there are a lot of words in the article, but not that many hits on Google News, which I think should establish notability: this shows nothing but a few blogs, including the guy's own conspiracy blog. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Buffalo Smith
- Michael Buffalo Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Artist is non-notable and fails WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. GripTheHusk (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; the article may be largely unreferenced, but the references in place do carry some WP:BIO / WP:MUSIC weight, and if the unsourced statements are true, and refs can be added, this will further indicate this person's notability. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 11:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Internationally recognized musician. The article badly needs more references, and I've added the rescue tag in the hope that someone will help with that, and that quotes section should probably go or be refactored in some way. Artw (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - article is just an advertisement for the magazine that the article subject owns and promotes. The article subject attempts weak notability through association but does not have any notable achievement of their own to warrant a Wiki page. Fair Deal (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: looks like some self-promotion is going on [17], [18]. Insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pure self-promotion of a non-notable subject. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete spam promo for Gritz.com and other associated websites. Wether B (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN advertising and nothing else. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:23, 3 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. yandman 16:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Crow Riley
- Joseph Crow Riley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete apparent vanity page for a writer, sourced to his own works. An editor wanted speedy but there seems to be some vague claim to notability here, so let's go through the process and delete it the unspeedy way. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can only reiterate what I said in my initial discussion. Any "notability" here is an illusion. I did thorough research on the author in question. There are no copies of his work at bookstores, not even reputable online bookstores. I'm not sure how much more needs to be discussed. How can a self-published writer with no apparent following be considered "encyclopedic"? Over the years, and my time on Wikipedia, I've seen far more notable writers than Joseph Crow Riley get deleted instantly, and they were actually published by true publishers! If you can demystify the "vague claim to notability," which must exist outside himself, then perhaps we can keep this discussion going. Otherwise, I believe it's completely absurd to allow an author to write their own page and self-cite. Furthermore, he added his own "caution" tags to protect himself from deletion and to fool editors and administrators into looking over the page as if it's something authentic in progress. Check the history. Again, after conducting several hours of research, there is no way this author should be on Wikipedia. Thepagemakerandchecker (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to bring to your attention. He called his first poem THE ONE "highly acclaimed" yet there's no mention of it anywhere. I would think a highly acclaimed poem would be easy to track down whether online or offline, but that's not the case here. It's clearly self-promotion with no credible sources. Thepagemakerandchecker (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - ~200 or so unique hits in Google, zero book hits. I see a few websites where his poems are published, but none of those could be considered third-party reliable sources as to his notability. §FreeRangeFrog 00:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Blatant self-promotion. Self-written. Self-cited. No credible outside sources available. No notability. Please delete. Johnny Two Times (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)— Johnny Two Times (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete - I cannot find any sources writing about this poet, or any infomation to satisfy verifiability -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve P. Taylor (writer)
- Steve P. Taylor (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced biography (possibly autobiography) with an unclear assertion of notability. I tried to source this with a quick Google search, but other than an Amazon profile, none of the "Steve P Taylor"s Google chooses to serve up in the first 5 pages of results appears to be the subject in question. However, the article has existed since 2006, so community input is much needed. ➲ redvers sit down next to me 13:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. None of the subject's publications appear to be particularly notable. Cannot find any reliable sources that discuss him. I would say this is a clear failure of both WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. JulesH (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per nom and at least a borderline failure of WP:CREATIVE. Benea (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - His primary claim to notability seems to stem from his work with the Forum on Prisoner Education, and in that context I've found a few sources that discuss him to various degrees - this seems to be a fairly substantial Financial Times article entirely about him and contains some interesting information not included in the article currently. I also ran across a few other sources which seem to feature quotes and information from and about him. However, most of these other ones do not seem to be substantially about him, and are just using him as an expert to quote. There may well be other sources to draw on - most of these came from a Google News search for "Steve Taylor prisoner"; with most of the ones relating to this particular Steve Taylor coming from 2004-2005. ~ mazca t|c 12:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - he is an expert source who is quoted by major international news agencies. That establishes notablity in my books. Unionsoap (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. All the sources seem to only use him a as quote source, none of the sources are bout him, therefore he doesn't have non-trivial nor independant sources.YobMod 16:18, 4 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Vinatea
- Edward Vinatea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Few sources could be found of the individual, and none of the references cited in the article even mention Vinatea's name. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep The subject is a mastering guy who has mastered award nominated artists. I don't understand how how he fails the WP:MUSIC. Just on Geri_King[19] and Cindy_Blackman[20] he meets that criteria. We have other Wikipedia bio articles with mastering engineers so this is not the first. Jrod2 (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Yes, this guy fails WP:MUSIC because he's not a musician, but he passes WP:CREATIVE. §FreeRangeFrog 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: A question to user FreeRangeFrog, if a person involved in the production process like for a example a producer or a mastering engineer, who is responsible for the post-production of a commercial product that appeared on music charts, doesn't tjhis qualify for WP:MUSIC? I say this because his artist CD Geri King had a hit called "Deja Vu" which stayed 30 weeks in the Australian top 40. If so, doesn't this fulfill the WP:MUSIC criteria? I just want to make sure for future submissions. Thanks in advance for the reply. Jrod2 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, charting on a "sovereign country" (as per the WP:MUSIC definition) is grounds for inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog 23:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: A question to user FreeRangeFrog, if a person involved in the production process like for a example a producer or a mastering engineer, who is responsible for the post-production of a commercial product that appeared on music charts, doesn't tjhis qualify for WP:MUSIC? I say this because his artist CD Geri King had a hit called "Deja Vu" which stayed 30 weeks in the Australian top 40. If so, doesn't this fulfill the WP:MUSIC criteria? I just want to make sure for future submissions. Thanks in advance for the reply. Jrod2 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - many people help in the creation of music, but that doesn't make them notable. Where are the reliable sources writing about him? I searched, and they don't exist. -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - As an additional note, the claim to notability appeards to be that he ws the mastering engineer on some hit albums. If his work is notable, then one would expect to see his work as an engineer nominated for a Grammy. If he won one, or was nominated for one, I was unable to uncover it. -- Whpq (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong assumption, mastering engineers don't get a Grammy or anything when one of their artists is nominated. However if one wins it, the mastering engineers only gets a Citation by the Recording Academy, but not the actual Grammy. A mastering engineer can win a Grammy award only if he is nominated specifically as an engineer. There is no question that this engineer is notable for working with big names in the industry, at least Discogs confirms several works. Unless of course, Discogs data base is consider worthless at WP which would be news to me.Jrod2 (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Discogs is actually worthless as a source for establishing notability. Working with notable artists doesn't make this person notable. If he is notable, then there should be recognition of it in the form of some articles or industry awards. As for the Grammy awards, there are specific awards for engineering so I am unclear on what your statement with respect to the Grammies means. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Any Grammy nomination to an artist reflects the work of the mixing engineer, producer and mastering engineer. There are specific Grammy nominations for engineering that also receive no notoriety. And, yes it's considered admissible to prove notability (See Ashley Altman (#6) for best Pop singer 2006 [21] and Geri King song "To Whom is concerned" on the same Ashley Altman album CD mastered by Vinatea (#569)[22]. If Discogs is a worthless data base, then close to a quarter of all Wikipedia musicians will get deleted, so start doing just that. Jrod2 (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Notability is not inherited. Yes, they have participated in the creation of the work. And they are given credit. But if there was tru notability, why isn't there a nomination for a grammy for the engineering work? Why is there no write-up in some industry magazine? I fail to see what the PDF proves. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Any Grammy nomination to an artist reflects the work of the mixing engineer, producer and mastering engineer. There are specific Grammy nominations for engineering that also receive no notoriety. And, yes it's considered admissible to prove notability (See Ashley Altman (#6) for best Pop singer 2006 [21] and Geri King song "To Whom is concerned" on the same Ashley Altman album CD mastered by Vinatea (#569)[22]. If Discogs is a worthless data base, then close to a quarter of all Wikipedia musicians will get deleted, so start doing just that. Jrod2 (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Discogs is actually worthless as a source for establishing notability. Working with notable artists doesn't make this person notable. If he is notable, then there should be recognition of it in the form of some articles or industry awards. As for the Grammy awards, there are specific awards for engineering so I am unclear on what your statement with respect to the Grammies means. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong assumption, mastering engineers don't get a Grammy or anything when one of their artists is nominated. However if one wins it, the mastering engineers only gets a Citation by the Recording Academy, but not the actual Grammy. A mastering engineer can win a Grammy award only if he is nominated specifically as an engineer. There is no question that this engineer is notable for working with big names in the industry, at least Discogs confirms several works. Unless of course, Discogs data base is consider worthless at WP which would be news to me.Jrod2 (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The PDF proves that his work has contributed to a 2006 Grammy nomination and again, that credit is not listed on the NARAS' year nominations book, only the artist is. If you can't rely on Discogs, would you like to see a scan of that major label distributed album? Jrod2 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - A scan is not required. At issue is not the fact that he is the mastering engineer. At issue is whether being the mastering engineer is notable. Evidence of this notability would be significant articles written about him, or significant awards conferred on him. I see neither of these. -- Whpq (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You asked "if there was tru notability, why isn't there a nomination for a grammy for the engineering work?" Again, that is an specific category, but not the only way of acquiring a Grammy nomination credit. Unfortunately, there isn't any interest by the media in listing nominations; only winners get an article on all regular media channels. But, that NARAS book I've just included is the only official publication and the only one that can be used for verification anyway. Hope that answers. Jrod2 (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So let me recap. (1) Nobody has written anything about Edward Vinatea. Not even industry publications. (2) He has not been nominated for a Grammy award for any of his engineering work. Is that correct? -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply There are thousands of engineers that have received write ups on many publications, but they have never had, as a result of their work, an artist nominated for a Grammy. We need to look into the engineer's body of work first and not whether magazines are writing about the subject or not. The proof is on those NARAS book pages include above and you can easily connect the dots. Finally, an engineer doesn't need to be specifically nominated for a Grammy to be part of the Grammy nomination process. If the artist he produced or mastered wins a Grammy, he gets a citation not the trophy. That said, what needs to be examined is whether nominations are sufficient merit to include engineers in biography articles, period (just like the criteria for inclusion of a musician is to have a charting record). Jrod2 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I think this discussion has progressed as far as it can go without retreading the same path again. I remain unconvinced. -- Whpq (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply This discussion does not anyone's convictions, but facts. I am sorry, I should have done this from the beginning to avoid clogging the thread, I apologize. Here are some credits I found on AllMusic.com which is another source we use to verify references [23]. Hopefully the rest will agree that this is sufficient info about this subject to establish notability. Jrod2 (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I think this discussion has progressed as far as it can go without retreading the same path again. I remain unconvinced. -- Whpq (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply There are thousands of engineers that have received write ups on many publications, but they have never had, as a result of their work, an artist nominated for a Grammy. We need to look into the engineer's body of work first and not whether magazines are writing about the subject or not. The proof is on those NARAS book pages include above and you can easily connect the dots. Finally, an engineer doesn't need to be specifically nominated for a Grammy to be part of the Grammy nomination process. If the artist he produced or mastered wins a Grammy, he gets a citation not the trophy. That said, what needs to be examined is whether nominations are sufficient merit to include engineers in biography articles, period (just like the criteria for inclusion of a musician is to have a charting record). Jrod2 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So let me recap. (1) Nobody has written anything about Edward Vinatea. Not even industry publications. (2) He has not been nominated for a Grammy award for any of his engineering work. Is that correct? -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You asked "if there was tru notability, why isn't there a nomination for a grammy for the engineering work?" Again, that is an specific category, but not the only way of acquiring a Grammy nomination credit. Unfortunately, there isn't any interest by the media in listing nominations; only winners get an article on all regular media channels. But, that NARAS book I've just included is the only official publication and the only one that can be used for verification anyway. Hope that answers. Jrod2 (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - borderline-ly not quite notable enough. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments AllMusic.com is a source we use to verify music per WP:MUSIC. This is an engineer who has clearly worked on records that resulted on a 2 music Grammy award nominations. Engineers can only be evaluated according to who they work with unlike their musicians. FWIW, If we stop using Allmusic.com and/or award nominations then how are we going to assess the importance of engineers? Write ups? Oh please, anybody can get one. It's also known that some engineers shy away from interviews and public relations. In my opinion, *articles* or the lack of them should not be the deciding factor to verify notability. Jrod2 (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a client of this masttering engineer so maybe it's not apprpriate of me to vote, but If I can comment, I can say that without a doubt this is a notable engineer who as far as I know works with independent musicians as well as famous artists. It's true, engineers also get a nomination reference from the recording academy when their artists get nominated. Why his nominations not be enough to establish his notability? As freerangefrog said he meets what's required to include his biography. So if I can vote, I vote. KEEP. Stefan Tischler (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC) — Stefan Tischler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marianne Silber
- Marianne Silber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable journalist, no reliable secondary sources. I'd also like to include File:Msilber.jpg, based on the outcome of the article. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 21:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO and per nom Letsdrinktea (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 28 February 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. yandman 16:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
George Carruthgers (kickboxer)
- George Carruthgers (kickboxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This was originally a proposed deletion that was about to expire. I removed the prod tag because I saw an objection to the deletion on the talk page. However I do believe the article should be deleted. There are no third-party reliable sources to show why this person is notable, furthermore much of the information is not verified which is a clear violation of WP:BLP. There is a spirited defense of the article on the talk page, but I'm not convinced of its veracity. -- Atamachat 21:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —- Atamachat 22:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —- Atamachat 22:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —- Atamachat 22:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No references, absolutely no Google footprint even when one spells his name right. THF (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The 'karate career' is copied from here [24]. Much of the detail in the 'profesional career' (and the stuff on the talk page) from here. [25]. I don't think he satisfies WP:Athlete, and I'm not sure what the notability guidelines for chiropractors are - certainly seems to have published a lot. I think with a lot of work this article would make a reasonable stub. pablohablo. 11:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, no reliable sources, does not meet WP:ATHLETE exception.--2008Olympianchitchat 17:43, 2 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 07:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Dicken
- Peter Dicken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:ACADEMIC as in no significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Also I think the motive here is to promote his new book. DFS454 (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - Appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC, though might meet #5 because of his status as "Emeritius Professor" at University of Manchester [[26]]. I cant tell what that title means. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeep - As Kraftlos stated, "Honorary Fellow" might fall under #5 as "Distinguished Professor" but common sense tells me not to agree with that in this case. Also, the article claims attempts to claim notability by his book Global Shift. I did find a listing for Global Shift at the British Library which could prove the book to be notable under WP:N. Although the book may be notable, this doesn't prove an author to be notable per WP:CREATIVE. The article also claims that the book is rated number 2 on the Amazon bestseller list for Economic Geography. I've done some searching and can only just barely find the book on amazon.com at all. The paperback is rated 615,458 while the hardcover is rated 2,644,134. I'm also unable to find where Amazon has an Economic Geography section at all. Again, my senses are telling me that this is a WP:ADVERT for his book as DFS454 also stated.OlYellerTalktome 11:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my vote per Cunard's finding of notability under WP:BIO. OlYellerTalktome 22:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - The article's title had been on my watchlist before it was created, and I had been wondering why there hadn't been an article about the author of "Global Shift", which is featured quite prominently in my university's (which isn't a British one) library's textbook section. It is an important book in economic geography, having been re-edited 4 times. Of course it's not rated highly on Amazon, it's from 1986. "Location in space" is another standard textbook co-written by him, and its third edition was translated into German. This article, however, doesn't do his notability justice and lacks any reliable sources. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Btw, I've collected some quotes. Andrew Leyshon (Progress in Human Geography 1994 (18), pp. 110), then lecturer at the University of Hull, wrote on the occasion of the second edition of "Global Shift": "The astonishing rate at which the towering piles of this book are reduced to ground level in our university bookshop by voracious swarms of undergraduate geographers testifies to the fact that this is an extremely popular textbook." Kris Olds (Progress in Human Geography 2004 (28), p. 507) of the University of Wisconsin-Madison claims that it has sold many tens of thousands of copies and is an 'obligatory passage point' in the subdiscipline of economic geography. Nigel Thrift describes the fifth edition on its backcover as ‘not just recommended but essential’. So at least the book is quite notable. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I'm currently a university student (at one of the largest universities in the world /puke), I can attest that I've seen many books go from thousands in stock to nonel with people who still need the book. Alas, they're required text for major/popular courses offered by the university. I guess at that point the book would fall under Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Academic_books:WP-Academic Books which is incredibly vague about what passes and what doesn't but states that it should come down to common sense. Is there any other info you could provide that might, more concretely, prove notability?OlYellerTalktome 16:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, on the supposedly picky German Wikipedia, having been a regular university professor and the author of two standard works would be totally sufficient, and a musician selling tens of thousands of records would easily be notable, so apparently I can't just rely on my common sense in this case. Other book reviews (there's quite a handful) call "Global Shift" a ‘classic’ or ‘the definitive text on globalization’, but finding anything more concrete especially about the person himself is a tough task... --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although I'm not sure if Peter Dicken passes WP:PROF, I'm certain that he passes WP:BIO. This two-page biography from a book that is an encyclopedia of the "Key Thinkers on Space and Place" confirms his notability. Cunard (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Citation impact indicates notability, with one publication reaching over 1,000 citations in Google Scholar (and several in the hundreds).--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:BIO and WP:PROF. A pat on the back to User:Cunard Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:00, 3 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sue Lenier
- Sue Lenier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Poet who has garnered almost no media attention, yet is "superior to Shakespeare", "better than Ted Hughes", and "a much bigger thing than Sylvia Plath". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment--I can't do anything with it right now, but there is some evidence that she's republished and anthologized: [27]. I cut some fluff from the article. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--though somewhat weakly. Two books of poems, reviews of which I haven't been able to find (the Daily Mirror archive is inaccessible to me; the MLA has nothing, but I haven't tried JSTOR and EAI yet), but, most importantly for our purposes, a full-length article on her in the Washington Post (not bad for a then-25 year old British grad student), a poem anthologized, and two mentions in scholarly books (a mid-length discussion in a footnote and a more-than-passing mention; that's more than some folks get). If indeed her plays were performed at the Edinburgh festival, that would help: I can't verify that. One other mention in a book--but that's a snippet I can't get anything useful out of. Let her stay, I say. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Drmies has already maded a convincing case, but if any more is needed here is a 1249-word article in the Los Angeles Times about the subject and here are 1006 words in the New York Times. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil, thanks for the references! I'll bring them in when I have a moment, if someone else hasn't done so already. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources above. The article could use cleanup, especially all the quoting. It sounds more like a PR piece than an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, I didn't think that "her career has landed in a backwater" was very promotional... Drmies (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True dat! But I was referring to the gush of quotes and material like "Still, she made quite an impression even in the United States, as attested by a lengthy article devoted to her in the Washington Post by Colman McCarthy". In any case, the backwater comment should also go. NPOV seems to be violated from both directions in this article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I try to be an equal opportunity offender... Are you really asking me to be, like, encyclopedic? Drmies (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True dat! But I was referring to the gush of quotes and material like "Still, she made quite an impression even in the United States, as attested by a lengthy article devoted to her in the Washington Post by Colman McCarthy". In any case, the backwater comment should also go. NPOV seems to be violated from both directions in this article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, I didn't think that "her career has landed in a backwater" was very promotional... Drmies (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Contrary to his colleague Macho Harris, non notable yandman 10:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Allen
- Jeff Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
not notable per WP:ATH, just a regular college athlete nothing special or notable to be on wikipedia. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Borderline speedy. No assertion of notability other than playing in a college sports team. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet notability requirements RP459 (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas L. Evans (archaeologist)
- Thomas L. Evans (archaeologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Stub article on academic archaeologist whose claim to notability seems to be two books, one as sole author and the other as co-editor. There are no refs other than to his own works.
This seems to be to be marginal wrt WP:PROF's notability criteria, so I am listing this article at AFD without recommendation in the hope that those who know how to assess academics by such techniques as counting their citations can make a more informed assessment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as notability is not established. ----Boston (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N at present. --Artene50 (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- note Google scholar seems to turn up very little. This suggests the Digital Archeology book has only been cited once, and the other book not at all, the only other work by TL Evans in Arcaehology was a 1985 paper in South African Archaeological Bulletin (cited once) that I assume is another author. I could not find his present institution. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete "Digital archaeology bridging method and theory", New York : Routledge, 2006, a general book, but of which he is only a co-editor, has 508 Library holdings in worldcat ; there are 50 for "Quantitative identities : a statistical summary and analysis of Iron Age cemeteries in North-Eastern France, 600-130 B.C." a very much more specialised work. Considering the slow citation pattern in the field, this is too soon to expect much in the way of citations, as Peter confirmed. There are probably a few paper also, but I have not yet been able to identify them. This is not enough to make him an expert respected in the fieldsince he was not the author of the digital archeology book, just the writer of the introduction. DGG (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also related AFD for his co-editor, Patrick Daly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of course, if he played sports professionally, he would be notable... because this is Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I prefer to think of it as two Wikipedias: one for knolwedge pertaining to academic topics, and the second for the fandom of sports, gundam and characters appearing in two pages of twelve volume sci fi novels. If he were any of the latter, he'd qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia
, but this is Wikipedia
, where WP:N still holds... Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I deeply sympathise with the frustration relating to the way that WP:N allows reams to written on sports players and fictional characters, particularly after recently spending two weeks battling a wikilawyering attempt to delete election results, while squillions of detailed lists of sports scores remain unmolested. But in reality, WP:PROF is not a high threshold to pass, allowing the retention of articles which meet any one of with 9 extra criteria in addition to the basic principles of WP:BIO. I made no recommendation with this nomination, because it seemed to me that Evans might meet the significant impact criterion of WP:PROF; but from the evidence so far it seems that there isn't much verifiable to say to about Evans other the bare fact of than his two publications. WP:N and WP:V constrain wikipedia to holding up a mirror to the word as it is, and I think that the resulting bias towards trivia is probably more of a reflection on the generally poor state of reportage of academia than on wikipedia :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I prefer to think of it as two Wikipedias: one for knolwedge pertaining to academic topics, and the second for the fandom of sports, gundam and characters appearing in two pages of twelve volume sci fi novels. If he were any of the latter, he'd qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia
- Weak delete. According to WorldCat, the book Digital archaeology (which the subject co-edited, as noted by DGG) is actually in 258 libraries worldwide in electronic format, and in 211 in printed format. (Several libraries hold the book in both formats, so it is not appropriate to add them up to come up with a total number of holdings.) Given the low citation impact of the book, pointed out by Pete.Hurd, these holdings alone fall a bit short of establishing notability under WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). The subject may become WP-notable in the future, but has not reached that stage yet, in my opinion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I don't see the evidence of his work having a notable influence on scholarship in his field that would satisfy me that he has passed WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stacee Brown
- Stacee Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable singer. Only slightly known for being a member of the Jackson family. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Pyrrhus16 14:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - notability is not inherited: apart from family connection, does not meet WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment would a "merge all relevant info and redirect" (to whichever article) be more appropriate? Otherwise, deletion is certainly in order. ~EdGl (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - WP:Notability might exist but is not currently established by references. --Boston (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: no claims which can't be easily verified, she has apparently made an album with her sister Yashi. Ottre 22:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just having made an album (which "did not succeed") is not enough for WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC, and notability is not inherited. Merging not possible due to the lack of reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as notability has not been established. According to WP:MUSIC, there must be at least two albums by major labels, so the album with Yashi does not establish notability. Adam Zel (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 23:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Daly (archaeologist)
- Patrick Daly (archaeologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced stub article on a recently-qualified archaeologist (DPhil in 2003). He is the co-editor of a paperback book on digital archaeology, and has some hits on google scholar. I am unsure how to assess his academic significance against WP:PROF, but it seems marginal. So I am listing the article here without recommendation in the hope that those who know how to check citations etc will be able to offer a more informed assessment of his notability (or lack of it). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as notability is not established. ----Boston (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- note I could not find more than this GS search turns up. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also related AFD for his co-editor, Thomas L. Evans. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did he play football somewhere? If so, he'd be entitled to his own article, and maybe the digital archaeology book can be mentioned in a trivia section to make the page more colorful. Mandsford (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I sympathize profoundly with your comment, I don't think the fact that the jocks can't get their act together should be an excuse for us to do the same... --Crusio (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - all academics co-author books, fails WP:PROF. No notability asserted. Parslad (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Citation impact seems to be low. According to WorldCat, the book Digital archaeology (which the subject co-edited) is in 258 libraries worldwide in electronic format. Given the low citation impact of the book, these holdings alone fall a bit short of establishing notability under WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Like the subject’s co-editor (being discussed in another AfD), he may become WP-notable in the future, but has not reached that stage yet, in my opinion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Currently, this person does not have achievements to warrant an encyclopedia article. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article does not establish notability. Adam Zel (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. yandman 10:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Macho Harris
- Macho Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable athlete see WP:ATH and WP:BIO. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh good grief, he's obviously notable. It's pretty universally agreed that he will be a second round pick in this April's NFL draft. He was first team all ACC his senior year [28]. There are a gracious plenty secondary sources to demonstrate notability [29]. --B (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sources are just one aspect of notability, and with sport much of those sources are simply gamenotes and recaps. In all the other college and amatuer sports players are generally not notable even if they are expected to go high in the drafts of their sports. BUT since the NFL draft is comming up, it might be easier to keep the article. If he is expected to go so high in the draft then it should be noted and sourced in the article (as an explaination of notablility).--Bhockey10 (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of them are game recaps??? On the list of Google news stories I linked above, NOT A SINGLE HIT on the first two pages is a game recap. [30], [31], [32], and [33] - the first four hits from that results list - are all articles about Macho Harris himself, not about the team, not about a game, but about the player personally. Those alone are more than sufficient and you've got 50 pages more of the same. --B (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) There's a few on page two, most are local articles, others are columns blogs are articles about the team that mention Harris and/or quote him on a game. 2) Just because he's a big player at the school and local area doesn't mean he's internationally notable on wikipedia. If the top players on every college team had articles there would be 1000s of articles of good college players but non-notable elsewhere. It's pretty much been consensus in past AfDs that college athletes and college football players are generally not notable until turning pro (at the very least until they are drafted). 3) All of the other college sports delete articles on players, even the top prospect players. Players like this could go high in the draft or (I've seen some articles where he's not even in the top 10, all that falls under speculation i.e. WP:NOTCRYSTAL.--Bhockey10 (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Virginian Pilot is on the complete opposite side of the state. The Richmond Times Dispatch is a completely different market and about a 3+ hour drive up I-81 and over I-64. ESPN is national. The only local ones I see are WSLS and the Roanoke Times. The Washington Post (Washington DC is a good 5 hour drive from Blacksburg, depending on how bad I-66 is) did a profile on him [34]. The only consensus in past AFDs is that college players who do not meet the general notability criterion are not notable. College players who do meet it (ie, there are multiple reliable sources of information about them independent of the source) are notable. As for other college sports - they don't really matter. There are two college sports where every game is the subject of multiple articles, virtually every game is televised, and a substantial number of players are profiled in the news: college football and college basketball. Only in extremely rare cases would a college athlete from another sport be notable ... but for football and basketball, well-known starters at major schools are going to blow away our notability criterion and are probably more notable than professional athletes in other American sports. --B (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I'll let you in on a secret page - User:B/NCAA data. This page contains a list of pages that link to {{Infobox NCAA Athlete}} or {{Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer}}. Substantially all of them are (or were, as of the creation of the list) college athletes. I occasionally update the list and patrol the pages therein for vandalism, puffery, and articles about somebody's non-notable 4th string kicker who is hoping that he will make the dress squad sometime in a couple of years. --B (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying you're not good and editing or finding non-notable athletes. That list is bad! should change the name to list of non-notable and marginally notable athletes I just don't think players should be notable because of their sport. Harris looks like a good player but has he won any national awards, been in a major play in a bowl game, changed how college football is played, etc...What makes this good player notable amoung the many good college players. --Bhockey10 (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A player who sets foot on an MLB baseball field and plays 30 seconds of one game is considered notable and it isn't even a subject for debate - MLB is the highest level of professional baseball and so someone who plays it is inherently notable according to our definitions. On the other hand, college football is the second most popular American sport behind the NFL in terms of TV ratings. Ratings for the top college bowls beat the World Series television ratings and it isn't even close. For regular season games, it's even more of a blowout. A college football player like Harris, who is profiled in multiple media outlets and is a star player is not "marginally notable". I'm not interested in having articles about every single player, but a star player for a BCS team ought to be included. --B (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll the 30 second senario would be an interesting AfD debate, Looking at many of the sources for Macho Harris only a couple are ESPN, and most are media markets within a few hrs of VT. Like I've said players should NOT be notable because of their sport. What makes this good player notable amoung the many good college players? the answer to that is nothing, he's not a heisman winner, hasn't changed football, and probably won't be remembered for his college playing time in a few years.--Bhockey10 (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "players should be not notable because of their sport". Fine. College football is more notable than major league baseball, major league soccer, etc, so I would say Harris meets that qualification as well. As for the sources ... "only a couple are ESPN"? So? Even if you ignore everything else, just ESPN sources are more than sufficient to establish notability. [35][36][37][38][39]. There's also an article the NYT's Herald Tribune on him - [40]. The standard is significant coverage independent of the subject. Even the Roanoke media (45 minutes away) meets that standard. The standard isn't, "newspapers on the other side of the planet regularly cover him". Other regional media outlets have profiled him. National media outlets (Washington Post, New York Times, ESPN) have profiled him. By any conceivable standard, this player is notable. --B (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The one article from NY is about him in a fire, ok let's give everyone who got burned an article too. a couple of those ESPN sources are articles, yes, but some are blogs, and opionion columns- not reliable sources. --Bhockey10 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if the New York Times considers a fire in Virginia significant enough to have an article about, then maybe there should be an article about it. Chances are, they aren't going to do a profile on a non-notable burn victim from Virginia. Your demand for sources is a ludicrous moving target. There are over 500 hits in google news for his name. That should tell you something right there. Throw out the local ones, throw out the regional ones (both of which are actually acceptable sources, but we're throwing them out anyway), throw out the blogs (which, by the way, an ESPN blog is a reliable source - Some random Joe Sixpack's blog is not, but an ESPN blog is peer reviewed and meets our standards), throw out the New York Times article because you don't consider it important, and there's still plenty left. --B (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The one article from NY is about him in a fire, ok let's give everyone who got burned an article too. a couple of those ESPN sources are articles, yes, but some are blogs, and opionion columns- not reliable sources. --Bhockey10 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "players should be not notable because of their sport". Fine. College football is more notable than major league baseball, major league soccer, etc, so I would say Harris meets that qualification as well. As for the sources ... "only a couple are ESPN"? So? Even if you ignore everything else, just ESPN sources are more than sufficient to establish notability. [35][36][37][38][39]. There's also an article the NYT's Herald Tribune on him - [40]. The standard is significant coverage independent of the subject. Even the Roanoke media (45 minutes away) meets that standard. The standard isn't, "newspapers on the other side of the planet regularly cover him". Other regional media outlets have profiled him. National media outlets (Washington Post, New York Times, ESPN) have profiled him. By any conceivable standard, this player is notable. --B (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll the 30 second senario would be an interesting AfD debate, Looking at many of the sources for Macho Harris only a couple are ESPN, and most are media markets within a few hrs of VT. Like I've said players should NOT be notable because of their sport. What makes this good player notable amoung the many good college players? the answer to that is nothing, he's not a heisman winner, hasn't changed football, and probably won't be remembered for his college playing time in a few years.--Bhockey10 (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A player who sets foot on an MLB baseball field and plays 30 seconds of one game is considered notable and it isn't even a subject for debate - MLB is the highest level of professional baseball and so someone who plays it is inherently notable according to our definitions. On the other hand, college football is the second most popular American sport behind the NFL in terms of TV ratings. Ratings for the top college bowls beat the World Series television ratings and it isn't even close. For regular season games, it's even more of a blowout. A college football player like Harris, who is profiled in multiple media outlets and is a star player is not "marginally notable". I'm not interested in having articles about every single player, but a star player for a BCS team ought to be included. --B (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying you're not good and editing or finding non-notable athletes. That list is bad! should change the name to list of non-notable and marginally notable athletes I just don't think players should be notable because of their sport. Harris looks like a good player but has he won any national awards, been in a major play in a bowl game, changed how college football is played, etc...What makes this good player notable amoung the many good college players. --Bhockey10 (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I'll let you in on a secret page - User:B/NCAA data. This page contains a list of pages that link to {{Infobox NCAA Athlete}} or {{Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer}}. Substantially all of them are (or were, as of the creation of the list) college athletes. I occasionally update the list and patrol the pages therein for vandalism, puffery, and articles about somebody's non-notable 4th string kicker who is hoping that he will make the dress squad sometime in a couple of years. --B (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Virginian Pilot is on the complete opposite side of the state. The Richmond Times Dispatch is a completely different market and about a 3+ hour drive up I-81 and over I-64. ESPN is national. The only local ones I see are WSLS and the Roanoke Times. The Washington Post (Washington DC is a good 5 hour drive from Blacksburg, depending on how bad I-66 is) did a profile on him [34]. The only consensus in past AFDs is that college players who do not meet the general notability criterion are not notable. College players who do meet it (ie, there are multiple reliable sources of information about them independent of the source) are notable. As for other college sports - they don't really matter. There are two college sports where every game is the subject of multiple articles, virtually every game is televised, and a substantial number of players are profiled in the news: college football and college basketball. Only in extremely rare cases would a college athlete from another sport be notable ... but for football and basketball, well-known starters at major schools are going to blow away our notability criterion and are probably more notable than professional athletes in other American sports. --B (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) There's a few on page two, most are local articles, others are columns blogs are articles about the team that mention Harris and/or quote him on a game. 2) Just because he's a big player at the school and local area doesn't mean he's internationally notable on wikipedia. If the top players on every college team had articles there would be 1000s of articles of good college players but non-notable elsewhere. It's pretty much been consensus in past AfDs that college athletes and college football players are generally not notable until turning pro (at the very least until they are drafted). 3) All of the other college sports delete articles on players, even the top prospect players. Players like this could go high in the draft or (I've seen some articles where he's not even in the top 10, all that falls under speculation i.e. WP:NOTCRYSTAL.--Bhockey10 (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of them are game recaps??? On the list of Google news stories I linked above, NOT A SINGLE HIT on the first two pages is a game recap. [30], [31], [32], and [33] - the first four hits from that results list - are all articles about Macho Harris himself, not about the team, not about a game, but about the player personally. Those alone are more than sufficient and you've got 50 pages more of the same. --B (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sources are just one aspect of notability, and with sport much of those sources are simply gamenotes and recaps. In all the other college and amatuer sports players are generally not notable even if they are expected to go high in the drafts of their sports. BUT since the NFL draft is comming up, it might be easier to keep the article. If he is expected to go so high in the draft then it should be noted and sourced in the article (as an explaination of notablility).--Bhockey10 (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. College American footballer doesn't confer notability in itself, but public interest from the professional sport certainly does. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Doesn't need the WP:ATH presumption, notability easily established. Townlake (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep- meets WP:GNG per the sources dug up by B. It doesn't matter if he meets additional criteria if he meets GNG. ESPN and the Washington Post are VERY clear examples of independent, third party sources. SMSpivey (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added those sources found by B to the article.SMSpivey (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Praveen kumar gorakavi
- Praveen kumar gorakavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Autobiographical article about a student in India. Some of the claims here are sourced, but many are not; more importantly, though, the significance of the claims isn't made clear. Most of the "inventions" listed don't have readily searchable names (the one which did ("VASCAMODE") yielded zero related Google hits besides this article), and news coverage of him appears to have been limited to passing "human interest" stories. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnotable and badly written; seems like it's a self-written article. -download | sign! 04:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While there are two secondary sources [41], [42] that suggest some notability, they are essentially soft-news human interest pieces about a local-school-kid doing good; note the articles are published in the newspaper'ps Young World supplement, which is directed at a younger audience. Most of the article content is unsourced, vague, and frankly exaggerated/dubious. Abecedare (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete badly written + seems to be 'auto'biography + not referenced. Also, such little 'genius'es usually gets a lot of local media coverage, but hardly contribute anything notable so that an encyclopedic article is worthy for them. His current contributions are not worthy enough.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as notability is not established due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also appears to have been written by the subject. Adam Zel (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable.--E8 (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Probert
- Dan Probert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't assert notability; COI article. JaGatalk 07:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. There's a lot of references in this article, but all of them seem to only mention the subject in passing. Probert seems to be skirting the edge of notability, but to my mind hasn't really made it yet. JulesH (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as notability is not established. Also appears to have been written by the subject. Adam Zel (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yashi Brown
- Yashi Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(As above) Non-notable singer. Only slightly known for being a member of the Jackson family. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Pyrrhus16 14:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - notability is not inherited: apart from family connection, does not meet WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment would a "merge all relevant info and redirect" (to whichever article) be more appropriate? Otherwise, deletion is certainly in order. ~EdGl (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - WP:Notability might exist but is not currently established by references. ----Boston (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC, and notability is not inherited. Merging not possible due to the lack of reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as subject is not covered in reliable independent sources. Adam Zel (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nadeea
- Nadeea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested Prod. NN musical artist. Fails WP:MUSIC. Dismas|(talk) 01:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails the notability standards set at WP:MUSIC. dissolvetalk 08:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as she does not meet the inclusion criteria of WP:MUSIC. Also reads as if it was written by the subject. Adam Zel (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greg Howlett
- Greg Howlett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable musician and businessman, can't find any reliable 3rd-party references supporting notability of subject MuffledThud (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Not sure how Greg Howlett notability is open for debate. First, there is a reliable 3rd-party reference used in the article. It is a university publication.
Secondly, Greg Howlett is a fairly well-known Christian concert pianist who performs numerous concert dates a year. He is a well-published writer (search on his name) and is the founder and CEO of a multi-million dollar company. Fredkelly1 (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have been more specific in the nomination. I can find no evidence in the article or in a Google search that he is notable per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. A CEO of a notable company might himself be notable, but the company itself isn't notable, so it's unlikely that he's notable as a businessman. The university publication is potentially reliable, but might also have a potential conflict of interest in a report about how successful its alumni are. Can you find any further WP:Reliable sources supporting his notability as a musician or businessman? MuffledThud (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A university publication is only potentially reliable? That seems strange to me considering that academic resources are considered reliable. However, there are also multiple reputable news sources online that print his bio such as http://www.webpronews.com/user/greg-howlett.
Fredkelly1 (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The article cites three sources - one is self published (throw that out), one is a university publication, but it's a marketing brochure, and the other is to archived articles on an eCommerce site. A google search yields nothing of note musically, but contributions to several on-line business sites. Now, the content of the articles wouldn't establish notability (for the subject), but that the subject is on several different sites may be the notability key. IMO, the sites are minor, and the articles themselves don't seem to be cited by anyone else. The number of different sites is the rationale for my weak in the delete, however.Vulture19 (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sources included with the article do not show evidence that the subject currently has the life achievement for an encyclopedia entry. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:53, 5 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Delahanty
- Patrick Delahanty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable person. Previous AFD in 2007 ended in no consensus, but notability has not been established since then; none of the references provided consitute significant coverage in independent reliable sources. As I can't find any myself, I think it's time this article was deleted. Robofish (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't seem like he's done anything notable, such as winning awards. -download | sign! 04:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing that could even remotely be considered notable. Sorry Patrick :) Ucanlookitup (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not appear to have life achievements (yet) to warrant an encyclopedia article. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as subject does not meet inclusion criteria. Adam Zel (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ray Joseph Cormier
- Ray Joseph Cormier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article fails to establish sufficient notability to meet notability guidelines. Activities appear to be no more significant than incidents of petty theft, or occasional graffiti. Canadian House of Commons events may be slightly notable - enough to be mentioned in THAT article, but not significant enough for the perpetrator to be mentioned in their own right (compare Jason Hatch, a member of Fathers 4 Justice who scaled the UK house of commons dressed as Batman, or Eddie Gorecki and Jolly Stanesby who did the same on the Royal Courts of Justice) Clinkophonist (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article needs serious clean up, but meets the requirements set forth in WP:N. He's been the subject of several non-trivial sources. Maybe all those newspapers should have not written about him, but they did, and in doing so they made him notable. Not wanting those sources to exist does not make them disappear. There is WAY more than enough reference here to support notability. Indeed, this is a borderline WP:SNOW situation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are minor newspapers. Its like someone who wins a gooseberry jam contest in Winchester, getting reported in the local press, then going into a similar contest contest in Newcastle, and winning that too, so getting a mention in the local press there as well; they aren't notable, despite being mentioned in several local press articles. Having lots of references in an article doesn't make it notableClinkophonist (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned at the last AFD, the following are major metropolitan dailies in markets of more than a million people: Edmonton Journal, Ottawa Citizen, Vancouver Sun, Kansas City Times, Halifax Daily News. They're not the New York Times, the Washington Post, or The Daily Telegraph, but they're certainly on the next tier. Making statements like "they are minor newspapers" makes me seriously question whether you made any attempt at research for opening this AFD. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are minor newspapers. Its like someone who wins a gooseberry jam contest in Winchester, getting reported in the local press, then going into a similar contest contest in Newcastle, and winning that too, so getting a mention in the local press there as well; they aren't notable, despite being mentioned in several local press articles. Having lots of references in an article doesn't make it notableClinkophonist (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Another nomination so soon after the last one ended in a keep consensus, raising essentially exactly the same issues, is borderline tendentious. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Sarcasticidealist. In addition, there are a number of editors working on improving the article and they should be given more time to access non-online sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - seems an interesting and notable character. Plenty of sources, nicely-referenced and -sized article. Furthermore, the previous AfD was only a couple of weeks ago - why is this second one really necessary? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on procedural grounds, like the 3 votes above; this is too soon after a previously closed discussion to re-open it. On the substance, weak keep; the biog. doesn't seem wildly notable, but those who know the Canadian media (which I don't) seem to be fairly consistent that the subject has been widely referenced. seglea (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Borderline KEEP - Although I am not fully sure if this biography meets notability guidelines, this article survived an AfD on 18 February 2009, less than two weeks ago. It is improper to nominate it again so soon. We can't just keep re-nominating articles for AfD until we get a result we like. Kingturtle (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin - biased canvassing has taken place. Hipocrite (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Canvassing is always biased (at least I can't think of how it wouldn't be). Are you referring to Wikipedia:Canvas#Campaigning? I don't really know how that can be applied to this AFD? Could you elaborate on your concern?Smallman12q (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At least one notification was sent out to a past participant in the 1st AFD that !voted "keep," asking them to participate here. Similar notifications were not sent out to any "delete" !voters. Hipocrite (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should be on the Talk page. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This person has no notability which makes him a good candidate for a wikipedia article. Civil disobedience campaigns can be grounds for inclusion, but in looking at the article and the sourcing I don't believe this individual merits inclusion at this time. JRP (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - apparently passes the reliable sources guideline, but I don't think there's anything in this article that really amounts to a claim of notability. There seems to be nothing especially significant or important about this man that makes him deserving of a Wikipedia article; he's simply a religious protester who has received some local press attention, but we're not exactly talking Fred Phelps here. (Full disclosure: I found out about this AFD after seeing the message posted by User:Clinkophonist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Trimble. Don't know if that counts as canvassing or not, but it seems worth mentioning.) Robofish (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- As was stated above, this article fails to state how this person is notable. --Mblumber (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article shows that he has received coverage from multiple reliable third party sources. That is the definition of notability. Could you clarify what you mean? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per WP:POLITICIAN and refs from reputatable sources. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aravious Armstrong
- Aravious Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Incoming true freshman who has yet to play a down of college football. The only source material covers Miami's recruits in general - this player does not meet the standard of significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. If, after arriving at campus, redshirting, earning playing time, and earning a starting position, he becomes a notable player, we can create an article at that time. Teams take in 20-25 or so players per year and around half of them never play a meaningful down. B (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, possibly speedy, unless "Armstrong was considered one of the best defensive prospects coming out of high school in 2009" is considered evidence of notability. "One of the best" doesn't seem adequate to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Every scholarship player for a BCS team was one of the best prospects coming out of high school. I am a Virginia Tech fan and occasionally go back and look at our old recruiting classes and it's amazing how many people on the list everyone obsessed over as the next thing since sliced bread who never panned out. I'm all for having articles on notable college athletes, but unless someone outside of a recruiting service notices them, we don't need high school athletes to be covered. --B (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Let's name the precedents: Arthur Brown, Russell Shepard, Devon Kennard, Matt Barkley, Garrett Gilbert, Bryce Brown, Manti Teo. Each of these articles is about a high school football player, each of them faced an AfD, and in each and everyone of them was decided to keep the articles. Don't waste your time, guys. --bender235 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Going down your list ... Arthur Brown was ranked by some as the #1 recruit in the country and received non-trivial media coverage, including a USA Today article specifically about him. Shepard was also ranked as the #1 recruit in the country by some. Kennard was #2 nationally and is the subject of numerous news articles. Barkley was the Gatorade National Player of the Year. Gilbert overwhelmingly meets the standard of significant coverage in the media. Bryce Brown received the U.S. Army National Player of the Year Award. Manti Teʻo has never actually been AFD'd but perhaps should. Anyway, Armstrong, unlike your above "precedents", has only been covered by news outlets that are covering all recruits. Nobody has profiled him. He isn't the #1 player in the country. He isn't a Percy Harvin, Tim Tebow, Chris Leak, or LeBron James that every sports fan on the planet has heard of even while they were in high school. That's the difference. --B (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Armstrong has been profiled by St. Petersburg Times. He also was ranked #13 by Rivals, compared to Shepard #7, Kennard #8, and Gilbert #18. I don't really see how smart it would be to delete this article now just to prove something, and then re-add it in fall when Armstrong lines up for the Hurricanes. --bender235 (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the article you linked? He wasn't "profiled" - he was mentioned in an article about Miami's recruiting. Only a small amount is actually about him. If, at some point in the future, he becomes a starter and there is non-trivial media coverage about him, then an article would be appropriate. I'm assuming that he is redshirting, so even if he starts as a redshirt freshman, that's 18 months away. Take a good look at Miami's commit list. A quarter of them will never play a meaningful down and over half of them will never start. We don't need articles for all of them just in case they make it. --B (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Armstrong has been profiled by St. Petersburg Times. He also was ranked #13 by Rivals, compared to Shepard #7, Kennard #8, and Gilbert #18. I don't really see how smart it would be to delete this article now just to prove something, and then re-add it in fall when Armstrong lines up for the Hurricanes. --bender235 (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am not certain about college football players, but those who have not yet played at that level are certainly not yet notable college athletes, which is the highest level of "amateur" competition. . As for notable high school athletes, I would insist as for other high school activities, on a national level award, not just a state one. Shepard, for example, did have a national level distinction, This is something that needs to be reconsidered. Only a few months ago we were debating about the notability of college varsity players. Articles with emphasis on the choice of a student about which college to attend, show the lack of encyclopedic content. to make an analogy, this is as if we were to make a push not just for the notability of any assistant professor, regardless of actual publications--but of anyone who ever started to work towards a PhD. DGG (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, he's a wait and see situation, which isn't what wikipedia is for. Secret account 22:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as he does not meet inclusion criteria. Adam Zel (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Also noting the GFDL is not revocable. MBisanz talk 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mohamad Jebara
- Mohamad Jebara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I really have no answer to what this article is doing on Wikipedia. It was created a couple of weeks ago and written as if it is a personal blog for a person with no notability, by one user who I suspect is the article's subject himself. I think this article should be deleted along with Cordova Academy. Board55 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator - neither he nor the Cordova Academy are notable, and the sources for the references are weak. pablohablo. 22:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No Basis for Deletion Request All material in this article is verifiable and well cited. Please feel free to check the citation. The request for deletion does not conform to the deletion guidelines. Thank You. An-Nadeem —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- note An-Nadeem & anon IP 74.13.69.170 each removed AfD notice from Article once, similar actions at Cordova Academy Afd, including blanking the AfD page. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Zero citations on Google Scholar, no books in WorldCat, no entries in Google Books.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User Board55 Has not contributed anything to Wikipedia: Please, note that user Board55 has made no contributions to Wikipedia, their first and sole acts have been trying to have my articles deleted under false and unfounded allegations. User Board55 has not specified under which article of Wikipedia's deletion policy their false allegations stand. Their first so called 'contribution' to Wikipedia was made at 19:31 on March 1, 2009, and that action was the unfounded act of wanting my articles deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by An-Nadeem (talk • contribs) 23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is certainly interesting, odd for a new user to be able to raise an Afd. However the issue for discussion here is whether this article fulfils the criteria of notability, and it doesn't seem to. pablohablo. 17:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that an IP editors cannot complete an AFD nomination. Although unusual, it may be a case where the editor registered in order to do the nomination but otherwise edits anonymously. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hafsah02: The consideration of having this article deleted is completely unfounded. The user ``board55`` has based his allegations on absolutely no policy broken under the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Moreover, the articles `Mohamad Jebara`and `Cordova Academy` are general articles that promote no hate, discrimination, or any other controversial issue for that matter. Thus, there would be no need to have them removed. Due to these reasons, I feel the request of deletion should be disregarded based on the fact that there is no proof or reason to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafsah02 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User Board55 has no basis for requesting this article to be deleted, rather he has failed to concur with the general policies of the Wikipedia Encyclopaedia which is to “be civil and neutral and to respect all points of views”. All information on this article and all others relating to it are factual and verifiable. We hope all those who oppose these articles will bring proof and do so with consideration and respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More brand new users jumping into deletion discussions! The "policy" in question is notability supported by independent, reliable sources. pablohablo. 17:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please visit www.cordovaacademy.com. His books and publications are also clearly mentioned in the article. Please be more clear as to the specific proof you (the judge) are looking for. As a member of the Ottawa community I can attest to all of Imam Mohamad Jebara's contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there's no reliable sources covering this person in depth. Fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability issue you have brought up is not valid for the reasons that Imaam Mohamad Jebara is well known to the community, he has taught a great number of people, he is being nominated for the Order of Ontario award, he has given lectures in so many schools in Ottawa, he has been in the newspaper several times. I can go on and on with this. Additionally, the `lack of reliable sources` you mentioned is also unfounded for the reason that the articles are fully referenced. If there is something written in them that is untrue, then you must provide proof. If not, then please be respectful and do not make claims of `notability`. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafsah02 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the guideline on reliable sources. Most of the references provided are not reliable sources. In particular, all the point to the Cordova Academy are not independent of the subject. The Metro News article is simply a single quote from the subject. This leaves only a couple of articles in a community Muslim paper. That's very narrow coverage. Taking all of these references in their totality, they do not meet the threshold of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability issue you have brought up is not valid for the reasons that Imaam Mohamad Jebara is well known to the community, he has taught a great number of people, he is being nominated for the Order of Ontario award, he has given lectures in so many schools in Ottawa, he has been in the newspaper several times. I can go on and on with this. Additionally, the `lack of reliable sources` you mentioned is also unfounded for the reason that the articles are fully referenced. If there is something written in them that is untrue, then you must provide proof. If not, then please be respectful and do not make claims of `notability`. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafsah02 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete (ec x 2) per Whpq, Eric Yurken & pablo, I don't see the extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources required to meet WP:N. Take for example the Metro News source, it's a tangential quote from the subject. In order to support notability this would have to be a story about Mohamad Jebara, it is not, it is about World Religion Day. Two sentences at the bottom of the piece mentioning Jebara in a local give-away commuter paper just don't come close to the extensive coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that is required to meet WP:N. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the article creator could produce some independent sources, I would probably support its survival. As it stands, it's interesting but non-notable because of the lack of independent sources. Peridon (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete- The subject of this article has made historical contributions to Classical fields relating to the Elocution and Grammar of the Classical Arabic language. You may have missed the point of the Metro Newspaper, the subject of my article was present at the event representing the Muslim faith; the official delegate of the Muslim faith from the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau, during the word religion day celebrations. Also, please see the citations to the Muslimlink Newspaper, a Muslim newspaper distributed in major cities in Ontario and Quebec. I would like to know, why these articles are being attached so vigorously? There are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia that are bare of citations, and people with no notability still up with no objection. Why is it that when a user (User Board55) who contributed nothing to wikipedia aside from trying to get my articles deleted, and their first supporter is a user who accuses themselves of vandalism, make false allegations, their allegations are taken seriously? I think this is truly a sad waste of time. Instead of improving my articles and getting them to a standard you 'deem' acceptable, you are wasting time slandering the person of a very notable member of the Ottawa community, without knowing anything about him. Thank you for your understanding -- An-Nadeem(UTC)
- Comment You should read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yes, there's a lot out there that is not good enough and actually should be deleted. If you have seen articles like that, please bring them to AfD. In the meantime, their existence cannot be used to justify maintaining other articles with equal lack of notability. --Crusio (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Jebara is supposed to have been born in 1981 and in 1994, presumably at the age of 13, founded Cordova Academy. That, frankly, seems rather improbable to me. Any comments on this anybody? --Crusio (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see http://cordovaacademy.com/biography_imam_mohamad_jebara_arabic_tajwid.aspx for his detailed biography.
Dear moderator, it is for reasons like these that Imam Jebara has gained standing at such a young age.
Additionally, I was looking up the Q and A’s on the issue of reliability, and I quote one of the moderators, “Generally newspapers and newswires are reliable sources on almost all subjects; it almost goes without asking. Most of what gets debated here are either very politicized sources where there's a question on citing them as fact or opinion, primary sources when there's a question of excessive detail, or self-published sources where there's a question on whether the author is an expert. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliable_source.3F
The source in question, namely the Muslimlink Newspaper, is neither very politicized, nor does the source not mention enough detail about the subject’s biography, nor is it self published.
please see: http://www.muslimlink.ca/downloads/07dec.pdf page 26 And Also http://www.muslimlink.ca/downloads/08jun.pdf pg. 2 And Also http://www.muslimlink.ca/downloads/07oct.pdf pg. 15
The Muslimlink is a widely known newspaper in the Province of Ontario not affiliated with any group or people. The content of this article has been mainstream news and events both locally and internationally.
As the policy states “Significant coverage" means that sources addresses the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.
All of the articles mentioned in the Muslimlink meet these criteria. What then, dear moderator, is the problem? In addition, all of his books contain his biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Academy was not fully established in 1994. Rather it was FOUNDED in 1994. There are students (many of them) who have studied with him during this time. Please see his website: http://cordovaacademy.com/biography_imam_mohamad_jebara_arabic_tajwid.aspx, and you will find that it is written:
While at their home, the family inquired about Mohamad's religious education. Impressed by his knowledge at such a youthful age, they asked him to begin teaching them and their extended family and friends. Soon, Mohamad, just twelve years old, would be teaching many in his neighborhood, he had a class of 60 ladies, with their children. They had weekly classes crammed in a small townhouse. This was the dawn of Mohamad's teaching career.--Hafsah02 (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDelete Muslimlink is "not affiliated with any group or people"? Come on... I quote: "The Muslim Link’s aims to bring Canadian Muslims together under the banner of Islam and to open a dialogue with non-Muslims.". If that isn't affiliation with a 'group or people' then I don't know what the word means. User Board 55 is quite entitled to nominate for AfD - as are you. If you consider any article is not suitable for Wikipedia, bring it here and we'll look at it too. We'll discuss it, analyse it, research it, and then reach a consensus. Not following any holy writ, not following slavishly any carved in stone commandments, but rather assessing each case individually. Some are total junk. Some are more border-line, and their fate depends on our opinions. Others are poor quality but capable of improvement and may be kept for this. Still others are decidedly not candidates for deletion and they get speedily kept. I notice that only one of the supporters of this article has edited outside this topic, and that one has spent much effort on this article and the Cordova Academy one, with little other except related subjects. Possibly inserting links - I haven't checked. This is no reason to disregard their views, but does tend to make criticism of Board55 look like pot and kettle. Above, I said I might be inclined to support if reliable outside sources were forthcoming. So far they haven't been. I can understand this, as I can't find any either - and believe me, I do try. The histrionics of the support side haven't done much for me, either. I prefer facts - supported facts - to "you can't do this!" and "he is notable, we say he is!" statements. Peridon (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“Muslim Link invites MUSLIMS and NON-MUSLIMS to send in their contributions on issues which affect the Muslim Community AS WELL AS the GREATER CANADIAN COMMUNITY.”
“Muslim Link is NOT affiliated with any particular group or sect. Muslim Link DOES NOT directly or indirectly favour any organizations or groups.”
We’ve brought the facts. The issue at stake here was that of notability, whether there were any sources that MEET the reliability standards.
Your policy states that Materials from news organizations are welcome, and as the moderator stated “Generally newspapers and newswires are reliable sources on almost all subjects; it almost goes without asking. Most of what gets debated here are either very politicized sources where there's a question on citing them as fact or opinion, primary sources when there's a question of excessive detail, or self-published sources where there's a question on whether the author is an expert. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)”
I also noted that the subject’s biography is mentioned in his books, those are all available in hard copy text. You are more than welcome to purchase them for fact checking.
Kindly explain how this case is different. Is the problem that Muslimlink is a Muslim MADE newspaper? Is that the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete none of the "keep" !votes seems to be able to provide compelling evidence of notability. If they, who seem to have detailed knowledeg of the subject, cannot do this, that probably means there is none. And I agree with Peridon, the yelling and implicit accusations of anti-Muslim bias aren't very helpful either. --Crusio (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What accusations?
You have a policy. Our article meets those guidelines, yet you say that this case is different, and you still have not explained how so? I really am dumbfounded at the allegations here.
What does it mean to have compelling evidence? We're really trying our best to bring forth online material that meet these guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "We're really trying our best to bring forth online material that meet these guidelines."
- I know that this is difficult, I too tried - and failed - to bring forth any online material that attests to the notability of Mohamad Jebara. What he writes on his own website is not independent. Biographies of him in books that he has written are not independent. That leaves the "Muslim Link" newsletter: I have found no information on its circulation or its editorial standards. pablohablo. 10:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please contact them. Editor-in-Chief chief@muslimlink.ca. It is a well known Newspaper in Ontario and Quebec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Please provide links to reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy Don't put them here, put them in the article. pablohablo. 11:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We brought our proof, and as per your policy we expect you too, to prove that this Newpaper is not legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, I don't want to bite a newby, but you have NOT shown any proof. An email to the editor-in-chief of a journal will not do anything to establish its notability. What is he going to say? "No, my journal is completely forgettable"? Of course not, even if it is, he'll maintain that his journal is important. And an email that I or anyone else gets, is not something I can put in an article as a reference. Not every newspaper is automatically a reliable source. If you have something from one of Canada's major newspapers, that would be great. If all you have is Muslim Link, then you will have to show first that this journal is notable and independent, before you can use it as an independent verifiable source. It is not up to anybody here to show that Muslim Link is not notable, it is up to you to show that it is. --Crusio (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally newspapers and newswires are reliable sources on almost all subjects; it almost goes without asking. Most of what gets debated here are either very politicized sources where there's a question on citing them as fact or opinion, primary sources when there's a question of excessive detail, or self-published sources where there's a question on whether the author is an expert. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs)
- Note - Please do not add the signatures of another user onto your posts. I've stricken the signature. -- Whpq (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The quotation above is taken from an answer to a question here, and does nothing to indicate that Muslim Link is a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy pablohablo. 12:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I quoted it above if you remember. I'd just like to understand how the paper in question also proves that it is a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the moderator was refering to general guidelines —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed my contribution to wikipedia since you people seem to be so vigorously against my articles, I have removed their entire content. Please, use your time to contribute to the betterment of this world instead of wasting your time indulging in and slandering something you have no knowledge about. I am truly sorry that wikipedia is like this, I actually though it had some academic weight to it. I have lost all respect for its so called credibility. A person who contributed nothing to it sparked all this, due to some envy they may harbor for this great institution and its honorable founder. Dear Moderator, please delete all my contributions to Wikipedia immediately and let everyone get on with their lives. an-Nadeem —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment I would like to stress that I have Islamic friends, and have worked for years with Islamic people. As to 'slandering' and 'envy' - we are not slandering or libelling. We are trying to establish a true picture from independent sources. I have more than once added references to an article in order to save it. I can't do that here because I can't find anything that meets my definition of reliable, or Wikipedia's definition either. If you could produce the references, ones that are considered independent and reliable (no blogs, myspaces, and such, and no self-published stuff with a few rare exceptions), we'd look at them. And a consensus would be reached. We cannot just accept your statement that the subject is well-known. Maybe to you, he is. He isn't to us. And we have looked. As to 'envy', I find nothing there to envy and certainly don't. I come from a faith that does not regard any books as 'holy'. On the other hand, I do know that memorising the Islamic holy book is regarded in Islam as an achievement. It is not all that rare an achievement, I believe, and by itself not notable enough for an article. It is also difficult to establish by independent means. I am sorry you are deciding to withdraw your article. I would rather it stayed - subject to verifiable references. When you can produce these, bring it back for a second try. Peridon (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I second Peridon's statement, well said! --Crusio (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clark Whittington
- Clark Whittington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This and redirect Art-o-mat were both prodded as they were both duplicates (apparently involving cutting and pasting) of a Cigarette machine#Art-o-Mat. I seconded the prod of this article and prodded the latter with Unsourced article seems promotional in nature and is a duplicate of similarly-prodded Clark Whittington article. The last paragraph (which was removed from the other article) is clearly a promotion. There appears no reliable source independent of the inventor or Artists in Cellopane that demonstrate significant coverage and discussion per WP:N and WP:V. At the time the prod on this was contested, both either had no references or nominal references connected with organization that is trying to promote Art-o-Mat. There is still no reference separating Whittington from Art-o-Mat, and nothing to indicate that he would be noted for anything else. Both articles and the section are still promotional in nature. B.Wind (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have twice pointed out to the nominator the many reliable sources available from a Google News archive search that show notability. The lack of sources separating Art-o-mat from Clark Whittington is a reason for redirecting one article to the other, as the nominator has perfectly correctly done, not for deleting this information altogether. This isn't something that belongs in the cigarette machine article, other than possibly as a brief mention with a link to the article under question here, any more than the article on J. M. W. Turner should be merged with paintbrush - the cigarette machine is simply one of tools of his trade. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Multiple independent sources: [43], [44], [45].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The google search above provides a great deal of sources. That most seem to report on this as a novelty says a great deal about the long-term notability of the project (nor is this artist the first to come up with this idea). However, that's not part of our discussion. As it stands, there is some notability for this artist around the Art-o-Matic concept based on the coverage alone. I'd be interested to see where this all stands in a few years. freshacconci talktalk 20:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Those Google News results span 12 years [46][47]. How much longer do you want? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, that's one source for 12 years ago, when Whittington apparently started this. I don't see how that's important. Is this all he's done in 12 years? That in itself brings up some issues of notability. Were he a young artist starting out and receiving all this press, trivial as it is, that would be impressive. It's actually not much to show for 12 years of work. freshacconci talktalk 21:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. But there are 88 more reliable sources from the intervening years, as I pointed out in my post above. Your argument for the weakness of your keep position was a lack of long-term notability, which those sources show. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't understand why this is so important to you. I've !voted for keep, but I feel it's a weak keep. Yes, there's 88 sources over 12 years. But those are mainly trivial sources (i.e. passing mentions, fluff pieces, etc.: the sources are not in question, just the tone). Add them all up, sure it's notable. But, as I've said before, it's for one work of art and that's all Whittington seems to have done in 12 years. And as I have already said, that in itself is not a reason for deletion. If there had been some more substantial coverage over the past 12 years, or the artist had accomplished more, this wouldn't be an issue. But as it stands, this artist's notability is weak at best. freshacconci talktalk 22:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This isn't particularly important to me - I had never heard of this artist or his work before I saw the article. I was just replying to your point about long-term notability. If this has had continuing coverage over twelve years then why do you question where this will stand in a few more years? Just how much coverage does it need to make notability more than weak? And how long does it take for something to no longer be a novelty? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mild keep. Notable for its novelty, not problematic for commercialization, in my view. Richard Myers (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Phil Bridger. We are only concerned with one thing, which is whether this subject has achieved notability according to wikipedia requirements through sufficient coverage in secondary sources, which it clearly has. I would like to see some more of the sources used as references in the article, however. It may be that the article would be better titled as Art-o-mat than the name of the artist, but that is a secondary consideration. Ty 21:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I PRODed this originally; I found hits for Art-O-Mat, so I didn't PROD it at the same time, but searching g-news for something about Whittington that doesn't relate to Art-O-Mat yields nothing. His only claim to notability is the press generated by the Art-O-Mat. Art-O-Mat as its own article I'd say to keep, but not the article about its creator. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Isn't that an argument for reversing the redirect made by the nominator (which I would fully support) rather than for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You could put it that way; my "delete" was referring to Clark Whittington since it's the nominated article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be better to change your !vote to reflect that, as we don't delete valid content just because it's got the wrong title. We change the title. I would also support that. Ty 09:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The title wouldn't need changed- the other had text which was changed to a redirect. A simple revert will bring it back. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Phil Bridger. Ample reliable sources, showing notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - covered in reliable sources and over a long period of time so it negates any on-event aspect. As for the notability of Whittington verus the art-o-matic, an artist is known by his work, and his notability is inextricably linked with it. As it seems the art-o-matic is them main claim to fame, then a single article about him and his major work along with a redirect is a perfeclt reasonable approach to addressing the content. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep and tag for sources, as they are easily found with even the laziest of searches. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment just added a couple sources. Needs expansion. Perhaps a name-change to Art-O-Mat might be discussed on the talk page/ Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's at Art-o-mat already. It's a redirect right now, but there is content from before it was redirected. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Move and redirect to Art-o-mat. This "biography" has no biographical information, rather only details regarding this novelty, therefore there is no assertion that the subject is notable independent of it. Adam Zel (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. and indef semi-protected per BLP issues. MBisanz talk 05:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bilal Skaf
- Bilal Skaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
individual only notable for criminal acts, article already exists on the gang rapes Thisglad (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well known Australian criminal. Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect into Sydney gang rapes. No need for a separate article, per WP:ONEEVENT. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I would normally agree with the argument raised by Lilac Soul, but in this case the "one event" (which of course was more than one event, but I understand the reference) includes a controversial trial and imprisonment. The subject is an especially notorious and much reported on prisoner. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- per Mattinbgn's reasoning, I'd usually say merge, however Skaf has been the subject of many high profile incidents while incarcerated. -- Longhair\talk 23:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- per Mattinbgn's reasoning. Mark Hurd (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Skaf is notable for more than WP:ONEEVENT. Other than the multiple rapes, there are the threats against his girlfriend and against Ron Woodham, illegal activities by his parents during contact with him etc. WWGB (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, normally I'd wave WP:BLP1E about, but Skaf is a particularly notorious criminal who has managed to keep himself in the papers, as alluded to by WWGB and sourced in the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment It appears this is likely to be kept. If it is, then we as a project need to be vigilant in removing this sort of unacceptable content. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:27, 4 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Princess Edwige Vincent de Bourbon
- Princess Edwige Vincent de Bourbon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A very elaborate hoax, with blogs, spam comments on internet forums, and even a website, but no reliable third party sources. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No book hits, from supposed royalty born in the 50s? WP:HOAX. Nice try. §FreeRangeFrog 05:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - 'tis a hoax methinks. Impressive, though. X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obvious hoax. Choess (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 07:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky Office
- Lucky Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article does not assert notability per WP:CREATIVE and the one link is a shopping site. JaGatalk 09:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no notability asserted, little citing of sources. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The sculptor has an entry on the national Zimbabwe sculpture website. Artists which are recognised nationally in this way are virtually always notable. If somebody started an articles on a German sculptor which wa slisted on a national website nobody would blink an eyelid. This sculpor is recognised internationally in America, UK, Germany etc which is grounds for notability for me too. Just needs expansion. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you give the link to the national Zimbabwe sculpture website? I can't find it. --JaGatalk 20:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the one you say is a national official site in the article just appears to be another shopping site. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with Dr Blofeld. It is important to realize that Western artists are much easier to source than third-world artists for purely economic reasons unrelated to artistic merit. The fact that the linked article is a "shopping site" is a reflection of economic necessities which may be outside the experience of many in the richer nations. Katica Durica (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Evidently my previous post was too brief to be clear. If you expect to find the same sort of documentation for artists from Zimbabwe as you would find for artists from Europe or the United States, you will systemically exclude the former unless they have been graced by the favor of a Western critic or scholar. I live within walking distance of three insignificant museums of at best local interest, all of which have well-maintained websites. Here, to the best of my knowledge, is the website of the National Museum of Zimbabwe. (Yes, it's a dead link.) Artists who generally make far less money than a teenager hustling fries at McDonalds can not afford to be idealistic. They need to sell their work to survive.
- I do not know whether Zimsculpt is the national Zimbabwe sculpture website or not, but it is a misunderstanding to call it a "shopping site":
- "Zimsculpt, a non-political company based in Harare, Zimbabwe, represents over 100 sculptors from across the country."
- "Every year ZimSculpt selects several promising artists to be featured overseas, providing for their travel and lodging to enable them to attend events in which their sculpture is exhibited and to meet with admirers of their work."
- "ZimSculpt profits are re-invested in new art works, used to bring artists overseas and to market Zimbabwean talent internationally. The sales from their sculptures pay their rent and school fees, like any of us. Five percent of sales from ZimSculpt.com’s e-commerce website are donated to Inter-Country People’s Aid (IPA), a community-based charity in Zimbabwe."
- These quotations are extracted for convenience from this website. Yes, the works are for sale, but the Royal Botanical Gardens is not a shopping center. Please note the quotations at the bottom of the same webpage (here is the quoted Newsweek article) for an idea of the importance of this school in general, if not Mr Office in particular, and above all compare with AlbertHerring's testimony as to the difficulty of finding references elsewhere than at sites which offer the artists' work for sale. Katica Durica (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the source page - I'm not going to comment as to the merits, or lack thereof, of the article itself, as I recognize that I have a tendency to get a little overzealous in my creations. However, I wanted to echo Katica Durica's comment about the source.
Sourcing these articles on Zimbabwean sculptors has been frustrating for me because it's very difficult to find information online. Even in print, I had access to a handful of books on contemporary African art while I was in college, and they did little but mention the names of certain artists and their connection to contemporary art in Africa as a whole. So far as I can ascertain, little of a scholarly nature has been written on the Shona stone sculpture movement, and of that most of it deals with the so-called "first generation" sculptors (the ones who were active in the 1950s and 1960s). And even of those, for some (Josia Manzi, for one) the only biographical information I can find is via these shopping sites. (I use Manzi as an example because I once saw a book on contemporary African art, from a highly well-respected series, that used him as an example of the movement; that's plenty of notability for me, there.) It's an unfortunate reality, but until more scholarship is done on the subject, I'm afraid it's the best that can be done. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 18:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. From a Czech site about the history of Zimbabwean sculpture:[48] "Right from the surroundings of these workshops will probably many new stars of Zimbabwean sculpture 21st century. Several of them have already managed to push through at least the individual sculptures in exhibitions in Hararite National Gallery, can be expected that the names as Lucky Office (1976), Witness Chimika (1981) or Samusha Kachere (1981) to be one day become known as the world's galleries." (Právě z okolí těchto dílen zřejmě vyjde řada nových hvězd zimbabwského sochařství 21. Několika z nich se už podařilo prosadit alespoň jednotlivými sochami na výstavách v hararské Národní galerii, lze tak čekat, že jména jako Lucky Office (1976), Witness Chimika (1981) nebo Samusha Kachere (1981) se třeba jednou stanou známými i ve světových galeriích.) Also appears to be a commercial site but if they list him as one of three examples of contemporary Zimbabwean sculptors that seems like an indication of notability. (Also that people who speak Czech care about his work.) On the other hand, almost all the profiles of him I can find anywhere appear to be just slight revisions of each other, so there's not a lot of indication of multiple independent sources. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jay Schillaci
- Jay Schillaci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
College baseball player without major achievement fails WP:ATHLETE. JaGatalk 04:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - amateur sportsman, clearly fails WP:Athlete. NO inidication of notability. Parslad (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Borgarde (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - vanity page; doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. BRMo (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Does not meet notability criteria. Adam Zel (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Main contributor to the page seems to be Schillaci himself. Does not pass notability. Spanneraol (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 01:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robert J. Fleming (CPA)
- Robert J. Fleming (CPA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Listed as non-notable since July 2008, no in-links. Brianhe (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Too many problems with the article, and the opening sentences are not even referenced. Versus22 talk 05:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not a single hit on Google News for this person, even without the middle initial. Drmies (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of reliable, independent sources to establish notability. Reads like it was written by the subject as well. Adam Zel (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was that there is a clear consensus to delete because the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for an article in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imbalzano
- Imbalzano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Author made a page about himself Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - zero notability, nor any assertion thereof J L G 4 1 0 4 01:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To avoid "conflict of interest" I have deleted all links! But this avoid also the completeness of INFORMATION! SEE: "OMISSIS to avoid 'conflict of interest' but you see also all external links in WIKIPEDIA!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imbalzanog (talk • contribs) 12:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's a mess and there's nothing establishing notability. Adam Zel (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the biography is complex, but it reflect an entire life —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imbalzanog (talk • contribs) 15:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also EXTERNAL LINKS, that you admitted in other part of Wikipedia! Imbalzanog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the article, and NOTABLE point are 1) the ANECDOTE 2) RICH productivity 3) remarkable COINCIDENCE of scientific discovery on FERMAT (Wiles/Imbalzano) 4) eccentricity..? Imbalzanog (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm too stupid to be able to find even a small clue as to what the article is about. But its author is its subject, and that's a no-no, yes? Proxy User (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOT DELETE! Not at all! Documented exceptions exist: see Entire rules, please! William B. (ITALY)
- Delete - even if the subject were not the author, the subject is non-notable, writings are self-published or conference papers. The almost unreadable translation doesn't help. Robsavoie (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Attention, in the interest of all the users. 1) I stayed contacted from a certain < anime_addict_aa@yahoo.com>: he has recopied the page ""http:// en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Imbalzano" on "http]:// www.wikinfo.org/ index.php/ Imbalzano"; he believe to do me a favor, without any request from me. 2) Applications from isolated users exist for cancellation of the page on "wikipedia" in base to the conceitedness of a personal interest, to which I have already answered, without strong objections from administrative part. 3) I remember: other interventions (past and future) they have made said page of the all neutral! 4) Now, finished the 5 days of discussion, I would ask kindly, also in the interest of the democracy on Wikipedia, to conclude with the acceptance of the page "Imbalzano." 5) Certainly, the ownership of English language will be bettered. User and member: "imbalzanog" (= Imbalzano "Garant"), for don't confuse this with "Giovanni" Imbalzano. Imbalzanog (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC) For ROBsavoie. Please read, and with much attention: see you the ISSN and ISBN?! NOT DELETE Imbalzanog (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - almost totally incomprehensible, but from what sense I can glean from it this does not seem to be a notable person. No equivalent article on it.WP, which is not a good sign..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP? Article is not political and not is commercial! Ah, ChrisTheDude is a scientist..? Imbalzanog (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP stands for Wikipedia... Oli OR Pyfan! 00:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've tried the NOTABLE (sic) references. I can't say I agree with that definition. I'm not prepared to search through five or more sets of stuff on one of them, and couldn't find the subject's surname in another before it crashed Firefox. (Up to that point it consisted of a list of university people one or two of whom might have been notable. I didn't check them.) One that did mention the subject was from 1999 and appeared to be in connection with something for translating into Italian either used by or endorsed by the subject. I hope it's better than whatever was used here. On web search, I did find rather a lot of lulu.com. This is a self-publishing web-based outfit, which is fine if you are producing something of local interest and limited market. Being published this way indicates a lack of notability in the sense used at Wikipedia. On this search, I didn't find much (if anything at all) that I'd really consider reliable third party indicators of notability. Sorry. Peridon (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude was saying there is no article on this subject on the Italian language Wikipedia, and that this indicates non-notability as far as the Italian speaking Wikipedia community is concerned. It could be that one has not been posted yet - if so, why not? It could be that one has been deleted. A quick index check there indicates it hasn't been posted there. Peridon (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If he isn't sufficiently notable for the Italian WP, I don't see that he's sufficiently notable here. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ChrisTheDude and Dori. Oli OR Pyfan! 23:21, 7 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 01:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Gosling
- Tony Gosling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Yet another prodded article with prod notice (and reference tag) removed by a serial deprodder whose only explanation was "notable" with no explanation. Minor journalist, the few reliable sources prove his existence but do not give any sort of reason why he should have an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources prove notability.--Sloane (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lots of details but no particular claim to notability, fails WP:BIO. If Esasus or anyone else can find enough refs to establish notability, I will gladly change my vote. §FreeRangeFrog 00:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of independent reliable sources to establish notability. Adam Zel (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - plenty of google hits (11,600) [49] and I have added external links to the article. Included in these are links to several articles that establish that Tony Gosling meets the General notability guideline per [[50]], that is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The articles [51] certainly meets this criteria, and among the 11,600 google hits there are more. Also the one-on-one interviews with Gosling meets the criteria for significant coverage, and his extensive list of published articles he has written [52] in evidence of a significant fan base following.Esasus (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 05:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amira Ahmed
- Amira Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability not established. I can't find a single reference to a model named Amira Ahmed outside of facebook or similar sites. Closedmouth (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Besides being a model, there is no mention of any other activities to back up notability. --Roaring Siren (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No need to delete the page. She's an actual up and coming model. I'll start working on the article myself this week. Middayexpress (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Be my guest, but good luck finding references. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh... nevermind. *sheepish grin* I thought an actual article could perhaps be salvaged here, but I've spent quite some time searching for legitimate sources on her and there really don't seem to be any besides forums and blogs. The modeling agency these forums say she is signed to is also no longer operational, so her model status in 2009 is anyone's guess. Anyone who knows differently, please feel free to correct me. Middayexpress (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there's no reliable sources covering her - Whpq (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of reliable sources to establish notability. Adam Zel (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. Brooke Bennett
- A. Brooke Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable congressional staff member DCmacnut<> 00:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability for this individual. JJL (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- tentative keep government officials are notable, however this needs more sourcingTroyster87 (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Clearly passes the notability guidelines under WP:POLITICIAN.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment can you be more specific? Her experience is as an aide to a congressman and as a committee suport staffer--these are appointed positions that aren't even Senate-confirmed. JJL (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm the original nominator and would like to clarify. This person is an appointed staff member in an individual congressman's office. She does not meet WP:POLITICIAN because she was not elected to the position. She is also not a government official, in the same sense as a high-ranking secretary of a federal cabinet office is. She is a mid-level staff member in a congressional office. While she plays an important role in the legislative work of Joseph Cao's office, she doe not rise to the level of notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. And I say this as a former senate staff member myself, who incidentially does not have his own Wikipedia article nor has a desire to have one.DCmacnut<> 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN yet. Only one source, so doesn't meet WP:BIO. THF (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as above. Does not meet notability criteria. Adam Zel (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appointed staff members in congressional offices do not met inclusion criteria. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per DCmacnut.Esasus (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 23:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Martin T. Buell
- Martin T. Buell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Was prodded by someone else with "A search for references has failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources in order to comply with notability requirements. This has included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Living people – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability." I agree. Article is promotional/vanity with no reliable sources and no claim to any reason that Wikipedia readers would care. DreamGuy (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I prodded this article when is was a cut & past of web sites. Esasus has since added "Buell is a former commissioner for the Professional Karate Association and a former rating chairman for Karate Illustrated Magazine." If this had a citation, I would be satisfied with its notability. jmcw (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure those meet our criteria for notability, but until such time as reliable sources proving it are found I don't know that I'd trust the claim in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ebay has old editions of 'Karate Illustrated' with Buell's name on the cover. I believe he was editor: I just would like a better reference than an Ebay photo<g>. jmcw (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We could just ask the editor to provide the source so we know if it's trustworthy information. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So would any editor of any magazine no matter about size, scope or attention the world paid to them at large be proof of notability? No. There would have to be outside sources documenting notability. So this particular line of thought is a moot point. DreamGuy (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We could just ask the editor to provide the source so we know if it's trustworthy information. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as former commissioner for the Professional Karate Association, and as former rating chairman for Karate Illustrated Magazine, with additional coverage as he has received as the head of a franchised karote school, the subject meets the minimum standard for notability. Esasus (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I am having trouble with the link http://www.warrenkempo.com/index.php?categoryid=11. Do you know of a more reliable one? Thanks. jmcw (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again we have User:Esasus in a deletion discussion showing up to make claims of notability but not bothering to support them with any real sources. If there's additional coverage, show it, and hen we can see if it meets WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY standards. It's up to the article to demonstrate notability. DreamGuy (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- question DreamGuy, do you and Esasus have personal disagreements? jmcw (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DreamGuy has been stalking me since I disagreed with him in a discussion a few weeks back. He has been just been blocked for 55 hours for his dispuptions on another matter [53] so we will have peace for the weekend, but watch out for sockpuppets. Esasus (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notability well established as former commissioner of PKA. Winner of notable competitions. Article is adequately referenced. Proxy User (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2009 (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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eric O'Keefe
- Eric O'Keefe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this article. Bongomatic 01:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete promo articleTroyster87 (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage Hipocrite (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. No significant independent coverage. Adam Zel (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2009 (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.
Living people proposed deletions
- Morley Vernon King (via WP:PROD on 30 December 2008)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamau Kambon (2nd nomination)