m Archiving closed debates |
m Archiving closed debates |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. Hanton}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. Hanton}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orkut Büyükkökten}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orkut Büyükkökten}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua L. Dratel}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua L. Dratel}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Dorsey}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Dorsey}} |
||
Line 23: | Line 22: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca S. Snyder (2nd nomination)}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca S. Snyder (2nd nomination)}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristina Schultz (2nd nomination)}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristina Schultz (2nd nomination)}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slim Goodbuzz}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayra Rosales}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayra Rosales}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara McCluskey}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara McCluskey}} |
Revision as of 18:11, 13 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Darius Sunawala
- Darius Sunawala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Declined speedy. Local DJs are inherently non-notable. One needs many reliable, independent sources *where the person is the primary subject* to clear that hurdle. That does not appear to be the case here. Yes, there are mentions of this fellow in the Hindu Times, but virtually every one of them mentions him in passing. An article covering an event where this guy made a brief appearance as a presenter is inadequate coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. THF (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. For clarity, he's not a "local DJ", but rather a radio personality and radio station program director. Gnews finds a few reliable sources, [1], but I think it's safe to say there'd be a lot more hits for an American media personality of similar stature. We need to take care to avoid systemic bias when evaluating the notability of non-Western subjects. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I'd say a program director would be even less notable than a DJ. A "radio personality" is a DJ. Don't parse my words. Looking at the write-up for Fever 104 FM, it sure looks like a local station to me. local is local, no matter where "local" may be. I checked Google News before I ever made the nomination. Just mentioning the guy for handing out an award is not sufficient coverage when the story is about the award, and not the presenter. DarkAudit (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Reply Do you have an actual reason to keep this article beyond accusing me of bias for being a "Westerner"? DarkAudit (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not accusing you of anything -- everybody has to be aware of CSB problems while editing. It's your job to demonstrate a valid rationale for deletion, and so far you haven't done so. "Inherently non-notable" is a bad argument, and standard methods of measuring notability via sourcing don't work well for this type of subject. The article should be kept because it covers a notable media personality; again, if this were an American media personality of similar stature, I don't think this would even be an issue. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree there. Multiple sources about the subject is one way to establish notability, but surely not the only one. Also, while it might not be a good idea to cover everything in the world, I have yet to find anything that is inherently non-notable. You might be thinking of verifiability. - Mgm|(talk) 10:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I talk of "inherently non-notable" here I mean that you're going to get lots of local press for a "radio personality" because he's, well, local. But go an hour or two down the highway in any direction, where that station may not reach, and you may be hard pressed to find anyone who cares one way or the other about the guy. You're certainly not going to see much in the way of media coverage about him once you get out that far. He's a big-city DJ,and the *local* press amounts to as much. Trivial coverage where he just happened to appear at an event that was the real focus of that coverage. The American DJs who are notable enough to warrant an article all have national audiences at numerous radio stations across the country. A guy at a single station in a single city, with media coverage to match, wouldn't. DarkAudit (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's non non-local coverage clause for individuals as there is for organizations, but if there was one, this subject would not be a good test case for it. He's a media personality in Bangalore, the capital of Karnataka, which is larger than any US city except New York, and which has more population than about half of the world's countries. His current radio station (Fever 104 FM) broadcasts nationally; he previously worked at one of the largest radio networks in the world. Your suggestion that if you go an hour or two outside Bangalore people won't care about him is implausible, but even if true he'd still have "a large fan base" available in Bangalore (one of the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER). Baileypalblue (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because the number is big, doesn't make it useful. The way I read that Fever 104 writeup, it's more of a collection of local stations under one banner name, each city with it's own set of personalities. By your standards, we would have articles on any DJ that works in a major city. I say that a DJ in NYC might be big in NYC, but in Philly, or even Trenton, you'd get "who?". DarkAudit (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every radio personality, just the culturally significant ones. Sunawala appears to have been considered one of the top two RJs in Bangalore along with Sunaina Lall. The fact that there are fawning celebrity articles on him suggests he's more culturally significant than the non-notable RJs who should be excluded. The fact that he's cited in articles on unrelated subjects suggests he's more influential than the average non-notable RJ. There's plenty of evidence available online which is not exactly suitable for use in the article, but nevertheless provides indirect evidence of notability. Baileypalblue (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because the number is big, doesn't make it useful. The way I read that Fever 104 writeup, it's more of a collection of local stations under one banner name, each city with it's own set of personalities. By your standards, we would have articles on any DJ that works in a major city. I say that a DJ in NYC might be big in NYC, but in Philly, or even Trenton, you'd get "who?". DarkAudit (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's non non-local coverage clause for individuals as there is for organizations, but if there was one, this subject would not be a good test case for it. He's a media personality in Bangalore, the capital of Karnataka, which is larger than any US city except New York, and which has more population than about half of the world's countries. His current radio station (Fever 104 FM) broadcasts nationally; he previously worked at one of the largest radio networks in the world. Your suggestion that if you go an hour or two outside Bangalore people won't care about him is implausible, but even if true he'd still have "a large fan base" available in Bangalore (one of the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER). Baileypalblue (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I talk of "inherently non-notable" here I mean that you're going to get lots of local press for a "radio personality" because he's, well, local. But go an hour or two down the highway in any direction, where that station may not reach, and you may be hard pressed to find anyone who cares one way or the other about the guy. You're certainly not going to see much in the way of media coverage about him once you get out that far. He's a big-city DJ,and the *local* press amounts to as much. Trivial coverage where he just happened to appear at an event that was the real focus of that coverage. The American DJs who are notable enough to warrant an article all have national audiences at numerous radio stations across the country. A guy at a single station in a single city, with media coverage to match, wouldn't. DarkAudit (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree there. Multiple sources about the subject is one way to establish notability, but surely not the only one. Also, while it might not be a good idea to cover everything in the world, I have yet to find anything that is inherently non-notable. You might be thinking of verifiability. - Mgm|(talk) 10:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not accusing you of anything -- everybody has to be aware of CSB problems while editing. It's your job to demonstrate a valid rationale for deletion, and so far you haven't done so. "Inherently non-notable" is a bad argument, and standard methods of measuring notability via sourcing don't work well for this type of subject. The article should be kept because it covers a notable media personality; again, if this were an American media personality of similar stature, I don't think this would even be an issue. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom unless other sources/info surfaces that can change my !vote §hawnpoo 05:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Several of the articles found by the Google News search linked above are in fact largely about the subject, including The Hindu saying that he "needs no introduction", which is a pretty obvious statement of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I must agree with Phil Bridger. This person has had multiple, independent sources that show his notability. He's attacted celebrity and notice. Normally, DJs and the like aren't notable, but this seems to be an exception. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 04:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 04:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I find Baileypalblue and Phil Bridger's arguments compelling. Whilst the range of 'local' coverage is limited, the 'local' area of Bangalore is enormous, US State size. WP:ENTERTAINER talks about Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, and the local article imply this level of fandom, at least in the past, ti give notability. --GedUK 14:20, 13 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) 10:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ricky Powell
- Ricky Powell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BIO, and badly. Enigmamsg 16:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —92.40.28.80 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE, and all the sources are primary, therefore fails the basic criteria for biographys too. SpitfireTally-ho! 17:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete I agree with nom and Spitfire's conclusions.--VS talk 22:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC) --VS talk 22:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The photographic genre of people in parties striking poses for the camera has never held the slightest interest for me, but it's not every party photographer who's the subject of a monograph from Powerhouse, and so I thought Powell might be worth a second look. "Fails WP:CREATIVE", we read above; yet a quick look in Google Books turns up one book (from Princeton University Press, no less) with a mention of our man as the photographer who was particularly influential in documenting the 1980s hip-hop and party scene. Granted, this is in a peculiarly breathless book for a university press, one whose author elsewhere earnestly reports on the brands of people's clothes and unashamedly uses gushy if vapid descriptions such as "legendary". Still, it might count for something. -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: the claims made for him are now minor, but the evidence for these is good. -- Hoary (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete The new claims still do not make him notable per WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. Enigmamsg 20:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The former has various criteria. The first of these: The person is regarded as an important figure [...] Currid's book is one piece of evidence for that. The last: The person's work [...] had works in many significant libraries. (Pretty garbled, but I think I get the drift.) While Public Access is nowhere in COPAC, it's in the Library of Congress, Harvard Uni library, and NY Public Library (LEO). I can't work up any enthusiasm for him, but if he merits a "strong delete" from you, I wonder what you say to the people whose articles I immediately vote to zap. -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First one is easy- Regarded as an important figure, means evidence that people regard him as an important figure, which is basically finding 3prd party material saying so. it has to be actually shown, and I'd like to see the quote: mention on one page of one book is not really enough.
- Second "many significant libraries" has to be interpreted in terms of what would be expected. For current American novels, I expect at least 2 or 300 in WorldCat. In particular, presence of an American book in LC is meaningless, and Harvard and NYPL get almost everything possible. WorldCat shows that his 3 books are held in 40, 30 and 17 US libraries. [2]. But this is a special genre--books of photographs by an artistic photographer. They really need to be judged more by the standards for artists in general. I'd expect museum holdings, usually. But perhaps his works arent the sort that museums collect. Creative professionals is such a wide combination of areas that it takes careful interpretation in terms of what's expected in the specific genre. DGG (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I too am unimpressed by the one mention (even a strong one) in a single gossipy book. (What has Princeton UP come to?) And I'd expect museum holdings, but I thought that that was just me being "elitist". WorldCat does show that Public Access is held in the library of the Smithsonian Institution and also the libraries of a small number of US universities that I wouldn't have expected either to have large budgets or to be major beneficiaries of publisher largesse. For what those holdings are worth (frankly I have no idea). -- Hoary (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 03:18, 17 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. seicer | talk | contribs 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Shellenberger
- Michael Shellenberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:BLP which breaches WP:ONEEVENT (event being publication of a co-authored essay later turned into a book). The move of relevant material to an article on the book (Break Through) makes what's left eminently deletable, as the subject's other activities are not notable (to date). NB as can be seen from Talk:Michael Shellenberger, the article was almost speedy-deleted in 2007, and the subject complained in 2009 about undue weight given to some minor consulting work relating to the political hot-potato of Venezuela. Deletion (because all the consulting work is non-notable) would solve the problem. Rd232 talk 21:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative Keep. Is it really WP:BLP1E when someone writes a notable book, or is it WP:AUTHOR? Do we have a single case where the book is notable, but the author isn't? I'm also not sure that I agree the consulting work is non-notable: Lumina Strategies and American Environics each probably pass WP:ORG if someone were to bother writing articles about them. My mind can certainly be changed by counterexamples (and perhaps this is one of them because the book had two authors--though it was the people, not the book, that was singled out by Time magazine), but it seems to me that arguing that the book is notable makes the author notable, and the nominator isn't arguing the book isn't notable. As for Shellenberger being unhappy that the article is no longer one-sided and that his consulting work is in his article, it's a good example of WP:LUC. THF (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I very much doubt that either would pass WP:ORG (and I'm not convinced that even if they did that this would give notability to the founder - a form of "relationships do not confer notability", see WP:AUTHOR#Invalid criteria). Time singled out the authors because its approach was to seek "heroes", which could hardly describe the book. Also I disagree that the book being notable (which I haven't sought to prove or disprove, but I think probably is) means the authors are. In 2005 (prior to the book publication, but after the controversial essay which preceded it), the NY Times described the authors as "two little-known, earnest environmentalists in their 30's..."[3] Rd232 talk 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:BLP#Articles about people notable only for one event is policy while WP:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals is a guideline so I think the first must be given more weight; in effect, the notability guideline also says at WP:BIO1E that Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person. JRSP (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the book is not really an event, and although that is what Shellenberger is known for, the coverage (including some of the sources cited in the article) is not only about the book. —Snigbrook 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like nitpicking - publication of the book (which he only co-authored) is one event. And the other coverage is of things not notable - just normal business activities - which wouldn't justify an article if the book hadn't been published: ergo WP:ONEEVENT applies. Rd232 talk 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think this in illegitimate interpretation of "one event" which is designed for tabloid level notability, or trivial events, or being a victim or bystander. If there;s anything genuine, it should not be covered there, and I so interpret the policy. I know the wording doesnt say this clearly, but it doesnt make sense to me otherwise. An author can be notable for a single book, and a review in both the NYT and the WSJ meets that. Plus Time & probably most other major sources. DGG (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I concur with DGG that this isn't what BLP1E is designed for, and we should be careful of interpreting it too strictly in this case. Everything in it is discussed in terms of news events, which is not what publication of a book is. Also, despite being on a policy page it is phrased in terms of a guideline ("if reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted", emphasis mine), so I don't think the argument that it overrides WP:CREATIVE is valid; at best, they are both on the same footing of being concepts that apply in most but not all cases. JulesH (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The spirit of it clearly applies here IMO, if not the letter. Further the subject doesn't IMO meet the WP:AUTHOR criteria. If the policy doesn't fit this situation, then we should consider changing the policy. Rd232 talk 11:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative Keep. There are more than 300 references to Shellenberger in Nexis. More than 27,000 in Google. The entry of Schellenberger was created in December 2007. Deletion issue arose, as far as I can tell, when I included information, related to his lobbying activities on behalf of Hugo Chavez's government, that is perceived controversial by himself and two editors contributing in this page. There is precedent in Wikipedia about inclusion of information regarding similar conflict of interests with regards to funding Mine Your Own Business. To argue that a book is notable but the author isn't is, IMO, preposterous. Consulting work was notable enough to merit reference in reliable secondary sources. However having said this, I do believe Shellenberger should be entitled to having his entry deleted, if he so wishes. He has contributed to the entry, why not putting the question to him?--Alekboyd (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That you'd mention Mine Your Own Business here does nothing to persuade me that you've understood the issue. That PR work results in a PR person getting a couple of minor mentions in the press hardly seems demonstrable of notablility. Note that this is different than if it were actual consulting work being reported on due to that work being of interest - the mentions arise from PR work, which inherently involves dealing with the press. As for asking Shellenberger his opinion - he's already made it perfectly clear that he doesn't want undue weight given to the Venezuela consulting but you continue to insist on it, so asking for his opinion now looks disengenuous. Finally, as for Google hits, see WP:ATA#Google test. Same applies to Nexis (especially since this is a news db and as noted we are talking about PR work, so quality of hits is the issue). Rd232 talk 17:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you please provide secondary sources supporting that the subject's consulting work is notable? A single sentence in an article dealing about another subject is hardly a claim of notability IMO. JRSP (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Garance Franke-Ruta wrote a lengthy article in The American Prospect where Shellenberger's & Nordhaus's consulting work was the centerpiece. THF (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as lobbying for Chavez is concerned, sources are cited in entry.--Alekboyd (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This falls under WP:NPF. The sources merely cite the subject in passing, they do not show or claim that the consulting work is notable. However this deletion debate isn't the place to argue this further. Rd232 talk 17:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as lobbying for Chavez is concerned, sources are cited in entry.--Alekboyd (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sourced, notable, likely to be a subject of inquiry. What to include can be debated later on the discussion page, although I'm not sure the subject should have an undue say Vartanza (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This nomination is a misinterpretation of WP:BLP1E, which is intended to cover cases where people are caught up in events, not where they are notable for what they create. And the claim that this falls foul of WP:NPF is an even greater misinterpretation. That clause exists to protect the privacy of people who have been thrust into the public eye without wishing it. This article subject obviously doesn't fall into that category. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll concede that I'm interpeting BLP1E broadly - more broadly I guess than others would agree with (but define "event"... and is the logic so different for a book publication?). As to NPF - there is nothing in the written policy as stands that supports your argument. It may be historically true that this is how NPF came about but it isn't part of the policy - and again, I do not see why NPF should be limited as you say. Rd232 talk 03:59, 16 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) 13:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
T. Hanton
- T. Hanton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable songwriter and wanna-be entertainment mogul. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Also fails WP:V—sole reference given is a dead link, and appears to be either made up or a networking part of the site, rather than news or that sort of thing. Google News Archive returns no related hits. Speedy deletion was declined. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, nothing indicating WP:COMPOSER, WP:MUSIC, or WP:BIO. However, has anyone contacted the author asking for the full name of this person? The brief version "T." may be the reason for the lack of search results. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 12:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Further research makes me believe this is a hoax article. Importantwarrior, the article's SPA creator, who appears to also edit from 128.122.9.168, added Hanton as a songwriter to the Diddy song "Tell Me" but BMI's database does not bear that claim out. Another edit by Importantwarrior makes it appear that Hanton's first name is Terrence. A search of the BMI and ASCAP databases turn up no T Hanton or Terrence Hanton. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as unverifiable. A search on ASCAP turns up two results, neither of which are a T. Hanton. -- Whpq (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. No sources, so it fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Poking around a little more: the above IP (128.122.9.168) resolves to a public terminal at NYU. Searching "Terrence Hanton" + NYU turns up this LinkedIn profile. Someone who claims to work in marketing at Island Def Jam. And this is not the first time Hanton has been faked onto Wikipedia: this 2007 edit by another NYC IP added him as hired by Mary J. Blige as a "Promotional Manager" (a subsequent edit by the same IP changed it to "rumored"). "T. Hanton" was also added to the now-deleted List of Island Def Jam artists (which can be viewed here via NationMaster's mirror of the page), as signed to the non-existent Checkwriter/Def Jam label. At this point I would say this is, without a doubt, a hoax. TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Might be a nice guy, but seriously, less than non-notable. Don't know that I would call it a "hoax" as much as some young guy trying to pump up his persona in the world of music entertainment, which is almost entirely hot air anyway. Proxy User (talk) 06:08, 16 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) 16:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orkut Büyükkökten
- Orkut Büyükkökten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Famous for making Orkut, and being sued for making Orkut. As he has not notability except for his relation to Orkut, either delete or merge with Orkut. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I do not feel a valid reason for deletion has been given. The nominator seems to by applying WP:BLP1E, which does not apply. Creating Orkut, being sued for creating Orkut, and continued media presence due to having created Orkut is not one event.
Would you propose deleting Barak Obama since his only claim to notablity is in relation to the office of the President?— LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Striking unneeded and poorly thought out metaphor. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The inventor of a notable web service like this is notable. It's enough of an accomplishment. DGG (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG and LinguistAtLarge, nothing more I can say! MathCool10 Sign here! 04:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep His work with Orkut is plenty significant. Eauhomme (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - but I would like to see the article fleshed out a bit, if it is to stay. But for the moment, keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tris2000 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 11 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 05:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua L. Dratel
- Joshua L. Dratel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:BIO notability is WP:NOTINHERITED -- and he never even actually got around to representing his ostensible Gitmo client, who pled guilty. Two primary sources, and one SMH source that doesn't even mention him by name. Article is redundant with David Hicks. THF (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonnotable lawyer. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —GRBerry 22:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Dratel is the author of two signicant books. Geo Swan (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. He is the co-editor of two books of marginal notability where he compiles primary documents. THF (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The nomination asserts that Dratel "never got around to defending his client" -- sorry, but that is a highly inflammatory way of describing Dratel's role. The Commissions are new, untried, unprecedented, and according to the many accounts of insiders chaotically run. The Prosecution has been repeatedly split by discord, with over half a dozen lawyers resigning over ethical concerns. It is very misleading to claim he "never got around" to defending Hicks. Dratel had flown to Guantanamo, time consuming, and expensive, for Hicks big day. Before Hicks trial began the Presiding Officer introduced sudden procedural impediments to the lawyers Hicks had been working with for years participating in his trial. Dratel described how he came to be barred. "Never got around" is a very misleading description. The nomination notes that Hicks plead guilty. Yes, he pled guilty -- almost immediately after learning his Defense team had been shattered by the Presiding Officers sudden procedural impediments. I suggest the circumstances under which Dratel was barred from participation are as remarkable as his actual participation would have been if the Commission had proceeded. Geo Swan (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#CHAT, and you just gave a very good reason to expand the Hicks article. But it doesn't make Dratel notable just because he took a plane flight and refused to sign paperwork. THF (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As is the case with most of these articles, he's not notable. WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. Simply representing a detainee does not provide an attorney is "notable" enough to merit an entire article. Scrap this article, and use some of the language to expand the Hicks article. I think this is the right move.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability can be inherited in extreme circumstances; for example, Clarence Darrow is far more notable as the defence attorney who represented Scopes, than Scopes is himself. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, those lawyers who have made a career out of representing a specific high-profile detainee (or a number of slightly lower-profile detainees, such as 17 Yemeni detainees simultaneously), are notable and people who google the name deserve to find an unbiased and comprehensive Wiki biography of the person. That may mean rewriting portions of this article, but it certainly doesn't mean deleting it. The fact that this is part of a concerted effort to simultaneously delete the Wiki biographies of almost every Guantanamo lawyer...coming right on the heels of the exact same nominators failing to delete almost 'every Guantanamo detainees means that "Assume Good Faith" is strained towards the breaking point. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The individual is not independently notable, and the fact that the subject's alleged notability comes as the result of representing a detainee(s) is freely admitted. It is obvious the subject's "notability" is inherited from his clients' notability as detainees. The excuse is to, unwisely, use Clarence Darrow as an example. Ignored is the fact that Darrow's notability arose as the result of later coverage, when he was the subject of movies, and the fact he wrote four books. Darrow's notability arises not from his work, but from the later coverage he received in print and film. Note that these features are missing regarding the subject of this AFD discussion. Examples of an attorney rising to the level of notable include being chosen as a member of the judiciary, heading legal organizations, and significant legal scholarship published by reputable publishers. The subject's role in representing his clients are not independently noteworthy. An attorney's role as advocate for his client, as further required by the Rules of Professional Conduct, dictates that he zealously represent his client's interests, doing so is expected (and further required), but it does not impart notability. Further, an attorney's efforts towards his client, when he stands in the shoes of the client as his counselor at law in a tribunal, are ascribed to the client, not the attorney independently. For this reason, motions are brought in the name of the client, through his counsel, not in the name of the attorney alone. In closing, I have seen no argument that makes the case the subject is in fact "notable" as required under Wikipedia's guidelines, notwithstanding the patently uncivil personal attack I see in the above-post. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:17, 15 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 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Dorsey
- Jim Dorsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:BIO notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. One primary source, two sources that mention him in passing in the context of his client, each with the same quote. Everything else is sketchy resume details and an attempt to WP:PUFF his one quote ("Dorsey commented on a letter") into notability. THF (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonnotable lawyer. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per prior points as subject is simply not notable.Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —GRBerry 22:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability can be inherited in extreme circumstances; for example, Clarence Darrow is far more notable as the defence attorney who represented Scopes, than Scopes is himself. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, those lawyers who have made a career out of representing a specific high-profile detainee (or a number of slightly lower-profile detainees, such as 17 Yemeni detainees simultaneously), are notable and people who google the name deserve to find an unbiased and comprehensive Wiki biography of the person. That may mean rewriting portions of this article, but it certainly doesn't mean deleting it. The fact that this is part of a concerted effort to simultaneously delete the Wiki biographies of almost every Guantanamo lawyer...coming right on the heels of the exact same nominators failing to delete almost 'every Guantanamo detainees means that "Assume Good Faith" is strained towards the breaking point. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:40, 13 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 00:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffrey J. Davis
- Jeffrey J. Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:BLP1E; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. One primary reference; four references in passing in the context of his client. Mentioned once in the article of his client Mani Al-Utaybi, whom he apparently never met, or filed a valid court document on behalf of. THF (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as subject fails notability requirements.Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —GRBerry 22:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:BLP1E applies; all relevant data is already in Mani Shaman Turki al-Habardi Al-Utaybi#Legal representation so there is nothing to merge, and deletion is the right answer. GRBerry 22:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability can be inherited in extreme circumstances; for example, Clarence Darrow is far more notable as the defence attorney who represented Scopes, than Scopes is himself. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, those lawyers who have made a career out of representing a specific high-profile detainee (or a number of slightly lower-profile detainees, such as 17 Yemeni detainees simultaneously), are notable and people who google the name deserve to find an unbiased and comprehensive Wiki biography of the person. That may mean rewriting portions of this article, but it certainly doesn't mean deleting it. The fact that this is part of a concerted effort to simultaneously delete the Wiki biographies of almost every Guantanamo lawyer...coming right on the heels of the exact same nominators failing to delete almost 'every Guantanamo detainees means that "Assume Good Faith" is strained towards the breaking point. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never nominated a Guantanamo detainee for deletion. I've reviewed 30 or so Guantanamo attorney articles, and nominated about half of them for deletion. No one claims Darrow is notable because he represented Snopes; he's notable because he has multiple books written about him, and was the leading lawyer of his day. When Mr. Davis has a tenth of that level of notability, no one will contest him getting a Wikipedia article. You've cut and paste the same accusation of bad faith in multiple AFDs, which hardly suggests that you are performing your own good-faith evaluation. THF (talk) 17:53, 13 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 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elina Fuhrman
- Elina Fuhrman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A search shows some ghits resulting from her work, but no evidence she's notable for her work. No evidence of these unnamed and uncited awards she's won, and without those she's just another CNN correspondent. StarM 04:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any info on these awards she's supposedly won. If this info was added, then I might reconsider, depending on which awards they were. Otherwise fails WP:N. --GedUK 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep having passed the "minimum level of notability" i say keep.--Judo112 (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment do you have any evidence that she's passed this minimum level? StarM 00:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could ask you the same question.. but opposit?--Judo112 (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you could, but that's explained at the top. --GedUK 13:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I said how I'd searched and didn't find evidence. Since you can't prove the non-existence of something, the onus is on those saying it does exist. StarM 00:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you could, but that's explained at the top. --GedUK 13:18, 13 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 00:00, 14 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 00:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Gnews confirms her existence, but since this consists almost entirely of reporting from her and not about her, I conclude she fails WP:BIO. RayTalk 06:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep She does seem to have won awards for her journalism and it is a natioan network.... Vartanza (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment except there's no evidence of these awards. StarM 12:06, 23 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 Legal Advisor (OARDEC). MBisanz talk 02:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James R. Crisfield
- James R. Crisfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:BIO currently without any WP:RS; has had a notability tag for over a year without improvement. It would be possible to WP:PUFF up the article by stringing together the handful of places where news organizations have quoted a single memo he wrote,[4] but there's not the significant independent coverage that confers notability. THF (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep, I think poking the creator to improve the article is a better route. Crisfield seems to (barely) squeak across as notable, [being interviewed by the New York Times for example, on the Guantanamo proceedings and such. He's not "just a legal figure", he's a "legal figure who goes to the press" -- and I'm always in favour of having WP biographies about anybody who's quoted in the press (within reason) -- because otherwise you see embarrassing gaffes like when FOX News labeled Paul Fromm as a "free speech advocate", when he's actually a very vocal White Supremacist. Simple googling of Fromm's name would have prevented that, and I like to think WP does its bit to make sure that when a reporter googles a source's name, we have an impartial record of who that person is. (Again, within reason...the Tallahassee dog catcher is probably not notable). The judges, lawyers and clerks who participated in the Nuremberg trials all have articles, I can't see that Guantanamo is any different. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 02:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't meet wp:bio notability standards. The only "poking of the creator" that should be going is to tell him to quit creating articles that clearly do not meet WP:BIO in order to further his cause of making Wikipedia everything Guantanamo Bay. With respect, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh -- I know I have requested you, dozens of times, to comply with policy, and confine your comments to the issues, not your perceptions of personalities. I am going to repeat that request here. Geo Swan (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I think your intentions are important here. You are a SPA account that only creates articles about everything and anything that is somehow related to GB. Most of the content you create are WP:BLP1E's, if that much. The amount of articles that you create that goes through afd's outnumbers by far the creations of other editors. You were advised by a multiple consensus of editors to stop creating these BLP1e's, yet you stubbornly continue to create these non-notable bios. Please stop turning WP into a battlefield for you war against GB and stop creating articles that do not meet WP:BIO. With respect,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the very unfortunate features of the wikipedia is that although it has the goal of encouraging a civil discussion, collegial cooperation, and a culture of civility, a subculture has grown up within the wikipedia's deletion fora, where violations of the wikipedia's civility policies are so routine they sail past most participants without comment. I am not a "single purpose account". Why just this year I have started William H. Latham, William H. Latham (icebreaker), Caterpillar 789 dump truck, Caterpillar 777 dump truck, Vidar Viking, Saint John’s University, Haji Yacoub (Uttar Pradesh), Saint John’s University School of Law, CCGS Gordon Reid. None of these articles have anything to do with "GB", or the "war on terror". I urge you, in the interests of the project to quit mounting personal attacks. Geo Swan (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I think your intentions are important here. You are a SPA account that only creates articles about everything and anything that is somehow related to GB. Most of the content you create are WP:BLP1E's, if that much. The amount of articles that you create that goes through afd's outnumbers by far the creations of other editors. You were advised by a multiple consensus of editors to stop creating these BLP1e's, yet you stubbornly continue to create these non-notable bios. Please stop turning WP into a battlefield for you war against GB and stop creating articles that do not meet WP:BIO. With respect,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh -- I know I have requested you, dozens of times, to comply with policy, and confine your comments to the issues, not your perceptions of personalities. I am going to repeat that request here. Geo Swan (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- I think it is very important to cover Crisfield because he is the author of several important rulings. Crisfield's memos document the controversial practice of OARDEC scheduling "do-overs", when the first Tribunals determined captives weren't combatants after all. Crisfield's memos clarify the difference between the CSR Tribunals and the competent tribunals required by the Geneva Conventions. Crisfield's memos clarify that the evidence against the captives is largely "hearsay evidence". I know that it might seem appropriate to some readers to suggest, "so mention these memos in article X". But that won't work because Crisfield's ruling should be referred to in multiple other articles. Shoehorning the coverage of Crisfield's rulings into a single other article is, I believe, a mistake. Some of these rulings may not belong in the suggested target article. And shoehorning them into a single other article short-changes the readers of the other articles where Crisfield's rulings belong. Since he merits mention in other places there should be a central place that discusses just him. And the logical place for that coverage is an article about him. Geo Swan (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC) This editor's revised opinion is below. GRBerry 18:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Comment -- Yes, I am aware this article is missing info like where he was born, went to school, and career before and after Guantanamo. If I had found any of that information I would have included it. But I don't think the absence of this kind of information means an article should be deleted. Sometimes we know practically nothing about someone, who is still definitely worth covering. There is an 8th Century scholar known as the "false Geber". He wrote his books under the name of a famous Arab scholar. Back in the days were every book had to be copied in longhand it was a well-known technique to get one's work republished by using the name of someone famous. Most of the impostors didn't make worthwhile contributions. But false Geber did. He was the first to publish techniques for the purification and use of sulphuric acid. Isaac Asimove listed both Geber and false Geber in his Biographical Encyclopedia of Science that listed the top 1000 scientists of all time. A lack of info about individuals' birth, schooling, early career is not a bar to covering them here. Geo Swan (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article has now been WP:PUFFed with the use of the adjective "notable" and a lengthy chart of the editor's picking and choosing from primary sources and then synthesizing it with third-party sources that don't mention Crisfield. Still doesn't establish notability for the person, as opposed to a subsection of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals article discussing memos by Crisfield and others. THF (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Geo Swan's points are compelling. 76.70.118.218 (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC) — 76.70.118.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete No sources of biographic data on this individual are used in the article, nor was I able to find any. WP:BLP1E applies, the potential merge target is Combatant Status Review Tribunal, the information in this article would not enhance that article, so merging should not occur and deletion should occur. GRBerry 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete I'm reluctant to invoke WP:BLP1E for an extended event, but it seems unlikely that this person will ever be known, or of note in the sense that we invoke notability -- that is to say, enough people care about his life to get nontrivial coverage in secondary sources. RayTalk 16:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Legal Advisor (OARDEC). Since I expressed my keep opinion I have slept on this. And I have changed my choice. Combatant Status Review Tribunal is already too long, and will grow even longer as it grows more complete. "Legal advisor" was Crisfield's official title, and I will be happy with this material being merged with Legal Advisor (OARDEC). And if significant biographical material about Crisfield's birth, or career before or after his Guantanamo hitch emerge, further changes can be discussed then. Geo Swan (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems a more plausible place. But what would go? Source 6 is already (mis?)used there. Sources 7, 5, and maybe 3 seem more reasonable for use there, but not the data or text here. Better if you just used those sources there and we sent this page and its history to the dustbin. GRBerry 18:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. I frankly don't understand this comment. What downside do you see to merge and redirection? Geo Swan (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm only willing to do that for a BLP when there is some content to merge. I don't see any content here that I am willing to support merging. A good article on the legal advisors would not be a quote mine from primary sources, it would be a summary of the descriptions given by multiple independent sources about the role and performance of legal advisors. The content here does not meet that test. Indeed, reviewing the article I just found one of the four quotes had to be removed as failing the test for verification, it clearly misattributed to Crisfield the advise of someone else. (I'd previously fixed this in Legal Advisor (OARDEC).) Merge and redirect means leaves the redirect exposed to vandalism without the new page patrol line of defense - I'll live with that for a Pokemon, but not for a living person's name in the absence of actual content to be merged with authorship attribution. GRBerry 21:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. I frankly don't understand this comment. What downside do you see to merge and redirection? Geo Swan (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems a more plausible place. But what would go? Source 6 is already (mis?)used there. Sources 7, 5, and maybe 3 seem more reasonable for use there, but not the data or text here. Better if you just used those sources there and we sent this page and its history to the dustbin. GRBerry 18:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The subject is not notable, and notability is not inherited. Simply being an attorney at GTMO is not enough to impart notability.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:35, 9 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 04:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David J. Cynamon
- David J. Cynamon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No secondary sources in this WP:BIO that has been tagged with the advertisement tag for a year without improvement. Another Guantanamo attorney, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. THF (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: some of the sources mentioned but not in the article when I nominated it make my nomination one of a Weak Delete. We've deleted people more notable than Cynamon, but we've kept people less notable than him. THF (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:46, 8 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 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete having notable clients doesn't make you notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Leaning towards Keep. I recommend More Discussion First. I find 76 google news sources: [5], and by searching for "cynamon lawyer" I get 125: [6]. I think we need to establish not only that this article is not adequately sourced, but that it cannot be sourced. Are any of those sources actually written primarily about this man? Or do they only mention him in association with notable clients. I don't want to be hasty here. This man seems to have received a lot of press. He is often quoted in mainstream media outlets AND his clients are notable. Nor is his press coverage from any one case, but he's had high-profile cases in a number of different areas. Cazort (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - How is the subject notable? Notability is not inherited. The subject's notability arises from the notability of his client, not from the work of the subject. The fact that he has been working for 30 years in civil litigation shows experience, but is not any more notable that anyone else who has worked for that length of time. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I say he is notable through his legal work which has attracted sustained media attention over many years in a variety of areas.
- I would agree with you, Yachtsman, if this man were only known for one high-profile case, but I have found a number of totally independent high-profile cases: the Kuwaiti prisoners at Guantanamo bay, a racial bias cases involving Texaco and Circuit City: [7], [8], a rather interesting case (in terms of "firsts") involving satellites: [9], cases on Veterans, some corporate stuff. The list goes on.
- The bottom line here is that there's more than enough material to write a fairly extensive article on this man using reliable independent sources. This is the fundamental basis of WP:Notability. The fact that no articles are written exclusively about this man himself is offset by the fact that he is quoted in dozens of articles, often extensively, and over a fairly long period of time, in mainstream media outlets, in the context of his legal work. The more I look into these sources in detail, the more I am convinced we should Keep this. I am changing my opinion to a Strong Keep on the basis of my reading the sources in more depth. Cazort (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response There are sources that provide coverage for his clients, perhaps, but not for him. The cites you povide are for archives of the LATimes and Washington Times from 1996 and 1986, the articles themselves not listed except by abstract. I looked at your other cites, and found no evidence of the coverage you allege show coverage over time with extensive quotes from the subject. Perhaps you can show me where these are and the cites? Other cites include links to legal opinions, which would name the subject as counsel (requiring a subscription). Indeed, after looking at your links in greater depth, I am even more assured that the subject is not notable. 3 links are as I pointed out earlier, and 76 links are to cases in which the subject argued as counsel available to an attorney with a Pacer account, or through Lexis. My vote is unchanged.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- About the Guantanamo case, the most detailed coverage is this washington post interview: [10], fox news: [11], MSNBC: [12]. In the veterans cases: [13], [14] I can't access the full articles for any of the articles on the bias or satellite cases, but I think they do contribute to establishing notability. Just because a source is not available online doesn't mean it's not valid as a source!!!
- I also want to express, it's a little unclear to me why everyone is arguing to delete here. This discussion is starting to look more and more to me like everyone is simply asserting "Not notable, not notable". I'm not getting where that's coming from. In particular, the sentence that I feel is the key issue here which no one has really refuted, is "there's more than enough material to write a fairly extensive article on this man using reliable independent sources". Isn't that what the deletion discussion is about? Cazort (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably because notability is not inherited, and you keep directing us to interviews about the subject's clients. In other words, you are making the argument more clear. The subject's notability arises from his actions in representing his client, not from independent sources showing why he is independently notable. The links should be within the article for each client, not under a separate page about the attorney.Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A notable lawyer is notable through his or her legal work. How else is a lawyer to be notable as a lawyer? It sounds like you're defining notability in such a way that no lawyers would be notable as lawyers.
- More Sources This article: [15] covers David J. Cynamon in some depth, providing an independent source for some of the basic background information as well as providing an argument for notability, in the context of him receiving an award (for the cases I mentioned above). A second source for the same reward says he has been recognized for his "outstanding civil rights contributions": [16], in reference to multiple cases including the Circuit City and Guantanamo cases. Cazort (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He won an award for pro bono and civil rights work in 2008. That's great, but how does this make him notable? A notable lawyer gains notability not because he represents people, but because he or she does something outside of that area that gains notability. He must have done something such as: (1) significant works of legal scholarship (like writing the leading work on the Federal Rules of Evidence, for instance); (2) becoming a Judge or head of a legal services corporation; (3) gaining notability for his actions separate and apart from representing a notable client (a movie being made about him, a book being written about him, etc.). Representing people in court is typical for laywers, even for 35 years, but it's not "notable". How do I know this? Simple - I'm a lawyer, and so is THF. I hope that answers your question.Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds to me like you're using the word notable in the common usage sense, not WP:Notable. Your idea that a lawyer cannot be notable from representing people is entirely in conflict with wikipedia's policy of notability--which says that the lawyer would be notable through representing people if the representing receives significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Wikipedia has nothing about certain activities counting or not counting more than others. Nor do I think that you (or anyone) being a lawyer makes you any more qualified to judge what lawyers should or shouldn't be included on wikipedia. I know that personally, I have executed very bad judgment in past deletion discussions, when it has come to judging the notability of mathematicians and statisticians, in spite of me knowing much more about which scholarly publications, awards and recognitions, appointments, etc. mean more. I almost think that I may even have a conflict of interest there...too easy to either want to promote my own field or to judge others as not worthy of inclusion just because I know I myself am not notable, or maybe because I'm scared I am notable and don't want the exposure of having a page written on me. I dunno...I just don't think that's a valid argument. Cazort (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For what it's worth, I have a wider circle for notability than Yachtsman. I'd consider substantial independent biographical coverage about a lawyer in the Legal Times or American Lawyer or lay newspapers sufficient, without requiring books being written about the lawyer.
- The award in question isn't independently notable; a quick run-through of some recent award winners shows no one with a Wikipedia article, much less a Wikipedia article that mentions the award: it seems to be the sort of award given to two big law-firm partners a year to encourage their firms to buy a couple of tables at a dinner. (In this case, the award was given by WLC to someone who sits on the WLC Board, so the newsletter about the award doesn't even count as substantial independent coverage.) The DC Bar magazine, which is thrown away mostly unread by its 90,000 involuntary subscribers every month, is essentially reprinting a WLC press release.
- I don't think the Circuit City case where he's quoted by the LA Times is notable. [Lowery v. Circuit City] isn't a big precedent-setting case, and the plaintiffs had a "low degree of success." THF (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding of WP:Notability is that it doesn't matter whether a person is a big-shot, but it matters whether they have received enough coverage to have an article written solely on the basis of material that is available from reliable independent sources. I am seeing more than enough of such material and such sources here. I also feel like no one has refuted my argument that a meaningful article could be written using exclusively data from sources that meet wikipedia's guidelines. Maybe this would potentially open the door for hundreds of pages on lawyers. So what? The fact is...this guy is a guy I can imagine (myself and others) looking up on wikipedia. When I see a lawyer mentioned in the news I often think--who is this guy? What's his history? What does he do? And I often look him up on wikipedia. I see this topic as enriching wikipedia in some minor but important way. I maintain Keep. If an administrator wants to close this discussion, that's fine, but it will be done with me being a strongly dissenting opinion. I see nothing gained by excluding this topic from wikipedia and something potentially lost. Cazort (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He won an award for pro bono and civil rights work in 2008. That's great, but how does this make him notable? A notable lawyer gains notability not because he represents people, but because he or she does something outside of that area that gains notability. He must have done something such as: (1) significant works of legal scholarship (like writing the leading work on the Federal Rules of Evidence, for instance); (2) becoming a Judge or head of a legal services corporation; (3) gaining notability for his actions separate and apart from representing a notable client (a movie being made about him, a book being written about him, etc.). Representing people in court is typical for laywers, even for 35 years, but it's not "notable". How do I know this? Simple - I'm a lawyer, and so is THF. I hope that answers your question.Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably because notability is not inherited, and you keep directing us to interviews about the subject's clients. In other words, you are making the argument more clear. The subject's notability arises from his actions in representing his client, not from independent sources showing why he is independently notable. The links should be within the article for each client, not under a separate page about the attorney.Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response There are sources that provide coverage for his clients, perhaps, but not for him. The cites you povide are for archives of the LATimes and Washington Times from 1996 and 1986, the articles themselves not listed except by abstract. I looked at your other cites, and found no evidence of the coverage you allege show coverage over time with extensive quotes from the subject. Perhaps you can show me where these are and the cites? Other cites include links to legal opinions, which would name the subject as counsel (requiring a subscription). Indeed, after looking at your links in greater depth, I am even more assured that the subject is not notable. 3 links are as I pointed out earlier, and 76 links are to cases in which the subject argued as counsel available to an attorney with a Pacer account, or through Lexis. My vote is unchanged.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies if I am being too snarky!!! Cazort (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, this is not a vote. Also, I keep reflecting on this and I think it would be useful here if the people disagreeing with me could point out explicitly what is it about the wikipedia notability guideline that is not met here. The guideline WP:N reads: "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." Furthermore it reads ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." We're clearly in the "less than exclusive" here but I'd hardly call the coverage I am seeing trivial, and I certainly do not think any original research is needed to bring out enough facts to write a modest-sized article. I also was concerned/unclear about your arguments being based on [is not inherited], so I read these guidelines, and I'm not convinced that you all are interpreting this in the proper way. Every example given on that guideline is based on people making arguments based on association. The argument I am making here is based on multiple sources that name and quote this man, describe his actions, etc. And as I said above it's not based on a single case but he has been covered in other ones too? Cazort (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Well below the standards of coverage we should have in a BLP. Cool Hand Luke 17:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What are these "standards" you speak of? Are there any wikipedia guidelines you can reference here? This is looking increasingly irrational to me, people seem to be refusing to actually engage any of the points I'm making. Cazort (talk) 19:30, 16 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 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Charles H. Carpenter
- Charles H. Carpenter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Associate at law firm whose notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by virtue of being a co-counsel on a couple of barely notable Guantanamo cases. Flunks WP:BIO: every source is either WP:PRIMARY or about one of his underlying cases. Redundant with existing articles. THF (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is fully enough information for this particular individual both with respect to his leadership in the GB cases and in other notable cases to justify an article. I am not sure that al of these afd nominations were equally well considered. DGG (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I reviewed nineteen articles in the A-through-C of the category, and made ten nominations. This article has a lot of footnotes, but they don't constitute significant independent coverage about the subject: two primary-source law-firm pages; a blog; a single sentence quoting him in the Legal Times; a copyright violation that doesn't mention Carpenter; a New York Times article that doesn't mention Carpenter; a UPI article that doesn't mention Carpenter; two articles that mention Carpenter in passing that are really about the case; an F. Supp. citation (every lawyer practicing in federal court has these--I have several myself. Not evidence of notability); a quote in the Missoulian; and the same Martindale entry that every other lawyer has. The other two cases in the article are not independently notable; the same Westlaw search can generate the same sort of WP:PUFF paragraph for tens of thousands of lawyers, even assuming that Carpenter was the lead lawyer on those cases, which may not be the case. Not notable. THF (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would assume there would be tens of thousands of notable US lawyers, that's about 1 or 2% of the profession.-- and after all, that might even include the nominator. TOO MANY is not an argument for deletion. NOT ME isn't an argument either. By the way, I agree with most of the other nominations (at least as far as merging, not keeping as separate articles) to the extent I've tried to find sources so far. Most of them do seem to be well considered. DGG (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I reviewed nineteen articles in the A-through-C of the category, and made ten nominations. This article has a lot of footnotes, but they don't constitute significant independent coverage about the subject: two primary-source law-firm pages; a blog; a single sentence quoting him in the Legal Times; a copyright violation that doesn't mention Carpenter; a New York Times article that doesn't mention Carpenter; a UPI article that doesn't mention Carpenter; two articles that mention Carpenter in passing that are really about the case; an F. Supp. citation (every lawyer practicing in federal court has these--I have several myself. Not evidence of notability); a quote in the Missoulian; and the same Martindale entry that every other lawyer has. The other two cases in the article are not independently notable; the same Westlaw search can generate the same sort of WP:PUFF paragraph for tens of thousands of lawyers, even assuming that Carpenter was the lead lawyer on those cases, which may not be the case. Not notable. THF (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability - if there is a notable person by this name it appears to be the Australian author born 1916 - and nothing here meriting a merge elsewhere. GRBerry 02:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, coatrack/BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just ftr, at no time during my representation of GTMO prisoners -- which continues to this day, after 19 years -- was I an associate at a law firm.
- Not disagreeing with the decision, about which I was more relieved.
- CC 184.166.66.148 (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As the law firm website shows, subject is a partner and the head of the firm effort in the GB litigation. Three items cited -- Montana bar vote to close GB, Taibi attempt to recuse CJ Roberts, investigation of CIA tape destruction -- distinguishess cases from ordinary GB litigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.84.193 (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per THF's exhaustive explanation of the sourcing/notability issues above. RayTalk 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I believe his dogged attempt to pursue the CIA over its violation of the court orders to preserve evidence that would show his clients were innocent merits coverage here. Geo Swan (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Request to closing administrators -- I know that this {{afd}} has run for close to the normal period. But I would like to request this article be relisted, so I include additional material. Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability can be inherited in extreme circumstances; for example, Clarence Darrow is far more notable as the defence attorney who represented Scopes, than Scopes is himself. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, those lawyers who have made a career out of representing a specific high-profile detainee (or a number of slightly lower-profile detainees, such as 17 Yemeni detainees simultaneously), are notable and people who google the name deserve to find an unbiased and comprehensive Wiki biography of the person. That may mean rewriting portions of this article, but it certainly doesn't mean deleting it. The fact that this is part of a concerted effort to simultaneously delete the Wiki biographies of almost every Guantanamo lawyer...coming right on the heels of the exact same nominators failing to delete almost 'every Guantanamo detainees means that "Assume Good Faith" is strained towards the breaking point. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited, it is provided by the existence of independent secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject, separate from the single event which initially gave him prominence. There is no evidence of that here, althoguh there certainly is for Mr. Darrow. If an independent scholar should write a book on Mr. Carpenter, we would definitely revisit this debate. As for your failure to abide by WP:AGF, that is quite tiresome. Is it inconceivable that there might be serious editors who have noticed that a significant portion of an entire category of articles is likely to fail our notability standards, and have embarked on a legitimate cleanup effort of this swamp? Although THF and I have disagreed in the past, I have the highest respect for his devotion to Wikipedia, and the energy he pours into maintaining its quality. RayTalk 20:09, 13 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 00:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The individual is not independently notable, and the fact that the subject's alleged notability comes as the result of representing a detainee(s) is freely admitted. It is obvious the subject's "notability" is inherited from his clients' notability as detainees. The excuse is to, unwisely, use Clarence Darrow as an example. Ignored is the fact that Darrow's notability arose as the result of later coverage, when he was the subject of movies, and the fact he wrote four books. Darrow's notability arises not from his work, from the later coverage he received in print and film. Note that these features are missing regarding the subject of this AFD discussion. I also find the personal attack on the nominator, attacking the messenger and ignoring the message, to be in rather bad taste. The nominator, as is this author, is an attorney, and as such, special preference should be afforded to an attorney's professional opinion as to what makes another attorney "notable" in that profession. Examples of an attorney rising to the level of notable include being chosen as a member of the judiciary, heading legal organizations, and significant legal scholarship published by reputable publishers. The subject's role in representing his clients, including requests for spoliation as against the CIA as noted by another contributor, are not independently noteworthy. An attorney's role as advocate for his client, as further required by the Rules of Professional Conduct, dictates that he zealously represent his client's interests, doing so is expected (and further required), but it does not impart notability. Further, an attorney's efforts towards his client, when he stands in the shoes of the client as his counselor at law in a tribunal, are ascribed to the client, not the attorney independently. For this reason, motions are brought in the name of the client, through his counsel, not in the name of the attorney alone. As it stands, the subject's lack of notability dictates that the article be deleted. The author may want to use the links in the article with the articles related to the clients that the attorney in question represents. Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Darrow would have been notable had he never written anything but a legal brief or an argument. An attorney's efforts for a client may for technical legal purposes be treated as those of the client, but in actuality they are his own, or really good trial attorneys would never command the fees they do. I have previously noticed the likelihood of those in a profession over-deleting material of others in their profession; this is not a personal reflection, I've even noticed i automatically tend to be skeptical of articles on librarians. A claim to delete because "we know better than you that he is not notable" should be disregarded. A strong attack against all articles of a given type, or people in a given specialty, should be treated with very strong skepticism. DGG (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ. An attorney's interest is aligned with that of his client. One does not become a "better" lawyer for one's client because one drives a Lotus or charges "really high fees", though this may be your opinion as a layman. I have seen public defenders that could wipe the floor with attorneys considered superstars. Your position that we are overly critical of our fellow attorneys is noted, but also discounted at the same time. The standards of the profession, and the role an attorney takes in representing a client, are matters known uniquely by other lawyers. Thus, to an attorney, representing some person who's a "really bad guy" is as relevant as representing Joan of Ark. Attorneys gain notability not simply by doing their job, which includes representing sinners and saints, but by gaining notability OUTSIDE OF REPRESENTING THEIR CLIENTS. The client is the one with notability, not the attorney who advocates for or against their interests. Yet that is what we have in this case. Carpenter's notability arises because he represents a couple of GTMO detainees, which is about as notable as representing a mass murderer in Texas, or a single mother in Baltimore, or a drug user in Phoenix. It simply does not amount to the level of being notable. Notability is simply not ascribed to an attorney because his client is notable. It is not inherited. Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:54, 15 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. After the requisite time for AfD it is obvious that there is no consensus. Valley2city‽ 20:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rebecca S. Snyder
- Rebecca S. Snyder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The entire article is WP:PRIMARY sources and passing quotes of an attorney who is not the lead counsel on any notable cases. Flunks WP:BIO. A similar article can be written WP:PUFFing tens of thousands of other associates in law firms by using similar primary sources. At best it is a BLP1E that should be redirected to Omar Khadr, who is barely notable himself. THF (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What has changed since the last AfD where consensus found it exceeded the requirements of notability? Chillum 22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous AFD decision was simply contrary to Wikipedia notability policies. None of these sources are about Snyder. They're either by her, or about her client. If Snyder is notable, so is every associate at her law firm. THF (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTABILITY is a guideline not a policy. WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. Chillum 22:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and the policy dictates that consensus can change.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes brew, that is why I asked if anything has changed. Chillum 05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change even if nothing else changes. Especially, when the previous afd, for some reason, turned into a runaway inclusionist train with nobody showing how she meets WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes brew, that is why I asked if anything has changed. Chillum 05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and the policy dictates that consensus can change.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't participate in the original AFD. This COATRACK of an article violates guidelines and policies, and is redundant of existing articles. THF (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In an article 10k bytes in size, I see only two quotes by the subject; one could argue that only one is necessary, but I definitely don't understand how one can argue this is just a collection of tertiary quotes. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, lets see what happens this time. I will review the sources later and give an opinion. Chillum 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question -- Nominator asserts Snyder's only claim to notability is her association with a single Guantanamao captive, and wrote: "...should be redirected to Omar Khadr, who is barely notable himself." I always thought those making a nomination for deletion should actually read the article, so their nomination doesn't contain factual errors. Snyder has helped at least two Guantanamo captives, Khadr and David Hicks -- "the Australian Taliban". [17], [18], [19]. Geo Swan (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Disclaimer, I started this article. Having said that -- the assertion that similar articles could be created for tens of thousands of other lawyers -- well, if thousands of other lawyers have received substantive world-wide coverage of their activities, over several years, for several aspects of their activities, then lets have articles on all of them, even if there are thousands. Geo Swan (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snyder has had extensive coverage, outside the USA. It is important to remember that the wikipedia is not a solely American project. I am mystified as to what an assertion of BLP1E means, when the individual has multiple, extensive reports spanning several years. WRT WP:COATRACK -- it is an interesting essay, but I have found that it is frequently cited by individuals, who, when asked for clarification, can't explain how it applies to the current article. Geo Swan (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of years ago a wiseguy made the argument that the article on Tony Blair violated BLP1E, because, after all, no-one would have ever heard of him if he hadn't supported George W. Bush. They suggested the Tony Blair article should be redirected to the George W. Bush article. Geo Swan (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that Snyder has received significant coverage doesn't change the fact that she hasn't, especially when the article's list of references are mostly court documents dressed up as coverage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Zero independent sources of biographical material about her. The resume at her current employer is not indpendent, and such exists for essentially all lawyers who work for a law firm. Khadr is adequately covered, nothing merits merging there, or anywhere else. While the normal solution to a WP:BLP1E problem is to merge, with nothing to merge deletion is the right outcome. GRBerry 01:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, for the same reasons as the 12 people who snowballed "Keep" on the first attempt to delete this biography. The fact the nominator suggests Omar Khadr (307,000 individual Google hits) is also "barely notable" suggests he is either severely lacking in context of these issues - or purposely employing rhetoric to try and have articles deleted. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 02:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you like to point out which one of the 12 keeps rationals are most in tune with WP's policies ? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "absolutely passes WP:N"
- "coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources."
- "sources from major newspapers in two countries."
- "A lot of publicity, many good sources, certainly is a notable lawyer."
- "adequately referenced and she seems to be moderately notable."
- "demonstrates notability beyond question"
- "Notability established and explained and a couple of independent sources provided in article"
- Take your choice of any of the above, they all seem to be based on WP policy. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- making unsupported matter-of-fact claims that contradict reality is not WP policy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Take your choice of any of the above, they all seem to be based on WP policy. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Her role is more significant than most of these nominated., enough for individual notability. DGG (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I very strongly disagree with that assessment. This is a former associate at a law firm; the Khadr article itself mentions ten attorneys by name without mentioning Snyder once. THF (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This looks like a good article. I don't see the failure of notability, the person is covered. Chillum 03:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: covered by what? Miscellaneous 10 U.S.C. §950(g) court filings where she's the number two attorney? (That's footnote 3 by the way: pure WP:PUFF.) Is it really that easy for lawyers to jump over the notability bar, simply by looking up docket sheets? THF (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, coatrack. Part of a very large walled garden of articles which rely on each other for notability. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for many of the reasons already stated, including coatrack. The subject is known for one event, and her case history, which is irrelevant in any case, consists of four entire cases. In the legal profession, that's the number of cases any decent litigator gets assigned in a month (a slow one at that). The subject is simply not notable. I agree that the best course would be to delete this article, and move the sources to Omar Khadr, where her quotes can be utilized in that article in their proper context.Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:BLP1E as well as straight WP:BIO -- no significant secondary source articles with Ms. Snyder as the subject. RayTalk 21:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: well referenced article on figure with substantial international coverage. For instance, press reports from the most prominent Canadian papers on her government testimony, her opinion on US and Canadian government policy, clearly passes substantial coverage. To argue that she is only famous for defending Guantanamo detainees is to ignore her coverage as an expert and actor in this field. T L Miles (talk) 02:47, 13 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) 23:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cristina Schultz
- Cristina Schultz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
BLP with no known sources showing notability; no known secondary sources. Several news reports show notoriety (high-priced call girl; married an interesting person; pleaded guilty to tax evasion; divorce proceedings). There have been attempts to sanitize the article, and there was a legal threat. However, actions by misguided editors are not a reason to keep an article. From WP:BLP1E: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appearances in the various magazines as a model would qualify as WP:N, hence warrants an article separate from the 'incident' Chzz ► 15:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Agree with Chzz, this is beyond WP:ONEEVENT at this point. §FreeRangeFrog 19:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Far more notable than Patrick Syring, which has overwhelmingly failed two AFDs, but BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS applies to both articles. But it's absolutely not true that there are not "secondary sources": there is substantial independent coverage that is cited in the article. THF (talk) 08:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clear notability. TJRC (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What does "notable" mean in a BLP? I agree that sex + folly == interesting, but what policy says it is notable? WP:BIO requires "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". WP:SECONDARY suggests we need a source with an analysis of the affair to show Schultz is notable. Does a high degree of salaciousness overcome non-notability? Also, Chzz implies that Schultz is appearing in magazines as a model. Presumably we could find a source confirming that, but when is a model notable? Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of secondary sources including taxation websites and also news articles on several legal aid websites supporting her career choice for paying off the student loans. I know the media prefer to focus on the salacious in reporting on her but the tax issue and confiscation of the earnings both appear to have more notability than her career on serious websites so editors (and the article) should not focus only on that with regards to WP:N. Wayne (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. That two LA newspapers published stories relating to this person seems to imply some small amount of notability. The articles needs more secondary sourcing though. Aubergine (talk) 20:14, 14 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robina Suwol
- Robina Suwol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Questionable notability. Need some more opinions on this. tedder (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to meet notability requirements, but I wonder if the organization is more important than the person in this case (that's why I have the weak qualifier). Regardless, the article needs work.Vulture19 (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 5 March 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, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to California Safe Schools to avoid two parallel articles. Needs to be stubbed and rewritten, though. THF (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per THF, this article is almost entirely about the organisation, not the person. --GedUK 12:50, 9 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, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do the two previous posters mean Move to California Safe Schools? The article does not currently exist so you can't redirect to it. SpinningSpark 22:34, 15 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 00:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly meets the requirements at WP:Notability. The article needs a significant re-write though with appropriate sourcing, wikifying, etc.Nrswanson (talk) 00:55, 20 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 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stephan Dweck
- Stephan Dweck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete this short BLP article about a writer has been unsourced for 2+ years; his books don't seem notable - indeed none is carried by Amazon.com only used copies available through third party suppliers and no indication that he meets WP:BIO any other way either. Again, sufficiently nn that we don't know when or where he was born and haven't heard news of him in a sufficiently long time that we cannot really say he's still alive with confidence. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Chzz ► 16:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A Google News archive search finds a fair number of reliable sources. These include a New York Times obituary of someone whose notability derives from his work with Dweck, so it would be reasonable to assume that Dweck himself would also get such an obituary, which is usually regarded as a bright green light for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep reason per Phil to establish notability-almost anything featured in the New York Times can be automatically considered to be notable enough for its own article; as for references, that can be easily fixed. In fact, I might do that now. Even though it hasn't even reached Start class yet, it can be easily changed into a B or even GA article if enough effort is poured into it. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete none of the sources found are substantial coverage, subject does not appear to meet any of the additional criteria in WP:BIO. —Snigbrook 14:04, 11 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.
keep...Stephan is currently producing television shows and working on his next book.
- 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. leaning delete, but really NC. MBisanz talk 22:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Skilbeck
- Paul Skilbeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Per wp:blp. The biography of living person guideline states "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.". I could find no sources on this person. The only editor to the article is the subject. A clear violation of wp:coi. Adam in MO Talk 08:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check out this [20] and skillzy's user page. Seems like a clear conflict of interest problem to me.--Adam in MO Talk 09:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - There are absolutely issues with the references, some of which don't mention Skilbeck at all, and some of which are links to other Wikipedia articles, which aren't sources (and also don't mention Skilbeck). However, the first few references do mention him, and he is clearly notable within his fields of journalism (author of two books) and biking (founder and president of a group known within the sport). Also apparently a photographer. I also note strongly that WP:COI is not a reason for deletion of an article. Just because an article's author is (or is close to) its subject doesn't mean the subject doesn't qualify for inclusion. We should address that issue separately, and the article is tagged appropriately for this. Frank | talk 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wrote Paul Skilbeck's original wiki page, but since there was a lot of techinical information(places, times, dates, exact titles of books, etc.) I asked him to check the page and make sure that I got everything right. I didn't think that was a violation of the Wiki guidelines, but if it was I apologize. bhilden
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 6 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 00:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - notably lacks any evidence of notability. Any one of the acts attributed to him - writing two books, founding a (smallish) club, being a photographer - does not prove notability. It needs much better sources to show general notability. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 10 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 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Yes, the article is bad, but I'm finding sources. This man is very often quoted in outlets like the NY times: [21], I am seeing him referred to as a "mountain biking expert" and "longtime cycle journalist". He's also mentioned frequently in association with Race Across America. Question: some of these articles refer to bowling and (?)cricket. Same person? If so this would further demonstrate some notability in multiple areas, if not, they can be ignored. I think this man may be notable though. Cazort (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Needs quite a hefty copyedit, but the notability seems clear to me from the sources listed above and in the article. The CoI is no reason to delete, but the CoI should still stay until someone independent has cleaned up the article. --GedUK 21:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per BLP. 11 days after nomination and the article is still a mess, no assertion of notability. As Bearian noted, these things listed do not establish notability. Currently appears that the subject fails WP:BIO. ₳dam Zel 17:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment BLP states to remove controversial and unsourced material, not to delete the article. I found far more sources than are currently given in the article. We should be discussing whether these sources are or are not sufficient to establish notability. I am not 100% persuaded one way or the other but I am leaning towards a keep and I would appreciate feedback from others on what they think of the sources I found. Cazort (talk) 18:13, 13 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 00:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Ferreira
- Graham Ferreira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete doesn't seem to be much by way of reliable sources looking through google for this guy. It's been an unreferenced BLP for over 2 years, and he's sufficiently nn that we don't know when or where he was born or whether he's really still alive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can only find refs back to wp Chzz ► 16:44, 6 March 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) 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: broke at least one important story in Botha's time. Apartheid's environmental toll. Ottre 03:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, the comment on the article's talk page suggests the subject may be notable, but without references both this assertion and the content of the article cannot be verified. —Snigbrook 14:13, 11 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, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hamed Vakili
- Hamed Vakili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Google search reveals Wikipedia mirror sites only -- as well as what might be a small role in a film. But I can find no reliable sources whatsoever establishing notability for this film critic/historian. What's more, the "Controversy" section is a complete non sequitur, given over to a personal essay of some kind -- nothing to do with article's subject, at all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 March 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) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The "Controversy" section has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the article, and I am also unable to find any neutral, reliable sources that might demonstrate notability. PC78 (talk) 15:44, 12 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 23:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harold L. Sirkin
- Harold L. Sirkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable consultant and author. He has not been the subject of published secondary source material. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Notability (people)#Creative professionals. Edcolins (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Edcolins (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. TJRC (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable per nom.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWeak Keep and Improve and Move to Hal Sirkin. The article is a mess, but I question whether anyone did the required search for sources.Clearly meets WP:AUTHOR: 466 Google News hits, 152 Google Books hits.THF (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I am not convinced. A person is presumed to be notable if he has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The sources I have found cite some analysis or comments made by Harold L. Sirkin on various subjects. It is not surprising to see consultants being cited plenty of times, which is part of their job, so to speak. But no source is about Harold L. Sirkin. Regarding the WP:CREATIVE criteria:
- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. - Amongst senior management consultants, what makes Harold L. Sirkin an important figure? Sofar I haven't found any answer.
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. - No evidence.
- The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. - No evidence.
- 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. - No evidence.
- --Edcolins (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not convinced. A person is presumed to be notable if he has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The sources I have found cite some analysis or comments made by Harold L. Sirkin on various subjects. It is not surprising to see consultants being cited plenty of times, which is part of their job, so to speak. But no source is about Harold L. Sirkin. Regarding the WP:CREATIVE criteria:
- Comment. The WP:CREATIVE criteria are disjunctive, not conjunctive. Per the cites I have identified, it is the case that The person has created [a] collective body of work [that] has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. THF (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. They are disjunctive, but not to the point of removing some important words from the criterion: "The person has created a significant or well-known collective body of work [that] has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This is not the case IMHO. --Edcolins (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The WP:CREATIVE criteria are disjunctive, not conjunctive. Per the cites I have identified, it is the case that The person has created [a] collective body of work [that] has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. THF (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Those are very spurious numbers for Google News and Books hits. Firstly you need to put the name in quotes, giving 76 Google News hits, not 466, every one of which seems to be quoting the subject rather than writing about him. From Google books, if you put the subject's name in quotes and remove books where he is one of the authors there are 12 hits, not 152, and again none of them look as if they provide any significant coverage of the subject - they all seem to be passing mentions. I'm flabbergasted that such an arch-deletionist as THF should be arguing to keep an article based on such hand-waving. Please point to specific sources that support the case for notability, rather than pointing to numbers of hits that any professional self-publicist such as the article subject would be able to generate. Phil Bridger (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unusually sloppy of me. I've changed my !vote per Bridger's analysis. We've deleted people more notable than Sirkin, but we've kept people far less notable. THF (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTE. Article has no third party sources.--Sloane (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I suppose it's too much to ask Wikipedia to be consistent about these things, but I wonder where all these Delete !votes were in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Draper, a fellow far less notable than Sirkin. THF (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's too much. Different editors look at different articles and different discussions depending on their individual interests and time. That's the whole reason why WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument. TJRC (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep i gave you
twosix reviews of the two books, that were easily found using google, seems notable to me, even if a little cheerleaderish like Tom Peters pohick (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Keep. The last four sources currently cited in the article [22][23][24][25] seem to be enough to establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In addition to the 76 google news hits for "Hal Sirkin," I get 129 google news hits for "Harold L. Sirkin" and 91 for "Harold Sirkin." It's apparent from these sources that Sirkin is widely cited as an expert in business and management. The argument that these sources do not count because they are "quoting the subject rather than writing about him" is original: It's not in the notability guideline, nor should it be. Many notable people have not been the subject of biographical profiles: They are noted for their work, not their lives. Not all consultants are widely cited, but those that are belong in an encyclopedia. Sirkin is quoted in his professional capacity by BusinessWeek (2006), the Asia Times (2006), CNN (2007), Reuters (2008), Forbes (2008) -- and those are just some of the free links in the first two pages of results for "Hal Sirkin". Perhaps WP:CREATIVE doesn't apply to the notability of experts who are cited in the popular press such as pundits and consultants. WP:PROF comes closer, in recognizing that "if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area" then they satisfy the criteria for having made "a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". But if neither of these guidelines applies, it's an indication of the incompleteness of the notability guidelines and an opportunity to improve and expand them. It's not a license to excise justifiable content. In any case, Sirkin is also cited by his peers (The Leader's Guide to Storytelling: Mastering the Art and Discipline of Business Narrative, Stephen Denning, 2005, ISBN 078797675X, p.258; Firing on All Cylinders, Jim Clemmer and Barry Sheehy, 1994, ISBN 0786303565, pp. 52-3; Hidden value: how great companies achieve extraordinary results with ordinary people, Charles A. O'Reilly and Jeffrey Pfeffer, 2000, ISBN 0875848982, pp. 30). Those are from the first page of results for "Harold Sirkin" on Google books. Keep this article. The readers of the many articles that cite Sirkin as an expert ought to be able to look him up in an encyclopedia and evaluate his credentials for themselves. -- Shunpiker (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it would help if the entry didn't read as a glossy advertisement for Mr. Sirkin. If it was de-adverted, it's hard to tell how much content would remain. tedder (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a pass at editing the article towards a more neutral tone. --Shunpiker (talk) 06:44, 15 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 04:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mandy May
- Mandy May (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:PORNBIO. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:PORNBIO §hawnpoo 20:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article does not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, as you believe, then I can also provide you with a list of several hundred other articles which you can delete as well. If you delete this article, you must also delete almost every article in which the subject is an adult performer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disclaimer9 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but that is not a valid argument per WP:OTHERSTUFF. A porn star must either meet WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG to be on here - or meet other specific notability criteria if he / she is also notable for other things than porn. Indeed, your argument also sounds a little WP:POINT-prone. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 13:00, 9 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 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't doubt there are other articles on here that should probably be deleted. Feel free to list them, and they'll be judged on their individual merits. This performer appears to fail WP:PORNBIO. --GedUK 13:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:15, 16 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caron Myers
- Caron Myers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not appear to satisfy WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Though the article doesn't currently indicate WP:BIO notability, a Google search in citation marks gives about 22,000 hits which, though by no means unfallible, suggests that there may be some notability going on; none of the hits I browsed through, however, clearly established this as WP:RS reliable secondary sources, so I'm still largely undecided. My "vote" of weak keep is based on giving the article the benefit of the reasonable doubt. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Amount of Google hits is not really the best rationale, per Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Notability. Cirt (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Most Google News hits I can find for the subject are articles she wrote as a journalist for a television station, and the more recent ones only mention her as giving statements in her capacity as spokeswoman for a school system. Unless some sources can be found that actually discuss her, rather than just being written by her or mentioning her as speaking for her employer, my inclination is to support deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find articles written by Meyers, and I can find articles where she is quoted in her capacity as a spokesperson. What I cannot find are articles written about her. She is not the subject of coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - My search gets the same result as Whpq. JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 13 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 Murder of Mary Quigley. MBisanz talk 00:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Archibeque
- Richard Archibeque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lacks Notability, Biography of Living Person Criteria Poettobe (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Why are Richard Ramirez, Richard Allen Davis and the multitude of others here "notoable", while Richard Archibeque, a serial rapist and murderer who raped and murdered and hung a teenage high school student on a cyclone fence naked in a public place not notable? Also, checkout the Wiki Crime Project at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Crime_and_Criminal_Biography Cloudswrest (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Tragic news content is not necessarily notable or biographical. The mission of the Wikipedia encyclopedia is to catalog material with enduring usefulness, not to be a crime registry and/or a repository of current events and memorials. Update: Because all the information in this article is about the case, not the person, it should be merged with the article about the case Murder of Mary Quigley, although I do not think that article should be kept either since the case lacks landmarks as noted by MacGyverMagic. Since the perpetrator has no distinct profile, he should also be referred to as "Richard Armand Archibeque" the way three names are used for the Richard Allen Davis profile rather than just Richard Archibeque since search engines bring up multiple people named Richard Archibeque (ie Business Ad for Cement Mason Richard Archibeque from NM- the first hit on Yahoo [26]. The three names creates distinction [27])). Three names should probably also be used for Richard Ramirez, although at least he has a profile name, "The Night Stalker".--Poettobe (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Richard Ramirez had some relevance to the work of AC/DC and Richard Allen Davis (I'm not too happy with how his record is included there) had an effect on California's "Three strikes law" for repeat offenders. Crimes tend to be covered when they are important in a greater context or have lasting consequences on law/justice. - Mgm|(talk) 22:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's no biographical information in the "biography" at all. It's based entirely on his latest conviction and the case surrounding it. The event may be notable, but he is not. If that case is notable, the information should be written into an article on the case. Perhaps merging this article to Murder of Mary Quigley would be best. ₳dam Zel 14:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe an entire article should be created for "Cold cases solved with DNA" since this is not the only case. The Rape and Murder of Linda Bennitt took place in 1984. The case was reopened in 2007. Mark "" Erler was charged in August 2008 and convicted February 2009. [28] [29]. There is a whole list of these cases for Denver alone, and there is a name to the project, DENVER COLD CASE PROJECT [30]. Update: There is already a similar cold case solved by DNA example in Wikipedia: Cold case- Characteristics of a criminal cold case- Notable Examples: 2005 Edmond Jay Marr pleaded guilty to the March 1983 kidnap and murder of Elaine Graham [31]. I do not know if the Elaine Graham case is the first of this kind. ABC News also has several article on this issue, and suggests that DNA follow-up could be appropriate for tens of thousands of cases [32]--Poettobe (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Even the event itself does not appear to be terribly notable as a murderer/rape case, so I don't see that there's much here for long-term encyclopedic relevence. The article seems to violate WP:NOT#MEMORIAL as the article seems to be little more than a memorial to one of his victims (check the external links section) and there does not appear to be any lasting importance of this case according to any reliable sources. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Murder of Mary Quigley since the name of the killer is a likely search term. If that article happens to go up for deletion, the redirect would go as a result. - Mgm|(talk) 10:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep secondary, reliably sourced content, with a suggestion to merge to Murder of Mary Quigley per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. -Atmoz (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Murder of Mary Quigley per Mgm. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 13 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 04:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Pacey
- Richard Pacey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced biography of living person about someone working as a website director. Found evidence that he previously worked as radio presenter and currently is the Web editor for the radio station but no other mentions in independent sources. I recommend deleting this entry because a mention in the Radio Forth article is sufficient to cover the content. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city‽ 20:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable. The article cites no source; a Google search finds Facebook, LinkedIn etc - we're well down page 2 before we find anything independent, and then it's a list headed "Radio management starting with P". JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom and JohnCD, just an unnotable article. MathCool10 Sign here! 22:00, 13 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 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Britt
- Bill Britt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
notability seems questionable and content either trivial or negative. Deleted twice before in 2006 and undeleted [33] in 2007. Rd232 talk 00:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Almost entirely self-published difficult to verify primary sources or non-RS. The argument behind undeletion was based on a variety of sources being provided, but examination shows virtually none of them pass RS anyway --Insider201283 (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - personality is not notable outside of the context of Amway. A google search has a lot of hits - and pretty much all of them are unable to be used as reliable source. Shot info (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I've been searching for weeks for enough information to make any sort of article out of this. I've come to the conclusion that he's a good salesperson, who has pleased some and annoyed some people. He's attracted exactly that amount of coverage—nothing of significance beyond self-published sources on the man. Seems to have far too little independent sources writing about him for an acceptable article. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I don't think this would fall under G4 as the last AFD was more than two years ago and is likely different. Anyways, I cannot find any reliable sources independent of Amway to indicate notability. MuZemike 03:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Link to previous DRV. I went through deletion review, and at that time the article was allowed to be created. The link is here. --Knverma (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Knervma, as above, hardly any of sources in that link are WP:RS or WP:V so I'm not sure why the recreate went through. Do you have any better sources? I'm sure Britt was likely covered in some of the many third party books on Amway, which are WP:RS and WP:V. --Insider201283 (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete That's hardly a clear DRV, I'm surprised it was recreated, though I'm presuming it was on the strength of the sources. He has one line in Forbes, apparently one line in Compasionate Capitalism, a brief reference in Triangle Business Journal article about the fraud, three lines in the MSNMC article, none of which could be called 'substantial' coverage. IBOAI is a trade organsitation so unlikely to be independent, 14 of the 21 sources are self-published. I think that covers the WP:RS criteria. --GedUK 13:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Britt is notable in a political and economic sense. 76.70.118.218 (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC) — 76.70.118.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete per above. THF (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete Per Ged UK's analysis. Looks to me like he's not quite passing notability. More sources might change my mind but right now I'm not seeing it. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 10 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tom "T-Bone" Stankus
- Tom "T-Bone" Stankus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable musician who fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 14:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 14:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC cf38talk 15:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep "Existential Blues" is a cult classic, and appears on multiple Dr. Demento best of discs. DarkAudit (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per DarkAudit. That song regularly appeared in Dr. Demento's "Funny Five" throughout the 80s. Notability is not temporary. -MrFizyx (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- He was a fairly prominent performer related to the Dr. Demento show in the 1980's. AnonMoos (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a novelty performer with regular airplay on Dr. Demento. A search for news articles about him turns up many hits behind pay walls but I did find this one. A google book search identifies 3 hits. The first looks to be likely of substance. -- Whpq (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – In addition to what others have noted, I found the following article, half of which is about Stankus and there is content from it that can be added to the article: Canfield, Owen (August 9, 1994). "Folks tune in, tune out for summer music", The Hartford Courant, p. D3. For most newspapers, my database goes back only to the mid-1990s, and I suspect that there would be newspaper coverage of him from before that time. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:41, 13 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) 00:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alfredo Padilla
- Alfredo Padilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Others more knowledgeable about club level play in Colombia let me know if I'm off the mark. It is unclear if this young player has risen to the level of play to warrant an encyclopedia entry. He can be mentioned on the club entry so that seems adequate. The content is not directly sourced and seems outdated if the club article is accurate (not sourced in a language that I can read.) FloNight♥♥♥ 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep If he has made appearances with the first team, then he meets the guidelines for professional footballers. This team is in the top flight in the Colombian leagues. article needs editing though. "new sensation of the season..." etc. could be cut. DarkAudit (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - he's made a number of appearances for the first team - 14 starts and 2 goals in the 2008 season according to this page though he doesn't appear to have played this season. This is a fully professional league - thus he meets WP:ATHLETE.Black Kite 22:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He has played two seasons in the fully pro Copa Mustang (with Junior) and has now begun his third season (with La Equidad). I've updated the article, and it satisfies WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for updating the article and adding the references. It is in much better shape now. :-)
- 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 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Lacy
- Robert Lacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What is the reason for bringing it to AfD? More detail than "Queried speedy delete" would be helpful! Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone speedy-delete-tagged it "not notable". Its author appealed "well, i kinda thought the William Kittredge quote implied notablilty: "Robert Lacy's stories are direct, honest, grace-filled, and useful. The Natural Father is that good thing, a book that both sweetens and illuminates our lives. [34]." i take it, i can retry, when he gets his novel done. pohick (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWeak keep - There seem to be some pay/subscription only articles available on Gnews. Does anyone have access to them? Or can anyone else find something to establish the subject as a notable author? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — He won a Minnesota Book Award in 1998, if that helps?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That, along with DGG's comments below are good enough for a weak keep from me. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 08:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — He won a Minnesota Book Award in 1998, if that helps?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment hard to find references to link, given British historian of same name and Robert de Lacy, will drill down, to find more evidence of notability. pohick (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep on the basis of being included in an anthology, which is one of the indications of critical acceptance. It should of course never have been tagged for speedy--assserting published books, other than self-published books is at least a minimal indication of possible notability, which is enough to pass speedy. As for actual notability this really needs some reviews published in reliable sources, not just amazon. the award helps, but it is minor. the novel is in on;y 70 worldcat libraries, which isnt that much. His published work in major peer reviewed academic journals of criticism is a significant positive factor. The additional material found in Google can be linked to--people can check it free in appropriate libraries. But they appear to be just mentions or to show local notability. This is at the present borderline. DGG (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: Lack of real content and very little references does not an article make. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 9, 2009 @ 23:57
- and what provision of speedy delete is that? DGG (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep, (article author) i agree this is a borderline case: a regional writer with a one hit wonder. the quality of the writing is there, but it would be an easier call if he had another short story, or criticism collection, not much outside criticism of the stories either. (in fact might wanna do an article, on the british historian, of the same name.) pohick (talk) 18:32, 11 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 00:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Freida Parton
- Freida Parton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:MUSIC. Her only album did not chart, nor did any singles. She is not the subject of significant reliable third party sources. Seems to only be famous for being Dolly Parton's sister. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 00:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete First line says it all she is best known as the sister of Dolly Parton Notability doesn't automatically confer to family members. I've also stripped out some unsourced potentially libellous BLP info. --GedUK 12:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: notability is not automatically inhereted. JamesBurns (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of her own notability. Releases not enough for WP:MUSIC. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seem to be notable and she has achieved notability outside the "being dolly partons sister" area.--Judo112 (talk) 17:40, 12 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 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erin Lucas
- Erin Lucas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lacks notability. JaimeAnnaMoore (talk)
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 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) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - perhaps a sysop can check if this is a repost of Erin Williams? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. I looked and the deleted Erin Williams article is probably about someone else. Tabercil (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. I looked and the deleted Erin Williams article is probably about someone else. Tabercil (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Daughter of somebody famous, best friend of somebody semi-famous, but notability is not inherited. WP:BLP1E also applies as she doesn't seem to have done anything significant aside from appearing on a reality show. —97198 (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I feel that the above users seem to have not done their homework on this one. A couple of points, here. First, WP:BLP1E seems to have been misinterpreted in this case: Lucas' role in the television show is ongoing. She is a cast member after all. Also, the point that she is the daughter of Cliff Williams is irrelevant, yes, but should not disqualify the article's existence on those grounds, as some seem to be implying. In addition, in accordance with WP:BIO, I've found this source mentioning her, this source, this source, this source, this source, this source, this source, this source, and this source. So even though most of us Wikipedians wouldn't care about such a topic, the intended audience would, and our own policies that we do care about back this up. Jd027talk 16:53, 15 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 00:00, 19 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 AlMaghrib Institute. MBisanz talk 07:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammad Alshareef
- Muhammad Alshareef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No Credibility 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. Board56 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC) — Board56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 March 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) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since this person does not appear to be notable in the light of WP:BLP. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think there's a pretty good consensus. This one is obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 22:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Muhammad Alshareef into AlMaghrib Institute. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 16 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 23:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dez Reed
- Dez Reed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability established. The article proves the subject's existence, but doesn't show relevance. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The films mentioned under Film Work do not include him in the actors' list. Moreover I see no evidence of a large fan base (his tours seem to be limited to Saskatoon and Calgary). I recommend deletion per WP:ENTERTAINER. Antivenin 12:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N, WP:V and WP:ENTERTAINER cf38talk 15:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - at least some of the articles under the references section don't seem to mention Mr. Reed. I think his verifiable notability might not be sufficeint to keep an article. In addition, the article is kinda all over the place. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 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 00:06, 14 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 00:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Murad Gümen
- Murad Gümen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
In [OTRS Ticket#2009010810024398] at https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=2333277&ArticleID=2752114&QueueID=59 (for those with OTRS access), a representative for the BLP subject presented the subject's request that the article be removed.
This is a housekeeping action only, I have no opinion as to the outcome. - Philippe 22:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. I can't seem to find any policy or guidelines on this type of situation. Wikipedia is not censored, and its goal is to write an encyclopedia, not to satisfy different individuals. While I would be all for fulfilling peoples' requests when appropriate, I think we have to stick to the main goal of writing an encyclopedia. Note that we have to make sure this follows all guidelines and policy for biographies of living people.
So, as I see it now, I would recommend keeping this.— LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- This request probably stems from some controversy concerning the Tall Armenian Tale website, as mentioned in the article. I think we're treading on thin ice to even mention that there might be some evidence that he is related to that website. I would say we should avoid all statements that cannot be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially for BLPs. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per arguments below, namely WP:NPF and the fact that notability is going to be really hard to show, especially after removing OR and references to the authorship of the site. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This request probably stems from some controversy concerning the Tall Armenian Tale website, as mentioned in the article. I think we're treading on thin ice to even mention that there might be some evidence that he is related to that website. I would say we should avoid all statements that cannot be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially for BLPs. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I removed the original research at the end of that paragraph. LetsdrinkTea 22:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:BLP and WP:NPF apply here. The man is clearly a relatively unknown figure as there is no significant coverage about his work. All the sources refer to the potentially defamatory claim made by others (one includes the irrelevant tidbit about his father) and of the four, two are not reliable sources. I opt for delete on the basis that the subject is a relatively unknown figure, notability outside of these claims is not demonstrated, that the claims are potentially defamatory and harmful to the subject's reputation, and that he has requested deletion. The possibility of harm to a living person is the most important factor here in my view. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the WP:NPF link- I somehow missed that on the BLP page. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment this request for deletion apparently involves the subject's possible connection with a political site, & I imagine the subject considers that the very suggestion is harmful to him. I want to consider the article regardless of the subject's view: about half the article seems to be the authorship of that site. I've looked at the english translations linked in the article & I've checked the talk p, and the ANI discussions at [35]. I do not think the quality of the documentation is sufficient to sustain the section. The question is whether the notability otherwise can be shown. It might, but I don't think the present references address that adequately. DGG (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tricky. I kind of come up with the same answer as DGG. This is the sort of issue where I think sometimes we need a judging panel. My inclination, open to change, would be to delete with a huge note that there's no prejudice against a better sourced article, or something like. Hiding T 12:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find any evidence that the subject is notable for his animation work, and I don't think that we can keep the information on his alleged Armenian genocide denial. For those unfamilar with the subject I would point out that the Armenian genocide was, although later surpassed later in terms of numbers killed, was one of the greatest atrocities of the 20th century. We certainly shouldn't base an article on one accusation of denial, just as we wouldn't have an article about a person based on one accusation of holocaust denial. If the subject does have any notability for his work then we should delete this and start from scratch without mentioning the accusation. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment maybe the article should be about the website, with the animation info removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete following WP:NPF and WP:BLP and given that the core of their notability 9as an animator is not demonstrated I suspect WP:UNDUE raises its head here too. Anyone can accuse someone else of something (a newspaper article portrayed me as three angry Americans once - innocent on all three counts) but it doesn't make it true or worthy of inclusion. So neither parts separately or combined prove notability and I can see why they'd be concerned about such claims as they could prove damaging to one's career, at the very least (you could also fear for your physical safety being linked to such a contentious issue). (Emperor (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment He worked on various things which were notable, but did he have a notable part in them? Not every single animator is notable, are they? Any awards won? Also, if that website is notable enough to mention, I found wikipedia history which links to a site that traces IP addresses of websites. His official website has the exact IP address with the site mentioned, providing its from him. That is the one key fact that would link him to it without any doubt, wouldn't it? Is that a massively popular or commonly talked about site though? If so, it deserves its own article, with the evidence of who created it listed there, since it'd be relevant. Genocide is horrible, but if someone famous went crazy and denied something, that wouldn't make them invisible to history. Dream Focus 19:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Technical note - IP addresses are not conclusive evidence for much of anything. There can be several hundred sites being served from one shared server on the same IP, and the only link between them is that they chose the same hosting provider. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-technical note. While agreeing with LinguistAtLarge, I would add that we are not the ones to judge whether an IP address is sufficient evidence for this claim. To do so would be original research. We can't make the potentially career-threatening (if not worse) claim that someone is an Armenian genocide denier without very strong reliable sources to substantiate it. We don't currently have such sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-technical note. While agreeing with LinguistAtLarge, I would add that we are not the ones to judge whether an IP address is sufficient evidence for this claim. To do so would be original research. We can't make the potentially career-threatening (if not worse) claim that someone is an Armenian genocide denier without very strong reliable sources to substantiate it. We don't currently have such sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Technical note - IP addresses are not conclusive evidence for much of anything. There can be several hundred sites being served from one shared server on the same IP, and the only link between them is that they chose the same hosting provider. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:18, 13 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 00:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lew Marklin
- Lew Marklin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
lacks notability. References are a link farm to IMDB. Zero google news hits. Google web hits are generally to his blog. Articles was created by and largely edited by Lew Marklin (talk · contribs). Rtphokie (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Host of a late-night TV series that doesn't seem notable, and no evidence of a large fan base. I recommend deletion per WP:ENTERTAINER. Antivenin 12:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTE & WP:ENTERTAINER cf38talk 15:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:31, 10 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 23:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Albert Aprigliano
- Albert Aprigliano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article was tagged for speedy deletion a week or so ago; I declined at that time because there appeared to be some potential notability expressed in the people for whom this "up and coming" pianist has played. I stated that if notability wasn't more firmly established, I would be starting an AFD; well, here we are. The subject gets minimal results in news archive searches. I frankly don't see anything here that suggests the subject meets WP:MUSIC, but would welcome further discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I looked and looked and looked, but could find no reliable, third-party, sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 06:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 06:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: A look in the New York Magazine tells you why: "Continental Restaurant. Pianist Albert Aprigliano entertains nightly. Music from 5 to closing." Around for 30 years and only 150 Ghits? No recordings, no nothing - other than YouTube? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 06:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 10 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 00:07, 14 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) 16:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Dryer
- Matthew Dryer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article was originally called Frequency and pragmatically unmarked word order and under that title I prodded it, as it was an article about a single paper that Matthew Dryer published, and I don't think individual papers are usually notable enough for encyclopedia articles. Even if a few are, this one isn't. The "solution" was to move the article to Matthew Dryer, under the claim that he is "a notable author". However, if he is, the article certainly doesn't show it, as the content of the article hasn't been significantly changed. The article is therefore now a mere coatrack, apparently being about a person but in fact still just being about one paper. —Angr 07:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, nothing here showing that Mr. Dryer is notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Keep, thanks to Eric for his work on the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep/stubbify. The article is crap, but Mr Dryer would seem to meet WP:PROF: full professor at major research university, major awards as seen here (NSF, Humboldt), lots of published work with lots of citations, etc. It was correct to prod the article about the paper, but before AfD on the author it would have been wise to check a bit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In its current state, the article isn't about the author anyway, it's about one paper he wrote. If the entire content is deleted and replaced with a sourced article that actually asserts his notability, I'll be glad to withdraw the nomination. But in its current state, the article should not be kept here. —Angr 19:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Agree with Nomoskedasticity. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Citation impact indicates notability (this is slightly different from the one obtained by Nomoskedasticity, but essentially the same conclusion). Article definitely needs rewriting, and should indeed be reduced to a stub for future growth.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you volunteering to actually do so? Or is this going to be another case of a bunch of "Keep but clean up" votes resulting in the article being kept but not cleaned up? —Angr 06:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Already done.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you volunteering to actually do so? Or is this going to be another case of a bunch of "Keep but clean up" votes resulting in the article being kept but not cleaned up? —Angr 06:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and edit. The article does not even mention such good evidence for notability, as being a co-editor of the World Atlas of Language Structures, Oxford University Press August 2005. The present material is not irrelevant, it just has to be reduced. DGG (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See my question to Eric Yurken above. —Angr 06:59, 11 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 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Owen Gleiberman
- Owen Gleiberman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A reviewer who's claim to fame is that he said a bad movie was good (at least that's what the discussion forums used as refs say). Non-notable. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless completely rewritten. With 20 years as a film critic for a major publication, Gleiberman is notable enough for an article and should have one. However, the present article is complete garbage, focusing solely on embarassing stuff from his schoolboy days (is that even true?) and his questionable review of Epic Movie. Yes, he should have an article but this is not it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy to make it easier to write a solid article. With the section about the Scary Movie review removed, the article still has enough material to live on. The only problem is that it needs some time to be referenced. (all the current refs are in the then removed section) - Mgm|(talk) 10:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Really? I thought his claim to fame was being one of the two primary film critics for one of the most widely distributed general-audience entertainment magazines in the United States for nearly two decades. On that note, I'm kinda surprised that Lisa Schwarzbaum is red-linked. Poechalkdust (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep but rewrite, edit down to basics as a prerequiste if necessary, but clearly a notable figure.Vartanza (talk) 22:22, 13 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 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable as a primary critic for EW. With regard to the two delete/userfy !votes above, see WP:NOEFFORT - AfD is not cleanup, and there is no deadline. —97198 (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This should be an easy keep, given his long term status as a movie critic for Entertainment Weekly. Can't say it better than Vartanza and 97198. Lisa Schwarzbaum should have an article too. Rlendog (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per everyone above.Inmysolitude (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep yeah I agree that its a totally easy call for keeping Garynine (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sorry but "A reviewer who's claim to fame is that he said a bad movie was good," has to be about the worse rationale for nomination I've ever read, regardless of what one might have read in a ref. Owen Glieberman is a nationally read, very well known film critic. Keep per WP:SNOW. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 18 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. Issues are largely cleanup - consensus here is to keep - if you disagree, I suggest going straight to deletion review since I've read this several times already in my evaluation Fritzpoll (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron Klein
- Aaron Klein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article fails our policies on verifiability and on biographies of living people because it does not have adequate sourcing. Although there are citations, they don't provide the level of information we require for BLPs. There are articles written by Klein, but none written about Klein. There are discussions of controversies Klein has been involved in, but nothing at all about the man himself. Many of the sources (e.g. the New York Post reference) only mention Klein in passing. Under some circumstances this might all be harmless, but this article has been a continuous battleground and has been used to host BLP-violating attacks on Barack Obama and others. Best to just nuke it. *** Crotalus *** 14:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteagree with nominator above. (S)he said it perfectly. TharsHammar (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep am going to recommend closing this discussion because it is slowly devolving into a bashing of Klein. TharsHammar (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, just another bloviator, whose noteworthiness seems limited to having been thrown out of somebody's office (rather minor, I'd have thought). -- Hoary (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:AUTO concerns also. Hipocrite (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteinadequately referenced, full of non notable information. Mfield (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if this was nominated a week ago, this would surely have resulted in a delete. As it is now the guy has managed to cement his notability, even if by doing so he has undermined his credibility as a journalist. Mfield (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the basis of the Yeshiva University controversy as well as the later career. As for the later career, there's documentation from the Jerusalem Post [36] ,[37] & UPI, in addition to the incessant publicity from the places he works for.DGG (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both those articles you referenced are behind a paywall. Could you please provide some details as to how they discuss the subject? My cursory reading (including the Jerusalem Post abstract) is that there might be a case for a (marginal) article on Schmoozing With Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans - to a Jew! (which could include a discussion of the JP article from which it apparently derived) - but not enough info for an article on Aaron Klein as a person. *** Crotalus *** 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWeak Keepper DGG, plus recent international publicity, plus a number of book cites. I agree that a lot of cites within the existing article are WP:LARD and it needs improvement. But this isn't a BLP1E. THF (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NB that I've changed my !vote; upon further examination, many of the book cites are to Aaron J. Klein, who, confusingly enough, also writes about terrorism. THF (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. I have now cleaned out the WP:PUFF mentions of individual appearances on radio shows and added a couple of cites. THF (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And, back to a full-fledged Keep with the latest 24 hours of stories, plus an op-ed in The Nation that was about Klein. THF (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While it should be irrelevant to anyone's keep or delete suggestion, note that this deletion nomination is going to be perceived by and covered by the outside world as retaliation against a reporter who criticized Wikipedia. THF (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean an agitator who hoaxed his own Wikipedia entry and staged a phony scandal so he could write an article about it? Perhaps the world should see that we don't take that kind of abuse however... (see "keep" opinion below) Wikidemon (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot of that going around. THF (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikipedia controversy should be discussed in the Criticisms of Wikipedia article, not presented as a biography of a non-notable critic. *** Crotalus *** 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "[S]taged a phony scandal" - perhaps, but the same thing happened to me just recently, including on my talk page, and indeed I experienced the reported problem on the reported page many months back; it was so bad that I just quit editing that page -- so when I read Klein's article, I knew he nailed it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean an agitator who hoaxed his own Wikipedia entry and staged a phony scandal so he could write an article about it? Perhaps the world should see that we don't take that kind of abuse however... (see "keep" opinion below) Wikidemon (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - clearly notable given well-covered notoriety. Any BLP problems are of the subject's own making, and thus, not cognizable under BLP policy. We deal with problems here, rather than deleting them. There is enough encyclopedic material in the article to salvage, even if as a stub, and enough reliable coverage to write a proper article. Further, the lack of known details about the person's personal life is no reason he is not notable. Many articles about journalists, businesspeople, etc., cover only their professional lives. Wikidemon (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, "keep to punish the article subject for hating on Wikipedia" has already been rejected with other subjects, such as Daniel Brandt. Secondly, the BLP problems are not limited to Klein - this page and its associated talk page have been used as a platform to launch BLP-violating attacks against Barack Obama. It's just not worth the trouble for a nn-bio. *** Crotalus *** 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument goes strictly to notability. BLP problems are dealt with as BLP problems, not by nuking the forum where they occur. If he is truly non notable then his article should be deleted. I don't think he is - plenty of reliable sources report on his professional accomplishments, such as they are.Wikidemon (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources found by DGG and THF. While the subject might have messed with Wikipedia entries like Barrack Obama, that is not a reason to delete the article of that person if they pass our guidelines. It's almost like editors are trying to "punish" the topic. Deal with the bothersome editor the standard ways like with warnings and blocks, not with an AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Additionally, was also profiled and interviewed on Fox News The O'Reilly Factor. [38] --Oakshade (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. to call the article's subject notable would be a stretch. as a side note, the fact that the article's subject might have written part of his own article, and another article, but then cried to fox news about wikipedia's bias, is just a testament to the fact that the editor in question should not be here. whether such speculation is true or false is irrelevant to this particular article, because the article's subject doesn't appear to be notable. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fascinating. What's your opinion of Dcourtneyjohnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a similarly self-promotional editor who had his autobiography deleted, and then wrote this? Or is it okay to cry to the Huffington Post? THF (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- sure, it's okay to cry to the huffington post, or fox news, or wherever. it's also equally ok to ban them from wikipedia forever for this exploitative and exponential degree of disruption. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's no "stretch" to call someone notable when they're the subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources. As a matter of fact, that's the core criteria of both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. The Fox News profile/interview referenced above had nothing to do with Wikipedia but about his journalist work in the Middle East .--Oakshade (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TharsHammar (talk • contribs) [reply]
- you mean the link to the youtube video[[39]]? i don't think that counts as a secondary source. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The source isn't youtube but it's Fox News which is a reliable secondary source. It's linked here to demonstrate he was profiled and interviewed on Fox News. Just because the piece was uploaded to youtube doesn't magically mean the piece doesn't or never existed.--Oakshade (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- you mean the link to the youtube video[[39]]? i don't think that counts as a secondary source. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fascinating. What's your opinion of Dcourtneyjohnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a similarly self-promotional editor who had his autobiography deleted, and then wrote this? Or is it okay to cry to the Huffington Post? THF (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An auto-biography that is far from notable even if it were to be cleaned up. I don't see any independent verification that he is a journalist or media personality of any significance whatsoever. Writing for a single fringe publication does not mean you inherit its notability. If it wasn't for the wiki drama this person has stirred up, there would be no question about deleting this. Steven Walling (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being the subject of Fox News, the Jerusalem Post and UPI are indications of notability, even if we may have the opinion he's just some "fringe writer." --Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Important person because he is a controversial, publicly noted and critical reporter and Wikipedia editor. This means critical as in criticism and critical as in critical thinking. Don't delete people just because you have disagreements with their edits. If Wikipedia continues to censor unpopular views and persons in at the expense of objectivity then it will lose its credibility. 66.91.255.120 (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Note: I had an issue recalling my username/login yesterday. This is my comment. Ithkuil (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to have been notable for years until this controversy... Hill of Beans (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, he's unethical, not non-notable. Much of the puffery has been removed (thanks to THF and others) and more can be done (I favor a good bit of trimming but have not the time to do it.) KillerChihuahua?!? 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article now referenced by Wired. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/wikigate-1.html Seasoup?!? 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.32.130 (talk) [reply]
- Being mentioned in a blog is NO reason to keep. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the author of the article one of the Wired writers?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The original author of the article on wikipedia is Jerusalem21, who is mentioned in the wired article as an employee of Klein, for more info see this article from gawker [40]. For more info on the history of Klein's socks / meats with this article please see the SPI TharsHammar (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We are not discussing the writer of the Wikipedia article, but the writer of the "blog" at Wired.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you just joined this discussion I will point out who Aaron Klein is, he is a [World Net Daily] author who wrote an article yesterday about Obama's article on wikipedia being censored [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114] that got picked up by drudge. The wired article was a commentary on Klein's article, and the wired article contains an email from Klein about Jerusalem21, who created the article being discussed here, Aaron Klein. TharsHammar (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I might be confused, so if you are asking about the blog on wired, it was written by Kevin Poulsen a senior editor at Wired News. TharsHammar (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you were confused but I think you now get my point. I'm sorry if I was unclear. My point was that if it was written by one of the Wired columnists (now we see that it was), the fact that it is a "blog" should not take away from contributing to Klien's notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the article is written by Kevin Poulsen, one of Wired's editors. Manys (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable conspiracy theorist/journalist. Merely having your articles published doesn't make you notable. Delete for failing WP:Note and WP:BIO.--Sloane (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and further source, as lack is no reason for deletion if they are available. Not liking a conspiracy theorist is no reason to delete. He passes WP:AUTHOR (Google Books) and WP:BIO (Jewish Press). Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Also, delete - David Gerard (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge to main Worldnetdaily article - I did some searching and found some articles criticizing Klein, but I don't think they're enough to establish notability for him as a person. Instead we could cover that within the context of the WND website. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree on the idea to merge into WND. WND is, for whatever reason, considered an unreliable source. So the suggestion to move Aaron Klein to the WND page is a clever way to say Aaron Klein is an unreliable source. You can try to prove that, but it should be on his own merits, not by attaching him to WND. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The effort to delete this article appears to me to have more to do with politics/propaganda than with Wikipedia policy adherence. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By coincidence, Klein's story is being discussed THIS MINUTE on WOR 710 AM right now, the Michael Smerconish Show. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable before this Obama situation he orchestrated, moreso because of it. rootology (C)(T) 02:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable and subject does not object to the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Not sure if Kos is considered a reliable source or not, but here's an article on him from them: [41]. With added bonus- it refers to the shenanigans he's pulled here. I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or not. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per KillerChihuahua. A journalist for a well known publication isn't inherently notable, but the controversies he's been involved in tip the scale to notability. AniMatetalk 03:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepIf he wasn't notable before, he certainly is now. Funny, the more some try to suppress information, the more I learn about the discussion than from the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and he seems to be getting increasingly notable, which might make the deletion premature.Manys (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Rename to something along the lines of Aaron Klein Wikipedia controversy, or failing that, just into the main WND article.. This person is not notable on his own, but rather has become (in)famous for this apparently concocted faux controversy. We're in one event territory here, IMO. Tarc (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly is the "Aaron Klein Wikipedia controversy"? The controversy created by his article? There's not enough for its own article, and besides, if that's the proposal, better it renamed to WorldNetDaily Obama whitewashing allegations controversy.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It helps to read what people actually write, y'know. Above, I said "failing that, just into the main WND article", meaning if this controversy is notable enough to stand on its own, and if it is not, then mention it in the article of the website that this person writes for, which was the source of this retarded mess. Tarc (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly is the "Aaron Klein Wikipedia controversy"? The controversy created by his article? There's not enough for its own article, and besides, if that's the proposal, better it renamed to WorldNetDaily Obama whitewashing allegations controversy.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not many references. The only thing well referenced is his criticism of wikipedia and if we had an article for all critics... --Muhammad(talk) 04:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Strip away the puffery and weak sources, and nothing is left. The blatant conflict of interest doesn't even need to be invoked here, but is icing on the cake. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. WorldNetDaily, The Jewish Press and Ynetnews are borderline notable (but at least 10% of all websites is more notable). To have articles accepted by them, isn't worth a lot more than having an edit at wikipedia which isn't immediately reverted as vandalism. Erik Warmelink (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. Just because you're a conservative, and claim to be railroaded by the liberal "drive by" MSM call it what you will doesn't mean you're notable. If all it takes to be notable is to be thrown out of a politicians office and making controversial edits on wikipedia, give me a half hour and I'll be back, and we can make a page for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.189.4 (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per KillerChihuahua. Subject seems like a bad person yes; and part of his notability is certainly his destructive efforts against Wikipedia. But as much as I don't like him, Klein seems to have received at least enough media attention (and written enough articles) to merit an article. LotLE×talk 17:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete selfpromoting puffery by a conservative nonentity. Rd232 talk 17:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While perhaps not an entirely unwarranted expression of opinion, let's please try to restrain ourselves to the highest standards of civil discourse in this matter. henrik•talk 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The sources are pretty good. He is "the subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources" and they are reliable, in particular The Jewish Daily, which is independent and professionally written and edited. I despise Fox News, but they have legitimated lots of idiots. My only concern is that we don't want to publicize a flat-earther. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Meets WP:BIO. That's what matters. DGG and others have provided more than enough sourcing. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacks notability. X MarX the Spot (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete after much thought. There are no articles about him, any temporary interest in him seems to be his little wikipedia stunt (which has not achieved wide interest) and in the end he's just a columnist for for a fringe publication.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In addition to his role as reporter and commentator, he has been involved in various notable controversies, and his book is noted in mainstream news coverage such as from the Boston Globe here [42], the New York Post "MIDDLE East terrorist leaders are dishing American celebrities. A book, published by WND Books, out Sept. 11, has the longest title in captivity: "Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal Their Global Plans - to a Jew!" Our sworn enemies tell Mideast-based, 20-something U.S. journalist Aaron Klein who they'd like in the White House, kvetch over showbiz types like Madonna, Britney, Spielberg, Mel Gibson, bigmouths Jane Fonda and Sean Penn and conservative talkers Limbaugh and Hannity, plus Richard Gere, who did a commercial urging Palestinians to vote. Well, they did. And elected Hamas." [43], Jerusalem's National Post "Aaron Klein, an American journalist who now lives in Israel, last year released a fascinating book, Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal Their Global Plans -- To a Jew!. In it, he recounts how in hundreds of hours of interviews with dozens of terrorists their declared hatred of the West was nearly as great as their hatred of Israel. They were not motivated by poverty or political oppression as much as by faith and ideology, and nearly all spoke of establishing a worldwide caliphate once they had dispatched the Jewish state. They were especially enraged by our equal treatment of women and our tolerance of gays and lesbians." [44]. That's just a sampling of the citations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those three links are actual reviews of the book, they are mentioned in passing within larger stories of other events. The NY Post one is bizarre though, in that this appears as a blurb amongst gossip about Desperate Housewives and Conan O'Brien. So no, I don't believe any of that passes WP:CREATIVE. There may be a case for the novel itself according to WP:BK, but it'd be a bit tenuous. Tarc (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The origins of this article are suspicious see [45]. The creator's username contains the name of the subject's home base, and the subject wrote an article in regards to the edits of the creator[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114]. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 01:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While there's no contention with the dubious original versions of this article (it's been very publicly vetted), that does not negate the fact this person passes the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. Besides, the current version has generally been written by established Wikipedia editors rendering the "origins" argument moot.--Oakshade (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Total self-promotion. Just because this article existed a few months ago doesn't mean it needs to stay. It was written under dubious terms, and now it's only under such scrutiny because of something he did himself. I don't really get the feeling of any true notability here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sourcing added. Who cares how the article got here, it's now sourced so the rest remains regular editing. -- Banjeboi 13:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Our judgemnt should not be influenced by the recent contreversy. Dy yol (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability is well enough established. Since when do we delete articles about people who criticise Wikipedia? That would be censorship. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 07:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We've deleted them from the start, if the people are insufficiently notable. (One such was this fellow.) If I criticized Wikipedia, and my criticism were taken up in the blogosphere and so on, that wouldn't entitle me to an article, just as my praise of Wikipedia wouldn't entitle me to an article. If Richard Dawkins criticized (or praised) Wikipedia, he'd get an article -- uh, no, he's already got one, on the strength of actual achievements and/or of more than "fifteen minutes" of fame. -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think he's more notable for other things than his Wikipedia criticism. The latter is just the reason for all this bias. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 10:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to presuppose a bias. OK, I'll admit to having a bias: I'm biased against write-ups of self-promoters who have achieved very little. (For all I care, they can ridicule Wikipedia, they can suck up to it, or, like the huge majority of people worth an article, they can ignore it.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a bias too, a bias against this person. But he still passes our notability guidelines and we need to remain consistent with our standards of deleting articles. Otherwise we are only helping prove criticism of Wikipedia correct.--Oakshade (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to presuppose a bias. OK, I'll admit to having a bias: I'm biased against write-ups of self-promoters who have achieved very little. (For all I care, they can ridicule Wikipedia, they can suck up to it, or, like the huge majority of people worth an article, they can ignore it.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think he's more notable for other things than his Wikipedia criticism. The latter is just the reason for all this bias. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 10:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We've deleted them from the start, if the people are insufficiently notable. (One such was this fellow.) If I criticized Wikipedia, and my criticism were taken up in the blogosphere and so on, that wouldn't entitle me to an article, just as my praise of Wikipedia wouldn't entitle me to an article. If Richard Dawkins criticized (or praised) Wikipedia, he'd get an article -- uh, no, he's already got one, on the strength of actual achievements and/or of more than "fifteen minutes" of fame. -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability established by his mention in third party media sources. Dream Focus 13:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing and notability demonstrated.-- Banjeboi 17:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Apologies, I accidental double !voted. -- Banjeboi 09:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unnotable partisan hack. --WatchingWhales (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. With the NY Times, Telegraph and CBS, notability is adequately demonstrated. Additionally, most of the newer delete votes are either WP:IDONTLIKEHIM and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, which have never been valid reasons to delete. Most of the older delete votes were posted before the sourcing was added. McJeff (talk) 03:19, 16 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 00:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Jones (Georgia politician)
- Bill Jones (Georgia politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is about a failed candidate for the US House of Representatives in 2008, which fails WP:POLITICIAN. Was de-proded for arguably meeting WP:GNG, but the cited AJC article is a human interest story that doesn't do anything for notability, and I was under the impression that any campaign coverage isn't enough either (this wasn't a close race or anything). BryanG (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- yea, I un-prod-ded this article because it looked like he had enough to warrant at least an AfD. I'll go through and see what, if any, other sources are floating around out there. SMSpivey (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unfortunately, the only reason this person would be notable would be for campaigning for office. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonnotable losing candidate, nothing else in the article meets WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not fulfill the requirements of our notability guidelines. ₳dam Zel 20:30, 11 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. There was only one keep !vote here versus at least three for deltion including nominator. If she satisfies notablilty in the near future, by all means, recreate. But for now it has not proven notability and has been defeated in AfD Valley2city‽ 03:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simona McIntyre
- Simona McIntyre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:ENTERTAINER; non-notable. The Fashion Model Directory shows a very brief, minor career. A Google search turns up the usual forums and directory listings, and Google News turns up nothing. Prod removed w/o comment. Mbinebri talk ← 15:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, she has significant roles in multiple productions according to the very link the nominator posted. Gaultier, Marc Jacobs etc. would be multiple productions, and in themselves so large that her role must be significant. The length of her career is irrelevant to notability, and is indeed probably caused by her being new on the big scene. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A significant role in a runway show would be opening or closing that show, as these are often spots of privilege in the line-up, and there is nothing to suggest McIntyre did so for either Gaultier or Jacobs, her two notable runway credits. Furthermore, magazine covers and fashion contracts are the bread and butter of notable models, and McIntyre has only managed one ad and no covers, which are huge red NN flags. As OlYeller21 said, she might be notable in the future, but she certainly isn't right now. Mbinebri talk ← 21:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't consider being in a fashion show as a "significat" role. Saying that the two shows she was in are "multiple" is grabbing at straws as well. The litmus test for all notability is if the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A bio isn't significant coverage and a Fashion Model directory isn't independent of the subject (especially since anyone can submit model bios there). Perhaps she will be notable but just not now. OlYellerTalktome 19:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not fulfill the requirements of our notability guidelines. ₳dam Zel 20:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanding my keep. A user pointed out the need for reliable sources; while I disagree that appearing in fashion shows doesn't convey notability (how else would a model be notable?), I agree that those appearances should be backed up with reliable sources. So as it stands, I find it hard to think that people would disagree that the article should be deleted if its contents can be verified by WP:V WP:RS. According to WP:ATD, we should probably try that first - according to WP:DEL, Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed are supposed to be deleted. Well, this isn't the case here. Here are a few non-trivial mentions of this person, appearing in what I would consider reliable sources: [46] from New York Magazine, establishes her runway appearances and already cited in the article, though not as an inline reference; [47], also from New York Magazine; I've also found a bunch of articles from a website called papermag.com, but it doesn't have a Wikipedia article where I can investigate it to see if it's reliable - but it does seem independent of the subject. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 06:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Runway work is the entry point for most models into the industry. They don't become notable until magazine editors and designers dub them as so by investing in them - by giving them mag covers and signing them to contracts. Without these, a model is just another of the hundreds that hit the runway for a season or two and are never seen again, and I see no reason to believe McIntyre is not another of them, especially since many of the 2009 Fashion Weeks are over and she wasn't in any of them. As for the sources you provide, one is little more than a directory entry and the other only proves she's the new girl on the block, meaning she has yet to become noteworthy, and w/o appearances in 2009 Fashion Weeks, it already seems the industry has left her behind. Mbinebri talk ← 15:16, 12 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. Delete, but permit recreation AFTER the primary in May clarification: should she win or otherwise become notable DGG (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- clarification--can be userified, but not kept after that unless there's additional good material.DGG (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carmen L. Robinson
- Carmen L. Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An individual who is running in a mayoral primary fails to pass notability guidelines. Sources given are focused on other individuals with only brief, trivial mentions of the subject. Grsz11 19:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She is not "considering" running for mayor. She has announced her candidacy, and will be partcipating in televised debates. This article was already deleted once, and I was told I could recreate it after she announced her candidacy. So that's what I did. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So she's running in a primary. Still not notable. See Mark DeSantis. Grsz11 21:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, you were not told you could put it in the mainspace simply because she announces. You were explicitly told the exact opposite. Grsz11 21:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore to userspace with prejudice to not allow re-creation without deletion review and a prohibition of using __INDEX__. The alternative is that the editor will store the code on her personal computer and re-upload it when notability is established enough to pass deletion review, erasing the edit history. By keeping it in user space not only are the edit history and talk pages preserved but she can ask other editors to review it for notability before requesting a formal deletion review. In any case, unless she either 1) wins the election, 2) comes in a close second, or 3) does something really notable during the campaign that gets her non-trivial media attention, she will not become notable any time soon. Only #3 or a strong, long-lasting lead in the polls will allow her to reach notability before the election. Also, I recommend that if this is userfied, the article should not be allowed to use the__INDEX__ magic word. Using __INDEX__ would make the article spammy and would be grounds for Miscellany for Deletion with extreme prejudice. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Call for speedy-close/userfy - If all contributors to this AfD and User:Fvasconcellos, the only other major editor, consent, we can non-administratively speedy-close this as "restore to userspace." I don't think there is a rule to allow this but if there isn't, WP:IAR would apply. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. The AfD's running now, and a non-admin closure would not be appropriate where there's disagreement, as there is in this case.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made absolutely no contributions to the content of this article—I only userfied it the first time around, and would have no objection to its being "restored to userspace" if the outcome is delete. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct that it would not be good to do an early closure as long as there is an objection. I believe you and possibly the original author are the only objections. If both of you consent to userfication before another person objects, then it would be okay. However, I'll understand if you stick to your guns. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll withdraw my objection if and only if the original author does so explicitly. Otherwise, I feel s/he should have the full five days to make his/her case.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:POLITICIAN being a candidate for political office does not confer notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an election billboard. If she becomes mayor, then she will rate an article. As a matter of mechanics, I don't care if, per davidwr, instead of deletion it is re-userfied until the election. JohnCD (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — This is a pretty clear case of someone using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. But Wikipedia works the other way round: first you become important, then you get an article. There are good reasons for that rule — if we didn't have it, the servers would be flooded with promotional material.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct about the order of things, which is why this article got userfied in the first place. As there is a realistic chance this person may become notable in the future, it would be a waste to delete the article and have someone re-upload it sans history when the person is notable. Userspace pages are not indexed and have almost zero promotional value. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, you said, "This is a pretty clear case of someone using Wikipedia as a promotional tool." You are wrong. I don't know this person. I have never met this person. I just happen to live in the same city, and have read quite a few articles about her, and thought the subject was interesting. I'm not even in the same political party as her. She's a Democrat and I'm a Liberetarian. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are very few reasons why userfication would be denied (only for things like attack pages), but it should be on the original author's request.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See User_talk:Grundle2600#AfD nomination of Carmen L. Robinson, where the attempted attempted to undo the move. I left Carmen a message requesting explicit consent to re-userfy here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to closing admin that this be closed with prejudice to recreation, requiring deletion review before being placed in the mainspace again. Grsz11 13:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with not allowing this in article space without a review. We've been throught his twice, once at PROD, once here. Let's not go through this again. If she wins, it'll be a no-brainer. If she leads in the polls after the primary for a significant period of time, she will likely receive enough coverage to pass deletion review. If she wins the primary but trails or is neck-and-neck in the polls for the main election, she may receive enough significant coverage to be Wiki-notable. If she does not win the primary, it is unlikely she will reach Wiki-notability unless something else happens that generates significant press coverage. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:43, 11 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) 16:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dilip P. Gaonkar
- Dilip P. Gaonkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Keep the updates since my nomination show that he is notable A new name 2008 (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Fails to meet inclusion guidelines for academics. No references to show he is notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
Delete.Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Citation impact seems to be very low. No books listed on WorldCat. News coverage practically nonexistent.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep based on the results of the modified search by Madcoverboy. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). I’ve also re-done my WorldCat search with a few variations, and found two scholarly books with more than 200 holdings worldwide; one published by Routledge (247 holdings) and the other by Duke University Press (201 holdings). Given the publishers and the fact that the books are in very specific topics, these holdings reinforce my belief that he meets criterion #1.--Eric Yurken (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Use a correct query: [48] At least 3 books, 76 articles, and several hundred citations. Obvious notability. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines. ₳dam Zel 20:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notability not established.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Despite a an obvious institutional conflict of interest on my part, Prof. Gaonkar is a notable scholar and (co)author/editor of at least 12 books and 76 articles: gScholar results Amazon results. Obviously a rhetorician isn't going to have any impact factor in something like Web of Science; one would no more measure an elephant with a teaspoon. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:PROF, as established by User:Madcoverboy and User:Eric Yurken. Abecedare (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable author, academician, and also quoted in several academic books see here --Ekabhishek (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. At the beginning, the article failed to describe Gaonkar. It looks okay now. He may be an Associate professor, but has some good citations in Goggle. He is also grandson of two notable people on Wikipedia. May be he has inherited writings from his grandfather SAPA. Gaonkar. It may be updated showing some comparison study among people in his field. Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 15:11, 14 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 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Armand Rousso
- Armand Rousso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is on a barely-notable person with minimal press coverage, all the content is negative, and seems to meet the definition of an article that should be deleted per our BLP policy. As a matter of disclosure, this nomination is in relation to WP:OTRS #2009021810056021. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I heard about this off-wiki. Delete it dead, it is just a scandal article without any significance in the overall scheme of an encyclopedia. Keegantalk 05:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep since a Google News search does turn up a number of significant articles over the course of a few years, about the subject as a conman, a chess impresario, etc. Bill Clinton helped introduce the guy's search engine, there was an $80 million offering...in all, I think there's enough here for a brief article--but the nominator is quite correct in saying that the article as it stands cannot stand. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I of course don't agree about his notability, but if that is the determined case I'd say delete without prejudice and allows room for a recreated article that passes BLP. Keegantalk 06:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. If someone comes back with an exceptionally sourced, perfectly neutral biography before this AfD closes, then I'll happily withdraw. If they don't, the article must be deleted, because "keep and cleanup" is a reckless position to take (not that you took it, Drmies (you didn't given the last line of your comment), just more suggesting that some might). Even if it's deleted, if someone writes a perfectly sourced article and plomps it on my/the closer's talk page or at DRV, it will naturally be evaluated on its merits and if it meets BLP the article can be recreated. Daniel (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I of course don't agree about his notability, but if that is the determined case I'd say delete without prejudice and allows room for a recreated article that passes BLP. Keegantalk 06:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The material is sourced, and it is not out fault that the NYT coverage appears negative. Some (numerous) attempts to give him a fully WP:PUFF biography have been made in the past, and the current article is far more neutral that those attempts have been. Mr. Rousso has been very well known in stamp dealing circles, and in chess circles, thus he is notable for two separate endeavors. He has been in the NYT, has been photographed with and paid Bill Clinton (the stock deal was definitely reported) so is notable for political dealings as well. Deleting everything which has been in the NYT would seem a remarkably odd way of handling a biography, no? WP is in the business of giving the pertinent information, and the wording as is is about as NPOV as possible. Collect (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's as neutral as possible, it will likely be deleted as an attack biography. That's not a very creative keep reason in an AfD centering around WP:BLP issues... Daniel (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the Talk page. A very short statement was deleted, and the only way it could remain as a fact was to make the exact NYT wording clear. The NYT article does not libel Rousso in any way, and is scrupulously worded by the NYT. BLP does not mean "absolutely nothing negative." Where the NYT deemed it an important fact to print, it is not up to us to say "Rousso gets a BLP mulligan" is it? Meanwhile, look at the article origins as pure puff. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also [49] "In the court papers released last week, federal investigators alleged that Crain helped arrange the art auction and that the sale raised $40,000 for the campaign _ amounting to an illegal in-kind donation from Rousso because it exceeded the individual-contribution limits and was not reported on federal campaign reports. " (re: Torricelli investigation). So the article is nowhere near as "negative" as it might be, and BLP does not say that articles should be cleansed of all negative facts -- the fact is that the article lauds him for his foresight, and for his work in the chess world. Surely that is about all he can expect. Collect (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reworked the article a bit, cleaned up, reorganized, added references and templates. I believe notability has been established. Collect, your point is well taken; I never said that the guy didn't deserve to have his record listed, just that it wasn't worded very well. The note on his criminal record is slightly lengthened though I've removed some of the negative language from other parts of the article (such as the lede). Editors are welcome to rephrase that if they will; I don't care enough for the topic to do much more work on this. ;) Enjoy, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! There is more stuff out there, but it sems hardly worth the effort at this point. Collect (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reworked the article a bit, cleaned up, reorganized, added references and templates. I believe notability has been established. Collect, your point is well taken; I never said that the guy didn't deserve to have his record listed, just that it wasn't worded very well. The note on his criminal record is slightly lengthened though I've removed some of the negative language from other parts of the article (such as the lede). Editors are welcome to rephrase that if they will; I don't care enough for the topic to do much more work on this. ;) Enjoy, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also [49] "In the court papers released last week, federal investigators alleged that Crain helped arrange the art auction and that the sale raised $40,000 for the campaign _ amounting to an illegal in-kind donation from Rousso because it exceeded the individual-contribution limits and was not reported on federal campaign reports. " (re: Torricelli investigation). So the article is nowhere near as "negative" as it might be, and BLP does not say that articles should be cleansed of all negative facts -- the fact is that the article lauds him for his foresight, and for his work in the chess world. Surely that is about all he can expect. Collect (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the Talk page. A very short statement was deleted, and the only way it could remain as a fact was to make the exact NYT wording clear. The NYT article does not libel Rousso in any way, and is scrupulously worded by the NYT. BLP does not mean "absolutely nothing negative." Where the NYT deemed it an important fact to print, it is not up to us to say "Rousso gets a BLP mulligan" is it? Meanwhile, look at the article origins as pure puff. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 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, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but try for a more complete article. His earlier career is merely alluded to, but there seem to be sources for it. DGG (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —94.196.76.190 (talk) 08:51, 15 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) 16:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Jones (radio host)
- Alex Jones (radio_host) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable conspiracy theorist. While people have made attempts in his wiki page to make him look notable, when you check the sources used, they just mention him as someone involved in whatever conspiracy theory they are writing about, Jones is never or rarely the subject of an article himself, unless it's on some vanity press or local non reliable rag. All of his works are self published, apart from the radio show which is only available on the internet, or a couple of low power Christian shortwave stations and maybe a small local station or two, thats no better than self published in my opinion. I think it's time this page was removed, or perhaps as an alternative, just merged into some other article on 9/11 conspiracy theories or the like. Jones himself is not notable, he is at best a sideline in some other story. Please read the sources linked to on his page, and you will see what I mean. In the internet echo chamber he appears almost notable, due to a few active meatpuppets who he calls upon to spread his word (ie spam), but in the real world, he just really isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BimboBaggins (talk • contribs) — BimboBaggins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete. Heh, "Bimbo Baggins" really. Anyways, I'll bite. This looks like a low class WP:BLP1E otherwise not notable and should be cast out from the bowels of Wikipedia as soon as possible. JBsupreme (talk) 07:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not one-event notable. In addition to 9/11 conspiracy nonsense, he's also received reliable coverage for leading the construction of the current Branch Davidian church, ranting about the Bohemian Club, and opposing Arnold Schwarzenegger's political campaigns. WillOakland (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, almost speedy keep. At first glance I thought this nomination was a hoax. Sources in the article include major newspapers, such as the Washington Post, as well as BBC News. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addition: This book also refers to Jones as one of the "most prominent" conspiracy-related radio hosts, along with the likes of Art Bell. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hah, come on... Art Bell had over 10 million listeners and was on hundreds of stations at his peak, Jones can't even be compared. BimboBaggins (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Maybe so, but it's a WP:RS, not I, that is making the comparison. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree that reliable coverage of Jones is much less than you'd expect from his blog influence, but it's enough to keep the article.[50] WillOakland (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I reviewed a number of pages of results from your search, there were only a few results that actually dealt with the same Alex Jones, and apart from a couple of side mentions in some reasonable media, the vast bulk are from such notable news organisations as "thespoof.com" and "Bizjournals.com" BimboBaggins (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I encourage you (and others) to look through a few pages. Unfortunately many of the articles are not free, but the title and snippet can give some idea of Jones's role in the story. It's not my fault that Jones's parents gave him a common name, or that Google News processes comments along with the stories. WillOakland (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable media personality and fringe-theory promoter. I notice that his article doesn't (yet) cite Secret Rulers of the World and its accompanying book, Them: Adventures with Extremists as sources; they played a major role in bringing Jones to public attention here in the UK. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As has been said, while there may not be as many RS's as one would think, there are quite a few that tak about subject, more than enough to justify the article. Found thisand this after just a little searching. Personally, I think this deletion discussion is some sort of conspiracy... :) Vulture19 (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Cleanup - While the nominator is correct that some of the sources seem to be completely wrong or to web pages that don't exists (see ref #3), I did my own fact checking and found that he is syndicated nationally which proves notability. The references need cleaned up but that's all I could find with a quick look. OlYellerTalktome 19:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant Keep - the nominator has a point about the internet echo chamber, and the encyclopedia suffers for it. However, Jones gets more than passing mention in, for example, Fenster, Mark (2008). Conspiracy Theories. ISBN 9780816654932., Barkun, Michael (2006). A Culture of Conspiracy. ISBN 9780520248120., and the aptly named Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008). Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies. ISBN 9780470184080.. These are the kinds of sources that should be used for our articles, so we avoid the too common unmaintainable mess of self-promotion, original synthesis, and BLP violations. Tom Harrison Talk 23:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have all of these sources, why is your keep !vote a "reluctant" one? I'm just curious. JBsupreme (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the article won't be written and maintained by giving due weight to the reliable secondary sources, well intended suggestions to "keep and clean up" notwithstanding. It will be written by the people who care most. "Responsible" journalists will look at our article for background even if they avoid paraphrasing it directly. They'll think Jones is a bigger fish than he is, and so write about him at greater length. Presto; there's another "reliable" source supporting Jones' notability. It is an echo chamber, just like the nominator says, and it's working. Tom Harrison Talk 15:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Cleanup He's pretty well known as a conspiracy theorist. There's a lot of other conspiracy theorists on Wikipedia however who don't deserve inclusion. Best to direct some AfD attention to those.--Sloane (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant Keep. If we had a policy not to include people who talk without checking their facts, the biography section would be halved, at least. But this redacted person is a notable conspiracy theorist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. His Prison Planet/Infowars site is pretty notable in the alternative media. Google News has been indexing Prison Planet as a source for years. Article is necessary to anyone studying the alternative media, whether you agree with their commentary on world events or not. The whole nom, which isn't even signed, smacks of IDONTLIKEIT. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion proposal is preposterous. He has been mentioned specifically in major publications such as the New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.182.228 (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's better that there is the possibility of realistic reporting on Tin Foil Hatters like Alex Jones in Wiki than in places where things are leaning towards the "lizards ate my grandmother" type of editing. Plus, putting it up for deletion will only encourage him and his listeners to suggest WIKI is "run" by evil Jews, - sorry meant "Zionists" and I am not at all, of course, suggesting that "evil Zionists" is Alex Jones and his listeners code for their alleged Antisemitism. Plus, it only provides him with more free publicity and makes his listeners even more paranoid that everyone that edits wiki works for the CIA. The7thdr (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- You do know that his wife is Jewish?--E tac (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: So was Karajans wife. Your point would be?The7thdr (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Though various YouTube users have attempted to convince me otherwise, I have never found a reason to believe that anything this man espouses or has achieved is notable. –Merqurial (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your personal opinion about what he has espoused or achieved has nothing to do with the subjects notability.--E tac (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP Alex Jones is one of the most notable alternative media news persons of all time. His nationally syndicated news/talk show The Alex Jones Show airs via the Genesis Communication Network on over 60 AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations across the United States, as well as having a large Internet-based audience. I let the popularity speak for itself, but their are many people who feel the same way. Rbpolsen♦☺♦ Talk to me! 04:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't understand why this is even being considered, there's a page about the "Tron Guy" for god's sake. Do people really think Jones has accomplished less than some youtube personality. Grateguy11 (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. Deleting this page would certainly look like censorship to me. Alex Jones has to be fairly notable. Otherwise I would most likely never had heard of him - Stian, Norway 18:51, 12 March 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.110.67 (talk)
- Keep Well known radio personality. And anyway, if they know him in Norway, with so much snow... You know what I mean. Dr.K. logos 22:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can't believe this.! Really. Are running out of space here? I can recommend a hundred articles that have less significance than this one. What is going on? Someone got hurt and no we going to sensor things? Haters of GOD, Homos, UNITE..! Ridicolous. Do not delete. People need to know about Alex Jones. Like it or not he is speaking for a lot of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.232.12.65 (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP DON'T CENSOR Why is this article up for deletion? Regardless of your views on Jone's, the fact that this is even being considered for deletion is ridiculous, especially now when major media outlets like the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Time magazine, and Glenn Beck have all just published stories about the New World Order. Once again, regardless of your personal views on Jones or his theories about world government/New World Order, this information, on both sides of the fence, is more and more relevant NOW than BEFORE. Please do not delete this article on these flawed merits. Also, as someone mentioned above, Jones is NATIONALLY SYNDICATED on 60 shortwave stations, has a large internet audience, has guests like Charlie Sheen, Joe Rogan, Jesse Venture, Ron Paul, etc. He's a very prominent figure in talk radio any way you look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLCMemento (talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I first learned of him from Richard Linklater's movie Waking Life. A quick look at Alex Jones at the Internet Movie Database http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1093953/, shows quite a bit of film work. So he has a presence beyond radio and internet blogging/broadcasting. Perhaps the nominator is confusing Wikipedia criteria for 'notable' with his own measures of notability or celebrity. Cuvtixo (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP Alex Jones has millions of listeners, readers and viewers. The controversial subjects he covers have obviously provoked the originator of of the 'delete' suggestions. The delete suggestion should be removed immediately. The inclusion of 'to be deleted' at the top of the Alex Jones page is obviously an example of vandalism. And, yes, if you delete it we millions of Alex Jones fans will consider it a conspiracy. Netizen x (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Five days to consider deletion is not long in the scheme of things. WillOakland (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Alex is a prominent alternative media radio host, with large listener base through syndicated radio, shortwave and RSS feeds. --Zaphood (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Very prominent figure with impressive numbers of external links and references. Has produced high quality two-hour documentaries, something completely out of scope of a 'minor conspiracy theorist'. Deletion is entirely unwarranted.Flying hazard (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Suggest WP:SNOW keep at this point. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a reporter of unpopular topics, a true journalist. The person who started this is clearly just hatefull. Any review of the accountability of alex jones will produce awe and shock at the real danger facing america. User: Brother of Liberty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.143.3 (talk • contribs)
- Keep Unnoteworthy? Are you kidding me? This guy is very well known. He's also a true revolutionary, but that's beside the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.85.14 (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Unnotable? You must be kidding! Last time I checked there were over 3 million hits for "Alex Jones" on Google plus 224 on current news according to Google News. Most of that regarding Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist, author of known and popular movies on the subject. For many he is the embodiment of conspiracy theories - no matter if you believe him or are against him he is one of the most prominent figures in this movement/stream of thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyBrandt (talk • contribs) 01:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep : this should be a non-brainer folks. You don't have to agree with him, but you should agree he is notable. If you think the article has POV issues, discuss on the talk page. Danski14(talk) 02:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep : this should be fast-tracked. Having the deletion banner at the top of the page is vandalism timed with the release of his latest documentary, The Obama Deception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.115.63 (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what they want you to think... Tom Harrison Talk 14:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He's a nutjob, but a notable nutjob. His videos are everywhere, so people need a place to find out the story behind him and his crazy ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabalong (talk • contribs) 08:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources in this article from mainstream and other media prove he is notable--Noppalsch (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Is this nomination in good faith? I find it hard to believe that it is not a joke. Man It's So Loud In Here (talk) 15:09, 14 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 23:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Avery
- Tom Avery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete What is it about motivational speakers? They seem to crop up with no references so often. If you can reference it then great. In general they remind me of Coleridge's Ancient Mariner poem regarding Slimy things that crawl with legs upon the slimy sea. Fails WP:BIO Kudos for being blown to the south pole under a kite, but that does not make one notable. IT just means that one has been on an adventure holiday. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep adequately notable [51], [52], [53]. JJL (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you think it's notable stick the citations in the article. Listing them only here is pointless. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No, for the purposes of this discussion it's just as valid to put them here as in the article. Notability is an attribute of an article subject, not of the current content of the article. Everyone is a volunteer here, so nobody is compelled to edit the article. If you want these sources in the article then it is your responsibilty to put them there - there is no on-demand editing service here. Phil Bridger (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you think it's notable stick the citations in the article. Listing them only here is pointless. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. JJL's shown non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, which the nominator should have looked for before starting the AfD.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sayyed Aamir Ali
- Sayyed Aamir Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No major notability established. Being a "renowned" Educationist and writer with no major works does not establish notability. Further, "many" British Universities is just one, and it's for contact information. seicer | talk | contribs 13:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obviously not notable, does not meet any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete no evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF or WP:BIO. No citations, no books, no news coverage; nothing that could be found online from the usual notability sources. The author means well, but needs to lean more about notability requirements before creating an article.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:57, 12 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James A. King, Jr.
- James A. King, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not particularly notable USAFR officer. Not particularly senior (a colonel). One of thousands of officers of that rank serving in the US military. Recipient of an apparently obscure award from a body which doesn't even have its own WP article. Nothing makes him stand out. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The weak claim of notability rests on a single award, and hence the article fails WP:ONEEVENT. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. - Buckshot06
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, wikipedia isn't a directory, nn award. tedder (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. twirligigT tothe C 01:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No offense to Col King, but he just doesn't meet even a low notability threshold. Also, I suspect the author is the subject. Proxy User (talk) 05:28, 16 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 (snowy). Non-admin closure. Jamie☆S93 19:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shaukat Hameed Khan
- Shaukat Hameed Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems notable, but doesn't appear on any search engines. Maniamin (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete No secondary sources suggest notability Kristof15 (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to pass WP:PROF #6. But it needs to be rewritten to fix the copyvio with this article — as it is now, it is in danger of G11 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyvio issues addressed. -- Banjeboi 17:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per David Eppstein. --Crusio (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As noted by David Eppstein, meets WP:PROF criterion #6 (highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society). Possibly meets WP:PROF criterion #3 as well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per David Eppstein. Added a ref sourcing two more of the claims of notability. MuffledThud (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it has been cleaned up, trimmed of lard and referenced. pablohablo. 13:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep of improved article. Nice work. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for reasons David Eppstein mentioned. Dream Focus 13:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep. Unclear why it didn't show in search engines, I had no problems. In any case article has been sourced for notability and now needs expanding which is regular clean-up. -- Banjeboi 17:50, 15 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 05:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Azzareya Curtis
- Azzareya Curtis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. Credits are a few music videos and apparently some calendars, but there are no reliable sources to back this up or prove notability - its existing refs are sites like "hiphopgalaxy.com." Mbinebri talk ← 03:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the article does mention TV appearances, which according to IMDB is something called "Wild 'N Out" and is apparently a background part or at least not a named role. And as sourcing goes, stuff like "hiphogalaxy.com" and "topsexywomen.com" just aren't going to cut it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - in addition to the several significant roles in several notable music videos, this prolific glam model was the Cover Model on the 2005 Lovely Latin Ladies calendar by Mark Thompson. I have added the reference to the main article. Unionsoap (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm about 99.9999% sure that a "2005 Lovely Latin Ladies calendar" is not considered a reliable source for encyclopedia purposes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Booty dancing in a music video = non-notable. Playing the singer's girlfriend in a music video... by booty dancing = non-notable. Being on the cover of a skanky calendar = non-notable. And lastly, having no reliable sources to cite = non-notable. Mbinebri talk ← 16:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as NN per my original prod nomination. Complete lack of reliable source third party coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:34, 14 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 03:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Gau
- John Gau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced stub. Appears to fail WP:BIO due to lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. There is an IMDB page but the roles mentioned in the article are not there which suggests they are not notable enough. —Snigbrook 14:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, very very that IMDB doesn't have these under his name - they are, unlikely Wikipedia fairly indiscriminate, in my experience. Been tagged for notability since 2006, so we're not going to get anywhere with this. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 14:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete only minor TV production credits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment have done some expansion and sourcing to the stub. Am now looking to see if any of his works have won awards. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:28, 14 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 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Minor roles only Jamestilley (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - NN "executive producer" of a series of minor TV specials. The New York Times listing is not a full article. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 16 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allison Hedge Coke
- Allison Hedge Coke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability Kristof15 (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Self published sources, not notable, poorly written, looks like an advertizement for her self published writing--Nefariousski (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Self published sources, marked for improvement since April 2008, reads like an advertisement, few external sources, not notable, poorly written. Kristof15 (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC) (edit -- note that I've attempted to clean the article up a bit. If this is to be kept, someone needs to slog through the awards section and sort out the notable awards from the non-notable. Whoever listed them threw in the kitchen sink, even including an award from a community college. Kristof15 (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is indeed poorly written and looks like an ad, but she does hold an endowed chair and appears to have garnered reviews from major literary venues (eg. Fourth Genre) for work that was not self-published. But my "expertise" is fiction....maybe somebody with a stronger knowledge of poetry publishing can comment on the credits? Vartanza (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above. Dwain (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but needs a rewrite. If there are reliable external sources, a few of them is enough. As for named chair, although University of Nebraska at Kearney is not a major flagship university, (the Lincoln campus is the main one), this particular professorship seems from the article on the university to be particularly distinguished. DGG (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What self published works would these be, that are under accusation? I don't know that Coffee House or Salt would appreciate the suggestion. - Travis Hedge Coke (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- A) Travis Hedge Coke, calm down (and please, read our guidelines on potential conflict of interest). B) The article needs a good rewrite and trim, but Allison Hedge Coke does meet notability criteria. DS (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)`[reply]
- Keep. Salt Publishing certainly aren't a vanity press, and Allison Hedge Coke is a well-established poet. Clean-up is certainly needed - I'll have a go in a week or so when I have a bit more time on my hands. Vizjim (talk) 21:53, 13 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 08:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan Rola
- Jonathan Rola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BIO. An independent film maker with non notable films. I don't come up with any news coverage for him and his films, and the only source on the page seems to be a webpage created by the person. Also, the independent film festival that his films are showed at has a reputation for accepting every entry that is submitted. There are no mentions of the movies elsewhere. FingersOnRoids 23:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 12 March 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) 23:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom -Drdisque (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. One film, and no evidence of either commercial success or critical recognition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 16 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)