Listing Andee Stowl |
→Living people: sidan |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Living people== |
==Living people== |
||
<!-- bof --> |
<!-- bof --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidan Gould}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andee Stowl}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andee Stowl}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohan Apte}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohan Apte}} |
Revision as of 04:05, 20 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.
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 keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aidan Gould
- Aidan Gould (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable child actor. One role in an relatively unnotable film does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER, nor does he meet WP:BIO and WP:N. Has no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Speedy declined by User:WereSpielChequers with note of "decline speedy and replace with notability - starred in a film is an assertion of notability" -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable child actor from a non-notable film. Only two found reliable sources, one of which says almost nothing. Delete. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 20:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: that movie was very notable at the 2008 Berlin Film Festival, according to Google. I've added a few of those results to the article; apparently German critics liked the kid well enough. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews of his role in the film go in the film article. They don't really provide significant coverage of him as a person, but of a character. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reviews say that the person Aidan Gould did a good job of playing the part in the movie. That pertains to the person's notability. And I see why Jumpguru called Julia non-notable--but the movie is notable enough. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In agreement, the reviews all speak of him by name... not his character name... and highly praise his acting... exactly the notability being asserted and sourced. If his acting had not been worth making note, the reviewers would not have included him. Aslo, and with respoects to the nom, if the film Julia was "relatively unnotable" it is unlikely it would have such a terrific article on Wiki. However, and thank you, the reviews would also make a nice addition to the film article. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Terrific? Please tell me you're being sarcastic if you think that is a "terrific" articles. It has a plot summary, cast list, and one unsourced sentence in the reception section. None of the article is sourced. It is far from being terrific in any sense of the word. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Far better than many currently on Wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not by any realistic standard. Its a typical bad film article: overly long plot summary, no lead, nothing useful. Julia (2008 film) is a stub, nothing more. There is nothing terrific about it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... now I have something to do. We made that darn book article shine and I hope to have your help on the film article when you get a chance. And we're going to have to figure a good DYK hook. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Far better than many currently on Wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Terrific? Please tell me you're being sarcastic if you think that is a "terrific" articles. It has a plot summary, cast list, and one unsourced sentence in the reception section. None of the article is sourced. It is far from being terrific in any sense of the word. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews of his role in the film go in the film article. They don't really provide significant coverage of him as a person, but of a character. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per expansion and sourcing done by User:Drmies. This little fellow may be young, but his work is being praised in Reliable Sources and he is getting coverage to meet WP:PEOPLE. This article will be growing over the next few years, right alongside the actor. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Aidan Gould is not Elliot Gould, but he passes the WP:N bar, in my opinion. He's had notable German and British critics write positively about him, he's been one of the main actors in a notable movie, and he's had a couple of TV appearances on notable programs. MQS, I don't know how you always manage to find those sources. Nice work, thanks! Drmies (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being IN film, perhaps my mindset allows me to figure different search parameters. In this case, both you and the nom provided the clues. She wrote the film was "relatively unnotable" and in looking at its wiki article and searching to determine if her statement had any basis, I found the reviews she must have missed. I owe her my thanks. More such exist may in his connection with other projects... as in the film industry, its all connected. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "# Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" does not say " and was mentioned in a review for a single film. Note the multiple in the criteria. None of the reviews constitute the "significant coverage" required to meet WP:N as well. Brief mention in an overall review of the film isn't significant, its minor and only because of the film. Any notability of the film does not confer to its actors.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You need not, but other editors in looking at the article, now that it has been expanded and sourced as a direct result of your tagging it, will find the multiple international reviews (German ones in depth), and a filmology showing lead roles in multiple films. Not simply "a review" and not simply "one film". Thank you. WP:AGF? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
- Good gosh, he's only nine. Even Haley Joel Osment was a kid once. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, he is only nine, but that doesn't exempt him from the same guidelines. Right now, he's just a WP:ONEVENT person, which also fails WP:BIO. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One event? A movie, which was discussed in British and German media, and not on the same day, you mean. Besides, if you'd look through those articles, you'd see that the "Skandale und Glanznummern" article actually devotes some attention to him besides just mentioning his acting skills: "Das [gekidnappten Kind] wird von dem heute 11-jährigen Aidan Gould nicht minder unheimlich gekonnt gespielt. Allein, das Talent des kleinen Mimen hat sein Selbstwertgefühl abseits des Sets offenbar ein wenig überstrapaziert. Bei der Berlinale tritt der junge Film-Spross jedenfalls recht altklug in Erscheinung, und auf die Frage, ob die permanente Gegenwart von Pistolen und Gewalt in seiner unmittelbaren Umgebung ihm nicht Angst gemacht habe, weiß er schon ganz abgeklärt zu antworten: 'Man möchte ja auch Angst haben vor der Kamera, wenn man Angst haben soll.'" That's pretty funny, coming from an 11-year old, and especially useful for our purposes is that I have this from a German article. Oh, I'm sure you also saw in those German articles that it was him and the lead actress who were in Germany for the promotion of the movie at the Berlinale--that there were more than a dozen hits in the German media for this kid would perhaps suggest that there is a shred of notability here. One event? A significant series of events, it seems to me. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, he is only nine, but that doesn't exempt him from the same guidelines. Right now, he's just a WP:ONEVENT person, which also fails WP:BIO. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - good work people! Artw (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability has been established by multiple reviewers publicly making not of him for his work. Rather than ONEEVENT(???), his filmology seems to show a growing career. It is seen that he is recieving coverage in multiple articles in multiple countries. I can easily accept good faith that the sources provided by User:Drmies are significant and in depth. Ikip (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:ENTERTAINER for prominent roles. Subject of reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-Julia is a notable film, having been released in ten countries, and will be released in America in April. Tilda Swinton won best actress for the film. Secondly, Aidan is not a one-hit wonder, he has a lead in three more feature films, soon to be released. I think we will see more from this kid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TypeEdit (talk • contribs) 15:27, March 20, 2009 — TypeEdit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- TypeEdit, I really suggest that you try using the sandbox before you make edits in mainspace articles. And as Collectonian has told you, you cannot edit other people's comments. I have reverted your addition to the Aidan Gould article; while that review was very positive and friendly, haaba.com cannot really count as a reliable source. It is, for instance, entirely unclear who wrote that article; I cannot imagine that an African blog or portal would send a reviewer to Berlin to write about movies. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- haaba.com is actually a pan-african news site which mosting publishes news from other media sources, this article was written by the editor, i think it just passes verifiablity. --neon white talk 01:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neonwhite, that's precisely the problem. Editor? What editor? As you know, Berlin is not in Africa. I don't like the smell of it--surely it's not some editor locally at the haaba headquarters. They got it from somewhere, and I can't tell from where. It's OK for blogs to simply repeat information, even if it's incomplete, but it shouldn't be for us. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- haaba.com is actually a pan-african news site which mosting publishes news from other media sources, this article was written by the editor, i think it just passes verifiablity. --neon white talk 01:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-Look at what you guys are saying keep to. There are like, no sources for this kid. I found two reliable sources, how can you make an article out of that? This should be deleted. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 21:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are eight sources in the article right now. Like, that's plenty to support the statements made in the article, and a good indication that more is to follow. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, please take a look. When you first brought the article to the nom's attention on her talk page it was in poor shape certainly, but the sources existed and have been added.. and the article itself expanded. It is not the same article that you found... nor the same one she nominated. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is still in no better shape. If you actually look at and follow the guidelines for a biography, nearly everything "added" would quickly be removed as not belonging there, which would reduce it to only 4 references. And still nothing actually added provided significant coverage, but no one seems to be looking at either of those things. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Opinion. And the informations added do indeed have a place in a BLP for an actor. I will provide examples if you wish. Thank you for WP:AGF. His statement was "There are like, no sources for this kid. I found two reliable sources". In response it was shown that more than 2 were available and have been added. Further, there are even more but kinda seems like overkill. Oh... we didn't use the myspace link JumpGuru found in his search (it was for a different Aidan Gould). Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Collectonian, I did provide English translations of the German press praising Gould's performance. How are those things not "belonging there"? Are you saying that in biographies one cannot have references that say something about the person? That strikes me as odd. As for "no one seems to be looking at either of those things," I think you should assume good faith in all the editors on this page who have voted keep--you have to consider that it IS possible that they considered lots of things and simply disagree with you. Surely that's possible, no? Drmies (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because biographies are not for reception sections of their various films, but summaries of the person's life, career, etc. And I am assuming good faith, (well except for one below which is obviously not assuming good faith towards me), however I also know that at least a few of the editors voting keep have little experience in editing and crafting GOOD biographies, which would not include that sort of information at all. While I'm not fond of editing biographies, particularly of living people, I am experienced in the overall concept of what does and does not go in one. As such, what's been added does not actually add any value to the article, nor does it really speak to his notability, only to the film's. If you look at any FA biography articles from the last year or so, you will see this is so. Further, some keeps seem to be basing their votes on his "future" potential, which goes against WP:CRYSTAL. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is still in no better shape. If you actually look at and follow the guidelines for a biography, nearly everything "added" would quickly be removed as not belonging there, which would reduce it to only 4 references. And still nothing actually added provided significant coverage, but no one seems to be looking at either of those things. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, please take a look. When you first brought the article to the nom's attention on her talk page it was in poor shape certainly, but the sources existed and have been added.. and the article itself expanded. It is not the same article that you found... nor the same one she nominated. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are eight sources in the article right now. Like, that's plenty to support the statements made in the article, and a good indication that more is to follow. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Drmies. I hope when the nominator tags for deletion to an article, do some research, plz.--Caspian blue 22:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:Creative. This young actor is notable has had significant roles in notable films including Julia (2008), The Red Balloon (2006), The Secret Life of Leonardo Da Vinci (2006), and The McPassion (2006). Untick (talk) 04:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The sources for this article are reliable and verifiable. There may be a conflict of interest for Jumpguru as he has been involved in a real life conflict with the subject of this wikipedia article.Journeey (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Journeey — Journeey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please provide some evidence of this? I'd love to know how this occurred. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see how his being an editor for Jump magazines or his authoring of Jump's manga articles off-wiki could act in conflict here. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? -_O The only thing I can think of a conflict over, would be over the spelling over my name. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 02:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, Schmidt, there is no conflict over Jump Guru being an editor for Jump magazines or manga articles. The conflict of interest, which, under Wikipedia's own rules, Jump Guru should have disclosed when he started this deletion process, is that Jump Guru personally knows Aidan, they are 12 year old classmates who are having a schoolyard tiff that has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of Aidan's Wikipedia article. Thanks to Jump Guru initiating this deletion process, the tiff is being played out on this discussion page, which is an inappropriate forum for a schoolyard argument. Once again, the sources in Aidan Gould's article are reliable and verifiable. That is what is important here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.165.252 (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And your evidence is? You are slandering an established editor and borderline violating Wikipedia policies regarding "outing" editors. He also didn't "start" this deletion process, which negates your who spurious claim (also fairly sure Jump is in his 20s) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps our anonymous IP thinks that by JumpGuru first bringing Aidan Gould to your attention[1] the process was begun. And naturally, Jump Guru's age is of no consequence, for wiki has many young editors. His age would then be the only "outing", and of no importance, as JG has already declared on his userpage[2] his involvement with Jump magazine and manga. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, yes it would be of importance. One does not go around identifying minors if the minor himself has not said he is one (which of course JumpGuru is not, but general case here). One also does not go around making statements implying they are trying to identify the real-life persona of a Wiki editor if they have not chosen to do so. Big huge bruhahas over that quite recently. Also, I think you may be misreading his page - he isn't involved in Jump magazine as an editor IRL, he edits the Jump related articles and manga articles in general :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. My bad. Editing wiki articles rather than editing the magazines. Understood. I still think his age does not discredit his bringing the article's earlier version to your attention... whether 12 or 20... matters not to wiki, except in that calling an adult a child is incivil. If true, I would not wish evidences to then be made public (outing). If false, it can be ignored. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am an adult. That Journeey guy was probobly trying to insult me for being related to the deletion of the article. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 22:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. My bad. Editing wiki articles rather than editing the magazines. Understood. I still think his age does not discredit his bringing the article's earlier version to your attention... whether 12 or 20... matters not to wiki, except in that calling an adult a child is incivil. If true, I would not wish evidences to then be made public (outing). If false, it can be ignored. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, yes it would be of importance. One does not go around identifying minors if the minor himself has not said he is one (which of course JumpGuru is not, but general case here). One also does not go around making statements implying they are trying to identify the real-life persona of a Wiki editor if they have not chosen to do so. Big huge bruhahas over that quite recently. Also, I think you may be misreading his page - he isn't involved in Jump magazine as an editor IRL, he edits the Jump related articles and manga articles in general :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps our anonymous IP thinks that by JumpGuru first bringing Aidan Gould to your attention[1] the process was begun. And naturally, Jump Guru's age is of no consequence, for wiki has many young editors. His age would then be the only "outing", and of no importance, as JG has already declared on his userpage[2] his involvement with Jump magazine and manga. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about! XD I'm over 20 years old! – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 03:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 12 or 20... age does not matter to wiki. Its the encyclopedia anyone can edit. And even if you were a 12-year-old who had a schoolyard conflict with the subject, the article about him would still be subject to review for sources eventually anyway, and the subsequently added sources provide what is required. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ROFLOL Are you trying to tell me that you actually believe that! XD – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 17:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse myself, but this is a joke! I did not have a schoolyard conflict. I'm 22! – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 17:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you understand what Michael is trying to say--"even if..." is hypothetical. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, only a hypothetical. Age matters not to wiki unless you were actually a minor child and something were done to bring your name and location to the fore. Since the allegation is made by a SPA, a closing admin will likely disregard it and look to the article itself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you understand what Michael is trying to say--"even if..." is hypothetical. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 12 or 20... age does not matter to wiki. Its the encyclopedia anyone can edit. And even if you were a 12-year-old who had a schoolyard conflict with the subject, the article about him would still be subject to review for sources eventually anyway, and the subsequently added sources provide what is required. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And your evidence is? You are slandering an established editor and borderline violating Wikipedia policies regarding "outing" editors. He also didn't "start" this deletion process, which negates your who spurious claim (also fairly sure Jump is in his 20s) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide some evidence of this? I'd love to know how this occurred. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:17, 22 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 00:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andee Stowl
- Andee Stowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nothing indicating notability per WP:BIO. I tagged it for notability a week or so ago, but the creator has not edited since the creation of this article, so it appears that this is a single purpose account creating a vanity article about himself. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Google has nothing RS on this guy. The article barely aspires to notability. I find the thought of somebody wishing to be notable merely as a "socialite" highly depressing. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unable to find any reliable sources to support a claim to notability for the subject. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete High school hi-jinks. Fails WP:BIO.TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete under A7 (Wikipedia:Speedy#Articles). --Edcolins (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:01, 21 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) 00:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mohan Apte
- Mohan Apte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete google shows many hits for Mohan Apte, but most seem to be other people and those that might be this guy don't seem to be WP:RSes. Fails WP:V and probably WP:BIO as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep for now - I'm not totally convinced, but what do you make of these sources? [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7] — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now echoing nom concerns. Sources adduced above are not indicative of notability. Eusebeus (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so fast. Reading through Linguist's references I see "An exhibition on astronomy covering aspects of our solar system, space research and observational astronomy inaugurated by well-known science writer Professor Mohan Apte"; and "Mohan Apte, former head of the department of Physics at Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, Chowpatty"; both from Indian newspapers. Those references appear to indicate he gets over the notability barrier under WP:PROF. Can anyone confirm those are Indian national newspapers?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the stub needs some work before we can discuss this further. Rescue? Bearian (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Better citations and a biography would help. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. From little stubs, great articles grow. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Avi (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Added some sources, wikified (which should be the first thing folks do when assessing an article). Marginal sources, but seems to meet at least one of WP:PROF: "5. The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research." and MAYBE "7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.". Online sourcing is going to be hard for this, but it sounds like from the press accounts and emails (which we can't use) if I were from Mumbai, he work would be accessible.T L Miles (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Apte appears to be widely read within India as a "well-known science writer," in the words of one of Linguist's supplied cites. I've tagged this AfD in the India-related deletion discussion and hope that some of our Indian colleagues can shed more light on Apte's notability -- or lack of.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I also left a note on the talk page of the creator. In future, it might be helpful to do this when you nominate a page for deletion, especially when dealing with a foreign language topic. T L Miles (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I know no proper way to evaluate the importance of this material. The criteria for WP:PROF are not really much help here; based on the apparent references to his work, and to avoid cultural bias, I would not delete it. DGG (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep DGG sums it up well - also no real red BLP flags are cropping up so some time to work on it is ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 21 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 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
S Ramachandran
- S Ramachandran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This page is a bigraphy of a person who may or may not be of enough significance to be on Wikipædia. Please feel free to discuss/disagree. Spacevezon (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails notability. Also definitely appears autobiographical. -Drdisque (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per lack of notability LetsdrinkTea 22:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Being a journalist behind some of India's greatest entertainment stories would be a good case for notability, but the claims expressed in this article are too vague, totally unverifiable, and far too easily something that anyone could have claimed to have done. Will reconsider if the news stories that this journalist supposedly broke are referenced. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rama is undoubtedly one of the best known names in the industry. As a part of the entertainment industry myself I can vouch for that. He has been around for 22 years. And his credibility in unquestionable. A Google search reveals more. Try googling him with other well known bollywood names. Many channels still do special shows with his quotes on box office performances of new films. and the stories mentioned after him are very much his work. Mid day and NDTV can verify that... or any of the celebs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dscojyoti (talk • contribs) 14:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If his credibility is unquestionable and hits show up on Google with other Bollywood names, post a few of the links here and we can take it from there. (Or, better still, post links relating to stories about S Ramachandran himself.) Unverified assertions (especially assertions from users who have not made any other contribution to Wikipedia) and Google tests alone aren't enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Chris. Please do check the links in the reference section of the article page. i have put some links there which will give you an estimation of his credibility. The links are of stories he has done and stories done on him. Stories done on him more importantly because they were done in renowned newspapers of the country. eg: http://www.screenindia.com/old/fullstory.php?content_id=13894 and http://www.rediff.com/movies/2006/nov/21asha.htm dscojyoti —Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't think this alone is going to qualify. The notability guidelines at WP:BIO state that the depth of coverage of the subject has to be substantial, and in these two articles the coverage of S Ramachandran amounts to a single sentence. However, if the album he is directing qualifies as notable, he could certainly get a mention in an article about the album. The close of debate for this AfD is coming up, and the most likely outcome at the moment is that the article will be deleted. What you might want to do, however, is copy the article to your own userspace and keep searching for references. If you leave a message at Wikiproject India, they ought to be able to help you better than I can. Note that any promotional-sounding parts of the article will need to be re-written from neutral point of view no matter what. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Chris. Please do check the links in the reference section of the article page. i have put some links there which will give you an estimation of his credibility. The links are of stories he has done and stories done on him. Stories done on him more importantly because they were done in renowned newspapers of the country. eg: http://www.screenindia.com/old/fullstory.php?content_id=13894 and http://www.rediff.com/movies/2006/nov/21asha.htm dscojyoti —Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- If his credibility is unquestionable and hits show up on Google with other Bollywood names, post a few of the links here and we can take it from there. (Or, better still, post links relating to stories about S Ramachandran himself.) Unverified assertions (especially assertions from users who have not made any other contribution to Wikipedia) and Google tests alone aren't enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I have worked with him. In fact he has taught so many entertainment journalists. He is one of the most respected names among all people in the industry today. He is quite looked up to. Jhask —Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. Please add your contribution to the bottom of this discussion, and sign by adding four tildes at the end: ~~~~ (which will be expanded into your signature and date when saving). -- Crowsnest (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2009 (UTc)
- 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 23:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simone Sheffield
- Simone Sheffield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Subject does not meet criteria of WP:N — raeky (talk | edits) 19:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nn per WP:BIO. Cf. her IMDB page. Eusebeus (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A quick search on Google News shows there are many reliable sources. Including to the New York Times, Times, BBC News, Times of India, etc. No questions about her notability. -- Crowsnest (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a couple passing mentions in a few articles is enough to qualify for WP:N, people are mentioned, quoted in news all the time in this capacity and it doesn't mean they should have a wikipedia page. I think she should be mentioned more then in passing about someone else or a minor project to be notable. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:BIO: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". There are many reliable sources quoting her, or using her as a source for their statements. Further she has (co)produced several films, satisfying WP:CREATIVE: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work,..." -- Crowsnest (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there enough to satisfy that she has "played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work." If so then I will admit she meets notability for WP:CREATIVE. I just don't see that. What "significant" or "well-known" work has she played a major role in creating? We can't possibly have a page for every producer, associate whatever of any film ever released in the box office? They should meet some standard above and beyond just that. None of those films shes credited on IMDB are significant that I can tell. — raeky (talk | edits) 07:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment... actually wiki CAN have articles for every film and video producer... as long as they have coverage in reliable sources and whose assertions of notability can then properly sourced, so as to meet the inclusion requirements of guideline. Will be looking into expansion and sourcing this evening.... then I'll be back to either opine a keep or delete based upon what I will have been able to accomplish. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:04, 24 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 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, with a remark that this diff shows why editors need to put articles on their watchlist when they tag them. This is fundamentally promotional rather than encyclopaedic in nature, and as far as I can tell unsourced and unsourceable via reliable sources.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The editor you're talking about (TG4M) is Bobbi Miller-Moro the wife of Luis Moro who setup and solely maintained several pages for her friends, family and co-workers and just recently had her page (her autobiography) deleted on WP:N issues. There's obvious NPOV issues with this article since it was created and the bulk of content added by a friend likely acting on Mrs. Sheffield's behalf. Bobbi also stated she was going to hire a company to maintain these pages on wikipedia for her, so future NPOV issues could become a big problem for these pages. — raeky (talk | edits) 02:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely there are many issues with the quality of the article. But one has to distinguish between the notability of the subject (qualifying for having a separate article on WP, and requiring sufficient reliable secondary sources), and on the other side the reliable sources (which are lacking in the article at the moment) needed for the statements and claims made. To my opinion there are enough reliable sources to support notability of the article as such. A certain amount of primary sources for non-controversial claims can be acceptable, but I agree that secondary sources need to be added (although not to the extend as indicated by the citation tags at the moment). Non-verifiable matter can of course be deleted. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I probably went a little overboard with the fact tags, but it goes to illustrate that virtually nothing there is sourced. What source there is is a primary source (or own websites). I don't feel that we should keep articles until we have sufficient sources to qualify it for WP:N and I don't think we've presented/seen enough to qualify it for WP:N now. Which sources are you referring to, specifically, that establish notability? — raeky (talk | edits) 10:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely there are many issues with the quality of the article. But one has to distinguish between the notability of the subject (qualifying for having a separate article on WP, and requiring sufficient reliable secondary sources), and on the other side the reliable sources (which are lacking in the article at the moment) needed for the statements and claims made. To my opinion there are enough reliable sources to support notability of the article as such. A certain amount of primary sources for non-controversial claims can be acceptable, but I agree that secondary sources need to be added (although not to the extend as indicated by the citation tags at the moment). Non-verifiable matter can of course be deleted. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The editor you're talking about (TG4M) is Bobbi Miller-Moro the wife of Luis Moro who setup and solely maintained several pages for her friends, family and co-workers and just recently had her page (her autobiography) deleted on WP:N issues. There's obvious NPOV issues with this article since it was created and the bulk of content added by a friend likely acting on Mrs. Sheffield's behalf. Bobbi also stated she was going to hire a company to maintain these pages on wikipedia for her, so future NPOV issues could become a big problem for these pages. — raeky (talk | edits) 02:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advertising, which has no reliable sources that establish notability or allow for verification of its claims. In general, we shouldn't have completely unsourced articles, particularly for BLPs. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and remove the fluff. A search on google books (some of which I have added to the article) shows sources that can been used to cite the article. Further, a seacrh including the names of her Bollywood clients shows her being quoted in many reliable sources (again, some of which I have added). I agree that it has many problems, but feel that with work, it can be made a suitable and encyclopdeic entry for Wikipedia per WP:CLEANUP... mostly, the hyperbole inserted by the original author has got to go... unless properly sourced. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt beyond the passant mentions that she is an agent for the two indian actresses, everything else is self-published. The google books ref was actually to a 1983 issue of "The Advocate: The National Gay and Lesbian Magazine" -- while the search page indicates her name is mentioned in the article in question, the text isn't readable in the cite provided (here [8]) -- so i've removed that for now as it doesn't establish anything about her (not sure if the advocate is RS anyway, but it's a moot point at the moment). That leaves us with passant mentions that she manages the two indian actresses, refs on online databases showing she worked for motown (or in the screenworld annual). All the sources that mention anything about her are self-published. Still fails in my opinion on WP:BIO and WP:NOTE and WP:V (since all the info actually about her is not reliable). Specifically, she meets none of the criteria in WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. Bali ultimate (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing -- "Screenworld" is a directory that strives to publish the basic data of every movie produced in a given year.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. I'm not impressed by the SPS about her "charity work" or the "name dropping" of other celebs. I will be looking to find independent sources that speak about her in relationship to her film companies, and covering her "coming out of retirement". And I feel that I may find her in archives covering her early career. And what's the deal about adding "fact" for her ethinic background? She says it herself and its not the least bit controversial...and it seems it not being specifically covered anywhere else shows that it is not of any special merit... and it certainly is no assertion of notability. I think we can accept her own word on her ethnic heritage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's not overwhelming, but there seems to be enough ntoability to warrant inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - She meets the criteria for WP:CREATIVE, as she has played a major role in co-creating several a significant works as identified by the several award winning films that she has produced and co-produced. Esasus (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral-I don't think she meets the Notability criteria [[9]] and some of the materials lack reliable citations [[10]]. It is true that she is/was the international agent for two well known Bollywood actors [11] but is that enough to pass the notability threshold? I was leaning towards Delete but after following the recent efforts of some of the editors like User: MichaelQSchmidt I think there's a small chance that the article can be salvaged.--Louisprandtl (talk) 02:39, 26 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 09:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Jukes
- Peter Jukes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This BLP on a minor blogger/author does not have any independent sources that discuss this person. Fails WP:BIO Bali ultimate (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This AfD appears to be motivated by the user's actions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Motley Moose, which is unacceptable if true. Otherwise, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0432133/ shows plenty of sources, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2D7153DF931A35751C1A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 is from the New York Times, a quick Google search shows that same source is referenced on a dozen .edu sites in the first thirty results. I think the citations need cleaning up, which would be the only problem I see here, which isn't the article's fault, as it would be slightly COI for the author's namesake to edit an article on himself. Ks64q2 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's unacceptable is attacking the motives of other editors (and without a shred of evidence to back it up). I'd never heard of Peter Jukes until today. My reasons for the nomination are clear in my nomination (fails BIO). Please, discuss content and not other editors unless you have a good reason to do so (and evidence to back it up). You're growing increasingly uncivil and this will not prove helpful to you, me or wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no, sir; please allow me to correct myself. I didn't look deeply enough to see you had created this AfD; I am certain your reasoning is on the level. Perhaps you could concede, however, that it would be possible for this nomination to appear to be motivated to that argument, especially considering there's two admins who edited this article when the last AfD on The Motley Moose came up, and both thought it was reasonably notable for inclusion. Maybe it would have been more prudent to wait until that had played itself out. Though I would also suggest a subjective opinion on whether or not you had heard of this article's subject is hardly an acceptable reason for submitting this article for AfD. Again, a quick Google search pointed the results I showed above; perhaps "Cleanup" would have been more appropriate. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting Ks64q2: "a subjective opinion on whether or not you had heard of this article's subject is hardly an acceptable reason for submitting this article for AfD." Of course it isn't. I wrote "I'd never heard of Peter Jukes until today" in response to your allegation that my nomination "appears to be motivated by the user's actions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Motley Moose, which is unacceptable if true." I don't know Jukes and have no opinion on him or his work, or any relationship that would "motivate" me to nominate this BLP for any other reason than this: I believe it falls short of wikipedia's standards for biographies of living persons, notability and verifiability largely because there are insufficient reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article. Now, I suggest you drop the attacks on my or anyone elses motives. Keep it on the content and keep your suppositions about what's in other people's heads to yourself.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no, sir; please allow me to correct myself. I didn't look deeply enough to see you had created this AfD; I am certain your reasoning is on the level. Perhaps you could concede, however, that it would be possible for this nomination to appear to be motivated to that argument, especially considering there's two admins who edited this article when the last AfD on The Motley Moose came up, and both thought it was reasonably notable for inclusion. Maybe it would have been more prudent to wait until that had played itself out. Though I would also suggest a subjective opinion on whether or not you had heard of this article's subject is hardly an acceptable reason for submitting this article for AfD. Again, a quick Google search pointed the results I showed above; perhaps "Cleanup" would have been more appropriate. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although John Berger's and the New Yorker's critical coverage of Jukes' work is as yet uncited, I'm going to assume good faith on these. What's more, his extensive writing work in stage, screen and prose -- including the Laurence Olivier Awards winning Matador -- more than satisfies WP:CREATIVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Going through the sources, I see only self-published material by Jukes. To pass inclusion criteria, according to WP:NOTE, subjects need to "receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."--Sloane (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Keep: I think he just crosses the threshold for inclusion, his work for tv seems to be relatively extensive (although there's very little coverage that exists of it) and his book probably has gotten enough reviews (we've only found a couple, but I suspect there's more on paper).--Sloane (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Reply WP:BIO states that individuals can be notable on the basis on additional criteria, even in cases where basic notability criteria is missing. Jukes' is a perfect example of this: he has won awards for his theatrical work and has extensive television writing credits. The New Yorker and John Berger reviews of his non-fiction work need to be found, to be sure, but it would be a mistake to delete an article on such an apparently prominent writer. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The winner of the award turns out to be not the play or Jukes himself, but the choreographer of the play. So this isn't an argument for inclusion.--Sloane (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you removed all his TV writing credits? Why? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsourced. They're at the talk page.--Sloane (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and rather easily sourced, which I've done for 2 of the main BBC creds. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsourced. They're at the talk page.--Sloane (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you removed all his TV writing credits? Why? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The winner of the award turns out to be not the play or Jukes himself, but the choreographer of the play. So this isn't an argument for inclusion.--Sloane (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply WP:BIO states that individuals can be notable on the basis on additional criteria, even in cases where basic notability criteria is missing. Jukes' is a perfect example of this: he has won awards for his theatrical work and has extensive television writing credits. The New Yorker and John Berger reviews of his non-fiction work need to be found, to be sure, but it would be a mistake to delete an article on such an apparently prominent writer. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per
Sloane/nom. Eusebeus (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Keep. Come on, people—the first three references clearly show the guy's a screenwriter for rather notable Inspector Lynley Mysteries, Waking the Dead, and Sea of Souls at the BBC. This nomination is disruptive, though I'm sure it was an honest mistake.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt everyone with a few writing credits on tv, but no awards or non-trivial independent coverage about him is notable? That's not how i see it.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mate, that's not "a few writing credits on TV". That's three major primetime TV writing credits in flagship programmes
so far this year.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I think some are older credits. I just found a ref to a 2008 BBC radio play her wrote. I'm adding it. I believe part of the problem has been the zeal with which other editors have deleted prominent Tv and radio writing credits, instead of making the slightest attempt to reference them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mate, "so far this year?" I'm not sure it will impact your opinion, but the article now has one writing credit for one episode from 2006 [12], one writing credit for one episode in 2001 [13] and one writing credit for one episode in 2004 [14]. There is no discussion about the quality, or impact etc... of these three episodes, just notations at the beeb that he wrote them.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mate, that's not "a few writing credits on TV". That's three major primetime TV writing credits in flagship programmes
- Writing a couple of episodes for television series doesn't seem enough for inclusion. So far, all we have is the one book review from the Journal Of Sociology. And one source really isn't enough.--Sloane (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- he's written multiple episodes and radio projects for the BBC, some of which I've just added. On the basis of his multiple scripts for top BBC series, I believe he easily meets the WP:CREATIVE criteria for having "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Writing a couple of episodes for television series doesn't seem enough for inclusion. So far, all we have is the one book review from the Journal Of Sociology. And one source really isn't enough.--Sloane (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, Bali ultimate is correct: I mis-read that. Nevertheless, I find multiple citations as a writer for the BBC rather convincing; and these are quality prime-time programmes. It's not like he wrote a couple of episodes of soaps.
- Another point I should make is that notability is a guideline. It's not a debate-winning trump card, particularly when there are policy-based reasons not to delete well-cited material from Wikipedia—as has already happened here, in blatant contravention of policy, in what I can only characterise as an overenthusiastic move on someone's part. Deleting the article would be an even more flagrant abuse.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Writing a couple episodes is not the same as "creating" or "co-creating" a series. We are also still lacking in any reliable sources about his involvement in these series. All we have are credits at the BBC website.--Sloane (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying the BBC isn't a reliable source to establish who writes for the BBC?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I 'm saying that it isn't enough to warrant inclusion. There's no reliable source attesting that this person had a major impact on the series.--Sloane (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying the BBC isn't a reliable source to establish who writes for the BBC?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see. I get that, and I'd tend to agree. That warrants further investigation.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further investigation Jukes wrote the first two hour episode Waking the Dead which garnered a 43% share of the UK audience and guaranteed recommission. The series went on to win Emmy awards and has been broadcast in many countries including the US. Also sole creator of UK prime time three-season show In Deep also with international credits. And was one of two writers on a Bafta award winning show Sea of Souls. Inspector Lynley Mysteries likewise. Film length 90 minute episodes to close season 5 and open season six, and this was the first time the show stopped being based on the Elizabeth George novel. Extensive other TV credits.
- Don't know about the books and essays or blogs but I know my TV and have seen several of his shows both in US and overseas. Not a minor episodic writer. Lots of research and cross referencing later I can say without a problem Keep --Moloch09 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Book and author are notable [15]. Screenwriting a few episodes here and there and contributing articles now and again isn't enough to establish notability, but it adds to the already substantial notability in this case. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Subject meets notability requirements. [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], (Gnews). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Major Inclusion of Sources Alright folks... rather than spam the thread... I've done some rather exhausting research; I'll post it at the "Discussion" page, since I'm not so good at making those nifty dropdown menus yet. Head over there for all the references we could possibly need. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the sources i see here are en passant, don't establish anything about this guys notability. No no non-trivial coverage, etc (and one of them is talking about guys in the restaurant business, and has a passant mention of a "peter jukes" who owns a restaurant. Same guy? Unclear, at best. Even if so, so what?)Bali ultimate (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the restaurant guy is someone else. But the article now has non-trivial coverage of Jukes' work including Washington Times and Boston Globe reviews, and more. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talk Page Sources Now Up
- And it's an extensive list... if anyone has any problems with it, let me know. It took me over an hour and judicious use of Babelfish. Phew. The things I do for Wikipedia... Ks64q2 (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And it's mostly garbage. Responded on talk.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, Bali: "And it's mostly garbage" is a bit on the unpleasant side. There's no need for that, and particularly after this has already gone to WQA and AN/I.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do plan to add About Slavery to his radio work section. Hey, but what's up with the New Yorker? I've been searching in vain for this one. But when I click on your link it takes me to something else entirely. Are you sure you've got the link right? thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, sorry, got it in the talk tab, too. http://archives.newyorker.com/?i=1990-08-27#folio=094 Ks64q2 (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Unfortunately there does seem to be a connection to this AfD and the acrimony at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Motley Moose. If there is more of this i suggest a report at ANI to get more eyes on this. -- Banjeboi 06:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I avoid political articles and do not want to get into Motley Moose debate, but tracking back nominator timestamps it seems the speedy delete for this came as a direct result of a visit there. I'm sure Bali ultimate has no bad intentions but it looks like an attempt at reverse wikilayering. Notability cannot be inherited but it shouldn't be disinherited either. --Moloch09 (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, sources establish notability (e.g. the Journal of Sociology and the Boston Globe book reviews), TV credits are a good bonus, mentions in newspapers like El Pais are in themselves often "in passing" but give an indication of his notability as well. I suppose that the Scottish chef Peter Jukes is unrelated though? Fram (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's a different Peter Jukes, it seems. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can we close this AfD now? Even the "delete" votes seem to have changed their minds. Thanks. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, let the last delete flip or the rest can play out for the next few days. -- Banjeboi 10:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course youre right bonejboi but the remaining delete from Eusebeus is cited 'as per Sloan' who has just flipped. Meanwhile I'll try to plug in any interesting sources from the stuff you've ported over to the article talk. Thanks --Moloch09 (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I read through the article concerned, the discussion and the AFD here. From the article, the Editors comments above and the references, to me it is beyond doubt that Peter Jukes passes any notability threshold that Wiki may have. Personal Note: I'm an Inspector Lynley fan, have seen Peter Jukes on the credits couple of times. --Louisprandtl (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference Hyperlink Problem Ref [31] here [[21]] links to a Review on MadMen [22]in San Francisco Chronicle instead to Jerome's article at MyDD [23]. The hyperlink needs to be fixed. --Louisprandtl (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination
and Sloane.X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sloane has reverted to keep so which is it?--Moloch09 (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn his treacherous hide! Obviously per nom. X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the nom no longer even remotely describes the rewritten state of the article, which is now richly sourced. Have you looked at it? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn his treacherous hide! Obviously per nom. X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article has enough reliable sources to show notability. I could do without Refs 33 and 35, which are blog links to MyDD and MotleyMoose, respectively, that in my view are not reliable sources, but there are enough other references that are good to justify keeping. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restoring link because Sloane objected to lack of sourcing for Peter Jukes username 'Brit' writing for Moose - although he states so in prospect. Web Page tagged with his real name. --Moloch09 (talk) 22:23, 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 delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tracy Lynne Pendergast
- Tracy Lynne Pendergast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I don't think this person meets the notability standards of WP:BIO, or that enough reliable, independent sources are available to verify notability. This person's accomplishments seem pretty trivial to appear in an article. Jd027talk 01:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a Gsearch didn't reveal anything that would establish notability for the subject. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. She may be notable someday, but at this time it does not appear that there are enough neutral and reliable sources to build a case for notability. JRP (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Probably could have been speedied as spam. Edward321 (talk) 14:24, 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. MBisanz talk 00:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theo Green
- Theo Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Tried CSD (declined as notability is apparently claimed), and then PROD, but PROD removed by article creator.
Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria, and doesn't meet WP:NOTE. Being listed in IMDB is not criteria for inclusion. A good faith effort to seek out reliable sources coverage didn't reveal anything specific, but does confirm that this is not a hoax.
Composing scores for notable movies is not a claim to notability, and "Twisted Pair" is not notable. While the New College is notable, its choir isn't singly notable.
Put simply, there is no independent coverage that makes for a wikipedia article. This should be deleted or merged into The_Escapist_(2008_film)#Music, which is certainly the one notable thing. Cerejota (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Composing scores for notable films IS notable. WP:CREATIVE says: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." - Mgm|(talk) 12:43, 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]
- Delete. I don't see any indication that his scoring work is notable; that he had that relatively minor role on a notable film doesn't mean he meets WP:CREATIVE--we don't give articles for the makeup artists or set designers or editors or foley artists, either. If he is nominated for an Oscar for scoring, he'll pass the bar then. THF (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Meets the following criteria for MUSIC.
Criteria 10) Composed the score for Hush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush_(2009_film) which was nominated for a British Independent Film Award. http://www.bifa.org.uk/
AND Criteria 10), Has Composed and performed the soundtrack for 2 feature films with theatrical and television release, and a program for BBC television, as supported by References 3) and 4)
AND Criteria 1) It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable
See Reference link 1) from the Guardian / Observer, an online version of a printed newspaper in the UK - Quote 'The theme of the music was anything to do with alluring and dangerous women,' says Theo Green, who produced the music for the show. 'There's a big tango theme running through the soundtrack because that style of music brings out that sexy but dangerous side in women.' Green's background is in film so music and dialogue from movies such as The Wicker Man, The Ninth Gate and Las Vampiras that hint at the theme were layered on top of the other tracks. 'Some of the tracks may not instantly strike you as the most obvious music to walk to but I think it's good to break it up.'
See also Reference link 2) from The Irish Times, and online version of a printed newspaper in UK/Scotland - Quote 'More impressive still is the audio design. Whereas most low-budget films sleep happily if the dialogue remains perceptible, Hardy, sound designer Theo Green and composer Benjamin Wallfisch have conspired to create an expressionist clamour, which heightens the sense that we are in some drugged nightmare.'
AND Criteria 4) as supported by Reference 1) - Has toured and performed with televised shows at London and New York Fashion weeks. —Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep To Cerejota: you mention New College Oxford is not notable for its choir, please see Wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_College,_Oxford "The College is one of the main choral foundations of the University of Oxford. The College Choir has a reputation as one of the finest Anglican choirs in the world and have recorded over seventy albums, and have been awarded two Gramophone Awards."
ALSO PLEASE NOTE: New references added: the score for "Hush" is notable under Wiki's criteria, reviews and links have been added to show this film is now on general theatrical release in the United Kingdom and other countries. Alongside "The Escapist", both films have been nominated and won awards and are notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Composing the music for Hush and composing both additional music and sound design for Escapist have attracted wide press coverage. Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Rumplestiltskin2009 said, he won a notable award for his work, and therefor meets the requirements. Dream Focus 01:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Satisfies notability and references check out Jamestilley (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Jamestilley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete addressing the many points above
- Rumplestiltskin2009 did not say he won a notable award for his work. The film was nominated for an award and that award was not for the score and the nomination was not for Green.
- The references may check out but only three are independent reliable sources and none of them have substantial coverage of Green.
- None of the references show that the score for Hush is notable. One shows that the film might be, not every part of it. If "Composing the music for Hush and composing both additional music and sound design for Escapist have attracted wide press coverage" where is that coverage.
- WP:CREATIVE does not appear to be satisfied. None of the works mentioned are a significant or well-known work and as a sum they are not significant or well-known collective body of work. The criteria is not about any notable work. I also disagree that Greens ivnvolvement counts as a major role in co-creating.
- WP:MUSIC criteria 1 has not been satisfied as all the coverage of Green has been trivial.
- WP:MUSIC criteria 10 is about performing.
- "Reference 1)" (Guardian / Observer) does not support the claim he has toured and performed with televised shows at London and New York Fashion weeks. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I cited "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I was referring to the movie(s) as the well-known work. A score is a significant part of a movie and by contributing the score to the film, I believe he meets this criteria. It doesn't mean the score itself has to be well-known. - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think yopu misinterpret what that policy says: it clearly means that " that has been the subject of" In other words, if a book or film is made about Theo Green, not if Theo Green participates in creating a book or film. I think this is a very clear, unambigous formation, and MGM is misunderstanding it. If the criteria where what you say, then wikipedia would be exactly as IMDB, and we can agree it isn't. I insist this should be merged into Hush and Escapist, with the redirect to Hush as it seems there are more RS for it. This guy certainly deserves to be mentioned, he is just not notable enough for an article on himself alone. --Cerejota (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Mgm. That is how I read your comment. What I am trying to say is that the criteria does not say a notable work. It says "significant or well-known work" which goes beyond simple notability as meant by wikipedia. I also don't think most scores count as "played a major role in co-creating" especially in the case of Greens work in The Escapist. In any case one should "see WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc" which also has it's own section on composers (WP:COMPOSER). And for Cerejota I believe Mgm has it the right way around. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Satisfies WP:CREATIVE, Films "The Escapist" and "Hush" have been reviewed by multiple independent periodical, as given in References
Satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria 1, trivial coverage is defined as "articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories". References supplied include interviews in major newspaper and reviews (not trivial) Satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria 10, Has composed abd performed music for a network television show (BBC Surviving Disaster) and two notable films, The Escapist and Hush. Also as part of New College Choir, won two Gramophone Awards.
CEREJOTA please note: it is the WORK a person has been involved in that must be the subject of multiple independent articles and reviews, not the PERSON. If a PERSON has been involved in creating a work that attracts multiple reviews, it satisfies the criteria. The criteria does not mean that the person must have had a film made about them etc. The films mentioned are notable and reviewed, thus included on Wikipedia: composing the music for them is considered as notable under WP:MUSIC Jamestilley (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is that smell?- No, trivial coverage is not defined as that, they were examples.
- As it stands there is no evidence that as part of New College Choir, Green won two Gramophone Awards. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPlease try to keep comments helpful and related to info not "What is that smell"! The criteria for coverage is very clear; independence and reliability are down to the publication and trivial/non-trivial is down to whether the mention is a listing or part of the article. There can be no doubt that this composer has created music for several notable films, and the films mentioned are here on Wikipedia. That simply satisfies the composer section of WP:MUSIC, as with other composers represented by Air Edel and with a page on Wikipedia, eg David Julyan. Jamestilley (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck out your second keep !vote. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for all the help from Article Rescue Squadron.
- This topic now has more references, awards information, and links to notable work discussed in the press. Also of note is the unique combination of composition and sound design in film scores. Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 20:30, 18 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 04:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC. Film score musician with only one fairly minor credit of any importance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable enough to those looking for obscure facts (WP's strength). Disc space is cheap. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Cleanup Evidence of notability exists, but the article is a bit too peacocky as it stands Avi (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for advice, have removed peacocky bits! Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 05:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:Creative. This composer has composed original music (a significant role) for a TV show (Surviving Disaster), and four notable films; Hush (2009), One Woman Show (2007), Explosions (2006), and Get the Picture (2004). Untick (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Plenty of refs from Channel 4 to MTV News. Passes notability and WP:Music, no grounds for this to go Gilgamesh007 (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I may be blind but I did not see any mention of Green in the MTV News article and I only saw Green listed in the credits listed in the Channel 4 article. Yes there a lot of references provided but a good number do not even mention Green and those that do only provide trivial coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the references are there to establish the films he worked on as notable, which is one criteria, but others include reviews of his work, and some like Hollywood reporter review a film, mention the score, then list the name below. Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References establishing the notability of things he worked on should be included in articles on the things he worked on. If it does not cover Greens work it has no place in Greens article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can that be true? Still learning how to create WP content, but it seems obvious from looking around that Inline Citations are encouraged to support any point or claim made in an article, as in WP:CITE and WP:IC - its not just citations that talk directly about the creative work of a subject that are allowed on WP? Anyone else care to comment? Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right Rumplestilskin2009. Sources for everything should be provided but it's possible that they aren't importance for notability concerns (i.e. just passing references to him or something). Duffbeer, even if it doesn't cover Green's work, it can still be included with references. We just ignore then here for notability concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can that be true? Still learning how to create WP content, but it seems obvious from looking around that Inline Citations are encouraged to support any point or claim made in an article, as in WP:CITE and WP:IC - its not just citations that talk directly about the creative work of a subject that are allowed on WP? Anyone else care to comment? Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References establishing the notability of things he worked on should be included in articles on the things he worked on. If it does not cover Greens work it has no place in Greens article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the references are there to establish the films he worked on as notable, which is one criteria, but others include reviews of his work, and some like Hollywood reporter review a film, mention the score, then list the name below. Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I may be blind but I did not see any mention of Green in the MTV News article and I only saw Green listed in the credits listed in the Channel 4 article. Yes there a lot of references provided but a good number do not even mention Green and those that do only provide trivial coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly meets WP:Music #10. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 23:54, 24 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 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 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 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.
- 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 00:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verne E. Rupright
- Verne E. Rupright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A mayor of a town of 5000 people with no other political credentials doesn't constitute notability. He only has an article as one of his predecessors was Sarah Palin, and I expect all major news coverage of him will be in respect to this. Computerjoe's talk 17:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —94.196.206.70 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —94.196.206.70 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree completely with the nominator, this is only because of Palin, and notability is not inherited. Dianne M. Keller, John Stein (mayor), List of mayors of Wasilla, Alaska and Category:Mayors of Wasilla, Alaska are all just window dressing, created after Palin came to national attention. We shouldn't list every small town mayor in the United States, Palin didn't have an article until she became governor. It's interesting to note that the Anchorage Daily News actually ran a story about how nobody really cared about the election that brought him to office [24]. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tumbleweed delete the corollary of the snowball delete... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Merely being the mayor of a town a governor or VP candidate is from/was mayor of doesn't grant notability. So unless someone puts forward an independent basis of notability, I'll have to go with delete. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:10, 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 merge to Fast food. MBisanz talk 07:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caesar Barber
- Caesar Barber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete - any claim of notability is tied to the lawsuit. Subject is not notable beyond a single event and there is no justification for a separate biographical article. Otto4711 (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I agree that Barber is significant only because of his lawsuit, but it seems clear that the lawsuit is significant. It got massive press coverage in 2002, and Nexis shows continuing discussion of the case in the global media in 2007 (article in Business Day of South Africa) and 2008 (Nation's Restaurant News). I find references to something also called the "Stella Awards," which are some kind of award given to an outrageous or ridiculous lawsuit filing, and Barber's suit seems to have won one. Uucp (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Fast Food, merging any salvageable content. We shouldn't delete this outright because it's a plausible search term, and plausible search terms should not be redlinks.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as plausible search term, with a suggestion to merge or redirect the content per WP:BLP1E. -Atmoz (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect somewhere (probably Fast food) per WP:BLP1E. The event might be notable, but the person isn't. Robofish (talk) 05:18, 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 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any relevant content into fast food - at this point in time, I do not see a point in redirecting because the fast food article does not currently mention Barber. CopaceticThought (talk) 05:44, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Benjamin DeJesus
- Benjamin DeJesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There are a few reasons why I feel this page should be deleted, but I'm not certain that this is the case. The page seems to be advertising for this person's company, Diamante Pictures, especially in the last few sentences of the biography section. I suppose this can be rewritten, but the person may not be notable enough to qualify for WP:NOTE. The article makes no reference to the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," that the notablility guideline states, and I also fear that such coverage does not exist. It has no references that illustrate this point; the only working external link is a link to the company's website, and the IMDB link does not work. Moreover, it was created by User:CreativeCross, and when the userpage's edit history is examined, it is clear that this user is Benjamin DeJesus or is affiliated with Benjamin DeJesus. This could be a conflict of interest, as someone may have just created the page to make them appear notable when they aren't, possibly even to use as a way, when communicating with clients, to make themselves seem more well-known. Maybe this is not enough to make the article qualify for deletion, but I still think that it deserves to be listed and discussed. Codename Colorado (My User Page) (My Talk Page) 21:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Can't find third party sources of value. WP:COI is a secondary concern, but not the reason for deletion Vartanza (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I haven't done the research needed to give an opinion about the disposition of this article, but I feel I must commend the nominator on the way the nomination is written. AfD usually seems to be a place where civility policy is completely ignored, with accusations of "vanity" or worse being made on the slightest of evidence, so I hope the wording of this nomination will act as an example to other nominators. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:10, 17 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 00:02, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 00:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abdul Gani Asyik
- Abdul Gani Asyik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable, clearly fails WP:N Guy0307 (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Some modest hits in google scholar [25], but I don't think they demonstrate passing WP:PROF, a google search turns up no evidence of passing WP:N. The article itself contains no WP:RS to support WP:V. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See, many linguists cite him: this and this. Seulimeung (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this and this. Seulimeung (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you need to work these into the article if they're so worthwhile... SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this and this. Seulimeung (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Pete Hurds analysis of Asyik's modest impact. The four links given by Seulimeung are to a newslist (2x, not a WP:RS), one article citing Asyik, and the index of another journal publishing Asyik. None of this comes even close to establishing notability (even if we would consider the newslist a RS). --Crusio (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-start and or refactor - no attempt has been made to alert the Indonesian project on this SatuSuro 13:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if that was applied across Afd there would be a clear misconstruction of what Afd is about - even if it is a snowjob in the eyes of the nominator it makes no allowances for different opinions from project participants to actually see what is happening to their articles - also left similar comment at nominators talk. SatuSuro 01:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be fine in a controversial AfD. However, this article even fails WP:CSD#A7. Guy0307 (talk) 02:04, 18 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, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He is at least more accomplished than the article stated prior to the relist – he has a Ph.D. – but that's about all that I can find to say about him, and that's far from enough to pass WP:PROF. As Seulimeung states, one can find citations to his work — this journal article (PDF) is a better example than the forum posts Seulimeung links to — but while it does say good things about his work, there are not enough citations of this type that I can find to demonstrate significant impact per WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete because I am wondering whether even this amount of work does not make him notable in as narrow a subject as this. DGG (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —SatuSuro 01:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as there appears to be a consensus from those who have commented here I feel that it is the position of an WP Indonesia editor to be on the record at least to show my usual cynical disbelief in the over-reliance of google checks as having any credibility whatsoever in non english speaking subject areas - and even further when it comes to something like Acehnese (or any region of Indonesia) professionals being deleted with such fervour. If one checks the general state of non english speaking project/subjects areas - it is so easy to wander in and find examples of 'universal' notions of This clearly fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:PROF, - and yet in some cases the individuals or subjects are in fact notable - but not in the broader terms of a universal global sense - what if he happens to be the only academic who is actually doing what he is doing? - I really think that regional/project voices in such debates are drowned out too easily when it comes to these sort of Afd's SatuSuro 01:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. In addition to the points made above by Pete.Hurd, Crusio and David Eppstein, the subject's most widely held book in libraries, Sistem perulangan bahasa Gayo, is currently in less than 16 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:35, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aneurin Barnard
- Aneurin Barnard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete nn actor, fails WP:ENTERTAINER Mayalld (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He played a lead role in a London West End musical which is the British equivalent of Broadway. ("spring+awakening"_"aneurin+barnard" any of these sources confirm it) - Mgm|(talk) 23:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, the sources say that the musical will transfer to the West End next week, so as of today he hasn't played a lead role. Also, WP:ENTERTAINER requires multiple roles in notable productions. Mayalld (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The time thing is a technicality. The production will have moved by the time this AFD is closed. Also, multiple notable roles is just one criterion that one can apply. If he meets WP:GNG we can still have the article even if he has just one role. - Mgm|(talk) 09:53, 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 00:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - has received significant recent press coverage. MuffledThud (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not meet WP:Creative. None of his roles in TV have been "significant roles". Untick (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It does meet WP:ENTERTAINER: "...significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." He's got press coverage cited in the article as the lead role in stage performances. MuffledThud (talk) 06:04, 21 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 01:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Larry Don McQuay
- Larry Don McQuay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No assertion of notability. Non-notable criminal. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, sadly there is nothing at all unusual or noteworthy about this person. Risker (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Needs to be expanded, better sourced, but I remember this case; the issue of the castration request IMHO makes him unique and notable (pending sourcing) -- 7triton7 (talk) 03:54, 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 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Lots of news coverage and discussion, and even scholarly coverage (see the Florida Law Review article, e.g.). J L G 4 1 0 4 03:56, 18 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, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject is an awful, awful person but does not meet our inclusion standards. As a criminal known for only one event (and the medical curiosity that he requested castration afterward), he failed to meet WP:BLP1E criteria for living people. Since he is a BLP article, I suggest that we assume non-notable until determined otherwise and this article does not demonstrate his notability sufficiently. JRP (talk) 01:14, 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 merge to Ustream.tv. MBisanz talk 07:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Ham
- John Ham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability. The only claim of notability is in founding Ustream.tv, and the information about their founding of the website can easily be merged with Ustream.tv. Outside of that website, there's nothing here which requires separate articles for the cofounders. IIIVIX (Talk) 23:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages (Co-founder with John Ham, same reasoning as above):
- Brad Hunstable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 18 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 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. DougsTech (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge--Moloch09 (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nominator Jezhotwells (talk) 18:05, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 07:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shawn Cohen
- Shawn Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. Contains links to Mr Cohen's commercial website and the like. My Notability banner was removed without comment, by a user name obviously created for the purpose (as was a bot's Orphaned banner). I've already removed Shawn Cohen spam from the article Ophthalmology. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Subject seems to have some notability as the co-author of a few glaucoma related papers, specifically [26], [27],[28]74.69.39.11 (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment [29] is noteworthy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcarovallmd (talk • contribs) 21:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The paper mentioned by Andrewcarovallmd above has only been cited twice, not really noteworthy when compared to the way highly influential work of researchers passing WP:PROF here typically is. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides, Andrewcarovallmd has been created exclusively to add this comment. My apologies if I am wrong, but the article looks very much like an advertisement to me. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is from the AMA, who I do not believe accepts advertising.74.69.39.11 (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC) My bad.74.69.39.11 (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I meant the Wikipedia article. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I see no evidence that he passes WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Like Pete.Hurd, I could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either - news coverage not particularly impressive.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am Dr. Shawn Cohen. It was brought to my attention that this biography was made on my behalf, unknown to me. I did not solicit this Article or begin it. I am truly an Assistant Professor of Ophthalmology, at McGill University, dedicated to patient education on my area of expertise, specifically glaucoma.
In keeping with this goal, I have absorbed 100% of the costs to provide free access to up-to-date patient-centered information on glaucoma, cataracts and other diseases. The links on Super Eye Care are to external valuable sites that patients have evaluated as being very useful for them. Not all of my published works, or current projects, are available on the internet, for copyright reasons. As well, some of my National Committee memberships, are not publicly known and will not be seen on the internet.
My free link to a Messages or clinical pearls section is a list of vital tips, some of which have saved people from damage. My eBook can be downloaded for free. I have NO pharmaceutical advertising on my site. All the lecture dates given are for FREE public educational seminars for anyone who wishes to attend. Yes, I am a Professional Speaker and can be hired to coach and teach organizations but only because I have 13 years of University education to back up this expertise. I participate in free discussion boards, like Topix, to help address public concerns on glaucoma and I personally respond to all emails sent to me directly through my website. When I am alone with a patient I can help one person at a time. On the internet, I can relay this information to people I am unable to help in person.
If any material on this or other sites with my involvement are deemed inappropriate, please contact me directly and I will make sure that they are in keeping with the above highest standard. If Wikipedia will serve to allow me perpetuate a pure educational goal for glaucoma and eye care advocacy, I would be honored greatly for your support. I remain humbly dedicated to the needs of the public for their support in dealing with glaucoma and other eye diseases.70.27.246.47 (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Shawn Cohen, MD[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete He certainly has published a lot but not much has been published about him. I'd be happy to swing the other way, however, if that can be remedied. Basket of Puppies 03:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 05:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet notability criteria. ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 11:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete per the professor test. Eusebeus (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk 11:19, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Derek Keeling
- Derek Keeling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Questionable notability. Small parts of small productions; if the main claim to fame is ending third on a Grease talent show, that's not enough. tedder (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —87.252.35.195 (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nn per WP:BIO with WP:COI concerns. Reads like a CV not an encyclopedia entry. Eusebeus (talk) 18:06, 16 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, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:Creative. This actor had a significant, regular and recurring role in the notable TV show "Grease: You're the One That I Want!".(2007). Untick (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He came third. Peridon (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "The show ran with mixed to positive reviews, and to sold out crowds, in Sarasota, FL at the Asolo Repetory Theatre from October to November". Wow! "He was replaced in 'Tale' by Aaron Lazar. It appeared Keeling made the proper decision when Tale announced its closure for November 9. Grease closed on January 4, 2009." According to my maths, Tale ran longer than Grease. "Who is best known as the third-place finisher in the reality casting show". No comment. Peridon (talk) 17:59, 22 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 00:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elon Bomani
- Elon Bomani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is a complete Autobiography and breaches the Neutral point of view, No original research and Notability policies in Biographies of living persons. Hekerui (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep--nominator is quite right on most counts, but this search has a couple of hits from the Sacramento Bee and Observer; coupled with the article from JET referenced in the article it might just squeak by. Of course, the spam needs cutting. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I looked at the coverage, and I agree with Drmies -- this squeaks by. That said, all the other issues have force. RayTalk 06:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - I just did a bit of cleanup on this article, and it does has a number of claims that hint at notability, but it needs a lot of work... as far as the provided links go, the Blacknews.com link is a self released press release (read: advertisement), the JET article makes her out to be more of a landlord than anything, and the Essence link provides only a teaser about 4 different women... there are no references provided for anything other than she has authored 2 books, is a landlord with a million dollars worth of property, and is "creator of Bomani's Village Enterprises"... no references for childhood or education, and no concrete proof of notability... being the CEO of a company does not automatically allow someone to pass WP:N, and as an author, I'm not 100% sure she passes WP:CREATIVE either... She claims to have written a handful of books, but there is no mention of how successful those books were, nor how successful her company was... the WP:AUTO concerns bother me also... unless references are added to prove why she passes the notability concerns, I'm leaning towards delete for now... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as nominator. Hekerui (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm concerned about the extravagant claims and obvious errors - there is no Westchester University, but she may have attended West Chester University, but then again that is not clear. It reads like a resume, not an article. I'd need a lot of convincing to change my mind about this one. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC) There are lots of hits on Google and Yahoo, but nothing in Google News. Is she famous in the African American community and in Sacramento, but not in the wider world? Is she bad at getting news copy? Bearian (talk) 15:24, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Faisal Kutty
- Faisal Kutty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability not established --Docku: What's up? 18:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —--Docku: What's up? 18:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some gScholar hits, gBooks, gHits. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep because even though I don't see a lot of in-depth discussion of this person, he has published (an article in CounterPunch, for instance) and, more importantly, he's cited continuously in CBC stories. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is now identified as a stub - wait . Also it may require general cleanup eventully. This person is an author of many (Notable that way). --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - lots of citations available by him at Google Scholar, and about him, too. Easy to clean up; I've started the job for you. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 23:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Danczuk
- Simon Danczuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fluff piece written for a Parliamentary candidate. Wikipedia policy says that Parliamentary candidates are not deemed in themselves notable, nor are local councillors. "Vision Twentyone", apparently a Labour-leaning consultancy firm, of which he is the director, is probably not notable either. Little of the information in the article comes from neutral sources. Wereon (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also worth noting that the creator of and primary contributor to the article is User:JonMulligan; a Jonathan Mulligan is one of Danczuk's employers at Vision Twentyone [30]. Wereon (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And also that the article has been tagged as non-notable before, but JonMulligan removed the tag: [31]. Wereon (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Knowing Simon personally, I don't intend to express a formal view, but I've replaced most sources with neutral ones. I've not done this for his writings, but have listed two publications found on the web. By the way, I'm not sure there's any reason to comment on the professionalism/partiality of his company, as no one is claiming notability for it. MikeHobday (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasoning was that, were it notable enough, he might inherit notability from it. Wereon (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 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 00:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable.Nrswanson (talk) 00:37, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grace Khold
- Grace Khold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Musician that is not notable in any way. Fails WP:MUSIC. GtstrickyTalk or C 02:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 10:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable outside of his band (the notability of which I'm not commenting on here). Fails WP:MUSIC. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now I'll say it. Dope Stars Inc. are not notable. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:26, 16 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 00:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability outside of non notable band. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:Music.Nrswanson (talk) 04:53, 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 delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeong Da-Hooeon
- Jeong Da-Hooeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested WP:PROD, South Korean footballer with no evidence of first team appearances in a fully professional league, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom LetsdrinkTea 17:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 12:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems to fail WP:ATHLETE as not having yet played in the league, as far as I can see. -- Alexf(talk) 14:53, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Darin Yevonde
- Darin Yevonde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Musician that fails WP:BIO. GtstrickyTalk or C 02:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 10:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable outside of his band (not commenting on the band's notability here). Fails WP:MUSIC. Appears to be part of a walled garden about the band. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now I'll say it. Dope Stars Inc. are not notable. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:26, 16 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 00:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability outside of non notable band. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:Music.Nrswanson (talk) 04:54, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 00:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elli davis
- Elli davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete promotional article about a real estate agent, whose title is also incorrectly capitalised. Mindmatrix 14:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I came across this while stub-sorting, and I moved it to a properly capitalized title, as well as slapping a bunch of tags on it and removing some unencyclopedic material. I'd say delete it unless someone finds enough secondary source material from which to build a properly referenced article. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete I'd have given it a db-bio. She's doing a job. A good job, but just a job. Absolutely nothing notable in terms of an encyclopaedia. Peridon (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11. TJRC (talk) 22:15, 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. MBisanz talk 04:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Victor Love
- Victor Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Band member not notable on his own. Fails WP:BIO GtstrickyTalk or C 02:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'd have to say that Victor Love is pretty notable indeed. I found plenty of links talking about him and all the movies and TV shows he's been in. Oh wait, that's Victor Love the actor. Victor Love the musician? Nothing. Delete. Matt (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, deletion with humour, nice one Matt. Delete, fails WP:CREATIVE, lack of reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 10:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable outside of his band (not saying they're notable). Fails WP:MUSIC. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now I'll say it. Dope Stars Inc. are not notable. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:26, 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 redirect to Gray Davis. Material is in history if there is any material to merge. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sharon Davis
- Sharon Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Is the spouse of a governor notable? There is nothing here to suggest that Sharon Davis is, apart from her choice of husband. pablohablo. 15:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the page so that anyone who may be interested in learning more about her may have the chance. Her being First Lady of California is very notable, plus the fact that she won Miss Santee while in High School.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Per WP:BIO, simply being the governor's spouse does not confer notability, but information about Mrs. Davis may be included in her husband's article. In order to have a standalone article for Sharon Davis, Additional criteria must be met. (See Notability fallacies — Notability is inherited — however, "this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady.") In the case of Sharon Davis, is there reliably sourced information about her activities as California's First Lady. If not, it would seem that her information should be merged with the governor's article. "Miss Santee" does not seem notable; Miss America would be notable.— ERcheck (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The same argument could be used for Martha Washington, but many assume good faith and decide that some articles are worth keeping.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My inclination is to support deletion, but perhaps more sources can be found and some more content can be added that would support the subject's notability. I may check back later in the AfD period to give a recommendation either way. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Gray Davis. Based on the current article, she doesn't seem to be notable enough for her own article. TJ Spyke 17:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Gray Davis; notability is not inherited, and a few lines in Gray's biography constitutes adequate coverage. - Biruitorul Talk 22:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect (1) Her early life section contains information that isn't in her husband's article. (2) Since her name is a likely search term, redirecting it to her husband is a good compromise between full keep or delete. (3) Merging little notable relatives to the article of a family member is common practice. - Mgm|(talk) 10:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Looking at this from a world-wide perspective, isn't it far more likely that a reader typing in "Sharon Davis" would be looking for the extremely notable Sharron Davies, rather than for the obscure spouse of some provincial governor? If we want to best serve our readership then any redirect should go there, not to Gray Davis. For a horrified few moments I thought that it was Sharron Davies's article that was up for deletion here. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Gray Davis.Nrswanson (talk) 05:01, 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 delete. I find the argument that Lester and Lex Coleman are the same person to be unconvincing at this point, and User:Nrswanson's summary is correct that the provable information we have on this person doesn't establish notability. In addition, although much discussion took place, only User:Petri Krohn seems to be seriously advocating a keep, and given the rebuttals to most of his points from the other participants in this discussion, I see a clear consensus to delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lex Coleman
- Lex Coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is clearly a hoax. Searches for references verifying the content have yielded nothing. Note: This article is not referring to Lester Coleman (also known as Lex Coleman) who probably is notable but to a fictional person. Nrswanson (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- '
Merge' and redirectfound this and a google search suggest that this is a real person that meets WP:N guidelines. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I absolutely agree that "Lester Coleman" (Lester Coleman the II) is notable and he already has a seperate wikipedia article. This article on "Lex Coleman" (Lester Coleman the III) however is completely a hoax. None of the facts in the article are accurate. The books he apparently wrote don't exist, nor is he a recipient of any of the supposed awards (Emmy Award etc.), and he never worked for the Boy Scouts. Be intelligent and do a little fact checking before you vote keep. Doing a quick google search doesn't cut it when you have a clever hoax.Nrswanson (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Lester Coleman. This is an obvious hoax article and should be deleted. However, Lex Coleman is another name for Lester Coleman so for search reasons Lex Coleman should redirect to Lester Coleman.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmmm .. semi-interesting enigma we have here. We have the Lex Coleman article being discussed here, a Lester Coleman article which also contains some dubious claims, a Lester K. Coleman redirect (which goes to the "Lester" article), and an apparently very real Lester K. Coleman II (a.k.a. Lex Coleman) who was a TV/Radio talking head - but mysteriously disappeared. Both Lester and/or Lex articles appear to be talking about "reporters", career(s) that revolve around terrorism and mystery. I'll be interested in following the developments of these articles - even if the only "Coleman" I am currently familiar with is the one that autographed my portable stove. ;) <* Changed my vote from "Keep" to "Merge" by the way *> Thank you to editor Nrswanson by the way for bringing this to my attention - good catch! — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 22:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why merge? The content in this article is all fake. What's there to merge?Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Clearly a hoax, as per Nrswanson.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The book Squeal does exist and is authored by a Les Coleman. No idea whether that still means this is a hoax, but if it is do not redirect. The hoax (if it is such) should be deleted, a redirect can always be put in its place afterwards if neeeded. SpinningSpark 23:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct but Les Colemnan is a different person than the person written about here. The whole article is a montage of misconstrued information.Nrswanson (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree that his name does not appear on any list of awards. Changing to delete. Good catch spotting it. SpinningSpark 23:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or merge to Lester Coleman – if the two are the same person. This is not a case of {{Hoax}}, but possibly a hoax that should be included in Category:Hoaxes. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply.How many times do I have to state this. The article up for deletion claims that they are two different people and the content for both articles is different. Further all of the content in the Lex Coleman is false, whereas the Lester Coleman article is basically ok. A merger is a bad idea because none of the content in the Lex Coleman article is accurate.Nrswanson (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Lester Coleman article says he died in 2008. The Lex Coleman article says he is alive and working on a book. Now, is he dead or alive? Somewhere I read that he faked his own death. You are implying the opposite – his ghost writer is faking his life. What ever the truth, this is getting more and more intresting. I am working on sources. I found a Mr. Lester L. Coleman III, who may be the same person. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am implying no such thing. This article is about a fake person who is completely different than Lester Coleman (as stated by the Lex Coleman article). I make no assertions about ghost writers. I am only interested in verifiable facts. The fact of the matter is that this article is a hoax. Searches of Time Magazine's database reveal no Lester Coleman or Lex Coleman as an author in 1997. Nor has anyone under either name ever won an Emmy Award or worked for the Boy Scouts of America. No one has yet to produce a single source which verifies the content in this article. Even if this person does exist, which I doubt, no evidence has been produced that asserts the subject's notability.Nrswanson (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a reference stating that he was the chairperson for the Faculty of Arts & Humanities of the American University of Technology in 2007. I also found four sites or pages where he advertises his services with biographic information:
- Lex Talk America
- Lex Coleman at Voice123 voice over marketplace
- Lex Coleman at MySpace
- Personal communications & conflict coaching at Skype
- Please do not remove references or links from the article while you are at the same time arguing for the deletion of the article. He does not seem to be focusing on getting people to hire him as he is most likely dead. It is however becoming evident that he is the same person as Lester Coleman. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Petri I see no source that you have found which confirms or even hints that both people are same person. Further, that source for his death is a speculative blog post. Not exactly a reliable source. (Not that it matters. He's not notable whether he's alive or dead.) You have yet to find one independent reliable source verifying any of the content in this article.Nrswanson (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. User:Petri Krohn has now found this source [32] which seems to establish that the subject is the Chairperson, for the Faculty of Arts & Humanities at American University of Technology. However, that university is a very minor academic institution so I don't think it confers any notability to Coleman. (Fails WP:ACADEMIC) It does, however, establish that he is indeed a different person from Lester Coleman. However, the rest of the article's content still remains unverified and with the lack of independent verifiable sources the subject stills fails WP:Notability.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Broadweighbabe and Nrswanson. Without any sources verifying the content or establishing any of the guidelines at WP:Notability this article should be axed.Inmysolitude (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am the person who tagged the Lex Coleman article with the merger tag. I am identified as User:Anne Teedham who has been blocked indefinitely, and will no longer be a participant in anything Wikipedia. However, before my departure, my employer has requested that I "clean up" this particular loose-end because User:Petri Krohn asked me why I think the two people are the same. My reasoning goes like this: Both articles (before the above respondents began to make alterations) claimed that Lex and Lester were twin brothers yet both brothers attempted to secure authorship of the controversial book Trail of the Octopus. In addition, both brothers wanted to possess the accolades of their achievements with respect to: writing, to the Middle East, and to a variety of common interests. When I began looking closer, I found their picture; yet it was the same picture being shown at two locations: a biography of Lester at Intergirtynews.wetpaint.com while simultaneously being used to identify Lex at his website Lex Talk America. To me, this is not an indication that they are twins; rather it is an indication of a narcistic hoaxster. I doubt seriously that twins would use the exact same photographic glossies when presenting themselves. All humans have vanity. When I wrote what I wrote about Lex, Lester, Lester K., Lester Knox, II, III, Thomas Leavy, and Tomas O'Leary, I was engulfed in the particulars surrounding everyone's participation in Pan Am 103, Inslaw, and in Lester Knox Coleman's court cases. Everything suggested that a hoax was being perpetrated by a very skillful fabricator, one who had been released apparently from prison, and had returned to his Middle Eastern associations, and was trying to erase a portion of his past while also securing a more exciting future. When I suggested the merger, I was not suggesting that the entity should be punished for something like sockpuppetry (*grin*) but rather that his "biography to the world" should contain whatever a combined article could offer, and in a way which was an interesting biography of a very colorful character. It looks like you guys are onto the right track. Goodbye. I must disappear now and accept my demise without whining. (I am sorry that I really do not have the time to go into greater detail as my employer's Wikipedia IP may be permanently blocked due to whatever is done at this moment from this IP.) Annie Teedham 24.170.224.225 (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not sure exactly what to say Annie. You've presented an interesting story but with no concrete facts. For those commenting on this discussion I suggest that you stick to facts. As it stands, there are still zero sources backing up the claims of this article. Several of the facts are provably wrong. There is no evidence establishing this subject's notability. Regardless of the convoluted diatribes above, this article still fails to meet the requirements established at WP:Notability.Nrswanson (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is interesting original research, but I don't see how "Lex" passes WP:N just yet. Perhaps someone will follow up and produce a reliable source; then we can have a "Lex" article, or put the "Lex" material into the "Lester" article, whatever is supported by the sources. Studerby (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merged - I have now spent the evening looking for references. I found a copy of Trail of the Octopus on-line. Everything in this article that is verifyable is about the same person as the article Lester Coleman. I have moved what can be referenced or attributed to a source to Lester Coleman. I am now going to turn Lex Coleman into a redirect. I ask that someone speedily close this AfD as merge. If you insist on arguing, maybe you should start a AfD on Lester Coleman. If you decide to delete the version history of Lex Coleman, I ask that you move it into my namespace. There is still something there that might be referenced. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. - Why are these two the same person:
- The four promotional sites listed above are the same person ("lextalkamerica") because the sites link to each other.
- Lex Coleman ("lextalkamerica") is evidently the university professor in Lebanon because he says so (and because his site shows "University Students in Lebanon Learning with AVI")
- Lex Coleman the voice actor and teacher is Lester Coleman the secret agent, because his sites contain biographical information consistent with that of Lester Coleman, including writing the same books, producing the same radio shows and winning the same Emmys as Lester and even sharing his photograph.
- -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly oppose merge None of the evidence you have presented proves anything. Everything you have produced goes back to personal websites, blogs, and other highly unreliable sources like myspace. I see no value in merging any of the content from this article into Lester Coleman as the info is highly suspect. Further, it would be better to make a clean start and wipe out the obvious hoax side of this article's history.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears user:Petri Krohn has attempted a merger of Lex Coleman and Lesther Coleman against consensus here. I still strongly question whether the professor at American University of Technology can be connected to the American intelligence officer based on existing sources and think the merger a bad idea. He has also tried to pre-empt this AFD by redirecting the article on Lex Coleman to Lesther Coleman and removing the AFD notice. Broadweighbabe has reverted him once and I have reverted him once. Petri Krohn would you please rephrane from unilaterally making decisions and let this AFD take its natural course. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree that both articles have been from the start under heavy hoax attacks, see Talk:Lester Coleman#Dead or alive?. Everything needs to be verified and a large number of edits needs to be reverted. However this whole discussion on merging is totally moot. Everything that is verifiable needs to go to Lester Coleman. As for the notability issue; you cannot find Lester Coleman notable and Lex Coleman not notable, as they truly are one and the same persion. The only source for them being distinct is Wikipedia as edited by Coleman himself. He created this article as Lexcolemanllc (talk · contribs). I am to blame for marking the aticles with the {{Distinguish}} hat-texts. When I found the articles in January they made no reference to each other. I considered proposing a merge, but seeing that the articles had been heavily edited by Lex II and Lexcoleman (talk · contribs), I tought Lex would know if he and his "brother" were the same person. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this article asserts (or at least asserted before your edits) that they are indeed two different people and since no evidence has been produced that definitely links the professor at American University of Technology to the American intelligence officer I think we have to assume for the moment that they may be seperate individuals. I personally disagree with your decision to put the American University of Technology information in the Lester Coleman article for this reason. There's really nothing here that can be merged because its all suspect info from shady sources. Almost all of your current edits to Lester Coleman is original research Petri. What you are doing replaces the hoax article with something just as bad, if not worse, since its more likely to be believed by the casual reader.Nrswanson (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree that both articles have been from the start under heavy hoax attacks, see Talk:Lester Coleman#Dead or alive?. Everything needs to be verified and a large number of edits needs to be reverted. However this whole discussion on merging is totally moot. Everything that is verifiable needs to go to Lester Coleman. As for the notability issue; you cannot find Lester Coleman notable and Lex Coleman not notable, as they truly are one and the same persion. The only source for them being distinct is Wikipedia as edited by Coleman himself. He created this article as Lexcolemanllc (talk · contribs). I am to blame for marking the aticles with the {{Distinguish}} hat-texts. When I found the articles in January they made no reference to each other. I considered proposing a merge, but seeing that the articles had been heavily edited by Lex II and Lexcoleman (talk · contribs), I tought Lex would know if he and his "brother" were the same person. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The material I moved to Lester is sourced from Trail of the Octopus — like most other stuff there. Of course it should not be stated as fact, as was done here, but be attributed to the book, unless other sources are found. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's absolutely inaccurate Petri. You added much more than that to the article, including the third paragraph of the lead which should be removed entirely as original research. ([33]) Nrswanson (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
←I felt I had to strike my !vote, simply because I do not know the answer here. It's all very interesting, and I'll try to keep track of it over the coming weeks - but I don't feel I have enough solid knowledge to supply any input for now. Good Luck to all. ;) — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 04:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Summary of above. I hope this summary will help other editors comment or close this AFD. As of right now the only concrete evidence about this person is that he is a professor at a minor academic institution in Lebanon. This is only supported, however, through sources directly related to the University which are therefore not really independent of the subject. The supposed notable academic achievement of Audiophonic visual isolation has been deleted in a seperate AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audiophonic visual isolation) for being non-notable. Clearly fails WP:PROF. There is no evidence found in extensive searches which proves he was ever a White House Correspondent, winner of an Edward R. Murrow Award, winner of an Emmy Award, producer with ABC News, or Director of Public Affairs for the Boys Scouts of America. These are all high profile positions/awards and there should be evidence easily found for all of these. As there isn't this whole thing is a major hoax. User:Petri Krohn believes he is the same person as Lester Coleman, but thats really only his opinion as no evidence establishes this. He has merged some of the information in this article into that one, which I view as a woefully bad editorial decision. That issue, however, is really seperate from this AFD and should be addressed at Talk:Lester Coleman. In conclusion, this article is clearly full of false information and what little is true fails to meet WP:N requirements for notability.Nrswanson (talk) 05:05, 21 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 23:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammad Abubakar Durrani
- Muhammad Abubakar Durrani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I removed a prod template on this, but I can't link any of the claims of winning medals to any news source. In any case, winning medals at a national event does not really satisfy the notability guidelines for athletes. pablohablo. 10:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:Athlete as has not competed at World Championship or Olympic Games. No notability. Parslad (talk) 18:36, 16 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 00:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Parsald, you have comments about this young boy Muhammad Abubakar Durrani of age 14, but you don't know that can a boy of age 14 could take part in Olympic Games ?,please incurage young men of backward countries and back ward areas, to protect them from harm full social activities. Ali Mohammad Khilji ,
Mr Parsald,Juliancolton I have done my level best to improve this article and as far as I understand the information given in the article are true and correct to my knowledge, and this boy belong to the back ward province of Pakistan and due to lack of internet knowledge it is hard in Balochistan to connect it with Government relevant sites. for example the Federation of Kayaking in Pakistan even don't have own web site for record and even the Ministry of Sports and youth affairs Government of Balochistan also don't have its web site for information and record. except in Balochistan the only water sports academy which having the own web site ie hdwsa for information and record. it is therefore propose to please do not delete this article please remove the deletion tag from it and prevent it from deletion,
Mohammad Aslam Kassi Quetta Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslam Kassi (talk • contribs) 21:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Who cares where he's from? Who cares how old he is? Who cares whether Pakistan is a backward country? Regardless of what he could do, he hasn't done anything that makes him notable. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails to meet notability guidelines. Edward321 (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be Delete Mr. Nyttend, Pakistan is not backward country the place where the boy lives is backward in connection with internet facilities in the Government Departments which makes necessary notability links for confirmations of the status of the player, how ever I don't big you take care of this real champion, and you are not the only authority to decide by writing few baseless and unjustified words, Please be positive and there is, nod ought he is Pakistan's National Junior Champion he has many thing done that makes him notable. Ali Mohammad Khilji (talk) 23rd March 2009. —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Not for Delete Wow what a serious issue has been discussing here, wow fight for notability but in fact ignoring the reality, Aslam Kassi 23-3-2009 (UTC).
- Calm down lads (or lad). Please read the guidelines at WP:Athlete and then tell us how Mr. Durrani fulfils them. I am sure that allowances will not be made for his background or internet access when he takes part in a a kayaking competition, and the same is true here; he has to qualify by his own merits. pablohablo. 23:03, 22 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 00:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tara Ghimire
- Tara Ghimire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There are some claims of notability but no evidence. There are a few mentions of her human rights work but no evidence its notable. I'm aware of potential bias issues, but I think this award would have some coverage somewhere if it were notable. Thoughts? StarM 02:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - That is not enough to be called as notable - sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlumdogAramis (talk • contribs) 17:26, 17 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 00:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Recognizance (talk) 17:36, 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 delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shangwen Fang
- Shangwen Fang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:BLP1E - person famous for one event. WP:NOTNEWS may also apply here. While this may have been a well-reported story at the time, it does not seem to me to have demonstrated lasting notability; the 'edits to Wikipedia' section also raises problems with self-reference. If this is kept, it should be renamed to something like '2006 Taiwan cat abuse incident' - but I'm not convinced we should have an article on the subject at all. Robofish (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per precedence set at Youtube cat abuse incident. LetsdrinkTea 19:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mild delete. Person was notable at the time, but there has been no reliable updates on his whereabouts or activities, and therefore no reason to believe that the person is notable at this point. --Nlu (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google research suggests notability even if article doesn't cite particularly good sources. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 21:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If subject was "notable" at a point in history, that notability continues. Clara Bow has not done much recently, but her past notability maintains article keep-worthy-ness ... whatever, you know what I mean. ;) — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The statement you're making is WP:NTEMP - notability is not temporary. twirligigT tothe C 21:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And the converse of 'notability is not temporary' is that if a person's fame is temporary, then they were never really notable. That's how I understand it, anyway. Robofish (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The statement you're making is WP:NTEMP - notability is not temporary. twirligigT tothe C 21:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If subject was "notable" at a point in history, that notability continues. Clara Bow has not done much recently, but her past notability maintains article keep-worthy-ness ... whatever, you know what I mean. ;) — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:N/CA. If the cat abuse event is notable, there should be an article about the event, not the person. twirligigT tothe C 21:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:N/CA.Nrswanson (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite to focus on cat abuse incident as an incident; the details of the person's life do not seem relevant, and have caused him harassment. --GRuban (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:N/CA.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:35, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 23:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Danny Last
- Danny Last (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't fit criteria from WP:BIO, basic or additional. Nathanhillinbl (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable -Drdisque (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Vote retracted, I don't know enough about this subject to vote accurately. -Drdisque (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: AFDs are discussions. Neither the nominator nor the commenter properly explained why they believed this article did or didn't meet inclusion guidelines and unless improved upon, these opinions should be discounted by the closing administrator. - Mgm|(talk) 09:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The person is not notable in several independent sources (When Googled, the only page about this subject is his official site.)
- (Under the Entertainer additional guidelines) "Has had significant roles in MULTIPLE notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." Only appeared in one show, not multiple. Appeared in a film, which does not seem to be notable. Nathanhillinbl (talk) 12:39, 16 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 00:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO - article does not fulfill any of the criteria for "Entertainers". Tim Pierce (talk) 00:49, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 07:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emir Šabani
- Emir Šabani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete A unsourced youth international footballer Matthew_hk tc 12:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Does playing for a U19 national team count as notability? I forget the rules about soccer (sorry, rest of the world) players.74.69.39.11 (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Youth caps do NOT confer notability. GiantSnowman 15:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE so far. - Alexf(talk) 14:56, 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 delete. Tone 16:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Kimura
- Andy Kimura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable martial artist, unsourced BLP article. Would redirect to the better-known father but he does not appear to have an article here, and notability is not inherited. JJL (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom LetsdrinkTea 16:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - no assertion of notability: at least three degrees of separation from Bruce Lee. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 16 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 00:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 01:01, 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 keep. No consensus to delete. However, I concur with Pastor Theo, the article needs sources and needs to be re-written from a neutral point of view (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gayle Edlund Wilson
- Gayle Edlund Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
If spouses of state governors are inherently notable, then this absurdly POV piece needs drastic reworking. If not (and I would contend they are not), then deletion is the solution. Sure, she's done all the things expected of a political wife - served on the foundations, established the chapters of other foundations, advocated for the noble causes - but once we cut through the puffery, there really isn't much left. So delete, per WP:BIO. Biruitorul Talk 07:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The First Lady of California is notable.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Purely for that reason? I'm a bit sceptical of the claim. Sure, we have 102 other US gubernatorial spouse biographies (which means many, many more are missing, and I'd wager rightly so), but some (by no means all, but some) of those have actually done something meaningful besides being married to a governor. Aside from the obvious ones (Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton, Eleanor Roosevelt), there's Bill Shaheen (political operative), Nellie Connally (present at JFK's assassination), Lenore Romney (Senate candidate, activist) and Phyllis George (Miss America). Mrs. Wilson hardly rises to that level. - Biruitorul Talk 19:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Forbes Magazine profiled her because of her association with Gilead Sciences. I think her work with many important American companies makes her notable even if she had not been the First Lady of California.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so she serves on Gilead's board. Surely we could add a line on that, citing Forbes, in Pete Wilson's biography? It still doesn't seem to justify a separate article. - Biruitorul Talk 00:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly meets the criteria at WP:Notability. A quick google news search shows she has a fair amount of media coverage [34]. She's also been profiled by multiple buisness magazines, journals, and websites. Here is just a few examples of many: businessweek, allbusiness.com, tradevibes.com, etc.Nrswanson (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge With the article on her husband, former Gov. Wilson. The Forbes coverage is not a profile, but a C.V. that it runs with anyone who is a director of a company. The article does not pass WP:RS (the references link to a non-profit web site). The article could also use some significant rewriting -- it is a little too gushy for an encyclopedia. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:22, 20 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) 00:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the governors of some of the major states with extensive press coverage may be like Presidents in the respect of the attention awarded their family. Any, she in particular does in fact have such coverage. Nobody but the nominator said delete, so I am not sure why a relist was thought necessary. DGG (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the number of reliable and verifiable sources found in a Google / News / Archive search about the subject, establishing independent notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:11, 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pablo Mason
- Pablo Mason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Apparent violation of WP:BLP1E (article was created shortly after MyTravel/footballer incident). Rd232 talk 04:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nomination - enough evidence of notability provided here that BLP1E no longer applies; expansion of article and adding sources needed instead. Rd232 talk 01:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - While it is certainly possible for a single event to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, I don't see anything outstanding in this guy's life history at all, other than a history of making bad decisions over and over again in the cockpit. Proxy User (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable unless he writes an autobiography that takes off. Redddogg (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - he has written a notable autobiography. . . Rcawsey (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacking evidence that he has written a notable autobiography. Nothing else.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete brief blip in the news for getting fired as a pilot for breaking the rules. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP Interesting and notable. Puca (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In what way? Proxy User (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Utter tripe that fails most of WP:NOT, not to mention WP:BLP. Physchim62 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as BLP1E. Eusebeus (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Was very prominent during the First Gulf War. One of the most memorable British characters of that war, always appearing on the news. Certainly not just notable for one event. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No, I'm sorry, but he was not very prominent during the First Gulf War. Where do you get this stuff? Proxy User (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't know where you were during the war, but he appeared in the British media all the time. He was adopted as something of a poster boy for the RAF due to his resemblance to WWII fighter pilots. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP. An interesting and important Officer from the first Gulf War. He has written an autobigraphical account of the War and led many missions during the war. It's important that Wikipedia maintains articles on important military figures such azs this man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.73.56 (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonesense - There is no evidence that what you say with respect to this guy has any relitionship to reality. Web searches certainly don't support it. Proxy User (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Web searches! Oh good grief, why would a web search support anything? He was prominent before the internet really got going in a big way. Using web searches as evidence for the notability of anyone who was prominent before the last decade is spurious in the extreme. Effectively you're saying that the notability threshold of anyone who (or anything which) was around before the internet is much, much higher, which is ludicrous. For anything before the mid-1990s (at the earliest), the web only holds information on subjects which people have chosen to write about! It is not gospel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In practice the interwebs is WP's primary source of verifiable information. Because of this the notability of people notable pre-web is harder to verify; if you have a solution for that, let me know! You can provide offline sources for this case if you have them, but your vague remarks about watching TV are merely WP:OR. Rd232 talk 12:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this is not true at all. There are things called books and newspapers. I use them for writing Wikipedia articles all the time. In fact, I use them more than internet sources, since they tend to be far more reliable. No policy on Wikipedia says that web-based sources are any more valid than print sources. And this is an AfD discussion - like too many people you are confusing Verifiability, which determines what we put in articles, with Notability, which determines whether we have an article in the first place. They are entirely different things. Verifiability arguments are irrelevant here, since we can easily verify that the man exists; all that matter are notability arguments - whether he is significant enough to have an article on WP. That's what we're discussing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting off topic here, but (a) I merely said the internet is the primary source in practice, not that this was ideal (don't think I implied that either). (b) WP:NOBJ: Notability needs to be verified from reliable sources - this is basic, we don't rely on unsourced assertions of notability. (c) Again, if you have relevant offline or online sources, please cite them. Rd232 talk 15:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- His existence is verifiable. The fact he has been in the news is verifiable. Whether that coverage makes him notable, however, is subjective. That's the thing about notability - there are no hard and fast rules. That's why we have these debates. How on earth, therefore, could I cite a source that proves he, or anybody or anything else, is notable? That's the ridiculous thing about the deletionists who blithely say "prove he's notable". You simply can't prove or disprove something so subjective. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep The primary claim of the nominator that this is BLP1E is simply not accurate. There is coverage of Mason's service in the Gulf War, coverage of the accident in Germany, and coverage of the situation with Robbie Savage. The subject meets WP:BIO and is not WP:BLP1E. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only 2 sources not relating to the MyTravel incident and it is not clear that either is a reliable source; certainly the Promotions one isn't. The RAF Accident Report is a primary source which doesn't demonstrate notability. Rd232 talk 16:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many other sources about his time in the Gulf War though. See for example [35][36][37]. Even if I were to discount the accident there are more than enough sources about his time in the Gulf War. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, not sure what to do now. That looks the start of showing Gulf War notability; with those in the article I wouldn't have AFD'd it. Not sure how to withdraw the nomination now (and maybe should let it finish now anyway). Rd232 talk 16:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many other sources about his time in the Gulf War though. See for example [35][36][37]. Even if I were to discount the accident there are more than enough sources about his time in the Gulf War. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only 2 sources not relating to the MyTravel incident and it is not clear that either is a reliable source; certainly the Promotions one isn't. The RAF Accident Report is a primary source which doesn't demonstrate notability. Rd232 talk 16:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The original nom's complaint was of a violation of WP:BLP1E. I also remember Mason being the RAF's poster boy during the Gulf War, however I doubt publications for this exist online. I have found at least three unrelated newspaper articles, from different years, with no mention of the MyTravel incident 1998, 2006, 2007. It seems Mason's self-styled "Biggles" antics have had him (and will probably continue to do so) popping up time and time again. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A genuinely interesting chap notable for his role in the Gulf War, and we haven't heard the last of him. Not a violation of WP:BLP1E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.210.180 (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Above IP has only contributed to this AFD (Please replace this message with that template they use in these circumstances). Ryan4314 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Very prominent in the media during the first Gulf War. --Jolyonralph (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as the originator of the article, I vote keep for the same reason I created it (1) his significance as a Squadron Leader in the first gulf war, which is well referenced particularly off-net, (2) the significance of the case to air safety procedures, which is wholly referenced on-net to him. Nomination on a WP:BLP1E because it was created after the MyTravel created enough on-net references ignores his gulf war service, or the significance of the case to air law - or to HR law. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, now, but it needs much better sourcing. Rd232 talk 19:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's good news, Rd232 how would you feel about withdrawing your nomination, or do you think the article still needs work? I would imagine it'll take a longer to dig up paper sources, longer than the time-limit left on this AFD I fear, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how to withdraw the nomination, and I think a closing admin will draw a fair conclusion from the above discussion. Rd232 talk 00:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can ask any admin to do it, or even just put a little note under your nomination up there :) Ryan4314 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- done! Rd232 talk 01:21, 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 keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mirwaiz Muhammad Umar Farooq
- Mirwaiz Muhammad Umar Farooq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
blp unreferenced, notabiliyt not established Chzz ► 14:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Small mentions herebbcdawnndtv; decent biographical coverage by rediff. Apparently a well known politician in that area. —StaticVision (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Morebbcbbc. Citation for "Times Asian Heroes" can be found here[38];I just added it to the article—StaticVision (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- This article clearly meets Wiki Notability. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq is a prominent spiritual and political leader of Kashmir. Check above mentioned citations and references.Oniongas (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The spiritual leader of the several million Moslems in Kashmir is pretty clearly notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Olivia Grant (British child actress)
- Olivia Grant (British child actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Recreated after speedy deletion, this article describes a non-notable actor. Bongomatic 18:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Grant appears to be a regular cast member of Half Moon Investigations (TV series) which is made and broadcast by the BBC. Seems to satisfy the notability requirements for actors.Nrswanson (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep About Half-Moon investigations: She is a regular cast member and a major one too (the note '13 episodes' is misleading because those are all the episodes of the season, so it's not some bit part). Also, her role in Tracey Beaker was quite significant (didn't even notice she was the same kid). Two significant roles means she's notable. I'll dig up some sources. (If I'm late and people are particularly impatient, please userfy) - Mgm|(talk) 23:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 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 00:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mgm. Fourth credited character in Half Moon Investigations, so that role is significant, and BBC's website on The Story of Tracy Beaker carries a bio of her character, so that's probably a significant role also. Accordingly, she satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER. Baileypalblue (talk) 01:32, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 00:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Gore
- Dan Gore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article was already nominated for deletion before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Gore, though as the original creator I was never nominated and thus didn't get a vote. I am of the belief I should never have created this article, as Gore clearly fails to pass WP:ATHLETE. Gore was a non-notable college player and signed with the Miami Dolphins as an undrafted free agent. He was cut the first day of camp for being out of shape and, according to a guy I know who was also on the team, Gore has since retired. This seem to be true, as Gore has yet to sign anywhere else (NFL, CFL, AFL, af2, etc.). Gore isn't notable and never will be. His page will never be more than it is now, and he current isn't notable enough to be here. ►Chris NelsonHolla! 15:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP I believe the article should be retained as the subject does hold notability. Puca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep He was signed, and there appear to be enough sources. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – I re-created the article. I decided to be bold after I saw that the original nomination had only two !votes and no exposure to the project that covers the field. Recently, two far less notable athletes (Gatena and Miller) were deleted after lengthy debate, one of which took three nominations before finally being deleted.
- Here's my rationale for re-creation: According to WP:ATH, "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." For American football, this highest amateur level is Division I FBS. Not only did Dan Gore play for a Division I FBS team, Boise State, but he was a starter. The two previously mentioned deletions were both walk-ons, and that was the rationale for which they were deleted.
- Additionally, I think Gore meets WP:N for coverage in the reliable sources that I added to the article when I recreated it. I think these are the three most important ones for establishing this in accordance with WP:N:
- The New York Times considered Gore a "Key Loss" for Boise State when he graduated.
- The Idaho Statesman ran an article about an opponent, who talked specifically about how he would match up against Gore.
- The Seattle Post-Intelligencer ran an article about the importance of the offensive line to Boise State, which includes addressing Gore's role in it.
- The article is currently very short right now, as that is the way it was when originally deleted, minus the "External links" section. It could be easily be expanded to a couple paragraphs with the information available there, however. Notwithstanding, potential length of an article (or lack) is not a reason itself for deletion. Open a paper encyclopedia and one will find many, many, many articles of only a few sentences. Strikehold (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article was deleted on March 9th. I believe Gore fails WP:Athlete as he has not played in the professional game. Amateur level surely refers only to those sports that do not have a professional game. Notability seems very limited. Parslad (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, no, it does not "surely" refer only to sports without a professional level. There is absolutely no wording to that effect in WP:ATH. Aside from that, he is notable due to the independent third-party coverage in the reliable sources referenced above. Strikehold (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK true enough, I think it's a fair inference however. There is a professional league, and he hasn't played in it though. As to notability, the New York Times' article lists Gore, but does not discuss him in any way. Otherwise, minor mentions of local interest only. Parslad (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep for now. He still could have a professional career ahead of him. I would not argue if the article was deleted, however. Ndenison talk 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article fails WP:ATHLETE. Didn't even play one game in the pro's. -- Darth Mike (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - But Gore potentially having a professional career in front of him is irrelevant per WP:CRYSTAL. Gore was cut on the first day of training camp for failing a conditioning test and, according to his teammate at the time Mike Byrne, he decided to call it quits after that. While Byrne's comment to me obviously cannot be a source for the encyclopedia, it seems to be true given that Gore has yet to sign with any professional league at any level since last August. Gore's "career" is likely done and as it stands he has no notability.►Chris NelsonHolla! 23:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As Chris said, even though Byrne's comment isn't encyclopedic, Gore has yet to sign with anyone else. And just based on the fact he was a member of team like Byrne was, he should have been able to catch on somewhere like Canada (like Byrne), AFL, or some other small league who wants NFL type talent. Delete per WP:ATHLETE.--Giants27 T/C 23:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 T/C 23:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 T/C 23:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Although there are quite a few external links, they all have to do with college football, which is not enough for notability. 129.105.104.246 (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I should point out that three of these delete votes are based on a misinterpretation of, or at least very liberal extrapolation of, WP:ATH, which states that athletes at the highest amateur level are notable. This is NCAA Division I FBS for American football, which is more notable than most other nation's highest-level professional sports due to its popularity, common knowledge, economics, marketing, and media coverage. WP:ATH does not have any wording that indicates that highest-level amateur sports are only notable in the absence of a professional level. Additionally, WP:ATH does not trump WP:N, so the external links, whether referencing college football or not, are enough to indicate notability. Strikehold (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Although if you interpret WP:ATH like that, considering how many teams there are, and how many players there are on each of those teams, that's a lot of "notable" people. However, if you pick a random person on a NCAA Division I FBS team, chances are the only sources you'll find are websites simply listing that they're on the team.
- Look at the sources. 1- He was part of a diving competition between teammates. 2- He's on Special Teams. 3- He blocked an extra point. 4- He's on the team. 5- He's starting on the team. 6- He's on the team. 7- He's no longer on the team.
- I'd summarize that as not notable. 75.31.250.206 (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So what if it's a lot of people? It's not a paper encyclopedia. It's one thing to say that he isn't notable from those sources under WP:N. But you cited WP:ATH as the reason why it should be deleted. That is not possible, as WP:ATH is an additional criterion. That is, you can become notable under WP:ATH, but you cannot be non-notable because of it. Strikehold (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I'm not sure stating that other people's opinions are based on 'misinterpretations' is very helpful. Also, you seem to be suggesting that an American sport is inherently more notable than sports in other countries? Is that something we really want to get into? Going down that road, then globally football's (soccer's) popularity is such that American football is of very little significance!! In this recent discussion on a footballer (soccer player) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus Coleman in deleting the article, the closing admin stated 'WP:ATHLETE does clearly state that a subject must play at the highest professional level of a sport to be considered notable'. This for a sportsman with a professional contract at one of the world's larger football clubs (Everton) who had previously played at the highest level of football in Ireland AND had international caps at under 21 level. Still not enough to pass WP:Athlete. Dan Gore doesn't even come close! which is why this article was deleted originally. Parslad (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is one individual's interpretation, which, as I said, in my opinion, is a very liberal one. Just because it was the opinion of an administrator does not lend it any more value than anyone else's. Without knowing the subject you speak of firsthand, it sounds as though it was deleted wrongly. As for comparing the notability of one of the most popular and lucrative sports in the third largest country in the world with those of others, I would be glad to address dissenting opinions. Please note though that I did not say all sports, and I certainly didn't say it made it any better. Strikehold (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I know you didn't say all sports, or better, which is why I said 'an American sport' and 'inherently more notable'. The deletion debate on Seamus Coleman which I quoted from above seems to be typical of the debates on sportspeople which I have been following recently. I agree with you that the closing admin's interpretation on that debate is just one opinion, but perhaps you can agree with me that calling my (and many others') reading of WP:ATH a 'misinterpretation' is unhelpful and a little insulting? Parslad (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I apologize if it came across as condescending. I should have explicitly said that it is my own opinion that that view is a misinterpretation of the guideline. But I would disagree that to say as much is unhelpful, because doing so demonstrates that it is not an uncontested or factual view as to letter or meaning of WP:ATH. Strikehold (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I know you didn't say all sports, or better, which is why I said 'an American sport' and 'inherently more notable'. The deletion debate on Seamus Coleman which I quoted from above seems to be typical of the debates on sportspeople which I have been following recently. I agree with you that the closing admin's interpretation on that debate is just one opinion, but perhaps you can agree with me that calling my (and many others') reading of WP:ATH a 'misinterpretation' is unhelpful and a little insulting? Parslad (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is one individual's interpretation, which, as I said, in my opinion, is a very liberal one. Just because it was the opinion of an administrator does not lend it any more value than anyone else's. Without knowing the subject you speak of firsthand, it sounds as though it was deleted wrongly. As for comparing the notability of one of the most popular and lucrative sports in the third largest country in the world with those of others, I would be glad to address dissenting opinions. Please note though that I did not say all sports, and I certainly didn't say it made it any better. Strikehold (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I'm not sure stating that other people's opinions are based on 'misinterpretations' is very helpful. Also, you seem to be suggesting that an American sport is inherently more notable than sports in other countries? Is that something we really want to get into? Going down that road, then globally football's (soccer's) popularity is such that American football is of very little significance!! In this recent discussion on a footballer (soccer player) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus Coleman in deleting the article, the closing admin stated 'WP:ATHLETE does clearly state that a subject must play at the highest professional level of a sport to be considered notable'. This for a sportsman with a professional contract at one of the world's larger football clubs (Everton) who had previously played at the highest level of football in Ireland AND had international caps at under 21 level. Still not enough to pass WP:Athlete. Dan Gore doesn't even come close! which is why this article was deleted originally. Parslad (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So what if it's a lot of people? It's not a paper encyclopedia. It's one thing to say that he isn't notable from those sources under WP:N. But you cited WP:ATH as the reason why it should be deleted. That is not possible, as WP:ATH is an additional criterion. That is, you can become notable under WP:ATH, but you cannot be non-notable because of it. Strikehold (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not even close to meeting wither WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. No reliable sources giving him notability, and never played professionally.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Those of you saying keep, ask yourself this. In 10, 20, 50 years, when this article is identical to how it is now, will it be worth being here? Will Gore truly ever be notable? What has he does to gain such long-lasting notability? Playing college football, even DI-FBS ball, isn't notable because not all the players do anything while playing and more never make it to the pros.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What the article will look like in the future is irrelevant per WP:CRYSTAL. Ndenison talk 23:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it's irrelevant now.►Chris NelsonHolla! 00:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This guy showed up for camp so out of shape they cut him immediately, flushing a multimillion dollar career down the toilet for sheer stupidity. This article should be deleted for sure, but an article should be written discussing all the people like Dan Gore who blew incredible carers in this bizarre way. 69.39.49.27 (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, I don't think Gore has much of a shot at the pro level to begin with. Most undrafted rookies are just camp bodies who will never have an NFL career.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:Athlete.Nrswanson (talk) 10:31, 21 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Howard Choi
- Howard Choi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
He doesn't seem to be notable physican.Who may require a article.Wp:Notable User:Yousaf465 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I've asked the nom to expand their statement. - Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment "His awards include an American Medical Association Foundation National Leadership Award (2001) and the Foundation for PM&R New Investigator Award (2004)" according to MSMS website Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: I just restored some content that an IP had removed on 10 March. Apparently the subject is author of a handbook--that may change things (I was about to go delete here). I don't know if it makes a difference, but still. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—StaticVision (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete unless it can be shown that the pocket handbook is a major resource. It's not in many libraries, but that isn't the least unusual for such books, which are meant for the individual physician, and not indicative [39]
- Comment -- Amazon lists several medical books by a Dr Howard Choi. Anyone know if they are all by the the same guy? That handbook is 134 long. From the article I imagined it was about a tenth that size. Geo Swan (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added the AMA Award (and the other one) to his bio. However, the Leadership award is something distinct from their more notable AMA Scientific Achievement Award -- this one is awarded to students and the like, as explained here. So unfortunately it doesn't look like it alone satisfies the second criteria of WP:ACADEMIC, "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." It'll have to be decided by the notability of his publications. --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 19 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, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, also fails WP:PROF. Some of the above comments appear to be ambivalent more or less due to the number of ghits Choi generates. In reality, while Choi clearly is a prolific producer of papers, manuals and the like he has virtually no genuine, reliable, third party coverage. There is nothing that I can find which would suggest that any of his output to date is sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. AngoraFish 木 12:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Awards and being author of popular handbook makes him notable. LK (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, awards do not make someone notable, per Wikipedia:PROF, only "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." nb the national leadership award is awarded to "20 students, 20 residents and fellows and 15 young physicians" each year. Similarly the Foundation for Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation is a relatively obscure foundation and award is a $10,000 grant. Most active biomedical researchers receive several such "awards" each year, usually for much larger amounts. Also, being author of an alleged "popular" handbook (how popular are you arguing it is, by the way?" I ask since the searches above are struggling to find it) would also not appear to be sufficient to comply with "academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institution". Handbooks are insanely common, they tend to summarize current thought rather than create new thought, and are thoroughly ephemeral unless you can provide sources that state otherwise. AngoraFish 木 21:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to repeat that this handbook is 134 pages long. That is book-length, IMO. Geo Swan (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just being a published author is not sufficient to establish notability, per WP:AUTHOR. The number of pages in a published work is irrelevant. AngoraFish 木 06:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I have that beat with my thesis, which was 149 pages long, but the page length of "published works" is irrelevant. It is their impact that is important for establishing notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, awards do not make someone notable, per Wikipedia:PROF, only "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." nb the national leadership award is awarded to "20 students, 20 residents and fellows and 15 young physicians" each year. Similarly the Foundation for Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation is a relatively obscure foundation and award is a $10,000 grant. Most active biomedical researchers receive several such "awards" each year, usually for much larger amounts. Also, being author of an alleged "popular" handbook (how popular are you arguing it is, by the way?" I ask since the searches above are struggling to find it) would also not appear to be sufficient to comply with "academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institution". Handbooks are insanely common, they tend to summarize current thought rather than create new thought, and are thoroughly ephemeral unless you can provide sources that state otherwise. AngoraFish 木 21:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't seem to have authored any important reviews in his subject, or made any strikingly novel and widely-important findings that were reported by secondary sources. Seems a highly competent and promising young scientist, but not an established leader in his field. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The American Medical Association awards are quite notable. I don't care how many people get the award each year, is a rather small amount compared to the number of people involved in the American medical field, and you have had to have done something notable by their standards to receive it. And if this other foundation is giving out a $10,000 award, then he must've done something worth getting noticed. An award from an unknown is meaningless, but not if it includes a check for ten thousand dollars! This isn't some guy deciding to print out certificates on his home computer and hand them out to people, obviously. Dream Focus 20:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep The handbook is , just barely, enough for notability. DGG (talk) 23:46, 25 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 00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Barry
- Matthew Barry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Potentially fails WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep principal cast member on the somewhat notable series Mine All Mine, though that's about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP This article is of a notable person and I agree that it should be retained. Puca (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? What makes him notable? Why do you think it should be retained? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, zero coverage in reliable, third-party, sources, fails to meet the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 22:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Minor character on Mine All Mine, not significant --Mikej999 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jasmine Gradwell
- Jasmine Gradwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I don't think the article meets WP:ATHLETE. I couldn't find a single online reference to support the article (if an Australian netballer is notable, online sources can be found quite readily); the two references in the article don't even mention her. Would've loved to have gone straight to CSD (A7), but there's arguably some attempt to indicate significance. It was tagged for CSD A7 not long after its creation, but the original author removed the tag and expanded the article. However, Jasmin gradwell was speedily deleted under A7, one day after Jasmine Gradwell was created. Wasn't sure which deletion process to use, so I decided to play it safe and list it here. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 02:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Is the "WA Smokefree State Netball League" a fully professional league? If not, I don't see how she could meet WP:ATHLETE. I agree with the nominator that coverage of this person seems pretty thin on the ground. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply: No, the WA State Netball League is an entirely amateur state tournament. – Liveste (talk • edits) 13:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I would have to say that this article should be deleted, as she does not meet the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline, and she doesn't meet the general notability guideline either. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply: No, the WA State Netball League is an entirely amateur state tournament. – Liveste (talk • edits) 13:11, 18 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, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Amateur athlete not playing at the highest level. I'd also suggest notability not enhanced by dating AFL footballers. Murtoa (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —94.196.158.212 (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not yet meet WP:ATHLETE. Maybe soon. Vartanza (talk) 07:14, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 00:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jori Tokyo
- Jori Tokyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a young artist with some local exhibitions, but no identifiable notability beyond that. There are no references at this point and none seem forthcoming at this time. A google search reveals only the usual myspace/facebook/blog hits, with no independent coverage. Also of note, the artist herself, as the editor Christina Staub is using Wikipedia to attempt to establish notability, by adding her pseudonym to various inappropriate lists (ie. Fluxus). Christina Staub claims the authorship of this image, uploaded as a Jori Tokyo work freshacconci talktalk 18:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 18:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am the photographer of both uploaded new images to this artist. He is a known person in the fields of cyber-arts and deserves for sure an entry at this platform. DoroDeichbrugg (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christina Staub (talk • contribs) 18:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How many accounts are you using? The above comment was made as Christina Staub. Now you've changed the signature to DoroDeichbrugg. First, you should read policies on sockpuppets. Second, this invalidates one of the two keeps (although I stress that this isn't a vote per se, both comments are made by one person). And finally, using at least two accounts to edit and comment on a deletion discussion makes me wonder about the reliability of your claim that you are not the artist. freshacconci talktalk 11:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am the assistant of Ms. Christina Staub and helped her by an issue here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoroDeichbrugg (talk • contribs) 12:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In my check for this artist i found a couple of notable fluxus-activities, performances and much more related mentions in several categories like performance, Ars Electronica and conceptional art. Harrassment against such a bunch of works should not become a reason for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas Schliemann (talk • contribs) 19:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC) — Jonas Schliemann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete Not notable yet. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom..Modernist (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many Fluxus artists, Performance artists and Conceptual artists of note have articles on Wikipedia, please focus only on the merits of this article...Modernist (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. JNW (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per JNW. Setwisohi (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As Jonas. Just flicked in a few spots i found lately about the artist.
- Cyber Art Wirxli Flimflam
- Placart Headphone Festival
- DeRe 2005
- Arts Birthday —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoroDeichbrugg (talk • contribs) 10:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC) — DoroDeichbrugg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Two of those links are blogs, which are not considered reliable sources. The other two seem to be listings. Again, not reliable, third-party sources. No one is doubting that this is an artist who has exhibted his work. The issue is around notability and verifiability of sources. freshacconci talktalk 11:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note for closing admin No keep comments have yet been added by regular or established editors. Perhaps that will change over the next day or so? Perhaps not. Setwisohi (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. No independent coverage and the wiki is being "used" as clearly shown by Freshacconci. It's clear the issue is around notability and verifiability of sources, which I cannot see at this time. --Artypants, Babble 13:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. And slight influence from the person that's using multiple accounts to try to save it. 129.105.104.246 (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. Everything I could find were social network sites, blogs, directory entries but nothing tthat would establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fluxus? Gotta be kidding.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:03, 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 redirect to Bring Me the Horizon . MBisanz talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oli Sykes
- Oli Sykes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Only notability is as a member of Bring Me the Horizon so a redirect would be more appropriate than an article. Also most of the article's content is unsourced and possibly unverifiable, and removing it would leave it as a coatrack for a non-notable incident. —Snigbrook 15:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 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) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nom. Next time be bold and do it without an AfD. This is generally for deleting articles, not redirecting them. ThemFromSpace 00:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He did and got reverted with an edit summary accusing him of vandalism. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —94.196.158.212 (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —94.196.158.212 (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, a "redirect" would make sense and I almost closed it that way before I noticed that the nominator had already tried that (see above). Check out the article's history and the "fannish" comments on the article's talk page. I suspect another redirect, even one resulting from an AFD close, would also be reverted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect - No claim to notability outside of a (presumbaly) notable band. The "incident" mentioned in the page is too poorly sourced to be worth keeping. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent notability. JamesBurns (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect Power.corrupts (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Misa Kobayashi
- Misa Kobayashi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable person. Fails WP:BIO, WP:ENTERTAINER, and WP:N. Failed prod and CSD A7 with both tags removed by User:Dream Focus (non-administrator) with reasons of "has worked as a voice actor on several notable series" and "I object. An actor in three notable series gets an article, so why not voice actors the same way?". Only three minor roles, no sources, and no significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User X! also erased the tag[40], which clearly states, anyone who disagrees with it should do so. You don't have to be an administrator. And why bring that up here? Anyway, I vote *Keep since the person has played a notable part in a significant body of work. Dream Focus 02:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it is appropriate to note that an article is a failed Prod and CSD and that the CSD was declined by a non-admin. Also X! is an administrator so it was fine for him to remove it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually he said in his edit "rv, csds can be removed by anyone, not just admins.)" Dream Focus 10:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Chizuru Naba does not seem to be a notable character, barely mentioned on List of Negima!: Magister Negi Magi characters , Lilith Sahl is listed as supporting on List of Trinity Blood characters, and I can't find a Hiromi anywhere on the collection of Hell Girl articles, with the exception of an artist who worked on the soundtracks. Which character is the notable one? ~Itzjustdrama C ? 02:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it is appropriate to note that an article is a failed Prod and CSD and that the CSD was declined by a non-admin. Also X! is an administrator so it was fine for him to remove it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User X! also erased the tag[40], which clearly states, anyone who disagrees with it should do so. You don't have to be an administrator. And why bring that up here? Anyway, I vote *Keep since the person has played a notable part in a significant body of work. Dream Focus 02:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I had a look at this as well and agree with your listed findings on the roles mentioned in the article currently. I did find an additional role not listed on the subject's page but it is listed on the page of the series and seems more significant. The series is Kurau Phantom Memory and it seems the subject voiced one of the main characters (Christmas). There are some other roles listed here but I don't really know enough about anime to know if any others listed are significant. Camw (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the notable role count is two so far now. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a quick search of the roles and it seems like the Negima and Kurau Phantom Memory role are notable. I'm not sure about Wan Wan Serebu Soreyuke! Tetsunoshin as I have no idea what that's about. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 03:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone here can read Japanese, is this the same person and are there any other roles listed here -> [41] that might be notable? I know another Wiki page isn't a reliable source, but if there is anything of value on that page it might make it easier to look for other sources to check. Camw (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a quick search of the roles and it seems like the Negima and Kurau Phantom Memory role are notable. I'm not sure about Wan Wan Serebu Soreyuke! Tetsunoshin as I have no idea what that's about. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 03:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the notable role count is two so far now. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hiromi is a one-episode character that appears in episode 9. No other role in the series beyond that. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noticed that on the ANN entry. And I finally found Chizuru. Those Negima character lists need cleaning. There's only one notable role. The ANN entry lists the rest as minor. I'm leaning toward Delete unless more notable roles can be dug up. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I had a look at this as well and agree with your listed findings on the roles mentioned in the article currently. I did find an additional role not listed on the subject's page but it is listed on the page of the series and seems more significant. The series is Kurau Phantom Memory and it seems the subject voiced one of the main characters (Christmas). There are some other roles listed here but I don't really know enough about anime to know if any others listed are significant. Camw (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources that establish notability. --Sloane (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I've added a more complete filmography to the article. However, judging from the list Chizuru Naba is still her most significant role, even if the character is a minor character in the whole Nagima! franchise. --Farix (Talk) 03:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. - If the filmography is accurate, seems to me Kobayashi meets the threshold for an up-and-coming voice actor. It's a close call, but I think we should err on the side of inclusion. Proxy User (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I tend toward inclusion on seiyū, but the roles listed in this case are exceedingly minor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pernom: no clear notability. Eusebeus (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless more reliable third-party reference sources can be provided to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete When all is said and done, she has only had one significant voice acting role (Christmas in Kurau: Phantom Memory). Her role as Chizuru Naba in the various Negima! series isn't that significant as the character is simply a reoccurring background character. This isn't enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. --Farix (Talk) 02:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notable roles yet. No prejudice against recreation should this change in the future. Edward321 (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: referenced roles in 14 works notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. So the article must meet the WP:ENTERTAINER notability guideline for entertainers, which reads "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". T L Miles (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the requirement of "significant roles"; all except one of those roles was exceedingly minor. Its also not sourced to a reliable reference. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Query: I can't seem to find an entry for www.animenewsnetwork.com on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Could you point me to that as well as the definition of "significant roles" in WP:ENTERTAINER? Thanks. T L Miles (talk) 02:27, 21 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. Icewedge (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael J. Sullivan (mayor)
- Michael J. Sullivan (mayor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
not notable and easily confused with others by the same name Gang14 (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have the modifier to avoid mix-ups. What do you think makes this person not notable? Just claiming he is, isn't a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A mayor of a large (or at least well-known) city who has at least one notable achievement and has received media coverage...how exactly is he not notable? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - an adequate potential for reliable, independent sources. Going to Google and Google News, there were certainly adequate sources upon which the article could draw. Also, the subject meets the standard set at WP:POLITICIAN. Jd027talk 21:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I'm confused as to why "easily confused with other by the same name" is included. Does that mean that if the man's name was "Clancy Knickerbocker," he would somehow be more suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia? No. Easy confusion by others with the same name is not a criterion for deletion, has never been, and will never be. A very poor AfD entry, indeed. Jd027talk 21:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep he is a mayor and this will be updated in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlumdogAramis (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mayor of a significant city easily meets WP:POLITICIAN. Current stub needs work but plenty of sources show up in Google. Rklear (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN and well-covered.7triton7 (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
Weak DeleteThe original deletion request was made by someone who was blanket proposing deletion of minor mayors of minor cities. At the time, I opposed the deletion, but after further research, it appears that all the notable things Michael J Sullivan ever did were all done by different Michael J Sullivans. If WP:POLITICIAN implies that all mayors of all cities should have Wikipedia articles, we have a long way to go to write a lot of articles that don't say much at all, but in that case, I can't support the deletion of this particular article. Additionally, I understand WP:PAPER. CSZero (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess what I'm saying is Wikipedia has a tendency to focus very heavily on current events. There is nothing particularly notable about this particular mayor of Lawrence. Would it be correct to create stub articles for all mayors going back 150 years? CSZero (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it would. The careers of political leaders are an essential part of world history, and a great deal of the history of Lawrence can be discerned through its mayors. It's a basic function of an encyclopedia to try to be comprehensive; an encyclopedia, after all, is a place where people look for things they can't find easily. It's why we have articles on people like Julius Saturninus, a purported Roman emperor about whom we may never know much other than that his troops controlled three provinces for a couple of months. A set of stubs, or even a list of Lawrence mayors with proper redlinks, would give people a start on filling in that history, letting them know what came before Michael J. Sullivan. Rklear (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Back when this issue first came up in early February last year, WP:POLITICIAN didn't explicitly say Mayors are generally notable (See the last revisions from January). It stopped with "a local politician is notable if he is well-covered in various journals." Which, of course, is subjective. He's in the Lowell, Massachusetts newspaper this week because his family is offering a reward for info on whoever fired a gun through a city hall window in the past month. That's not encyclopedia-level type of stuff in my opinion. But, since WP:POLITICIAN is clearer than it used to be about mayors in particular, I'll change my vote to *keep* CSZero (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If so, please strike through your Weak delete vote above and change to keep, to make things clearer for the closing admin. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Back when this issue first came up in early February last year, WP:POLITICIAN didn't explicitly say Mayors are generally notable (See the last revisions from January). It stopped with "a local politician is notable if he is well-covered in various journals." Which, of course, is subjective. He's in the Lowell, Massachusetts newspaper this week because his family is offering a reward for info on whoever fired a gun through a city hall window in the past month. That's not encyclopedia-level type of stuff in my opinion. But, since WP:POLITICIAN is clearer than it used to be about mayors in particular, I'll change my vote to *keep* CSZero (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it would. The careers of political leaders are an essential part of world history, and a great deal of the history of Lawrence can be discerned through its mayors. It's a basic function of an encyclopedia to try to be comprehensive; an encyclopedia, after all, is a place where people look for things they can't find easily. It's why we have articles on people like Julius Saturninus, a purported Roman emperor about whom we may never know much other than that his troops controlled three provinces for a couple of months. A set of stubs, or even a list of Lawrence mayors with proper redlinks, would give people a start on filling in that history, letting them know what came before Michael J. Sullivan. Rklear (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mayor of a reasonably large city (pop. ~73,000) that therefore meets WP:POLITICIAN. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 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 keep. Discussion to merge/rename should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andrea Mackris
- Andrea Mackris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BIO. She's also a perfect example of WP:BLP1E, of which the vast majority of the article is about, anyway. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Bill O'Reilly and slap up a redirect since she's a BLP1E (admittedly a high-profile 1E). Eusebeus (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The event needs coverage beyond one or two sentences in one place. Whether Mackris needs a separate biography is a separate question, but if it is made into a redirect, we need to make sure that the events that made her famous do not disappear in themselves. Croctotheface (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge No notability independent of one event. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Rename for event. WP:BLP1E applies, but event seems worth its own article. 7triton7 (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Renaming for the event and making Andrea Mackris a redirect to the renamed article would be acceptable. There's too much detail here to put into the Bill O'Reilly article, though, and there's no other logical place to merge it. JamesMLane t c 07:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm with you guys on the rename option. The content is worth keeping, and the event is worthy of coverage. Croctotheface (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Fox News producer?
are you serious- check Google news, google books - yep - meets WP:N no problem. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 07:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Comment - I'm okay with the rename or redirect, however the idea that am I "serious" about this AFD? Well, I challenge you to find something that shows how she's notable outside of this one event. Sorry, being a producer on Fox News doesn't cut it. If you can't find any and still believe that, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:N and more specifically WP:BIO. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A much deserved apology to be posted to user Jauerback's talk page immediately for my poor choice of words - I however do stand behind my !vote. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 05:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Apology posted here — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 06:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm okay with the rename or redirect, however the idea that am I "serious" about this AFD? Well, I challenge you to find something that shows how she's notable outside of this one event. Sorry, being a producer on Fox News doesn't cut it. If you can't find any and still believe that, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:N and more specifically WP:BIO. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:08, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 02:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kole Black
- Kole Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't look anywhere near notable enough as an author, but I cannot tell if there's enough notability is a subgenre to allow it here. The only interview I can find is here which links to Lulu, a self-publisher (although the books are available on Amazon). And yes, the MySpace page claims he's 100 from Tokyo, Japan but that's the page linked from the interview so I don't think it's a hoax. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've redirected The Chance She Took and The Risk of Chance to Black's page, in the odd chance they somehow are found to have notability on their own. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment popular, I see. Note that some new editors have been removing a large amount of, albeit unsourced, material from the page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:07, 21 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, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Spaulden Publishing appears to be Kole Black's own publishing label, as no other books seem to be published under this label. Self-published books are not notable unless they are widely distributed or otherwise grab the attention of third-party sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:13, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 04:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rajiv Lather
- Rajiv Lather (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. No additions to article since the last time it was put up for deletion in 2004. The comments at Talk:Haiku also say Rajiv Lather is non-notable. Jay (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I had previously (in 2004) argued for a keep, but since then our notability criteria have become clearer, and I don't think he makes the cut based on anything currently in the article. If he is more notable than the article currently suggests, then someone needs to edit it to demonstrate that. - Jmabel | Talk 17:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I had marked it for speedy deletion, I believe, as something utterly nonsensical. A person's haiku have been published? Well, that puts him in the company with some tens of thousands. Is there any indication that this is a major poet? No. Is there indication that this is a well known poet? (Are there any of such an age?) Then there's this defense writing, which is unrelated and, again, without any indication of significance. "I have written major arguments on the economy and many haikus about the human condition" sounds nice until I add "in spray paint on the walls of banks" after the first clause and "in bathroom stalls" after the second. We have to have some indication of reception, effect, and reaction. Publication is difficult, but not difficult enough to mean significance. Geogre (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Frogpond is the main publication of the Haiku Society of America, which is significant enough for an article. Whether a regular contributor to such a journal is significant enough for Wikipedia, I couldn't say. No vote at this time The Steve 07:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, it is. However, when we are talking about US haiku, we're in pretty thin air to begin with. Getting published in a poetry journal is difficult, but it does not confer any other status. Had this person been published in Poetry, he would still have been a singly published poet. Again, very nice, but, again, not a sign of being a major poet. The point is that we don't say, "As a freelance writer getting an article published in Newsweek warrants a biographical article in Wikipedia," and so we wouldn't say even getting published in a major poetry journal would. Add to that that this is analagous to the equivalent of getting published in Mother Jones or Green Living rather than Newsweek, and the case gets weaker. Writers self-promote because they have to. This is promotion. Hence, it violates the advertising clause of the deletion guideline. Geogre (talk) 10:39, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 04:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
R. Ashley Alder
- R. Ashley Alder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Biographical article about non-notable individual. The article creator, who appears to be a SPA intent on building notability for members of the Alder family, has provided no references in support of any of the claims made in the article. Russell A. Alder, a similar article, was previously deleted because a prod citing lack of notability was not contested. This and another article, Allen Alder, have been tagged as needing references since December 2007 but none have been supplied. I added prods to all three articles. The page creator deleted all three prods but provided no references to any article. Without proof of notability these articles should be deleted. AussieLegend (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification - After re-reading the above it appears that I may have implied that the three articles I added prods to were R. Ashley Alder, Allen Alder and Russell A. Alder. In fact, the third article is Russell A Alder, which was created two months after Russell A. Alder was deleted. Russell A Alder has also been nominated for deletion. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence or sources showing notability. JJL (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence or sources showing notability.Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unclear why this is notable. 7triton7 (talk) 05:01, 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 Confederation of European New Federations. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David Carli
- David Carli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
this man is a former head of CENF, a federation that has no members. I think he lacks notability Stu.W UK (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Confederation of European New Federations, or if that is deleted also then delete; minimal notability [42], [43]. JJL (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 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, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 04:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Larry Schultz
- Larry Schultz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
These articles on a Yoga teacher and it's school are listed here together per a deletion review to take account of a confusion between the two previous separate AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Yoga and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Schultz, and to allow for assessment of the sources brought up late in the AfD on It's Yoga. Tikiwont (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated articles are:
- Larry Schultz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- It's Yoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. I am not greatly impressed by the references. I would prefer to see the articles deleted until a non-SPA writes about them. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both COI - Way too promotional. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete bothThe references dont mean much. Yoga Journal, which I subscribe to, tries to feature the various studios and give best practices but would not count as an external media reference. The journal itself has lots of cross over COI between articles, ads, and writers. Both entries are way too promotional for wiki.--Jayrav (talk) 01:54, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 06:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Daines
- Steve Daines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I have placed an AFD/nomination for deletion for this article. I have placed this AFD because the article seems to be an advertisement for Steve Daines '04. Besides being badly dated, the article is loaded with phrases "life-long Montanan,etc". V. Joe (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As a candidate of a major party for a senior state office he meets notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thoughts Looks like it may meet G11 because it needs a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. However, he is clearly notable. So I'd say I'm neutral between deletion without prejudice as to recreation and keep but rewrite. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. Being a candidate for office is not enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, actually, according to our notability guidelines, at that level it is. Guidelines aren't set in stone and aren't policy, but they do at least provide a basis for debate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete When he gets the Lieutenant Governor position, it may be reconsidered. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly fulfills the third criterion of WP:POLITICIAN: "Major figures in national or first-level sub-national political races." A major party nominee for statewide office qualifies. RayTalk 02:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Every nominee in every election for every statewide office in every state is notable? Qqqqqq (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 02:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Merely running for a statewide office does not establish notability. Qqqqqq (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets notability guidelines, could use some decent refs though. riffic (talk) 09:41, 21 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 04:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Marr
- Matthew Marr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable person, MP's assistant and Student officer and had one story over a year ago Bacchus87 (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that's all very well but it is quite a funny article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.193.100 (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for not meeting WP:BIO --Boston (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:52, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 23:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abbas Husain
- Abbas Husain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Subject is not notable. Article contains a lot of namedropping, but in the end we have a teacher and director who runs workshops (for which the only reference I can find is two brief mentions in a source whose reliability and notability I doubt, [44] and [45]) and a Development Center, for which I could find one reference, also of questionable authority and notability. Much of the article is concerned with an article the subject wrote in 1992, which has never been published academically, as far as I can ascertain (judge for yourself with the Google results), an interview in an online source, and an alleged textbook (without bibliographical information--a search on the OUP site gives no such results for "Abbas" or for "Husain," nor does the LoC. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I see enough some published work e.g. but not enough evidence of citations, or impact to pass WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines for inclusion. No substantial coverage in independent sources etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 18 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, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Some scholarship, but not enough for Notability. Vartanza (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If someone could source the claim that he has trained 13,000 teachers, we would probably be able to get him into the Guinness Book of World Records, but barring such evidence, does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 08:28, 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 delete. BJTalk 09:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prudence Murphy
- Prudence Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails notability. This is a non-notable photographer who has been shortlisted for an award and has exhibited at non-notable galleries. Jenafalt (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jenafalt (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep if it can be watched and defended from self-promotion and stuff (as there is at least one COI editor in the edit history). I don't know about which art galleries are notable and stuff, but I do think this reference (currently included as an EL, not inline citations) should help, as it's from Syndney Morning Herald, which AFAIK is a major newspaper. I know WP:CREATIVE doesn't list that as a criterion, but to be honest (full disclosure here) WP:CREATIVE is a guideline that I believe is too strict. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator. RP459 (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, non-trivial coverage in the Sydney Morning Herald, a major Australian newspaper, as well as independent coverage from Art Monthly means that this article meets the WP:GNG, in my view. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment The 'coverage' in Art Monthly does not actually comment on her art - just uses it to illustrate a page. The Galleries that she has exhibited in are all minor galleries. She may be heading for notability, but she is not notable as the article or her career currently stands. I tried to clean up the article and find references to her notability, but when I couldn't I listed it for deletion. Jenafalt (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, I still feel that the SMH coverage, the fact that her art was picked for the illustration, and the sundry awards that she has received all add up to notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment The 'coverage' in Art Monthly does not actually comment on her art - just uses it to illustrate a page. The Galleries that she has exhibited in are all minor galleries. She may be heading for notability, but she is not notable as the article or her career currently stands. I tried to clean up the article and find references to her notability, but when I couldn't I listed it for deletion. Jenafalt (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the general notability guidelines should not be a carte blanche to include everything that objectively satisfies them. A single exhibition covered by a single newspaper article (and another source in which a single photograph was included without commentary in an art magazine) is a pretty flimsy basis for notability. IMO, fails WP:CREATIVE.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:17, 21 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 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete ... for now. This is a close call and I am basing this on the fact that she did not win the award and because the coverage in Art Monthly is just shy of sufficient to demonstrate her notability per our standards. This is so absolutely close that one more magazine mention for one of her showings could get her over the top and we should re-create. This may be a rare case where a "no consensus" might be the best choice. JRP (talk) 01:09, 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 delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hajizadeh Elshan Mahmud
- Hajizadeh Elshan Mahmud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD. I reiterate my reason behind the prod: This is someone posting a resume on Wikipedia, clearly against what Wikipedia is not. I will also add that I cannot find any reliable sources [46] that can establish any notabililty of this person; nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. MuZemike 15:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obviously non-notable young PhD that does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. I'll be curious to see the motivation of the deprodder... --Crusio (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article may require cleanup to be considered to KEEP
--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete a CV of a NN academic, fails WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep with some cutting down as an important educator,based on his educational publications. Not as a research scholar, probably. DGG (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per Pete above: fails WP:PROF. Eusebeus (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Pete and nom.Nrswanson (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This late in the AfD, there is still no evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 21 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 00:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tyrone Moss
- Tyrone Moss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable college player who never played in the NFL Yankees10 23:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Never played an NFL game and was released from a free agent deal after only a week. No evidence of other notability. Grandmartin11 (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Grandmartin11 RP459 (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. No noteworthy achievements as a college player, and never played a down as a professional. DarkAudit (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Never a professional, delete.--Giants27 T/C 16:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 T/C 16:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 T/C 16:35, 21 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 00:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ruben Silvio Lino Gouveia
- Ruben Silvio Lino Gouveia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Footballer who has never played professionally, article freely admits that he is only a part-timer and that his main job is working in his father's gardening business. Probable WP:COI based on suspiciously high level of knowledge of the player's personal life. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is a person of this name who played for Halesowen, but according to Halesowen's website, he had previously played for minor Portuguese clubs, had a different date of birth, and scored three goals in 15 games before leaving the club. It's a hoax: the only truth in the article is that a player of that name has played for Halesowen, the rest is total bollocks. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. What Struway calls bollocks, we call it BS in the USA. -- Alexf(talk) 10:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 10:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 07:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Uksam88 (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harlýemý Yonkçiker
- Harlýemý Yonkçiker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be a hoax, Wycombe Wanderers' current number 9 is Matt Harrold, and there is no record of this player being on the club's books. Might be notable if he had played for the other clubs listed, which include some of the very top clubs in Italy, Portugal and elsewhere, but Google returns precisely zero hits on his name, so that seems untrue as well. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as probable hoax. GiantSnowman 11:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - besides the zero hits on Google, how likely is it that a player will be transferred from an Israeli (Hapoel Be'er Sheva F.C.) to an Iranian (F.C. Aboomoslem) club? Textbook hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer-holic (talk • contribs)
- Delete as probable hoax which fails WP:V. Jogurney (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator. RP459 (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - almost certain hoax. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. -- Alexf(talk) 14:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone above. WP:SNOW now I think.Nrswanson (talk) 07:36, 21 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 23:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Russell A Alder
- Russell A Alder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Biographical article about non-notable individual. This article was originally created at Russell A. Alder and was deleted there because a prod citing lack of notability was not contested. The article creator, who appears to be a SPA intent on building notability for members of the Alder family, has provided no references in support of any of the claims made in the article. Other articles created by him/her (specifically Allen Alder and R. Ashley Alder) have been tagged as needing references since December 2007 but none have been supplied. I added prods to all three articles. The page creator deleted all three prods but provided no references to any article. Without proof of notability these articles should be deleted. AussieLegend (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence or sources showing notability. JJL (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 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) 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - all appears to be original research. No notability or reliable sources are used. Jd027 (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Dubious claims. No external sources. LK (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete More jumped-up claims. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:17, 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 Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wendy Campbell
- Wendy Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The previous AFD touched upon some of the significant NPOV and soapbox issues with this article, which have continued to crop up over the last almost 3 years.
The consensus was keep, but this was due to the fact AFD is (quite rightly) not the place to address these issues. Crucially, however, the previous AFD completely failed to address how the subject satisfies the inclusion criteria.
Simply put: she doesn't. Wendy Campbell is not the subject of independent, reliable, verifiable sources, regardless of how objectionable/agreeable her views are. I therefore propose deletion. WilliamH (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sure not much in the way of reliable sources there. Take out the self-published sources and the blog source, and all that's left is the Jerusalem Post author attacking her. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is an excellent example of a well written, well referenced article that utterly lacks any significant, reliable secondary sources that could confer notability. The many references give the initial appearance that there is significance, but as was mentioned above, the majority of these refer back to the subject's own websites. The lone article from The Jerusalem Post can't really be construed as significant media coverage of Wendy Campbell. Teleomatic (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's only the thinnest thread of news coverage, virtually all from a couple months in 2005, per Gnews, at least. J L G 4 1 0 4 04:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keepThere are a lot of people named Wendy Campbell out there, but it you google news archives with her name and terms like Israel, Holocaust, and anti-Semitism you get articles showing that she is an anti-Semite , a supporter of such Holocaust deniers as Zundel, a small-time activist and all-around loathsome specimen humanity. While it is not clear that she has ever done anything worthwhile, I can see utility in keeping the article up - to make it easy for anyone who looks her up to discover how loathsome some of her political commitments are. The fact that it has space for articles on relatively obscure people and events who do sometimes appear in the news is one of the things that makes Wikipedia useful. And she will be in the news again. With a placard. Promoting some vile cause like Holocaust denial.Historicist (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: None of that actually explains how she satisfies the inclusion criteria with non-trivial significant coverage. WilliamH (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree. There is no independent non-trivial coverage of her. Refs referring to Campbell are predominantly her and her husband's Marwen Media. There is one passing reference to her in the J Post, and another that refers to her as an Oakland woman holding a sign at a rally -- pretty much the definition of non-notable coverage, if you ask me -- but nothing at all that indicates she is notable among anti-Zionists and/or anti-semites. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:34, 22 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 23:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marcello Alberto Cristofani della Magione
- Marcello Alberto Cristofani della Magione (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is without reliable, secondary sources about the topic. He doesn't seem to have any WP:Notability. --Yopie 12:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See also: Italian AfD. AntiCross (talk) 01:37, 20 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 00:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No references that establish notability. Looie496 (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alan Downs
- Alan Downs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This subject appears to fail WP:PROF. There is a pretty obvious WP:COI on the part of the creator, and the article is loaded with peacock terms. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems like a perfectly good article that is substantiated and of a notable individual. Of course, it can always be improved and added to. Dwain (talk) 20:17, 18 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, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Review in Personnel Psychology vol. 51 issue 2 suggests he has done a fair bit of work in the "group narcissism" field. Ottre 21:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- 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)