This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Living people. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Living people|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Living people. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/32px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png)
Purge page cache | watch |
Wikipedia's inclusion policy for articles on individuals can be found at WP:BIO.
Wikipedia's policy on writing about living people can be found at WP:BLP.
![]() |
{{{linktext}}}
|
Living people
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anthony Entwistle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not seem to be very notable. We should not have an article about every criminal. One short mention in a list of criminals is not enough. I could not find more good sources about him. Prod was endorsed by User:B.Wind "WP:BLP1E - nothing to separate him from any other convicted murderer." but then removed by User:Oo7565. Apoc2400 (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Whole_life_tariff#Prisoners_issued_with_life_tariffs, as all the info in the article seems to be here, too. Belasted (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I've proposed is obviously the best choice. Can anybody directly disagree with me? Belasted (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong delete. BLP of the worst kind, quite aside from a blatant BLP1E. Wikipedia is not a database of criminal convictions. Incidentally, while I doubt it will make the slightest difference to the scheme of things I've pre-emptively {{NOINDEX}}ed this discussion. – iridescent 21:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – I have removed all unsourced material that construes as BLP violations as shown here. MuZemike 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- did you try to source it? it is exactly that material which might possibly make him notable. It would seem that sources would be available.DGG (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A UK Google search on '"Anthony Entwhistle" + rape' only brings up a single mention other than Wikipedia mirrors, and that's just a two-sentence mention in a list of prisoners serving whole-life sentences. I don't doubt the accuracy (by definition, he's done nothing notable since long before the start of the internet, so online sourcing is going to be a problem), but I don't see anything remarkable enough about him to separate him from any other murderer – he has neither the "popular culture" notoriety of Ian Brady or Jeffrey Dahmer, nor was his case particularly unusual as with our most clumsily-named article Robert Chambers (killer), for example. Unfortunately, in a population of 7 billion there are a lot of murderers and sex offenders, and I really don't think Wikipedia is the best place to serve as a directory of them. WP:Notability (criminal acts) is an unaccepted policy, but I do agree with its primary thrust; "Perpetrators of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article. Perpetrator notability is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question". – iridescent 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added back in that he is a rapist (backed with a verifiable source that I found, of course), but I cannot find anything that backs up the other phrase that I removed: within weeks of his release from a seven-year prison sentence imposed for sexually assaulting two women. Otherwise, I stand by my removal of that phrase as it can be potentially harmful information about a living person. If someone can find a source to back that above phrase, and add it back in and include the source. However, I could not find it amongst the sea of Wikipedia mirrors that Iridescent noted above when I did the same Google search. MuZemike 04:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- did you try to source it? it is exactly that material which might possibly make him notable. It would seem that sources would be available.DGG (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as the article is concerned in general, I'm learning towards a weak delete as I couldn't find any sources that provide significant coverage of this rapist/murderer/rapist (I said rape twice because I like rape). Now, this all happened back in the 1980s, so there might not be much online to find; print sources may fulfill the notability factor. MuZemike 04:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note by nom: His "claim to fame" would be that he is on the list of 50 or so British criminals given a whole life tariff. Now we have at least two reliable sources supporting that. Stubbing this down to what the sources say would be acceptable for me. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:26, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 05:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - does not indicate more about this person, not notable enough. Versus22 talk 06:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - aside from total lack of real notability, this is an incredibly uninteresting person, it seems!! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. And where were all of these Delete !votes when I nominated the far less notable Patrick Syring? THF (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 20:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Laura Davis (Female Comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The CSD tag was removed by someone or other with the summary "do not disrupt", and I can't face squabbling over it.
This mis-titled article is abou a non-notable comedian, it seems to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding {{db-nocontext}} to a disambiguation page, repeatedly adding {{db-person}} to an article that is being worked upon and adding that tag once it has been removed is disruption. That tag explicitly says it should not be put back once it has been removed. Good to hear you don't want to squabble over it, though. Laura Davis has won a notable competition—Raw Comedy so the article should not be deleted. —Konsole4.2 (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's PROD tags that are not suppose to be re added when removed, not CSDs. However, an article's creator (that's you) is not suppose to remove a speedy tag. The proper course of action is to add the {{hangon}} tag and then explain why you believe the article should not be deleted on the talk page. However, in this case there is a weak assertion of importance or significance in the article so AFD is the proper venue for deciding if this article should stay or go. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not the creator of this article I only added refs—Konsole4.2 (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, when I first looked at the history, the page must not have loaded completely. Yours was the last I saw. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you like, but please do assume good faith, and not immediately accuse other editors of being disruptive. Perhaps they (I) made a mistake, or there's just a misunderstanding. Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will 'assume good faith' from now. By the way the other guy or myself ar e not here to destroy Wikipedia either, so there's no need to bombard articles with {{db-crap}} repeatedly thanks—Konsole4.2 (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you missed the whole point of Wikipedia then ;) --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Claim to notability isn't supported by the underlying Raw Comedy article. The two sources (one of which appears SPS, the other of which isn't clear if RS) mentions Davis only in passing without biographical detail. At best, she's a BLP1E. THF (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Raw Comedy is Australia's biggest comedy competition. Its a part of Melbourne International Comedy Festival and I think it satisfies Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography—"person has received a notable award or honor". What's SPS, RS? It wouldn't be hard to find other sources like local newspapers which discuss this girl in detail, the two references I had added earlier are just two links I found by googling around.—Konsole4.2 (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging by how few of the previous winners have gone on to independent notability, it's quite questionable whether winning Raw Comedy is a "notable award or honor," but even if it were, she didn't win: she got a consolation prize as the best first-time entrant that isn't even mentioned in the Raw Comedy article. That's twice-removed from notability. THF (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is not the winner of a major comedy competition. This is the winner of a "Rookie of the Year" prize in a Minor League comedy competition, where the winners of the full competition advance on to more significant competitions. She may get there, but she hasn't done so yet. Eauhomme (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because an editor's made a good faith assertion that the article is being worked on--but without prejudice to a future AfD. See WP:DEMOLISH.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, and un-connected with the AfD, I'd suggest re-naming this article to Laura Davis (Comedian). We wouldn't call an article "John Smith (Male Comedian)", would we?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it should be Laura Davis (comedian) if anything. THF (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or that. :) But the main point I wanted to make is that I think the AfD is premature while the article's still being actively edited.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that the article isn't being actively edited, and one cannot manufacture notability out of thin air, but someone contact me on my talk page if the article miraculously improves in the next five days. THF (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think the award and the public speaking appearances are (just) enough to get over the notability hurdle. WWGB (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see little reason to delete if users can be perswaded to add to it. Its a close one though. Definatly needs to be Moved. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cristina Schultz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
BLP with no known sources showing notability; no known secondary sources. Several news reports show notoriety (high-priced call girl; married an interesting person; pleaded guilty to tax evasion; divorce proceedings). There have been attempts to sanitize the article, and there was a legal threat. However, actions by misguided editors are not a reason to keep an article. From WP:BLP1E: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appearances in the various magazines as a model would qualify as WP:N, hence warrants an article separate from the 'incident' Chzz ► 15:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Agree with Chzz, this is beyond WP:ONEEVENT at this point. §FreeRangeFrog 19:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Far more notable than Patrick Syring, which has overwhelmingly failed two AFDs, but BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS applies to both articles. But it's absolutely not true that there are not "secondary sources": there is substantial independent coverage that is cited in the article. THF (talk) 08:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clear notability. TJRC (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What does "notable" mean in a BLP? I agree that sex + folly == interesting, but what policy says it is notable? WP:BIO requires "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". WP:SECONDARY suggests we need a source with an analysis of the affair to show Schultz is notable. Does a high degree of salaciousness overcome non-notability? Also, Chzz implies that Schultz is appearing in magazines as a model. Presumably we could find a source confirming that, but when is a model notable? Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of secondary sources including taxation websites and also news articles on several legal aid websites supporting her career choice for paying off the student loans. I know the media prefer to focus on the salacious in reporting on her but the tax issue and confiscation of the earnings both appear to have more notability than her career on serious websites so editors (and the article) should not focus only on that with regards to WP:N. Wayne (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. That two LA newspapers published stories relating to this person seems to imply some small amount of notability. The articles needs more secondary sourcing though. Aubergine (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Slim Goodbuzz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable anonymous author. Only links are primary sources. Topic seems to be just a advert hook to a blog page. Doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. Mikeblas (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. THF (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:15, 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, Xclamation point 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have this feeling of deja vu. Mandsford (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with nom, doesn't seem notable. Hippopotamus (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, unnotable. MathCool10 Sign here! 05:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete of minor local notability at best, as even the article pretty much admits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Xclamation point 03:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool "Disco" Dan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
It's an article about graffitti, it hardly seems notable. The Cool Kat (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Non-notable person/ artist. Tagged. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the tag. He was a visible, frequently mentioned tagger who got written up in the press on various occasions. I'll do a little research for sources, but I just wanted to mention this in regard to my deletion of the speedy tag. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as above. Grafitti artists can be notable under certain circumstances. Taggers? Not so much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacks WP:N, WP:V. Versus22 talk 00:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Looie496 (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Sure as heck is notable locally. I added some info and references. There are plenty more mentions in the Washington Post over the years, as well as in the Washington City Paper, particularly during the Borf episode a couple of years ago, when people were drawing comparisons between Borf and the character that preceded him, Cool "Disco" Dan. Even recently, the City Paper web site had a blurb exhorting the new president to buy himself a piece of local lore—a CDD poster. That said, I leave it to the rest of you to opine on whether his local notability taken with any possible mentions in non-D.C. sources reaches the level of WP:N. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is an argument for a Washington, D.C., graffiti scene article, rather than lots of tiny articles about non-notable vandals. THF (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The trivial mentions in the sources added, and the trivia and WP:PUFF added to the article do not add up to notability. THF (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the fact that that one particular person is invoked by separate people in different contexts to convey a sense of the scene in Washington, D.C., implies his notability. It certain implies an assumption of recognizability. I also don't think that multiple, lengthy articles about the person in a major newspaper over a period of years are "trivial mentions". I'm not saying any of this means he's important, but importance isn't a factor in assessing WP:Notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Washington Post article runs to over 4000 words, and is completely about the subject. How can anyone call that a "trivial mention"? Easily passes notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoo boy. Err on the side of Keep. Do we still not have a WikiWho for things like this? Ventifax (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article in the Washington Post, work in the permanent collection of the Corcoran.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient reliable source material to meet wikipedia requirements. Ty 17:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems sufficiently sourced..Modernist (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephanie Shaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 17:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —MuZemike 17:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not assert notability, nor give reliable sources from which notability might be inferred. The subject has written some stories, none of which seem notable, and worked on some games which do have articles, but this does not confer notability on her. Thompson Is Right (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. First she didn't just "work on some games", for Hero's Journey she was the lead designer. This is an interview with the person. Since I don't know much about the subject, I'm not all that good at finding sources about her, but what I have found is enough to convince me that she is a reasonably well-known figure in the field of fantasy literature. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Sjakkalle. Lead designer on a game is a significant role and the ISFDB shows this isn't just a random hobby writer. - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While the article is currently unsourced, looking past the first page of Google results (which are mostly this page, her own personal site, and a few blogs) for her name show quite a few sources that could be used for this article. She is also mentioned in a number of books on Google Books outside of her own novels, though they all seem to be passing mentions. Orbital Delegate (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As an author she passes WP:N for coverage in Locus, ISFDB[1](two entries as it's not determined yet which version of the author's name is canonical), and scifi-fantasy-info.com. These sites all satisfy all the bullets in WP:GNG and WP:NOBJ with the exception that Locus does not have an article dedicated to her. In terms of verifiability, ISFDB and Locus also link to the anthologies her work has appeared in. As a game designer she's been the subject of at least one dedicated independent coverage interview, was asked to write for part of this article, and a column on another web site. At minimum, she's been acknowledged as the lead designer for a game and as a result attracted notice. Lack of notability for someone's work nor lack of sources in an article are grounds for deletion. --Marc Kupper|talk 11:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as originator. The guidelines for people in general say "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject [...] trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Mere listings of what work a person has done or published are surely insufficient. For creative professionals, the relevant tests are "widely cited by their peers", "a significant new concept, theory or technique", "a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", "work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries." None of these appear to be satisfied. Have the stories or games been the subject of a book or multiple periodical articles or reviews? I think not. In fact the only game on which she is reported to be lead designer has not appeared yet. Thompson Is Right (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Keep, if a cite or source can be found for the claim that she was the youngest member ever to join SFWA. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominated. X MarX the Spot (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While I have no real stake in the issue (I did one minor edit on her page recently), I find the arguments for more compelling than those against. Plus I have a bias toward retaining articles when in doubt. BPK (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Undecided - She seems to be a popular guest writer - in addition to those columns posted by Mark Kupper, she's written for GDMag. However, being a prolific writer isn't a factor. Lead designer for Hero's Journey would probably satisfy notability for creative professions, providing it receives the required coverage. However, the main issue for me here is verifiability - independent refs? Marasmusine (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm still struggling with what the metrics for notability are. When I started editing on WP I took a very conservative view of the policies and as a result viewed many articles as AfD material. Is Stephanie Shaver notable? Realistically, the answer is a flat out "no." The only reason I heard of her and ran across the WP article is because I read an anthology and when done with it I went through all of the author burbs and crossed checked them against WP and ISFDB had I not done the cross check I would not have taken note of Shaver at all. The x-check happened and as a result I updated her WP article, wondered why she even had an article, and forgot about it. More recently I've swung towards a more inclusive view where I'm viewing WP as a resource that should contain articles on subjects where it's possible people in a wide area would want to look something up about the subject. There are two fuzzy words; "possible" and "wide area." As an author she has had short stories published in two magazine and in 12 anthologies over a 19 year period. I don't know if this is typical in the game business or if Simutronics is an exception but the company publicity credits the contributors to their games much like movie credits. She appears to be active in on line forums and conventions (both fantasy fiction and games) which also increases her exposure. Thus the "possible" is above zero and the areas would be people who read her stories, play a game she's involved with, or participate in one of the forums or conventions she's active in. When the AfD came up I took a look at the notability policies and a scan for available evidence. With a liberal/inclusive mindset she clearly passes. With a conservative mindset she clearly does not pass the notability tests. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a wide paintbrush, there, as well as an incorrect statement in which I take offense. I consider myself fairly liberal (I do support Barack Obama and many of the staff), but I do support deletion of articles of subjects that do not meet the notability criteria as prescribed by policy. Politics aside, I believe in the process as it should be intended – that users exercise other alternatives (as listed in WP:BEFORE) before considering the deletion route. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a haven for unsourced biographies of living people in which actual people can potentially be damaged by the content possibly posted here. I am still neutral as what I think about the article, but I think that this article may not have much a chance if reliable secondary sources can be found and quickly. MuZemike 09:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm using conservative/liberal in their standard meaning and not the Conservative or Liberal political persuasion. Interpretation of WP policy is much like how people can read the 27 words comprising the Second Amendment and come away with wildly different, and strong, beliefs as to what it means.
- re: "I think that this article may not have much a chance if reliable secondary sources can be found." WP:SELFPUB fully supports that we can use Stephanie Shaver's own web site and writings about herself as sources for for the bio part of this article. Unfortunately, the article does not cite sources and so we don't know if what's already there is accurate. Her author bibliography has already been independently verified from RS. I believe her game stuff has been too. Those are the reasons for notability and so it's a matter of someone taking the refs dug up in this thread and using them in the article assuming the consensus is "keep." --Marc Kupper|talk 06:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - in addition to the sources mentioned above, she's been a guest at Dragon*Con.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - is she notable in her field(s)? That is, has she won any awards of any sort? She's got books. She's got software. She's bound to have an article or two written about her. But given that her work is out there, what does anybody think of it - in terms of awards or recognition that she's more than just another author/programmer? Rklawton (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm of the opinion that if you get into an MZB or Lackey anthology -- multiple times, at that -- that's a good indication of notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - There's a lot of sources out there that cite her, but they provide only a weak case for her notability, not a compelling one. She wouldn't need much more to establish notability—a significant, documented contribution to even a single game would probably change my mind. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 12:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaving aside that I think the case for notability has been made, where does it say that it needs to be compelling? After all, the policy is verifiability -- notability is a guideline.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a verifiable published author and photographer (outside of Wikipedia). There's more to notability than verifiability. A lot more. If all this person has is evidence they exist, then they are not notable. Awards would help. Rklawton (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, I'm a published author, too. But I've never been in two anthologies each which have been edited by two of the most notable names in speculative fiction today.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a verifiable published author and photographer (outside of Wikipedia). There's more to notability than verifiability. A lot more. If all this person has is evidence they exist, then they are not notable. Awards would help. Rklawton (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaving aside that I think the case for notability has been made, where does it say that it needs to be compelling? After all, the policy is verifiability -- notability is a guideline.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I looked at WP:PEOPLE again and went down it point by point.
- Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria
- Has not been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable.
- Is not the subject "none-substantial" coverage from multiple independent sources.
- Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography
- Has not received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
- Has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
- Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals
- Is not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
- Is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
- Has not created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
- Has not either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
- She qualifies for getting handled under Failing all criteria and now we are looking at Special cases. I thought about her stories being selected by notable anthologists but that does not count as it's not "Stephanie Shaver" being the subject of recognition but rather that her story got it. A notable anthologist can't confer notability on her anthologies, nor can the anthologies confer notability on the stories, nor can the stories confer notability on the authors... She works for the game company and so recognition by them is not independent. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria
- 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 08:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A. Kugan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I declined the A7 speedy on this, because the circumstances surrounding Mr. Kugan's death is covered in general media. Coverage is here and here for example, if the article is kept they may be used to source the article. Nonetheless, I am bringing this to AFD, and recommending deletion since I think the article violates WP:NOT#NEWS. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unfortunate, but fails WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BIO1E, and possibly WP:SOAP. JohnCD (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I nominated it for the speedy, and i still don't see an assertion of notability, but still, this seems to be a WP:NOT#NEWS and probably WP:1E. --GedUK 19:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. A7. So non-notable his first name isn't in the article. THF (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet inclusion criteria. Per WP:BIO1E the information should be included in an article about the event. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Xclamation point 06:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sterling Beaumon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A minor actor, both in age and in terms of actual impact. Much puffery, but nothing solid underneath. CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - You are not a minor actor when you appear on the cover of a movie DVD [2]. His resume is impressive having accumulated numerous commercials and guest appearances on popular TV shows. He played the main role in a 2008 children's movie. Articles on all his co-stars exist. Fighting for Justice (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the 'movie' is a straight-to-DVD film, then yes, you could very well be a minor actor. In other words, that proves nothing. The 'numerous commercials' also means little--certainly not lasting fame--nor do the 'articles on his co-stars', as they're not the subject of this discussion. Some look like they should be nominated at AFD, but that's neither here nor there. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of major actors have movies that go straight to DVD's. This movie was like that on purpose, it was never intended to go into the big screen because it was based on a children's book. If you go to You Tube you'll see that the movie had a major debut. His numerous guest appearances is strong evidence that he's had in impact. Fighting for Justice (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of major actors who are down on their luck work on straight-to-DVD films, also, but that's neither here nor there: working on a straight-to-DVD conveys no fame or importance to the actor. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - IMDB lists 18 items for this actor including multiple appearances on programs such as Lost, Bones, Scrubs, Heroes, Cold Case, House, and more. If this guy doesn't meet "notable" standards, then there's a lot of deleting that needs to be done with actors here... Proxy User (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, important roles such as 'Brat #1' and 'Kid with gun'. And yes, much deletion needs to happens, but they're not relevant here. And, of course, having a series on minor parts on TV programmes doesn't impart fame.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - He's got two roles like that. You fail to recognize that he starred in a movie and had notable roles in notable TV series. Fighting for Justice (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and find reliable sources: I'm sure there are some. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - IMDB is a reliable source, and it's pretty clear that this actor has had substantial roles in many notable television productions. Proxy User (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, IMDB isn't a reliable source, since it's a user-added compilation, much like a, well, Wiki. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - This article features him, and he is a significant enough actor for Variety to take notice. Some more sourcing would be good but this is enoug to scrape by for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Variety is a trade publication, so I fail to see how that argues for wide repute. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Lost, Bones, Scrubs, Heroes, Cold Case, House, 7th Heaven... That's a lot of TV. Proxy User (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, it's a lot of TV. He's got more experience then some adult actors. Aside, from acting he sings and figure skates. He's very notable. It's not like he did one movie and that's it; like in this child actor Drew Mikuska. Fighting for Justice (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll have to offer more proof than assertion about this so-called notability. Having a series on minor parts on TV programmes doesn't impart fame.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We use trade publications all the time to establish notability within whichever area the subject falls. Variety does not cover every single actor. By using Variety, we can gauge this person's notability within his field of endeavor which is acting. A character actor might never get mainstream coverage because he isn't a star, or drugged out and puching papparazzi in the face. Yet may still get recognition within his profession, and bbe notable and noted in trade publications. -- Whpq (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Signal is a newspaper, but it's local. If that were all it took, we could use the Lafayette Journal & Courier to source my notability, and we wouldn't have had the arguments against it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lots of tiny roles, but I see nothing in IMDB that adds up to meeting WP:CREATIVE. THF (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- According to Kristin Dos Santos at E!, Beaumon has a record deal and will also continue to appear in Lost.[3] --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 15:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. The only arguments for "keep" are inherited notability; he appears notably in a notable show, and hence is notable. That's not adequate. (And Variety does cover every actor whose agent requests coverage....) I may be able to rebut other comments, but I don't see a real argument for a keep yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence has not been presented that he is the star of either movie which the claim was presented above, and even if he was the star of two (marginally) notable movies, that wouldn't be enough. Thinking it over, THF said it best, above..."lots of tiny roles." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Black Kite 11:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ernesto Mordecki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete No independent proof of any notability, no reliable sources, no anything. The prod was removed by an editor who just said that "30+ articles" means notable, which it clearly doesn't as nonnotable academics get published in nonnotable publications all the time. Notability has to be shown, not just assumed from a claim made by someone's resume. The article needs some reason why anyone would care. This is not LinkedIn or Facebook. And this is another prod removed by someone who goes around removing prod tags for no reason that comes close to meet WIkipedia standards. Someone really needs to look into prod removal abuse, as it just wastes everyone's time having to list these. DreamGuy (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Mordecki is not shown here to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). --Boston (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete WP:PROF and agree; maybe a notification to users who removed PRODs or CSDs which subsequently failed afd?-- Chzz ► 15:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. There's also probable conflict of interest being that the main contributor is User:Mordecki.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Subject meets criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics) as demonstrated by the added external reference to [4]. I suggest that the issue of Ethnocentricity should be consider, as I believe that an American professor with the same number of published articles would meet the grade for notability. I also note the COI are not grounds for deleting and article. Esasus (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick google search finds 916 links [5], most of them referencing academic articles written by Prof. Mordecki. Notable? Yes. Esasus (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please carefully read Wikipedia:Notability (academics). It might make things clearer. Most mature academics will have presented dozens of papers and will have had many of them published. They still aren't necessarily notable. Your accusation about ethnocentricity is unjustly defamatory. This may be a case of WP:system bias but that is not the same thing. WP:COI is not a reason for deleting an article but it is justification for scrutinizing it rather than regarding it with leniency. --Boston (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is absurd. The person who removed the prod is using the person's own resume as if it were somehow an independent reliable source of notability. On top of that he tossed in a ridiculous claim of ethnocentrism, which has nothing to do with anything. He in fact knows that I have nominated articles of white people and so forth for deletion based upon lack of notability, because he's on those talk pages attacking me there as well. DreamGuy (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not attacking you, so please don't characterize my comment is such a way. Also, I think you may be confusing "ethnocentrism" with "racism". I notice that DreamGuy has been just been blocked for 55 hours for his disruptions on another matter [6] so we will have peace for the weekend, but watch out for sockpuppets. Esasus (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 04:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 04:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Citation impact seems to indicates some degree of notability. Possibly meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed).--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Autobiography, containing a Ph.D., an Erdos number, and what appears to be a rotating departmental chairmanship. Dozens, if not hundreds, of Uruguayans must have done the like. What's he done, that anyone outside the University of the Republic (where they can read his web page) should care about him? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. As with Eric Yurken (two comments above), I find the Google Scholar hits are ok. He has some pretty well-cited papers on optimal stopping that are also cited in books that appear themselves recognized. The citation numbers are more impressive when considering the papers are pretty recent. Not an amazing researcher by the numbers (especially since this isn't really a pure math area), but it's certainly plausible he has made a "significant impact in scholarly discipline". He's probably no worse than the many academics whose articles are kept in AFDs (yup not really a ringing endorsement, but whatever...)--C S (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletechanged to KeepAccurate citation numbers can be gotten for Scopus or WoS if he publishes in international journals , as he does., There ar 9 papers in scopus, with citations 6, 3, 1, 1, and the rest zero. Mathematics citations come slowly, but this still is simply not a significant record of research, and by no means enough to make him an authority in this field. Science, unlike politics, is international and so are the standards. To have half of one's papers unreferred to completely is sufficient evidence of non notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)- there's something seriously wrong with your search. There are over 100 cites for just one paper alone. I flipped through a dozen or so pages of the Google Scholar cites for his mostly highly cited paper and they are all legitimate citations (no self-ref and omitting cites from preprints). Certainly more than 6. --C S (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have repeated the Scopus search, and matched it against the GS results. Scopus does seem to have missed any of the articles. --including one in CRASP--an Elsevier publication! The GS results show notability.DGG (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't seem to access Scopus at the moment. In any case I tried WoS, which I often find misses a bunch of citations. It lists his most cited paper as having 26 cites, which doesn't match any of your results. Looking through the cites for that paper, it is definitely missing some number of legitimate cites (including ones from the books) that I found on Google Scholar. If I had to guess (I'm too lazy to go through and count), it looks like the actual number is about double. Again, not a shoo-in by any means, but far better than your comments would suggest. --C S (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will recheck this evening. DGG (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. As several comments already said, the evidence of his impact isn't especially impressive, so this is a borderline case. But rather than searching for his name, I tried searching for "optimal stopping" in Google scholar, and while he wasn't the first hit by any means, his name was in the first 10 hits. Obviously it would be better to have a more direct statement by a reliable third-party source saying “he is an established expert in this area” but this search result strongly implies the same thing to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment DGG (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep On the strength of his citations, and the results of David Eppstein's "optimal stopping " search, which gets about 10, 800 gscholar hits - so having a paper coming in #9 means something.John Z (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 05:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebeka Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable novice level figure skater. Does not pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:FIGURE's notability guidelines. Kolindigo (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Ray (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Notability through being the subject of most popular Korean television network biography documentary. Needs english language citations, though.Vulture19 (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Is the Nestle Nesquic Cup an important event in figure skating? It seams to be an international competition. Also what is the difference between novice and junior level in figure skating?09er (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Nestle Nesquic Cup was a very minor, non-notable event. There are many small, non-notable international competitions. In figure skating, junior level skaters can compete at high-level international competitions such as the World Junior Figure Skating Championships, which is at the ISU Championship level. They can also compete on the ISU Junior Grand Prix, which is the junior-level version of the Grand Prix of Figure Skating. Beginning this season, the ISU Junior and Senior Grand Prix Finals have been combined. That's pretty high level. Novices, on the other hand, do not have high-level international competitions. Novice level skaters are not notable because they cannot compete on the highest level of sport. Kolindigo (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Does not meet WP:ATHLETE, but does barely meet WP:N standards.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. A single KBS documentary does not create encyclopedic notability. Only 524 Ghits. THF (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Juan Ciuro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE and couldn't find any news sources on him. The page was initially created by his publisher, who was then blocked for spamming. Shortly thereafter, User:JLKDallas appeared and created the identical article in the same odd fashion. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If this is the best job a self-promotional editor can do, it doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE, and I'm not inclined to look for further evidence of notability. THF (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Non-notable plus subject requested deletion? Bye bye article. Wizardman 17:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Naomi Westerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Repeat WP:BLP violations about claimed sexuality and ethnicity and also non notable trivial things about subject. IP editors keep changing reversions back, but their only source she is gay and a gay activist is a website, it could be Westerman's or it could be from any one. No sources for notability. No articles from reliable sources about her. Only source in the article is a out of print book with Naomi Westerman, "collaborator," there's no reviews or any thing to say this is the same person. One article at Google News has Naomi Westerman in it, it is an obituary from America, a different person. The subject is not notable by WP:ENTERTAINER, the article says she has uncredited or minor roles in shorts and other films bu no reliable source for it or for acclaim or any thing about the roles. RetroS1mone talk 17:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I base this pretty much on visiting her official website (as publicized on the article page). Nothing against the young lady, and she seems to be starting out a career quite nicely, but if her own web page can't convince me of her notability (Youtube videos and a filmography of small films, activities as an "understudy" etc.). That, and when the intro paragraph to the article states: "From the Internet Movie Database, in 2002 she acted in a seven-minute clip called Clinic." --Quartermaster (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even if there were reliable sources, there's nothing really notable in the article itself. Just a bunch of vague items such as "National Poetry Competition", "Short Film". --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep' Ms Westerman is a successful stage actress and has played lead stage roles, TV, and been in press articles. A national women's magazine called her "Britain's Ellen Page' in August. Google shows many hits, two fansites, a Maxim news story saying she was considered for a Bond film. She came out to an American gay magazine (feature on the film). Cites for articles, reviews and awards won, and list of lead theatrical credits, scans of book page or a local news article from the time the poetry book was published, we can add. Assume Good Faith in asking for details and cites, not blanking. Site linked is a fansite put up by a relative not touched in a year. IMDB links to wrong Clinic. Editor who asked for article to be deleted seems to be the anon who vandalized it twice recently (adding pejorative uncited statements). We believe it is a certain person who knows her offline as prior edits showed personal knowledge. Wiki is not the place to settle personal problems. Editor's nom is based on the very heavy edits, adding uncited claims and blanking much of page, they did immediately before nominating. So heavily editing an article before putting it up for deletion is poor form surely?
Louis (her manager). 80.44.181.2 (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC) — 80.44.181.2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. Regardless of this, the version I'm currently seeing (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naomi_Westerman&oldid=246173448) still doesn't meet notability. If there's another version we should be using for this debate, please let us know. Thank You --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Maxim news story saying she was considered for a Bond film" claim is not quite what my search finds. My search finds an article on an unofficial fansite, quoting part of an undated interview (not news story) in Maxim, that the writer says was forwarded to him by someone with a pseudonym and that I cannot find in Maxim's archive when checking it directly, where the interviewee essentially gives no information at all, and upon which the fansite author bases obviously wild personal speculation with no fact checking at all. Saying that it's not the most reliable of sources is putting it mildly, and the aforequoted description is seriously in error.
And I cannot find any "Britain's Ellen Page" source anywhere. Uncle G (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if it matters much anyway. Being 'considered' for a Bond film is not great evidence of notability Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note — reported to WP:COIN. MuZemike (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. Louis' accusings are baseless, I am not an actor, I do not know Ms Westerman, I did not vandalize any thing, I saw this article bc an editor on the article also edited an article on my watch-list with blp violations so I checked out the other contributions. Try Google News archives, there is nothing about any Ms Westerman. No offense from me either but this person is not notable yet. RetroS1mone talk 02:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but regardless, the user in question's involvement in the article and in this AfD is a conflict of interest and needs to be taken seriously, especially when there is a potential BLP issue present. MuZemike (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. Louis' accusings are baseless, I am not an actor, I do not know Ms Westerman, I did not vandalize any thing, I saw this article bc an editor on the article also edited an article on my watch-list with blp violations so I checked out the other contributions. Try Google News archives, there is nothing about any Ms Westerman. No offense from me either but this person is not notable yet. RetroS1mone talk 02:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am her biggest fan since I saw her in C'est la Vie (french film) and I came to london to see her in theater. Starhunterfan (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please delete my page, as I'm not comfortable with some things on it being public, and I don't want to fight with someone who might be my stalker! (if you're not him I'm very sorry). Thank you! Naomi Westerman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naomi westerman (talk • contribs) 11:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Ruppert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Subject is non-notable. Article cites no legitimate sources. A Google News search indicates there is some occasional coverage of Ruppert in passing, but only as one of regrettably many conspiracy theorists, or as a disgruntled Ross Perot supporter. Nevard (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--there are a lot of words in the article, but not that many hits on Google News, which I think should establish notability: this shows nothing but a few blogs, including the guy's own conspiracy blog. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edward Vinatea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Few sources could be found of the individual, and none of the references cited in the article even mention Vinatea's name. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep The subject is a mastering guy who has mastered award nominated artists. I don't understand how how he fails the WP:MUSIC. Just on Geri_King[7] and Cindy_Blackman[8] he meets that criteria. We have other Wikipedia bio articles with mastering engineers so this is not the first. Jrod2 (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Yes, this guy fails WP:MUSIC because he's not a musician, but he passes WP:CREATIVE. §FreeRangeFrog 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: A question to user FreeRangeFrog, if a person involved in the production process like for a example a producer or a mastering engineer, who is responsible for the post-production of a commercial product that appeared on music charts, doesn't tjhis qualify for WP:MUSIC? I say this because his artist CD Geri King had a hit called "Deja Vu" which stayed 30 weeks in the Australian top 40. If so, doesn't this fulfill the WP:MUSIC criteria? I just want to make sure for future submissions. Thanks in advance for the reply. Jrod2 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, charting on a "sovereign country" (as per the WP:MUSIC definition) is grounds for inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog 23:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: A question to user FreeRangeFrog, if a person involved in the production process like for a example a producer or a mastering engineer, who is responsible for the post-production of a commercial product that appeared on music charts, doesn't tjhis qualify for WP:MUSIC? I say this because his artist CD Geri King had a hit called "Deja Vu" which stayed 30 weeks in the Australian top 40. If so, doesn't this fulfill the WP:MUSIC criteria? I just want to make sure for future submissions. Thanks in advance for the reply. Jrod2 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - many people help in the creation of music, but that doesn't make them notable. Where are the reliable sources writing about him? I searched, and they don't exist. -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - As an additional note, the claim to notability appeards to be that he ws the mastering engineer on some hit albums. If his work is notable, then one would expect to see his work as an engineer nominated for a Grammy. If he won one, or was nominated for one, I was unable to uncover it. -- Whpq (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong assumption, mastering engineers don't get a Grammy or anything when one of their artists is nominated. However if one wins it, the mastering engineers only gets a Citation by the Recording Academy, but not the actual Grammy. A mastering engineer can win a Grammy award only if he is nominated specifically as an engineer. There is no question that this engineer is notable for working with big names in the industry, at least Discogs confirms several works. Unless of course, Discogs data base is consider worthless at WP which would be news to me.Jrod2 (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Discogs is actually worthless as a source for establishing notability. Working with notable artists doesn't make this person notable. If he is notable, then there should be recognition of it in the form of some articles or industry awards. As for the Grammy awards, there are specific awards for engineering so I am unclear on what your statement with respect to the Grammies means. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Any Grammy nomination to an artist reflects the work of the mixing engineer, producer and mastering engineer. There are specific Grammy nominations for engineering that also receive no notoriety. And, yes it's considered admissible to prove notability (See Ashley Altman (#6) for best Pop singer 2006 [9] and Geri King song "To Whom is concerned" on the same Ashley Altman album CD mastered by Vinatea (#569)[10]. If Discogs is a worthless data base, then close to a quarter of all Wikipedia musicians will get deleted, so start doing just that. Jrod2 (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Notability is not inherited. Yes, they have participated in the creation of the work. And they are given credit. But if there was tru notability, why isn't there a nomination for a grammy for the engineering work? Why is there no write-up in some industry magazine? I fail to see what the PDF proves. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Any Grammy nomination to an artist reflects the work of the mixing engineer, producer and mastering engineer. There are specific Grammy nominations for engineering that also receive no notoriety. And, yes it's considered admissible to prove notability (See Ashley Altman (#6) for best Pop singer 2006 [9] and Geri King song "To Whom is concerned" on the same Ashley Altman album CD mastered by Vinatea (#569)[10]. If Discogs is a worthless data base, then close to a quarter of all Wikipedia musicians will get deleted, so start doing just that. Jrod2 (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Discogs is actually worthless as a source for establishing notability. Working with notable artists doesn't make this person notable. If he is notable, then there should be recognition of it in the form of some articles or industry awards. As for the Grammy awards, there are specific awards for engineering so I am unclear on what your statement with respect to the Grammies means. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong assumption, mastering engineers don't get a Grammy or anything when one of their artists is nominated. However if one wins it, the mastering engineers only gets a Citation by the Recording Academy, but not the actual Grammy. A mastering engineer can win a Grammy award only if he is nominated specifically as an engineer. There is no question that this engineer is notable for working with big names in the industry, at least Discogs confirms several works. Unless of course, Discogs data base is consider worthless at WP which would be news to me.Jrod2 (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The PDF proves that his work has contributed to a 2006 Grammy nomination and again, that credit is not listed on the NARAS' year nominations book, only the artist is. If you can't rely on Discogs, would you like to see a scan of that major label distributed album? Jrod2 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - A scan is not required. At issue is not the fact that he is the mastering engineer. At issue is whether being the mastering engineer is notable. Evidence of this notability would be significant articles written about him, or significant awards conferred on him. I see neither of these. -- Whpq (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You asked "if there was tru notability, why isn't there a nomination for a grammy for the engineering work?" Again, that is an specific category, but not the only way of acquiring a Grammy nomination credit. Unfortunately, there isn't any interest by the media in listing nominations; only winners get an article on all regular media channels. But, that NARAS book I've just included is the only official publication and the only one that can be used for verification anyway. Hope that answers. Jrod2 (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So let me recap. (1) Nobody has written anything about Edward Vinatea. Not even industry publications. (2) He has not been nominated for a Grammy award for any of his engineering work. Is that correct? -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply There are thousands of engineers that have received write ups on many publications, but they have never had, as a result of their work, an artist nominated for a Grammy. We need to look into the engineer's body of work first and not whether magazines are writing about the subject or not. The proof is on those NARAS book pages include above and you can easily connect the dots. Finally, an engineer doesn't need to be specifically nominated for a Grammy to be part of the Grammy nomination process. If the artist he produced or mastered wins a Grammy, he gets a citation not the trophy. That said, what needs to be examined is whether nominations are sufficient merit to include engineers in biography articles, period (just like the criteria for inclusion of a musician is to have a charting record). Jrod2 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I think this discussion has progressed as far as it can go without retreading the same path again. I remain unconvinced. -- Whpq (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply This discussion does not anyone's convictions, but facts. I am sorry, I should have done this from the beginning to avoid clogging the thread, I apologize. Here are some credits I found on AllMusic.com which is another source we use to verify references [11]. Hopefully the rest will agree that this is sufficient info about this subject to establish notability. Jrod2 (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I think this discussion has progressed as far as it can go without retreading the same path again. I remain unconvinced. -- Whpq (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply There are thousands of engineers that have received write ups on many publications, but they have never had, as a result of their work, an artist nominated for a Grammy. We need to look into the engineer's body of work first and not whether magazines are writing about the subject or not. The proof is on those NARAS book pages include above and you can easily connect the dots. Finally, an engineer doesn't need to be specifically nominated for a Grammy to be part of the Grammy nomination process. If the artist he produced or mastered wins a Grammy, he gets a citation not the trophy. That said, what needs to be examined is whether nominations are sufficient merit to include engineers in biography articles, period (just like the criteria for inclusion of a musician is to have a charting record). Jrod2 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So let me recap. (1) Nobody has written anything about Edward Vinatea. Not even industry publications. (2) He has not been nominated for a Grammy award for any of his engineering work. Is that correct? -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You asked "if there was tru notability, why isn't there a nomination for a grammy for the engineering work?" Again, that is an specific category, but not the only way of acquiring a Grammy nomination credit. Unfortunately, there isn't any interest by the media in listing nominations; only winners get an article on all regular media channels. But, that NARAS book I've just included is the only official publication and the only one that can be used for verification anyway. Hope that answers. Jrod2 (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - borderline-ly not quite notable enough. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments AllMusic.com is a source we use to verify music per WP:MUSIC. This is an engineer who has clearly worked on records that resulted on a 2 music Grammy award nominations. Engineers can only be evaluated according to who they work with unlike their musicians. FWIW, If we stop using Allmusic.com and/or award nominations then how are we going to assess the importance of engineers? Write ups? Oh please, anybody can get one. It's also known that some engineers shy away from interviews and public relations. In my opinion, *articles* or the lack of them should not be the deciding factor to verify notability. Jrod2 (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a client of this masttering engineer so maybe it's not apprpriate of me to vote, but If I can comment, I can say that without a doubt this is a notable engineer who as far as I know works with independent musicians as well as famous artists. It's true, engineers also get a nomination reference from the recording academy when their artists get nominated. Why his nominations not be enough to establish his notability? As freerangefrog said he meets what's required to include his biography. So if I can vote, I vote. KEEP. Stefan Tischler (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC) — Stefan Tischler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Greg Howlett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable musician and businessman, can't find any reliable 3rd-party references supporting notability of subject MuffledThud (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Not sure how Greg Howlett notability is open for debate. First, there is a reliable 3rd-party reference used in the article. It is a university publication.
Secondly, Greg Howlett is a fairly well-known Christian concert pianist who performs numerous concert dates a year. He is a well-published writer (search on his name) and is the founder and CEO of a multi-million dollar company. Fredkelly1 (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have been more specific in the nomination. I can find no evidence in the article or in a Google search that he is notable per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. A CEO of a notable company might himself be notable, but the company itself isn't notable, so it's unlikely that he's notable as a businessman. The university publication is potentially reliable, but might also have a potential conflict of interest in a report about how successful its alumni are. Can you find any further WP:Reliable sources supporting his notability as a musician or businessman? MuffledThud (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A university publication is only potentially reliable? That seems strange to me considering that academic resources are considered reliable. However, there are also multiple reputable news sources online that print his bio such as http://www.webpronews.com/user/greg-howlett.
Fredkelly1 (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The article cites three sources - one is self published (throw that out), one is a university publication, but it's a marketing brochure, and the other is to archived articles on an eCommerce site. A google search yields nothing of note musically, but contributions to several on-line business sites. Now, the content of the articles wouldn't establish notability (for the subject), but that the subject is on several different sites may be the notability key. IMO, the sites are minor, and the articles themselves don't seem to be cited by anyone else. The number of different sites is the rationale for my weak in the delete, however.Vulture19 (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sources included with the article do not show evidence that the subject currently has the life achievement for an encyclopedia entry. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was that there is a clear consensus to delete because the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for an article in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Imbalzano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Author made a page about himself Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - zero notability, nor any assertion thereof J L G 4 1 0 4 01:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To avoid "conflict of interest" I have deleted all links! But this avoid also the completeness of INFORMATION! SEE: "OMISSIS to avoid 'conflict of interest' but you see also all external links in WIKIPEDIA!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imbalzanog (talk • contribs) 12:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's a mess and there's nothing establishing notability. Adam Zel (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the biography is complex, but it reflect an entire life —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imbalzanog (talk • contribs) 15:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also EXTERNAL LINKS, that you admitted in other part of Wikipedia! Imbalzanog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the article, and NOTABLE point are 1) the ANECDOTE 2) RICH productivity 3) remarkable COINCIDENCE of scientific discovery on FERMAT (Wiles/Imbalzano) 4) eccentricity..? Imbalzanog (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm too stupid to be able to find even a small clue as to what the article is about. But its author is its subject, and that's a no-no, yes? Proxy User (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOT DELETE! Not at all! Documented exceptions exist: see Entire rules, please! William B. (ITALY)
- Delete - even if the subject were not the author, the subject is non-notable, writings are self-published or conference papers. The almost unreadable translation doesn't help. Robsavoie (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Attention, in the interest of all the users. 1) I stayed contacted from a certain < anime_addict_aa@yahoo.com>: he has recopied the page ""http:// en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Imbalzano" on "http]:// www.wikinfo.org/ index.php/ Imbalzano"; he believe to do me a favor, without any request from me. 2) Applications from isolated users exist for cancellation of the page on "wikipedia" in base to the conceitedness of a personal interest, to which I have already answered, without strong objections from administrative part. 3) I remember: other interventions (past and future) they have made said page of the all neutral! 4) Now, finished the 5 days of discussion, I would ask kindly, also in the interest of the democracy on Wikipedia, to conclude with the acceptance of the page "Imbalzano." 5) Certainly, the ownership of English language will be bettered. User and member: "imbalzanog" (= Imbalzano "Garant"), for don't confuse this with "Giovanni" Imbalzano. Imbalzanog (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC) For ROBsavoie. Please read, and with much attention: see you the ISSN and ISBN?! NOT DELETE Imbalzanog (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - almost totally incomprehensible, but from what sense I can glean from it this does not seem to be a notable person. No equivalent article on it.WP, which is not a good sign..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP? Article is not political and not is commercial! Ah, ChrisTheDude is a scientist..? Imbalzanog (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP stands for Wikipedia... Oli OR Pyfan! 00:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've tried the NOTABLE (sic) references. I can't say I agree with that definition. I'm not prepared to search through five or more sets of stuff on one of them, and couldn't find the subject's surname in another before it crashed Firefox. (Up to that point it consisted of a list of university people one or two of whom might have been notable. I didn't check them.) One that did mention the subject was from 1999 and appeared to be in connection with something for translating into Italian either used by or endorsed by the subject. I hope it's better than whatever was used here. On web search, I did find rather a lot of lulu.com. This is a self-publishing web-based outfit, which is fine if you are producing something of local interest and limited market. Being published this way indicates a lack of notability in the sense used at Wikipedia. On this search, I didn't find much (if anything at all) that I'd really consider reliable third party indicators of notability. Sorry. Peridon (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude was saying there is no article on this subject on the Italian language Wikipedia, and that this indicates non-notability as far as the Italian speaking Wikipedia community is concerned. It could be that one has not been posted yet - if so, why not? It could be that one has been deleted. A quick index check there indicates it hasn't been posted there. Peridon (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If he isn't sufficiently notable for the Italian WP, I don't see that he's sufficiently notable here. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ChrisTheDude and Dori. Oli OR Pyfan! 23:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 23:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Martin T. Buell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Was prodded by someone else with "A search for references has failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources in order to comply with notability requirements. This has included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Living people – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability." I agree. Article is promotional/vanity with no reliable sources and no claim to any reason that Wikipedia readers would care. DreamGuy (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I prodded this article when is was a cut & past of web sites. Esasus has since added "Buell is a former commissioner for the Professional Karate Association and a former rating chairman for Karate Illustrated Magazine." If this had a citation, I would be satisfied with its notability. jmcw (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure those meet our criteria for notability, but until such time as reliable sources proving it are found I don't know that I'd trust the claim in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ebay has old editions of 'Karate Illustrated' with Buell's name on the cover. I believe he was editor: I just would like a better reference than an Ebay photo<g>. jmcw (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We could just ask the editor to provide the source so we know if it's trustworthy information. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So would any editor of any magazine no matter about size, scope or attention the world paid to them at large be proof of notability? No. There would have to be outside sources documenting notability. So this particular line of thought is a moot point. DreamGuy (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We could just ask the editor to provide the source so we know if it's trustworthy information. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as former commissioner for the Professional Karate Association, and as former rating chairman for Karate Illustrated Magazine, with additional coverage as he has received as the head of a franchised karote school, the subject meets the minimum standard for notability. Esasus (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I am having trouble with the link http://www.warrenkempo.com/index.php?categoryid=11. Do you know of a more reliable one? Thanks. jmcw (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again we have User:Esasus in a deletion discussion showing up to make claims of notability but not bothering to support them with any real sources. If there's additional coverage, show it, and hen we can see if it meets WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY standards. It's up to the article to demonstrate notability. DreamGuy (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- question DreamGuy, do you and Esasus have personal disagreements? jmcw (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DreamGuy has been stalking me since I disagreed with him in a discussion a few weeks back. He has been just been blocked for 55 hours for his dispuptions on another matter [12] so we will have peace for the weekend, but watch out for sockpuppets. Esasus (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notability well established as former commissioner of PKA. Winner of notable competitions. Article is adequately referenced. Proxy User (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Black Kite 11:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Marcus Kaiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Self-advertising commented list of publications, not a proper biography of a scientist. --Langec (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, hadn't looked at the discussion page of the article before nominating it. User:DGG was already taking care of this… --Langec (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You may think so, but no-one has touched this article since 26 January when the talk page comments were made. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no. Nothing has changed since it was written in January, really. It is self puffery written by the subject in the main. Not referenced and suffers form major issues. If even the eponymous creator can't be bothered to reference it then, well, Delete Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete His only claim to notability appears to be the membership of two editorial boards. Those are, however, boards that are rather easy to get on to, so that doesn't really mean much. Apart from that, there's nothing else in the article. GScholar lists one articel (in Trends in Cognitive Sciences - a rather highly regarded journal) that has been cited a large number of times (201 times), but Kaiser is third among 4 authors, the least prestigious position. Not yet there, but no prejudice to recreation if he gets over the bar in the future. --Crusio (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Crusio, your analysis is compelling. Also, his Ph.D. is recent (2005). On the other hand, he has received some non-negligible independent news coverage, although most of it seems to stem from the same news release. As for his contribution to the research, this THE article lists him as: “Lead researcher Dr Marcus Kaiser of Newcastle University”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Yurken (talk • contribs) 15:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I think one has to understand what a lead researcher is. In a huge project this will be quite an important person, perhaps a giant among men. In a small project, someone has to be lead, and we may never have heard of them now nor will again. Now I have no idea if this is a mega-project or a micro-project, but I am going to suggest that a relatively recent doctorate is unlikely to be leading a mega project. This is unlikely to be the Large Hadron Collider scale of things. If it were it is probable that many WP:RS items would be covering the gentleman. The massive COI also leads me to suggest that he is not (yet) notable, even though we can verify him. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is indeed unlikely that a new Ph.D. will be leading a major project, but it does look like this is the case here. See also this Science Daily news article. I cannot explain the authorship order pointed out by Crusio though; perhaps deference to his advisor Hilgetag. A quick look at his CV suggests that he has been publishing since 2004, in places like Neuron and Physical Review E. He is also listed as the senior author in some publications.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment His CV linked to above by Eric Yurken does not indicate (as far as I can see) that this is the "lead researcher" on some mega project. He has a few grants and is co-investigator on some big ones. The CV also contains a link to "ReseacherID", which is very useful. It shows the citation history of his articles in the (at least for life sciences, much more reliable) ISI database, showing that his most cited article has been cited 30 times (disregarding the TICS paper -here cited 131 times). This is a solid and good CV and this person will mors likely become notable in a few years. However, he does not meet any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC for the moment and as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I stick to my delete !vote. --Crusio (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete not yet notable. According to Scopus, 18 published papers--Citations 146, 30, 29, 23, 21. The one highly cited paper is a review article in a major review journal, which always gets abnormally high counts. He wasnt the principal author, so we cannot even say it was a tribute to him being asked to write the review. Hilgetag was the principal author and the senior figure--the others just helped in the writing. Almost all his other cited papers were done with Hilgetag as joint author -- presumably his advisor. DGG (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think this is a prime example of why it is unwise to create an autobiography. One presumes the gentleman will become appropriately notable one day, perhaps even soon, but the effect of early self publishing has been to have that notability picked apart. While this process probably should run its course it also seems to me that it would be a pragmatic kindness to choose a swifter closure. The gentleman is obviously a potentially notable scientist, just not notable yet. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Well, this seems like a borderline case where Fiddle Faddle’s point makes a lot of sense. Indeed, perhaps the article has been created too early (often the case here with autobiographies, it seems). The author/subject does not seem all that interested in improving the article or even participating in this deletion discussion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per DGG and Crusio. THF (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jessica Zellars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Very minor credits (those MNF commercials are packed with people you only glimpse), which can't be backed up: Google news brings up nothing, so does Google images. Mbinebri talk ← 00:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom - Fastily (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wyatt Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. IMDb just shows bit parts/uncredited roles. Nothing else the article says can be substantiated because there are no sources to be found. Mbinebri talk ← 15:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable, with no decent sources. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 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, MBisanz talk 00:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Non notable, no substantial sources. §hawnpoo 05:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - minor, uncredited roles (even as Starfleet cadets) do not show notability; the article simply does not pass WP:ENTERTAINER. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 09:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Certainly not notable per PROF, and the MUSIC references don't assert notability either ("has shared a stage with someone, worked with a producer who has produced notable artists, has guested with a red-link band which has a notable member") etc. Black Kite 11:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- William W. McCorkle Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article appears to be primarily autobiographical (history has a number of WP:NOTMYSPACE problems). I don't believe it meets WP:PROF: a handful of presentations, two published papers, no books, zero results on Google Scholar 1 2. I can't find evidence that subject meets any of the other WP:PROF criteria. The article lists a number of music contributions, which seem irrelevant to this discussion, but may wind up meeting WP:MUSIC. If so, it seems to me that the article should still be deleted and republished under the artist's stage name, not the artist's real name. Chuuumus (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't act on personal impulse
I believe this is a case of a personal vendetta here. The subject disagreed with Chuuumus on another discussion yesterday, and for this reason he is being targeted for deletion here. GreekTiger (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Whatever the reasons for nominating, I don't feel this is a notable article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Deleting or keeping should not be based upon your feelings but on whether or not this meets the criteria for notability.
- Keep This article is notable based upon the subject meeting both WP:PROF criteria and WP:MUSIC criteria. This scholar/artist publishes in multiple formats to multiple audiences including major media sources (MTV, Billboard, Los Angeles Times). The scholar/artist also references both academic and artistic work in interviews, publications, and conferences. Neocultural (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)USER talk: Neocultural15:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the above user has attempted to remove the AfD template from the page Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The guy has released 4 records, has been reviewed by major media, and has even played with Sting and Annie Lennox. His musical career is more notable than 99% of musicians, AND he is an assistant professor. You can claim that he is more notable in the music bussiness that in the academia, but I don't think you can reasonably argue that he is not notable enough to be in wikipedia. GreekTiger (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am the one who put this page up and after watching this and other related pages I am very uncomfortable with the amount of attention paid to the deletion of articles/pages. I put this article to connect and define the body of work that the subject did in both academia and music. There is nothing sinister about it. Nevertheless, it seems as if "editors" chase/stalk/swarm around articles ad nauseam to change/alter/delete to enlarge their "contribs" numbers; so, that they can control the filtering of information (on the net no less) and gain power over those without their specialized knowledge of Wikipedia. I have gone and looked at the "editors" involved with this article and their histories and found that the majority of these editors engage in what might be termed "hostile" by anyone outside of their activities. I am not trying so much to attack anyone, just to point out that judging by their Wiki histories articles for deletion seems to be more about a grab for power than the "kindness and empathetic" doctrine they claim in "making Wikipedia better" etc. I personally am a intellectual who doesn't have time to battle everyone on here who claims to "control" and "decide" who is "notable" and who isn't. And though I don't necessarily need to point out the fact that their are significant ideological issues present in this whole process, I will state that this resembles what another "editor/responder" quoted on another page as "fascism." Pardon my free speech. How do people have the time to spend on this site endlessly tagging articles for deletion? Makes you think huh? I hope that you all will reflect upon my words carefully. Thank you. Nappystar (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and Thank you, Nappystar! Just trying to comply with the Wikipedia guidelines, not feelings or delusions of power as implied. Will gladly change my vote, if you can prove that this individual meets the following criteria:
- Comment I am the one who put this page up and after watching this and other related pages I am very uncomfortable with the amount of attention paid to the deletion of articles/pages. I put this article to connect and define the body of work that the subject did in both academia and music. There is nothing sinister about it. Nevertheless, it seems as if "editors" chase/stalk/swarm around articles ad nauseam to change/alter/delete to enlarge their "contribs" numbers; so, that they can control the filtering of information (on the net no less) and gain power over those without their specialized knowledge of Wikipedia. I have gone and looked at the "editors" involved with this article and their histories and found that the majority of these editors engage in what might be termed "hostile" by anyone outside of their activities. I am not trying so much to attack anyone, just to point out that judging by their Wiki histories articles for deletion seems to be more about a grab for power than the "kindness and empathetic" doctrine they claim in "making Wikipedia better" etc. I personally am a intellectual who doesn't have time to battle everyone on here who claims to "control" and "decide" who is "notable" and who isn't. And though I don't necessarily need to point out the fact that their are significant ideological issues present in this whole process, I will state that this resembles what another "editor/responder" quoted on another page as "fascism." Pardon my free speech. How do people have the time to spend on this site endlessly tagging articles for deletion? Makes you think huh? I hope that you all will reflect upon my words carefully. Thank you. Nappystar (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
- The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
- The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)
- The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
- The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
- The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.
- The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
- The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.
- The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.
Thanks again. --Sc straker (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment SC stalker thank you for your comment. The easiest would by #9 Musician/Artist/Composer. If you will look on the actual page you will see that the subject meets numerous standards for notability in those areas (I am somewhat uncomfortable with standards in the arts???). Anyone working in the field of Disgust, Contagion, and Ritualized Behavior towards dead bodies would almost certainly be familiar with the subject also fulfilling #1. The subject gives invited presentations in North America and Europe, has contributed to edited volumes, and has 1 monograph due out this fall, 1 edited volume due out in 2010, and another monograph in prep. Why is this significant and notable? Because the subject is the "only" scholar currently developing a cognitive theory on ritualized disposal behavior by humans. Thanks. Nappystar (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nappystar (talk • contribs) 22:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with changes. It is one thing to delete the article altogether and another to change its category. The subject is obviously a notable musician, so I think that the whole discussion is misleading. The debate should be whether the entry is primarily about an academic or an artist. Neologistic (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – the same "new" users have also commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitris Xygalatas, an AFD on another similar professor. MuZemike 23:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment MuZemike, what would be the issue with "new" users? Unless you mean those that don't spend their entire days deleting articles? When and How does one become an "old" user? And, why exactly is this relevant to the argument of notability for this article? When people make these types of comments it leads one to believe that there is a type of "group" mentality between editors. After reading nappystar's comments, there are several editors in this debate and one on another subject (Xygalatas) where the majority of contribs (80-90%) are on articles for deletion. Although I am not singling out anyone in particular, there are a few that risk "guilt" by history and by association. I think you know what I am talking about. This article clearly meets at least one if not two or more rules for inclusion as notable. I agree with Neologistic maybe changes are needed??? But I see no reason that this page is even up for debate on deletion. Thanks! Neocultural (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment MuZemike, you have also commented in both cases, and the same person has initiated both AfD's. What does this mean? Do you actually have anything to add to the debate? It is clear that even if the subject had sold more records that Elvis some people here would not accept his notability. If you already have made your decision, just go ahead and do what you have decided and spare us all the time. Neologistic (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment MuZemike made a valid observation. Neocultural, you may like to read WP:CIVIL. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Jenuk1985, I read it. It still has nothing to do with the "notability" of this article. MuZemike's argument is an ad hom argument (attacking the person not the argument).I also stand by what I what I said. There is nothing that is inflammatory about my words. From what I can tell the accounts are not that "new" on here. Mine is most likely 2007 or 2008? Do I go around and edit all day on Wiki? Nope! Neocultural (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a vague approximation of notability involved here in terms of the subject's musical activities; "Leisure McCorkle" does in fact seem to turn up in some searches here and there, but I don't think the band is quite as widely known as the article suggests. The academic side of things, however, is not notable; above, we're told that the subject has some stuff being published soon. That's nice; what we require is references indicating that the subject is considered notable by independent sources - there appear to be none, so there's some WP:CRYSTAL issues here as well. We need to see more refs on the music side of things too. For now, weak delete is my opinion, but changeable based on references being presented. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I googled William W. McCorkle Jr. 27,400 results. I googled Leisure McCorkle 12,700 results. I didn't go through them all or anything (obviously), but it has this subject from a multitude of sources including conferences, involved in writing books and papers, recording and releasing albums, touring nationally and internationally, and having his music played on MTV, and sold on all the major web/retail sites (e.g. itunes, amazon, napster, snocap). I don't know what to tell you. Neocultural (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats odd, I got 75 results searching for "William W. McCorkle Jr." (searching without the quotes is silly because of the amount of unrelated pages it brings up... 141,000 in this case). The #1 result is WP, the #2 result is a copy of WP. Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ok...I did it your way 99 for the academic and 2014 for the musician. ALso citation for edited volume forthcoming with ISBN and release date for publication with collection of experts in the field http://www.equinoxpub.com/books/showbook.asp?bkid=358 and an edited volume on leading research in the field from the most notable scholars on the topic http://www.collinsfoundationpress.com/E%20of%20R/E%20of%20R%20Home.htm already in print.Neocultural (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I take those two links as more evidence to delete the article, this person has made non-notable contributions to these books. Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you search for "leisure mccorkle" in Amazon, iTunes, and Napster. If you still think he is not notable as a musician, then I will just give up and never talk again. Neologistic (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter how he turns up on online sites; I could put something up on any of them tomorrow if I felt like it, it doesn't mean I'm notable. We need to see references like newspaper, magazine, or other articles talking about this person in publications that have their own editorial oversight. We need coverage of his activities by people who aren't him. thus far, there just isn't any of that available; I'm hoping that the several editors who have surfaced to argue this point will be able to find that. As to the comment below: the burden of proof in any discussion like this is on the people trying to prove notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, Tony Fox, you are actually telling me that "if you felt like it" you could go on Amazon and iTunes Store tomorrow and offer fake records for sale! Either you are a phenomenal hacker, or have a weird sense of humor. In any case, as I promised, I am not going to waste any more of my time on this. Neologistic (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting read on my comments. My point is that people can get self-published stuff up onto all of those sources quite easily; I've been involved in discussions regarding articles about them in the past, and they are generally deleted when there are no sources - you know, those things I'm suggesting that you need to get to prove that the statements in the article are correct and that he's notable? - available. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, Tony Fox, you are actually telling me that "if you felt like it" you could go on Amazon and iTunes Store tomorrow and offer fake records for sale! Either you are a phenomenal hacker, or have a weird sense of humor. In any case, as I promised, I am not going to waste any more of my time on this. Neologistic (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter how he turns up on online sites; I could put something up on any of them tomorrow if I felt like it, it doesn't mean I'm notable. We need to see references like newspaper, magazine, or other articles talking about this person in publications that have their own editorial oversight. We need coverage of his activities by people who aren't him. thus far, there just isn't any of that available; I'm hoping that the several editors who have surfaced to argue this point will be able to find that. As to the comment below: the burden of proof in any discussion like this is on the people trying to prove notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you search for "leisure mccorkle" in Amazon, iTunes, and Napster. If you still think he is not notable as a musician, then I will just give up and never talk again. Neologistic (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I take those two links as more evidence to delete the article, this person has made non-notable contributions to these books. Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Jenuk1985, what are you talking about? The subject is one of the main author/researchers of these edited volumes. That doesn't make any sense??? Are you familiar with academia? You asked for citations and I went and found them for you for this subject. (Are you not supposed to be the editor who tracks this info down?) I don't get it, you say you want to help make the article and wikipedia better but then you respond like it doesn't matter??? You need to read very carefully the authors of those books, who they are, where they carry out their research etc. Between the two groups, these are the most notable scholars in the field. The subject is one of them. Neocultural (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tony I will post several "independent third party" references today. Hopefully that will suffice. Nappystar (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF. Chuuumus is right on target by suggesting that “… the article should … be deleted and republished under the artist's stage name …” To that I would add that the new article should emphasize notability under WP:MUSIC, if it is deemed to be notable under that category, with academic contributions mentioned in a minor way.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/References Tony, as promised. I am just posting a few 3rd party independent sources (all of which have editors/editorial boards). There are literally hundreds of these dating back to 1985 on the subject. Leisure McCorkle and his music are referenced in:
The Irish Times written by Peter Crawley 12/16/2002 "Leisure McCorkle, "Jet Set Baby" (MoRisen Records, 2002) Dublin, ROI
Amplifier Magazine written by David Bash Issue 34 Jan-Feb 2003 p. 54 "Spotlight on Leisure McCorkle."
Billboard Magazine written by Ray Waddell November 16, 2002 "Venue Views." Los Angeles, CA.
The Charleston City Paper written by Larry Queen January 26, 2000 p. 32. Charleston, SC.
Entertainment Today written by Paul Anderson November 22, 2002 "Hot Dates." Los Angeles, CA.
Jersey Beat written by Keith A. Gordon Issue #73 Summer 2003 Weehawken, NJ.
The Big Takeover written by Jack Rabid Issue # 51 New York, NY.
The Charlotte Observer written by Tonya Jameson "World Premier of Leisure McCorkle's new album." Tuesday, Oct. 1, 2002 (posted online and hard copy) Charlotte, NC.
The Santa Monica Mirror written by Tony Peyser "Jet Sets." November 20-26, 2002 Santa Monica, CA.
The Chicago-Sun Times written by Mary Houlihan "Club Hopping." Friday November 29, 2002 Chicago, IL.
Creative Loafing written by Samir Shukla "Music/Leisure McCorkle" November 27, 2002 Charlotte, NC.
The Charlotte Observer written by Kenneth Johnson "Live Wire" November 27, 1998 Charlotte, NC.
Hope that helps! Nappystar (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That certainly gives us a bit more to work with. A lot of them are just show listings, however, and aren't really applicable. Longer articles do help; could you provide web links to some of those, if possible, so we can review them? I just searched through places like Billboard, which usually archives things really well, and couldn't find anything but the standard All Music Guide bio, for example. Working web links would be really useful here. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/reply Tony all of these are more than "show listings." They actually contain features/stories/interviews/tour info etc. I have hard copies of them in my hand right now. I would imagine that anyone can call up the "fact checkers" from anyone of these publications and they should be able to provide the relevant info. Which brings up another interesting argument. It is fairly clear that the subject falls into a "hedge" category. Simply the subject is "notable" because he is engaged in both scholarly and artistic disciplines. I would argue that this is notable in and of itself; however, upon earlier references in regards to the edited volumes, McCorkle routinely is invited to present papers at "invited" and most importantly "peer reviewed" panels and conferences. The edited volumes were references for this; however, the subject recently gave invited/peer review presentation (Ritual Studies Panel) at the American Academy of Religion (AAR) which is a blind review process by an executive committee of experts who judge submitted papers for acceptance. The AAR is the scholarly/community for specialist in Religious Studies. He has also given peer-reviewed papers for the "Cognitive Science of Religion" panel for the North American Association for the Study of Religion (NAASR), and the "World Congress for Ritual" in Heidelberg, GER. ALL of these are also referenced on the web (the AAR and Heidelberg on the article itself.) Although any ONE of these facts may not acceptable for notability, the SUM of his Music AND research is notable. Nappystar (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nappystar (talk • contribs) 17:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The opinions here are that he's not notable for the academic aspect - he doesn't appear to meet the guidelines there as yet. "Tour info" is nice if it's more than "so-and-so is playing here tonight" - which a number of these appear to be. I can't really speak regarding hard copies of articles - it's hard to say "yes, that's the real deal" when we can't see it. The Billboard ref would be great and I'd certainly consider that a good reference, but it's not online. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, I've researched all the references posted above. I should point out that this is really moot because this AfD is about the subject's notability per WP:PROF! Anyway, most of them I can't verify through Google, but based on the titles it would appear as though the majority of these are listings in calendars or upcoming events in the publications: "Club Hopping", "Hot Dates", etc., would not meet WP:MUSIC #1 under the second exception (Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.). I was able to verify an independent review of the subject in the Santa Monica Mirror, and it definitely meets WP:MUSIC #1, but it's only a single reference and WP:MUSIC #1 seems to call for multiple non-trivial published works. Based on the references provided I would still vote Weak delete for the musician's article at this time pending further research. Here's a summary: chuuumus (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Irish Times no results;
- Amplifier Magazine no results;
- Billboard Magazine no results;
- Charleston City Paper no results;
- Entertainment Today no results;
- Jersey Beat no results;
- Big Takeover no results;
- Charlotte Observer 2 results come up, but they are unavailable on source's website (Google cache indicates they are schedule listings which do not meet WP:MUSIC #1);
- Sun Times no results;
- Santa Monica Mirror #1 active page but does not meet WP:MUSIC #1 per the second exception;
- Santa Monica Mirrow meets WP:MUSIC #1;
- Comment I don't know what to tell you Chuuumus? They exist and many of them exist in my hand in hard copy and some were taken from Information listing services like Burrel's a leading industry site for the entertainment business. If you are so bent on getting rid of this article, then just do it already. Otherwise take your little hands off the computer and pick up the phone or email one of the authors or editors from those publications and check it for yourself. This "fact checking" has now become completely ridiculous to me. You have wasted enough of my and everyone else's time. It is clear this process is not legitimate and not valid. Oh yea, Leisure McCorkle's song "Does She Really Know?" from the album "Jet Set Baby" (MoRisen, 2002) was featured on The Real World Sydney for Music Television (MTV) in episode 7 "Whining and Dining" the week of 9/12/2007 and can be heard at http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1569057&vid=175307 New York, NY. You can buy the cd to cross check that claim. Nappystar (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nappystar, I don't think anybody here is "bent on deleting" this article. The priblem is that Wikipedia is not a blog or something like that, it's an encyclopedia. That means that we can only put up information that is backed up by reliable sources. It's not enough that one of us says "I have seen this or that" or "I know this or that is notable", we need independent sources that confirm this. If nobody would ever have written anything about Albert Einstein, we would not have an article on him (fortunately, there are lots of sources on him :-). So that is what this "fact checking" is about. Wikipedia needs to be authorative and we cannot be so if we don't check our facts. Please read WP:V and WP:RS, where all these things are explained much better and in much more detail than I can do.
- As for the reviewed contributions to books and meetings, unless these are exceptional honors, they don't satisfy any of the notability criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Publishing and talking about their work is what academics do. Therefore, only if it can be shown that their works have an impact above and beyond what is usual for their field do they become notable. --Crusio (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do any of you actually read? Nappystar basically laid it all out for you on a plate. S/he gave multiple references that can be checked. No? Just because an editor can't find it on their "search" on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I see is laziness for one thing and a complete disregard for intellectual integrity. I would argue that the onus is not on Nappystar or any of the other "keep" editors anymore. Nappystar provided the references and made the case that the "Sum" of the subject's Artistic and Scholarly work is indeed notable. I agree with Nappystar! Just go ahead and delete it. This was the end GAME of Chumpus and the "deleters" anyway. You "deleters" spend your entire days swarming to any new page deletion worthy. I know because I have looked at your contrib histories. This is basically how you became an editor in the first place. I call on Tony, who is apparently a "supereditor" to make the call today, delete, keep, or change. So, we can all be done with it. Neocultural (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm involved in the discussion; an independent administrator will have to make a decision after the AFD has run for five days. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do any of you actually read? Nappystar basically laid it all out for you on a plate. S/he gave multiple references that can be checked. No? Just because an editor can't find it on their "search" on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What I see is laziness for one thing and a complete disregard for intellectual integrity. I would argue that the onus is not on Nappystar or any of the other "keep" editors anymore. Nappystar provided the references and made the case that the "Sum" of the subject's Artistic and Scholarly work is indeed notable. I agree with Nappystar! Just go ahead and delete it. This was the end GAME of Chumpus and the "deleters" anyway. You "deleters" spend your entire days swarming to any new page deletion worthy. I know because I have looked at your contrib histories. This is basically how you became an editor in the first place. I call on Tony, who is apparently a "supereditor" to make the call today, delete, keep, or change. So, we can all be done with it. Neocultural (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- reply WP:CIVIL "This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors." Food for Thought! Neocultural (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This conversation is getting really screwed now. Neocultural, you are not behaving in a civil way. Don't take things personally. Nappystar, if you have the hard copies of published sources, you should just add the necessary references into the article. Being a scholar myself, I know that the internet is not always the most reliable source of information. Add your sources in reference format. If you do that, noone can say they don't exist just because they can't find them in Google. For those who know how to look, there are libraries and archives as well. A newspaper article is not a difficult thing to find at all. I should say that I know the subject personally, and for this reason I know that it is easy to establish notability for him. Am I willing to do it? No. I don't have the time for that. But for those of you who do, it's a lot easier than just debating here for two days. If you provide proper references in the article, then the burden of disproving them is on the other side. And doing so is as easy as going to a library, calling a newspaper, or getting online access to their archives from a university.
GreekTiger (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking at the sources added, this is how I interpret them:
- http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/InstituteofCognitionCulture/CurrentStudentsAlumni/ - does not establish notability, doesn't really seem to have anything to do with the article!
- http://www.collinsfoundationpress.com/E%20of%20R/E%20of%20R%20Home.htm and http://www.equinoxpub.com/books/showbook.asp?bkid=358 - previously discussed
- http://www.equinoxpub.com/books/showbook.asp?bkid=358 - previously discussed
- http://www.teo.au.dk/en/research/current/cognition Conference presentations don't establish notability
- http://www.phil.muni.cz/relig/easr2008/ as above
- http://www.rituals-2008.com/panels.php as above
- http://www.aarweb.org/ as above
- http://www.theapp.appstate.edu/archives_00-01/00-10-26/entertainment.htm I can't read anything in here that really establishes notability
- http://www.redeyeusa.com/artist/233/news/144/ While it goes some way, I don't think this is enough to establish notability on its own (even combined with the other link from the same site)
- http://www.amazon.com/Jet-Set-Baby-Leisure-McCorkle/dp/B000077SZQ/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1236196790&sr=8-1 definitely not a valid source. Just an item page
- http://www.mtv.com/videos/misc/175307/piece-of-the-putti.jhtml#id=1569057 I cant comment on this as it can't be viewed outside of the US
- http://www.redeyeusa.com/artist/233/news/143 As #9
- http://www.internationalpopoverthrow.com/schedule-Detroit-2009.htm just a list of shows
- http://www.sterling-sound.com/main.php belongs as an external link, not a source Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully Final Comment Conference presentations may establish notability if they are numerous as a cumulative body of work. I listed links that at least might show correlation between hard copy references for notability WP: MUSIC. I am just over it. You people don't have a life. I can't say that I didn't try to meet you all more than half way. Nappystar (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please avoid personal attacks. All opinions are valid here; people are offering their opinions, and an administrator will look over this discussion to determine what happens with the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully Final Comment Conference presentations may establish notability if they are numerous as a cumulative body of work. I listed links that at least might show correlation between hard copy references for notability WP: MUSIC. I am just over it. You people don't have a life. I can't say that I didn't try to meet you all more than half way. Nappystar (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails both WP:PROF and WP:MUSIC, per Crusio & Jenuk1985. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. The case for WP:MUSIC is less clear to me, but the fact that his musical activities are relegated to a final paragraph labeled "other activities" indicates that this is not an article about his music and that music cannot be the justification for keeping the article as written. A different article titled with his stage name and focusing on his music with a paragraph at the end labeled "other activities" describing his academic pursuits might have a different fate. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As an academic clearly and obviously non-notable--no published work except 2 chapters in collected works, , and one does not get recognized to even be an academic through conference papers alone. A book where the contract is still being negotiated is very far from being published--or perhaps even written, except for a sample chapter. I can't comment on music, except that in any context, a paragraph containing mainly a list of other people with whom he has been vaguely associated is generally a sure sign of non-notability. DGG (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment significant changes have been made to this article by nappystar that should satisfy the majority of the editors on this subject for non-deletion. Neocultural (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still an ugly mess of redlinks, resumecruft, and attempts at notability-by-association. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still mainly a list of other associated people , some of whom are notable. DGG (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as no evidence from reliable sources of how the subject meets WP:PROF or WP:MUSIC is provided or apparently available. Nuttah (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Xclamation point 06:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Melissa L. Tatum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Original prod reason was "Does not appear to pass wp:prof", I feel this still applies. Prod tag was removed with no explanation other than "notable". Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a CV, not an article. Doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC. Ten Google News hits, but all en passant, with one arguable exception that is better placed in Muskogee Law Reporter. Four similarly trivial Google Books hits. Rarely cited. THF (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:PROF -- Chzz ► 15:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep - while the style isn't brilliant (yeah, THF, it does look like a CV!), there are some decent sources, and through the depth and amount of her work, there appears to be notability. But I take all the "delete" arguments on-board, too! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and THF. TJRC (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Does not seem to clearly pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Found essentially the same as THF. Citation impact seems to be low. Most widely held book in libraries, The little black book, currently in less than 185 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. Independent news coverage exists, but is not particularly impressive.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The news coverage Eric Yurken cites is not coverage of Tatum. It's coverage of Indian law or the Mvskoke Law Reporter, the reporter she edits. She's quoted in the news pieces, but the pieces are not about her. We need to be careful to distinguish between coverage of an individual and quotation of or mention of an individual in a news report. TJRC (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment. As I mention above, the Mvskoke Law Reporter has some significant coverage by reliable sources. It has no wikipedia article. One solution here would be to create such an article, including the relevant bits (one or two sentences) from the Tatum article, and then redirect the Tatum article to the reporter article. TJRC (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On further review, there's very little in the Tatum article that would survive into an article on the Mvskoke Law Reporter. While I still think the reporter is notable and wikipedia-worthy, my earlier suggestion just muddies the AFD issue. TJRC (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've also checked the legal research literature (WoS) using the loosest criterion, "Author=(tatum m*)". This returns 11 hits, of which 1 is a law-related publication. However, this hit (Summary judgment and partial judgment in Louisiana: The state we're in (1998) by Tatum M and Norris W, LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW 59(1), 131-173) does not appear on the page which her personal website indicates is her complete list of publications. This article is evidently not hers. In addition, I've checked publications using her maiden name (which appears on her personal site) and did find 1 bona fide hit, a book review in the MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW from 1991, 89(6), which has never been cited by any other work in the refereed law literature. It appears that she has no legal scholarship to speak of. These results suggest that her notability assessment essentially depends upon The Little Black Book, which Eric Yurken found was not widely held. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a notable lawyer and academic in a specialized field, indigenous peoples law. Full professor at one law school, professor of law at another. Her works are practical, not scholarly, so she had to be judged by overall impact on the profession in general. DGG (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems notable in her field; publishing "a landmark in Indian Law" seems enough, and in interest of countering systemic bias against such topics.John Z (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We can debate whether it's a landmark, but it's unquestionably the case that her role in publishing it is trivial in the encyclopedic sense. The Muskogee Law Reporter simply reprints opinions from Indian courts. We don't have an article about the individuals behind the United States Reports, though those people--Wallace, Black, Howard, Peters, Wheaton, Cranch, and Dallas--are substantially more known in the legal profession and had a much more substantial role in the preparation of the Reports. THF (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Landmark" is from the news story cited above. We have articles on all of those reporters. See the list at Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. It's not completely clear to me that she did so much less. In any case, trivial ideas and actions are often the most important ones, if no one else has noticed a need for them or bothered to perform them.John Z (talk)
- 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 23:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- John Mordacq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- delete per nomination. This looks like any random person holding a profession. This guy happens to be a professor. Does that make you notable? Stijndon (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- looks like he's cited pretty frequently on Google Scholar.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Based on the Google Scholar citations, it is safe to say that he meets the first inclusion criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). --Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While the citation impact suggested by this search (which replicates SarekOfVulcan's) is a solid one, it seems to fall a bit short of meeting WP:PROF criterion #1. There is only one well cited pub, with 81 citations. Also, I could not find a full web page for him at Northwestern; is he a tenured full professor there?--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google scholar just list scholarly pubs, I believe. All professors have them. We either need to document highly cited important work or awards. I do not see that here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Just short of what is needed to qualify as notable under WP:PROF, as I noted in my comment above. Seems to be in a non-tenured lecturer appointment at Northwestern; may be affiliated with a research center there. Only one news entry in Google News, which makes it hard to justify inclusion under WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep. Subject's position of Distinguished Senior Lecturer at Northwestern might legitimately meet WP:PROF #5. Google Scholar references satisfying WP:PROF #1 is debatable: one (moderately?) referenced paper (81 citations over 20 years), a dozen or so other papers with under 15 references. Web of Knowledge public search comes up blank though. Can't find evidence of other criteria. I would only vote keep if consensus is to keep based on both WP:PROF #1 and #5; otherwise delete. If kept, this should be flagged for an expert in molecular biology to confirm notability and sift through the research: the current lack of detail is very troubling. chuuumus (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't read much into the title without knowing the department. The senior lecturers I know of were more or less adjuncts who had stayed at the same school for more than ten years without pursuing tenure. They were definitely not notable. Jvr725 (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I can't tell from this article whether there is any particular subject within molecular biology in which he would be considered an expert. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Seddσn talk 04:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nadya Suleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Subject of the article is notable for just one thing: having given birth to octuplets after fertility treatment. Hence the page should be a redirect to the notable event. However, a previous AfD debate on this "biography" was closed after just twelve hours by an involved editor. The page is in itself a massive BLP violation, as aspects of this woman's life apart from her unusual approach to motherhood are irrelevant to an encyclopedia. We have got the point of publishing every single name that she has been known under, and linking to an online version of her divorce papers: this is not encyclopedic material, it is gutter journalism. Just because something can be verified does not mean it should be in an encyclopedia: otherwise we might as well just read the National Inquirer. This article should be deleted, nay oversighted, then a protected redirect created to Suleman octuplets, the only thing which even vaguely approaches encyclopedic notability. Physchim62 (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I think to state that she's notable for just the octuplets isn't reflected in the shear number of news articles written about her. Laws are being enacted to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. The doctor that did this is under investigation. Legal battles will most likely arise about custody (hospital is already refusing to release to her). Do to the intense media attention and public interest, if this doesn't justify the one event rule it should qualify under the ignore all rules rule. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On the accusations, the linking to the divorce paper is only a court summons that shows no additional information other then the date it was filed and her name(s). Under the rules for primary sources it is allowed. Due to the MANY names shes been known under and published as in the news outlets, it's necessary to list at least the most common referenced ones in the media. BLP violations are unlikely do to the immense amount of reputable sources for the information. According to WP:LIBEL if the information is from "reliable published sources," then it's valid for inclusion. With the shear number of sources we've included we strive to have EVERY statement backed up with at least one reliable source if not many. Sure some of the sources might be from 'tabloid' papers, but if they are we try to find at least one or more from a reliable news outlet. Problems with sources can easily be fixed (theres been over 17,000 news articles indexed by google news in the past month alone referencing her name) from the shear number of sources out there. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Admin If the decision is to delete or merge, please give the editors plenty of time to readd the information back to the octuplets page. Thanks! — raeky (talk | edits) 18:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I'd also like to point out this AfD came after the editors decided decided to get additional input on the validity of listing multiple names shes gone under and which if any should be kept. They decided to post on the BLP notice page for visibility. There it was suggested due to the short time frame the previous AfD ran before it being closed (even though it met the criteria for speedy keep) they felt it should be renominated for more input and thus it was renominated here. The reasoning behind the renomination may qualify for a speedy keep under criteria 1, "for the sake of process." — raeky (talk | edits) 18:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep, Flawed logic nomination There was an obvious WP:SNOW situation at the first AfD, the nominator withdrew the nomination, and yes, I closed it because the clearly stated conditions at WP:SPEEDYKEEP had been met. The nominator was the only one advocating deletion, and he withdrew, it was over. Re-nominating after so short a time is almost always a bad idea. If there have been bad edits to the article since then, add appropriate tags, or dare I suggest, fix the problems. Maybe some discussion on the talk page, where this issues are being discussed right now, before a speedy re-nomination. Calling for oversight on this is over-the-top ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first AfD debate was closed after only twelve hours, when we're talking about very serious policy points here. I don't hold any grudges that it was closed after the nominator withdrew the nomination but, just three days later, the same editors who were supporting the proposal are now having to discuss the obvious BLP implications, including asking for outside help (a very respectable move of the editors concerned). The editors might not like the answer I propose, but it seems obvious to me that this woman should not have her life dissected on a top-ten website any more than is strictly necessary. Physchim62 (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an excellent rationale for watchlisting the article, posting it at the BLP noticeboard, and so forth, but not for deleting it. AfD is not for cleanup, it is for articles that fail to meet the most basic criteria for an encyclopedic article. This has sources up the ying yang, and, as you pointed out, has some very thoughtful editors doing their best to keep it neutral. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Maybe revisit on octuplets 1st birthday and see where we are at :) --Tom 18:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If anything the octuplets should be redirected to the mother. Multiple births are not all that notable anymore due to the increasing use of fertility treatments, but a mother on welfare who already has a bunch of kids, three of which have been getting disability payments their entire life, plus the lack of a father and the ethics investigation into the doctor who made this whole mess possible add up to notability for the mother more than the kids, about whom there is little to say since they are newborn infants. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The page is an obvious magnet for BLP violations: it should be salted until this woman has done anything more significant than have fourteen kids, which is not something so unusual in itself and in historical terms. Physchim62 (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are hundreds of pages that are magnets for BLP violations, should we lock them all? Active editors can reverse blatant violations quickly. We strive to get reliable sources for every statement to avoid BLP violations and libel. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Boy Psychim, you really hate this article don't you? Calling for oversight, and now permanent create protection for an article that has been edited in good faith by dozens of people and handily survived an AfD just a few days ago? It's not just that she has so many kids, it's the circumstances in which she had them, and the almost universally negative public reaction. That is unusual and notable and may represent the beginning of a change in the way Americans view fertility treatments and multiple births. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I do hate this type of article (I've nothing special against this one in particular, but it came up on my radar so there you go). Why on earth should we have articles which we know are going to cause us problems when the guidelines (and common sense) says there's a better way round the problem? Why should other editors have to look out for BLP violations on two pages when they could simply be doing it on one? Why should Wikipedia be the hostage to a handful of media junkies who feel that it's their right to publish every personal detail they can find about some single mother in California? Eliminating the gutter journalism and media vultures from Wikipedia would go a long way to making flagged revisions unnecessary. This is a project to write an encyclopedia, not a yellow press newspaper. Physchim62 (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Octuplet's page is going to draw just as much BLP violation problem edits as her page would. I still feel that she meets the criteria for her own page. If the main argument is just that this is going to receive a lot of BLP violations then I find that a weak argument. Active editors can quickly revert edits that are not backed up with reliable sources. — raeky (talk | edits) —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Redirect - I disagree with some of the arguments here. The event is the birth of the octuplets, which already has an article. Not the woman. This is going to be another one of those problematic BLPs that every Joe Bob edits immediately after some tidbit of negative information is aired on Geraldo or Nancy Grace. Keeping the bio details in the article about the birth will make it easier to manage the inevitable issues. In fact, as this is bound to be ephemeral anyway, I'd argue that the bio be separated later if applicable, not now. I cringe at any BLP that exists only because of "juicy" negative information and recentism. §FreeRangeFrog 19:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The nomitator in his inital post is advocating a redirect. This alone should qualify it for speedy keep under reason 1, the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. Although I'm not going to push this because I think it should come to a natural keep conclusion. But according to policy it should be speedily kept. — raeky (talk | edits) 19:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm assuming that a redirect would result in most of the current "content" of the article being deleted. As such AfD is an appropriate forum to discuss the matter. Physchim62 (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is supposed to be used for the outright deletion of an article. Merge requests and the debate surrounding that I believe is usually handled on the respective article's talk pages. If it was redirected we'd have to greatly expand the octuplets article to include info about Ms. Suleman, since all the surrounding issues, legal issues, ethical issues, and all that would have to be addressed to be fair to the subject. — raeky (talk | edits) 20:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Redirect" is a common opinion voiced on AfD, and it is perfectly fine to suggest it in a nomination as an alternative or addition to deletion, so long as deletion is on the table. And in this case, it is: The nominator says, "This article should be deleted, nay oversighted." That might be going a bit far IMO, but it's not the sort of "advocating a redirect" that one might find on an article's talk page (due to the fact that a mere redirect would preserve all diffs and revisions and wouldn't, therefore, amount to any true "deletion"). Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is supposed to be used for the outright deletion of an article. Merge requests and the debate surrounding that I believe is usually handled on the respective article's talk pages. If it was redirected we'd have to greatly expand the octuplets article to include info about Ms. Suleman, since all the surrounding issues, legal issues, ethical issues, and all that would have to be addressed to be fair to the subject. — raeky (talk | edits) 20:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm assuming that a redirect would result in most of the current "content" of the article being deleted. As such AfD is an appropriate forum to discuss the matter. Physchim62 (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep and No Redirect - The basis for the nomination is incorrect -- Ms. Suleman has become internationally notable for much more than the "event" of the birth of octuplets. There are many issues surrounding this case for which she is notable -- she has 14 kids conveived through IVF (including 6 previous children), use of public assistance while undergoing expensive IVF treatment, medical ethics of the physician involved, the questions about her preparedness to care for 14 young children, exceptionally lengthy time on workers' comp, refusal of free housing and nursing care, burden on her aging parents, possible foreclosure of the home she lives in, her own contradictory statements, etc. that are covered by numerous qualifying reliable sources. The case has created an incredible amount of public debate and spawned legislative proposals in multiple states. WP is in a unique position to have an article that is properly sourced and updated rather than the trash and rumors published by the tabloids. By refusing an article about this extremely controversial person, WP would lessen its relevance.
- There are thousands of biographical articles which do not begin to meet notability requirements, yet here there is no question of notability and IMO, no question that she is notable for more than one "event." Even this guideline is not set in stone. See John Smeaton (baggage handler), an extensive article on someone definitely known for only one "event." Under the premise being used for deleting this article, the Smeaton article should also be deleted. Biographical articles should be based upon notability and should not not be deleted due to a desire to limit public attention to the subject. Toounstable (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed that article should have been merged, as there was consensus to do. Physchim62 (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Toounstable, FYI other crap exists is a null argument. We know there are other articles out there worse than this. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a weak argument (not a null one), so is asserting quoting it as some prime directive against someone - it's an WP:ESSAY after all, not holy writ. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to the Admin who makes the decision, please consider all of the comments on the previous AFD discussion page in your decision. Toounstable (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Now let me think about it (but I am unconvinced that this lady has two articles in her). Mr Stephen (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two articles? There is one about her and one about the octuplets. We're attempting to keep the vast majority of the info about her on her page and only relevant info about the octuplets on that page. I hardly see it as two pages about Ms. Suleman. — raeky (talk | edits) 20:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We've been here before, but usually with regard to foul deeds (eg one article for a murderer, one article for the murdered, one for the murder, one for the trial ...). Current practice is for a single article (AIUI). Mr Stephen (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how your examples apply in this case. The birth of the octuplets and their medical issues is one event. The controversy, legal and other matters that focus on the mother and her actions I contend is a separate event that isn't entirely relevant to the first one. — raeky (talk | edits) 21:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I heard [removed per WP:BLP]! In any case, this article is not worthy. Silk Knot (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is hardly the place to add additional BLP violations! — raeky (talk | edits) 20:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you maybe give a reason based at least remotely on Wikipedia policy, "not worthy" doesn't really cut it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - This may be the most talked about woman of 2009. A quick google news search shows over 15,900 news articles about her [13]. She is clearly notable, and the WP:IDon'tLikeIt agumenent is not relevant to the issue of notability. Esasus (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "most talked about woman of 2009"?!?!?! More important than, say, Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama? What happens if Elizabeth II of England suddenly pops her clogs? In this part of the world, Penélope Cruz beats this poor Californian single mother on Google hits by a factor of one thousand. I could almost invoke WP:SOAPBOX as an additional reason to delete this page: we should not be soapboxing the fetishes of a minute group of editors, and doubly especially not when the involve real life living people. Physchim62 (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of '09? The political whirlwind of the elections is dieing down quite a bit, thank God. Clinton will get a fair amount of press now with her position, but Michelle won't in '09. And depending how far this goes with the legal battles, laws, and other issues Ms. Suleman likely could be right up there in the top. As of now past month you'd be hard pressed to find another female getting as much media attention from the major media outlets. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "most talked about woman of 2009"?!?!?! More important than, say, Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama? What happens if Elizabeth II of England suddenly pops her clogs? In this part of the world, Penélope Cruz beats this poor Californian single mother on Google hits by a factor of one thousand. I could almost invoke WP:SOAPBOX as an additional reason to delete this page: we should not be soapboxing the fetishes of a minute group of editors, and doubly especially not when the involve real life living people. Physchim62 (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep obviously meets WP:N - a hell of a lot more notable than various game show contestants, professors and two-bit institutions and self-published authors that WP gladly confers the almighty notability upon. This might have been a redirect under WP:BLP1E, were she basically otherwise anonymous and kept herself to herself. But she has hired PR agents, actively sought and given interviews to the press - so whatever embarassment or privacy considerations that generated WP:BLP1E don't apply here: she's neither embarassed nor has she any concern apparently to maintain any privacy. If you want to live in the public eye and meet WP:N and WP:BIO, go for it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned above, "there's other crap out there" is hardly a convincing argument to keep this little bit of gutter tripe. Physchim62 (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither is WP:IDONTLIKEIT which a lot of the merge/delete arguments are likely based on, not giving her more notability because they don't like her or what she did. Personally I can say I don't like what she did, but I don't think my opinion on that justifies ignoring or downplaying the article about her. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't nominate Suleman octuplets for deletion, as it might just be a marginally notable article in the field of obstetrics, although I note that WP:MED hasn't even bothered to tag the article yet. What I object to is the idea that, just because this woman had a fairly fundamental role to play in giving birth the eight live babies, we should dissect her entire life. That's not only ridiculous, it's offensive as well. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, just because we can find some information by a quick Google search doesn't mean that that justifies us creating an article about it, especially when it comes to BLP. Physchim62 (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:NOT it states: Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) It says "in proportion" if you examine the THOUSANDS of news articles about her and the octuplets MUCH of those have nothing to do with the octuplets, and many don't even mention them. Her in of herself is a news article, apart from the octuplets. Thus my contention that this goes well beyond the "one event" criteria. The reason for an article to "dissect her entire life," as you put it, is because she herself has put out this information to the public. Theres a clear attention seeking pattern in her interviews and statements. This can't be compared to for example another multiple birth that we have articles for. Ms. Suleman appears to have used the births as a way to get media attention, money and possibly a career. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't nominate Suleman octuplets for deletion, as it might just be a marginally notable article in the field of obstetrics, although I note that WP:MED hasn't even bothered to tag the article yet. What I object to is the idea that, just because this woman had a fairly fundamental role to play in giving birth the eight live babies, we should dissect her entire life. That's not only ridiculous, it's offensive as well. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, just because we can find some information by a quick Google search doesn't mean that that justifies us creating an article about it, especially when it comes to BLP. Physchim62 (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither is WP:IDONTLIKEIT which a lot of the merge/delete arguments are likely based on, not giving her more notability because they don't like her or what she did. Personally I can say I don't like what she did, but I don't think my opinion on that justifies ignoring or downplaying the article about her. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned above, "there's other crap out there" is hardly a convincing argument to keep this little bit of gutter tripe. Physchim62 (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So much of Physchim's argument to delete is based on repeating the whole BLP thing. That's not a reason for deletion. Report it at WP:BLPN or request it be protected at WP:RPP or initiate a discussion to place it on the [14] probation list if you really think it's that big of a problem, but deletion is not a remedy for BLP problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article will continue to be a problem for as long as it exists, or until the subject discovers a cure for cancer or assassinates a U.S. President or does something in between that would make her much more notable than the simple fact of being the mother of octuplets. A simple (imperfect) solution exists, but it requires deleting the page and forcing the current editors (should they wish to continue with the task) to write only about those points which stand a bat-in-hell's chance of being encyclopedic and on a page which only deals with the (barely) notable topic. Physchim62 (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again just because it might draw vandals and BLP problems is NOT a reason for it to be deleted. Again your advocating it to merge which automatically qualifies this for speedy keep. So far your arguments is that it is a BLP magnet (which is easily mitigated by active editors), shes not notable beyond the octuplets (even though she herself attracts more media attention then the kids, due weight), and that you don't like it (definitely not a valid reason for AfD). I think theres enough evidence to point out that she is more notable for herself then the octuplets, if anything the octuplets page should redirect to her page if you go by due weight rules. — raeky (talk | edits) 02:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any article of this type is a BLP magnet, that's why the Community instituted WP:BLP1E. I don't think there are active editors on this article who do not want to place non-encyclopedic content on the page. There is a simple solution: delete the page and force those editors to work within a different framework. If you want to write you comments about the subject outside of the framework of an encyclopedia, there are several free web-hosting services available to you. But beware, you might not find them as polite as Wikipedia is. Physchim62 (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly do you think the content on this page is non-encyclopedic as a whole? I'm sure there is work that is necessary and we're actively working on it, but to say the entire article as a whole is encyclopedic I don't see that. It's valid to include negative information and criticisms in a BLP if there is valid creditable sources for them, and there is. Unfortunately there just isn't very much (or any?) positive information about this case. Because of that you can't say it's unencyclopedic. What rule under WP:NOT do you propose the majority of the edits on this page violate? — raeky (talk | edits) 02:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Random section break 1
- Delete and Redirect The person in question is notable for only one event and we should not extensively document this person who outside this event would fail WP:BLP. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 00:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain how shes just notable for one event? She had 8 kids, event one. Laws are being discussed in several states to prevent this from happening, event two. On the cusp of a custody battle, event three. Sperm donor wanting paternity test and a part in their lives, event four. The financial situation of her and her family, event five. The death threats, event six. Theres probably more... — raeky (talk | edits) 00:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those could be discussed in a single article without having a separate biography. They are obviously all related. The very fact that you try to call them "separate events" speaks much for your NPOV. You seem to want to have a biography article just so that you can analyse this woman's life: I think that's disgusting. Period. Physchim62 (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If they all was addressed in the octuplets page then the page would be, by far, primarily about her and not the octuplets, due weight rules would prevent that. — raeky (talk | edits) 02:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are those straws the kind with bendy necks? How are death threats a separate "event"? How is the financial situation a separate "event"? things you list are all aspects of one event. They are all a result of, or a concern because of, the birth of the octuplets. And they are not so specific to Ms. Suleman herself that they would be inappropriate in the article on the octuplets. The laws being enacted are directly related to the inappropriate IVF procedure; the sperm donor and custody battle (? where is this information?) are relevant for the octuplet's article, as is the financial situation. The death threats would not pull undue weight as everything else is directly relevant to the children. Adam Zel (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those could be discussed in a single article without having a separate biography. They are obviously all related. The very fact that you try to call them "separate events" speaks much for your NPOV. You seem to want to have a biography article just so that you can analyse this woman's life: I think that's disgusting. Period. Physchim62 (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain how shes just notable for one event? She had 8 kids, event one. Laws are being discussed in several states to prevent this from happening, event two. On the cusp of a custody battle, event three. Sperm donor wanting paternity test and a part in their lives, event four. The financial situation of her and her family, event five. The death threats, event six. Theres probably more... — raeky (talk | edits) 00:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It simply goes to illustrate the news coverage goes way beyond the birth of eight babies and most of that focus is on the mother and her actions and NOT the ouctuplets. Sperm donor is here Suleman_octuplets#Biological_father. — raeky (talk | edits) 19:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While a single event brought her to national prominence, she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for matters beyond that event—matters that (in response to comments such as Physchim62's) are off-topic in an article on the Suleman octuplets. Bongomatic 02:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, reliable sources? Out of 31 references in the current version of the article, all but one of them are to media reports, exactly the type of source that WP:BLP tells us to be wary of in this type of case. The one remaining reference is a primary source repeated in a blog to an utterly irrelevant factoid. Physchim62 (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Let me be blunt. The woman's become an attention whore. And because of it, she's become notable on her own, separate from her kids. She meets notability requirements by a long shot. As long as the article stays neutral in tone, there's no BLP1E issue. And NOTNEWS doesn't apply. If it had JUST been the birth we were talking about, then it would. But the constant attention seeking she's done since then has made her notable. Is the notability stupid? Yes. But so is Paris Hilton's, and nobody's arguing whether or not she's notable.Umbralcorax (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep she's all over the news for an extended period of time not not news territory, she is notable and that doesn't go away, she alone is talked about now separate from the 8packTroyster87 (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "well known at the moment" is not the same as "independently notable". Physchim62 (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She is notable, permanently, because the matter has already become a major focus of discussion on a public issue. She is in a sense more appropriate for an article than the children. They are notable as octuplets, which is rare enough to be notable. She is notable because of the circumstances of their fertilization, which her her doing and not theirs'. She has the responsibility; they are the victims. It's her deed which will prove historic, in defining public attitudes. DGG (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to add t hat the arguments for deleting an article as a magnet for problematic edits is totally wrong--we have sufficient means of keeping an article objective--this is an argument that if followed, would delete the articles on most famous performers and politicians. They're problems, but we know how to deal with them. The BLP problems we do not know how to deal with as well are the more obscure articles. DGG (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't have sufficient means to keep the article objective if it is intended as a complete biography of a woman who is only known in relation to eight of her fourteen kids: any attempt to keep it clean would lead to constant edit-warring with those editors who think yellow-press is clean, and would end up at arbitration. Delete and redirect is the best solution for the encyclopedia as a whole. Physchim62 (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to octuplets article. Sure, she is notable, but to me it still looks like all that notability comes from one event - yes, there are more details to the situation, but I'd still consider all that part of the same event. This info for the most part should be in wikipedia, just under the event, not the person. If it wasn't for the event of this woman having octuplets, would she even be mentioned here? No. --Minderbinder (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the octuplets article. Her notability derives from her octuplets, and the octuplets article should have a family section, so she fits in right there. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per last time! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes WP:GNG. She thrust herself into te media spotlight; there are articles about multiple aspects of her life cited in the wiki page, so WP:BLP1E does not apply. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree with DGG above that her octuplets are less notable than her (WP:BLP1E applies there) so if anything should be done Suleman octuplets should become a section of, and rediret to Nadya Suleman, not the other way around. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to octuplets' article. Some of the keep arguments are just boldly inaccurate. Claiming that many delete votes are "likely" IDONTLIKEIT votes is not correct. It appears that it would be more fair to say many of the keep votes are ILIKEIT, or maybe IDONTLIKEHER votes. Regardless of how many news organizations have repeated the same stories, it's still one event. The claim that each aspect of this one event (ie. birth, sperm donor participation, financial issues, death threats, etc) are separate events is grasping at straws. Some of the votes in this AFD make the objectives of some editors very clear. However, what you think of her is irrelevant; the matter of her article being kept or deleted should be based in policy. BLP is a policy. Notability is a guideline. BLP1E reads: Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person. That seems to directly contradict several of the keep votes, including DGG's contention above regarding delete votes that mention maintenance issues. Ms. Suleman is not notable independent of this event. Her biography is dominated by the aftereffects and circumstances surrounding the birth of the octuplets. Therefore, the information should be merged into the relevant article. Adam Zel (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The logic here is circular. As Adam Zel points out, BLP1E states:
- Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.
- Adam Zel may disagree, but the thrust of the keep comments is that "independent notability" has been established. So the rest of the analysis is moot. Bongomatic 14:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For what, independent of the octuplets, is she notable? Adam Zel (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My view (and that of many other commentators here) is that although she only gained the limelight because of the octuplets, subsequent coverage of her relates to (a) previous IVF births; (b) legal remedies being sought against this type of behavior in various legislatures, family issues that relate both to and not to the octuplets (such as her 911 call before the octuplets were born where she reported that she had lost a child); and (c) lots of trivial matters that are not directly related to the octuplets (foreclosures, family problems, relationship issues, disability payments). WP:N doesn't say that coverage establishing notability of a topic has to be interesting and deep, but only that it has to be significant, and published in reliable sources independent of the subject. That burden has been met. Review the citations—many mention the octuplets only in passing as a way of identifying the subject, rather than providing a focus for the article. Bongomatic 16:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I'll have to disagree. I don't believe these are independent of the octuplet birth, rather because of it. Adam Zel (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep . . . that's the crux of this whole discussion if you filter out the yelling. Reasonable people seem to disagree in good faith on this point. Bongomatic 16:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost the crux, yes, I'll agree with you there. Another important point (for me) is that the decision to split the articles causes BLP problems in itself, which could be avoided by keeping all the aspects in a single article on a single subject. If there is a "biography", it is in the nature of Wikipedia that editor will try to add verifiable factoids to it, because they are writing about the subject of the biography article. However, a subject is not encyclopedicly notable just because they have a Wikipedia article about them. Nor are they notable just because other people talk about them. Wikipedia is not here to record everything that is verifiable, otherwise I would upload the minutes of the local town council meeting into the page of my home town, or the bus timetable, or whatever. The bus timetable is a major topic of conversation around here, but I doubt it interests anyone else. On the other hand, uploading the local bus timetable wouldn't hurt anyone at all: digging into the grimy details of people's personal lives simply because they have been on the news, and then publishing it on a major website so as to ensure that the info gets good Google hits, that can hurt real flesh-and-blood living people.
- I don't know if the subject of this article is hurt by the coverage or not. Neither do I know if any editors, so vociferously calling for the article to be kept, have financial interests in the continuation of the publicity circus. What I do know is that this type of article causes the encyclopedia far more problems than it's worth, and that a simple alternative exists in this particular case – protected redirection to Suleman octuplets with the elimination of any material which could not fit into that article. Physchim62 (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So your position is, regardless of notability, that it shouldn't exist because of the possibility of future BLP violation edits and because you don't think something should be on wikipedia that shows someone in an unfavorable light? The content of the article is based on what verifiable sources report on her, it's not our fault if there is far more negative then good, and it's not our intention to slant it either way. I'm willing to wager theres plenty of other articles on WP that isn't a glowing review of them, thats marginally notable and a "BLP magnet," should all those be deleted as well? The direction of the article as it evolves is guided by the sources that are available not the editors (at least that's this editors intentions). I don't see how it hurts WP if this article remains, provided there is proper consensus she's notable. The 'crux' of your arguments generally fall under crystal ball reasoning, which isn't valid for a AfD deletion. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a purdy scarecrow. :) ₳dam Zel 06:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So your position is, regardless of notability, that it shouldn't exist because of the possibility of future BLP violation edits and because you don't think something should be on wikipedia that shows someone in an unfavorable light? The content of the article is based on what verifiable sources report on her, it's not our fault if there is far more negative then good, and it's not our intention to slant it either way. I'm willing to wager theres plenty of other articles on WP that isn't a glowing review of them, thats marginally notable and a "BLP magnet," should all those be deleted as well? The direction of the article as it evolves is guided by the sources that are available not the editors (at least that's this editors intentions). I don't see how it hurts WP if this article remains, provided there is proper consensus she's notable. The 'crux' of your arguments generally fall under crystal ball reasoning, which isn't valid for a AfD deletion. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep . . . that's the crux of this whole discussion if you filter out the yelling. Reasonable people seem to disagree in good faith on this point. Bongomatic 16:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I'll have to disagree. I don't believe these are independent of the octuplet birth, rather because of it. Adam Zel (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My view (and that of many other commentators here) is that although she only gained the limelight because of the octuplets, subsequent coverage of her relates to (a) previous IVF births; (b) legal remedies being sought against this type of behavior in various legislatures, family issues that relate both to and not to the octuplets (such as her 911 call before the octuplets were born where she reported that she had lost a child); and (c) lots of trivial matters that are not directly related to the octuplets (foreclosures, family problems, relationship issues, disability payments). WP:N doesn't say that coverage establishing notability of a topic has to be interesting and deep, but only that it has to be significant, and published in reliable sources independent of the subject. That burden has been met. Review the citations—many mention the octuplets only in passing as a way of identifying the subject, rather than providing a focus for the article. Bongomatic 16:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For what, independent of the octuplets, is she notable? Adam Zel (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: What I said last time still stands :) Chamal talk 14:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Clearly both notable and verifiable. As per User:Xasodfuih if anything is done, the Suleman octuplets should redirect to this page. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per solid nomination and Tocino; explained below.
Redirect per the very solid nomination.While the event is arguably notable, the fact that a woman named Nadya Suleman happens to be involved in that event is completely trivial. Raeky, arguing for "strong keep," states the following: "I think to state that she's notable for just the octuplets isn't reflected in the shear number of news articles written about her. Laws are being enacted to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. The doctor that did this is under investigation. Legal battles will most likely arise about custody (hospital is already refusing to release to her)." The problem with this reasoning is that the legal and ethical discussions could have been prompted by this type of event, regardless of who was involved in the event. There does not appear to be anything physically or psychologically interesting about Suleman that would render her uniquely predisposed to have octuplets, and it does not appear that she has contributed in important ways to the surrounding debate. Her involvement in the entire spectacle seems to be entirely coincidental. As an analogy, let's suppose that a tiger escapes from the zoo and eats a guy. And let's suppose that, later on, we discover that the tiger's name is Bill and that his meal's name is Bob. And finally, let's suppose that the tragic encounter between Bill and Bob leads to heated debate about animal confinement and zoo safety. Does this mean we should create Bill (tiger) and Bob (tiger's lunch)? Of course not! Who they are/were is immaterial; all that matters is that chance happened to bring them together in a way that commentators seized upon. And yet it might even be more appropriate to talk about poor Bob than about Nadya Suleman, because the latter is alive and therefore falls under the protection of WP:BLP. BLP states, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist." A separate article about Suleman is sensationalist. Gutter journalism is sensationalist. An encyclopedia, in contrast, does not focus on a person just because other sources have focused on the person; it focuses on a person when other sources have demonstrated that a person is worth focusing on at the potential expense of that person's privacy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So your saying that Nadya Suleman is a anonymous variable in the event, birth of octuplets, and that she herself is less interesting then that of the birth? I find the facts contradict this statement heavily. She had 6 kids already, all very young, unable to financially support them as it is, used money that could of went to food and clothes and rent to have plastic surgery and ADDITIONAL IVF to have 8 more kids. Has threatened suicide while pregnant with those 8 babies, chose not to selectively reduce the number of fetuses, putting all 8's life in danger, has refused financial support and free care for them, the only future financial support (next few years at least) plan she has is to get more student loans to pay for them and rely on her parents, seems to have clear mental disorders (backed up by reliable sources, if you think that's a blp violation), has had additional cosmetic procedures after the birth of the octuplets before she did TV interviews... all these additional facts about her put her interest and public interest well WELL beyond just having eight babies at once. All the media focus after the first couple days has been directed at HER not the babies. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Changed to "Strong delete." The more I think about this, the more I agree with Tocino (below: [15], [16]). So a woman had more children than she could afford. Big surprise. Welcome to America. And she accomplished this through a ridiculous application of technology. Again, big surprise. Welcome to America. Moreover, people have seized on this ridiculousness in order to colour their rhetoric linking poverty with personal irresponsibility. Once again, big surprise. Welcome to America. This incident is not encyclopedic, and it is barely even newsworthy. It belongs, if anywhere, in Wikinews. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, there are already two sentences about this episode in Multiple birth, and they are probably enough. Make it three or four if you insist that her lifestyle is remotely important for encyclopedic purposes. In any case, redirect Nadya Suleman to Multiple birth, which is the medical and social issue in which Suleman has incidentally played a part. Any further preoccupation with her transcends the decency of the interpretive sociology that lay commentators appear to think they're doing, and is nothing more than gossip and inanity. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the Gutter journalism, I don't deny that there is that element out there in the world, and some papers/websites are going that route. But there are plenty of reliable news outlets that are not resorting to this kind of tactic, you can't say ALL news about her is Gutter journalism because that is simply false. Our job as editors is to only include information and reference reliable sources, not what the most recent tabloid has said. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Gutter journalism has nothing to do with the reliability of sources; it originated with relatively reliable sources. It's about the value, not the veracity, of what is being reported. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: [edit conflict] Not that she is an "anonymous variable," even if she should be. What I am saying is that she is a relatively unimportant variable. Okay, maybe a peculiar, eccentric, even irresponsible relatively unimportant variable. Let's make Bill not just any tiger, but a rabid tiger. Now we know a little something about him; he's not so "anonymous" anymore. Or, if it's puzzlement that we're after, then let's go the opposite route: Let's make Bill the carnivore judged to be the friendliest at the zoo. The fact that a thing or two can be said about Bill does not mean he deserves his own article. An article about the event could point out that a rabid/friendly tiger named Bill was involved, but an entire article about him would cave in to demands for sensationalist trivia. Similarly, an article about the octuplets' birth can point out that the mother is a woman named Nadya Suleman, who lives a controversial lifestyle. But the fact remains that no one would be talking about her lifestyle had this event not occurred. She (and her lifestyle) is a footnote to the event, not vice versa. At worst, an article-length preoccupation with this footnote would be gossipy and tabloidish. At best, it still flies in the face of the idea that "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." A conservative effort would not go to great lengths to point out that someone's controversial lifestyle surrounds a single event, when a discussion of that event could note the lifestyle in passing. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I get the disticnt impression you don't think she should have an article because you don't think anymore attention should be given to her? This is of course a "I don't like it" argument. We're here to decide the notablity of her, not if we agree or disagree with any of her actions. The issue shouldn't be about does she deserve more attention but does she qualify as a notable person according to guidelines and does her BLP withstand the rules of the guidlines. First we start with WP:N; (1) "Significant coverage": with nearly 20,000 referenced news articles, many of wich from very reputable news outlets and are solely focued on her not the octuplets, I think it plainly passes (1). (2) "Reliable": There are THOUANDS of news articles that pass the reliablity test. (3) "Sources": There are THOUANDS of reliable secondary sources. (4) "Independent of the subject": There are THOUANDS of independent reliable secondary sources. (5) "Presumed": The available sources, and their number, are headline news articles from reputable major news outlets. It would be hard to argue it violates (5) either. So I postulate that she passes the WP:N, it states "Notability requires objective evidence" and "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence." You can argue that this violates WP:BLP which states an article "must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR. For NPOV it is not, at least mine, our intention to express one view over the other. We're trying to add information based on reliable sources. Due to the shear amount o material already published about her we're attempting to do our best wo wade through it to arrive at the most neutral stance. Of course mistakes can and will be made (or already have), but this is where others can come in and help, point out problems. Just because problems might exist now dosn't mean they can't be fixed, and shouldn't be used as a basis for a deletion. We addressed [WP:V] above and for WP:OR: which is "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." We srive to make sure everything is properly sourced with a reliable source, ones that are not a source should be added or deleted. The article can remain NPOV, but if there is problems now, it's not a valid argument for deletion as per: WP:NOTCLEANUP. I just don't see how this article violates policies or how she dosn't meet the critera for notablity. — raeky (talk | edits) 20:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm well aware that she has been mentioned by a bazillion sources. What I am not aware of is any demonstration by any of these sources that she is notable apart from this WP:ONEEVENT. As for the whole NPOV/V/OR thing, BLP is about more than that, as I explained below ([17]; typo correction here). Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on the above discussion: "Welcome to America" (i.e. this IVF being a missapplication of technology) isn't a valid reason to delete. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Random section break 2
- Comment On the one hand, the argument that we don't need two separate articles on this event -- one on the mother, the other on the multiple births -- is appealing. After all, we have only one article on the Dionne quintuplets, which was the equivalent media circus 70-odd years ago. On the other hand, since this is a developing event we really don't know how this story will turn out: it may be that Suleman gains the greater notability for her bizarre obsession with children. What is certain is that at the moment people are looking to Wikipedia for information on both subjects, & that there's no harm keeping both articles for the time being -- after all, Wikipedia is not paper. -- llywrch (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats a crystal ball argument, and shouldn't be used in an AfD. I think theres plenty of evidence now that shes notable in her own right. The Dionne quintuplets can't really be compared, first back then big family's of that size wasn't rare, they're identical so it wasn't an intentional act of her parent(s) to have a multiple birth, and they apparently had the means to support the children. A identical multiple birth of that size undoubtably caused a 'media circus' but the focus of the attention was completely different than this case. We need to assess the CURRENT notability of the two, the birth, and the mother as it currently stands not how it might turn out in the future. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It may be crystal-balling, but even a fortune teller should be pessimistic when it comes to BLPs. An eventualistic attitude is inconsistent with a "conservative" approach that favours a subject's current privacy over the prospect of her future notability. As for current notability, let's not confuse the recent hype with substantive concern. This is not the first time that personal responsibility has been doubted or recommended, and it is not going to be the last. What we have is a biologically notable event with biographically incidental features. To have an article on Suleman is to overstate the biographical, and therefore not to exercise the caution urged by WP:BLP. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Be specific what exactly under WP:BLP does the article violate? — raeky (talk | edits) 20:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: An entire paragraph in the introduction: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." And the bulk of WP:1E, e.g., "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Suleman is not notable outside of this event, and any mention of her outside of it is necessarily superfluous and tangential. And going off on tangents is not exactly a conservative approach to writing. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats why the 3 specific rules must be met under WP:BLP which as I outlined above that I think this article does. Also your logic would seem to mean that we couldn't publish a critique, criticism or any negative information about a BLP. The rules state so long as it is sufficiently sourced with reliable credible secondary sources it's valid for inclusion. Obviously care must be taken to not WP:LIBEL someone, but so long as valid sources are available it is valid to include it so long as you remain WP:NPOV. — raeky (talk | edits) 21:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Of course it can be appropriate to have a criticism-based BLP, and I have in fact defended such an article in a prior AfD. To be precise, the article was Criticism of Vladimir Putin, which is perfectly acceptable because the subject is biographically notable in the first place. This accords with WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:NOTCENSORED, and therefore with the idea that even the most sensitive, conservative assessment of him that can be presented within reason will include critical assessments of his activities. Because it has not been established that Suleman deserves to be cast into the limelight, or that, apart from being an incidental figure in a biological event, she is any more than a pawn in the media's money-making game, it is not clear that she can be treated in a sensitive and conservative manner except insofar as she is noted in passing in an article dealing with the event in which she was involved. Furthermore, "the rules" do not "state so long as it is sufficiently sourced with reliable credible secondary sources it's valid for inclusion." If BLP were about nothing more than WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR, then it would have no need to state anything beyond, "See WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR." Abiding by these three policies is the bare minimum required by BLP. The point isn't that they should be followed (the individual policies can speak for themselves on that point), but that they should be the backbone of a cautious and sensitive approach to biographical figures. And, like I said above, being cautious and sensitive toward Vladimir Putin is not the same as being cautious and sensitive toward Nadya Suleman. The former is already notable enough to have plenty of BLP material, so the question of sensitivity revolves around the ways in which criticism should be presented and counterbalanced. With the latter, the question revolves around whether it is appropruate to give her any biographical attention in the first place. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two notes on the current state of the article Firstly, it has now been semi-protected so BLP problems should stop or at least slow down. Secondly, in response to the repeated suggestions of merging or redirecting, I have added merger tags and begun a discussion here to decide what to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge because the 14 children are the main reason why Suleman even became a household name in the first place. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The arguments for merging this article into the octuplets article confounds cause and effect. Suleman is the cause and the octuplets are the effect. If anything the octuplets should be merged into her page. They came from her body, like it or not. It also reeks of misogyny as in (paraphrasing)"giving birth to octuplets is nothing noteworthy" (why then should we merge this article into the article about the octuplets, if the octuplets birth is not noteworthy?). This argument reduces the complexity of Suleman's actions to the product of her womb, in other words, it reduces her as a person to her offspring. She is (obviously) noteworthy for much more than her children, controversial, yes, but noteworthy nonetheless. This reduction of person to offspring is never done with men, only with women and it is done to handle precisely the kind of anxiety that we witness throughout this case, i.e. that female reproductive powers are difficult to control and have broad social, economic, and environmental implications. The primary editors calling for this article to be removed have repeatedly shown personal bias, using language like "gutter tripe" and arguing that Suleman was (paraphrasing once more) "an insignificant player in the birth and in the ensuing media frenzy" (she is the central player)that she has an "unusual approach to motherhood" (millions of women have IVF and are single mothers, in fact, single motherhood predates fatherhood by millions of years -- it is fatherhood that is unusual)etc. I run an organization dedicated to reducing the population through voluntary means, so I in no way support this kind of behavior (Suleman's), but I find it very interesting that the hate we are all witnessing is levied against a woman who dared to reproduce without being properly submitted to a man. Every child born will increase the struggle we all face for increasingly scarce resources, yet we do not generally become enraged with people with big families, only women who choose to go it alone. This is not about protecting her, it is about defining the proper place of women (the controlled)in general and ensuring that men (the controllers)are not increasingly left out of reproductive matters. It is about erasing her. If we can erase this woman's entry (however controversial) then we can "erase" her, which is exactly what historians have systematically done for centuries. Erase women because "having babies is nothing significant." Only a class of people incapable of having babies would adopt this incredibly incorrect position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LotusOne777 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— LotusOne777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- While its good to explain the foundation of our opinion, this lengthy editorial does not belong here. What does the statement "Only a class of people incapable of having babies would adopt this incredibly incorrect position?" mean? Are you assuming that only males want to see this article deleted or merged? Until told otherwise, I'll believe I am interpreting that statement incorrectly. The alternative is too ridiculous to swallow. --Boston (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Agreed. That looks like a WP:SOAP to me. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes indeed, mothers are very important, the pillars of our society. They should be given medals for being mothers, and we should have lots of Wikipedia articles about them. Maybe we should set up WikiProject Your Mother to coordinate all this, to write articles about your mother. Yes, we would have a group of people hunting down every titilating yellow-press factoid we could get out grubby little hands on about the woman that brought you into this world, and then we'd publish them on a Top-10 website so that whole world could find them easily. Because it's important for the world to know what your mother is really like. I suggest that the project starts with thorough investigations of Raeky's mother and Beeblebrox's mother, possibly moving on to investigate LotusOne777's mother as well. Physchim62 (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice WP:SOAP. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You obviously haven't read WP:SOAP in a while. There's nothing wrong with pointing out the hypocrisies in arguments at an AfD discussion, nor with explaining the reasons behind Wikipedia policy. Physchim62 (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - I don't opine to merge on the basis of not feeling Suleman is notable. Rather, as someone who hadn't previously taken note of her, I would have liked to read about her and the octuplets in a single article of manageable length rather than in two articles. However, since she's at least as notable as the octuplets, maybe the combined article should be called "Nadya Suleman and Suleman octuplets" or something. I'm aware that I'm regarding this with pragmatism rather than interpretation of policy, but since there's plenty of the latter here I've decided to offer the former. --Boston (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We have no article on Lesley Brown, but we do have a short, sensitive and conservative biography of her daughter Louise Brown, the fruit of a far more notable scientific event than the Suleman octuplets, in which Lesley Brown is discussed to the necessary degree (including some quite personal details, with references). This would be the approach I would recommend for Nadya Suleman, but there are too many editors who are unhealthily obsessed with the woman herself to make this possible without deletion of the article and a big BLP rap on the knuckles. Physchim62 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again another comparison that doesn't even remotely fit this situation. "Unhealthily obsessed" nice. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, I should simply let the number, length and nature of your comments speak for themselves. Physchim62 (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is the WP:OTHERCRAPISNTREALLYCRAPBUTTHISIS argument as Louise Brown's "independent notability" is even less than this lady. If anything they should both be deleted. — CharlotteWebb 11:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both articles. WP should not have trivial articles about people's private lives. --Tocino 17:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid argument for an AfD. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS is a valid argument for an AfD. --Tocino 18:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just not an applicable one for this discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes it is. Furthermore, WP:NOT#NEWS gets at a lot of the WP:BLP stuff I've been rambling about: "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic" (emphasis mine). But if you really take both WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP to heart, you might reach the same conclusion that I did, which is that even the event is not notable enough for a stand-alone encyclopedic article. Rather, the event should be mentioned briefly in Multiple birth (and it is), and the person should be mentioned even more briefly within that passage (and she is). Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If all this woman had done was give birth to eight kids, then WP:NOTNEWS would certainly apply. I'd have zero problem with redirecting her name to an article on the octuplets and merging any content there. But this is not a person known for one event, she's known for so much more than that now, thanks to both the media's efforts, and her own, that deleting it is absolutely the wrong way to go. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: All she has done is give birth to eight kids. The rest of the doing has been by the news media, which has taken on the task of reporting the non-events of her life that have no place in an encyclopedia. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unquestionable Keep, no redirect I can't even wrap my head around an argument that she shouldn't have an entry. Ventifax (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Definite keep Do I care about this woman? No. Do I think she deserves attention? No. Do I think she's an idiot? Yep. Does she meet the notability requirements to have an article on WP? Absolutely. (Will I keep talking in questions? Not after this one.) -- Mike (Kicking222) 03:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This person is a minor figure mainly appearing on tabloid television. I can see having an article on the controversy on the octuplets but I don't believe it does Wikipedia any good to have an article on this person itself. --Fasterthanaspeedingbullet (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Fasterthanaspeedingbullet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep. This has moved waaay beyond a basic news controversy story even if both this and the Suleman octuplets article need a lot of work. Plenty of notability and sources, the rest is basic clean-up work starting with the wp:lede. I'll give anyone who cleans this up to GA their own shiny barnstar, just remind once it's at GA and it's all yours! -- Banjeboi 17:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Suleman octuplets. The octuplets have received more than enough coverage to be notable but I don't see the need for a seperate article on the mother. All that's relevant can be included in the main article.--Sloane (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is it possible that some here are trying to use the concept that notability for only one event is in itself insufficient notability (despite the dozens or hundreds of articles by qualifying WP:reliable sources in this case) primarily because they do not want this particular woman to have a wikipedia article? If the people arguing to delete this article also proposed and/or argued to delete the Chesley Sullenberger WP article because he is clearly notable only for one event -- the water landing of US Airways Flight 1549 (which also has its own article) -- I would be more pursuaded of their consistent application of the notability restriction they are arguing to apply in this case. Even the fact that there is such a lengthy debate here by a substantial number of WP editors, some of whom have taken the time to make multiple arguments for and against deletion would seem to support that the subject is notable (or perhaps controversial) enough to draw such a debate. This is the first time I've participated in an AFD debate and am frankly both surprised and dismayed that it has gone on so long, especially considering the clear response to the first AFD nomination that resulted in a keep, which the second nominator did not accept. It seems to me that the effort that has gone into debating deletion would have been better spent improving the article. Toounstable (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I contend that just the shear size, number of editors and lengthy debate for this AfD (which is highly unusual looking back through the archives) seems to speak to the notability of this person. A completely unknown person, or even one that wasn't controversial like Mr. Sullenberger in the above example wouldn't spark such a huge debate. The fact that this many people has this much of an opinion on it, above all else, is an argument for Keep in my book. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A major difference between Sullenberger and Suleman is that Sullenberger is notable for far more than one event. He is a published scholar who has collaborated with NASA; he is an international expert on airline safety; he is a former Air Force captain and accident investigator; he has testified before Congresss; etc., etc. He probably deserved an article even before Flight 1549. A second--and related--difference is that Sullenberger's ability to save the plane like that might have been unique. Not any pilot could have done that. I still am unaware of anything that uniquely predisposed Suleman to have the kids. She could have been anyone. A third difference--and the most important one for BLP purposes--is that Sullenberger is not a controversial figure. It is not difficult to write about him in a sensitive and conservative manner. But the very act of singling out Suleman for an article may amount to giving her both positive attention that she did not earn, and negative attention that she does not deserve. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see where you get "published scholar" except maybe because he has an advanced degree, in which case hes no more notable for that then the millions of other people with advanced degrees. Theres thousands of people who "collaborate" with NASA, not every NASA employee or contraster deserves a wikipedia page. Being an "international expert in flight safety" is also not a notable thing, nor is being a captain in the military. Plus I have faith in the majority of our commercial pilots, MANY are just as distinguished former military men, to state that his ability might be "unique" is very inaccurate. Landing on water isn't exactly an untaught skill. Sure he saved plenty of peoples lives, averted a possible disaster, but being notable beyond landing a plane in a river? That's a stretch. — raeky (talk | edits) 09:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I get "published scholar" from the fact that he is a published scholar, a fact that is already noted in his article: "Working with NASA scientists, he coauthored a paper on error-inducing contexts in aviation." Your average commercial pilot is not the CEO of an aviation firm; a graduate of three academic institutions with two masters degrees; a speaker at an international conference; a visiting scholar at a well-known university; an instructor, safety chairman, accident investigator, and national technical committee member for the Airline Pilots Association; an accident investigator for the U.S. Air Force and National Transportation Safety Board; a major contributor to the development of a Federal Aviation Administration advisory circular; a developer and teacher of a major airline's crew resource management course; and, yes, the coauthor of a NASA paper. Sullenberger is: [18]. And now we get to Flight 1549, where he didn't simply have the ability to save everyone's lives, but actually used that ability in an uncommon way (the last time anything comparable occurred was more than 45 years ago) and an unlikely locale (planes that crash into the middle of a metropolis generally don't have zero fatalities). And finally, we get to Suleman, who, um...had some kids. That has got to be the most unfair comparison between two individuals that I have ever heard. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure he's a hero, but I don't see how any of the events in his past prior to the crash that make him notable enough for an article, or anymore notable beyond the plane crash. Sure he's a good man, well educated and well off, but much of what hes done isn't notable. I don't see how you can argue that hes more deserving of a page then Suleman. I think this is a perfect example of two extremes myself. Sullenberger is a perfect example of a hero, he did something everyone respects him for so everyone holds him in high esteem, so he gets his own page (one which resulted in a very familiar looking snow keep AfD decision.) Suleman on the other hand is the exact opposite, virtually noone thinks shes acting in the best intrest of her children, shes not liked and people get very opinionated about her article, not necessarily on the grounds that she doesn't merit one but because giving her one might validate some of her actions or at the very least make her more visible. The two people's fame stemmed from one media frenzy event, what's different is Sullenberger hasn't been seeking more media attention or generating anymore outlandish stories, where as Suleman is generating even more outlandish stories by the day, like the most recent one where shes selling a video of the birth to the highest bidder [19], not saying this event makes her more notable but this is definitely not normal). As more and more information about her is published the lasting impact of this gets stronger. Currently just a few stats are considering IFV reform laws, which is another reason to keep an article on her to reference. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Random section break 3
- delete. So everyone will see how ridiculous the growing WP:NOTNEWS movement is. AfD hero (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ouch, that was WP:POINTy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh... How about this one then,
- This is nothing more than a singular burst of media attention on an otherwise nonnotable subject. Every once in a while random human interest stories get picked up by a few news and tabeloids, and the story spreads like wildfire for a few weeks. That is, until the media latches onto the next thing and the story is ultimately forgotten. In 1997 some septuplets to survive were born in Iowa. There was a huge media storm over the event, and the story was in the news for several weeks. Now no-one even remembers it.
- The policy WP:NOT#NEWS says that we must consider not only the number of sources, but also the historical significance of a topic. There is no historical significance here to speak of - its just a woman who had a lot of kids - nor is there any objective evidence that the attention on this event is more than a passing fad. To speculate on whether or not this will be important would be crystal balling, which we do not do at wikipedia.
- Furthermore, this story is inherently of a tabaloid nature, as are the majority of the secondary sources we have. This is unacceptable because WP:NOT#NEWS tells us that Routine news coverage of such things as ... tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.
- Finally, one could make an argument that the act of having 8 kids is inherently notable, given it's rarity. But even that isn't good enough. According to policy, Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. The news coverage of Nadya Suyleyman does not go beyond this single event, so she should not have a wikipedia entry dedicated to her. The only place suitable for the information in this article would be, for example, a short entry in the list of multibirths article.
- Taking all of this into account, it is clear that this subject is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If the significance is weak, you must delete. AfD hero (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed one: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." ;) Physchim62 (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: AfD hero: Now that you've explained yourself, I actually agree with you completely. I misinterpreted your original delete !vote as a sarcastic way of saying that it's ridiculous to invoke WP:NOTNEWS here (e.g., delete this article about such a well-known figure as a way to demonstrate that WP:NOTNEWS-based arguments have become ridiculously prevalent). Actually, it still reads that way to me, but your more detailed rationale makes perfect sense. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- wooosh AfD hero (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The McCaughey septuplets hardly compare to this event, they had them as the result of fertility drugs, not a voluntary decision to have a multiple birth, they chose not to abort any on religious grounds and they didn't have any existing kids, and could support them. Ms. Suleman is hardly comparable. For example the McCaugheny's wasn't use as a pretext to pass stricter laws governing IVF [20][21] They didn't try to sell a video of their children's birth for a million dollars [22], they wasn't a single mom with multiple children they couldn't support, had an income, didn't live at home with their parents, didn't have plastic surgery and very expensive IVF to have more children they couldn't afford, didn't seek and want media attention, the list goes on and on. I challenge you to find another story that is covered in this depth. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed one: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." ;) Physchim62 (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Unfortunately, this woman is notable and has sufficient independent coverage. She's probably one of the most talked about non-political women talked about in the last few weeks. More importantly (in my opinion), she's notable as a launching point for a larger political discussion of in-vitro fertilisation regulation. FlyingToaster 09:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "In the last few weeks" is hardly an appropriate timescale for an encyclopedia, even if your suggestion were remotely true. Physchim62 (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note-Nadya Suleman has been viewed "291,628" as opposed to "136,860" for the octuplets, she is more popular than the kids.Troyster87 (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But less than half as "popular" as Adolf Hitler… 10,000 hits a day during February is still less Selena Gomez, Madonna, Beyoncé Knowles, Kristen Stewart, Hannah Montana, Megan Fox, Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Angelina Jolie, Freida Pinto, Lady Gaga or Rihanna. The difference is that all of those women also averaged at least 10,000 hits a day during January, and most of them will probably do the same in March. So much for this subject being "the most talked of woman in 2009"! Even America's Next Top Model gets half as many wikihits again. Physchim62 (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The fact that hundreds of thousands of peeping Toms are peeking into her wiki-window sounds like all the more reason to protect her privacy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which you do by preventing BLP violations and LIBEL, not by deleting. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article as it stands is appallingly sourced—several references simply don't contain the information claimed for them—which is a BLP violation that doesn't seem to have been prevented. But that's by the by. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The current state of the article isn't a valid reason for an AfD, articles can be improved and it is. You're welcome to help. And I agree theres to many sources, it's hard to verify all of them, when we're putting an "unhealthy amount" of time into this AfD (As was so graciously pointed out above.) — raeky (talk | edits) 17:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously I wasn't clear. The only point I was trying to make was that the article is already a BLP violation, despite being fairly short and with all the refs online. That is not a reason to delete. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: But then we get back to the idea that the mere existence of this article is in violation of BLP, especially WP:1E. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But, as has been pointed out above, we're well past the "one event" stage, so BLP1E really isn't applicable here.Umbralcorax (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been pointed out, the main editors on the article have shown themselves quite incapable of grasping the basics of BLP policy. The article should never have been created in the first place, and is certainly unsafe in their hands. Physchim62 (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, just wow................. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been pointed out, the main editors on the article have shown themselves quite incapable of grasping the basics of BLP policy. The article should never have been created in the first place, and is certainly unsafe in their hands. Physchim62 (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The current state of the article isn't a valid reason for an AfD, articles can be improved and it is. You're welcome to help. And I agree theres to many sources, it's hard to verify all of them, when we're putting an "unhealthy amount" of time into this AfD (As was so graciously pointed out above.) — raeky (talk | edits) 17:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - obvious. Well beyond one event, very strong notability as a cultural phenomenon and has had a significant effect on public discourse on many parenting-related matters. BLP and other policy problems are there, but deleting articles based on notability criteria is no way to deal with problems unrelated to notability.Wikidemon (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I'm not asking for it to be deleted on the basis of a notability criterion, although that would also be a good reason. I'm asking for it to be deleted on the basis of BLP policy. Old hands will remember the precedent of an Ohio sex offender who became famous on the internet for a quite distinct reason. Jimbo had to delete that one, after several AfD debates which make this one seem like a church tea party. The current article adds nothing to the encyclopedia, and is already a magnet for all sorts of BLP violations. It should be sent to the (locked) edit window in sky. Physchim62 (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Delete, Delete. This is Wikipedia, not the National Enquirer. An encyclopedia is supposed to reflect information that can stand the test of time, not jump on every scandal-wagon that swings by. Are we going to start making articles about Angelina Jolie sightings, too? let the poor woman and her mass of children sink back into the anonymity that the rest of us take for granted. --Ludwigs2 18:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the article presents considerable biographical material indicating that coverage of this woman in reliable sources goes well beyond the context of this particular event. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer a merge Though it isn't likely that will be the outcome. BLP1E was always our least followed policy anyways. I suspect there are enough sources with which to build a decent biographical article, so that might lean me toward keep. But still...it does seem kind of flavor of the month. Protonk (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or create single article? I say it that way rather than "merge" because I can easily argue that the octuplets themselves are not nearly as notable as the woman herself - all the kids have done is to be born. However, the octuplets article would follow the general approach to articles about multiple births. The information could be moved (not deleted) from the woman's article to the octuplets article, but how long would it be before a spinoff article would be needed anyway? In effect, this is that spinoff article. So, keep. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I do think the two should be merged somehow. I don't think these are distinct phenomena. You cannot treat the subject of the 8 children separately from the mother, or vice-versa. That could change in the future but for now the notability of both is completely a matter of this one issue. Wikidemon (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I paid my first visit to the article just now after viewing a note at the BLP page, and fully expected to find a mess. IMO the article is well written coverage of a notable subject, and not at all "tabloidish" except for perhaps one sentence in the Controversies section that unnecessarily repeats something said earlier in the article. Deserves to be kept. --CliffC (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete- effectively reads like an attack page, rightly or wrongly and regardless of the intent. Sticky Parkin 22:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My Mother was one of thirteen; this doesn't make my Grandmother notable. HalfShadow 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would, if they were all at once. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also large families of that time wasn't abnormal, and they was all naturally conceived and in theory somewhat planned (you can always opt to not have sex if you don't belive in birth control or want more kids). Not comparable to this situation, even remotely. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would, if they were all at once. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Her notability seems to have been confirmed. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are numerous sources about various aspects of her life, not only giving the birth.Biophys (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No one denies this; however, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to meet the notability criteria... — raeky (talk | edits) 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Encyclopedia is, I think, the operative word in that quoted sentence. Perhaps she is notable, if by "notable" you mean that she passes WP:GNG, where G, for "general," is the operative letter. Generally speaking, this guideline can help one to determine whether or not a subject should be granted its own article. But in individual cases, certain other guidelines and official policies (such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP) become salient and help to determine whether a subject that has passed the GNG milestone is ultimately encyclopedic. She has been noted, that's for sure, but to either history's benefit or hers? Doubtful. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question for those that (like me) believe she is notable: What do you see as the disadvantages of merging these articles? --Boston (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well for one, the octuplets are notable in their own right, longest surviving in history (I believe), second set in the united states. All the controversy and wrong doing of their mother and the IVF doctor aside, they're notable for that. It would be best to separate the two, of course some mention about how they came to be and their family is necessary and whatever future developments that directly involve them, sure. But all the legal and other issues of the mother shouldn't clutter up the octuplets page, because it's not relevant to their existence. All that should be with the mother's page. — raeky (talk | edits)
- Strong Keep She is the Paris Hilton of IVF treatment. There is so much news about her that she has become a celebrity. I came across her page by Googling specifically for the wiki page, and then stumbled across this AfD. It makes absolutely no sense to delete her article. She is notable for a stupid event, but she is notable. There are many authors of scientific achievements who have their own page, not merged into article about their about their scientific achievement - even when the scientific achievement is the only thing notable about the scientist. Nadya's 'achievement' is nowhere scientific, but is so incredible and notable that both she and the event have been given huge amounts of attention. Thus they both deserve an article. RezaBosagh (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— RezaBosagh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment: Most scientific achievements don't just happen out of the blue. Scientists are predisposed in biographically unique ways to do the stuff that they do, and scientific discovery is generally a gradual and piecemeal process that cannot be meaningfully described as "one event." There is, perhaps, the occasional exception that proves the rule (see Benzene#Ring_formula and Archimedes#The_Golden_Crown), but I think it is safe to say that most important discoveries do not pop out of the brain quite as spontaneously as kids pop out of the womb. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For all the reasons previously stated by others, it's clear the amount of coverage in major media establishes notability, even if it may be transient. Bluecanary99 (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ben Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non notable COI unreferenced autobiography on an unaccomplished individual Troyster87 (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep some evidence of notability for this individual; minor awards, minor book and film, probably all adds up to a WP entry. JJL (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a Keep, pending additional verification. It needs independent sources to verify all those claims. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Looks notable to me. Plenty of links at the bottom of the article to sources that document the stuff described above; would have been nice if they were linked with footnotes, but that's not an absolute requirement. JulesH (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - To sumarize the above "keeps": Looks notable. But it's not. The guy directed a few television commercials and has a rack of non-notable industry awards, none of which are notable industry awards, but rather "this year, it's you turn" awards. Many of the links are to one-liners in industry "magazines" listings. I'm sure he's a talented guy, but notablility has not been established. Proxy User (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Microscopically weak keep. There is some evidence of notability but the article has COI issues and needs cleanup and inline citations. The creator's username User:Caravan Pictures is a company name. I'm currently discussing a name change. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Some notability, imo just enough §hawnpoo 03:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Procedural keep - nominator is sockpuppet banned for bad faith AfD nominations
- Dj Patrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non notable musician, not referenced, no reliable sources Troyster87 (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did you try to dig up reliable sources? =- Mgm|(talk) 11:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did google news, google, and gogle scholar searches that only resulted in anecdotal unrealiable sources and myspace links.Troyster87 (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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, MBisanz talk 00:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 05:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ming Freeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This person simply doesn't seem notable enough under WP:MUSIC. (I will note that there are concert schedules on his Web site that suggests notable tours; however, there is nothing independent that I think I can see that suggests that it gets "nontrivial coverage" as WP:MUSIC requires.) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I wanted to say keep, but I can't find significant coverage anywhere. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I'm a bit surprised by this one too... if the information in the article is true, you'd think there would be good sources. There aren't any that I can find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (as the original author). This artist has toured with many notable artists, including Yanni for whom he has participated in live world tour album/video recordings such as: Tribute, Yanni Live at Royal Albert Hall, and Yanni Live! The Concert Event and will be participating in Yanni's upcoming 2009 tour as well. Also endorsements with numerous companies including MUSE RESEARCH (Receptor) and Korg [23] but admittedly unsure how this relates to notability guidelines of WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share the sentiments expressed above that, while the description would have me believe this person is notable, I cannot find any independent sources either, and have to agree with deletion. If even one good source is found, that would change the picture; two good sources would be almost a SNOW keep. I will watch this page and if someone finds and adds sources, I will reconsider. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would of course like to see this article stay, but I am admittedly having trouble finding independent sources myself, other than the endorsements, but there is no musician criteria that mentions endorsements. Hmmmm. Seems it should, ordinary musicians don't get endorsements I'm guessing. Anyway, I haven't visited the criteria for quite some time - but I remember there being one that included extensive touring, but I don't see that one any more. I'm sure I created his article on that basis a few years ago. Anyway, I have been in hopes of finding one current criteria where this artist fits, as he only has to meet one, (independent sources is only one of those) but to no avail. Kinda doesn't make sense though because of all the notable artists he has toured or recorded with and the notable live concert films to which he is linked. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional note: This note is at the bottom of the criteria: Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article. Would this apply as meeting the one required criterion? ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would of course like to see this article stay, but I am admittedly having trouble finding independent sources myself, other than the endorsements, but there is no musician criteria that mentions endorsements. Hmmmm. Seems it should, ordinary musicians don't get endorsements I'm guessing. Anyway, I haven't visited the criteria for quite some time - but I remember there being one that included extensive touring, but I don't see that one any more. I'm sure I created his article on that basis a few years ago. Anyway, I have been in hopes of finding one current criteria where this artist fits, as he only has to meet one, (independent sources is only one of those) but to no avail. Kinda doesn't make sense though because of all the notable artists he has toured or recorded with and the notable live concert films to which he is linked. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update While I cannot access any of the new sources directly, I'll second the points made below by Paul Erik and Lilac Soul and assume the content of these sources does deem notability, and thus make it right to keep this article. I second too the desire for links or just better access information, but the asserted experience of this person makes me lenient in demanding same. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached - an unusual one this, giving it more time for sources to be found. If none can be, then delete would be the only option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 12:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added 9 references just now. Freeman gets many "hits" in a search of my database of newspaper articles, mostly for concert tours with Yanni (although I also found one mention for a tour with Paula Abdul and another with Ronnie Laws). Although some of the reviews do nothing more than confirm he was in Yanni's band, other reviewers have gone out of their way to discuss Freeman's skill as a keyboardist and his role in the performances. With non-trivial mentions in multiple newspapers, I'd say he meets criterion #1 of WP:MUSICBIO. Keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and possible keep, it is difficult to determine whether the mentions are non-trivial, as required by WP:GNG and specifically WP:MUSICBIO. However, in a leap of good faith, I'm assuming that what you dug out actually is non-trivial, and if so, I'll vote to keep the article. It would be great, however, if you could link to free online versions of these reviews and articles, if such exist, so the rest of us can easily verify notability. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 17:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not aware of any of these newspapers offering free online versions for these time periods. If it helps, an example of a source I did not include is this article, since it does nothing more than confirm that Freeman was keyboardist for Yanni. All the sources I added represent more significant coverage than this brief mention. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and possible keep, it is difficult to determine whether the mentions are non-trivial, as required by WP:GNG and specifically WP:MUSICBIO. However, in a leap of good faith, I'm assuming that what you dug out actually is non-trivial, and if so, I'll vote to keep the article. It would be great, however, if you could link to free online versions of these reviews and articles, if such exist, so the rest of us can easily verify notability. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 17:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are now sufficient sources to be make it notable. Ancemy (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 06:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Geoffrey Martin (Australian mathematician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No evidence of passing WP:PROF. There are a couple of talk announcements on the web with his name, concerning triple systems and circulant graphs, but I was unable to find any real publications in MathSciNet. There was a previous discussion a couple of years ago that ended up as being no consensus, but that result may be clouded by the confusion that happened at about the same time in which the Australian Geoff Martin (possibly a graduate student at the University of Queensland?) Was confused with a different mathematician named Geoffrey Martin, now at Geoffrey K. Martin. With the confusion now discovered and resolved, it looks like this one should be deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article doesn't say anything that can definitely be linked to any real person or give any references, and there's nothing on Google that can definitely be linked to this article. Charvest (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. His current claims to fame are being a mathemetician and being dux of his school for all but one year. Unless other claims to fame backed by reliable sources can be found, that isn't sufficient for an article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 04:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable mathematician. Salih (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. My conclusion is the same as Charvest’s. After an extensive search using various tools, such as Worldcat, Google and various academic databases, I could not find evidence that the subject exists, let alone enough to establish notability under WP:PROF.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mgm|(talk) 09:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Misha Quint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
POV pushing, autobiographical, not notable musician, fails notability, wp:music, wp:band, nor referenced, no reliable sources, c.o.i. Troyster87 (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note for closing admin. Troyster87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely blocked and is alleged to be a banned user, per his talk page. Because this was discovered after Starblind's comment below, the nomination is not eligible for speedy keep. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete incredibly puffy COI article for a musician who doesn't meet our music guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator's note. Checking if anything in this article is salvageable, as there appears to be copyright infringement from http://www.mishaquint.com/mqbio.htm.—C.Fred (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that this cellist is just as notable as most of the other cellists on the List of Cellists page on Wikipedia. Is there something about the tone that you would like me to change? An example of another cellist is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuill_Bailey or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zara_Nelsova . Please tell me what I could improve before deleting it. What exactly are your "music guidelines"?
- Thanks for your input. PS: I have sent OTRS the permission I have from http://www.mishaquint.com/ to use the material there.
{{OTRS Pending}}
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Llewcellist (talk • contribs) 04:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, based on criterion #9 from WP:MUSIC: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." The International Competition in Prague may qualify. His formation of the InterHarmony festivals may also qualify. I'd like to see a little more development on the article before passing judgment—and it needs a rewrite regardless. If independent sources turn up about the award and/or the festival, that's a good sign to keep. If there's no independent coverage, I'm for revisiting this issue in about a month. —C.Fred (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your consideration. I will continue to rewrite. --Llewcellist (talk) 04:49, 2 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, MBisanz talk 00:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone. I rewrote the article recently so that it is not exactly as the text I am gaining permission to use and tried to make it more indifferent and encyclopedic. I also added a new source which is an article from a performance with the most famous/significant orchestra in Brasilia which proves that Quint has worked with Levin, one of the famous conductors listed. Please offer any other advice as to sources needed and etc--72.23.174.105 (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. AfD is not for cleanup; this Google News search turns up a number of articles (from the Philadelphia Inquirer, NYT, etc.) that suggest there's plenty of notability. Then there's the matter of the nominator being blocked indefinitely for sockpuppeteering, and it was suggested elsewhere (can't remember where) that the nom was an AfD troll. Doesn't matter; this cellist is notable enough, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was suggested on his talk page. The nominator is blocked indefinitely and alleged to be a banned user. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 delete. MBisanz talk 00:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicholas Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BIO. This person is not a notable businessman or entrepreneur in Singapore. This was created to enhance his profile and reputation. The article is poorly written with references to insignificant episodes such as Army. The article is written by NcKnight, which is most likely the same person. Most of the references cannot be clicked on. There are a lot more Singaporeans with much more notable achievements.chase78 (talk)00:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added the missing AFD tag to the article. - Mgm|(talk) 18:44, 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, MBisanz talk 00:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Essentially zero gnews hits. An amazing amount of information that simply does not add up to WP:BIO in any way. §FreeRangeFrog 05:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also of note is the fact that the author Ncknight (talk • contribs • logs) of this article is an SPA seemingly tasked with creating this series of articles, including Azione Capital. §FreeRangeFrog 05:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedily Delete per CSD A7 §hawnpoo 06:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Geshe Jinpa Sonam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I do not feel the subject of this article passes WP:BIO; I've looked for references and have come up empty-handed for anything that passes WP:RS 132 21:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not establish the reason that subject meets inclusion criteria. The references provided do not show life achievements that warrant an encyclopedia entry. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:40, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. – sgeureka t•c 14:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe Estevez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unremarkable minor actor whose only claim to notability appears to be that he is the brother of Martin Sheen. No awards listed at IMDB; no apparent feature roles in major films. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. However, he does seem to be a prolific B-movie actor. "Zombiegeddon" and "Motorcycle Cheerleading Mommas" FTW! --Sc straker (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While not an Oscar-caliber actor, Mr. Estevez is very well known to fans of B-Movies. A Google News search confirms his standing in this genre: [24]. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:55, 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]
- Very weak keep per Theo. Ekes over the WP:BIO line, if not the WP:CREATIVE line. NB that many of those Google News hits are for Joe Estevez (mayor). THF (talk) 14:28, 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, MBisanz talk 00:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. per theo. Mystache (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He's an Estevez, that's notable enough (WP:SHEEN&ESTEVEZ?). The long film career clinches it, no matter how many B-movies are in it. Nate • (chatter) 05:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per theo. §hawnpoo 08:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. At least two of his films, Soultaker (in which he has a major role) and Werewolf, were featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000, and he's gotten several mentions on that show. There is also an interview with him on Mystery Science Theater 3000: Volume XIV.SPNic (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dan Gore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Former college football player who was cut even before appearing in training camp with the Dolphins, no evidence of meeting WP:ATHLETE as he didn't play a game in the NFL Delete Secret account 20:39, 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]
- Delete per nom. THF (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Parslad (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is subject is not notable per guidelines. COI has no role in this as it could be overcome if the subject were notable. StarM 12:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jae Bryson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable author. Only 820 google hits, which is low for an author, and doesn't seem to meet any of the notability criteria for authors (Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals). Prodego talk 17:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is mostly about books he did not write, or has not yet written. One book only, a very mild success 129 copies in WorldCat libraries. DGG (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only reliable nontrivial independent source I saw was a local media mention of him participating in a local business, which doen't rate an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - notability is not established, and while the number of Ghits is low, the number of GNews archive hits is way lower at 14. To me, that is more an indicator of lack of notability. Lack of Google hits doesn't deny notability, although it often correlates; but if there are few or no GNews hits, it indicates that there are few or no articles in independent, reliable sources that constitute coverage of the topic or individual. Even if there were tens of thousands of hits in Google, the real scarcity of independent hits in news archives shows lack of suitability. Also, only four hits in GBooks, and only one of them is a book written by Bryson. (Not intending to use a reverse-WP:OSE point, but we did speedy the article for Chuck Hustmyre just a few months ago and he has authored at least five books.) Frank | talk 21:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - only one book published. Does not meet threshold of WP:CREATIVEUnionsoap (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Mild success, huh? So, what is the threshold number of google hits for an author? What is the threshold number of books written -- that are published by a major publishing house? Is there a directive NOT to mention projects that didn't come to fruition? And, how many other published authors' entries are being considered for deletion today? Honestly, thank God for Uncyclopedia. I am appalled at the arrogant and pedantic nature of the so-called Wiki contributors. Though I was warned it would be a nightmare dealing with this group, I ignored those warnings.Brrryce (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is about notability, not "everything and everyone that ever existed". Perhaps the reason you were "warned it would be a nightmare" is because when people try to add articles about themselves and/or people they are close to, it often causes hard feelings. That's because if a topic is notable, usually someone else will create an article about it. If nobody else has done so...that in itself is a decent indicator that sufficient notability simply isn't there.
- This is a discussion. If notability can be shown, then the proper course of action here is to simply show it. Many times these discussions seem to be going one way and then turn around when enough people find enough information to support a different conclusion. Frank | talk 17:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thank God for Uncyclopedia, where people like you can go with your tomfoolery and leave the people who want to build an encyclopedia alone. Why don't you do that instead of wasting everyone's time with frivolous admin recalls? JuJube (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a comment best left on a different page, JuJube, not on an unrelated AfD, as it does not help. --64.85.217.174 (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete – notability not established. Article seems to plainly be a vanity piece (which is ironic via the comment regarding the "arrogant and pedantic Wiki-contributors" comment). MuZemike 18:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - non-notable vanity piece. Rklawton (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Frank. Notability not established; article lists one book he wrote, one he contributed to. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't meet notability criteria, also written by subject (see WP:COI). NawlinWiki (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:N due to a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The book which was "as told to" him by the two football players, got several reviews, but probably not enough notability for its own article. Bryson himself got a bit of coverage in the Minneapolis/St Paul papers as publisher of his local "One Nation" newspaper. Edison (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I know this may be pure coincidence but is User:Brrryce related to Jae Bryson in some way? Knowing one way or the other would strongly inform my decision. - Dravecky (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A: They are related, have a look here where Brrryce filed a admin recall against User:MBisanz. In the filer section he identifies himself as Jae Bryson. Oli OR Pyfan! 00:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion should be about the article, period. WP:COI is not a reason to delete an article. Frank | talk 00:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:COI alone may not be a good reason, but it does cast a light on any possible POV, promotion or spin. It could also suggest a WP:SPA or WP:POINT when combined with the editor's other contributions. So it is definitely a valid concern for this AfD. --64.85.217.174 (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, COI isn't a reason to delete, and it really isn't useful in this discussion. That the article is almost certainly written by its subject is not really in doubt, but it is also not relevant. If the subject is notable, we can take care of COI later. If not, we delete, and then COI doesn't matter. That's the only thing this discussion is about. As for WP:SPA, again - it doesn't apply; the question is notability. And WP:POINT most certainly has no place in this discussion; nobody is disrupting the project to make any points here. The process is running its normal course. Frank | talk 14:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete certainly not notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Really ought to be speedy deleted under criterion A7... Oli OR Pyfan! 00:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per Pyfan. JuJube (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete as while his book was negatively reviewed by USA Today, he drew some attention for reporting on the I-35 bridge collapse, and he ran for office in Minneapolis so verifiability might be achieved but it just doesn't quite reach the notability threshold. The COI issue does erode some of the good faith I would normally assume here but the simple fact is the subject is currently insufficiently notable. - Dravecky (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - At least he had the good sense to escape from Davenport, Iowa. That ought to be worth something. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey now, Davenport is my second-favorite of the Quad Cities (I'll always love you more, Rock Island, Illinois!) and there's no call for snark in the AfD process. - Dravecky (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the Rock Island Line, she's a mighty good road... Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey now, Davenport is my second-favorite of the Quad Cities (I'll always love you more, Rock Island, Illinois!) and there's no call for snark in the AfD process. - Dravecky (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability demonstrated. Chillum 15:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Did not demonstrate notability. -Pax85 (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't care about the Google hits, but I can't see the evidence of notability we normally seek: multiple non-trivial references in reliable sources. In the absence of this verification, deletion is the only option. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephan Dweck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete this short BLP article about a writer has been unsourced for 2+ years; his books don't seem notable - indeed none is carried by Amazon.com only used copies available through third party suppliers and no indication that he meets WP:BIO any other way either. Again, sufficiently nn that we don't know when or where he was born and haven't heard news of him in a sufficiently long time that we cannot really say he's still alive with confidence. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Chzz ► 16:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A Google News archive search finds a fair number of reliable sources. These include a New York Times obituary of someone whose notability derives from his work with Dweck, so it would be reasonable to assume that Dweck himself would also get such an obituary, which is usually regarded as a bright green light for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep reason per Phil to establish notability-almost anything featured in the New York Times can be automatically considered to be notable enough for its own article; as for references, that can be easily fixed. In fact, I might do that now. Even though it hasn't even reached Start class yet, it can be easily changed into a B or even GA article if enough effort is poured into it. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete none of the sources found are substantial coverage, subject does not appear to meet any of the additional criteria in WP:BIO. —Snigbrook 14:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep...Stephan is currently producing television shows and working on his next book.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. leaning delete, but really NC. MBisanz talk 22:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul Skilbeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Per wp:blp. The biography of living person guideline states "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.". I could find no sources on this person. The only editor to the article is the subject. A clear violation of wp:coi. Adam in MO Talk 08:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check out this [25] and skillzy's user page. Seems like a clear conflict of interest problem to me.--Adam in MO Talk 09:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - There are absolutely issues with the references, some of which don't mention Skilbeck at all, and some of which are links to other Wikipedia articles, which aren't sources (and also don't mention Skilbeck). However, the first few references do mention him, and he is clearly notable within his fields of journalism (author of two books) and biking (founder and president of a group known within the sport). Also apparently a photographer. I also note strongly that WP:COI is not a reason for deletion of an article. Just because an article's author is (or is close to) its subject doesn't mean the subject doesn't qualify for inclusion. We should address that issue separately, and the article is tagged appropriately for this. Frank | talk 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wrote Paul Skilbeck's original wiki page, but since there was a lot of techinical information(places, times, dates, exact titles of books, etc.) I asked him to check the page and make sure that I got everything right. I didn't think that was a violation of the Wiki guidelines, but if it was I apologize. bhilden
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - notably lacks any evidence of notability. Any one of the acts attributed to him - writing two books, founding a (smallish) club, being a photographer - does not prove notability. It needs much better sources to show general notability. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Yes, the article is bad, but I'm finding sources. This man is very often quoted in outlets like the NY times: [26], I am seeing him referred to as a "mountain biking expert" and "longtime cycle journalist". He's also mentioned frequently in association with Race Across America. Question: some of these articles refer to bowling and (?)cricket. Same person? If so this would further demonstrate some notability in multiple areas, if not, they can be ignored. I think this man may be notable though. Cazort (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Needs quite a hefty copyedit, but the notability seems clear to me from the sources listed above and in the article. The CoI is no reason to delete, but the CoI should still stay until someone independent has cleaned up the article. --GedUK 21:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per BLP. 11 days after nomination and the article is still a mess, no assertion of notability. As Bearian noted, these things listed do not establish notability. Currently appears that the subject fails WP:BIO. ₳dam Zel 17:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment BLP states to remove controversial and unsourced material, not to delete the article. I found far more sources than are currently given in the article. We should be discussing whether these sources are or are not sufficient to establish notability. I am not 100% persuaded one way or the other but I am leaning towards a keep and I would appreciate feedback from others on what they think of the sources I found. Cazort (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Linda van Roosmalen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No evidence (in the form of highly cited papers, major awards, popular press, etc) of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Has published papers, how can you know they are not "highly cited"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All academics publish, so the fact that she has published papers alone does not make her notable (my grad student has published papers, too...) To know whether a paper is cited or not, you can use Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Science. Knowing David, he has checked this and I see no reason to doubt his statement that her papers are not highly cited. She's still young, may become notable later, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Crusio (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot what page it was, but there is a specific page that says you should always double check before voting and do your own research to avoid any sheeping. - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As you wish: Google Scholar indicates that her highest cited paper got 11 cites. Web of Science (cannot give a direct link as it is a subscription service) lists 12 articles that together have been cited 26 times, highest score 7. David, therefore, is correct. --Crusio (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - assistant professor, has published papers - but no secondary sources, no evidence of meeting the standard of WP:PROF. JohnCD (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Even if we were to regard her CV as if it were a 3rd party source she does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics). --Boston (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Crusio and Eppstein: not notable as WP:PROF. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable per WP:PROF. Search as "van Roosmalen, L", in addition to "Linda van Roosmalen". Check Google with 320 additional hits and Google Scholar with 80 more hits. Esasus (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your GScholar search does not really give more hits than already found and the most cited article still has only 12 cites. I have no time at the moment to see whether the other Ghits perhaps contain sources to show notability according to WP:BIO, but this certainly does not show notability according to WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - some of these are different van Roosmalens - there is an M.L. van R and a Lieke van R, as well as Linda van R. JohnCD (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete As a rule assistant professors are not yet at the stage of notability. Some are, but it has to be strongly shown by the published work. There can be problems of judging the published work of people in applied subjects, because the important work can be elsewhere than in peer reviewed journals,and most of her work does seem to be published in conferences,m which is not unusual in engineering. . And there can be problems in small specialties like hers, because its harder to tell what the standards are. Looking in Scopus, I see 12 papers, none of them cited more than 9 times. they are in good journals, thugh, and most of the similar papers she cites have similarly low citation frequency. She is additionally that member of several formal standards committees, which is normally a recognition of at least some stature of an authority. But I';m going to tentatively make a value judgement here: her work is concerned with the design and testing of specific wheelchair components, not the design of wheel chair and other assistive systems in any broader sense. Her web page, too, fills in the content with student projects. On balance, I do not think she is notable yet. Perhaps she will be, but not now. DGG (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF. There is no evidence that she has published highly cited papers. She also hasn't receive any major awards. I don't think this bio meets WP standard. AdjustShift (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. In addition to the points already made above, news coverage of the subject is pretty much nonexistent. Has potential for WP:BIO-notability in the future, as the topics of research are the type that tend to attract media interest, but not yet there.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not important enough to pass WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. See comments above. Demophon (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Graham Ferreira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete doesn't seem to be much by way of reliable sources looking through google for this guy. It's been an unreferenced BLP for over 2 years, and he's sufficiently nn that we don't know when or where he was born or whether he's really still alive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can only find refs back to wp Chzz ► 16:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: broke at least one important story in Botha's time. Apartheid's environmental toll. Ottre 03:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, the comment on the article's talk page suggests the subject may be notable, but without references both this assertion and the content of the article cannot be verified. —Snigbrook 14:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 00:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Enrico di Rosso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The subject of this article does not appear to be notable and the one reference cited is a book so obscure that both it and its publisher show up nowhere on the Internet. See the detailed analysis on the talk page for more details. DFS454 (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per your nomination. I found a single source mentioning this person and it's subscription only so I can't read it: [27]. The guy is probably real...but hardly seems notable. I agree that if the book doesn't even show up in a google search, it must be incredibly esoteric. Cazort (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per my earlier analysis at Talk:Enrico di Rosso -- I spent 20-30 minutes trying to find out anything about this guy. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Chzz ► 16:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. He's chancellor of some order of St. George, but there's no indication of which of many organsiations calling themselves this is the one he is a member of. What is UK's national air guard? -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Galen Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There appears to be nothing notable enough about this individual to warrant his having an entry in Wikipedia. His only claim to fame is his founding of a college chorale, an accomplishment no doubt achieved by hundreds of other people across the country but hardly noteworthy enough for them to receive mention in an encyclopedia. If he is allowed an article, then how about all the others with similar backgrounds? Clearly this could get out of hand if every person who ever started a school chorale gets an article written about him or her. LiteraryMaven (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. In addition, the article appears to be entirely WP:Original research. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. The article doesn't list any reliable references and the article for Masterworks Chorale was deleted. If the chorale he founded doesn't deserve an article why should he? 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's no evidence that the subject meets the notability requirements of WP:BIO. Nuttah (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Christopher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced, non-notable BLP. Filled with rumors and lacks encyclopedic depth. MBisanz talk 22:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-"Notability" is not a policy but a "guideline," I oppose deletion for "notability" which is a nebulous concept here. Time should be given for the material to be verified.--JRiverton (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On what basis would you propose we keep articles? Delete them? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lack of sources is a problem but notability is clear if the statements in the article can be validated. Looie496 (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears to be notable in his line of work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable sources verifying the assertion of notability are found and included. X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep lacks sources, looks okay though. Versus22 talk 10:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Subject might be known to some fans of gay porn but that doesn't make him notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:PORNBIO. The person in question has not met the requirements. FingersOnRoids 20:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:PORNBIO on all 3 counts. Outsider80 (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. WPSNOW MBisanz talk 05:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Luis Barrancos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nominating this and all articles on Category:FIFA_World_Cup_referees whose only content are name (born date) is a country football referee. He is known for having refereed number match in the year FIFA World Cup in country. per WP:ONEVENT. Habanero-tan (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you specify exactly which articles you're nominating and actually tag them? Users shouldn't have to wade through a category containing 180 articles looking for the ones which contain specific text to work out which ones they're !voting on..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles should not be deleted because of "lack of content" if there still is enough content to make the article subject notable. And WP:ONEVENT does not apply, IMHO. Refereeing a World Cup match means that the referee has had several other noteworthy appearances. – Elisson • T • C • 00:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. How about trying to expand the articles rather than simply trying to delete them? WikiGull (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm sure this fella is notable for more than just refereeing at the 1982 World Cup. I mean, he'd have had to do something of note to even be selected as a World Cup ref. – PeeJay 09:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable. Needs expansion, but that's not a reason for deletion. --Dweller (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 16:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A FIFA ref is notable Chzz ► 16:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Barry Chilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete BLP which has been unsourced since 2006 for a minor-party candidate who got 800 votes in an election. Fails WP:N, sufficiently nn we don't know when or where he was born or even whether he's still alive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He was (and still claims to be) the leader of a minor but historically important party. The BC Conservative Party was at one time a major party in the province that particiapted in government. Ground Zero | t 01:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above; news articles available Chzz ► 16:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What news articles? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I haven't checked whether this article subject is notable, but I'd like to point out that the fact that "we don't know when or where he was born or even whether he's still alive" is irrelevant to whether this should be deleted. There are many obviously notable people to whom this applies, (Jesus springs to mind), so it can't be taken as as evidence in favour of deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Rant over now! Lack of notability is a reason for deletion, and the fact that a North American politician in the 2000s has no coverage from sources covered by Google News [28] would seem to be pretty strong evidence of that. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vote after searching for and adding one reference, Fails WP:N. Jeepday (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The deletion guidelines for administrators requires me to consider WP:BLP in addition to the discussion. On review, it seems that noone beyond the nominator can identify any contentious material in this article. The article needs citations, however, and this should be done soon - it is unfortunate that this discussion has not raised the issue of finding sources to establish notability and I hope that contributors will make some effort to do so soon, otherwise this should probably come back to AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rue Protzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Only a primary source offered, no further references. WP:BLP problems, notability problems, fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Mikeblas (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and beef up. Ventifax (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While the other issues might exist, I was unable to find any BLP issues. Not all biographies of living people are deletable. They can only be speedy deleted if it mainly contains negative or contentious information about the subject which is not in question here. - Mgm|(talk) 11:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. According to WP:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The whole of the article is unreferenced; if I remove the material that's not referenced, I'm left with something less than a stub. As such, deleting the whole article is the right thing to do per Wikipedia policy. If the article manages to pass AfD, I'll remove the unreferenced material, and leave it as a stub. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The quote that you give from WP:BLP doesn't say "unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons...should be removed immediately", but "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons...should be removed immediately" (my emphasis). You seem to have ignored the all-important word in your interpretation of policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. According to WP:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The whole of the article is unreferenced; if I remove the material that's not referenced, I'm left with something less than a stub. As such, deleting the whole article is the right thing to do per Wikipedia policy. If the article manages to pass AfD, I'll remove the unreferenced material, and leave it as a stub. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see what part is contentious Chzz ► 16:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - There is this one small bit. There may be more German sources, but I'm not compentent to do that. I will also note that the article has never been tagged as needing references. As for the BLP issues, I see none. There are no negative comments. There is no promotional language. The tone is quite neutral. I don't see how cutting the article down to a stub would be helpful. If there are specific statements that you feel are contentious, you can always tag them with {{cn}} to request a citation to verify the assertion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. {{unreferenced}} is not a requisite to deletion. -- Mikeblas (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - It isn't, but not giving an article a chance for development through collaborative editting is contrary to spirit of Wikipedia. Deletion is a last resort. -- Whpq (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. {{unreferenced}} is not a requisite to deletion. -- Mikeblas (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Decision made per general consensus, WP:SPAM, and WP:BLP. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Arun K. Garg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Also page Dr. Arun K. Garg (see this edit).
- Notability? Autobiography? Reads like a CV. See tags at the start of page Arun K. Garg. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, obviously, as I added a prod2 tag. But why this AfD, why not let the prod run its course and only waste our time at AfD if it would be removed? --Crusio (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Page Arun K. Garg has so many tags that I thought I better get matters discussed properly. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but there's already a PROD tag!! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Self-serving CV, with no supported Notability. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep Both articles were already in an unfinished PROD process, which should be allowed to run its course. Renominate without prejudice after PROD is done. Rklear (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the "procedural" thing to do here is to continue with the AfD. Once an article has been nominated for AfD this procedure takes precedence - see WP:PROD#Conflicts. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To make this abundantly clear, I have deprodded the article. --Crusio (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since a job and an article or two is not enough to satisfy WP:N. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I think he might be a notable specialist on implantology, an important dental subspeciality/ His book Bone biology, harvesting, grafting for dental implants : rationale and clinical applications is in about 80 libraries, which is about the same as other books in the field. His books have been translated into several languages. He has articles in the principal journals. DGG (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Citation impact is not negligible, but taken alone a bit short of what would be needed to meet WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). News coverage indicates some notability, although some of it is primarily related to Implant Seminars and rather commercial.--Eric Yurken (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hamed Vakili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Google search reveals Wikipedia mirror sites only -- as well as what might be a small role in a film. But I can find no reliable sources whatsoever establishing notability for this film critic/historian. What's more, the "Controversy" section is a complete non sequitur, given over to a personal essay of some kind -- nothing to do with article's subject, at all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The "Controversy" section has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the article, and I am also unable to find any neutral, reliable sources that might demonstrate notability. PC78 (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostafa Mahmoud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article does not establish the subject's notability, nor does it provide any references. All of my attempts to find references failed. This is not to say that they do not exist, but the subject's name is not uncommon and has many variants, making it impossible to determine which articles are associated with subject and which are not. This article is not linked to by articles, only by lists and project pages. Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article reads like an autobiography (use of first-person "he met El Aqqad, who used to give me a hand by reading my writings"). Google search on the name, and some of his works turns up only wikipedia mirrors and a single forum discussing the article. ~Cr∞nium 04:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - First I'd like to thank "Cryptic" for posting the entry on wikiproject Egypt. I'm monitoring the project page and am responsible for any deletion entry or problems of Egypt related articles. About the Subject: The figure is well known throughout Egypt and the Arab world. I added his bibliography and will add lots of citations now. Thanks.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Excellent work! I'm glad you were able to find some off-line references. While searching through the history trying to determine Mahmud's correct DOB, I found this revision. It's written in the first person, meaning it was either written by Mahmud himself (WP:OR) or copied and pasted from somewhere (WP:COPYVIO). The other thing to keep in mind is that, when reading through that version, you'll see that much of the text is Mahmud describing his father, not himself. This distinction was warped and misconstrued over the years as editors changed instances of "my" to "his". Some of the content that's there now might have to be removed entirely. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A single source is used for the entire article! Jack1956 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The partial bibliography indicates notability. However, the tone of the article is far from neutral, and the only source given is the self-published autobiography on the subject's website. It is interesting to compare to the entry in the Arabic Wikipedia, which is considerably better but also lacks good references. It should not be difficult to find independent references (e.g. book reviews, newspaper or magazine articles) that back up the main elements of the article. The subjective content should be removed. I would be strongly tempted, assuming the decision is to keep the article, to delete almost all content other than the bibliography (e.g. trim down to perhaps a 1-paragraph outline) and ask that editors familiar with the subject expand with content backed up by independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment the article is a well done translation with no copyright issues of the original Arabic version. It isn't copied but has all the info of the arabic site. I don't see how this would be a copyvio in any way. Why would you delete all the contents but bibliography?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I am not aware of any copyright issue. The problem is failure to give reliable independent sources. The only source given at present is the subject's autobiography, which by definition is not independent. The ISBN numbers in the bibliography are verifiable: the subject did indeed publish book XYZ. But a statement like "He was a pious man with a model character - exemplary behavior, patience, endurance, persistence and work." should be removed unless it can be shown to be based on a reliable independent source, or should be qualified to show possible bias as in "Mostafa Mahmoud states that he was a pious man with a model character ...". The Arabic Wikipedia article is better because it generally avoids subjective statements like this.
- Encyclopedia articles should have a neutral tone and give information backed up by sources that can be presumed to be accurate and unbiased. With biographies of living people it is best to avoid assertions about their character and to focus on their notable public actions and achievements, letting the facts speak for themselves. A shorter, more neutral and fact-based article would be more useful to the general reader. I am sure there are good sources that would substantiate an article like this. Readers can always go to the subject's books to get a more complete assessment of the individual. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I agree in the non neutral point of the article. But this can be easily fixed through the deletion of all non neutral sentences. Still this is no reason for deletion. This is a reason for copy editing. I therefore ask you to resolve the deletion request. Thank you--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The administrator closing this AfD will review the discussion and decide whether there is consensus to delete. At this stage, I think that deletion is unlikely. The subject seems to be a well-known and prolific author. But you would greatly strengthen the argument for retention if you could add some reliable, independent sources that confirm the content of the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I agree in the non neutral point of the article. But this can be easily fixed through the deletion of all non neutral sentences. Still this is no reason for deletion. This is a reason for copy editing. I therefore ask you to resolve the deletion request. Thank you--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Encyclopedia articles should have a neutral tone and give information backed up by sources that can be presumed to be accurate and unbiased. With biographies of living people it is best to avoid assertions about their character and to focus on their notable public actions and achievements, letting the facts speak for themselves. A shorter, more neutral and fact-based article would be more useful to the general reader. I am sure there are good sources that would substantiate an article like this. Readers can always go to the subject's books to get a more complete assessment of the individual. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Al Jazeera source cited in the article shows pretty clear notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There still needs to be a proper source. The present article says the entire bio section is take from the subject autobio. This is OK for uncontroversial facts. In this case, i think it is not acceptable as the sole source for the claim to notability as presented in the article. The other source given is a special issue of al-Jazzira. T
he link to it however goes to a translation of the arWikipedia page. Could someone please link to an English translation of the matgazine source. Phil, do you know what it says?DGG (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My fault - I have just fixed the link to point to the Al Jazeera article. It does seem to indicate notability. But the bulk of the article is still based on self-published material. It needs a serious overhaul. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The translated material there appears to be tributes from various people. I agree with you-- it would be much better if we had something specific. DGG (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My fault - I have just fixed the link to point to the Al Jazeera article. It does seem to indicate notability. But the bulk of the article is still based on self-published material. It needs a serious overhaul. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Morgan Trent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems to be a non notable American Football player, doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE or Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability#Players. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, definitely notable, he is one of the top prospects for the 2009 NFL Draft.--Yankees10 22:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP is not the place for speculation, see WP:CRYSTAL Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Per Yankees10, the draft is in a month the guy is a great football player, oh my bad I forgot the old AFD policy of "he plays in college must not be notable, let's delete", then the guy goes onto become a 10 time pro bowler and hall of famer. Keep, WP:ATHLETE.--Giants27 T/C 22:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The guy is a great football player" - not really establishing notability there. The draft is in a month, *if* he does get picked, then what is the issue with creating the article then? The same situation occurs with music single articles, they get deleted until the single charts, regardless of if it is almost certain of charting, or only a few days before it does so. The same logic must apply here. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What Chris said and there are literally hundreds of these articles all prepared for the draft and they are all great college football players who should have pages anyway.--Giants27 T/C 22:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The guy is a great football player" - not really establishing notability there. The draft is in a month, *if* he does get picked, then what is the issue with creating the article then? The same situation occurs with music single articles, they get deleted until the single charts, regardless of if it is almost certain of charting, or only a few days before it does so. The same logic must apply here. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - he might technically not be notable enough now, but I say leave it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Are there sufficient WP:Reliable sources to write a WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR article? GoogleNews Google I suspect so. With such a recent creation, I recommend a keep and apply tags requesting additional sources rather than a jump to AfD. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't like when WP:ATHLETE is used as a reason for deletion. That's the "catch-all" that says if a person played in a professional game, then he/she is inherently notable. I don't believe it's purpose is to exclude people from being "notable". I do like when WP:ATHLETE is used as both a pro-keep and pro-delete argument in the same AFD. That tells me it's a poorly-written guideline. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article needs lots of work, but a brief look through Google News results show that there seem to be a couple of reliable independent sources ([29] [30] and lots from a source called "Wolverine Insider") that cover him in detail which would satisfy the notability criteria. Camw (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of sources out there to establish notability. [31] and others cited above. Apparently a top cornerback prospect. Cool3 (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the issue... "prospect". Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why is that an issue if there are adequate sources for an article? If it's not clear that there are not enough sources, then we invoke WP:N to guide us whether there is a reasonable chance of finding sufficient sources to write an encyclopedic article but if we already know there are likely sufficient sources, we are done; keep it. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the issue... "prospect". Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources above (and the one in the article) meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment If Trent tears his ACL before the draft and never plays in an NFL game, is he notable? I'm not sure he is. I don't think his college career is enough to warrant notability. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No he's not, and that's key. He currently does not meet notability guidelines.►Chris NelsonHolla! 04:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no apparent awards or notability outside his own college. The recent drastic expansion of notability by the people interested in the subject needs to be discussed by the community in a more general manner. 04:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant. He meets general notability guidelines, as shown here: [32] and here: [33] Umbralcorax (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not really.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Really. Notability guidelines state "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]". Seven sources, all discussing the person, have been linked in this AFD, thus showing his notability. Whether or not he meets the guidelines set out by WP:ATHLETE is meaningless in this context. To put it in perspective- before he was drafted by Cleveland, LeBron James was notable, even though he'd only played in high school up to that point, because he'd met the general guidelines, not because he'd met WP:ATHLETE. Just because Trent isn't a household name like LeBron was at the time, doesn't mean he isn't notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll ask you then, if Trent is injured and never plays in an NFL game, is he notable? If we say he's notable now, he's notable forever. I think he falls into the case where he's only a starter on a Division I FBS team. There are currently thousands of those and historically tens of thousands of those. I think a person has to establish more notability than just being a "starter". From what I can tell, he's never won a conference player of the week award. Regardless, the article should be expanded upon. As it reads now, I see no notability established. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Really. Notability guidelines state "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]". Seven sources, all discussing the person, have been linked in this AFD, thus showing his notability. Whether or not he meets the guidelines set out by WP:ATHLETE is meaningless in this context. To put it in perspective- before he was drafted by Cleveland, LeBron James was notable, even though he'd only played in high school up to that point, because he'd met the general guidelines, not because he'd met WP:ATHLETE. Just because Trent isn't a household name like LeBron was at the time, doesn't mean he isn't notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not really.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment [34], [35] has a bit. Combined with a large number of school-paper articles and nfl.com, I think this meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a starter in college football should not be the threshold of notability. Some never do anything when they're in college and will just be working day jobs when they're finished.►Chris NelsonHolla! 19:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The threshold of notability is not in our hands. It is decided by Reliable sources. If there are significant enough notes in independent sources that we can write a V, NPOV, NOR article, then that is all that is required. We do not need to, nor should we, decide what is or isn't "important" enough for us to cover. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- it is very much in our hands. We can decide whether or not we want to apply the GNG even for subjects that would otherwise be totally non-notable in any rational way. We collectively make the policy here, and the guidelines, and decide on the interpretations, and when to make exceptions.The GNG is not a divine creation, but a possibly convenient tool, and we can decide when to use it. DGG (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree to some extent. For special cases, I can agree. But for something as common as this (Big 10 football starter) we should be going with a generic set of rules. We can rewrite WP:Athlete or something. But until then, I think decisions involving large numbers of articles should be addressed in guideline and policy discussions, not at the individual article level. Hobit (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- it is very much in our hands. We can decide whether or not we want to apply the GNG even for subjects that would otherwise be totally non-notable in any rational way. We collectively make the policy here, and the guidelines, and decide on the interpretations, and when to make exceptions.The GNG is not a divine creation, but a possibly convenient tool, and we can decide when to use it. DGG (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The threshold of notability is not in our hands. It is decided by Reliable sources. If there are significant enough notes in independent sources that we can write a V, NPOV, NOR article, then that is all that is required. We do not need to, nor should we, decide what is or isn't "important" enough for us to cover. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a starter in college football should not be the threshold of notability. Some never do anything when they're in college and will just be working day jobs when they're finished.►Chris NelsonHolla! 19:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 T/C 19:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DoubleBlue, it's so good we can always count on you to blindly follow policy instead of actually thinking about things logically.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome. WP:5P DoubleBlue (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's some logical thought from someone else then User:Uncle G/On notability. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but having news articles written about you should not be the basis for inclusion in this encyclopdia. College football players are going to have mentions in the local papers, that's the way it is. But they still aren't "famous", or necessarily accomplished in their sport (Trent is not) and they could possibly never really become notable. Trent probably will, since he very well may be drafted and could play in the NFL. But right now, he's certainly not an accomplished enough person to be here.►Chris NelsonHolla! 04:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the coverage is not significant enough that a V, NPOV, NOR article can be written, then I agree with you; and you may be right in this case. I did a cursory search and there appeared to be a variety of sources so that combined with the fact that one minute after creation, this article was requested to be speedy deleted and 30 minutes after that sent to AfD but never once tagged to request more sources or notability, or PRODded saying it doesn't appear to meet notability, leaves me with the suggestion that it be kept for now and tagged requesting better sourcing. But that's just my opinion. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but having news articles written about you should not be the basis for inclusion in this encyclopdia. College football players are going to have mentions in the local papers, that's the way it is. But they still aren't "famous", or necessarily accomplished in their sport (Trent is not) and they could possibly never really become notable. Trent probably will, since he very well may be drafted and could play in the NFL. But right now, he's certainly not an accomplished enough person to be here.►Chris NelsonHolla! 04:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark Blaxill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable consultant. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). He has not been the subject of published secondary source material. Edcolins (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Edcolins (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This article and Ralph Eckardt (and the now-deleted The Invisible Edge) were created by WP:SPA Kwenkbodenmiller (talk · contribs · count), apparently as a promotional campaign. TJRC (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails Notability criteria. ttonyb1 (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No real evidence of any more notability than any other businessman. Reads like an advertisement, too. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Harold L. Sirkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable consultant and author. He has not been the subject of published secondary source material. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Notability (people)#Creative professionals. Edcolins (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Edcolins (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. TJRC (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable per nom.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWeak Keep and Improve and Move to Hal Sirkin. The article is a mess, but I question whether anyone did the required search for sources.Clearly meets WP:AUTHOR: 466 Google News hits, 152 Google Books hits.THF (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I am not convinced. A person is presumed to be notable if he has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The sources I have found cite some analysis or comments made by Harold L. Sirkin on various subjects. It is not surprising to see consultants being cited plenty of times, which is part of their job, so to speak. But no source is about Harold L. Sirkin. Regarding the WP:CREATIVE criteria:
- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. - Amongst senior management consultants, what makes Harold L. Sirkin an important figure? Sofar I haven't found any answer.
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. - No evidence.
- The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. - No evidence.
- The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. - No evidence.
- --Edcolins (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not convinced. A person is presumed to be notable if he has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The sources I have found cite some analysis or comments made by Harold L. Sirkin on various subjects. It is not surprising to see consultants being cited plenty of times, which is part of their job, so to speak. But no source is about Harold L. Sirkin. Regarding the WP:CREATIVE criteria:
- Comment. The WP:CREATIVE criteria are disjunctive, not conjunctive. Per the cites I have identified, it is the case that The person has created [a] collective body of work [that] has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. THF (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. They are disjunctive, but not to the point of removing some important words from the criterion: "The person has created a significant or well-known collective body of work [that] has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This is not the case IMHO. --Edcolins (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The WP:CREATIVE criteria are disjunctive, not conjunctive. Per the cites I have identified, it is the case that The person has created [a] collective body of work [that] has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. THF (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Those are very spurious numbers for Google News and Books hits. Firstly you need to put the name in quotes, giving 76 Google News hits, not 466, every one of which seems to be quoting the subject rather than writing about him. From Google books, if you put the subject's name in quotes and remove books where he is one of the authors there are 12 hits, not 152, and again none of them look as if they provide any significant coverage of the subject - they all seem to be passing mentions. I'm flabbergasted that such an arch-deletionist as THF should be arguing to keep an article based on such hand-waving. Please point to specific sources that support the case for notability, rather than pointing to numbers of hits that any professional self-publicist such as the article subject would be able to generate. Phil Bridger (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unusually sloppy of me. I've changed my !vote per Bridger's analysis. We've deleted people more notable than Sirkin, but we've kept people far less notable. THF (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTE. Article has no third party sources.--Sloane (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I suppose it's too much to ask Wikipedia to be consistent about these things, but I wonder where all these Delete !votes were in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Draper, a fellow far less notable than Sirkin. THF (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's too much. Different editors look at different articles and different discussions depending on their individual interests and time. That's the whole reason why WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument. TJRC (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep i gave you
twosix reviews of the two books, that were easily found using google, seems notable to me, even if a little cheerleaderish like Tom Peters pohick (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Keep. The last four sources currently cited in the article [36][37][38][39] seem to be enough to establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In addition to the 76 google news hits for "Hal Sirkin," I get 129 google news hits for "Harold L. Sirkin" and 91 for "Harold Sirkin." It's apparent from these sources that Sirkin is widely cited as an expert in business and management. The argument that these sources do not count because they are "quoting the subject rather than writing about him" is original: It's not in the notability guideline, nor should it be. Many notable people have not been the subject of biographical profiles: They are noted for their work, not their lives. Not all consultants are widely cited, but those that are belong in an encyclopedia. Sirkin is quoted in his professional capacity by BusinessWeek (2006), the Asia Times (2006), CNN (2007), Reuters (2008), Forbes (2008) -- and those are just some of the free links in the first two pages of results for "Hal Sirkin". Perhaps WP:CREATIVE doesn't apply to the notability of experts who are cited in the popular press such as pundits and consultants. WP:PROF comes closer, in recognizing that "if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area" then they satisfy the criteria for having made "a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". But if neither of these guidelines applies, it's an indication of the incompleteness of the notability guidelines and an opportunity to improve and expand them. It's not a license to excise justifiable content. In any case, Sirkin is also cited by his peers (The Leader's Guide to Storytelling: Mastering the Art and Discipline of Business Narrative, Stephen Denning, 2005, ISBN 078797675X, p.258; Firing on All Cylinders, Jim Clemmer and Barry Sheehy, 1994, ISBN 0786303565, pp. 52-3; Hidden value: how great companies achieve extraordinary results with ordinary people, Charles A. O'Reilly and Jeffrey Pfeffer, 2000, ISBN 0875848982, pp. 30). Those are from the first page of results for "Harold Sirkin" on Google books. Keep this article. The readers of the many articles that cite Sirkin as an expert ought to be able to look him up in an encyclopedia and evaluate his credentials for themselves. -- Shunpiker (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it would help if the entry didn't read as a glossy advertisement for Mr. Sirkin. If it was de-adverted, it's hard to tell how much content would remain. tedder (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a pass at editing the article towards a more neutral tone. --Shunpiker (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sverre Stub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable diplomat. No contribution to events of particular importance as required by WP:DIPLOMAT is apparent. This ... stub ... seems to be a near-direct translation of http://www.snl.no/Sverre_Stub, probably not close enough for a copyvio, but mere coverage in another online user-generated encyclopedia does not constitute notability. Sandstein 21:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Techicalities: I should note that their articles are released under a "free license", i.e. the same license as we have here. Furthermore the encyclopedia entry is not "user-generated" as Arsenikk pointed out. Punkmorten (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 42 news hits with Sesam. The SNL article is written by redaksjonen (the editors), meaning it is not user-generated material, and part of the trusted, and thus reliable, part of SNL. Since the editorial part of SNL is a general-purpose, printed encyclopædia, it would establish notability. Arsenikk (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These search results appear to be mere mentions, as one would expect of an ambassador, not substantial coverage. Inclusion in one encyclopedia is not quite sufficient for notability, I think; we are not a mirror of all other encyclopedias. Sandstein 22:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We do indeed, just as we should, have the principle that subjects included in national encyclopedias are notable for our purposes also . We are not a mirror, but a superset. We also have accepted all actual ambassadors from one nation to another as notable, because there is always material. He was his countries ambssador to France, which even among ambassadors, is a particularly high position in his country's diplomatic service. DGG (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you tell me where we have decided to accept all ambassadors as notable? I would not necessarily object, being something of an inclusionist with regard to political office-holders, but that's not what WP:DIPLOMAT says. Sandstein 06:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the subject has an article in a paper encyclopedia, so satisfies WP:V and WP:GNG. Punkmorten (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An easy Keep - Achieving ambassadorial rank is sufficient to warrant inclusion. I've taken the liberty to modify Wikipedia:Notability (people) to reflect this. Williamborg (Bill) 19:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm not going to say that all ambassadors are per se notable, but that there should be a presumption of notability. An ambassador from Norway to two other European nations ranks. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect The nominator suggested redirection (he did not argue for deletion) and S. Marshall redirected the article. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sveinn Birkir Björnsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Suggest redirect to The Reykjavík Grapevine - as was tried before,but then this 1-line article was re-created. Not notable. Chzz ► 07:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1: the nominator doesn't think the article should be deleted. I agree with the nominator that this should be a redirect, so I'll redirect it myself per WP:BRD; there's no need to go through a full AfD for a redirect that hasn't even been raised on the article's talk page.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ralph Eckardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable consultant. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). He has not been the subject of published secondary source material. Edcolins (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Edcolins (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This article and Mark Blaxill (and the now-deleted The Invisible Edge) were created by WP:SPA Kwenkbodenmiller (talk · contribs · count), apparently as a promotional campaign. TJRC (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of any particular notability; reads like an advert. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seo Seung-Hoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested WP:PROD, article about another youth footballer with no evidence of first team appearances at all, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Part of the second team as shown here - recreate when and if he makes an appearance for the first team. Camw (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 12:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Camw. THF (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Skitzo (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ken Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
CSD was denied because of a billboard award, but that was awarded to a radio show, not the person. I can't find anything much by googling; if you can assert some notability, fine, but I can't see any. Chzz ► 07:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - programs may be notable but he doesn't appear to be, lacks 3rd party sources. I'm not finding any record of a best R&B syndicated radio program Billboard award being presented to this radio personality. I'm also not finding any record of Billboard having a best R&B syndicated radio program award category.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 11:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rachel Huxford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I initially prodded this but tag was quickly removed by author. I can see no evidence that the subject is notable. A pure vanity piece. Fails WP:BIO Paste Let’s have a chat. 16:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the New Years Honours list is the only thing of any note listed, and receiving an honour doesn't make somebody notable (dinner ladies and lollipop ladies often receive them, too). I wouldn't object to a speedy. Esteffect (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete teh fail Chzz ► 16:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shaahin Mohajeri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable musician, written mostly by two users, User:Shaahin_mohajeri, and User:Acousticsoftombak (whose username is also the title of one of Mohajeri's webpages. Only English reference is an interview of some guy who calls Mohajeri 'very talented'. Gets <300 Google hits. Evan ¤ Seeds 07:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for conflict of interest. Alexius08 (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: this article is top heavy on self-promotion, see[40]. Insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While a COI isn't a reason for deletion, a huge lack of reliable, third-party, sources is. Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 11:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Has anyone checked out the Persian language references and links in the article? Or looked for any other Persian sources? If not then we can't claim that this lacks sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. WPSNOW MBisanz talk 05:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- John Hulme (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable person. Fails WP:N and WP:CREATIVE. Only a few minor creative efforts: one minor book series, unnotable anthology, unnotable radio series, and an unnotable documentary. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - sources have been added. Artw (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The New York Times and HBO find him notable enough to have covered him. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above Chzz ► 15:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, seems notable enough. Stifle (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 21:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:RS. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep But it is a shame that the article is not expanded. I do not know on what basis the nominator considers the book series minor, since it has reviews in multiple major news sources. DGG (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Living people proposed deletions
- Morley Vernon King (via WP:PROD on 30 December 2008)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamau Kambon (2nd nomination)