This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Living people. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Living people|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Living people. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Purge page cache | watch |
Wikipedia's inclusion policy for articles on individuals can be found at WP:BIO.
Wikipedia's policy on writing about living people can be found at WP:BLP.
{{{linktext}}}
|
Living people
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 09:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Jukes
- Peter Jukes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This BLP on a minor blogger/author does not have any independent sources that discuss this person. Fails WP:BIO Bali ultimate (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This AfD appears to be motivated by the user's actions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Motley Moose, which is unacceptable if true. Otherwise, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0432133/ shows plenty of sources, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2D7153DF931A35751C1A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 is from the New York Times, a quick Google search shows that same source is referenced on a dozen .edu sites in the first thirty results. I think the citations need cleaning up, which would be the only problem I see here, which isn't the article's fault, as it would be slightly COI for the author's namesake to edit an article on himself. Ks64q2 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's unacceptable is attacking the motives of other editors (and without a shred of evidence to back it up). I'd never heard of Peter Jukes until today. My reasons for the nomination are clear in my nomination (fails BIO). Please, discuss content and not other editors unless you have a good reason to do so (and evidence to back it up). You're growing increasingly uncivil and this will not prove helpful to you, me or wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no, sir; please allow me to correct myself. I didn't look deeply enough to see you had created this AfD; I am certain your reasoning is on the level. Perhaps you could concede, however, that it would be possible for this nomination to appear to be motivated to that argument, especially considering there's two admins who edited this article when the last AfD on The Motley Moose came up, and both thought it was reasonably notable for inclusion. Maybe it would have been more prudent to wait until that had played itself out. Though I would also suggest a subjective opinion on whether or not you had heard of this article's subject is hardly an acceptable reason for submitting this article for AfD. Again, a quick Google search pointed the results I showed above; perhaps "Cleanup" would have been more appropriate. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting Ks64q2: "a subjective opinion on whether or not you had heard of this article's subject is hardly an acceptable reason for submitting this article for AfD." Of course it isn't. I wrote "I'd never heard of Peter Jukes until today" in response to your allegation that my nomination "appears to be motivated by the user's actions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Motley Moose, which is unacceptable if true." I don't know Jukes and have no opinion on him or his work, or any relationship that would "motivate" me to nominate this BLP for any other reason than this: I believe it falls short of wikipedia's standards for biographies of living persons, notability and verifiability largely because there are insufficient reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article. Now, I suggest you drop the attacks on my or anyone elses motives. Keep it on the content and keep your suppositions about what's in other people's heads to yourself.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no, sir; please allow me to correct myself. I didn't look deeply enough to see you had created this AfD; I am certain your reasoning is on the level. Perhaps you could concede, however, that it would be possible for this nomination to appear to be motivated to that argument, especially considering there's two admins who edited this article when the last AfD on The Motley Moose came up, and both thought it was reasonably notable for inclusion. Maybe it would have been more prudent to wait until that had played itself out. Though I would also suggest a subjective opinion on whether or not you had heard of this article's subject is hardly an acceptable reason for submitting this article for AfD. Again, a quick Google search pointed the results I showed above; perhaps "Cleanup" would have been more appropriate. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although John Berger's and the New Yorker's critical coverage of Jukes' work is as yet uncited, I'm going to assume good faith on these. What's more, his extensive writing work in stage, screen and prose -- including the Laurence Olivier Awards winning Matador -- more than satisfies WP:CREATIVE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Going through the sources, I see only self-published material by Jukes. To pass inclusion criteria, according to WP:NOTE, subjects need to "receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."--Sloane (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Keep: I think he just crosses the threshold for inclusion, his work for tv seems to be relatively extensive (although there's very little coverage that exists of it) and his book probably has gotten enough reviews (we've only found a couple, but I suspect there's more on paper).--Sloane (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Reply WP:BIO states that individuals can be notable on the basis on additional criteria, even in cases where basic notability criteria is missing. Jukes' is a perfect example of this: he has won awards for his theatrical work and has extensive television writing credits. The New Yorker and John Berger reviews of his non-fiction work need to be found, to be sure, but it would be a mistake to delete an article on such an apparently prominent writer. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The winner of the award turns out to be not the play or Jukes himself, but the choreographer of the play. So this isn't an argument for inclusion.--Sloane (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you removed all his TV writing credits? Why? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsourced. They're at the talk page.--Sloane (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and rather easily sourced, which I've done for 2 of the main BBC creds. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsourced. They're at the talk page.--Sloane (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you removed all his TV writing credits? Why? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The winner of the award turns out to be not the play or Jukes himself, but the choreographer of the play. So this isn't an argument for inclusion.--Sloane (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply WP:BIO states that individuals can be notable on the basis on additional criteria, even in cases where basic notability criteria is missing. Jukes' is a perfect example of this: he has won awards for his theatrical work and has extensive television writing credits. The New Yorker and John Berger reviews of his non-fiction work need to be found, to be sure, but it would be a mistake to delete an article on such an apparently prominent writer. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per
Sloane/nom. Eusebeus (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Keep. Come on, people—the first three references clearly show the guy's a screenwriter for rather notable Inspector Lynley Mysteries, Waking the Dead, and Sea of Souls at the BBC. This nomination is disruptive, though I'm sure it was an honest mistake.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt everyone with a few writing credits on tv, but no awards or non-trivial independent coverage about him is notable? That's not how i see it.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mate, that's not "a few writing credits on TV". That's three major primetime TV writing credits in flagship programmes
so far this year.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I think some are older credits. I just found a ref to a 2008 BBC radio play her wrote. I'm adding it. I believe part of the problem has been the zeal with which other editors have deleted prominent Tv and radio writing credits, instead of making the slightest attempt to reference them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mate, "so far this year?" I'm not sure it will impact your opinion, but the article now has one writing credit for one episode from 2006 [1], one writing credit for one episode in 2001 [2] and one writing credit for one episode in 2004 [3]. There is no discussion about the quality, or impact etc... of these three episodes, just notations at the beeb that he wrote them.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mate, that's not "a few writing credits on TV". That's three major primetime TV writing credits in flagship programmes
- Writing a couple of episodes for television series doesn't seem enough for inclusion. So far, all we have is the one book review from the Journal Of Sociology. And one source really isn't enough.--Sloane (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- he's written multiple episodes and radio projects for the BBC, some of which I've just added. On the basis of his multiple scripts for top BBC series, I believe he easily meets the WP:CREATIVE criteria for having "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Writing a couple of episodes for television series doesn't seem enough for inclusion. So far, all we have is the one book review from the Journal Of Sociology. And one source really isn't enough.--Sloane (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, Bali ultimate is correct: I mis-read that. Nevertheless, I find multiple citations as a writer for the BBC rather convincing; and these are quality prime-time programmes. It's not like he wrote a couple of episodes of soaps.
- Another point I should make is that notability is a guideline. It's not a debate-winning trump card, particularly when there are policy-based reasons not to delete well-cited material from Wikipedia—as has already happened here, in blatant contravention of policy, in what I can only characterise as an overenthusiastic move on someone's part. Deleting the article would be an even more flagrant abuse.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Writing a couple episodes is not the same as "creating" or "co-creating" a series. We are also still lacking in any reliable sources about his involvement in these series. All we have are credits at the BBC website.--Sloane (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying the BBC isn't a reliable source to establish who writes for the BBC?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I 'm saying that it isn't enough to warrant inclusion. There's no reliable source attesting that this person had a major impact on the series.--Sloane (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying the BBC isn't a reliable source to establish who writes for the BBC?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see. I get that, and I'd tend to agree. That warrants further investigation.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further investigation Jukes wrote the first two hour episode Waking the Dead which garnered a 43% share of the UK audience and guaranteed recommission. The series went on to win Emmy awards and has been broadcast in many countries including the US. Also sole creator of UK prime time three-season show In Deep also with international credits. And was one of two writers on a Bafta award winning show Sea of Souls. Inspector Lynley Mysteries likewise. Film length 90 minute episodes to close season 5 and open season six, and this was the first time the show stopped being based on the Elizabeth George novel. Extensive other TV credits.
- Don't know about the books and essays or blogs but I know my TV and have seen several of his shows both in US and overseas. Not a minor episodic writer. Lots of research and cross referencing later I can say without a problem Keep --Moloch09 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Book and author are notable [4]. Screenwriting a few episodes here and there and contributing articles now and again isn't enough to establish notability, but it adds to the already substantial notability in this case. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Subject meets notability requirements. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], (Gnews). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Major Inclusion of Sources Alright folks... rather than spam the thread... I've done some rather exhausting research; I'll post it at the "Discussion" page, since I'm not so good at making those nifty dropdown menus yet. Head over there for all the references we could possibly need. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the sources i see here are en passant, don't establish anything about this guys notability. No no non-trivial coverage, etc (and one of them is talking about guys in the restaurant business, and has a passant mention of a "peter jukes" who owns a restaurant. Same guy? Unclear, at best. Even if so, so what?)Bali ultimate (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the restaurant guy is someone else. But the article now has non-trivial coverage of Jukes' work including Washington Times and Boston Globe reviews, and more. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talk Page Sources Now Up
- And it's an extensive list... if anyone has any problems with it, let me know. It took me over an hour and judicious use of Babelfish. Phew. The things I do for Wikipedia... Ks64q2 (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And it's mostly garbage. Responded on talk.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, Bali: "And it's mostly garbage" is a bit on the unpleasant side. There's no need for that, and particularly after this has already gone to WQA and AN/I.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do plan to add About Slavery to his radio work section. Hey, but what's up with the New Yorker? I've been searching in vain for this one. But when I click on your link it takes me to something else entirely. Are you sure you've got the link right? thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, sorry, got it in the talk tab, too. http://archives.newyorker.com/?i=1990-08-27#folio=094 Ks64q2 (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Unfortunately there does seem to be a connection to this AfD and the acrimony at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Motley Moose. If there is more of this i suggest a report at ANI to get more eyes on this. -- Banjeboi 06:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I avoid political articles and do not want to get into Motley Moose debate, but tracking back nominator timestamps it seems the speedy delete for this came as a direct result of a visit there. I'm sure Bali ultimate has no bad intentions but it looks like an attempt at reverse wikilayering. Notability cannot be inherited but it shouldn't be disinherited either. --Moloch09 (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, sources establish notability (e.g. the Journal of Sociology and the Boston Globe book reviews), TV credits are a good bonus, mentions in newspapers like El Pais are in themselves often "in passing" but give an indication of his notability as well. I suppose that the Scottish chef Peter Jukes is unrelated though? Fram (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's a different Peter Jukes, it seems. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can we close this AfD now? Even the "delete" votes seem to have changed their minds. Thanks. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, let the last delete flip or the rest can play out for the next few days. -- Banjeboi 10:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course youre right bonejboi but the remaining delete from Eusebeus is cited 'as per Sloan' who has just flipped. Meanwhile I'll try to plug in any interesting sources from the stuff you've ported over to the article talk. Thanks --Moloch09 (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I read through the article concerned, the discussion and the AFD here. From the article, the Editors comments above and the references, to me it is beyond doubt that Peter Jukes passes any notability threshold that Wiki may have. Personal Note: I'm an Inspector Lynley fan, have seen Peter Jukes on the credits couple of times. --Louisprandtl (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference Hyperlink Problem Ref [31] here [[10]] links to a Review on MadMen [11]in San Francisco Chronicle instead to Jerome's article at MyDD [12]. The hyperlink needs to be fixed. --Louisprandtl (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination
and Sloane.X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sloane has reverted to keep so which is it?--Moloch09 (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn his treacherous hide! Obviously per nom. X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the nom no longer even remotely describes the rewritten state of the article, which is now richly sourced. Have you looked at it? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn his treacherous hide! Obviously per nom. X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article has enough reliable sources to show notability. I could do without Refs 33 and 35, which are blog links to MyDD and MotleyMoose, respectively, that in my view are not reliable sources, but there are enough other references that are good to justify keeping. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restoring link because Sloane objected to lack of sourcing for Peter Jukes username 'Brit' writing for Moose - although he states so in prospect. Web Page tagged with his real name. --Moloch09 (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tracy Lynne Pendergast
- Tracy Lynne Pendergast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I don't think this person meets the notability standards of WP:BIO, or that enough reliable, independent sources are available to verify notability. This person's accomplishments seem pretty trivial to appear in an article. Jd027talk 01:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a Gsearch didn't reveal anything that would establish notability for the subject. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. She may be notable someday, but at this time it does not appear that there are enough neutral and reliable sources to build a case for notability. JRP (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Probably could have been speedied as spam. Edward321 (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theo Green
- Theo Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Tried CSD (declined as notability is apparently claimed), and then PROD, but PROD removed by article creator.
Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria, and doesn't meet WP:NOTE. Being listed in IMDB is not criteria for inclusion. A good faith effort to seek out reliable sources coverage didn't reveal anything specific, but does confirm that this is not a hoax.
Composing scores for notable movies is not a claim to notability, and "Twisted Pair" is not notable. While the New College is notable, its choir isn't singly notable.
Put simply, there is no independent coverage that makes for a wikipedia article. This should be deleted or merged into The_Escapist_(2008_film)#Music, which is certainly the one notable thing. Cerejota (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Composing scores for notable films IS notable. WP:CREATIVE says: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." - Mgm|(talk) 12:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see any indication that his scoring work is notable; that he had that relatively minor role on a notable film doesn't mean he meets WP:CREATIVE--we don't give articles for the makeup artists or set designers or editors or foley artists, either. If he is nominated for an Oscar for scoring, he'll pass the bar then. THF (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Meets the following criteria for MUSIC.
Criteria 10) Composed the score for Hush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush_(2009_film) which was nominated for a British Independent Film Award. http://www.bifa.org.uk/
AND Criteria 10), Has Composed and performed the soundtrack for 2 feature films with theatrical and television release, and a program for BBC television, as supported by References 3) and 4)
AND Criteria 1) It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable
See Reference link 1) from the Guardian / Observer, an online version of a printed newspaper in the UK - Quote 'The theme of the music was anything to do with alluring and dangerous women,' says Theo Green, who produced the music for the show. 'There's a big tango theme running through the soundtrack because that style of music brings out that sexy but dangerous side in women.' Green's background is in film so music and dialogue from movies such as The Wicker Man, The Ninth Gate and Las Vampiras that hint at the theme were layered on top of the other tracks. 'Some of the tracks may not instantly strike you as the most obvious music to walk to but I think it's good to break it up.'
See also Reference link 2) from The Irish Times, and online version of a printed newspaper in UK/Scotland - Quote 'More impressive still is the audio design. Whereas most low-budget films sleep happily if the dialogue remains perceptible, Hardy, sound designer Theo Green and composer Benjamin Wallfisch have conspired to create an expressionist clamour, which heightens the sense that we are in some drugged nightmare.'
AND Criteria 4) as supported by Reference 1) - Has toured and performed with televised shows at London and New York Fashion weeks. —Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep To Cerejota: you mention New College Oxford is not notable for its choir, please see Wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_College,_Oxford "The College is one of the main choral foundations of the University of Oxford. The College Choir has a reputation as one of the finest Anglican choirs in the world and have recorded over seventy albums, and have been awarded two Gramophone Awards."
ALSO PLEASE NOTE: New references added: the score for "Hush" is notable under Wiki's criteria, reviews and links have been added to show this film is now on general theatrical release in the United Kingdom and other countries. Alongside "The Escapist", both films have been nominated and won awards and are notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Composing the music for Hush and composing both additional music and sound design for Escapist have attracted wide press coverage. Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Rumplestiltskin2009 said, he won a notable award for his work, and therefor meets the requirements. Dream Focus 01:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Satisfies notability and references check out Jamestilley (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Jamestilley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete addressing the many points above
- Rumplestiltskin2009 did not say he won a notable award for his work. The film was nominated for an award and that award was not for the score and the nomination was not for Green.
- The references may check out but only three are independent reliable sources and none of them have substantial coverage of Green.
- None of the references show that the score for Hush is notable. One shows that the film might be, not every part of it. If "Composing the music for Hush and composing both additional music and sound design for Escapist have attracted wide press coverage" where is that coverage.
- WP:CREATIVE does not appear to be satisfied. None of the works mentioned are a significant or well-known work and as a sum they are not significant or well-known collective body of work. The criteria is not about any notable work. I also disagree that Greens ivnvolvement counts as a major role in co-creating.
- WP:MUSIC criteria 1 has not been satisfied as all the coverage of Green has been trivial.
- WP:MUSIC criteria 10 is about performing.
- "Reference 1)" (Guardian / Observer) does not support the claim he has toured and performed with televised shows at London and New York Fashion weeks. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I cited "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I was referring to the movie(s) as the well-known work. A score is a significant part of a movie and by contributing the score to the film, I believe he meets this criteria. It doesn't mean the score itself has to be well-known. - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think yopu misinterpret what that policy says: it clearly means that " that has been the subject of" In other words, if a book or film is made about Theo Green, not if Theo Green participates in creating a book or film. I think this is a very clear, unambigous formation, and MGM is misunderstanding it. If the criteria where what you say, then wikipedia would be exactly as IMDB, and we can agree it isn't. I insist this should be merged into Hush and Escapist, with the redirect to Hush as it seems there are more RS for it. This guy certainly deserves to be mentioned, he is just not notable enough for an article on himself alone. --Cerejota (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Mgm. That is how I read your comment. What I am trying to say is that the criteria does not say a notable work. It says "significant or well-known work" which goes beyond simple notability as meant by wikipedia. I also don't think most scores count as "played a major role in co-creating" especially in the case of Greens work in The Escapist. In any case one should "see WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc" which also has it's own section on composers (WP:COMPOSER). And for Cerejota I believe Mgm has it the right way around. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Satisfies WP:CREATIVE, Films "The Escapist" and "Hush" have been reviewed by multiple independent periodical, as given in References
Satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria 1, trivial coverage is defined as "articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories". References supplied include interviews in major newspaper and reviews (not trivial) Satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria 10, Has composed abd performed music for a network television show (BBC Surviving Disaster) and two notable films, The Escapist and Hush. Also as part of New College Choir, won two Gramophone Awards.
CEREJOTA please note: it is the WORK a person has been involved in that must be the subject of multiple independent articles and reviews, not the PERSON. If a PERSON has been involved in creating a work that attracts multiple reviews, it satisfies the criteria. The criteria does not mean that the person must have had a film made about them etc. The films mentioned are notable and reviewed, thus included on Wikipedia: composing the music for them is considered as notable under WP:MUSIC Jamestilley (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is that smell?- No, trivial coverage is not defined as that, they were examples.
- As it stands there is no evidence that as part of New College Choir, Green won two Gramophone Awards. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPlease try to keep comments helpful and related to info not "What is that smell"! The criteria for coverage is very clear; independence and reliability are down to the publication and trivial/non-trivial is down to whether the mention is a listing or part of the article. There can be no doubt that this composer has created music for several notable films, and the films mentioned are here on Wikipedia. That simply satisfies the composer section of WP:MUSIC, as with other composers represented by Air Edel and with a page on Wikipedia, eg David Julyan. Jamestilley (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck out your second keep !vote. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for all the help from Article Rescue Squadron.
- This topic now has more references, awards information, and links to notable work discussed in the press. Also of note is the unique combination of composition and sound design in film scores. Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC. Film score musician with only one fairly minor credit of any importance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable enough to those looking for obscure facts (WP's strength). Disc space is cheap. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Cleanup Evidence of notability exists, but the article is a bit too peacocky as it stands Avi (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for advice, have removed peacocky bits! Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 05:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:Creative. This composer has composed original music (a significant role) for a TV show (Surviving Disaster), and four notable films; Hush (2009), One Woman Show (2007), Explosions (2006), and Get the Picture (2004). Untick (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Plenty of refs from Channel 4 to MTV News. Passes notability and WP:Music, no grounds for this to go Gilgamesh007 (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I may be blind but I did not see any mention of Green in the MTV News article and I only saw Green listed in the credits listed in the Channel 4 article. Yes there a lot of references provided but a good number do not even mention Green and those that do only provide trivial coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the references are there to establish the films he worked on as notable, which is one criteria, but others include reviews of his work, and some like Hollywood reporter review a film, mention the score, then list the name below. Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References establishing the notability of things he worked on should be included in articles on the things he worked on. If it does not cover Greens work it has no place in Greens article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can that be true? Still learning how to create WP content, but it seems obvious from looking around that Inline Citations are encouraged to support any point or claim made in an article, as in WP:CITE and WP:IC - its not just citations that talk directly about the creative work of a subject that are allowed on WP? Anyone else care to comment? Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right Rumplestilskin2009. Sources for everything should be provided but it's possible that they aren't importance for notability concerns (i.e. just passing references to him or something). Duffbeer, even if it doesn't cover Green's work, it can still be included with references. We just ignore then here for notability concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can that be true? Still learning how to create WP content, but it seems obvious from looking around that Inline Citations are encouraged to support any point or claim made in an article, as in WP:CITE and WP:IC - its not just citations that talk directly about the creative work of a subject that are allowed on WP? Anyone else care to comment? Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References establishing the notability of things he worked on should be included in articles on the things he worked on. If it does not cover Greens work it has no place in Greens article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the references are there to establish the films he worked on as notable, which is one criteria, but others include reviews of his work, and some like Hollywood reporter review a film, mention the score, then list the name below. Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I may be blind but I did not see any mention of Green in the MTV News article and I only saw Green listed in the credits listed in the Channel 4 article. Yes there a lot of references provided but a good number do not even mention Green and those that do only provide trivial coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly meets WP:Music #10. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Norm Coleman. I've left a note on the relevant page about merging. Mgm|(talk) 10:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Laurie Coleman
- Laurie Coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Mrs. Coleman lacks notability on her own. She's the wife of a former Senator, but notability is not inherited. She's tried out a bunch of careers ("aspiring actor, model, licensed insurance agent and mother", as well as inventor), but in none of these has she risen above bit player. She was involved in some painfully abstruse financial scandal, but even if that has notability, it's already covered in her husband's biography. The subject of this article, too, should also get a few lines here, but is not notable in her own right. Biruitorul Talk 16:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My inclination is to redirct to Norm Coleman and mention the subject there. Some cursory searches don't indicate the subject is notable in her own right. The redirect is appropriate as it is a possible search term. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect to Norm Coleman as per LinguistAtLarge.--Cerejota (talk) 05:51, 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 00:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect to Norm Coleman per WP:INHERITED. Jd027talk 00:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elina Fuhrman
- Elina Fuhrman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A search shows some ghits resulting from her work, but no evidence she's notable for her work. No evidence of these unnamed and uncited awards she's won, and without those she's just another CNN correspondent. StarM 04:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any info on these awards she's supposedly won. If this info was added, then I might reconsider, depending on which awards they were. Otherwise fails WP:N. --GedUK 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep having passed the "minimum level of notability" i say keep.--Judo112 (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment do you have any evidence that she's passed this minimum level? StarM 00:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could ask you the same question.. but opposit?--Judo112 (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you could, but that's explained at the top. --GedUK 13:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I said how I'd searched and didn't find evidence. Since you can't prove the non-existence of something, the onus is on those saying it does exist. StarM 00:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you could, but that's explained at the top. --GedUK 13:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Gnews confirms her existence, but since this consists almost entirely of reporting from her and not about her, I conclude she fails WP:BIO. RayTalk 06:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep She does seem to have won awards for her journalism and it is a natioan network.... Vartanza (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment except there's no evidence of these awards. StarM 12:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Charles H. Carpenter
- Charles H. Carpenter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Associate at law firm whose notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by virtue of being a co-counsel on a couple of barely notable Guantanamo cases. Flunks WP:BIO: every source is either WP:PRIMARY or about one of his underlying cases. Redundant with existing articles. THF (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is fully enough information for this particular individual both with respect to his leadership in the GB cases and in other notable cases to justify an article. I am not sure that al of these afd nominations were equally well considered. DGG (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I reviewed nineteen articles in the A-through-C of the category, and made ten nominations. This article has a lot of footnotes, but they don't constitute significant independent coverage about the subject: two primary-source law-firm pages; a blog; a single sentence quoting him in the Legal Times; a copyright violation that doesn't mention Carpenter; a New York Times article that doesn't mention Carpenter; a UPI article that doesn't mention Carpenter; two articles that mention Carpenter in passing that are really about the case; an F. Supp. citation (every lawyer practicing in federal court has these--I have several myself. Not evidence of notability); a quote in the Missoulian; and the same Martindale entry that every other lawyer has. The other two cases in the article are not independently notable; the same Westlaw search can generate the same sort of WP:PUFF paragraph for tens of thousands of lawyers, even assuming that Carpenter was the lead lawyer on those cases, which may not be the case. Not notable. THF (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would assume there would be tens of thousands of notable US lawyers, that's about 1 or 2% of the profession.-- and after all, that might even include the nominator. TOO MANY is not an argument for deletion. NOT ME isn't an argument either. By the way, I agree with most of the other nominations (at least as far as merging, not keeping as separate articles) to the extent I've tried to find sources so far. Most of them do seem to be well considered. DGG (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I reviewed nineteen articles in the A-through-C of the category, and made ten nominations. This article has a lot of footnotes, but they don't constitute significant independent coverage about the subject: two primary-source law-firm pages; a blog; a single sentence quoting him in the Legal Times; a copyright violation that doesn't mention Carpenter; a New York Times article that doesn't mention Carpenter; a UPI article that doesn't mention Carpenter; two articles that mention Carpenter in passing that are really about the case; an F. Supp. citation (every lawyer practicing in federal court has these--I have several myself. Not evidence of notability); a quote in the Missoulian; and the same Martindale entry that every other lawyer has. The other two cases in the article are not independently notable; the same Westlaw search can generate the same sort of WP:PUFF paragraph for tens of thousands of lawyers, even assuming that Carpenter was the lead lawyer on those cases, which may not be the case. Not notable. THF (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability - if there is a notable person by this name it appears to be the Australian author born 1916 - and nothing here meriting a merge elsewhere. GRBerry 02:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, coatrack/BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just ftr, at no time during my representation of GTMO prisoners -- which continues to this day, after 19 years -- was I an associate at a law firm.
- Not disagreeing with the decision, about which I was more relieved.
- CC 184.166.66.148 (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As the law firm website shows, subject is a partner and the head of the firm effort in the GB litigation. Three items cited -- Montana bar vote to close GB, Taibi attempt to recuse CJ Roberts, investigation of CIA tape destruction -- distinguishess cases from ordinary GB litigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.84.193 (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per THF's exhaustive explanation of the sourcing/notability issues above. RayTalk 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I believe his dogged attempt to pursue the CIA over its violation of the court orders to preserve evidence that would show his clients were innocent merits coverage here. Geo Swan (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Request to closing administrators -- I know that this {{afd}} has run for close to the normal period. But I would like to request this article be relisted, so I include additional material. Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability can be inherited in extreme circumstances; for example, Clarence Darrow is far more notable as the defence attorney who represented Scopes, than Scopes is himself. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, those lawyers who have made a career out of representing a specific high-profile detainee (or a number of slightly lower-profile detainees, such as 17 Yemeni detainees simultaneously), are notable and people who google the name deserve to find an unbiased and comprehensive Wiki biography of the person. That may mean rewriting portions of this article, but it certainly doesn't mean deleting it. The fact that this is part of a concerted effort to simultaneously delete the Wiki biographies of almost every Guantanamo lawyer...coming right on the heels of the exact same nominators failing to delete almost 'every Guantanamo detainees means that "Assume Good Faith" is strained towards the breaking point. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 17:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited, it is provided by the existence of independent secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject, separate from the single event which initially gave him prominence. There is no evidence of that here, althoguh there certainly is for Mr. Darrow. If an independent scholar should write a book on Mr. Carpenter, we would definitely revisit this debate. As for your failure to abide by WP:AGF, that is quite tiresome. Is it inconceivable that there might be serious editors who have noticed that a significant portion of an entire category of articles is likely to fail our notability standards, and have embarked on a legitimate cleanup effort of this swamp? Although THF and I have disagreed in the past, I have the highest respect for his devotion to Wikipedia, and the energy he pours into maintaining its quality. RayTalk 20:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The individual is not independently notable, and the fact that the subject's alleged notability comes as the result of representing a detainee(s) is freely admitted. It is obvious the subject's "notability" is inherited from his clients' notability as detainees. The excuse is to, unwisely, use Clarence Darrow as an example. Ignored is the fact that Darrow's notability arose as the result of later coverage, when he was the subject of movies, and the fact he wrote four books. Darrow's notability arises not from his work, from the later coverage he received in print and film. Note that these features are missing regarding the subject of this AFD discussion. I also find the personal attack on the nominator, attacking the messenger and ignoring the message, to be in rather bad taste. The nominator, as is this author, is an attorney, and as such, special preference should be afforded to an attorney's professional opinion as to what makes another attorney "notable" in that profession. Examples of an attorney rising to the level of notable include being chosen as a member of the judiciary, heading legal organizations, and significant legal scholarship published by reputable publishers. The subject's role in representing his clients, including requests for spoliation as against the CIA as noted by another contributor, are not independently noteworthy. An attorney's role as advocate for his client, as further required by the Rules of Professional Conduct, dictates that he zealously represent his client's interests, doing so is expected (and further required), but it does not impart notability. Further, an attorney's efforts towards his client, when he stands in the shoes of the client as his counselor at law in a tribunal, are ascribed to the client, not the attorney independently. For this reason, motions are brought in the name of the client, through his counsel, not in the name of the attorney alone. As it stands, the subject's lack of notability dictates that the article be deleted. The author may want to use the links in the article with the articles related to the clients that the attorney in question represents. Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Darrow would have been notable had he never written anything but a legal brief or an argument. An attorney's efforts for a client may for technical legal purposes be treated as those of the client, but in actuality they are his own, or really good trial attorneys would never command the fees they do. I have previously noticed the likelihood of those in a profession over-deleting material of others in their profession; this is not a personal reflection, I've even noticed i automatically tend to be skeptical of articles on librarians. A claim to delete because "we know better than you that he is not notable" should be disregarded. A strong attack against all articles of a given type, or people in a given specialty, should be treated with very strong skepticism. DGG (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ. An attorney's interest is aligned with that of his client. One does not become a "better" lawyer for one's client because one drives a Lotus or charges "really high fees", though this may be your opinion as a layman. I have seen public defenders that could wipe the floor with attorneys considered superstars. Your position that we are overly critical of our fellow attorneys is noted, but also discounted at the same time. The standards of the profession, and the role an attorney takes in representing a client, are matters known uniquely by other lawyers. Thus, to an attorney, representing some person who's a "really bad guy" is as relevant as representing Joan of Ark. Attorneys gain notability not simply by doing their job, which includes representing sinners and saints, but by gaining notability OUTSIDE OF REPRESENTING THEIR CLIENTS. The client is the one with notability, not the attorney who advocates for or against their interests. Yet that is what we have in this case. Carpenter's notability arises because he represents a couple of GTMO detainees, which is about as notable as representing a mass murderer in Texas, or a single mother in Baltimore, or a drug user in Phoenix. It simply does not amount to the level of being notable. Notability is simply not ascribed to an attorney because his client is notable. It is not inherited. Yachtsman1 (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robina Suwol
- Robina Suwol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Questionable notability. Need some more opinions on this. tedder (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to meet notability requirements, but I wonder if the organization is more important than the person in this case (that's why I have the weak qualifier). Regardless, the article needs work.Vulture19 (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to California Safe Schools to avoid two parallel articles. Needs to be stubbed and rewritten, though. THF (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per THF, this article is almost entirely about the organisation, not the person. --GedUK 12:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do the two previous posters mean Move to California Safe Schools? The article does not currently exist so you can't redirect to it. SpinningSpark 22:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly meets the requirements at WP:Notability. The article needs a significant re-write though with appropriate sourcing, wikifying, etc.Nrswanson (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erin Lucas
- Erin Lucas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lacks notability. JaimeAnnaMoore (talk)
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - perhaps a sysop can check if this is a repost of Erin Williams? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. I looked and the deleted Erin Williams article is probably about someone else. Tabercil (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. I looked and the deleted Erin Williams article is probably about someone else. Tabercil (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Daughter of somebody famous, best friend of somebody semi-famous, but notability is not inherited. WP:BLP1E also applies as she doesn't seem to have done anything significant aside from appearing on a reality show. —97198 (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I feel that the above users seem to have not done their homework on this one. A couple of points, here. First, WP:BLP1E seems to have been misinterpreted in this case: Lucas' role in the television show is ongoing. She is a cast member after all. Also, the point that she is the daughter of Cliff Williams is irrelevant, yes, but should not disqualify the article's existence on those grounds, as some seem to be implying. In addition, in accordance with WP:BIO, I've found this source mentioning her, this source, this source, this source, this source, this source, this source, this source, and this source. So even though most of us Wikipedians wouldn't care about such a topic, the intended audience would, and our own policies that we do care about back this up. Jd027talk 16:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to AlMaghrib Institute. MBisanz talk 07:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammad Alshareef
- Muhammad Alshareef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No Credibility I really have no answer to what this article is doing on Wikipedia. It was created a couple of weeks ago and written as if it is a personal blog for a person with no notability, by one user who I suspect is the article's subject himself. I think this article should be deleted. Board56 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC) — Board56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since this person does not appear to be notable in the light of WP:BLP. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think there's a pretty good consensus. This one is obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 22:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Muhammad Alshareef into AlMaghrib Institute. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dez Reed
- Dez Reed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability established. The article proves the subject's existence, but doesn't show relevance. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The films mentioned under Film Work do not include him in the actors' list. Moreover I see no evidence of a large fan base (his tours seem to be limited to Saskatoon and Calgary). I recommend deletion per WP:ENTERTAINER. Antivenin 12:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N, WP:V and WP:ENTERTAINER cf38talk 15:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - at least some of the articles under the references section don't seem to mention Mr. Reed. I think his verifiable notability might not be sufficeint to keep an article. In addition, the article is kinda all over the place. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Albert Aprigliano
- Albert Aprigliano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article was tagged for speedy deletion a week or so ago; I declined at that time because there appeared to be some potential notability expressed in the people for whom this "up and coming" pianist has played. I stated that if notability wasn't more firmly established, I would be starting an AFD; well, here we are. The subject gets minimal results in news archive searches. I frankly don't see anything here that suggests the subject meets WP:MUSIC, but would welcome further discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I looked and looked and looked, but could find no reliable, third-party, sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 06:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 06:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: A look in the New York Magazine tells you why: "Continental Restaurant. Pianist Albert Aprigliano entertains nightly. Music from 5 to closing." Around for 30 years and only 150 Ghits? No recordings, no nothing - other than YouTube? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 06:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Owen Gleiberman
- Owen Gleiberman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A reviewer who's claim to fame is that he said a bad movie was good (at least that's what the discussion forums used as refs say). Non-notable. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless completely rewritten. With 20 years as a film critic for a major publication, Gleiberman is notable enough for an article and should have one. However, the present article is complete garbage, focusing solely on embarassing stuff from his schoolboy days (is that even true?) and his questionable review of Epic Movie. Yes, he should have an article but this is not it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy to make it easier to write a solid article. With the section about the Scary Movie review removed, the article still has enough material to live on. The only problem is that it needs some time to be referenced. (all the current refs are in the then removed section) - Mgm|(talk) 10:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Really? I thought his claim to fame was being one of the two primary film critics for one of the most widely distributed general-audience entertainment magazines in the United States for nearly two decades. On that note, I'm kinda surprised that Lisa Schwarzbaum is red-linked. Poechalkdust (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep but rewrite, edit down to basics as a prerequiste if necessary, but clearly a notable figure.Vartanza (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable as a primary critic for EW. With regard to the two delete/userfy !votes above, see WP:NOEFFORT - AfD is not cleanup, and there is no deadline. —97198 (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This should be an easy keep, given his long term status as a movie critic for Entertainment Weekly. Can't say it better than Vartanza and 97198. Lisa Schwarzbaum should have an article too. Rlendog (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per everyone above.Inmysolitude (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep yeah I agree that its a totally easy call for keeping Garynine (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sorry but "A reviewer who's claim to fame is that he said a bad movie was good," has to be about the worse rationale for nomination I've ever read, regardless of what one might have read in a ref. Owen Glieberman is a nationally read, very well known film critic. Keep per WP:SNOW. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Armand Rousso
- Armand Rousso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is on a barely-notable person with minimal press coverage, all the content is negative, and seems to meet the definition of an article that should be deleted per our BLP policy. As a matter of disclosure, this nomination is in relation to WP:OTRS #2009021810056021. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I heard about this off-wiki. Delete it dead, it is just a scandal article without any significance in the overall scheme of an encyclopedia. Keegantalk 05:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep since a Google News search does turn up a number of significant articles over the course of a few years, about the subject as a conman, a chess impresario, etc. Bill Clinton helped introduce the guy's search engine, there was an $80 million offering...in all, I think there's enough here for a brief article--but the nominator is quite correct in saying that the article as it stands cannot stand. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I of course don't agree about his notability, but if that is the determined case I'd say delete without prejudice and allows room for a recreated article that passes BLP. Keegantalk 06:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. If someone comes back with an exceptionally sourced, perfectly neutral biography before this AfD closes, then I'll happily withdraw. If they don't, the article must be deleted, because "keep and cleanup" is a reckless position to take (not that you took it, Drmies (you didn't given the last line of your comment), just more suggesting that some might). Even if it's deleted, if someone writes a perfectly sourced article and plomps it on my/the closer's talk page or at DRV, it will naturally be evaluated on its merits and if it meets BLP the article can be recreated. Daniel (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I of course don't agree about his notability, but if that is the determined case I'd say delete without prejudice and allows room for a recreated article that passes BLP. Keegantalk 06:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The material is sourced, and it is not out fault that the NYT coverage appears negative. Some (numerous) attempts to give him a fully WP:PUFF biography have been made in the past, and the current article is far more neutral that those attempts have been. Mr. Rousso has been very well known in stamp dealing circles, and in chess circles, thus he is notable for two separate endeavors. He has been in the NYT, has been photographed with and paid Bill Clinton (the stock deal was definitely reported) so is notable for political dealings as well. Deleting everything which has been in the NYT would seem a remarkably odd way of handling a biography, no? WP is in the business of giving the pertinent information, and the wording as is is about as NPOV as possible. Collect (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's as neutral as possible, it will likely be deleted as an attack biography. That's not a very creative keep reason in an AfD centering around WP:BLP issues... Daniel (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the Talk page. A very short statement was deleted, and the only way it could remain as a fact was to make the exact NYT wording clear. The NYT article does not libel Rousso in any way, and is scrupulously worded by the NYT. BLP does not mean "absolutely nothing negative." Where the NYT deemed it an important fact to print, it is not up to us to say "Rousso gets a BLP mulligan" is it? Meanwhile, look at the article origins as pure puff. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also [13] "In the court papers released last week, federal investigators alleged that Crain helped arrange the art auction and that the sale raised $40,000 for the campaign _ amounting to an illegal in-kind donation from Rousso because it exceeded the individual-contribution limits and was not reported on federal campaign reports. " (re: Torricelli investigation). So the article is nowhere near as "negative" as it might be, and BLP does not say that articles should be cleansed of all negative facts -- the fact is that the article lauds him for his foresight, and for his work in the chess world. Surely that is about all he can expect. Collect (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reworked the article a bit, cleaned up, reorganized, added references and templates. I believe notability has been established. Collect, your point is well taken; I never said that the guy didn't deserve to have his record listed, just that it wasn't worded very well. The note on his criminal record is slightly lengthened though I've removed some of the negative language from other parts of the article (such as the lede). Editors are welcome to rephrase that if they will; I don't care enough for the topic to do much more work on this. ;) Enjoy, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! There is more stuff out there, but it sems hardly worth the effort at this point. Collect (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reworked the article a bit, cleaned up, reorganized, added references and templates. I believe notability has been established. Collect, your point is well taken; I never said that the guy didn't deserve to have his record listed, just that it wasn't worded very well. The note on his criminal record is slightly lengthened though I've removed some of the negative language from other parts of the article (such as the lede). Editors are welcome to rephrase that if they will; I don't care enough for the topic to do much more work on this. ;) Enjoy, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also [13] "In the court papers released last week, federal investigators alleged that Crain helped arrange the art auction and that the sale raised $40,000 for the campaign _ amounting to an illegal in-kind donation from Rousso because it exceeded the individual-contribution limits and was not reported on federal campaign reports. " (re: Torricelli investigation). So the article is nowhere near as "negative" as it might be, and BLP does not say that articles should be cleansed of all negative facts -- the fact is that the article lauds him for his foresight, and for his work in the chess world. Surely that is about all he can expect. Collect (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the Talk page. A very short statement was deleted, and the only way it could remain as a fact was to make the exact NYT wording clear. The NYT article does not libel Rousso in any way, and is scrupulously worded by the NYT. BLP does not mean "absolutely nothing negative." Where the NYT deemed it an important fact to print, it is not up to us to say "Rousso gets a BLP mulligan" is it? Meanwhile, look at the article origins as pure puff. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but try for a more complete article. His earlier career is merely alluded to, but there seem to be sources for it. DGG (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —94.196.76.190 (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Gau
- John Gau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced stub. Appears to fail WP:BIO due to lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. There is an IMDB page but the roles mentioned in the article are not there which suggests they are not notable enough. —Snigbrook 14:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, very very that IMDB doesn't have these under his name - they are, unlikely Wikipedia fairly indiscriminate, in my experience. Been tagged for notability since 2006, so we're not going to get anywhere with this. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 14:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete only minor TV production credits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment have done some expansion and sourcing to the stub. Am now looking to see if any of his works have won awards. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Minor roles only Jamestilley (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - NN "executive producer" of a series of minor TV specials. The New York Times listing is not a full article. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan Rola
- Jonathan Rola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BIO. An independent film maker with non notable films. I don't come up with any news coverage for him and his films, and the only source on the page seems to be a webpage created by the person. Also, the independent film festival that his films are showed at has a reputation for accepting every entry that is submitted. There are no mentions of the movies elsewhere. FingersOnRoids 23:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom -Drdisque (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. One film, and no evidence of either commercial success or critical recognition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verne E. Rupright
- Verne E. Rupright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A mayor of a town of 5000 people with no other political credentials doesn't constitute notability. He only has an article as one of his predecessors was Sarah Palin, and I expect all major news coverage of him will be in respect to this. Computerjoe's talk 17:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —94.196.206.70 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —94.196.206.70 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree completely with the nominator, this is only because of Palin, and notability is not inherited. Dianne M. Keller, John Stein (mayor), List of mayors of Wasilla, Alaska and Category:Mayors of Wasilla, Alaska are all just window dressing, created after Palin came to national attention. We shouldn't list every small town mayor in the United States, Palin didn't have an article until she became governor. It's interesting to note that the Anchorage Daily News actually ran a story about how nobody really cared about the election that brought him to office [14]. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tumbleweed delete the corollary of the snowball delete... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Merely being the mayor of a town a governor or VP candidate is from/was mayor of doesn't grant notability. So unless someone puts forward an independent basis of notability, I'll have to go with delete. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Fast food. MBisanz talk 07:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caesar Barber
- Caesar Barber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete - any claim of notability is tied to the lawsuit. Subject is not notable beyond a single event and there is no justification for a separate biographical article. Otto4711 (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I agree that Barber is significant only because of his lawsuit, but it seems clear that the lawsuit is significant. It got massive press coverage in 2002, and Nexis shows continuing discussion of the case in the global media in 2007 (article in Business Day of South Africa) and 2008 (Nation's Restaurant News). I find references to something also called the "Stella Awards," which are some kind of award given to an outrageous or ridiculous lawsuit filing, and Barber's suit seems to have won one. Uucp (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Fast Food, merging any salvageable content. We shouldn't delete this outright because it's a plausible search term, and plausible search terms should not be redlinks.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as plausible search term, with a suggestion to merge or redirect the content per WP:BLP1E. -Atmoz (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect somewhere (probably Fast food) per WP:BLP1E. The event might be notable, but the person isn't. Robofish (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any relevant content into fast food - at this point in time, I do not see a point in redirecting because the fast food article does not currently mention Barber. CopaceticThought (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Benjamin DeJesus
- Benjamin DeJesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There are a few reasons why I feel this page should be deleted, but I'm not certain that this is the case. The page seems to be advertising for this person's company, Diamante Pictures, especially in the last few sentences of the biography section. I suppose this can be rewritten, but the person may not be notable enough to qualify for WP:NOTE. The article makes no reference to the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," that the notablility guideline states, and I also fear that such coverage does not exist. It has no references that illustrate this point; the only working external link is a link to the company's website, and the IMDB link does not work. Moreover, it was created by User:CreativeCross, and when the userpage's edit history is examined, it is clear that this user is Benjamin DeJesus or is affiliated with Benjamin DeJesus. This could be a conflict of interest, as someone may have just created the page to make them appear notable when they aren't, possibly even to use as a way, when communicating with clients, to make themselves seem more well-known. Maybe this is not enough to make the article qualify for deletion, but I still think that it deserves to be listed and discussed. Codename Colorado (My User Page) (My Talk Page) 21:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Can't find third party sources of value. WP:COI is a secondary concern, but not the reason for deletion Vartanza (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I haven't done the research needed to give an opinion about the disposition of this article, but I feel I must commend the nominator on the way the nomination is written. AfD usually seems to be a place where civility policy is completely ignored, with accusations of "vanity" or worse being made on the slightest of evidence, so I hope the wording of this nomination will act as an example to other nominators. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abdul Gani Asyik
- Abdul Gani Asyik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable, clearly fails WP:N Guy0307 (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Some modest hits in google scholar [15], but I don't think they demonstrate passing WP:PROF, a google search turns up no evidence of passing WP:N. The article itself contains no WP:RS to support WP:V. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See, many linguists cite him: this and this. Seulimeung (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this and this. Seulimeung (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you need to work these into the article if they're so worthwhile... SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this and this. Seulimeung (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Pete Hurds analysis of Asyik's modest impact. The four links given by Seulimeung are to a newslist (2x, not a WP:RS), one article citing Asyik, and the index of another journal publishing Asyik. None of this comes even close to establishing notability (even if we would consider the newslist a RS). --Crusio (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-start and or refactor - no attempt has been made to alert the Indonesian project on this SatuSuro 13:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if that was applied across Afd there would be a clear misconstruction of what Afd is about - even if it is a snowjob in the eyes of the nominator it makes no allowances for different opinions from project participants to actually see what is happening to their articles - also left similar comment at nominators talk. SatuSuro 01:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be fine in a controversial AfD. However, this article even fails WP:CSD#A7. Guy0307 (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He is at least more accomplished than the article stated prior to the relist – he has a Ph.D. – but that's about all that I can find to say about him, and that's far from enough to pass WP:PROF. As Seulimeung states, one can find citations to his work — this journal article (PDF) is a better example than the forum posts Seulimeung links to — but while it does say good things about his work, there are not enough citations of this type that I can find to demonstrate significant impact per WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete because I am wondering whether even this amount of work does not make him notable in as narrow a subject as this. DGG (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —SatuSuro 01:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as there appears to be a consensus from those who have commented here I feel that it is the position of an WP Indonesia editor to be on the record at least to show my usual cynical disbelief in the over-reliance of google checks as having any credibility whatsoever in non english speaking subject areas - and even further when it comes to something like Acehnese (or any region of Indonesia) professionals being deleted with such fervour. If one checks the general state of non english speaking project/subjects areas - it is so easy to wander in and find examples of 'universal' notions of This clearly fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:PROF, - and yet in some cases the individuals or subjects are in fact notable - but not in the broader terms of a universal global sense - what if he happens to be the only academic who is actually doing what he is doing? - I really think that regional/project voices in such debates are drowned out too easily when it comes to these sort of Afd's SatuSuro 01:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. In addition to the points made above by Pete.Hurd, Crusio and David Eppstein, the subject's most widely held book in libraries, Sistem perulangan bahasa Gayo, is currently in less than 16 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aneurin Barnard
- Aneurin Barnard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete nn actor, fails WP:ENTERTAINER Mayalld (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He played a lead role in a London West End musical which is the British equivalent of Broadway. ("spring+awakening"_"aneurin+barnard" any of these sources confirm it) - Mgm|(talk) 23:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, the sources say that the musical will transfer to the West End next week, so as of today he hasn't played a lead role. Also, WP:ENTERTAINER requires multiple roles in notable productions. Mayalld (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The time thing is a technicality. The production will have moved by the time this AFD is closed. Also, multiple notable roles is just one criterion that one can apply. If he meets WP:GNG we can still have the article even if he has just one role. - Mgm|(talk) 09:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - has received significant recent press coverage. MuffledThud (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not meet WP:Creative. None of his roles in TV have been "significant roles". Untick (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It does meet WP:ENTERTAINER: "...significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." He's got press coverage cited in the article as the lead role in stage performances. MuffledThud (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Larry Don McQuay
- Larry Don McQuay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No assertion of notability. Non-notable criminal. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, sadly there is nothing at all unusual or noteworthy about this person. Risker (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Needs to be expanded, better sourced, but I remember this case; the issue of the castration request IMHO makes him unique and notable (pending sourcing) -- 7triton7 (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Lots of news coverage and discussion, and even scholarly coverage (see the Florida Law Review article, e.g.). J L G 4 1 0 4 03:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject is an awful, awful person but does not meet our inclusion standards. As a criminal known for only one event (and the medical curiosity that he requested castration afterward), he failed to meet WP:BLP1E criteria for living people. Since he is a BLP article, I suggest that we assume non-notable until determined otherwise and this article does not demonstrate his notability sufficiently. JRP (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to 9 Queens. MBisanz talk 07:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jean L. Hoffman
- Jean L. Hoffman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I do not see that person as notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. The sources cited seem to be local newspapers covering the life of the town, not mainstream media. If I understand correctly it is just a person who organises chess events in her neighbourhood. SyG (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in accordance with WP:BIO stipulations specifying coverage in third party, reliable, sources. The article is presently completely unsourced and unverifiable. ColdmachineTalk 08:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, there are multiple, non-trivial mentions of Hoffman in reliable sources, but they are all in the context of 9 Queens. Suggest this information is merged into that article. Somno (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge unless we find more sources writing about Hoffman primarily. The 9 Queens article is not overly long, there is room. :-) --GRuban (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Merges and redirects cn be discussed on the appropriate talk pages Fritzpoll (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James Cawley
- James Cawley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Recreation of previously WP:SNOW-deleted fan-fiction webisode actor who does not meet WP:CREATIVE. His non-profit artistic contributions are not discussed in the media as artistic, but as a "Hey, isn't that weird" human interest story, but WP:NOT#NEWS. At best, this is a WP:BLP1E that should be merged with Star Trek: Phase II (fan series). THF (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per WP:BIO, though a redirect might be accaptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If this is an actual recreation of deleted content, then deleted it per CSD. However, creating a new article on the topic != recreation; given citations to NPR and Wired, I doubt this article as it currently exists would have been snowed. I know the Wired article has a bit more information about Cawley; whether sufficient to sustain/improve the article's sources, I don't know -- but, in working at James T. Kirk, I was surprised to see the article does, itself, discuss Cawley's performance (separate from the notable fan series project as a whole). I'll let folks better versed in the standards for actor pages decide. Lastly, at worst I'd suggest this content be merged to the series page (as half suggested by the nominator) -- and a talk-page discussion about a merge/redirect probably would have been a better first step (esp. considering the nominator's role in an ongoing content dispute that involves inclusion of this actor/his role at James T. Kirk).
- Strong Keep - This is a cynical attempt to short-circuit a consensus and logic he disagrees with in the James T. Kirk article. Indeed, the nominator attempted to remove the info via redirect previously. AGF doesn't mean putting blinders on to clearly cynical behavior, and THF has expressed his clear opposition to the fan-series, using many of the arguments that anons and sock-puppets have. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: are you suggesting that someone made 11,000+ edits in a sockpuppet account over three years so they could influence a debate over a James Tamberlin Kirk article in 2009? Seems implausible, at a minimum. Please WP:AGF. There's more than one person in the world who disagrees with you. THF (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am not considering you a sock. I am questioning your cynicism at offering multi-planed forum-shopping to moot an argument for which you cannot find consensus elsewhere in place of abiding by a consensus you personally disagree with. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As best I can tell, your supposed consensus consists of you and a single other editor who is lukewarm about your position, against two Wikiprojects that think you're wrong, at least three editors on the Kirk page who disagree with you, and what is very close to WP:SNOW on this page. How am I forum-shopping? Where else should I bring an AFD? THF (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you are misreading the views in the other wikiprojects, and you might wish to contribute there. Three editors in the Kirk page, two of which were blocked as socks, and one for 3RR - you are not among them. As for forum-shopping, I clarified that elsewhere. You sought to remiove/marginalize the actor in the Kirk artiucle infobox. When that didn't work, you sought to redirect the actor's article. When that didn't work, you removed the actor from the infobox altogether. When that didn't work, you then filed an AfD. Whatever happened to just dealing with not getting your way? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by "didn't work"? You reverted my edit, therefore it "didn't work" because I refused to edit-war? It's not like there isn't a consensus for any of the suggestions I have made; just because you refuse to recognize that consensus doesn't mean I'm in the wrong. You can have the WP:LASTWORD, which will be further evidence of your ultimate correctness. THF (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am not considering you a sock. I am questioning your cynicism at offering multi-planed forum-shopping to moot an argument for which you cannot find consensus elsewhere in place of abiding by a consensus you personally disagree with. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: are you suggesting that someone made 11,000+ edits in a sockpuppet account over three years so they could influence a debate over a James Tamberlin Kirk article in 2009? Seems implausible, at a minimum. Please WP:AGF. There's more than one person in the world who disagrees with you. THF (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per WP:BIO, though a redirect is accaptable.User:Marfoir
- Comment - James Cawley's William Shatner impersonation of James T. Kirk (down mimicing Shatner's unsual method of delivering lines) is a borderline parody by most accounts. Cawley organized and operates the "production" team that does Phase II, so the fact that he is playing Captain Kirk online was decided by himself and himself alone. He is just a hobbiest who has received some attention on special interest pieces. James Cawley was also part of the Star Trek: Hidden Frontier group. That storyline has not been included in the main Star Trek article, while Phase II (for some unknown reason) has been included. It makes no sense whatsoever to include fan fiction in the primary bio. Furthermore, none of the other Star Trek characters (except Spock) have the fan-actors listed in the "Portrayed By" box item. This included all the characters in Phase II, as well as the Next Generation characters that were replayed on Hidden Frontier (see Wesley Crusher for an example). Marfoir (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you cite your interpretation in your first statement "mimicing[sic] Shatner's unsual method of delivering lines"? I don't seem to be able to find a citation for that through a reputable, reliable source. Cawleys's involvement in other fan productions was due to his involvement in the Phase 2 production, existing at the same time as Hidden Frontiers. As the portrayal has received independent sourcing from a non-fan news outlet, its notable. That other characters do not have noted fan portrayals is more a function of a rotating cast list - which doesn't really set a precedent for a notable fan portrayal. I don't follow Hidden Frontier as much; the production values and acting was sub-par (actually, some of it was excruciating to watch). So, show us some support for your statements, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought not. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I assume from your question that you haven't actually watched New Voyages? If you haven't, I suggest you watch an episode and then compare it to one of the two fan-fiction speaking cameos Cawley had when he wasn't playing Kirk. You will notice a clear difference between his Shatner impersonation and the other two characters. Marfoir (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I ask you again, do you have a citation for that review, or are you adding your own interpretation? If thelatter, it has no place here (as its akin to belly-achin' about whether Kirk or Picard would win a fight, and about as important). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge/Redirect if there's anything notable and reliably sourced worth saving -- Article itself makes no attempt to demonstrate notability (per Wikipedia standards) outside of Star Trek: Phase II (fan series), which already has an article. DreamGuy (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess those accusations of wikistalking are ringing kinda hollow now, aren't they, DreamGuy? Lol- Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me? I've been doing a lot of AFD work recently, as I'm sure you are well aware. DreamGuy (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to be at least an assumption of bad faith, Arcayne. Please cool down. Consider this a warning. Cool Hand Luke 17:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- and that is why you took the extra-special effort to go to an article youy have never darkened the doorway of before and revert my edit? I am having more than a wee bit of trouble seeing that as an accidental choice, DreamGuy. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AGF doesn't mean overlooking bad behavior, Luke. The fellow accuses me - incorrectly, mind you - of wikihounding, and then turns around and performs a textbook wikihounding? Perhaps you aren't really seeing the full picture here. Opposing in AfD is one thing. Going to the article and reverting an editor who's had you blocked at least twice before is not deserving of good faith. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a deletion debate, and I see no reason to believe that these are anything but DreamGuy's sincere views on the article. He cites policy, and it seems consistent with votes I've seen him make on other debates. If you have a behavioral issue with an editor (which you may), AFD is not the place to bring it. Cool Hand Luke 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I won't challenge the character of that editor here. My apologies. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge/Redirect, per Dreamguy. This is a WP:BLP1E biography, and that one event does not pass WP:CREATIVE or have lasting impact (that is, it's soft news, and Wikipedia is not news). Cool Hand Luke 17:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete or Merge/Redirect, per Luke's reasoning that this is a WP:BLP1E biography. Cawley is only known for playing Captain Kirk in a few online episodes of a fan-produced Trek. At best, his name should redirect to New Voyages. Erikeltic (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but aren't you the same fellow that was blocked for block evasion and socking in the Kirk article? Sorry, i am not sure socks get a vote here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I recall, it was either you or EEMIV who accused me of socking after you blocked me for making the very edits that are now in place on the Kirk wiki. But to answer your question, I have been patiently waiting to continue our discussion since you abused your position here and had me silenced. I don't have much of a history on Wikipedia, but I have been around here & there with some minor edits once in a while. So no, I am not a sockpuppet. Erikeltic (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, it was not I who blocked you, though I supported it. And yeah, you were socking, but you were blocked and paid for it. Forgive me for taking your opinion with a grain of salt - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Subject does not need its own article per WP:BLP1E. Support addition of redirect as possible search term. -Atmoz (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - how about two events then? Famous for the fan film series, and a role in the feature film as well. Can you claim as much? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since I do not see how this subject warrants inclusion, esp. given the evidence presented by other editors and the fact that Google News, for instance, reports only one meaningful reference, to an NPR story. A redirect is in place, I guess. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - perhaps you missed the reference to the Wired story as well? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be courteous and sign your name, especially if you made snarky comments like that. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No snarkiness intended; given that you didn't note the Wired or NPR articles, I am guessing you had not used them to base your evaluation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be courteous and sign your name, especially if you made snarky comments like that. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - perhaps you missed the reference to the Wired story as well? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Cawley meets inclusion guidelines. His work as a producer and actor in Star Trek: New Voyages (which was nominated for a Hugo) allows him to pass WP:N (Entertainers). His small role in the new Star Trek (2009 film) cements this, as does the coverage in NPR. I understand and respect the belief that as a creator of "fan fiction" he is non-notable, but the level of involvement he has had in notable works clearly places him over the line and this article should be kept. JRP (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - By redirecting to the Phase II page, many of the other works James Cawley are involved in that I believe are worthy of a Wikipedia page will be removed. Not only is Cawley the star/creator of Star Trek:Phase II, but also he has a role in the upcoming Star Trek movie and owns the rights and is in the midst of producing an official Buck Rogers web series. - Plinstrot 13:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.48.2 (talk) [reply]
- Comment Looking at 76.103.48.2's history, it would appear that this contributor has a vested interest in Cawley staying in the main section of the bio as he has been almost exclusively editing content related to New Voyages and Cawley. Please remember that a "neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle." Neutral_point_of_view Erikeltic (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're probably right that as someone who has largely edited this page (and maybe created it, I don't remember), my opinions are likely biased. However, I just want to note that I have no relation whatsoever to James Cawley, Star Trek: Phase II, or any fan film productions. I'm not even a Star Trek fan. I just came across the project from an article featuring it on the front of Yahoo.com and was amazed at what was being accomplished. Plinstrot 20:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Plinstrot > I had to comment on what you wrote. First, I appreciate the fact that you are keeping a really cool head about all of this and I applaud you for that. However, your statement "I'm not even a Star Trek fan" is false as you are one of Youtube's primary promoters of the Star Trek: New Voyages fan franchise. A word to the wise--don't be deceitful here. Marfoir (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice find. Plinstrot, please review Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest before you make any more false statements about your neutrality on the issue. Erikeltic (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, as I stated, my opinions ARE likely biased, AKA I am not disputing that the fact that I've made edits to this and the New Voyages page and thus my opinions may very well be not neutral/biased, so take them with a grain of salt. But what is this about me being "deceitful" or making "false statements"? I was being 100% truthful when I said I am absolutely not a Star Trek fan (or Trekie or whatever). What I am a "fan" of is Star Trek: Phase II/New Voyages. I don't care about Spock or Kirk, what I am interested is what motivated fans and amitures create both in fan films and online web series. The reason I have Phase II videos on YouTube is because I uploaded them before any other of their videos were on the site, hoping to help give them exposure. Disclaimer: I'm also a member of the Phase II message boards, where I know I made posts saying how I'm in no way a Star Trek fan as long as two years ago. So next time, try and read what someone actually wrote before calling me deceitful. I'm a fan of the quality of the fan films, but not really one of the sereis it's based on (I'm not even sure if I've ever seen a full episode and I know I've never seen any of the movies). P.S. I'm not trying to have an attitude here, just correct Erikeltic and Marfoir's assumptions.Plinstrot 9:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Calling someone's posts "more false statements" is pretty uncivil. Plinstrot's response was fabulously restrained, if you ask me. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, as I stated, my opinions ARE likely biased, AKA I am not disputing that the fact that I've made edits to this and the New Voyages page and thus my opinions may very well be not neutral/biased, so take them with a grain of salt. But what is this about me being "deceitful" or making "false statements"? I was being 100% truthful when I said I am absolutely not a Star Trek fan (or Trekie or whatever). What I am a "fan" of is Star Trek: Phase II/New Voyages. I don't care about Spock or Kirk, what I am interested is what motivated fans and amitures create both in fan films and online web series. The reason I have Phase II videos on YouTube is because I uploaded them before any other of their videos were on the site, hoping to help give them exposure. Disclaimer: I'm also a member of the Phase II message boards, where I know I made posts saying how I'm in no way a Star Trek fan as long as two years ago. So next time, try and read what someone actually wrote before calling me deceitful. I'm a fan of the quality of the fan films, but not really one of the sereis it's based on (I'm not even sure if I've ever seen a full episode and I know I've never seen any of the movies). P.S. I'm not trying to have an attitude here, just correct Erikeltic and Marfoir's assumptions.Plinstrot 9:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Nice find. Plinstrot, please review Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest before you make any more false statements about your neutrality on the issue. Erikeltic (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Plinstrot > I had to comment on what you wrote. First, I appreciate the fact that you are keeping a really cool head about all of this and I applaud you for that. However, your statement "I'm not even a Star Trek fan" is false as you are one of Youtube's primary promoters of the Star Trek: New Voyages fan franchise. A word to the wise--don't be deceitful here. Marfoir (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're probably right that as someone who has largely edited this page (and maybe created it, I don't remember), my opinions are likely biased. However, I just want to note that I have no relation whatsoever to James Cawley, Star Trek: Phase II, or any fan film productions. I'm not even a Star Trek fan. I just came across the project from an article featuring it on the front of Yahoo.com and was amazed at what was being accomplished. Plinstrot 20:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looking at 76.103.48.2's history, it would appear that this contributor has a vested interest in Cawley staying in the main section of the bio as he has been almost exclusively editing content related to New Voyages and Cawley. Please remember that a "neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle." Neutral_point_of_view Erikeltic (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cawley break 1
- Keep - Notability is established as an actor in Star Trek: New Voyages and Star Trek (2009 film), and as producer of producer in Star Trek: New Voyages and other projects. Esasus (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Multiple people have based their "Keep" !vote on the ground that Cawley is in Star Trek (2009 film). A look at IMDB shows that his "character" is listed behind "Vulcan Bully #2" and doesn't have a name -- I presume is in the movie as a cameo extra, and he may even have added the entry to IMDB himself. THF (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we should start a "Vulcan Bully #2" wiki for that actor and list every second Vulcan bully from each Trek epsiode and movie. Erikeltic (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- James Cawley's role is as a glorified extra in the film (though he was chosen specifically by JJ, who is a fan of Cawley's work on Phase II), but just so you know, the placement on IMDB actor lists is often not indicative of the size of the actors role in the film or project. Plinstrot 21:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does he have a speaking role? Yes or no. THF (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't know, but if he does, I would imagine it's limited to a word or two in the background. Plinstrot 22:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a non-speaking cameo. See the end notes here: http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/12/editorial-james-cawley-on-the-new-star-trek-movie/ Erikeltic (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe ease off on the cross-examination, THF; I am guessing you'd likely not take a shine to being questioned that way. And so what if its a non-speaking role. When was your last film performance? Your last major role in a web-series? How about your last gig as an Elvis impersonator? Until then, I think the death of a thiusand cuts is very thinly-disguised anti-fan film discrimination. I get it; I just don't think such behavior belongs here in Wikipedia where good solid content exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs)
- I was on C-SPAN twice last night, with a rerun on C-SPAN2 later today; does that count? And I've had six notable people over at my house for Super Bowl parties. I don't see the relevance, though: are you seriously suggesting that someone who isn't a film-star isn't in a position to adjudicate the notability of a non-speaking extra role in a movie? THF (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've done some additional searches for sources. In addition to Wired and NPR coverage as described above, I have found these two.
- Cawley is mentioned in an April 2008 article in a Burlington, VT newspaper which covers his appearance on a talk show ("Late Night Saturday"), but this may be a local show. (Found w/ ProQuest)
- Cawley is mentioned in Consumer Tribes, a 2007 book. ([16]) (Found w/ Google Scholar) They are "reverend guests at the StarTrek conventions they once attended as fans.
- I don't make a position whether these two sources add to his notability. I stand by my argument above. JRP (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If being mentioned in a book is a notable source, I'd mention he's interviewed throughout the book Homemade Hollywood (though as are many less notable fan film creators).
- Also, a few other potentially noteable things about Cawley are a) he's been featured in a number of lists (at least once at number one) on most influential/important Star Trek fans, b) he provided set pieces to the Enterprise TV show, who in turn named a ship on the series after his home town, c) he actually worked as an assistant costumer on TNG (if I remember correctly), and d) as I mentioned before, his level of production and managing of the series (which I'm sure has been noted in other reputable sources) led the owners of the Buck Rogers property to give him the rights to turn it into a live action show.Plinstrot 8:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please include some sources to back up these claims. Marfoir (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that. Here are some of the links I found: a) [17], [18], [19], b) [20], c) found on page 245 of Homemade Hollywood by Clive Young, d) [21], [22], oh and I forgot he played Captain Kirk's Nephew in the professional fan film Of Gods and Men, which starred actors from every iteration of the series. Plinstrot 12:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With the exception of Wired, these citations appear to be Star Trek publications and one Sci-Fi publications. Bignole stated his feelings on this subject very clearly inWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Question_about_character_spoofs.2Fsatires_and_non-studio_portrayals. Furthermore, the NPR piece which keeps being used was a special interest/ "Hey, isn't that weird" piece. That is part of the reason why we are having this discussion. Cawley is only notable for being a fan that produces his own Star Trek webisodes, starring himself as the captain. Marfoir (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please include some sources to back up these claims. Marfoir (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Cawley's notability is easily established by his connections with Star Trek: Phase II and now with the new feature film (even as an extra, this is not something just anyone gets to do). A simple Google search turns up non-trivial mentions from NPR, Wired, USA Today, The Washington Post, Forbes, The LA Times, The Totonto Star, Chicago Tribune, and many others. Also, for the claim above that his only notability is in connection with his fan series, that is not true. Cawley is producing a new licensed Buck Rogers series for the web, as reported here: [23], [24] - with that in addition to the Trek mentions, I have no qualms about keeping the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As other ediors have pointed out (and I will not duplicate their efforts), Cawley's notability seems to be easily and firmly established with multiple media references, as well as a chapter devoted to him and his project in Clive Young's recently published book, Homemade Hollywood. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Cawley's notability has been clearly established. Even a minor role in the upcoming film is significant, because the sole reason for his inclusion in the film is the director's appreciation for his work. Although his success in his "field" is unprecedented, it's no less success and no less notable. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete or Merge/Redirect per DreamGuy and others; nothing of note about this guy that can't go into the articles about the fanseries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)
- Keep per JRP.Nrswanson (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zach Putnam
- Zach Putnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable minor league baseball player that has no claim of notability. Google news search returns just 8 hits, most of which are published by Univ of Michigan. Can be recreated when he plays at a level that previous consensus has accepted as substantial for notability or he otherwise gains notability. Grsz11 03:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —BRMo (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Although not very notable, a standard Google search provides 665,000 results, a good deal of which are about this baseball player. It looks like a person spent a great deal of time on this article, so I see no harm in keeping it. It's not like it's fancruft or anything like that. -Axmann8 (Talk) 05:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, as you can see, I've voted to delete an article about a "drag king". If such an article should exist, then this article should as well.-Axmann8 (Talk) 07:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might also wish to see WP:POINT. :-) Outsider80 (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only is your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument invalid, it's contradictory...you voted delete on the other article. Grsz11 13:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, as you can see, I've voted to delete an article about a "drag king". If such an article should exist, then this article should as well.-Axmann8 (Talk) 07:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with the caveat, outlined by nominator, of possible recreation in the near future. And maybe it isn't fancruft--but one has to admit that it does not have the plethora of published sources that, say, Murray Hill (performer) has. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (without redirect) to Cleveland Indians minor league players. The content should be shortened to one or two paragraphs (consistent with the other short biographies on the page) by dropping the material on high school, personal life, etc. A redirect is not appropriate because his name will presumably be dropped from the article when he leave the Indians minor league system. BRMo (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - per BRMo, the person in question is not notable enough for his own article,per WP:ATHLETE but there's enough for inclusion in the list. FingersOnRoids♫ 21:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for the same reasons the nominator stated. I actually don't see speedy recreation as an issue, the quickest would be a September call-up, which isn't that near. Wizardman 22:12, 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, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bobbi Miller-Moro
- Bobbi Miller-Moro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable individual Tom 17:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge - Merge/redirect material into husbands bio if at all, otherwise delete per nom. --Tom 17:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —94.196.67.124 (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The film she starred in and co-produced, Love and Suicide, has received a great deal of acclaim. Are their any reviews of her work in it that might source a notability? Otherwise, he limited film career does not seem to have caught much attention. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Give some links to the acclaim, keeping in mind that article for the movie most likely is heavly edited by TG4M (aka Bobbi Miller-Moro), so it has NPOV issues and needs a template I guess. — raeky (talk | edits) 03:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough... acclaim of the film found through a Google search, many of which were not included in the Love and Suicide article:
After Ellen, "review of Love and Suicide", Miami Herald, "Ignoring embargo, Americans film in Cuba", Moving Pictures Magazine, "Love & Suicide", Zimbio, "Inside the Making of Love & Suicide.", Passion abd Perfection, "Love and Suicide", Film Radar, "Love and Suicide (2005) - Support Obama in lifting the embargo from Cuba", TV Guide video, "Cuba's Love & Suicide, the movie", Hudson Reporter, "The Revolution Begins Within", Zimbio, "Public Magazine interviews filmmakers Luis Moro and Pete Maez on the making of the biggest little picture Love & Suicide. Shot in Havana, Cuba by Cuban-American Filmmakers.", Zimbio, "Independent Filmmaker Luis Moro believes he is the best Running Mate for Obama?", National Association of Latino Independent Producers, "LOVE & SUICIDE", et al. So the film and filmmakers have acclaim. This returns to my original statements and question: She starred in and co-produced the film. He orther film career is rather minimal. So does he work within production and cast of an aclaimed film contribute to her notability? My thought here is to give the article a major sandblasting to eliminate the POV and ADVERT now that it belongs to wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- But does that independent movie make her notable by the criteria of WP:N? We don't have pages for every producer and small time actor in small independent films. Beyond that movie what else would make her notable? At best these references establish notability for the movie, not herself, she needs more then this to be notable enough to have a page. There needs to be reliable secondary sources about _her_ and not projects she's participated in. — raeky (talk | edits) 08:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My question too. I believe her notability is minimal, but just barely enough. And to answer your hypothetical, it would depend on how much press the "small independent film" received... and this one has received tons, which sets it apart from the pack as it were. ANd this slipery slope of WP:NOTINHERITED has to recognize the contributions of those who created the Notable project. Notice my lack of vote? I'm not convinced one way or the other, but we are each one of us defined by what we do and how it is received... and that is also a measure of notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I agree with your assertion that this film has received "tons" of press. The google search you provided only yields 2,220, which quite frankly is almost nothing for google. rottentomatoes.com has recorded zero reviews, amazon.com has four customer reviews. movieweb.com doesn't even have it listed. nytimes.com has virtually no info, and only two user votes. These websites are very high traffic, if the movie was notable at all and had any audience they should reflect that? — raeky (talk | edits) 10:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is probably also making a case for an AfD on that movie's page as well on grounds of WP:N. — raeky (talk | edits) 10:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon my hyperbole... only offered because the film indeed has had ample coverage for an Indy, and I have simply responded to your original request up above about the film's "acclaim". I am not myself impressed or bothered by lack of a NYT blurb or a Rotten Tomatoes review, as they (like Wiki) are quite far from being an all-inclusive database for film. It would have been helpful, certainly, but the film does exceed the inclusion requirements set by WP:NF by having multiple, in-depth reviews in reliable sources... and WP:NF does not in any way mandate that these be the NYT or RT. Note that I still have not gone one way or the other... and this has kinda taken us away from my original question. Now its a pity that her co-production of and acting in the film is not already in the film's wiki article (noted below), but hey... we already know that wiki is not a reliable source (chuckle) and leaves out far more than it includes... and her participation in those capacities has been elsewhere WP:Verfied. Full circle.... does her co-producing and acting in an acclaimed film give her any notability as actor or producer? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't feel that being a co-producer or playing a minor role in a minor film is notable enough to justify her own page. Mention on the movies page (if it indeed qualifies as notable for inclusion) sure, but her own, I don't think so. As for mention of her as co-producer, she herself didn't add that to the pages info, and again in this page shes building on her user space for their future film doesn't list her as co-producer. You'd think that if she was actually a co-producer she would list herself as one. Sure she's a partner in her husbands company, but an actual listed producer, I'm not so sure. Notable enough to have a page I don't think has been demonstrated. — raeky (talk | edits) 06:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon my hyperbole... only offered because the film indeed has had ample coverage for an Indy, and I have simply responded to your original request up above about the film's "acclaim". I am not myself impressed or bothered by lack of a NYT blurb or a Rotten Tomatoes review, as they (like Wiki) are quite far from being an all-inclusive database for film. It would have been helpful, certainly, but the film does exceed the inclusion requirements set by WP:NF by having multiple, in-depth reviews in reliable sources... and WP:NF does not in any way mandate that these be the NYT or RT. Note that I still have not gone one way or the other... and this has kinda taken us away from my original question. Now its a pity that her co-production of and acting in the film is not already in the film's wiki article (noted below), but hey... we already know that wiki is not a reliable source (chuckle) and leaves out far more than it includes... and her participation in those capacities has been elsewhere WP:Verfied. Full circle.... does her co-producing and acting in an acclaimed film give her any notability as actor or producer? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is probably also making a case for an AfD on that movie's page as well on grounds of WP:N. — raeky (talk | edits) 10:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I agree with your assertion that this film has received "tons" of press. The google search you provided only yields 2,220, which quite frankly is almost nothing for google. rottentomatoes.com has recorded zero reviews, amazon.com has four customer reviews. movieweb.com doesn't even have it listed. nytimes.com has virtually no info, and only two user votes. These websites are very high traffic, if the movie was notable at all and had any audience they should reflect that? — raeky (talk | edits) 10:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My question too. I believe her notability is minimal, but just barely enough. And to answer your hypothetical, it would depend on how much press the "small independent film" received... and this one has received tons, which sets it apart from the pack as it were. ANd this slipery slope of WP:NOTINHERITED has to recognize the contributions of those who created the Notable project. Notice my lack of vote? I'm not convinced one way or the other, but we are each one of us defined by what we do and how it is received... and that is also a measure of notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But does that independent movie make her notable by the criteria of WP:N? We don't have pages for every producer and small time actor in small independent films. Beyond that movie what else would make her notable? At best these references establish notability for the movie, not herself, she needs more then this to be notable enough to have a page. There needs to be reliable secondary sources about _her_ and not projects she's participated in. — raeky (talk | edits) 08:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough... acclaim of the film found through a Google search, many of which were not included in the Love and Suicide article:
- Give some links to the acclaim, keeping in mind that article for the movie most likely is heavly edited by TG4M (aka Bobbi Miller-Moro), so it has NPOV issues and needs a template I guess. — raeky (talk | edits) 03:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(exdent for convenience) Comment I just wanted to note that the article for Love and Suicide doesn't mention the subject's name as being a producer. She certainly asserts that that is the case in the body of the autobiographic article, but there is other evidence to suggest that she isn't. For instance, one of the above-cited reviews at Zimbio, "Inside the Making of Love & Suicide." says "Bobbi Miller-Moro could carry several job titles in her husband’s independent film production company: production coordinator, marketing director, actor, publicist, and fan manager." (Another of the references above is to a different film with the same name, the After Ellen, "review of Love and Suicide" article.) Accounting4Taste:talk 23:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Struck "AfterEllen" link above) And please note that I was NOT offering those sources as any proof of Bobbi's notability..... only answering User:Raeky's request for sources showing the film had itself been the subject of much attention. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find any reliable sources that give any notability to this article. I'm "the guy who started all this", to quote the autobiographer, and held off on expressing my opinion until I could see if the subject or anyone else could come up with any reliable sources at all to justify retaining this article. None have appeared. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' Note that the autobiographer suggests "And I'll wait until I can hire a professional company to put back all five wiki pages and bio's that are up for deletion besides mine that I created." so I recommend SALT. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pre-emptive salting should be avoided. If she has the poor judgement to actually recreate the article soon (assuming it does get deleted now), it can be done then. And who knows, if she leaves well alone for a few years she might be notable enough at some point; which would be demonstrated ideally by somebody unconnected creating a bio using a number of clearcut reliable sources. Rd232 talk 02:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I placed all the pages she created on PROD, they're all equally not notable and unsourced. Valerie Hoffman, Simone Sheffield, John Steckley, and this page (and all the images that was linked was clear copyright violations) Aria (singer). It seems see doesn't understand what wikipedia is and thinks it's a webhost from her comments on your talk page. — raeky (talk | edits) 22:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' Note that the autobiographer suggests "And I'll wait until I can hire a professional company to put back all five wiki pages and bio's that are up for deletion besides mine that I created." so I recommend SALT. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete From my searching around I can't also find anything to qualify her for WP:N the movie she "stared" in will also likely fail WP:N if it was put up for AfD I suspect since any movie website of note doesn't reflect it has notability that I can find. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The company's two films to date may scrape by WP:NF, but Bobbi's self-published book, apparently small role acting in Love and Suicide plus usual indie-style doing-a-bit-of-everything behind the scenes on it ([25]) don't qualify for notability for me. And good reliable sources on any of this group of topics seem hard to come by, again a symptom of limited notability. Delete this and nominate relate articles. Rd232 talk 02:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Ustream.tv. MBisanz talk 07:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Ham
- John Ham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability. The only claim of notability is in founding Ustream.tv, and the information about their founding of the website can easily be merged with Ustream.tv. Outside of that website, there's nothing here which requires separate articles for the cofounders. IIIVIX (Talk) 23:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages (Co-founder with John Ham, same reasoning as above):
- Brad Hunstable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. DougsTech (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge--Moloch09 (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nominator Jezhotwells (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shawn Cohen
- Shawn Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. Contains links to Mr Cohen's commercial website and the like. My Notability banner was removed without comment, by a user name obviously created for the purpose (as was a bot's Orphaned banner). I've already removed Shawn Cohen spam from the article Ophthalmology. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Subject seems to have some notability as the co-author of a few glaucoma related papers, specifically [26], [27],[28]74.69.39.11 (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment [29] is noteworthy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcarovallmd (talk • contribs) 21:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The paper mentioned by Andrewcarovallmd above has only been cited twice, not really noteworthy when compared to the way highly influential work of researchers passing WP:PROF here typically is. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides, Andrewcarovallmd has been created exclusively to add this comment. My apologies if I am wrong, but the article looks very much like an advertisement to me. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is from the AMA, who I do not believe accepts advertising.74.69.39.11 (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC) My bad.74.69.39.11 (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I meant the Wikipedia article. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I see no evidence that he passes WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Like Pete.Hurd, I could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either - news coverage not particularly impressive.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am Dr. Shawn Cohen. It was brought to my attention that this biography was made on my behalf, unknown to me. I did not solicit this Article or begin it. I am truly an Assistant Professor of Ophthalmology, at McGill University, dedicated to patient education on my area of expertise, specifically glaucoma.
In keeping with this goal, I have absorbed 100% of the costs to provide free access to up-to-date patient-centered information on glaucoma, cataracts and other diseases. The links on Super Eye Care are to external valuable sites that patients have evaluated as being very useful for them. Not all of my published works, or current projects, are available on the internet, for copyright reasons. As well, some of my National Committee memberships, are not publicly known and will not be seen on the internet.
My free link to a Messages or clinical pearls section is a list of vital tips, some of which have saved people from damage. My eBook can be downloaded for free. I have NO pharmaceutical advertising on my site. All the lecture dates given are for FREE public educational seminars for anyone who wishes to attend. Yes, I am a Professional Speaker and can be hired to coach and teach organizations but only because I have 13 years of University education to back up this expertise. I participate in free discussion boards, like Topix, to help address public concerns on glaucoma and I personally respond to all emails sent to me directly through my website. When I am alone with a patient I can help one person at a time. On the internet, I can relay this information to people I am unable to help in person.
If any material on this or other sites with my involvement are deemed inappropriate, please contact me directly and I will make sure that they are in keeping with the above highest standard. If Wikipedia will serve to allow me perpetuate a pure educational goal for glaucoma and eye care advocacy, I would be honored greatly for your support. I remain humbly dedicated to the needs of the public for their support in dealing with glaucoma and other eye diseases.70.27.246.47 (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Shawn Cohen, MD[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete He certainly has published a lot but not much has been published about him. I'd be happy to swing the other way, however, if that can be remedied. Basket of Puppies 03:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 05:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet notability criteria. ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 11:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete per the professor test. Eusebeus (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk 11:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Danny Rose
- Danny Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Has not played a pro game, there-for fails WP:Athlete. Govvy (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 15:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability at WP:ATHLETE. I'm pretty sure this has been through an AfD I created before, bundled in with a few non-league footballers, therefore eligible for speedy deletion - if I can find the AfD. --Jimbo[online] 03:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's rather different from the previous article. Best to let the AfD play out, I think. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'll follow that up with a delete !vote: delete per nom as the subject fails the guidelines for athletes, having never played in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete falls too short to be called as notable-sorry Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Scheurwater
- Robert Scheurwater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Autobiography about a web designer whose only claim to notability seems to be the recipient of (what appears to me to be) a small website design award. Fails WP:BIO. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. That's a borderline case. If the information on the article is accurate, he actually received two awards and 10 nominations for his work, so I think he may pass WP:N. On the other hand, there's a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest since he wrote his own article, so we definitely need to check the validity of the awards / nominations.- Delete. Okay the "nomination" list is very misleading. You don't actually get "nominated" by these websites, you just register yourself and that counts as a "nomination". So he just registered himself ten times and put that as a list. The website that gave him the awards doesn't appear to be notable itself so in the end, he fails WP:N and of course there's still the WP:COI issue.Laurent (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —87.252.35.195 (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. In everyone's eyes a national award is a national award. Therefore he would pass WP:N in his defense writing your own article will leave the readers with more accurate information. SteveGin (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC) — SteveGin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Let's take a closer look at the award then; even if receiving the South African Web Award confers notability (which I don't believe it does by itself), these awards are given to the website, not the creator. Thus, zero evidence of notability for Mr. Scheurwater. Also, see WP:AUTO for our guideline on autobiographies. --AbsolutDan (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay lets go into detail
- The notability was checked by an admin User:Ruslik0 when I created the article
- I created the article the rest is up to the people if they want to edit or read.
- Even if the award got given to the website in the DISCLAIMERS on the website it says I AM THE WEBSITE DESIGNER don't say that you have taken a closer look into it if you have NOT!!!
- Who r u>? BTW
- Please don't trying to vandalize or remove article them if they are notable
- Thx RobScheurwater (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is vandalizing the article, we are discussing whether or not it should be deleted. This is a normal process here at Wikipedia. No one here is doubting that you created the websites in question. My opinion is simply that because it was the website that received the award, and not yourself directly, that notability is not conferred.
- The edit you refer to by Ruslik0 was merely the removal of the speedy deletion tag. An article that claims notability, however thin a claim, cannot be deleted speedily. Nowhere that I see does he indicate his opinion on actual notability.
- Who I am is a Wikipedia editor. That is all that is important here. But if you're asking how I came to nominate this article, I stumbled upon it while performing New Page Patrol. --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay lets go into detail
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is no article for the South African Web Award (and based on my failure to find any hits for it in Google news, there should be no article). This is a non-notable award that does not convey notability, and as discussed above, even if it did convey some notability it would be primarily on the web site. Google news also fails to find any hits for Scheurwater himself, so he fails WP:BIO. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Like I said notable is notable no matter what anyone says, thinks,and cares and national awards fall under notabilityWP:N. I have already send the South African Web Awards an email about this and that they should start an article on Wikipedia. I have already made a start for them they will update the winner list on Monday. Google news??? There are website confirming that I have won the awards. In write most of it myself, so that the article explains and people understand the notability Wikipedia:BIO#Failure_to_explain_the_subject.27s_notability, so Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is not a valid tag, because I wrote most of it myself. RobScheurwater (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "failure to explain the subject's notability" section you refer to above is a suggestion to Wikipedia editors, not the subject of the article, that they should be bold and fix problems as they see them, if they can. Good point about the COI tag though; I've changed it to the more appropriate "autobiography" tag. --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unable to establish that SA Web Award is notable. The only mention it seems to get is from sites stating that they've been awarded one – no press coverage or critical commentary. The FAQ doesn't instill much confidence – just by creating an account with the site, anyone can "participate in the website review process." An award where anyone can help judge is going to struggle to be taken seriously. Couldn't find anything else that would help him meet the WP:BIO guidelines. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? thx for your opinion, but when the MTV Awards get taken place people get to vote too those votes don't count a lot. It is the same here people can register to judge (peer judge), because it only counts 10% (peer judge) of the overall mark. The panel of judges (SAWA judges) count 90%. I am not comparing the MTV awards with the SAWA, because I hope you see the similarity. Can name another Website Designing Awards besides the CLIO Awards that has media coverage. By the way i am going to the CLIO Awards 41.243.250.126 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't actually give a reason for your keep. This is a discussion, not a vote. If you can provide sources that show that the awards are notable then that will help your position. You do raise an interesting point: the judging process doesn't appear to be stated anywhere: Who exactly are the SAWA judges, where is it specified that only 10% comes from signups, how exactly are these numerical ratings generated etc. It really just seems like a unprofessional operation to me. Certainly this is just my opinion. As too is the lack of notability of the awards ... unless someone can demonstrate otherwise. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To 41.243.250.126 it is 75% (SAWA Judge) 25% (Peer Judge) and MTV is 80% Judge and 20% Voters. Wikipedia:CREATIVE#Creative_professionals A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Take this one for example - The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. I am the creator of the King's Kids Johannesburg website with is an international youth organization I created that website and maintenance it for free because they are a NPO it gets over 450 000 (almost a half a million) hits last year. I will get more info about the SAWA awards for you ASAP ever though it is a national award. In South Africa the press doesn't come to that stuff they to freaking busy with the FIFA 2010 and the crime in South Africa. RobScheurwater (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is simply no reliable sources covering Robert Scheurwater. The web award does not rise to the level of recognition that would meet notability for wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't actually give a reason for your delete opinion, because you just said it is not notable even though it is a national award and according to Wikipedia national awards are notable. By the way Wikipedia is with a Capital letter. From RobScheurwater (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. From WP:BIO, A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. So winning a "national award" is not any guarantee of inclusion. As for my opinion not being substantiated, the substantiation is the very opening sentence. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made at least two notable requirements:
- i) I won 2 national awards and another one hopefully within 6 weeks.
- ii) The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, = King's Kids Johannesburg website with is an international youth organization I created that website and maintenance it for free because they are a NPO it gets over 450 000 (almost a half a million) hits last year.
- iii) The person is known for originating a significant new technique. = I am the President and Founder of AST which is a free copyright licensing company where people can submit their work onto a the National South African Copyright database. Which was started 2 months ago and people have already started submitting their work even though it isn't online yet. And is the first free copyright licensing company in South Africa. Which is going to be the new copyright technique in South Africa cost free. Press release will be on 1st April 2009 RobScheurwater (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - we clearly disagree on the notability from the awards. What you might win in the future is not relevant now. As for creating a website, I don't see how that rises to being a significant or will-known work. Starting a copyright licensing company regardless of whether it charges fees is not really originating a new technique. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- we is who? YOU you mean. I didn't say that what I might win in future. Starting a copyright licensing company regardless of whether it charges fees is not really originating a new technique. Is the new technique in South Africa I has not happened before and will be press released in April. I don't care how things work in Canada, but name five companies on national copyright database scale in Canada that does that for free. RobScheurwater (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "We" is you and me, as in you and me disagree on the awards conferment of notability. And "...and another one hopefully within 6 weeks" seems to me to be a forward looking statement. As for the free copyright licensing company, there are many companies that work on clearing copyright. Some like the Copyright Clearance Center are even a not for profit. So doing it for free isn't all that different from other businesses. It's not a new technique. -- Whpq (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I said Canada not U.S. Whpq "...and another one hopefully within 6 weeks" yes I am looking forwards to the judges results. In South Africa it is a new technique. AST getting registered as a NPO by the end of this month, because we don't charge people for getting their work copyrighted that is why it has not been released to the press. I am trying to get this implemented in South Africa copyright companies are charging people over $250 per submitting of their work. This is a new technique in South Africa, so just accept that it is a new technique in South Africa. RobScheurwater (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way I just checked the Copyright law from U.S is different compared to the South African copyright just to let u know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobScheurwater (talk • contribs) 17:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My take on your points: (1) national award is not synonymous with notable award. No one has yet attempted to show that these awards are notable. (2) Your quote left out a significant part: "... that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." In this context, multiple independent articles would have to be written about the website itself - not just the organization (3) If this has generated you press coverage please go ahead and add the sources to the article. If not, and if the article is deleted, then just wait until you get coverage from multiple independent sources and recreate the article. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the South African Web Awards has 12 winners for March so far. February has 25 winners, and January has 10. These awards seem to be handed out rather freely. -- Whpq (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL - Most web design company hand out 50 category award due to different categories and then gold, silver, bronze and merit with SAWA they have combined all the categories so it work out roughly the same. Think and do the maths RobScheurwater (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Vanity article created by non-notable person about himself is an example of what Wikipedia is not. This person has also created articles about A. Scheurwater Technology (his non-notable company) and South African Web Awards (the non-notable award upon which his non-notability is based). These should also be nominated for deletion.--Boston (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - autobiographical spam by vanity editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete: Per WHPQ here, the only claim of notability is this non-notable award and per OM above. This author has created a vanity autobiography that is a self-promotion piece with a never-stronger COI and no decent indication of any notability. Toddst1 (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Derek Keeling
- Derek Keeling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Questionable notability. Small parts of small productions; if the main claim to fame is ending third on a Grease talent show, that's not enough. tedder (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —87.252.35.195 (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nn per WP:BIO with WP:COI concerns. Reads like a CV not an encyclopedia entry. Eusebeus (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:Creative. This actor had a significant, regular and recurring role in the notable TV show "Grease: You're the One That I Want!".(2007). Untick (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He came third. Peridon (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "The show ran with mixed to positive reviews, and to sold out crowds, in Sarasota, FL at the Asolo Repetory Theatre from October to November". Wow! "He was replaced in 'Tale' by Aaron Lazar. It appeared Keeling made the proper decision when Tale announced its closure for November 9. Grease closed on January 4, 2009." According to my maths, Tale ran longer than Grease. "Who is best known as the third-place finisher in the reality casting show". No comment. Peridon (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elon Bomani
- Elon Bomani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is a complete Autobiography and breaches the Neutral point of view, No original research and Notability policies in Biographies of living persons. Hekerui (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep--nominator is quite right on most counts, but this search has a couple of hits from the Sacramento Bee and Observer; coupled with the article from JET referenced in the article it might just squeak by. Of course, the spam needs cutting. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I looked at the coverage, and I agree with Drmies -- this squeaks by. That said, all the other issues have force. RayTalk 06:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - I just did a bit of cleanup on this article, and it does has a number of claims that hint at notability, but it needs a lot of work... as far as the provided links go, the Blacknews.com link is a self released press release (read: advertisement), the JET article makes her out to be more of a landlord than anything, and the Essence link provides only a teaser about 4 different women... there are no references provided for anything other than she has authored 2 books, is a landlord with a million dollars worth of property, and is "creator of Bomani's Village Enterprises"... no references for childhood or education, and no concrete proof of notability... being the CEO of a company does not automatically allow someone to pass WP:N, and as an author, I'm not 100% sure she passes WP:CREATIVE either... She claims to have written a handful of books, but there is no mention of how successful those books were, nor how successful her company was... the WP:AUTO concerns bother me also... unless references are added to prove why she passes the notability concerns, I'm leaning towards delete for now... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as nominator. Hekerui (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm concerned about the extravagant claims and obvious errors - there is no Westchester University, but she may have attended West Chester University, but then again that is not clear. It reads like a resume, not an article. I'd need a lot of convincing to change my mind about this one. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC) There are lots of hits on Google and Yahoo, but nothing in Google News. Is she famous in the African American community and in Sacramento, but not in the wider world? Is she bad at getting news copy? Bearian (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Faisal Kutty
- Faisal Kutty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability not established --Docku: What's up? 18:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —--Docku: What's up? 18:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some gScholar hits, gBooks, gHits. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep because even though I don't see a lot of in-depth discussion of this person, he has published (an article in CounterPunch, for instance) and, more importantly, he's cited continuously in CBC stories. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is now identified as a stub - wait . Also it may require general cleanup eventully. This person is an author of many (Notable that way). --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - lots of citations available by him at Google Scholar, and about him, too. Easy to clean up; I've started the job for you. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 07:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deko Dekov
- Deko Dekov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is part of a walled garden created by DDekov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) describing his own research, using primary sources only, with grandiose claims of priority that would not survive scrutiny and hence violate WP:NPOV. Aside from the severe WP:COI problems, the research does not appear to be notable, and I believe Dekov fails WP:PROF. I am also nominating:
- Computer-generated mathematics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Machine for Questions and Answers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Computer-Generated Encyclopedia of Euclidean Geometry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Journal of Computer-Generated Euclidean Geometry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added after Laurent1979's comment)
Note that a superficial look at Google scholar gives the wrong impression: the Euclidean Geometry reference has 22 citations, but they are entirely self-citations. The Deko Dekov page was already deleted once, in 2006, but I don't see an AfD so likely WP:CSD#G4 doesn't apply. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. —87.252.35.195 (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —87.252.35.195 (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's a clear WP:COI. Also I've searched for his name on Google but couldn't find anything substantial. He published a few articles but none of them seem to have received independent reviews, and none of them appears in major publications. Same thing for the three related articles. Laurent (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable self-promotion; I suggest adding Journal of Computer-Generated Euclidean Geometry to the nominees. - Biruitorul Talk 15:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the same time you were suggesting this, I was adding this — done now. Thanks for the suggestion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For information: The 2006 deletion was a speedy deletion because the author and sole editor, Dvdvd (talk · contribs), blanked the article. The deleted article gave Dekov's full name, including the middle name whose initial is "V". (Xyr initial is also given in the papers that xe has written.)
David Eppstein, I think that you are, if anything, underplaying the problems with what's available via Google Scholar. All of the results bar exactly four when looking for "Deko Dekov" are articles from the so-called Journal of Computer-Generated Euclidean Geometry. Despite the presence of an editorial board and a call for referees, this isn't an actual mathematical journal. I've just gone through it. Its articles are machine-generated, and all by Dekov xyrself. The one human-written piece was a letter to the editor (which is Dekov) from Dimiter Skordev, pointing out errors of attribution and fact in the machine-generated articles.
The remaining four articles are papers by Dekov, which don't document any of the above subjects. Looking for the "Machine for Questions and Answers" and other such things yields similar problems. There's no better to be had from Google Books or Google Web, furthermore.
The only place that this computer program, machine-generated "journal", and machine-generated "encyclopaedia" are documented is on Dekov's own WWW site. Let alone anyone else, it appears that not even Dekov xyrself has published any papers about them in any actual, human-written, peer reviewed, journals of mathematics.
There are serious verifiability problems here. The only sources with any information at all are not human-written, and they only document these subjects insofar as they contain boilerplate text to the effect of what the name of computer program that created them is. There's no in-depth documentation to be had on these subjects, and what entirely superficial and scant documentation that there is isn't published in a reliable publication, doesn't appear to be peer reviewed, isn't human-written, and doesn't even appear to have escaped its author and become a part of the general corpus of human knowledge.
Finally: All of the documentation of Dekov xyrself that appears to exist is autobiography, on xyr own WWW site. The PNC is not satisfied, there. Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with extreme prejudice. Besides, he already has his own computer-generated encyclopedia; that seems like the perfect place for
himhis computer to reference his own computer-generated cruft. – 74 01:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Delete. I think that the fact that there's no independent sources that talk about him says it all. Matt (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Note from Dr.Dekov:
Thanks to all participants.
The Machine for Question and Answers is the first computer program, able easily to produce new knowledge. The Encyclopedia of Computer-Generated Euclidean Geometry is the first encyclopedia, all results in which are produced by computers. The Journal of Computer-Generated Euclidean Geometry is the first journal devoted to mathematics created by computers.
I have included the above statements in the articles, because I believe that the Wikipedia users have to know the facts.
The first version of the Machine (2006) is relatively primitive. The aim of this first version is just to test the validity of some of algorithms. The first version of the Machine is produced by using relatively primitive software tools. But the first version of the Machine easily produces thousands math theorems, including thousands new theorems. The first versions of the Machine easily produced the first (still test) version of the Encyclopedia (2006).
I am working on the second version of the Machine which uses new software tools, including new programming language. The new version will be able easily to produce approximately 10 millions new theorems in Euclidean Geometry, that is, to extend essentially the current Euclidean Geometry. I plan to form a team of researchers from a few countries in order we together to produce the second edition of the Encyclopedia. The researchers will use the Machine to obtain new results, and will be authors of articles of the Encyclopedia (and co-authors of the Encyclopedia). Also, the researchers will have the possibility to publish their results in journals.
I would like to invite Dr. Eppstein and others who are interested, to join the team.
Computer-Generated Knowledge is important for the future of science and I believe that the Wikipedia users have to be informed about any success in this area.
Sincerely,
Dr. Dekov —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDekov (talk • contribs) 08:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They'll be informed when you go through the proper academic processes and publish papers about your work in proper, human-written, peer reviewed, academic journals. Wikipedia is not a mechanism for performing end-runs around such processes. It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. It is not a journal, it is not a free WWW host, and it is not a publisher of first instance. You do not publish information about your work by going to your university library and writing directly into the books and encyclopaedias there. You do not publish information about your work by coming to this encyclopaedia and doing the equivalent. You publish it using the normal, well-known, and long-standing mechanisms, of formal academic peer review and publication in formal academic outlets. This is what encyclopaedists require of researchers. This is what the world requires of researchers. Uncle G (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The user has tried to edit-war with me over the "autobiography" tag on his autobiography. That alone says his intentions aren't the most sincere. All of these are blatant self-promotion which isn't what Wikipedia is for. Themfromspace (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all apparent SPA; apparent COI; apparent OR; no independent sources; no evidence of notability; the on-line "encyclopedia" is little more than a shopping list of theorems. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is an archetypical illustration of the dangers of writing articles about yourself and/or your own work. I must say that I am surprised that Dr. Dekov does not understand the academic process better: he has 20 publications on mathscinet, 9 of which are in journals with a perfectly solid international readership and reputation. It would certainly be possible to write a reasonable article about his academic work. (Whether it would pass our WP:PROF standard is another matter, but the current version is not appropriate for any encyclopedia.) Plclark (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all lack of reliable, secondary, sources independent of the subject; fails WP:V. -Atmoz (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This recommendation applies to all of the articles that make up the WP:WALL. Computer-generated mathematics is an intriguing idea, with the potential of attracting media coverage and helping one or more of the articles pass notability requirements in the future (including Dekov’s article, under WP:BIO. Unfortunately such coverage is practically nonexistent at the moment, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All fail WP:V, WP:N. RayTalk 17:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Danczuk
- Simon Danczuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fluff piece written for a Parliamentary candidate. Wikipedia policy says that Parliamentary candidates are not deemed in themselves notable, nor are local councillors. "Vision Twentyone", apparently a Labour-leaning consultancy firm, of which he is the director, is probably not notable either. Little of the information in the article comes from neutral sources. Wereon (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also worth noting that the creator of and primary contributor to the article is User:JonMulligan; a Jonathan Mulligan is one of Danczuk's employers at Vision Twentyone [30]. Wereon (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And also that the article has been tagged as non-notable before, but JonMulligan removed the tag: [31]. Wereon (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Knowing Simon personally, I don't intend to express a formal view, but I've replaced most sources with neutral ones. I've not done this for his writings, but have listed two publications found on the web. By the way, I'm not sure there's any reason to comment on the professionalism/partiality of his company, as no one is claiming notability for it. MikeHobday (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasoning was that, were it notable enough, he might inherit notability from it. Wereon (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable.Nrswanson (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grace Khold
- Grace Khold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Musician that is not notable in any way. Fails WP:MUSIC. GtstrickyTalk or C 02:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 10:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable outside of his band (the notability of which I'm not commenting on here). Fails WP:MUSIC. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now I'll say it. Dope Stars Inc. are not notable. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability outside of non notable band. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:Music.Nrswanson (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeong Da-Hooeon
- Jeong Da-Hooeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested WP:PROD, South Korean footballer with no evidence of first team appearances in a fully professional league, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom LetsdrinkTea 17:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 12:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems to fail WP:ATHLETE as not having yet played in the league, as far as I can see. -- Alexf(talk) 14:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Darin Yevonde
- Darin Yevonde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Musician that fails WP:BIO. GtstrickyTalk or C 02:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 10:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable outside of his band (not commenting on the band's notability here). Fails WP:MUSIC. Appears to be part of a walled garden about the band. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now I'll say it. Dope Stars Inc. are not notable. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability outside of non notable band. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:Music.Nrswanson (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elli davis
- Elli davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete promotional article about a real estate agent, whose title is also incorrectly capitalised. Mindmatrix 14:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I came across this while stub-sorting, and I moved it to a properly capitalized title, as well as slapping a bunch of tags on it and removing some unencyclopedic material. I'd say delete it unless someone finds enough secondary source material from which to build a properly referenced article. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete I'd have given it a db-bio. She's doing a job. A good job, but just a job. Absolutely nothing notable in terms of an encyclopaedia. Peridon (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11. TJRC (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Victor Love
- Victor Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Band member not notable on his own. Fails WP:BIO GtstrickyTalk or C 02:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'd have to say that Victor Love is pretty notable indeed. I found plenty of links talking about him and all the movies and TV shows he's been in. Oh wait, that's Victor Love the actor. Victor Love the musician? Nothing. Delete. Matt (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, deletion with humour, nice one Matt. Delete, fails WP:CREATIVE, lack of reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 10:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable outside of his band (not saying they're notable). Fails WP:MUSIC. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now I'll say it. Dope Stars Inc. are not notable. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Gray Davis. Material is in history if there is any material to merge. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sharon Davis
- Sharon Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Is the spouse of a governor notable? There is nothing here to suggest that Sharon Davis is, apart from her choice of husband. pablohablo. 15:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the page so that anyone who may be interested in learning more about her may have the chance. Her being First Lady of California is very notable, plus the fact that she won Miss Santee while in High School.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Per WP:BIO, simply being the governor's spouse does not confer notability, but information about Mrs. Davis may be included in her husband's article. In order to have a standalone article for Sharon Davis, Additional criteria must be met. (See Notability fallacies — Notability is inherited — however, "this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady.") In the case of Sharon Davis, is there reliably sourced information about her activities as California's First Lady. If not, it would seem that her information should be merged with the governor's article. "Miss Santee" does not seem notable; Miss America would be notable.— ERcheck (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The same argument could be used for Martha Washington, but many assume good faith and decide that some articles are worth keeping.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My inclination is to support deletion, but perhaps more sources can be found and some more content can be added that would support the subject's notability. I may check back later in the AfD period to give a recommendation either way. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Gray Davis. Based on the current article, she doesn't seem to be notable enough for her own article. TJ Spyke 17:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Gray Davis; notability is not inherited, and a few lines in Gray's biography constitutes adequate coverage. - Biruitorul Talk 22:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect (1) Her early life section contains information that isn't in her husband's article. (2) Since her name is a likely search term, redirecting it to her husband is a good compromise between full keep or delete. (3) Merging little notable relatives to the article of a family member is common practice. - Mgm|(talk) 10:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Looking at this from a world-wide perspective, isn't it far more likely that a reader typing in "Sharon Davis" would be looking for the extremely notable Sharron Davies, rather than for the obscure spouse of some provincial governor? If we want to best serve our readership then any redirect should go there, not to Gray Davis. For a horrified few moments I thought that it was Sharron Davies's article that was up for deletion here. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Gray Davis.Nrswanson (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I find the argument that Lester and Lex Coleman are the same person to be unconvincing at this point, and User:Nrswanson's summary is correct that the provable information we have on this person doesn't establish notability. In addition, although much discussion took place, only User:Petri Krohn seems to be seriously advocating a keep, and given the rebuttals to most of his points from the other participants in this discussion, I see a clear consensus to delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lex Coleman
- Lex Coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is clearly a hoax. Searches for references verifying the content have yielded nothing. Note: This article is not referring to Lester Coleman (also known as Lex Coleman) who probably is notable but to a fictional person. Nrswanson (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- '
Merge' and redirectfound this and a google search suggest that this is a real person that meets WP:N guidelines. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I absolutely agree that "Lester Coleman" (Lester Coleman the II) is notable and he already has a seperate wikipedia article. This article on "Lex Coleman" (Lester Coleman the III) however is completely a hoax. None of the facts in the article are accurate. The books he apparently wrote don't exist, nor is he a recipient of any of the supposed awards (Emmy Award etc.), and he never worked for the Boy Scouts. Be intelligent and do a little fact checking before you vote keep. Doing a quick google search doesn't cut it when you have a clever hoax.Nrswanson (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Lester Coleman. This is an obvious hoax article and should be deleted. However, Lex Coleman is another name for Lester Coleman so for search reasons Lex Coleman should redirect to Lester Coleman.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmmm .. semi-interesting enigma we have here. We have the Lex Coleman article being discussed here, a Lester Coleman article which also contains some dubious claims, a Lester K. Coleman redirect (which goes to the "Lester" article), and an apparently very real Lester K. Coleman II (a.k.a. Lex Coleman) who was a TV/Radio talking head - but mysteriously disappeared. Both Lester and/or Lex articles appear to be talking about "reporters", career(s) that revolve around terrorism and mystery. I'll be interested in following the developments of these articles - even if the only "Coleman" I am currently familiar with is the one that autographed my portable stove. ;) <* Changed my vote from "Keep" to "Merge" by the way *> Thank you to editor Nrswanson by the way for bringing this to my attention - good catch! — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 22:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why merge? The content in this article is all fake. What's there to merge?Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Clearly a hoax, as per Nrswanson.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The book Squeal does exist and is authored by a Les Coleman. No idea whether that still means this is a hoax, but if it is do not redirect. The hoax (if it is such) should be deleted, a redirect can always be put in its place afterwards if neeeded. SpinningSpark 23:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct but Les Colemnan is a different person than the person written about here. The whole article is a montage of misconstrued information.Nrswanson (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree that his name does not appear on any list of awards. Changing to delete. Good catch spotting it. SpinningSpark 23:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or merge to Lester Coleman – if the two are the same person. This is not a case of {{Hoax}}, but possibly a hoax that should be included in Category:Hoaxes. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply.How many times do I have to state this. The article up for deletion claims that they are two different people and the content for both articles is different. Further all of the content in the Lex Coleman is false, whereas the Lester Coleman article is basically ok. A merger is a bad idea because none of the content in the Lex Coleman article is accurate.Nrswanson (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Lester Coleman article says he died in 2008. The Lex Coleman article says he is alive and working on a book. Now, is he dead or alive? Somewhere I read that he faked his own death. You are implying the opposite – his ghost writer is faking his life. What ever the truth, this is getting more and more intresting. I am working on sources. I found a Mr. Lester L. Coleman III, who may be the same person. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am implying no such thing. This article is about a fake person who is completely different than Lester Coleman (as stated by the Lex Coleman article). I make no assertions about ghost writers. I am only interested in verifiable facts. The fact of the matter is that this article is a hoax. Searches of Time Magazine's database reveal no Lester Coleman or Lex Coleman as an author in 1997. Nor has anyone under either name ever won an Emmy Award or worked for the Boy Scouts of America. No one has yet to produce a single source which verifies the content in this article. Even if this person does exist, which I doubt, no evidence has been produced that asserts the subject's notability.Nrswanson (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a reference stating that he was the chairperson for the Faculty of Arts & Humanities of the American University of Technology in 2007. I also found four sites or pages where he advertises his services with biographic information:
- Lex Talk America
- Lex Coleman at Voice123 voice over marketplace
- Lex Coleman at MySpace
- Personal communications & conflict coaching at Skype
- Please do not remove references or links from the article while you are at the same time arguing for the deletion of the article. He does not seem to be focusing on getting people to hire him as he is most likely dead. It is however becoming evident that he is the same person as Lester Coleman. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Petri I see no source that you have found which confirms or even hints that both people are same person. Further, that source for his death is a speculative blog post. Not exactly a reliable source. (Not that it matters. He's not notable whether he's alive or dead.) You have yet to find one independent reliable source verifying any of the content in this article.Nrswanson (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. User:Petri Krohn has now found this source [32] which seems to establish that the subject is the Chairperson, for the Faculty of Arts & Humanities at American University of Technology. However, that university is a very minor academic institution so I don't think it confers any notability to Coleman. (Fails WP:ACADEMIC) It does, however, establish that he is indeed a different person from Lester Coleman. However, the rest of the article's content still remains unverified and with the lack of independent verifiable sources the subject stills fails WP:Notability.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Broadweighbabe and Nrswanson. Without any sources verifying the content or establishing any of the guidelines at WP:Notability this article should be axed.Inmysolitude (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am the person who tagged the Lex Coleman article with the merger tag. I am identified as User:Anne Teedham who has been blocked indefinitely, and will no longer be a participant in anything Wikipedia. However, before my departure, my employer has requested that I "clean up" this particular loose-end because User:Petri Krohn asked me why I think the two people are the same. My reasoning goes like this: Both articles (before the above respondents began to make alterations) claimed that Lex and Lester were twin brothers yet both brothers attempted to secure authorship of the controversial book Trail of the Octopus. In addition, both brothers wanted to possess the accolades of their achievements with respect to: writing, to the Middle East, and to a variety of common interests. When I began looking closer, I found their picture; yet it was the same picture being shown at two locations: a biography of Lester at Intergirtynews.wetpaint.com while simultaneously being used to identify Lex at his website Lex Talk America. To me, this is not an indication that they are twins; rather it is an indication of a narcistic hoaxster. I doubt seriously that twins would use the exact same photographic glossies when presenting themselves. All humans have vanity. When I wrote what I wrote about Lex, Lester, Lester K., Lester Knox, II, III, Thomas Leavy, and Tomas O'Leary, I was engulfed in the particulars surrounding everyone's participation in Pan Am 103, Inslaw, and in Lester Knox Coleman's court cases. Everything suggested that a hoax was being perpetrated by a very skillful fabricator, one who had been released apparently from prison, and had returned to his Middle Eastern associations, and was trying to erase a portion of his past while also securing a more exciting future. When I suggested the merger, I was not suggesting that the entity should be punished for something like sockpuppetry (*grin*) but rather that his "biography to the world" should contain whatever a combined article could offer, and in a way which was an interesting biography of a very colorful character. It looks like you guys are onto the right track. Goodbye. I must disappear now and accept my demise without whining. (I am sorry that I really do not have the time to go into greater detail as my employer's Wikipedia IP may be permanently blocked due to whatever is done at this moment from this IP.) Annie Teedham 24.170.224.225 (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not sure exactly what to say Annie. You've presented an interesting story but with no concrete facts. For those commenting on this discussion I suggest that you stick to facts. As it stands, there are still zero sources backing up the claims of this article. Several of the facts are provably wrong. There is no evidence establishing this subject's notability. Regardless of the convoluted diatribes above, this article still fails to meet the requirements established at WP:Notability.Nrswanson (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is interesting original research, but I don't see how "Lex" passes WP:N just yet. Perhaps someone will follow up and produce a reliable source; then we can have a "Lex" article, or put the "Lex" material into the "Lester" article, whatever is supported by the sources. Studerby (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merged - I have now spent the evening looking for references. I found a copy of Trail of the Octopus on-line. Everything in this article that is verifyable is about the same person as the article Lester Coleman. I have moved what can be referenced or attributed to a source to Lester Coleman. I am now going to turn Lex Coleman into a redirect. I ask that someone speedily close this AfD as merge. If you insist on arguing, maybe you should start a AfD on Lester Coleman. If you decide to delete the version history of Lex Coleman, I ask that you move it into my namespace. There is still something there that might be referenced. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. - Why are these two the same person:
- The four promotional sites listed above are the same person ("lextalkamerica") because the sites link to each other.
- Lex Coleman ("lextalkamerica") is evidently the university professor in Lebanon because he says so (and because his site shows "University Students in Lebanon Learning with AVI")
- Lex Coleman the voice actor and teacher is Lester Coleman the secret agent, because his sites contain biographical information consistent with that of Lester Coleman, including writing the same books, producing the same radio shows and winning the same Emmys as Lester and even sharing his photograph.
- -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly oppose merge None of the evidence you have presented proves anything. Everything you have produced goes back to personal websites, blogs, and other highly unreliable sources like myspace. I see no value in merging any of the content from this article into Lester Coleman as the info is highly suspect. Further, it would be better to make a clean start and wipe out the obvious hoax side of this article's history.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears user:Petri Krohn has attempted a merger of Lex Coleman and Lesther Coleman against consensus here. I still strongly question whether the professor at American University of Technology can be connected to the American intelligence officer based on existing sources and think the merger a bad idea. He has also tried to pre-empt this AFD by redirecting the article on Lex Coleman to Lesther Coleman and removing the AFD notice. Broadweighbabe has reverted him once and I have reverted him once. Petri Krohn would you please rephrane from unilaterally making decisions and let this AFD take its natural course. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree that both articles have been from the start under heavy hoax attacks, see Talk:Lester Coleman#Dead or alive?. Everything needs to be verified and a large number of edits needs to be reverted. However this whole discussion on merging is totally moot. Everything that is verifiable needs to go to Lester Coleman. As for the notability issue; you cannot find Lester Coleman notable and Lex Coleman not notable, as they truly are one and the same persion. The only source for them being distinct is Wikipedia as edited by Coleman himself. He created this article as Lexcolemanllc (talk · contribs). I am to blame for marking the aticles with the {{Distinguish}} hat-texts. When I found the articles in January they made no reference to each other. I considered proposing a merge, but seeing that the articles had been heavily edited by Lex II and Lexcoleman (talk · contribs), I tought Lex would know if he and his "brother" were the same person. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this article asserts (or at least asserted before your edits) that they are indeed two different people and since no evidence has been produced that definitely links the professor at American University of Technology to the American intelligence officer I think we have to assume for the moment that they may be seperate individuals. I personally disagree with your decision to put the American University of Technology information in the Lester Coleman article for this reason. There's really nothing here that can be merged because its all suspect info from shady sources. Almost all of your current edits to Lester Coleman is original research Petri. What you are doing replaces the hoax article with something just as bad, if not worse, since its more likely to be believed by the casual reader.Nrswanson (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree that both articles have been from the start under heavy hoax attacks, see Talk:Lester Coleman#Dead or alive?. Everything needs to be verified and a large number of edits needs to be reverted. However this whole discussion on merging is totally moot. Everything that is verifiable needs to go to Lester Coleman. As for the notability issue; you cannot find Lester Coleman notable and Lex Coleman not notable, as they truly are one and the same persion. The only source for them being distinct is Wikipedia as edited by Coleman himself. He created this article as Lexcolemanllc (talk · contribs). I am to blame for marking the aticles with the {{Distinguish}} hat-texts. When I found the articles in January they made no reference to each other. I considered proposing a merge, but seeing that the articles had been heavily edited by Lex II and Lexcoleman (talk · contribs), I tought Lex would know if he and his "brother" were the same person. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The material I moved to Lester is sourced from Trail of the Octopus — like most other stuff there. Of course it should not be stated as fact, as was done here, but be attributed to the book, unless other sources are found. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's absolutely inaccurate Petri. You added much more than that to the article, including the third paragraph of the lead which should be removed entirely as original research. ([33]) Nrswanson (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
←I felt I had to strike my !vote, simply because I do not know the answer here. It's all very interesting, and I'll try to keep track of it over the coming weeks - but I don't feel I have enough solid knowledge to supply any input for now. Good Luck to all. ;) — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 04:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Summary of above. I hope this summary will help other editors comment or close this AFD. As of right now the only concrete evidence about this person is that he is a professor at a minor academic institution in Lebanon. This is only supported, however, through sources directly related to the University which are therefore not really independent of the subject. The supposed notable academic achievement of Audiophonic visual isolation has been deleted in a seperate AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audiophonic visual isolation) for being non-notable. Clearly fails WP:PROF. There is no evidence found in extensive searches which proves he was ever a White House Correspondent, winner of an Edward R. Murrow Award, winner of an Emmy Award, producer with ABC News, or Director of Public Affairs for the Boys Scouts of America. These are all high profile positions/awards and there should be evidence easily found for all of these. As there isn't this whole thing is a major hoax. User:Petri Krohn believes he is the same person as Lester Coleman, but thats really only his opinion as no evidence establishes this. He has merged some of the information in this article into that one, which I view as a woefully bad editorial decision. That issue, however, is really seperate from this AFD and should be addressed at Talk:Lester Coleman. In conclusion, this article is clearly full of false information and what little is true fails to meet WP:N requirements for notability.Nrswanson (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammad Abubakar Durrani
- Muhammad Abubakar Durrani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I removed a prod template on this, but I can't link any of the claims of winning medals to any news source. In any case, winning medals at a national event does not really satisfy the notability guidelines for athletes. pablohablo. 10:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:Athlete as has not competed at World Championship or Olympic Games. No notability. Parslad (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Parsald, you have comments about this young boy Muhammad Abubakar Durrani of age 14, but you don't know that can a boy of age 14 could take part in Olympic Games ?,please incurage young men of backward countries and back ward areas, to protect them from harm full social activities. Ali Mohammad Khilji ,
Mr Parsald,Juliancolton I have done my level best to improve this article and as far as I understand the information given in the article are true and correct to my knowledge, and this boy belong to the back ward province of Pakistan and due to lack of internet knowledge it is hard in Balochistan to connect it with Government relevant sites. for example the Federation of Kayaking in Pakistan even don't have own web site for record and even the Ministry of Sports and youth affairs Government of Balochistan also don't have its web site for information and record. except in Balochistan the only water sports academy which having the own web site ie hdwsa for information and record. it is therefore propose to please do not delete this article please remove the deletion tag from it and prevent it from deletion,
Mohammad Aslam Kassi Quetta Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslam Kassi (talk • contribs) 21:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Who cares where he's from? Who cares how old he is? Who cares whether Pakistan is a backward country? Regardless of what he could do, he hasn't done anything that makes him notable. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails to meet notability guidelines. Edward321 (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be Delete Mr. Nyttend, Pakistan is not backward country the place where the boy lives is backward in connection with internet facilities in the Government Departments which makes necessary notability links for confirmations of the status of the player, how ever I don't big you take care of this real champion, and you are not the only authority to decide by writing few baseless and unjustified words, Please be positive and there is, nod ought he is Pakistan's National Junior Champion he has many thing done that makes him notable. Ali Mohammad Khilji (talk) 23rd March 2009. —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Not for Delete Wow what a serious issue has been discussing here, wow fight for notability but in fact ignoring the reality, Aslam Kassi 23-3-2009 (UTC).
- Calm down lads (or lad). Please read the guidelines at WP:Athlete and then tell us how Mr. Durrani fulfils them. I am sure that allowances will not be made for his background or internet access when he takes part in a a kayaking competition, and the same is true here; he has to qualify by his own merits. pablohablo. 23:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tara Ghimire
- Tara Ghimire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There are some claims of notability but no evidence. There are a few mentions of her human rights work but no evidence its notable. I'm aware of potential bias issues, but I think this award would have some coverage somewhere if it were notable. Thoughts? StarM 02:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - That is not enough to be called as notable - sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlumdogAramis (talk • contribs) 17:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Recognizance (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shangwen Fang
- Shangwen Fang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:BLP1E - person famous for one event. WP:NOTNEWS may also apply here. While this may have been a well-reported story at the time, it does not seem to me to have demonstrated lasting notability; the 'edits to Wikipedia' section also raises problems with self-reference. If this is kept, it should be renamed to something like '2006 Taiwan cat abuse incident' - but I'm not convinced we should have an article on the subject at all. Robofish (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per precedence set at Youtube cat abuse incident. LetsdrinkTea 19:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mild delete. Person was notable at the time, but there has been no reliable updates on his whereabouts or activities, and therefore no reason to believe that the person is notable at this point. --Nlu (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google research suggests notability even if article doesn't cite particularly good sources. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 21:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If subject was "notable" at a point in history, that notability continues. Clara Bow has not done much recently, but her past notability maintains article keep-worthy-ness ... whatever, you know what I mean. ;) — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The statement you're making is WP:NTEMP - notability is not temporary. twirligigT tothe C 21:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And the converse of 'notability is not temporary' is that if a person's fame is temporary, then they were never really notable. That's how I understand it, anyway. Robofish (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The statement you're making is WP:NTEMP - notability is not temporary. twirligigT tothe C 21:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If subject was "notable" at a point in history, that notability continues. Clara Bow has not done much recently, but her past notability maintains article keep-worthy-ness ... whatever, you know what I mean. ;) — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:N/CA. If the cat abuse event is notable, there should be an article about the event, not the person. twirligigT tothe C 21:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:N/CA.Nrswanson (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite to focus on cat abuse incident as an incident; the details of the person's life do not seem relevant, and have caused him harassment. --GRuban (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:N/CA.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Danny Last
- Danny Last (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't fit criteria from WP:BIO, basic or additional. Nathanhillinbl (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable -Drdisque (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Vote retracted, I don't know enough about this subject to vote accurately. -Drdisque (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: AFDs are discussions. Neither the nominator nor the commenter properly explained why they believed this article did or didn't meet inclusion guidelines and unless improved upon, these opinions should be discounted by the closing administrator. - Mgm|(talk) 09:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The person is not notable in several independent sources (When Googled, the only page about this subject is his official site.)
- (Under the Entertainer additional guidelines) "Has had significant roles in MULTIPLE notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." Only appeared in one show, not multiple. Appeared in a film, which does not seem to be notable. Nathanhillinbl (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO - article does not fulfill any of the criteria for "Entertainers". Tim Pierce (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emir Šabani
- Emir Šabani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete A unsourced youth international footballer Matthew_hk tc 12:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Does playing for a U19 national team count as notability? I forget the rules about soccer (sorry, rest of the world) players.74.69.39.11 (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Youth caps do NOT confer notability. GiantSnowman 15:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE so far. - Alexf(talk) 14:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 16:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Kimura
- Andy Kimura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable martial artist, unsourced BLP article. Would redirect to the better-known father but he does not appear to have an article here, and notability is not inherited. JJL (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom LetsdrinkTea 16:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - no assertion of notability: at least three degrees of separation from Bruce Lee. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No consensus to delete. However, I concur with Pastor Theo, the article needs sources and needs to be re-written from a neutral point of view (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gayle Edlund Wilson
- Gayle Edlund Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
If spouses of state governors are inherently notable, then this absurdly POV piece needs drastic reworking. If not (and I would contend they are not), then deletion is the solution. Sure, she's done all the things expected of a political wife - served on the foundations, established the chapters of other foundations, advocated for the noble causes - but once we cut through the puffery, there really isn't much left. So delete, per WP:BIO. Biruitorul Talk 07:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The First Lady of California is notable.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Purely for that reason? I'm a bit sceptical of the claim. Sure, we have 102 other US gubernatorial spouse biographies (which means many, many more are missing, and I'd wager rightly so), but some (by no means all, but some) of those have actually done something meaningful besides being married to a governor. Aside from the obvious ones (Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton, Eleanor Roosevelt), there's Bill Shaheen (political operative), Nellie Connally (present at JFK's assassination), Lenore Romney (Senate candidate, activist) and Phyllis George (Miss America). Mrs. Wilson hardly rises to that level. - Biruitorul Talk 19:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Forbes Magazine profiled her because of her association with Gilead Sciences. I think her work with many important American companies makes her notable even if she had not been the First Lady of California.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so she serves on Gilead's board. Surely we could add a line on that, citing Forbes, in Pete Wilson's biography? It still doesn't seem to justify a separate article. - Biruitorul Talk 00:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly meets the criteria at WP:Notability. A quick google news search shows she has a fair amount of media coverage [34]. She's also been profiled by multiple buisness magazines, journals, and websites. Here is just a few examples of many: businessweek, allbusiness.com, tradevibes.com, etc.Nrswanson (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge With the article on her husband, former Gov. Wilson. The Forbes coverage is not a profile, but a C.V. that it runs with anyone who is a director of a company. The article does not pass WP:RS (the references link to a non-profit web site). The article could also use some significant rewriting -- it is a little too gushy for an encyclopedia. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the governors of some of the major states with extensive press coverage may be like Presidents in the respect of the attention awarded their family. Any, she in particular does in fact have such coverage. Nobody but the nominator said delete, so I am not sure why a relist was thought necessary. DGG (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the number of reliable and verifiable sources found in a Google / News / Archive search about the subject, establishing independent notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pablo Mason
- Pablo Mason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Apparent violation of WP:BLP1E (article was created shortly after MyTravel/footballer incident). Rd232 talk 04:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nomination - enough evidence of notability provided here that BLP1E no longer applies; expansion of article and adding sources needed instead. Rd232 talk 01:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - While it is certainly possible for a single event to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, I don't see anything outstanding in this guy's life history at all, other than a history of making bad decisions over and over again in the cockpit. Proxy User (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable unless he writes an autobiography that takes off. Redddogg (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - he has written a notable autobiography. . . Rcawsey (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacking evidence that he has written a notable autobiography. Nothing else.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete brief blip in the news for getting fired as a pilot for breaking the rules. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP Interesting and notable. Puca (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In what way? Proxy User (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Utter tripe that fails most of WP:NOT, not to mention WP:BLP. Physchim62 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as BLP1E. Eusebeus (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Was very prominent during the First Gulf War. One of the most memorable British characters of that war, always appearing on the news. Certainly not just notable for one event. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No, I'm sorry, but he was not very prominent during the First Gulf War. Where do you get this stuff? Proxy User (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't know where you were during the war, but he appeared in the British media all the time. He was adopted as something of a poster boy for the RAF due to his resemblance to WWII fighter pilots. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP. An interesting and important Officer from the first Gulf War. He has written an autobigraphical account of the War and led many missions during the war. It's important that Wikipedia maintains articles on important military figures such azs this man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.73.56 (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonesense - There is no evidence that what you say with respect to this guy has any relitionship to reality. Web searches certainly don't support it. Proxy User (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Web searches! Oh good grief, why would a web search support anything? He was prominent before the internet really got going in a big way. Using web searches as evidence for the notability of anyone who was prominent before the last decade is spurious in the extreme. Effectively you're saying that the notability threshold of anyone who (or anything which) was around before the internet is much, much higher, which is ludicrous. For anything before the mid-1990s (at the earliest), the web only holds information on subjects which people have chosen to write about! It is not gospel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In practice the interwebs is WP's primary source of verifiable information. Because of this the notability of people notable pre-web is harder to verify; if you have a solution for that, let me know! You can provide offline sources for this case if you have them, but your vague remarks about watching TV are merely WP:OR. Rd232 talk 12:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this is not true at all. There are things called books and newspapers. I use them for writing Wikipedia articles all the time. In fact, I use them more than internet sources, since they tend to be far more reliable. No policy on Wikipedia says that web-based sources are any more valid than print sources. And this is an AfD discussion - like too many people you are confusing Verifiability, which determines what we put in articles, with Notability, which determines whether we have an article in the first place. They are entirely different things. Verifiability arguments are irrelevant here, since we can easily verify that the man exists; all that matter are notability arguments - whether he is significant enough to have an article on WP. That's what we're discussing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting off topic here, but (a) I merely said the internet is the primary source in practice, not that this was ideal (don't think I implied that either). (b) WP:NOBJ: Notability needs to be verified from reliable sources - this is basic, we don't rely on unsourced assertions of notability. (c) Again, if you have relevant offline or online sources, please cite them. Rd232 talk 15:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- His existence is verifiable. The fact he has been in the news is verifiable. Whether that coverage makes him notable, however, is subjective. That's the thing about notability - there are no hard and fast rules. That's why we have these debates. How on earth, therefore, could I cite a source that proves he, or anybody or anything else, is notable? That's the ridiculous thing about the deletionists who blithely say "prove he's notable". You simply can't prove or disprove something so subjective. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep The primary claim of the nominator that this is BLP1E is simply not accurate. There is coverage of Mason's service in the Gulf War, coverage of the accident in Germany, and coverage of the situation with Robbie Savage. The subject meets WP:BIO and is not WP:BLP1E. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only 2 sources not relating to the MyTravel incident and it is not clear that either is a reliable source; certainly the Promotions one isn't. The RAF Accident Report is a primary source which doesn't demonstrate notability. Rd232 talk 16:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many other sources about his time in the Gulf War though. See for example [35][36][37]. Even if I were to discount the accident there are more than enough sources about his time in the Gulf War. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, not sure what to do now. That looks the start of showing Gulf War notability; with those in the article I wouldn't have AFD'd it. Not sure how to withdraw the nomination now (and maybe should let it finish now anyway). Rd232 talk 16:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many other sources about his time in the Gulf War though. See for example [35][36][37]. Even if I were to discount the accident there are more than enough sources about his time in the Gulf War. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only 2 sources not relating to the MyTravel incident and it is not clear that either is a reliable source; certainly the Promotions one isn't. The RAF Accident Report is a primary source which doesn't demonstrate notability. Rd232 talk 16:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The original nom's complaint was of a violation of WP:BLP1E. I also remember Mason being the RAF's poster boy during the Gulf War, however I doubt publications for this exist online. I have found at least three unrelated newspaper articles, from different years, with no mention of the MyTravel incident 1998, 2006, 2007. It seems Mason's self-styled "Biggles" antics have had him (and will probably continue to do so) popping up time and time again. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A genuinely interesting chap notable for his role in the Gulf War, and we haven't heard the last of him. Not a violation of WP:BLP1E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.210.180 (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Above IP has only contributed to this AFD (Please replace this message with that template they use in these circumstances). Ryan4314 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Very prominent in the media during the first Gulf War. --Jolyonralph (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as the originator of the article, I vote keep for the same reason I created it (1) his significance as a Squadron Leader in the first gulf war, which is well referenced particularly off-net, (2) the significance of the case to air safety procedures, which is wholly referenced on-net to him. Nomination on a WP:BLP1E because it was created after the MyTravel created enough on-net references ignores his gulf war service, or the significance of the case to air law - or to HR law. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, now, but it needs much better sourcing. Rd232 talk 19:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's good news, Rd232 how would you feel about withdrawing your nomination, or do you think the article still needs work? I would imagine it'll take a longer to dig up paper sources, longer than the time-limit left on this AFD I fear, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how to withdraw the nomination, and I think a closing admin will draw a fair conclusion from the above discussion. Rd232 talk 00:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can ask any admin to do it, or even just put a little note under your nomination up there :) Ryan4314 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- done! Rd232 talk 01:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mirwaiz Muhammad Umar Farooq
- Mirwaiz Muhammad Umar Farooq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
blp unreferenced, notabiliyt not established Chzz ► 14:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Small mentions herebbcdawnndtv; decent biographical coverage by rediff. Apparently a well known politician in that area. —StaticVision (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Morebbcbbc. Citation for "Times Asian Heroes" can be found here[38];I just added it to the article—StaticVision (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- This article clearly meets Wiki Notability. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq is a prominent spiritual and political leader of Kashmir. Check above mentioned citations and references.Oniongas (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The spiritual leader of the several million Moslems in Kashmir is pretty clearly notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Olivia Grant (British child actress)
- Olivia Grant (British child actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Recreated after speedy deletion, this article describes a non-notable actor. Bongomatic 18:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Grant appears to be a regular cast member of Half Moon Investigations (TV series) which is made and broadcast by the BBC. Seems to satisfy the notability requirements for actors.Nrswanson (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep About Half-Moon investigations: She is a regular cast member and a major one too (the note '13 episodes' is misleading because those are all the episodes of the season, so it's not some bit part). Also, her role in Tracey Beaker was quite significant (didn't even notice she was the same kid). Two significant roles means she's notable. I'll dig up some sources. (If I'm late and people are particularly impatient, please userfy) - Mgm|(talk) 23:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mgm. Fourth credited character in Half Moon Investigations, so that role is significant, and BBC's website on The Story of Tracy Beaker carries a bio of her character, so that's probably a significant role also. Accordingly, she satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER. Baileypalblue (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Gore
- Dan Gore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article was already nominated for deletion before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Gore, though as the original creator I was never nominated and thus didn't get a vote. I am of the belief I should never have created this article, as Gore clearly fails to pass WP:ATHLETE. Gore was a non-notable college player and signed with the Miami Dolphins as an undrafted free agent. He was cut the first day of camp for being out of shape and, according to a guy I know who was also on the team, Gore has since retired. This seem to be true, as Gore has yet to sign anywhere else (NFL, CFL, AFL, af2, etc.). Gore isn't notable and never will be. His page will never be more than it is now, and he current isn't notable enough to be here. ►Chris NelsonHolla! 15:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP I believe the article should be retained as the subject does hold notability. Puca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep He was signed, and there appear to be enough sources. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – I re-created the article. I decided to be bold after I saw that the original nomination had only two !votes and no exposure to the project that covers the field. Recently, two far less notable athletes (Gatena and Miller) were deleted after lengthy debate, one of which took three nominations before finally being deleted.
- Here's my rationale for re-creation: According to WP:ATH, "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." For American football, this highest amateur level is Division I FBS. Not only did Dan Gore play for a Division I FBS team, Boise State, but he was a starter. The two previously mentioned deletions were both walk-ons, and that was the rationale for which they were deleted.
- Additionally, I think Gore meets WP:N for coverage in the reliable sources that I added to the article when I recreated it. I think these are the three most important ones for establishing this in accordance with WP:N:
- The New York Times considered Gore a "Key Loss" for Boise State when he graduated.
- The Idaho Statesman ran an article about an opponent, who talked specifically about how he would match up against Gore.
- The Seattle Post-Intelligencer ran an article about the importance of the offensive line to Boise State, which includes addressing Gore's role in it.
- The article is currently very short right now, as that is the way it was when originally deleted, minus the "External links" section. It could be easily be expanded to a couple paragraphs with the information available there, however. Notwithstanding, potential length of an article (or lack) is not a reason itself for deletion. Open a paper encyclopedia and one will find many, many, many articles of only a few sentences. Strikehold (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article was deleted on March 9th. I believe Gore fails WP:Athlete as he has not played in the professional game. Amateur level surely refers only to those sports that do not have a professional game. Notability seems very limited. Parslad (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, no, it does not "surely" refer only to sports without a professional level. There is absolutely no wording to that effect in WP:ATH. Aside from that, he is notable due to the independent third-party coverage in the reliable sources referenced above. Strikehold (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK true enough, I think it's a fair inference however. There is a professional league, and he hasn't played in it though. As to notability, the New York Times' article lists Gore, but does not discuss him in any way. Otherwise, minor mentions of local interest only. Parslad (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep for now. He still could have a professional career ahead of him. I would not argue if the article was deleted, however. Ndenison talk 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article fails WP:ATHLETE. Didn't even play one game in the pro's. -- Darth Mike (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - But Gore potentially having a professional career in front of him is irrelevant per WP:CRYSTAL. Gore was cut on the first day of training camp for failing a conditioning test and, according to his teammate at the time Mike Byrne, he decided to call it quits after that. While Byrne's comment to me obviously cannot be a source for the encyclopedia, it seems to be true given that Gore has yet to sign with any professional league at any level since last August. Gore's "career" is likely done and as it stands he has no notability.►Chris NelsonHolla! 23:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As Chris said, even though Byrne's comment isn't encyclopedic, Gore has yet to sign with anyone else. And just based on the fact he was a member of team like Byrne was, he should have been able to catch on somewhere like Canada (like Byrne), AFL, or some other small league who wants NFL type talent. Delete per WP:ATHLETE.--Giants27 T/C 23:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 T/C 23:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 T/C 23:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Although there are quite a few external links, they all have to do with college football, which is not enough for notability. 129.105.104.246 (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I should point out that three of these delete votes are based on a misinterpretation of, or at least very liberal extrapolation of, WP:ATH, which states that athletes at the highest amateur level are notable. This is NCAA Division I FBS for American football, which is more notable than most other nation's highest-level professional sports due to its popularity, common knowledge, economics, marketing, and media coverage. WP:ATH does not have any wording that indicates that highest-level amateur sports are only notable in the absence of a professional level. Additionally, WP:ATH does not trump WP:N, so the external links, whether referencing college football or not, are enough to indicate notability. Strikehold (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Although if you interpret WP:ATH like that, considering how many teams there are, and how many players there are on each of those teams, that's a lot of "notable" people. However, if you pick a random person on a NCAA Division I FBS team, chances are the only sources you'll find are websites simply listing that they're on the team.
- Look at the sources. 1- He was part of a diving competition between teammates. 2- He's on Special Teams. 3- He blocked an extra point. 4- He's on the team. 5- He's starting on the team. 6- He's on the team. 7- He's no longer on the team.
- I'd summarize that as not notable. 75.31.250.206 (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So what if it's a lot of people? It's not a paper encyclopedia. It's one thing to say that he isn't notable from those sources under WP:N. But you cited WP:ATH as the reason why it should be deleted. That is not possible, as WP:ATH is an additional criterion. That is, you can become notable under WP:ATH, but you cannot be non-notable because of it. Strikehold (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I'm not sure stating that other people's opinions are based on 'misinterpretations' is very helpful. Also, you seem to be suggesting that an American sport is inherently more notable than sports in other countries? Is that something we really want to get into? Going down that road, then globally football's (soccer's) popularity is such that American football is of very little significance!! In this recent discussion on a footballer (soccer player) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus Coleman in deleting the article, the closing admin stated 'WP:ATHLETE does clearly state that a subject must play at the highest professional level of a sport to be considered notable'. This for a sportsman with a professional contract at one of the world's larger football clubs (Everton) who had previously played at the highest level of football in Ireland AND had international caps at under 21 level. Still not enough to pass WP:Athlete. Dan Gore doesn't even come close! which is why this article was deleted originally. Parslad (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is one individual's interpretation, which, as I said, in my opinion, is a very liberal one. Just because it was the opinion of an administrator does not lend it any more value than anyone else's. Without knowing the subject you speak of firsthand, it sounds as though it was deleted wrongly. As for comparing the notability of one of the most popular and lucrative sports in the third largest country in the world with those of others, I would be glad to address dissenting opinions. Please note though that I did not say all sports, and I certainly didn't say it made it any better. Strikehold (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I know you didn't say all sports, or better, which is why I said 'an American sport' and 'inherently more notable'. The deletion debate on Seamus Coleman which I quoted from above seems to be typical of the debates on sportspeople which I have been following recently. I agree with you that the closing admin's interpretation on that debate is just one opinion, but perhaps you can agree with me that calling my (and many others') reading of WP:ATH a 'misinterpretation' is unhelpful and a little insulting? Parslad (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I apologize if it came across as condescending. I should have explicitly said that it is my own opinion that that view is a misinterpretation of the guideline. But I would disagree that to say as much is unhelpful, because doing so demonstrates that it is not an uncontested or factual view as to letter or meaning of WP:ATH. Strikehold (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I know you didn't say all sports, or better, which is why I said 'an American sport' and 'inherently more notable'. The deletion debate on Seamus Coleman which I quoted from above seems to be typical of the debates on sportspeople which I have been following recently. I agree with you that the closing admin's interpretation on that debate is just one opinion, but perhaps you can agree with me that calling my (and many others') reading of WP:ATH a 'misinterpretation' is unhelpful and a little insulting? Parslad (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is one individual's interpretation, which, as I said, in my opinion, is a very liberal one. Just because it was the opinion of an administrator does not lend it any more value than anyone else's. Without knowing the subject you speak of firsthand, it sounds as though it was deleted wrongly. As for comparing the notability of one of the most popular and lucrative sports in the third largest country in the world with those of others, I would be glad to address dissenting opinions. Please note though that I did not say all sports, and I certainly didn't say it made it any better. Strikehold (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I'm not sure stating that other people's opinions are based on 'misinterpretations' is very helpful. Also, you seem to be suggesting that an American sport is inherently more notable than sports in other countries? Is that something we really want to get into? Going down that road, then globally football's (soccer's) popularity is such that American football is of very little significance!! In this recent discussion on a footballer (soccer player) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus Coleman in deleting the article, the closing admin stated 'WP:ATHLETE does clearly state that a subject must play at the highest professional level of a sport to be considered notable'. This for a sportsman with a professional contract at one of the world's larger football clubs (Everton) who had previously played at the highest level of football in Ireland AND had international caps at under 21 level. Still not enough to pass WP:Athlete. Dan Gore doesn't even come close! which is why this article was deleted originally. Parslad (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So what if it's a lot of people? It's not a paper encyclopedia. It's one thing to say that he isn't notable from those sources under WP:N. But you cited WP:ATH as the reason why it should be deleted. That is not possible, as WP:ATH is an additional criterion. That is, you can become notable under WP:ATH, but you cannot be non-notable because of it. Strikehold (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not even close to meeting wither WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. No reliable sources giving him notability, and never played professionally.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Those of you saying keep, ask yourself this. In 10, 20, 50 years, when this article is identical to how it is now, will it be worth being here? Will Gore truly ever be notable? What has he does to gain such long-lasting notability? Playing college football, even DI-FBS ball, isn't notable because not all the players do anything while playing and more never make it to the pros.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What the article will look like in the future is irrelevant per WP:CRYSTAL. Ndenison talk 23:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it's irrelevant now.►Chris NelsonHolla! 00:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This guy showed up for camp so out of shape they cut him immediately, flushing a multimillion dollar career down the toilet for sheer stupidity. This article should be deleted for sure, but an article should be written discussing all the people like Dan Gore who blew incredible carers in this bizarre way. 69.39.49.27 (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, I don't think Gore has much of a shot at the pro level to begin with. Most undrafted rookies are just camp bodies who will never have an NFL career.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:Athlete.Nrswanson (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Howard Choi
- Howard Choi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
He doesn't seem to be notable physican.Who may require a article.Wp:Notable User:Yousaf465 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I've asked the nom to expand their statement. - Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment "His awards include an American Medical Association Foundation National Leadership Award (2001) and the Foundation for PM&R New Investigator Award (2004)" according to MSMS website Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: I just restored some content that an IP had removed on 10 March. Apparently the subject is author of a handbook--that may change things (I was about to go delete here). I don't know if it makes a difference, but still. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—StaticVision (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete unless it can be shown that the pocket handbook is a major resource. It's not in many libraries, but that isn't the least unusual for such books, which are meant for the individual physician, and not indicative [39]
- Comment -- Amazon lists several medical books by a Dr Howard Choi. Anyone know if they are all by the the same guy? That handbook is 134 long. From the article I imagined it was about a tenth that size. Geo Swan (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added the AMA Award (and the other one) to his bio. However, the Leadership award is something distinct from their more notable AMA Scientific Achievement Award -- this one is awarded to students and the like, as explained here. So unfortunately it doesn't look like it alone satisfies the second criteria of WP:ACADEMIC, "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." It'll have to be decided by the notability of his publications. --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, also fails WP:PROF. Some of the above comments appear to be ambivalent more or less due to the number of ghits Choi generates. In reality, while Choi clearly is a prolific producer of papers, manuals and the like he has virtually no genuine, reliable, third party coverage. There is nothing that I can find which would suggest that any of his output to date is sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. AngoraFish 木 12:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Awards and being author of popular handbook makes him notable. LK (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, awards do not make someone notable, per Wikipedia:PROF, only "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." nb the national leadership award is awarded to "20 students, 20 residents and fellows and 15 young physicians" each year. Similarly the Foundation for Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation is a relatively obscure foundation and award is a $10,000 grant. Most active biomedical researchers receive several such "awards" each year, usually for much larger amounts. Also, being author of an alleged "popular" handbook (how popular are you arguing it is, by the way?" I ask since the searches above are struggling to find it) would also not appear to be sufficient to comply with "academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institution". Handbooks are insanely common, they tend to summarize current thought rather than create new thought, and are thoroughly ephemeral unless you can provide sources that state otherwise. AngoraFish 木 21:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to repeat that this handbook is 134 pages long. That is book-length, IMO. Geo Swan (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just being a published author is not sufficient to establish notability, per WP:AUTHOR. The number of pages in a published work is irrelevant. AngoraFish 木 06:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I have that beat with my thesis, which was 149 pages long, but the page length of "published works" is irrelevant. It is their impact that is important for establishing notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, awards do not make someone notable, per Wikipedia:PROF, only "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." nb the national leadership award is awarded to "20 students, 20 residents and fellows and 15 young physicians" each year. Similarly the Foundation for Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation is a relatively obscure foundation and award is a $10,000 grant. Most active biomedical researchers receive several such "awards" each year, usually for much larger amounts. Also, being author of an alleged "popular" handbook (how popular are you arguing it is, by the way?" I ask since the searches above are struggling to find it) would also not appear to be sufficient to comply with "academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institution". Handbooks are insanely common, they tend to summarize current thought rather than create new thought, and are thoroughly ephemeral unless you can provide sources that state otherwise. AngoraFish 木 21:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't seem to have authored any important reviews in his subject, or made any strikingly novel and widely-important findings that were reported by secondary sources. Seems a highly competent and promising young scientist, but not an established leader in his field. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The American Medical Association awards are quite notable. I don't care how many people get the award each year, is a rather small amount compared to the number of people involved in the American medical field, and you have had to have done something notable by their standards to receive it. And if this other foundation is giving out a $10,000 award, then he must've done something worth getting noticed. An award from an unknown is meaningless, but not if it includes a check for ten thousand dollars! This isn't some guy deciding to print out certificates on his home computer and hand them out to people, obviously. Dream Focus 20:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep The handbook is , just barely, enough for notability. DGG (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Barry
- Matthew Barry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Potentially fails WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep principal cast member on the somewhat notable series Mine All Mine, though that's about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP This article is of a notable person and I agree that it should be retained. Puca (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? What makes him notable? Why do you think it should be retained? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, zero coverage in reliable, third-party, sources, fails to meet the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 22:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Minor character on Mine All Mine, not significant --Mikej999 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jasmine Gradwell
- Jasmine Gradwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I don't think the article meets WP:ATHLETE. I couldn't find a single online reference to support the article (if an Australian netballer is notable, online sources can be found quite readily); the two references in the article don't even mention her. Would've loved to have gone straight to CSD (A7), but there's arguably some attempt to indicate significance. It was tagged for CSD A7 not long after its creation, but the original author removed the tag and expanded the article. However, Jasmin gradwell was speedily deleted under A7, one day after Jasmine Gradwell was created. Wasn't sure which deletion process to use, so I decided to play it safe and list it here. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 02:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Is the "WA Smokefree State Netball League" a fully professional league? If not, I don't see how she could meet WP:ATHLETE. I agree with the nominator that coverage of this person seems pretty thin on the ground. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply: No, the WA State Netball League is an entirely amateur state tournament. – Liveste (talk • edits) 13:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I would have to say that this article should be deleted, as she does not meet the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline, and she doesn't meet the general notability guideline either. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply: No, the WA State Netball League is an entirely amateur state tournament. – Liveste (talk • edits) 13:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. Amateur athlete not playing at the highest level. I'd also suggest notability not enhanced by dating AFL footballers. Murtoa (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —94.196.158.212 (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not yet meet WP:ATHLETE. Maybe soon. Vartanza (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jori Tokyo
- Jori Tokyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a young artist with some local exhibitions, but no identifiable notability beyond that. There are no references at this point and none seem forthcoming at this time. A google search reveals only the usual myspace/facebook/blog hits, with no independent coverage. Also of note, the artist herself, as the editor Christina Staub is using Wikipedia to attempt to establish notability, by adding her pseudonym to various inappropriate lists (ie. Fluxus). Christina Staub claims the authorship of this image, uploaded as a Jori Tokyo work freshacconci talktalk 18:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 18:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am the photographer of both uploaded new images to this artist. He is a known person in the fields of cyber-arts and deserves for sure an entry at this platform. DoroDeichbrugg (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christina Staub (talk • contribs) 18:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How many accounts are you using? The above comment was made as Christina Staub. Now you've changed the signature to DoroDeichbrugg. First, you should read policies on sockpuppets. Second, this invalidates one of the two keeps (although I stress that this isn't a vote per se, both comments are made by one person). And finally, using at least two accounts to edit and comment on a deletion discussion makes me wonder about the reliability of your claim that you are not the artist. freshacconci talktalk 11:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am the assistant of Ms. Christina Staub and helped her by an issue here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoroDeichbrugg (talk • contribs) 12:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In my check for this artist i found a couple of notable fluxus-activities, performances and much more related mentions in several categories like performance, Ars Electronica and conceptional art. Harrassment against such a bunch of works should not become a reason for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas Schliemann (talk • contribs) 19:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC) — Jonas Schliemann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete Not notable yet. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom..Modernist (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many Fluxus artists, Performance artists and Conceptual artists of note have articles on Wikipedia, please focus only on the merits of this article...Modernist (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. JNW (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per JNW. Setwisohi (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As Jonas. Just flicked in a few spots i found lately about the artist.
- Cyber Art Wirxli Flimflam
- Placart Headphone Festival
- DeRe 2005
- Arts Birthday —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoroDeichbrugg (talk • contribs) 10:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC) — DoroDeichbrugg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Two of those links are blogs, which are not considered reliable sources. The other two seem to be listings. Again, not reliable, third-party sources. No one is doubting that this is an artist who has exhibted his work. The issue is around notability and verifiability of sources. freshacconci talktalk 11:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note for closing admin No keep comments have yet been added by regular or established editors. Perhaps that will change over the next day or so? Perhaps not. Setwisohi (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. No independent coverage and the wiki is being "used" as clearly shown by Freshacconci. It's clear the issue is around notability and verifiability of sources, which I cannot see at this time. --Artypants, Babble 13:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. And slight influence from the person that's using multiple accounts to try to save it. 129.105.104.246 (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. Everything I could find were social network sites, blogs, directory entries but nothing tthat would establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fluxus? Gotta be kidding.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Bring Me the Horizon . MBisanz talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oli Sykes
- Oli Sykes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Only notability is as a member of Bring Me the Horizon so a redirect would be more appropriate than an article. Also most of the article's content is unsourced and possibly unverifiable, and removing it would leave it as a coatrack for a non-notable incident. —Snigbrook 15:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nom. Next time be bold and do it without an AfD. This is generally for deleting articles, not redirecting them. ThemFromSpace 00:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He did and got reverted with an edit summary accusing him of vandalism. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —94.196.158.212 (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —94.196.158.212 (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, a "redirect" would make sense and I almost closed it that way before I noticed that the nominator had already tried that (see above). Check out the article's history and the "fannish" comments on the article's talk page. I suspect another redirect, even one resulting from an AFD close, would also be reverted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect - No claim to notability outside of a (presumbaly) notable band. The "incident" mentioned in the page is too poorly sourced to be worth keeping. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent notability. JamesBurns (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect Power.corrupts (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Misa Kobayashi
- Misa Kobayashi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable person. Fails WP:BIO, WP:ENTERTAINER, and WP:N. Failed prod and CSD A7 with both tags removed by User:Dream Focus (non-administrator) with reasons of "has worked as a voice actor on several notable series" and "I object. An actor in three notable series gets an article, so why not voice actors the same way?". Only three minor roles, no sources, and no significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User X! also erased the tag[40], which clearly states, anyone who disagrees with it should do so. You don't have to be an administrator. And why bring that up here? Anyway, I vote *Keep since the person has played a notable part in a significant body of work. Dream Focus 02:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it is appropriate to note that an article is a failed Prod and CSD and that the CSD was declined by a non-admin. Also X! is an administrator so it was fine for him to remove it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually he said in his edit "rv, csds can be removed by anyone, not just admins.)" Dream Focus 10:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Chizuru Naba does not seem to be a notable character, barely mentioned on List of Negima!: Magister Negi Magi characters , Lilith Sahl is listed as supporting on List of Trinity Blood characters, and I can't find a Hiromi anywhere on the collection of Hell Girl articles, with the exception of an artist who worked on the soundtracks. Which character is the notable one? ~Itzjustdrama C ? 02:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it is appropriate to note that an article is a failed Prod and CSD and that the CSD was declined by a non-admin. Also X! is an administrator so it was fine for him to remove it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User X! also erased the tag[40], which clearly states, anyone who disagrees with it should do so. You don't have to be an administrator. And why bring that up here? Anyway, I vote *Keep since the person has played a notable part in a significant body of work. Dream Focus 02:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I had a look at this as well and agree with your listed findings on the roles mentioned in the article currently. I did find an additional role not listed on the subject's page but it is listed on the page of the series and seems more significant. The series is Kurau Phantom Memory and it seems the subject voiced one of the main characters (Christmas). There are some other roles listed here but I don't really know enough about anime to know if any others listed are significant. Camw (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the notable role count is two so far now. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a quick search of the roles and it seems like the Negima and Kurau Phantom Memory role are notable. I'm not sure about Wan Wan Serebu Soreyuke! Tetsunoshin as I have no idea what that's about. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 03:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone here can read Japanese, is this the same person and are there any other roles listed here -> [41] that might be notable? I know another Wiki page isn't a reliable source, but if there is anything of value on that page it might make it easier to look for other sources to check. Camw (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a quick search of the roles and it seems like the Negima and Kurau Phantom Memory role are notable. I'm not sure about Wan Wan Serebu Soreyuke! Tetsunoshin as I have no idea what that's about. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 03:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the notable role count is two so far now. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hiromi is a one-episode character that appears in episode 9. No other role in the series beyond that. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noticed that on the ANN entry. And I finally found Chizuru. Those Negima character lists need cleaning. There's only one notable role. The ANN entry lists the rest as minor. I'm leaning toward Delete unless more notable roles can be dug up. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I had a look at this as well and agree with your listed findings on the roles mentioned in the article currently. I did find an additional role not listed on the subject's page but it is listed on the page of the series and seems more significant. The series is Kurau Phantom Memory and it seems the subject voiced one of the main characters (Christmas). There are some other roles listed here but I don't really know enough about anime to know if any others listed are significant. Camw (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources that establish notability. --Sloane (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I've added a more complete filmography to the article. However, judging from the list Chizuru Naba is still her most significant role, even if the character is a minor character in the whole Nagima! franchise. --Farix (Talk) 03:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. - If the filmography is accurate, seems to me Kobayashi meets the threshold for an up-and-coming voice actor. It's a close call, but I think we should err on the side of inclusion. Proxy User (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I tend toward inclusion on seiyū, but the roles listed in this case are exceedingly minor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pernom: no clear notability. Eusebeus (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless more reliable third-party reference sources can be provided to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete When all is said and done, she has only had one significant voice acting role (Christmas in Kurau: Phantom Memory). Her role as Chizuru Naba in the various Negima! series isn't that significant as the character is simply a reoccurring background character. This isn't enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. --Farix (Talk) 02:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notable roles yet. No prejudice against recreation should this change in the future. Edward321 (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: referenced roles in 14 works notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. So the article must meet the WP:ENTERTAINER notability guideline for entertainers, which reads "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". T L Miles (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the requirement of "significant roles"; all except one of those roles was exceedingly minor. Its also not sourced to a reliable reference. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Query: I can't seem to find an entry for www.animenewsnetwork.com on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Could you point me to that as well as the definition of "significant roles" in WP:ENTERTAINER? Thanks. T L Miles (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Living people proposed deletions
- Morley Vernon King (via WP:PROD on 30 December 2008)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamau Kambon (2nd nomination)