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 delete. MBisanz talk 00:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Dunlap
- Steve Dunlap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable assistant coach of college level sports. Does not meet criteria for Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Amateur_sports_people. — raeky (talk | edits) 14:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete BLP nightmare. Current article has one reference, the rest being unverifiable information. Unlikely to find any more information on this minor amateur coach. Also, topic is non-notable as they have not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, as evidenced by the lack of references. G News provides sources where this subject was quoted in the newspapers, but nothing about the subject. -Atmoz (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles are only deleted based on the BLP policy when they're harmful because of unsourced negative content. I see nothing negative in this article. - Mgm|(talk) 13:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true but you also have to meet the basic notability guidelines as well, and as of yet we've seen nothing to say this person does. — raeky (talk | edits) 19:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles are only deleted based on the BLP policy when they're harmful because of unsourced negative content. I see nothing negative in this article. - Mgm|(talk) 13:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt this is a very big american football program, and sources are probably findable. If he was a head coach it would be a speedy keep -- i'm surprised that there has been so little easily findable stuff on him, though, given that he's supposed to be assistant head coach.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The head coach is very notable, but generally I think assistant coaches are not. Rarely do they generate any kind of press outside of a random quote or stat which isn't enough to be notable according to our standards. I agree WVU has a big program, but every big program has a lot of people behind the scenes and not in the spotlight, each of those people doesn't need a page here. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete on second thought, while i'm surprised that there are no sources given his position, i certainly can't find any. So my surprise is irrelevant. No independnent sources equals no article, particularly for BLPs.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:46, 25 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 00:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete BLP vio, non notable. — Jake Wartenberg 05:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete while college football defensive coordinators was deemed notable via AFD, consensus seems to have changed here. Fails WP:ATHLETE Secret account 18:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. BJTalk 10:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anirban Mitra
- Anirban Mitra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable autobiography --Docku: What's up? 17:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —--Docku: What's up? 17:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —--Docku: What's up? 18:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interim comment: the article appears to be spam-related. However, there is at least something (newspaper website article) to the claims for this chap. -- Hoary (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete While there is a source that shows that the subject is an amateur photographer whose book was released by some dignitaries (arguably because the subject of the book was the Governor's mansion, rather than notability of the photographer), the available sources do not satisfy the standards of WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. Abecedare (talk) 17:59, 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. A lack of reliable sources indicates that the subject is probably not notable. However, I can provide a copy of the deleted material to a user page, if the user would like to work on improving it. TNXMan 13:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shubhojit Chatterjee
- Shubhojit Chatterjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unremarkable photographer (see WP:NOTABILITY). Only reference is a passing mention in a school website. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? What? He's highly remarkable. After all, we're told that "[his] works include that of Glamour, Fashion and Editorial for India Fashion Week, Femina, Will's lifestyle and the like. He has shot for many coffee table books in India, of which include The Tunes of Valour 2008, Making of a Warrior 2008, Nurturing Valour 2009, Rashtrapati Bhawan and RIMC." And all that before reaching his nineteenth birthday! ¶ Trouble is, none of this is sourced. -- Hoary (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I nommed this for speedy deletion some time ago, but I decided to give the new user who created it a chance to source it. I tried, he tried, and neither of us could come up with any real reliable sources. So, Delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cant find anything to prove notability. --Docku: What's up? 17:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh well here I am- If there is a call for reliable resources, so be it, I'll provide you with what you require. However, to speak of the truth, Google "shubhojit chatterjee" and see for yourself. Delete this article if you people so insist, or give it a chance. Harolddiaz
- That has been the problem all along, Harold. Yes, his name produces some results on Google, but they are not reliable sources. If you are aware of some actual, reliable sources, now would be the time to bring them forward. Both of us tried to properly reference this page, and it just didn't happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, true. You all are right, which brings me to provide the article with more reliable sources. I'm trying... Harolddiaz —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete No sources provided, and none seem to be available, to verify the article claims and to check if the subject meets the WP:CREATIVE standard of notability. I will reconsider my !vote, if the claims listed by User:Hoary can be substantiated by independent, secondary, reliable sources. Abecedare (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer If the article is deleted, it will orphan the redirect page The True Blue Shubhojit, so that should be deleted too. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - sources as they stand are not sufficiently independant to meet WP:N, and so far googling hasn't brought up anything either. Artw (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 06:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John McBride (photographer)
- John McBride (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A photographer who, we're told, has had individual photographs published here and there. No mention of any exhibitions (let alone solo exhibitions) or any major contributions to anything (let alone entire books). What's said to be his best known work was published in The East Villager (now redlinked). There is a mention in a note of a single review, but the context suggests that this is not of McBride's work but instead of an album for whose cover McBride contributed a photo. No other critical commentary is cited. We do read that a selection of McBride's photographs were chosen for inclusion in the permanent collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, but this claim rests on a letter from the museum to McBride. No mention of where this letter is published. Perhaps the editor citing it can see it directly, as this article has been written by this one author, whose contributions to Wikipedia all seem to have been on or directly related to John McBride. However, McBride doesn't seem close to meeting WP:CREATIVE. Hoary (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC) .... One part deleted as now obsolete -- Hoary (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original author responds
As I am very new to contributing to Wikipedia I have tried to do the best job possible as I also prefer well-written articles. I am glad that there are people like Hoary who volunteer the time to edit Wikipedia and improve articles. The edits made by others of the article on John McBride have been mostly good and by forcing me to correct my mistakes I am slowly learning how to properly structure articles. I must say, however, that I am a little taken aback at the tone of the negative comments and this certainly dampens my enthusiasm for making further contributions to Wikipeda, and I can't see the point of the comment "gibberish...still terrible."
Maybe I'm incorrect, but my impression of Wikipedia was that it was better than an old-fashioned encyclopedia because it is democratic, free and its openness allows for a healthy wide-range of views as to what is important and/or notable, while the old encyclopedias suffered from an institutional bias and were restricted by the physical limitations of space (limited number of pages).
- I responded to earlier criticisms to the article by adding, or attempting to add whatever information others said were missing and I can add more relevant info if need be. I added numerous references to back up the text of the article, even though I thought it overkill, but I was responding to criticism of missing sources.
- There is no Wikipedia page for The East Villager newspaper as of yet, although there should be as it was a well-read paper serving a very prominent area of New York City. The fact that there isn't one yet doesn't mean that it was unimportant, and I am often surprised to find that an important subject does not yet have an article on Wikipedia.
- The Rolling Stone review was used as a source with regard to the Masters of Reality album, not John McBride, so I am unsure how to respond to that comment. Rolling Stone doesn't review the work of photographers to my knowledge. This part of the article may needed to be edited though as it may be a little more info than needed.
- The source for the inclusion in the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston was added in response to criticism. The website for the museum does not seem to have updated their list so the letter was used as a source. Many books list letters as sources in their endnotes and clearly very few letters are published - most are in private collections - so I don't see why the letter cannot be a source until the museum updates its list.
- Update:Source found by Wperdue at Annual Report 2006-2007, Museum of Fine Arts, Houston (PDF file, 7.05 MB}\] --Darknessandlight (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- McBride's work has been published numerous times and the list in the article is just a partial one.
- McBride's work has been in group shows but I thought that would clutter the article.
- Is there a "book" standard that defines notability in terms of being a noteworthy photographer vs. publications in newspapers or magazines?
- As stated, McBride's work is in the collection of the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston and is also in private collections.
I am grateful that Hoary has written articles on numerous subjects including Japanese photographers and I am glad that I can browse Wikipedia and learn more about them. Such Japanese photographers would most likely not ever be mentioned in a standard encyclopedia, and the fact that I haven't yet heard of them nor read about them makes Hoary's contribution, in my mind, more valuable and not less so.
Clearly, I think that John McBride (photographer) meets Wikipedia's standards and I hope that Hoary will reconsider his opinion. --Darknessandlight (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep It appears to meet WP:Creative though not by a lot. I did find an additional web reference from The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston. It appears to include a list of works by John McBride purchased by the museum http://www.mfah.org/pdf/AR2007.pdf Added in this edit at 17:40, 21 March 2009 by Wperdue
- brief reply to article writers comments: Wikipedia is not a democracy, as described at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is notMercurywoodrose (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Although not exactly an article that we could demonstrate as the criteria of WP:CREATIVE incarnate, the article still meets the criteria by receiving significant critical attention and has played a role in creating significant work. He seems to be notable within his own field. Jd027 (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, also for what it's worth a clear case of conflict of interest, and WP:NOTMYSPACE. This is one more example of a problem that comes up in AFD time and again - confusing evidence of output with evidence of notability. Any journalist, illustrator, editor, backing singer, etc. etc. will generate a certain amount of Google hits (and even the occasional minor award) simply by virtue of being active, working professionals. Multiple ghits, however, do not of themselves support an individual's notability. The core policy is absolutely clear, "significant coverage" is required for notability, which means sources that "address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content". That is, several authors in reliable sources need to have considered the individual sufficiently important to warrant an article or two about them as the primary subject, not simply mention the individual in the context of something related, such as an exhibition or news incident. Articles such as this, when sourced at all, are inevitably lists of random mentions of an individual's output containing few if any references to coverage of the individual as a worthy subject by him or herself, which on a related note means that they fall into the problem of original research as well. AngoraFish 木 21:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AngoraFish: "This is one more example of a problem that comes up in AFD time and again - confusing evidence of output with evidence of notability." Interesting that you should say this. I have mixed thoughts about it, as "notability" in WP terms often means little more than buzz of a kind assiduously generated by PR flacks. The Beckham bambini (for example) have this ersatz "notability", a fact that appears to embarrass even the "coverage"-bedazzled writers of the notability page, who make an exception for mere family members. My own inclination is to be impressed by output and the hell with buzz; thus for example my stub on this fellow. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I'm misreading you here, but it appears that we are in agreement. The 'buzz' that you talk about is very much the kind of dross that ends out padding out articles such as this. WP's core policy on notability is significantly more rigorous than "three mentions in a mainstream newspaper and he/she/it gets over the line". Tragically, the "three mainstream mentions" rule is the most common standard applied at AFD. AngoraFish 木 09:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (this vote by orig. author) (1) Thank you to Jd027 for finding the source for the acquisition of work by the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston. (2) As for the East Villager, it deserves a Wikipedia page. By the way, the editor of the East Villager was Steven Vincent, a journalist who was later murdered in 2005 (by death squads) in Iraq for his writings on death squads within the Iraqi police forces. --Darknessandlight (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that it was Wperdue who found the reference (though the confusion over this is understandable). -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup – it doesn't even need terribly that much cleanup for it to be a perfectly OK article. Clearly notable. MuZemike 00:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kind-of apology: Darknessandlight writes: I must say, however, that I am a little taken aback at the tone of the negative comments and this certainly dampens my enthusiasm for making further contributions to Wikipeda, and I can't see the point of the comment "gibberish...still terrible." That's from my edit summary ("removing the most obvious gibberish, etc; still terrible"), for this edit. Distinctly below the standard of edit summary I expect from people messing with my articles, I must admit. Sorry about that. Well, I was in a bad mood, as I was still recovering from the ardors of half-heartedly attempting to socialize with friends around one table in a restaurant while a much larger group were hooting, shrieking, and (this being Tokyo) clapping around a nearby table. (So, I'm a misanthrope.) "Terrible" was an unnecessarily harsh description of the article as presenting notability. I didn't mean "gibberish", I meant "puffery"; and I meant this for only some of what I removed, specifically: (i) internationally recognized, (ii) noted, and (iii) my black beast legendary; each about a separate person. All of this looked as if it had been intended to sprinkle stardust on McBride by association, and none of it's necessary: all three of these people deserve articles; one already existed, a second has just been provided by Darknessandlight himself (thank you!), and time permitting I'd be happy to create the third myself. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Apology accepted even if it is a "kind-of apology." I promise it wasn't me at the noisy table! As for articles needed, at least in reference to this thread: (1)Anne Tucker, curator of photography has been written up in Time Magazine, very noteworthy in my opinion, deserves mention in Wikipedia (2) East Villager newspaper as noted above. (3) Rick Rubin already has a long article - he is very famous. (4) George Krause has article although it could be expanded.--Darknessandlight (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dammit, D&L, if we go on like this, pretty soon we'll even get to be friends or something. Anne Wilkes Tucker, as I think she's more often/properly called (tho' feel free to correct me), has just got a crummy stub towards an article, and within a few minutes she'll get a redirect from Anne Tucker as well. Evidence in a publicly accessible PDF of museum holdings is to my mind a major help toward establishing the notability of McBride; do please continue to improve the article and I'll keep an open mind about it. -- Hoary (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any suggestions on improving it? I don't think it needs expansion...maybe to reduce length of Publication Credits section - and reduce number of footnotes in this section - seems to be overkill, no? Popular Culture section should be kept I think and it is properly footnoted. Also I removed mention of Ann Tucker earlier, thought maybe it was too wordy.--Darknessandlight (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can never have too many footnotes, especially while your article is in AfD hell. Indeed, you might elaborate and improve the footnotes by linking to what's available online (as I did here). ¶ No evidence for a place in a second collection? -- Hoary (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure. Private collections? Hard to find a reference for that. Added a source for Pop Culture section.--Darknessandlight (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right: I have the works of two photographers of some note in my own private collection; there's no reference for this, as it's a very unremarkable fact. If my private collection were famous, things might be different; but the majority of private collections are unremarkable. Well, you're going to have to dig around some more. You could make things a lot easier for your readers: see this latest edit of mine, in which I link to a source that you gave and for which I had to Google. (Unfortunately the source doesn't mention McBride.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for fixing the source link. The notes for this section fit together. Shadow back issues are not online yet as far as I can tell. http://mediafilter.org/mff/shadow.html is the Shadow website but Archive is a dead link. Clayton Patterson, mentioned in the article that you linked, is another person deserving of an article imho.--Darknessandlight (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you know exactly where something once was (or should be) but it has gone, try asking web.archive.org for the URL. -- Hoary (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for fixing the source link. The notes for this section fit together. Shadow back issues are not online yet as far as I can tell. http://mediafilter.org/mff/shadow.html is the Shadow website but Archive is a dead link. Clayton Patterson, mentioned in the article that you linked, is another person deserving of an article imho.--Darknessandlight (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right: I have the works of two photographers of some note in my own private collection; there's no reference for this, as it's a very unremarkable fact. If my private collection were famous, things might be different; but the majority of private collections are unremarkable. Well, you're going to have to dig around some more. You could make things a lot easier for your readers: see this latest edit of mine, in which I link to a source that you gave and for which I had to Google. (Unfortunately the source doesn't mention McBride.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure. Private collections? Hard to find a reference for that. Added a source for Pop Culture section.--Darknessandlight (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can never have too many footnotes, especially while your article is in AfD hell. Indeed, you might elaborate and improve the footnotes by linking to what's available online (as I did here). ¶ No evidence for a place in a second collection? -- Hoary (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any suggestions on improving it? I don't think it needs expansion...maybe to reduce length of Publication Credits section - and reduce number of footnotes in this section - seems to be overkill, no? Popular Culture section should be kept I think and it is properly footnoted. Also I removed mention of Ann Tucker earlier, thought maybe it was too wordy.--Darknessandlight (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dammit, D&L, if we go on like this, pretty soon we'll even get to be friends or something. Anne Wilkes Tucker, as I think she's more often/properly called (tho' feel free to correct me), has just got a crummy stub towards an article, and within a few minutes she'll get a redirect from Anne Tucker as well. Evidence in a publicly accessible PDF of museum holdings is to my mind a major help toward establishing the notability of McBride; do please continue to improve the article and I'll keep an open mind about it. -- Hoary (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Apology accepted even if it is a "kind-of apology." I promise it wasn't me at the noisy table! As for articles needed, at least in reference to this thread: (1)Anne Tucker, curator of photography has been written up in Time Magazine, very noteworthy in my opinion, deserves mention in Wikipedia (2) East Villager newspaper as noted above. (3) Rick Rubin already has a long article - he is very famous. (4) George Krause has article although it could be expanded.--Darknessandlight (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. It's nice that people want to stretch and accept letters from museums, but if it hasn't been reported on it's not notable by definition. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And it was nice of Hoary to make an article on Anne Tucker, but I don't see how she meets inclusion criteria either. Where is the substantial coverage from reliable independent sources? A note from "mom" just doesn't cut it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anne Tucker was called "America's Best Curator" by Time Magazine in 2001 see http://designtaxi.com/news.jsp?id=966&monthview=1&month=3&year=2004. Source for McBride's work in Museum of Fine Arts, Houston was found in the 2007 Annual Report for the museum and available in PDF link see notes for John McBride (photographer).--Darknessandlight (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Come come, let's not natter about other articles here. If on the other hand you'd care to nominate Anne Tucker for deletion, go right ahead. -- "Mr Nice Guy" Hoary 06:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep The museum material does show the necessary notability. True, the source is informal, but the criterion is having works in major museums, not having published sources that show works in major museums. Given the problems of getting this information from most museums for anything recent, the letter is sufficient. DGG (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um ... I see one claim about museum holdings, that his photos are in one museum. This claim is impeccably sourced. Am I missing something else? -- Hoary (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you're missing substantial evidence the subject of this article is notable. There are lots of museums. Some are more notable than others. Every work in every museum, does not make every artist notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly true that there are lots of museums and that some are more notable than others. But what are you saying here about the Houston Museum of Fine Arts or about possession by this museum? Hoary (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you're missing substantial evidence the subject of this article is notable. There are lots of museums. Some are more notable than others. Every work in every museum, does not make every artist notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simone Sheffield
- Simone Sheffield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Subject does not meet criteria of WP:N — raeky (talk | edits) 19:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nn per WP:BIO. Cf. her IMDB page. Eusebeus (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A quick search on Google News shows there are many reliable sources. Including to the New York Times, Times, BBC News, Times of India, etc. No questions about her notability. -- Crowsnest (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a couple passing mentions in a few articles is enough to qualify for WP:N, people are mentioned, quoted in news all the time in this capacity and it doesn't mean they should have a wikipedia page. I think she should be mentioned more then in passing about someone else or a minor project to be notable. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:BIO: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". There are many reliable sources quoting her, or using her as a source for their statements. Further she has (co)produced several films, satisfying WP:CREATIVE: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work,..." -- Crowsnest (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there enough to satisfy that she has "played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work." If so then I will admit she meets notability for WP:CREATIVE. I just don't see that. What "significant" or "well-known" work has she played a major role in creating? We can't possibly have a page for every producer, associate whatever of any film ever released in the box office? They should meet some standard above and beyond just that. None of those films shes credited on IMDB are significant that I can tell. — raeky (talk | edits) 07:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment... actually wiki CAN have articles for every film and video producer... as long as they have coverage in reliable sources and whose assertions of notability can then properly sourced, so as to meet the inclusion requirements of guideline. Will be looking into expansion and sourcing this evening.... then I'll be back to either opine a keep or delete based upon what I will have been able to accomplish. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, with a remark that this diff shows why editors need to put articles on their watchlist when they tag them. This is fundamentally promotional rather than encyclopaedic in nature, and as far as I can tell unsourced and unsourceable via reliable sources.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The editor you're talking about (TG4M) is Bobbi Miller-Moro the wife of Luis Moro who setup and solely maintained several pages for her friends, family and co-workers and just recently had her page (her autobiography) deleted on WP:N issues. There's obvious NPOV issues with this article since it was created and the bulk of content added by a friend likely acting on Mrs. Sheffield's behalf. Bobbi also stated she was going to hire a company to maintain these pages on wikipedia for her, so future NPOV issues could become a big problem for these pages. — raeky (talk | edits) 02:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely there are many issues with the quality of the article. But one has to distinguish between the notability of the subject (qualifying for having a separate article on WP, and requiring sufficient reliable secondary sources), and on the other side the reliable sources (which are lacking in the article at the moment) needed for the statements and claims made. To my opinion there are enough reliable sources to support notability of the article as such. A certain amount of primary sources for non-controversial claims can be acceptable, but I agree that secondary sources need to be added (although not to the extend as indicated by the citation tags at the moment). Non-verifiable matter can of course be deleted. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I probably went a little overboard with the fact tags, but it goes to illustrate that virtually nothing there is sourced. What source there is is a primary source (or own websites). I don't feel that we should keep articles until we have sufficient sources to qualify it for WP:N and I don't think we've presented/seen enough to qualify it for WP:N now. Which sources are you referring to, specifically, that establish notability? — raeky (talk | edits) 10:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely there are many issues with the quality of the article. But one has to distinguish between the notability of the subject (qualifying for having a separate article on WP, and requiring sufficient reliable secondary sources), and on the other side the reliable sources (which are lacking in the article at the moment) needed for the statements and claims made. To my opinion there are enough reliable sources to support notability of the article as such. A certain amount of primary sources for non-controversial claims can be acceptable, but I agree that secondary sources need to be added (although not to the extend as indicated by the citation tags at the moment). Non-verifiable matter can of course be deleted. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The editor you're talking about (TG4M) is Bobbi Miller-Moro the wife of Luis Moro who setup and solely maintained several pages for her friends, family and co-workers and just recently had her page (her autobiography) deleted on WP:N issues. There's obvious NPOV issues with this article since it was created and the bulk of content added by a friend likely acting on Mrs. Sheffield's behalf. Bobbi also stated she was going to hire a company to maintain these pages on wikipedia for her, so future NPOV issues could become a big problem for these pages. — raeky (talk | edits) 02:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advertising, which has no reliable sources that establish notability or allow for verification of its claims. In general, we shouldn't have completely unsourced articles, particularly for BLPs. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and remove the fluff. A search on google books (some of which I have added to the article) shows sources that can been used to cite the article. Further, a seacrh including the names of her Bollywood clients shows her being quoted in many reliable sources (again, some of which I have added). I agree that it has many problems, but feel that with work, it can be made a suitable and encyclopdeic entry for Wikipedia per WP:CLEANUP... mostly, the hyperbole inserted by the original author has got to go... unless properly sourced. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt beyond the passant mentions that she is an agent for the two indian actresses, everything else is self-published. The google books ref was actually to a 1983 issue of "The Advocate: The National Gay and Lesbian Magazine" -- while the search page indicates her name is mentioned in the article in question, the text isn't readable in the cite provided (here [1]) -- so i've removed that for now as it doesn't establish anything about her (not sure if the advocate is RS anyway, but it's a moot point at the moment). That leaves us with passant mentions that she manages the two indian actresses, refs on online databases showing she worked for motown (or in the screenworld annual). All the sources that mention anything about her are self-published. Still fails in my opinion on WP:BIO and WP:NOTE and WP:V (since all the info actually about her is not reliable). Specifically, she meets none of the criteria in WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. Bali ultimate (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing -- "Screenworld" is a directory that strives to publish the basic data of every movie produced in a given year.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. I'm not impressed by the SPS about her "charity work" or the "name dropping" of other celebs. I will be looking to find independent sources that speak about her in relationship to her film companies, and covering her "coming out of retirement". And I feel that I may find her in archives covering her early career. And what's the deal about adding "fact" for her ethinic background? She says it herself and its not the least bit controversial...and it seems it not being specifically covered anywhere else shows that it is not of any special merit... and it certainly is no assertion of notability. I think we can accept her own word on her ethnic heritage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's not overwhelming, but there seems to be enough ntoability to warrant inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - She meets the criteria for WP:CREATIVE, as she has played a major role in co-creating several a significant works as identified by the several award winning films that she has produced and co-produced. Esasus (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral-I don't think she meets the Notability criteria [[2]] and some of the materials lack reliable citations [[3]]. It is true that she is/was the international agent for two well known Bollywood actors [4] but is that enough to pass the notability threshold? I was leaning towards Delete but after following the recent efforts of some of the editors like User: MichaelQSchmidt I think there's a small chance that the article can be salvaged.--Louisprandtl (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theo Green
- Theo Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Tried CSD (declined as notability is apparently claimed), and then PROD, but PROD removed by article creator.
Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria, and doesn't meet WP:NOTE. Being listed in IMDB is not criteria for inclusion. A good faith effort to seek out reliable sources coverage didn't reveal anything specific, but does confirm that this is not a hoax.
Composing scores for notable movies is not a claim to notability, and "Twisted Pair" is not notable. While the New College is notable, its choir isn't singly notable.
Put simply, there is no independent coverage that makes for a wikipedia article. This should be deleted or merged into The_Escapist_(2008_film)#Music, which is certainly the one notable thing. Cerejota (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Composing scores for notable films IS notable. WP:CREATIVE says: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." - Mgm|(talk) 12:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see any indication that his scoring work is notable; that he had that relatively minor role on a notable film doesn't mean he meets WP:CREATIVE--we don't give articles for the makeup artists or set designers or editors or foley artists, either. If he is nominated for an Oscar for scoring, he'll pass the bar then. THF (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Meets the following criteria for MUSIC.
Criteria 10) Composed the score for Hush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush_(2009_film) which was nominated for a British Independent Film Award. http://www.bifa.org.uk/
AND Criteria 10), Has Composed and performed the soundtrack for 2 feature films with theatrical and television release, and a program for BBC television, as supported by References 3) and 4)
AND Criteria 1) It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable
See Reference link 1) from the Guardian / Observer, an online version of a printed newspaper in the UK - Quote 'The theme of the music was anything to do with alluring and dangerous women,' says Theo Green, who produced the music for the show. 'There's a big tango theme running through the soundtrack because that style of music brings out that sexy but dangerous side in women.' Green's background is in film so music and dialogue from movies such as The Wicker Man, The Ninth Gate and Las Vampiras that hint at the theme were layered on top of the other tracks. 'Some of the tracks may not instantly strike you as the most obvious music to walk to but I think it's good to break it up.'
See also Reference link 2) from The Irish Times, and online version of a printed newspaper in UK/Scotland - Quote 'More impressive still is the audio design. Whereas most low-budget films sleep happily if the dialogue remains perceptible, Hardy, sound designer Theo Green and composer Benjamin Wallfisch have conspired to create an expressionist clamour, which heightens the sense that we are in some drugged nightmare.'
AND Criteria 4) as supported by Reference 1) - Has toured and performed with televised shows at London and New York Fashion weeks. —Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep To Cerejota: you mention New College Oxford is not notable for its choir, please see Wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_College,_Oxford "The College is one of the main choral foundations of the University of Oxford. The College Choir has a reputation as one of the finest Anglican choirs in the world and have recorded over seventy albums, and have been awarded two Gramophone Awards."
ALSO PLEASE NOTE: New references added: the score for "Hush" is notable under Wiki's criteria, reviews and links have been added to show this film is now on general theatrical release in the United Kingdom and other countries. Alongside "The Escapist", both films have been nominated and won awards and are notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Composing the music for Hush and composing both additional music and sound design for Escapist have attracted wide press coverage. Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Rumplestiltskin2009 said, he won a notable award for his work, and therefor meets the requirements. Dream Focus 01:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Satisfies notability and references check out Jamestilley (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Jamestilley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete addressing the many points above
- Rumplestiltskin2009 did not say he won a notable award for his work. The film was nominated for an award and that award was not for the score and the nomination was not for Green.
- The references may check out but only three are independent reliable sources and none of them have substantial coverage of Green.
- None of the references show that the score for Hush is notable. One shows that the film might be, not every part of it. If "Composing the music for Hush and composing both additional music and sound design for Escapist have attracted wide press coverage" where is that coverage.
- WP:CREATIVE does not appear to be satisfied. None of the works mentioned are a significant or well-known work and as a sum they are not significant or well-known collective body of work. The criteria is not about any notable work. I also disagree that Greens ivnvolvement counts as a major role in co-creating.
- WP:MUSIC criteria 1 has not been satisfied as all the coverage of Green has been trivial.
- WP:MUSIC criteria 10 is about performing.
- "Reference 1)" (Guardian / Observer) does not support the claim he has toured and performed with televised shows at London and New York Fashion weeks. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I cited "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I was referring to the movie(s) as the well-known work. A score is a significant part of a movie and by contributing the score to the film, I believe he meets this criteria. It doesn't mean the score itself has to be well-known. - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think yopu misinterpret what that policy says: it clearly means that " that has been the subject of" In other words, if a book or film is made about Theo Green, not if Theo Green participates in creating a book or film. I think this is a very clear, unambigous formation, and MGM is misunderstanding it. If the criteria where what you say, then wikipedia would be exactly as IMDB, and we can agree it isn't. I insist this should be merged into Hush and Escapist, with the redirect to Hush as it seems there are more RS for it. This guy certainly deserves to be mentioned, he is just not notable enough for an article on himself alone. --Cerejota (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Mgm. That is how I read your comment. What I am trying to say is that the criteria does not say a notable work. It says "significant or well-known work" which goes beyond simple notability as meant by wikipedia. I also don't think most scores count as "played a major role in co-creating" especially in the case of Greens work in The Escapist. In any case one should "see WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc" which also has it's own section on composers (WP:COMPOSER). And for Cerejota I believe Mgm has it the right way around. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Satisfies WP:CREATIVE, Films "The Escapist" and "Hush" have been reviewed by multiple independent periodical, as given in References
Satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria 1, trivial coverage is defined as "articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories". References supplied include interviews in major newspaper and reviews (not trivial) Satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria 10, Has composed abd performed music for a network television show (BBC Surviving Disaster) and two notable films, The Escapist and Hush. Also as part of New College Choir, won two Gramophone Awards.
CEREJOTA please note: it is the WORK a person has been involved in that must be the subject of multiple independent articles and reviews, not the PERSON. If a PERSON has been involved in creating a work that attracts multiple reviews, it satisfies the criteria. The criteria does not mean that the person must have had a film made about them etc. The films mentioned are notable and reviewed, thus included on Wikipedia: composing the music for them is considered as notable under WP:MUSIC Jamestilley (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is that smell?- No, trivial coverage is not defined as that, they were examples.
- As it stands there is no evidence that as part of New College Choir, Green won two Gramophone Awards. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPlease try to keep comments helpful and related to info not "What is that smell"! The criteria for coverage is very clear; independence and reliability are down to the publication and trivial/non-trivial is down to whether the mention is a listing or part of the article. There can be no doubt that this composer has created music for several notable films, and the films mentioned are here on Wikipedia. That simply satisfies the composer section of WP:MUSIC, as with other composers represented by Air Edel and with a page on Wikipedia, eg David Julyan. Jamestilley (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck out your second keep !vote. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for all the help from Article Rescue Squadron.
- This topic now has more references, awards information, and links to notable work discussed in the press. Also of note is the unique combination of composition and sound design in film scores. Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC. Film score musician with only one fairly minor credit of any importance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable enough to those looking for obscure facts (WP's strength). Disc space is cheap. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Cleanup Evidence of notability exists, but the article is a bit too peacocky as it stands Avi (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for advice, have removed peacocky bits! Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 05:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:Creative. This composer has composed original music (a significant role) for a TV show (Surviving Disaster), and four notable films; Hush (2009), One Woman Show (2007), Explosions (2006), and Get the Picture (2004). Untick (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Plenty of refs from Channel 4 to MTV News. Passes notability and WP:Music, no grounds for this to go Gilgamesh007 (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I may be blind but I did not see any mention of Green in the MTV News article and I only saw Green listed in the credits listed in the Channel 4 article. Yes there a lot of references provided but a good number do not even mention Green and those that do only provide trivial coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the references are there to establish the films he worked on as notable, which is one criteria, but others include reviews of his work, and some like Hollywood reporter review a film, mention the score, then list the name below. Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References establishing the notability of things he worked on should be included in articles on the things he worked on. If it does not cover Greens work it has no place in Greens article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can that be true? Still learning how to create WP content, but it seems obvious from looking around that Inline Citations are encouraged to support any point or claim made in an article, as in WP:CITE and WP:IC - its not just citations that talk directly about the creative work of a subject that are allowed on WP? Anyone else care to comment? Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right Rumplestilskin2009. Sources for everything should be provided but it's possible that they aren't importance for notability concerns (i.e. just passing references to him or something). Duffbeer, even if it doesn't cover Green's work, it can still be included with references. We just ignore then here for notability concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can that be true? Still learning how to create WP content, but it seems obvious from looking around that Inline Citations are encouraged to support any point or claim made in an article, as in WP:CITE and WP:IC - its not just citations that talk directly about the creative work of a subject that are allowed on WP? Anyone else care to comment? Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References establishing the notability of things he worked on should be included in articles on the things he worked on. If it does not cover Greens work it has no place in Greens article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the references are there to establish the films he worked on as notable, which is one criteria, but others include reviews of his work, and some like Hollywood reporter review a film, mention the score, then list the name below. Rumplestiltskin2009 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I may be blind but I did not see any mention of Green in the MTV News article and I only saw Green listed in the credits listed in the Channel 4 article. Yes there a lot of references provided but a good number do not even mention Green and those that do only provide trivial coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly meets WP:Music #10. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:55, 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 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 [5]. 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: [6]. 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 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 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 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 [7]
- 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. 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 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 02:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kole Black
- Kole Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't look anywhere near notable enough as an author, but I cannot tell if there's enough notability is a subgenre to allow it here. The only interview I can find is here which links to Lulu, a self-publisher (although the books are available on Amazon). And yes, the MySpace page claims he's 100 from Tokyo, Japan but that's the page linked from the interview so I don't think it's a hoax. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've redirected The Chance She Took and The Risk of Chance to Black's page, in the odd chance they somehow are found to have notability on their own. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment popular, I see. Note that some new editors have been removing a large amount of, albeit unsourced, material from the page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Spaulden Publishing appears to be Kole Black's own publishing label, as no other books seem to be published under this label. Self-published books are not notable unless they are widely distributed or otherwise grab the attention of third-party sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abbas Husain
- Abbas Husain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Subject is not notable. Article contains a lot of namedropping, but in the end we have a teacher and director who runs workshops (for which the only reference I can find is two brief mentions in a source whose reliability and notability I doubt, [8] and [9]) and a Development Center, for which I could find one reference, also of questionable authority and notability. Much of the article is concerned with an article the subject wrote in 1992, which has never been published academically, as far as I can ascertain (judge for yourself with the Google results), an interview in an online source, and an alleged textbook (without bibliographical information--a search on the OUP site gives no such results for "Abbas" or for "Husain," nor does the LoC. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I see enough some published work e.g. but not enough evidence of citations, or impact to pass WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines for inclusion. No substantial coverage in independent sources etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Some scholarship, but not enough for Notability. Vartanza (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If someone could source the claim that he has trained 13,000 teachers, we would probably be able to get him into the Guinness Book of World Records, but barring such evidence, does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. BJTalk 09:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prudence Murphy
- Prudence Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails notability. This is a non-notable photographer who has been shortlisted for an award and has exhibited at non-notable galleries. Jenafalt (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jenafalt (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep if it can be watched and defended from self-promotion and stuff (as there is at least one COI editor in the edit history). I don't know about which art galleries are notable and stuff, but I do think this reference (currently included as an EL, not inline citations) should help, as it's from Syndney Morning Herald, which AFAIK is a major newspaper. I know WP:CREATIVE doesn't list that as a criterion, but to be honest (full disclosure here) WP:CREATIVE is a guideline that I believe is too strict. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator. RP459 (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, non-trivial coverage in the Sydney Morning Herald, a major Australian newspaper, as well as independent coverage from Art Monthly means that this article meets the WP:GNG, in my view. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment The 'coverage' in Art Monthly does not actually comment on her art - just uses it to illustrate a page. The Galleries that she has exhibited in are all minor galleries. She may be heading for notability, but she is not notable as the article or her career currently stands. I tried to clean up the article and find references to her notability, but when I couldn't I listed it for deletion. Jenafalt (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, I still feel that the SMH coverage, the fact that her art was picked for the illustration, and the sundry awards that she has received all add up to notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment The 'coverage' in Art Monthly does not actually comment on her art - just uses it to illustrate a page. The Galleries that she has exhibited in are all minor galleries. She may be heading for notability, but she is not notable as the article or her career currently stands. I tried to clean up the article and find references to her notability, but when I couldn't I listed it for deletion. Jenafalt (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the general notability guidelines should not be a carte blanche to include everything that objectively satisfies them. A single exhibition covered by a single newspaper article (and another source in which a single photograph was included without commentary in an art magazine) is a pretty flimsy basis for notability. IMO, fails WP:CREATIVE.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete ... for now. This is a close call and I am basing this on the fact that she did not win the award and because the coverage in Art Monthly is just shy of sufficient to demonstrate her notability per our standards. This is so absolutely close that one more magazine mention for one of her showings could get her over the top and we should re-create. This may be a rare case where a "no consensus" might be the best choice. JRP (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Russell A Alder
- Russell A Alder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Biographical article about non-notable individual. This article was originally created at Russell A. Alder and was deleted there because a prod citing lack of notability was not contested. The article creator, who appears to be a SPA intent on building notability for members of the Alder family, has provided no references in support of any of the claims made in the article. Other articles created by him/her (specifically Allen Alder and R. Ashley Alder) have been tagged as needing references since December 2007 but none have been supplied. I added prods to all three articles. The page creator deleted all three prods but provided no references to any article. Without proof of notability these articles should be deleted. AussieLegend (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence or sources showing notability. JJL (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - all appears to be original research. No notability or reliable sources are used. Jd027 (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Dubious claims. No external sources. LK (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete More jumped-up claims. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marcello Alberto Cristofani della Magione
- Marcello Alberto Cristofani della Magione (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is without reliable, secondary sources about the topic. He doesn't seem to have any WP:Notability. --Yopie 12:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See also: Italian AfD. AntiCross (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No references that establish notability. Looie496 (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Audrey Gair
- Audrey Gair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Keeping it simple, the page lacks any sources, and mentions nothing why she is notable. Yes web sites exist some as a promotional matter some photos but nothing about what she did at least i could find, at the very least i would support a merge with the kenny hotz article Landlord77 (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is not asserted, let alone shown. No sources. Should not be merged to anything. Edward321 (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a model who has not received coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unable to locate sufficient verification of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Extensive Google searches turn up mostly image portfolio websites, online modeling agency profiles and red carpet images from the 2008 Gemini Awards. No prejudice towards recreation if reliable sources are found. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:07, 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 delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guillermo Jalomo
- Guillermo Jalomo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Player is non-notable per WP:FOOTYN, having never played in a professional league and have not been contracted to do so JonBroxton (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 02:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as player fails WP:ATHLETE; recreate when/if player becomes notable. GiantSnowman 02:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Snowman. -- Alexf(talk) 12:54, 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. Valley2city‽ 02:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Manshino
- Tony Manshino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Artist who's released a few albums on minor labels, but doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria for notable musicians. Google hits are pretty bare, and it seems pretty likely he hasn't received any kind of coverage from reliable sources. Also see this AFD for one of the groups he's in. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:17, 20 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 16:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial coverage. as pointed out, his group The Iconz was recently deleted on the grounds of non-notability. JamesBurns (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, concur with reasons from James Burns. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 23:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city‽ 18:38, 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 delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Liam Bedford
- Liam Bedford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Rookie listed player who has yet to play in the AFL. Duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:Athlete.Nrswanson (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- All the sources I can find are passing mentions in sports-related articles, so he doesn't pass the general notability guideline and he hasn't played a senior game so WP:ATHLETE won't save this article. Reyk YO! 06:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The previous two just about covered it. Quantumobserver (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, just your average garden-variety rookie at this point. Recreate if and when he gets his first top league game. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:06, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 23:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Marting
- Robert Marting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Reason the page should be deleted violates WP:V, does not meet WP:BIO SuperEdit04 (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His only assertion of notability is his video series, for which the only sources are his personal website and...his video series. Google seems to just turn up a bunch of ads. Agreed, isn't a notable person.Someguy1221 (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. Hadn't found those magazine covers. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He has supposedly "been featured in many of the world's top fitness magazines"; I'm having trouble finding reliable source documentation of that, but I think two magazine covers ([10], [11]) are enough to establish notability even if those numerous feature articles on him never surface. The article needs work, but that's not a reason for deletion. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm questioning the importance of appearing on magazine covers, at least in this context. If a subject is on a cover as a feature of that month's content, that would seem to confer notability. But with all due respect, in this context subject is fundamentally an unnamed model. Trying to avoid a slippery slope, if modeling for a cover confers notability, that would infer inclusion for all cover models of magazines, and then arguably all television commercial actors. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know if he was only a cover model or could there be associated articles in the magazines? →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fair question. I don't know, but my understanding of the of the rationale used was that he was on the cover. If I may use Prevention magazine as an example. There are a lot of cover models here, but only in a few cases are the models notable (the only one I saw was a Bollywood actress). When the cover model was notable, there was an article in the magazine. The argument for this subject, as I understand it, is he was on these covers. Prior to that, it was indicated that there is no evidence of an article. Given the high level of commercialism on the internet, and that the subject sells DVD's, it is reasonable to assume that if there was an on-line article available, it would be used to sell DVD's. Going back to the covers, though, if you go to this list, you will see he is identified as a cover model. There are a lot of cover models listed there. Under the above rationale, every one of them would deserve an article here, even if there is no article in the magazine.
- Do you know if he was only a cover model or could there be associated articles in the magazines? →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that Mr. Marting's accomplishments are commendable. He is obviously in excellent shape and appears to have achieved some business success in this field. But there is a difference between being commendable and being notable. If articles turn up, or if his workout video's are shown to be notable, then by all means the article is deserving. If you notice, my remarks were prefaced by comment, I am attempting to provide an opinion on a point of order without providing an opinion on the article's worthiness (though I suppose this comment makes my thoughts clear). I am actually an inclusionist and generally only come down on the side of helping articles stay in.
- 74.69.39.11 (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 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 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Maj
- Chris Maj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable person, no referances, search reports little notability Bacchus87 (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As a life long Rochester, NY resident with a slightly below average interest in local politics, I can say that the subject was involved in the Democratic primary race during the last mayoral elections. Given that, like a lot of other U.S. cities, the Democratic primary is fundamentally the at-large election (Dems generally get >75% of city votes), there is some minor signifance in that. Here is an article referencing his candidacy. City newspaper is a free weekly, but it is the only general news alternative to the "commercial" newspaper in town, and very professionally done (I have no affiliation with said newspaper other than a weekly reader). Another source, another, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.39.11 (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability guidelines at nearly every step. Not only was he the candidate of an extremely minor party, but he failed to win the primary for a position of low notability in the first place. On the off chance that he might have won, the position of Mayor of Rochester, NY would still not really be enough. This is a local politician with nearly no local coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification Outside of the most major cities, mayors are not notable enough outside their local area, not just Rochester. DarkAudit (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The mayor of Rochester properly has an article, but failed candidates for such offices are rarely notable. The news coverage was solely based on Maj's campaign, making it a BLP1E. However, it should be noted that Chris Maj was the second president of the original Rochester Cannabis Coaltion, which later became Students for Sensible Drug Policy and is now a national organization. That may confer additional notability beyond his mayoral campaign. I am abstaining from a recommendation because I know Chris Maj personally. Powers T 14:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As an addendum, if the consensus is to delete, I recommend a transwiki to RocWiki. Powers T 15:01, 23 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, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, failed candidate, was unable to find any coverage of him except for letters to the editor (written by him), and a couple of minor mentions as a candidate. Nothing significant, and therefore I don't believe he meets the WP:BIO notability guideline. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
*Delete: When the party is not notable enough, how can their candidate be? I don't see any notability outside the party. Deletion Mutation 15:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and transwiki per User:LtPowers. He's quoted in an article in Rolling Stone magazine as a spokesman for the original Rochester Cannabis Coaltion, which is clearly notable a group for the Rochester wiki. Ottre 21:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject is not notable; consensus also holds that the book's article, Lysergically Yours, should also be deleted. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Duff (writer)
- Frank Duff (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An article that provides no evidence of notability. The author of a book, Lysergically Yours that has not been reviewed by a single mainstream outlet, is not recognized by the country's two largest booksellers (Chapters and Amazon.ca) and, according to Worldcat is held only by Library and Archives Canada (as required by all Canadian titles awarded ISBNs) and the University of Toronto Thomas Fisher Rare Book Room. A clear failure of WP:BIO Victoriagirl (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for reasons already presented - fails WP:BK:
- Lysergically Yours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Oppose. The author's book Lysergically Yours was reviewed on the front page of Slashdot and seems to have entered the word "Lysergically" into the lexicon (as evidenced by the song "Lysergically Yours, My Psychedelic Bride" by An Albatross as well as having been an early pioneer of declaring commercial works Creative Commons concurrent with a print release. Furthermore, his article "A Coder in Courierland" was an internet sensation and was reprinted in Wired Magazine. Figarofigaro (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC) — Figarofigaro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: While I can't agree that the word "lysergically" has entered into the lexicon, I note that usage pre-dates Frank Duff's book. If "A Coder in Courierland" was indeed "an internet sensation" there would have been a great deal of coverage of the work and its author - yet a google news search for "A Coder in Courierland" brings not a single hit. Victoriagirl (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The author's book Lysergically Yours was reviewed on the front page of Slashdot and seems to have entered the word "Lysergically" into the lexicon (as evidenced by the song "Lysergically Yours, My Psychedelic Bride" by An Albatross as well as having been an early pioneer of declaring commercial works Creative Commons concurrent with a print release. Furthermore, his article "A Coder in Courierland" was an internet sensation and was reprinted in Wired Magazine. Figarofigaro (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC) — Figarofigaro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete both. Unnotable author and extremely unnotable book. Fails WP:BIO/WP:CREATIVE and WP:BK, respectively. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. A google search turns up no evidence for the notability of either author or novel. While "A Coder in Courierland" does appear to have gained some degree of popularity, I don't see any discussion of it in reliable sources. I can also find no evidence that it was published in Wired; every reference I see to it in an appropriate google search links to the kuro5hin.org original, and none mention it having been reprinted in Wired. A search for it on Wired's web site (which apparently carries all of their stories since 1993) turns up nothing. Yes, the novel was reviewed on slashdot, but as most of slashdot's articles are user submitted they cannot be considered a reliable source. Apart from anything else, there's no way of knowing whether or not the review in question was simply the result of some sly self-promotion. I've also tagged the publisher, No Media Kings for notability and prodded it. JulesH (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - current sources do not support WP:N, happy to reconsider given new sources. Artw (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is the wrong way round—the way it works is, first the book becomes significant or important in some way, then it gets a wikipedia article. You don't get to put the article up in the hope that the book then goes on to achieve great things. We have to have that rule to keep Wikipedia from drowning in promotional material.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not meet WP:Creative. A google search was unable to locate any independent sources to support notability. Untick (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. I originally PRODed both of these articles back in February. As I wrote then, Duff fails the notability criteria for both WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. All his work is self-published on the internet. The few reviews, such as [12], [13], are self-submitted blogs. No significant coverage or reliable sourcing has been found. I'm not certain why these articles were never deleted after their PRODs expired, but there has been no improvement since. This Afd is nomination is correct — CactusWriter | needles 15:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is just to clarify my initial confusion about why these articles weren't deleted previously. In fact, they were. I have now determined that these articles had been deleted after the PRODing in early February. However, they were restored a few days ago when an IP user complained about those deletions. So... let the Afd proceed. — CactusWriter | needles 16:10, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nicky Evans
- Nicky Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable working actor. No awards or nominations, all roles very minor (his role on Emmerdale is the 790th role listed for the series at IMDb. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Bongomatic 01:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That 790th role listed argument doesn't work. IMDB entries for soap operas routinely list characters alphabetically or in (reverse) order of appearance which directly affects the listing of recent or past cast members. - Mgm|(talk) 11:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the listings I've seen, for non-key characters, it's in reverse order of number of appearances (more appearances come first). Bongomatic 13:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - not a reliable source, IMDb listings for episodes of long-running soap operas are very incomplete. According to IMDb's current episode listings, Kylie Minogue was only in 5 episodes of Neighbours! DWaterson (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the IMDB entry for Half-Moon Investigations lists in incidental supporting character first, the lead's sidekick second and the lead third. Clearly the order in IMDB credits are nowhere near reliable.- Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the listings I've seen, for non-key characters, it's in reverse order of number of appearances (more appearances come first). Bongomatic 13:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That 790th role listed argument doesn't work. IMDB entries for soap operas routinely list characters alphabetically or in (reverse) order of appearance which directly affects the listing of recent or past cast members. - Mgm|(talk) 11:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of characters from Shameless. 98.212.129.124 (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will somebody please fix link so this discussion page can be accessed from the article. Link from article is currently redlined. Untick (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems OK to me (I have just got here by clicking on the link in the AfD message). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Amongst other roles, a main cast member of a major award-winning show, and a long-term (6 years) cast member of a long-running soap opera broadcast on a major channel. Passes WP:ENTERTAINER easily. DWaterson (talk) 22:35, 25 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, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep long-running stints on a couple of shows; marginally notable. JJL (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Borderline keep. One minor character on a TV series probably isn't enough. I'd say two just about scrapes it. If nothing else, once someone claims notability for two TV programmes, redirects stop making sense. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails GNG as references are about his books not him. Fails WP:Creative --GedUK 09:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Devendra Prabhudesai
- Devendra Prabhudesai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article in question was created by me quite some time back and I just got a note on my talk page about it being prodded. I've been quite inactive on wiki for a while now and am quite busy in RL currently so I won't be able to devote the time required to find sources for this article. Would really appreciate it if some wiki cricket buffs eyeballed this and try to salvage it. As creator, I'm obviously convinced of the notability of the subject but only if reliable sources can be found to back it up. I'll try and get back to the discussion later with any sources I find. Thanks. --Srikeit 09:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Srikeit 10:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not enough. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete writer of (apparently) one book, and no evidence that it's any sort of literary milestone which would grant its writer instant notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Lots of coverage in reliable sources of author and book [14]. I will add a couple cites. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Appears notable; plenty of hits and sources about this apparently very productive author and journalist. Badagnani (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems notable, and now is well referenced.--Dmol (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not meet Wikipedia:AUTHOR). The subject of his book is most certainly notable. The author is not. Untick (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - all mentions I can find are primarily in the context of promoting the book. Nothing here that wouldn't be consistent with a flash-in-the pan book-tour publicity drive. Ghits do not notability make. AngoraFish 木 11:05, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 01:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Giovannini
- Brian Giovannini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable cartoonist (failing WP:CREATIVE). All Google hits for ""Brian Giovannini" "postage due""[15] appear to be mirrors of his Wikipedia article, or self-published sources. The impressive number of mirrors is due to the article's creation date, back in 2003. The author's defunct web site provided a list of community, local or university newspapers where the comics was apparently published [16] (see also [17]). I haven't found any independent, third-party sources to verify this however, and the publication in none of these local newspapers seems sufficient to establish notability anyway. Delete. Edcolins (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember that the comic was featured in a local paper when I was a student, and I remember he just barely passed the thresh-hold for notability back in 2006. Now that the comic is gone and his blog has gone under [18], much more troublesome. I would recommended a merged and redirect into Haynes & Boone if anyone can find a source saying that he works there. --Rayc (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No merge please. His cartoonist activity appears in no way linked to Haynes & Boone [19]. --Edcolins (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm honestly not exactly sure what to make of this "article". One thing that bothers me though is that one should not need to have an online presence, or even a "current" presence to be "notable". Jack Benny (or even Lenny Bruce), comes to mind. The article is not a hoax, and was a published comics creator. What's the "dividing line" to determine if a published artist is "notable" for the published work? - jc37 10:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be covered in multiple reliable sources, same as for everything. I would say such coverage of any of his works would also be enough. If there is no web presence, then offline sources are required, not no sources. As this one is a lawyer, it seems comic creation is just a hobby of his? Which explains why no sources - he is not notable?YobMod 11:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. A google search was unable to locate multiple independent sources to support notability. Untick (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've not managed to find these newspapers that carried 'Postage Due', but if they are as notable as the Des Moines Comic Outlet seems to be, I don't think we need worry. Hobbies can sometimes be notable - Alexander Borodin being an example. I can find far more evidence for Brian Giovannini being a lawyer than being a cartoonist, which suggests that there isn't much once one discounts the mirrors. If the creator of the article - or ANYONE - HAS got any references, would s/he/they please post them. Peridon (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --GedUK 17:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing to indicate notability as a cartoonist. No merge, nothing to indicate notability as a lawyer either.YobMod 20:36, 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. Almost all the keep arguments are that it was kept twice before. It was not. The first keep would have been more accurately closed no-consensus, and the 2nd was a non-consensus close. I strongly dislike frequently or rapidly repeated nominations as potentially unfair, but this was not unfair. The delete arguments that the sources are inadequate for notability, on the other hand, are well-founded in policy. DGG (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Schlund
- Dan Schlund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Vanity. Notability is alleged mainly through act of having flown a Rocketbelt, and look a lot like WP:1E. Listing from WP:ANI notice to stop the warring at the article. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not meet WP:BIO, no independent notability and in addition, as nom states, BLP1E applies. It's mainly an ad for the "rocketman", to get to parades etc. At most, this could be a redirect to Jet pack. --Crusio (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are a couple of minor sources out there acknowledging that this person does, in fact, exist, but nothing that meets our standards for multiple instances of independent and reliable and nontrivial sources that demonstrate a reason why he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Proving he has a jet pack is trivial, proving why he should be considered so important he gets a page all to himself is another thing entirely, and some people tend to forget that last part in AFD discussions. Also it's pretty clear from the page history that it was created mainly for self-promotional purposes, and that person seems to be in the background on one or more accounts trying to justify its inclusion because he doesn't want to lose what is essentially a free ad. DreamGuy (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Sources were found in the last afd that discuss this gentleman in depth, thus establishing notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep for now
Keep- Subject is notable as established in reliable sources.[20], [21], [22],[23], [24], [25], [26], [27](See the previous AfD for more) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go through these one by one:
- Link 1 has a brief, trivial mention... and SPACE.com is notorious for reprinting press releases as is, so I don't know that it could be considered to be independent anyway. Link 2 has the exact same problems, and is even more obviously just a reprinted press release, including the promotional links and language at the bottom. Link 3 doesn't appear to be much more than a press release either. Link four is just a photo caption on a website. Link five doesn't exist. Link six is a trivial mention in a story about a another topic. Link seven is, again, a trivial mention in an article on another topic. Link eight is, again, just a photo caption.
- So, if that's the best you have, you only prove the point that he's not notable. At best you could justify a short mention in another article, as that's all these articles do. To justify an article of his own you need sources about him and only him from independent, reliable sources that would demonstrate some sort of individual notability, not some sort of collective notability. DreamGuy (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Upon looking at them a second time, a lot of the links I gave only include a trivial mention (and #5 is MIA). The only ones with more extensive coverage are #2 and #3. For number 2, it might be a press release, but I wasn't able tell. It looked like a regular article with an author. If these two sources are reliable, I think they do establish some degree of notability. I'm lowering my recommendation to a "weak keep" for now. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Perhaps renaming the article to Rocketman (stuntman) would be appropriate since that's his stage name and that's the only (?) thing he's known for. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have carefully reviewed this many times, and he is not notable, pure vanity, WP:SPAM as far as i'm concerned, WP:1E, at best a stunt man. All the articles refer to him as a stuntman, or as a pure case of novelty...they do not indicate notability. smooth0707 (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Previous AFD only three weeks ago. Trout Slap the editors who won't let it be, this is a disruptive waste of time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous AFD had no consensus, and an admin listed this specifically because he thought not listing it was disruptive. And do you have any sort of justification for a keep vote other than being annoyed? DreamGuy (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please conform your comments to WP:CIVIL. And don't make up stories like "thought not listing it was disruptive." The article survived two AFDs and has better sourcing than half the BLPs I've looked at lately. Your refusal to accept the fact that your view doesn't enjoy consensus has led you to behave uncivilly and disruptively. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, first off WP:KETTLE on the civility claims. I didn't make up any stories (the WP:AN page confirms what I said), and your claim that there was a consensus that I am supposedly ignoring is what's totally made up. Please explain how a "no consensus" AFD vote and talk page discussion where the majority of people want the page redirected somehow means I am ignoring consensus. I'm going to assume good faith and choose to believe you are just confused (and in a bad mood) and not purposefully trying to deceive people. DreamGuy (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just stop. You are embarassing yourself. The admin said your edit warring was disruptive, and he was attempting to put an end to it. Your obsessive behavior is becoming creepy. Really. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's your idea of being WP:CIVIL? That admin voted to delete (see above), so he wants to put an end to it by getting rid of the article. DreamGuy (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a no consensus decision three weeks ago and a keep vote 18 months ago, so I think we should use the time to determine some sense of consensus. Even right now, the entire bio section is unsourced and his main media mentions come from IMDb, which isn't a secondary source. That's not a great situation for a BLP to be in but you are right Hullaball that it's better than most BLPs. I just hope we don't get another no consensus but even then, I'd say that it defaults to keep, and everyone can just move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was not a keep vote 18 months ago, there were more delete votes than keep votes and the rationale given to delete was solid, just as it is now. The admin who closed at best should have called it no consensus. I think he/she got confused by someone claiming there were new sources and decided to overrule the vote without actually looking at the sources. Either way, 18 months ago was 18 months ago and not relevant now. DreamGuy (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was closed as a keep vote. AFD is not voting, and if you want to argue about it, go complain to the closing admin. It's moot though. However, DreamGuy, if you take that same attitude to the decision over this one (namely, it doesn't matter what the closing admin thinks because you know better), someone will protect the page and we can move on. We aren't going to play my point of view games. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was not a keep vote 18 months ago, there were more delete votes than keep votes and the rationale given to delete was solid, just as it is now. The admin who closed at best should have called it no consensus. I think he/she got confused by someone claiming there were new sources and decided to overrule the vote without actually looking at the sources. Either way, 18 months ago was 18 months ago and not relevant now. DreamGuy (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just stop. You are embarassing yourself. The admin said your edit warring was disruptive, and he was attempting to put an end to it. Your obsessive behavior is becoming creepy. Really. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, first off WP:KETTLE on the civility claims. I didn't make up any stories (the WP:AN page confirms what I said), and your claim that there was a consensus that I am supposedly ignoring is what's totally made up. Please explain how a "no consensus" AFD vote and talk page discussion where the majority of people want the page redirected somehow means I am ignoring consensus. I'm going to assume good faith and choose to believe you are just confused (and in a bad mood) and not purposefully trying to deceive people. DreamGuy (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please conform your comments to WP:CIVIL. And don't make up stories like "thought not listing it was disruptive." The article survived two AFDs and has better sourcing than half the BLPs I've looked at lately. Your refusal to accept the fact that your view doesn't enjoy consensus has led you to behave uncivilly and disruptively. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous AFD had no consensus, and an admin listed this specifically because he thought not listing it was disruptive. And do you have any sort of justification for a keep vote other than being annoyed? DreamGuy (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO, WP:SPAM, and DG's analysis of sources. THF (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- I agree with DreamGuy's evaluation of the sources. Reyk YO! 22:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question to Hallaballoo Wolfowitz I agree with your observation that many BLPs have even worse sourcing than this one, but I am confused on how that translates into a "keep" vote here. Doesn't WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS apply any more? I know that if the guy had been on the field during a football game for even one minute, this would translate to notability, but does the fact that the jocks cannot get their act together mean that we should do the same? --Crusio (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has nothing to do with this. Whatever your or my personal opinion of this "Rocketman," the sources presented and otherwise available are more than enough to meet the GNG. See this AFD [28] for an example of far thinner sources enjoying a consensus that they showed notability. The guy appeared on one of the highest-profile TV broadcasts in the US (Tournament of Roses parade), the status of the event may not be clear to non-Americans or people who have better things to do on New Years Day than watching parades on TV. And also it seems at the Super Bowl. He has been written up in quite a few newspapers in and out of the US. (This section of his website has not just claims or unverified clips, but images of many newspapers involved [29].) I might wish that more wrtiers and professors and productivbe people met the GNG than attention grabbers like this but that doesn't might it's right to ignore the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (1st discussion). Keep (2nd discussion). Keep (3rd discussion). That this discussion is continuing is an abuse of process. DreamGuy and his puppy are going to win their edit war by attrition because the rest of us non-compulsive editors are weary of this debate. There have been two discussions on this article, and additional comments contained in those discussions should not be ignored. For most editors this discussion was closed as a "keep". Once a consensus has been declared by the closing admin, the matter has been decided and the editors can place their attention elsewhere. Only Smooth707 and DreamGuy have continued to argue their position - which was to delete the article. What is the point of having a discussion if a dissenting editor chooses to act contrary to such discussions? I feel that what was needed to be said has already been said, discussed and decided in the two AfDs. This is an article about a person who is named Dan Schlund. The subject person is notable, and the article on this person has survived two AfD discussions. The person Dan Schlund is not a jet pack. Redirecting his name to Jet pack is not logical. He is a stunt man who, among other skills, is one of only a handful of people in the world who can fly with a jet pack, but this does not make his name a search term for jet packs. Redirecting "Dan Schlund" to the general article on jet packs results in the removal of the information on the person Dan Schlund. "Dan Schund" is not a logical search term for "jet pack", so a redirect adds nothing of value to Wikipedia, and will only result in the removal of the article's information from general view. That result would be contrary to the consensus of the two discussions. I hope that when the closing admin reviews the opinions, that he takes into his consideration the opinions of the previous discussion, for this discussion is really just a continuation of the previous one. I also hope that there be someway to restrain DreamGuy from debating EVERY SINGLE COMMENT that he disagrees with. His argumentative positioning is deterring open debate. Most editors do not need such confrontation in their leisure time. And finally, I hope that once this discussion is closed, a new discussion will not be allowed for at least another years. Repeatedly re-opening the discussion until the DreamGuys get the result he wants is simply wrong. Esasus (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, I count 6 votes for deletes. Excluding myself and DreamGuy, 4. I am not forcing my opinion on anyone; nor is this an abuse of process. The issue was discussed on the talk page, and then brought to an AFD by an editor other than myself or DreamGuy. The last 'discussion' you are citing was a 'no consensus'. In addition, the first AFD nom was over a year ago. In this case, a 3rd nom is not as shocking as you tend to believe. I have read your comment above thoroughly, and I happen to disagree with it thoroughly. Frankly, I do not care if you see it may way or not, but I accept the WP:VOTE guidelines, and I suggest you do the same. smooth0707 (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:1E. No prejudice against redirecting/merging to jet pack.-- Darth Mike (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Dan Schlund a jetpack? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If an author, about whom not much is known, would have published just one very notable book, we would have an article about the book and probably redirect the author to the book. Does that mean that this author now would be considered to be a book? Please don't be silly. --Crusio (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not trying to be silly, Crusio. The subject has a brief mention in a single sentence in the article jetpack. He didn't invent the jetpack, which rather invalidates the comparison of a author to his novel. I am no saying the article should be kept; I am arguing that - no matter what - it should not be redirected. At the risk of demonstrating less than AGF, it never should have been. It was a cynical attempt by at least one editor to neutralize a previous AfD that they disagreed with, and I for one took exception to the effort. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Dan Schlund a jetpack? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per LinguistAtLarge and prior AfD survivals. Even if it was no consensus last time, it still survived, and another AfD within three weeks smacks of WP:POINT to me.... MikeWazowski (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep A disruptive repeat nomination per our deletion policy. The topic seems to have adequate notability and claims of WP:BLP1E are obviously inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An admin previously uninvolved with the article listed it to try to get a more clear cut consensus over a contentious issue. The only people being disruptive are those who violate WP:AGF with their comments. DreamGuy (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Accusations of violation of AGF besides, why is BLP1E "obviosuly inappropriate"? At least to me it isn't obvious at all. --Crusio (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:NOTABILITY as outlined in the General notability guidelines. Notability is supported by multiple independent sources, and specifically in The Oklahoman, , the Sheena Coffey, and the Los Angeles Daily News articles that are cited in the article. Untick (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and comment - The appearance of this at AN/I means many new editors may come to comment, so early closures based on recent other AfDs may not be reasonable (I'm one who found this this way.) Delete - he's not notable for anything other than doing his job, which is cool, but hasn't received much coverage. Redirect to Rocketbelt or Jet Pack for coverage of use in mass media and the burn, which is worth noting at that article as a hazard of the machine. ThuranX (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - I'll ask again: is the subject of the article actually a jetpack? If not, he should not be redirected to such. As the directed-to article only addresses Schlund in one sentence, its a bad redirect. Thanks for "crossing the street", ThuranX. So nice to see you again. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave a clear answer in my above comment. ThuranX (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not "one event" - this is his specialty. Are the Wallendas "one event" (high wire)because they only have one specialty? Coverage in many places (albeit frequently just noting his Rocketman act somewhere). Collect (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, completely fails WP:BIO (including WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:ATH, depending on where you stick him) and WP:N. He does not have any real significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, including as noted above in the evaluation of those found. Only a few minor mentions in a few reliable sources. Bulk of the article comes from his own site (not third party) and IMDB (not WP:RS. He has also not "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment", no evidence of a large fan base (as in evidenced by those pesky reliable sources, etc etc. Can't believe this actually survived the previous AfDs. I see no valid reason to redirect this to jetpack either. He neither invented it nor is a significant person in relation to it. It just, apparently, uses it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sources establish WP:N. Artw (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:BIO as "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". WP:COI couldn't be clearer about not using the word "vanity" as it is considered "accusatory and discouraging" as well as "not helpful, nor reason to delete an article." --Shunpiker (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep External references establish notability. This was such an easy decision, I'm inclined to suspect the motives of the nominator. LK (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although we should assume good faith, your snide comment towards the nominator makes me think that you did not read the above discussion (or even just the nomination) at all. There are enough "delete" !votes above to make it clear that the "keep" case is not as clear-cut as you seem to think. --Crusio (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, hey, hey - let's all remain polite if we can, please. Lawrence was expressing a perhaps unfair sentiment, but your reply was rather unnecessary. Let's try to remain civil. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Arcayne, based on above, you're the editor who had an unfair response to everyone else's remark. [30] [31]smooth0707 (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet, I've managed to keep some civility, haven't I? And you might want to reconsider what you feel to be "fair". Either way, it hasn't really much to do with this AfD, and I am not really sure why you'd get upset over me asking folk to remain polite. Focus, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I think that my "I think you did not read this" remark is perhaps in a different league than "I'm inclined to suspect the motives of the nominator". That remark was not "a perhaps unfair sentiment", it was a completely uncalled for accusation and if Lawrence had bothered to read the above discussion, he would (a) know what the motives of the nominator are and (b) see from the length of this discussion that the case is not clearcut and that several good faith editors argue for deletion. I really fail to see how my comment was incivil.--Crusio (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment wasn't solely directed at you, Crusio. Your comment was inspired by an uncivil one and was in retaliation for it. By definition, it deviated from the purpose of the AfD, and we all know how these things tend to quickly degenerate from there. If Lawrence jumps off a cliff, does that mean you have to as well? Just keep cool, and folk will discount Lawrence's accusations in due course. By responding to them with more than a 'that is an incorrect assessment', you are buying into the drama possibly being sought, and do yourself no good. Just stay focused. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Arcayne, based on above, you're the editor who had an unfair response to everyone else's remark. [30] [31]smooth0707 (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, hey, hey - let's all remain polite if we can, please. Lawrence was expressing a perhaps unfair sentiment, but your reply was rather unnecessary. Let's try to remain civil. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:53, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 06:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shawn P. Wilbur
- Shawn P. Wilbur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A lot of fluff, but no substance. The individual does not appear to be even marginally notable. While someone might have cited something he said somewhere, no articles have been written about him. WP:BIO says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." Your honor (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Posts a lot of messages on blogs and forums? Got some of his words into a FAQ? Managed a bookstore, bought it and then it failed? Sorry, but there is nothing notable about any of this. Your honor (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above and per WP:N, WP:V, WP:BIO. Appears to be (surprise!) a WP:COI issue as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject has made no edits to the article, and has only posted to the talkpage to correct the date of birth. The rest of your points I refute below. Regards, Skomorokh 09:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from creator The reason I wrote this article is because the subject is mentioned in several distinct and unrelated articles, and there was a clear need to provide context to our readers. His work is frequently cited in scholarly literature; the vast majority of which is not yet integrated into the article. Beyond this, he has been the subject multiple instances of non-trivial coverage as cited, which in case anyone has forgotten is the primary standard for inclusion. The nomination seems to confuse the concept of notability with that of importance, when what it is really concerned with is verifiability. It is critically important for Wikipedia to be transparent in identifying its sources, and providing well-referenced articles on the scholars and work frequently used in writing the encyclopaedia is a crucial and neglected part of this. The article itself is neutral, verifiable and does not engage in original research, and can be much further expanded from the available reliable sources. I cannot believe that deleting it is in the interest of the encyclopaedia or its readership. Skomorokh 09:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO . It says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." It doesn't matter how many writings you can find where someone has cited something he wrote. That doesn't make HIM notable. You would have to find writings ABOUT HIM, for HIM to be notable. Your honor (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BIO is a sufficient, not necessary criterion for notability, supplanted like all guidelines by the WP:5P. Why would the encyclopaedia be improved by the deletion of this article? Skomorokh 19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be improved by not throwing people off track to read about this insignificant individual, thinking he might be someone important to read about when in reality he's just your average guy that hasn't done anything more notable or impacting on the world than half the population. If you include people like this there is no stopping what people articles would be written about. Might as well go through the phone book and start adding people. It's a basic rule for Wikipedia that the subject of articles have to be notable. In short, it's not encyclopedic. I came across this article just browsing through anarchists, and was taken aback by how silly this article was. It makes Wikipedia seem foolish, and not be taken seriously. It's not encyclopedic. Your honor (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BIO is a sufficient, not necessary criterion for notability, supplanted like all guidelines by the WP:5P. Why would the encyclopaedia be improved by the deletion of this article? Skomorokh 19:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO . It says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." It doesn't matter how many writings you can find where someone has cited something he wrote. That doesn't make HIM notable. You would have to find writings ABOUT HIM, for HIM to be notable. Your honor (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —94.196.22.232 (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —94.196.22.232 (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from translator: I translate article to spanish because almost de same reason, his work is cited in many schoolar works about American History of political ideas. Thanks. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - I'm not convinced notability has been demonstrated, per WP:BIO and WP:PROF; though he seems to be marginally notable, so perhaps it could be. If sufficient evidence can be provided that this person has been the subject of significant coverage from multiple independent sources, I will change my position. Robofish (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete contra Skomorokh's claim that "His work is frequently cited in scholarly literature" the Google scholar link he provides demonstrates an h-index of 3, which really isn't all that impressive. His most cited publication is an essay posted to geocities, and I'm not inclined to treat GS "citation" counts of geocites essays at par with citation counts from something like WoK. Fails WP:PROF & WP:BIO. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with Pete Hurd, even if we would take the Google Scholar counts at face value, one paper with 123 cites (and a few others with barely any cites at all) does not make the cut for me. --Crusio (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - marginal non-notable bio; reluctantly (I suspect I'd like this guy if we met, and we've got some interests in common), but he just doesn't make the cut of notability, either as an academic or under any other category. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete per WP:BIO, WP:PROF, Robofish. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm not sure we should be judging him as an academic strictly, since his claim to notability is as blogger and cultural critic rather than as a former college instructor. Either way, I am not convinced of his notability. Jvr725 (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no established notability based on reliable third-party sources. The guy ran a bookstore and has self-published papers. That's not enough. --John Nagle (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. yandman 15:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jake Brown (musician)
- Jake Brown (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This musician, who is probably writing his autobiography, lacks notability. Two of the external links are MySpace pages; one is for some company; and one is from a magazine that specialises in profiling MySpace bands. He'll have to break out of the MySpace world before being allowed here. Biruitorul Talk 06:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 07:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Biruitorul. — Oli OR Pyfan! 07:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. I42 (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The bands he played are notable but he doesn't appear to be. Laurent (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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 05:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jay Dee (comedian)
- Jay Dee (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Jay Dee (stage name) is a stand up comedian whose claim to notability would mostly come from his being a consultant for the Chappelle Show. When it comes down to it, there's only one news article that can verify any of the information in the wiki article. I believe part of the issue comes from no one knowing his real name. Fails the litmus test of notability but the main issue seems to be verifiability. Sounds like he could certainly be notable in the future but just not now. OlYellerTalktome 23:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I've looked harder to find references that prove that Jay Dee (comedian) was a consultant for the show and cannot. I've checked the Comedy Central website, IMDB, Dave Chappelle Wiki page, ChappelleCenter.com and TV.com. I looked for any consultants who could be Jay Dee (as his real name) and found nothing there either. OlYellerTalktome 20:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - With the help of the author I put some more references in the article. Jay Dee was covered under his stage name (for finding a worm in his M&Ms) by the local Fox channel. He was also listed with 99 other people by Urban Tulsa Weekly as a person to watch in 2009. Personally, I'm not sure about the worm incident proving notability. By itself it wouldn't under WP:ONEEVENT but with the other Urban Tulsa Weekly article (Humorist Manifesto) it might. The list of 100 people to watch in 2009 doesn't help to prove notability in my opinion. It's one line about his potential notability and if you consider it an award or honor, I don't think it's notable under Wikipedia:CREATIVE#Any_biography. I think what it comes down to now is if you consider the article in UTW (Humorist Manifesto), the story about him finding a worm in his M&Ms, and his short bio on RoofTopComedy.com, to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Personally, I feel that the Humorist Manifesto article is great but the others don't prove overall notability. OlYellerTalktome 19:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unable to find reliable sources to verify material or establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I've reviewed the revised references and there still remains insufficient coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chappelle connection isn't all of what makes Jay Dee notable. He is a recognizable figure in the stand-up comedy industry and is widely recognized in Tulsa, Oklahoma for his accomplishments. There is more than one link with Urban Tulsa Weekly regarding Jay Dee and there are other articles out there on the internet as well like rooftopcomedy.com(which verifies all comedians prior to being posted on their site). There are many sources that show his notability that is independent to the Chappelle connection. The way I see it the worse case scenario might be a re-write of the article if it is needed instead of deleting it.Bruce Jennings (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the problems in my opinion. You say that he's a recognizable figure but that's your opinion. You say he's widely recognized which is again your opinion. If there are other sources that show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and back up those opinoins (see WP:Notability), then please present them anywhere and I'll get them in the article. I've broken down why all of the sources that have been provided can't be used, on the talk page. Even if rooftopcomedy.com is reliable and independent, it still basically only shows that he exists. Also, if it's used as a source, that's still only 2 sources. I consider the Chappelle Show reference to be the strongest point of notability but, like i've said, I can't verify that information. That he's notable for any other reason is still speculative and hasn't been backed up or verified. OlYellerTalktome 18:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chappelle connection isn't all of what makes Jay Dee notable. He is a recognizable figure in the stand-up comedy industry and is widely recognized in Tulsa, Oklahoma for his accomplishments. There is more than one link with Urban Tulsa Weekly regarding Jay Dee and there are other articles out there on the internet as well like rooftopcomedy.com(which verifies all comedians prior to being posted on their site). There are many sources that show his notability that is independent to the Chappelle connection. The way I see it the worse case scenario might be a re-write of the article if it is needed instead of deleting it.Bruce Jennings (talk) 22:00, 25 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 Talk · Review 00:00, 26 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 04:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If all the cite neededs in the article at this point are replaced by refs, keep. Otherwise, I guess we have to consider deletion. The article is certainly informative and neutral, it's just not verifiable at present. Hiding T 15:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amer Begović
- Amer Begović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
not sure he meets notability standards Skitzo's Answer Machine 11:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Answer Machine 11:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, provided reliable sources are provided. WP:ATH states athletes are notable if they "have competed at the fully professional level of a sport", which appears to be the case. However, there is no reliable source to confirm this. I42 (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 03:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a website dedicated to football in the former Yugoslavia reports a person named Amir Begović as playing for FK Leotar over three seasons in the Yugoslav Second League. In my experience, the data at this website is reliable and is based on the Yugoslav football almanacs published during this period. My only concern is that the article is about a person name Amer Begović. Does anyone know if they are the same person? Jogurney (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. With regards to the question asked by Jogurney about whether the player mentioned on his website is the same person in this article or not, it's plausible as the two spellings of his are interchangable, and the Canadian forum quoted in the article uses the alternative Amir spelling. The info contained in that report also seems to tallys with the Zerodic website and states he played at a professional level, so I would say he passes WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it appears that Amer Begović is the Amir Begović who played in the Yugoslav Second League for FK Leotar. Jogurney (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep looks to pass WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 14:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jon Heder. MBisanz talk 10:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Heder
- Dan Heder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Relationships do not confer notability. No indication that the rest of his bio would qualify him for inclusion (WP:CREATIVE) without that relationship. Rd232 talk 13:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - into Jon Heder. Jd027 (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 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 Talk · Review 00:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. I think he has enough notability outside of Jon to stay. Just barely, but enough. --Grev (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:53, 28 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, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete so he has a notable brother, went to acting classes with a notable actress, and is distantly related to a notable sportscaster; but what has he done? a few bit parts, only one of which in a notable show, and he's been on Letterman. Woo-hoo, so far fails WP:GNG that if this is the measure of notability - most actors in tv commercials, local plays that get reviewed in the local rags, and game-show losers qualify. That isn't the case. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 18:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Janet Pilgrim (British Army officer)
- Janet Pilgrim (British Army officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No disrespect whatsoever to Major Pilgrim, but award of the Royal Red Cross is not sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia. It is a lower precedence award than the Distinguished Service Order and Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, neither of which would qualify someone for automatic inclusion. This is a disputed prod. There is a claim that the RRC is the nursing equivalent of the Victoria Cross, which is, I'm afraid, utter rubbish. Yes, a journalist did make that claim, but we all know that journalists are often uninformed and frequently make things up to make subjects seem more notable than they are. Military nurses are as eligible for the VC as any other military personnel and would be awarded the VC if their gallantry was up to that level. At the end of the day, Major Pilgrim is a relatively junior officer who has been decorated with a medal not uncommonly given to military nurses for doing a fine job, but is not sufficiently notable for her own article. If she was awarded a bar to the medal then I would wholeheartedly support her inclusion, but I'm afraid a single award does not merit inclusion without further proof of notability. If so, then every one of the many thousands of recipients of the DSO is also notable enough for an article! -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - nominator's reasons for deletion ("too many articles") are not a valid reasons (see WP:NOTPAPER). His argument for deletion is summed up by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The nurse, Janet Pilgrim, is notable. This fact is demonstrated by her being awarded the Royal Red Cross. Esasus (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are claiming that she is notable purely for being awarded the RRC then you must by definition accept that everyone awarded a higher award (e.g. DSO or CGC) is also notable, which has not generally been considered to be the case. For decorated military figures, we have generally held that everyone awarded a "1st level" award (e.g. VC or GC) is inherently notable. Everyone else has to be assessed on individual merit, which is what we are here to discuss. I see no reason this officer is notable for anything other than being awarded a single decoration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Half the article is concerned with the award, and the other two sentences do not give any reason to support the inclusion of the nurse, nor do they suggest that she a recipeint of the nations highest military honor. Unless some other factor of notability emerges, or unless the article gets real long, real quick, I do not see any reason to keep it. As an alternative, I would be ok with merging the information into an article on the battle in which the nurse earned the award, assuming its on here. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps. I agree with Esasus that we rely on significant coverage in reliable sources to tell us who's notable. The Telegraph is an important British daily newspaper and certainly counts as a reliable source; the coverage on Major Pilgrim cited in the sources is certainly significant; so Major Pilgrim is notable. QED.— However, I feel that WP:BLP1E applies here, and I also think there's not enough material there (and not enough sourceable material could be found) to warrant a separate article for Major Pilgrim. So I think we should merge this to a short section in Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have no problem whatsoever with the creation of an article on RRC recipients in general. In fact, this would be the best option. But I do not think we need a separate article on each recipient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Since 2000, 7 RRCs and 29 ARRCs have been awarded. This compares to two VCs and three GCs. Since the VC is open to all military personnel and the GC to anybody and the RRC and ARRC are only open to the relatively small constituency of nursing staff, I hardly think you can compare the awards. While the RRC is technically higher than the ARRC, it is notable that every single RRC has been awarded to a senior officer and almost every ARRC to a junior officer or NCO, which suggests that the difference in gradation is solely due to rank and that the RRC/ARRC should really be considered for notability purposes as a single award. 36 awards among military nursing staff only (there aren't that many of them) does not make it a particularly rare award. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fortunately, we don't have to decide if the RRC makes someone notable. We only need to worry about Janet Pilgrim. :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. However, since Esasus's argument is that she is notable solely because she has been awarded the RRC, the notability of RRC recipients in general is relevant to this discussion! -- Necrothesp (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fortunately, we don't have to decide if the RRC makes someone notable. We only need to worry about Janet Pilgrim. :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. A Google search of 'Janet Pilgrim Royal Red Cross' returns only a handful of reliable sources, all of which only cover her being awarded the Royal Red Cross (eg, [32] and [33]). As a reminder, WP:BIO and WP:BLP are the relevant notability policies, not what editors think about the importance of the medal (people who win the highest level of medals are considered to be automatically notable because there's always lots of reliable sources available on them, and not because the medal is important per-se). Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If it is the highest award in their service, she's notable. Rare or common is not relevant. To say that although this is uncommon there is a analogous award that is common, and therefore this one is not notable, is getting a little paradoxical. And I'll point out that almost everyone whose won such awards as the VC has won it for a single event. As a reminder, the whole policy of notability=numbers of RSs is a stop gap measure because we can;t really determine exact notability in many cases. When it comes to a nation's highest award,we can. The sources arent basic, they merely reflect the notable accomplishment. DGG (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's not the highest award in their service. QARANC is but one corps of the British Army. The highest award in their service is thus the VC, just as it is for any other British soldier. Military nurses are eligible for any military decoration. Technically the RRC can be awarded to any nurse, not just a military one, although in recent years it has tended only to be awarded to military nurses. Many civilian nurses were awarded it during the two World Wars. If recipients of the highest award awarded only to a single service are automatically eligible for articles, then we should have articles on the dozens of police officers awarded the Queen's Police Medal every year. But that would be silly, since like the RRC it's usually awarded for exemplary, but not unique, services. We therefore need to decide whether Janet Pilgrim herself is notable. So far, the only argument put forward for her notability is that she has been awarded the RRC, the fifth highest military/gallantry decoration for which she is eligible (after the VC, GC, DSO and CGC). I do not believe that meets our notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- High enough. i urge you to write articles on those dozens of police officers. NOT PAPER. DGG (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even as a British police officer myself and with the utmost respect for those who have been awarded the QPM, I do not consider it a high enough award to be a sole criterion to merit an article. Same with the RRC. Worthy, but not sufficient on its own to establish notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That seems to be WP:ILIKEIT. WP:NOTPAPER isn't a way to avoid notability requirements, and states that "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars." This obviously is very much the case for articles like this where WP:BLP also applies and the subject has a right to privacy. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- High enough. i urge you to write articles on those dozens of police officers. NOT PAPER. DGG (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:Bio and WP:ONEEVENT. The Royal Red Cross is not the nursing equivalent to the Victoria Cross, and the subject does not hold any other form of notability; no disrespect to Ms Pilgrim of course. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per WP:Bio and WP:ONEEVENT. She seems to have a somewhat notable reason to have a page. It should undergo a major expansion though should it be kept. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you please explain how WP:ONEEVENT justifies keeping this article? Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer - To suggest that the Janet Pilgrim article is based on just one event is ridiculous. The article is based on a notable person, being Janet Pilgrim. The Royal Red Cross is evidence of such notability. She would not have been given such award had she not been deserving. To suggest that she is notable for one event would be like saying that an Olympic gold medalist should not have an article because he is notable for just the one event of winning in the Olympics. The Royal Red Cross award the result of her well deserving achievements. It is a symbol of her significance, not the event. Esasus (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability is determined by the availability of reliable sources, and not editors' subjective views about whether a person is admirable. Could you please find some sources which cover other achievements by Major Pilgrim as required to meet the requirements set by WP:BIO and WP:BLP? It is clear that Major Pilgrim is a hero, but if the media hasn't covered her beyond a single event in her life, she's not notable and her right to privacy over-rides the case for having an article on her. Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer - To suggest that the Janet Pilgrim article is based on just one event is ridiculous. The article is based on a notable person, being Janet Pilgrim. The Royal Red Cross is evidence of such notability. She would not have been given such award had she not been deserving. To suggest that she is notable for one event would be like saying that an Olympic gold medalist should not have an article because he is notable for just the one event of winning in the Olympics. The Royal Red Cross award the result of her well deserving achievements. It is a symbol of her significance, not the event. Esasus (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A gold medal winner would have a shoe deal and commercials and his or her face on a wheeties box and an invote to the next olympics and tv movie deal and, well you get the idea. I doubt Ms. Pilgrim will have any of that, which justifies ONEEVENT. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:Bio and WP:ONEEVENT. Some sloppy work by the journalist in question, leaving that aside, it seems a textbook case of what ONEEVENT is intended to cover. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - passes WP:N is a straightforward manner. Baseless slagging of a journalist is not a convincing argument, and I'll trust the judgement of professionals over anonymous online avatars on what's notable. WilyD 13:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Bear in mind that there is a world of difference between a professional journalist and a professional expert in any field. Journalists are employed to write copy to sell their papers and do not always get their facts right or check their facts sufficiently. In fact, journalists these days frequently rely on Wikipedia for their "facts" - I know this since I have seen material I have written on Wikipedia appear verbatim under a journalist's byline! This doesn't particularly bother me, but it does show that it is not always wise, given some of the rubbish that appears on Wikipedia, to take what journalists write as gospel truth. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not truly notable under WP:BIO, just another WP:ONEEVENT flash in the pan. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - obviously a fine officer, but she credits her staff more than herself for the award. (Of course, that adds to the notion that she deserves it. :-) ) Without more evidence of notability beyond running the busiest British field hospital since the Falklands, I don't think it's up to our inclusion levels -- but not blatantly so.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - based solely on the fact that the article has only one reference. If there were more refs from reliable sources I would vote keep Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Danielle Eubank
- Danielle Eubank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No assertion of notability, fails WP:Creative. Apparently an autobiography. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep. I might open a separate afd on Fletcher Beasley. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A gallery in LA, a gallery in London, lots of google hits, various exhibitions, seems fine to me..the article needs work but she seems encyclopedic, interesting and notable to me...Modernist (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suppose I would be more amenable to keeping the article if it weren't so obviously an autobiography. Yourartresource's only contributions have been to this article and the article on her perhaps even less notable husband Fletcher Beasley. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment..I did a little format work and placed tags there...Modernist (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Not a major artist, but a write up in the LA Times [34] and probably more sources out there. The tone is promotional, but that's not a reason to delete.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:02, 23 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 Talk · Review 00:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Valley2city‽ 02:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
T9 Repper
- T9 Repper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Google doesn't turn up any results for either "T9 Repper" or "Tor Romeo the 9th". Article has no sources given. Article claims winning of "MTV awards", but unable to find any reference to T9 Repper on MTV's website. Radiant chains (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Fails WP:MUSIC. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. If he really had won MTV awards or appeared in notable movies then it would be trivially easy to find coverage proving this. Google has nothing to corroborate this nonsense. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax. I looked for references earlier just to see if this person even existed and I couldn't find anything. I would suspect that it would be relatively easy to find information on a person who had won the awards claimed in this article. Rnb (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete obvious hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I won't call it a hoax, but I agree that it's definitely non-notable. Matt (talk) 08:30, 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 merge to Żnin. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leszek Jakubowski
- Leszek Jakubowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Two-sentence stub about a mayor of a small town. Per WP:BIO, just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability. Notability not established otherwise. — Kpalion(talk) 10:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Ouro (blah blah) 12:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - mayor of a small town, who doesn't even have an article of his own over at pl.wiki. Not much more can be said. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge To Żnin. Room there for inclusion of mayor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per ChildofMidnight.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - non-notable bio; could have been speedied. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 26 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 Talk · Review 18:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per ChildofMidnight. Skier Dude (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I agree with ChildofMidnight's assessment. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Zed
- Peter Zed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Clearly non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevinbell (talk • contribs) 05:38, March 21, 2009
- Delete - none of the cited sources appear to be notable at all, and I have my doubts as to the veracity of this article. CopaceticThought (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AVN Online and the World Intellectual Property Organization are notable sources, quoted in other entries on Wikipedia. Sevencraft (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion contested
- STRONG KEEP Sevencraft (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The current entry is notable, has been referenced extensively, and is part of an entry into Wikimania 2009 as is referenced on the Wikimania 2009 site. Sevencraft (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject is part of a larger project as part of three projects concerning the Department of State. Dipnote, Sports & Entertainment and Canada on BarackObama.com for clarification of notability. Respect my conglomerate....Sevencraft (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the entry concerns a wrestler and pro-wrestling journalist, which has been defined as notable by existing considerations on Wikipedia. (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that The Security and Prosperity Partnership has yet to be referenced by the sole individual contesting the entry concerning the legitimacy of the entry. (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are numerous less notable pro-wrestlers and pro-wrestling journalists who have not had articles deleted Sevencraft (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The references section will be increased with at least a dozen more notable references. This is the first few days of the article. Sevencraft (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article refers to one of the few successful challenges of domain name ownership in World Intellectual Property Organization history concerning well-known publishers Israel and Leonard Asper of Canwest. Sevencraft (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is notable because it refers to one of the few insider retrospectives of Pivot Legal Society, an advocate of the Insite heroin injection clinic, the sole clinic of its type in North America. Sevencraft (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The contributor is not a rookie Wikipedian or vandal user, as noted by the creation of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Adult industry project. Sevencraft (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He doesn't appear to pass WP:N. I can't find any information from reliable sources on Google or Google News, and the simple fact that he wrote for a notable website doesn't make him notable. The World Intellectual Property Organization citation is just a report of legal proceedings so I don't think it establishes notability, especially since no independant media talked about it. Laurent (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you seek out all secondary links or simply rely on one search engine to pass judgement on the entry? Did you read through the entire legal entry on WIPO and do you have copies of the print decision? 'Doesn't appear to pass notability' applies in what context...are you a knowledgable about pro-wrestling? Sevencraft (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if you know any reliable third party sources, feel free to provide them. I can't find any myself that's all I'm saying. I didn't read through the WIPO entry but again I don't see how this single entry could establish notability since the legal case doesn't seem to have been mentioned in the media. Laurent (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't suggest that one single entry of reference was alone enough to establish credibility. Taken as a whole... Sevencraft (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if you know any reliable third party sources, feel free to provide them. I can't find any myself that's all I'm saying. I didn't read through the WIPO entry but again I don't see how this single entry could establish notability since the legal case doesn't seem to have been mentioned in the media. Laurent (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you seek out all secondary links or simply rely on one search engine to pass judgement on the entry? Did you read through the entire legal entry on WIPO and do you have copies of the print decision? 'Doesn't appear to pass notability' applies in what context...are you a knowledgable about pro-wrestling? Sevencraft (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which country of origin are those who are arguing for deletion from and do they have an understanding of international political machinations? Sevencraft (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:CREATIVE. WIPO issue (WP:BLP1E if we're only relying on that), if it's significant enough, can be included elsewhere. Rd232 talk 14:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As testified by Vince McMahon in court, professional wrestlers are sports entertainers not athletes, so the above deletion link is inconsistent.
- Delete per WP:N, WP:BIO. Ridiculous puffy vanity autobio of the sort that we (thankfully) don't see much of on Wikipedia anymore. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion considerations using loaded and insulting words should not be considered as valid. Sevencraft (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above two entries do nothing to invalidate the notability of said entry. They both concentrate on the validity of one link, the WIPO reference, without noting the other contributions. The fact is, there is references from print, web and traditional material found within the article, and not simply web-only links. Will strive to find and search additional references for those who simply read it for a moment without understanding national context. Again, what country are the posters who have voted for delete here from. Because I'm sure I can find 80% of your home country notables that have no validity in foreign context Sevencraft (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a bias in the inconsistent reporting above concerning assumptions that the contributor is in fact of the male gender,Sevencraft (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the article is part of a broader entry for Wikimania2009 so it is impossible to suggest that deleting the entry at least until additional references have been provided as to the nature of the entry have been corroborated. Sevencraft (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another reference of a notable nature has been added: From the YNOT News website Wikipedia and the Adult Industry: A Beginners Guide..."TORONTO - With Cybernet Expo a few short months away, it seems outrageous that in 2009, the adult industry has failed to form its own core users group on the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia. With that in mind, perhaps the most important task at hand for attendees this year is to get their heads out of the sand and begin the process of including an increased focus on Wikipedia and Wikimedia associated websites. If you've been under a rock for the last five years, Wikipedia is the world's largest encyclopedia - and good news for webmasters - it is both free to edit and uses open-source. Free as in beer and open-source as in a user-friendly version of PHP. That's a pretty sweet combination for any webmaster." Sevencraft (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not, in my opinion, meet WP:N. It is full of unsourced biographical material such as the claimed 2009 incident involving a panic attack and counterfeit watches and sometime reads like a press release. It also bothers me that the original editor, who is also the subject, seems to be creating source material such as the recently added Wikipedia and the Adult Industry: A Beginners Guide which is simply an editorial about Wikipedia. Wperdue (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
- Will remove the panic attack information as per the editor's request.
- And how reliable is YNOT anyway? A website that publishes news just to get an article on Wikipedia, I would call that a questionable source. Laurent (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have removed the TTC information related to panic attack. Sevencraft (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The contributions of users here have been noted. The page will be reduced to a mcuh smaller footprint without all the extras despite the insistance of the subject that it remain the same. Will reduce and review the links but increase the references from major sites. Sevencraft (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Major Update
- Over half the content of the page has been removed and the rest cleaned up. Sevencraft (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Still non-notable, still COI, still press release, still nonsensical in parts. Wiki entry about incoherent comments to someone's blog does not make one a journalist.Bevinbell (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, wrong, you have struck at this particular page for some reason I can't understand why. there are hundreds of pro-wrestler pages on Wikipedia and en entire portal. I will continue the edit but more than straight out duplicating the text of any number of a hundred other pro wrestlers is ridiculous. Pro wrestlers have notable contributions to Wikipedia.Sevencraft (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The page has been cleaned up and now mirrors in content and tone that of other pro wrestlers and other adult industry journalists which are considered notable to Wikipedia.Sevencraft (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have satisfied the requirements for notablility and removed the sections in question. You will note, as have others who have submitted information to this page, that unless you are prepared to begin an entirely new direction and begin banning all pages by pro wrestlers and adult industry journalists, the criticim is simply misplaced. the page will receive minor edits as time goes on but I am preparing to add further references to the now reduced content to provide addition sources of notability Sevencraft (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:BIO requires that the facts in the article be verifiable. The cited sources do not verify the facts in the article- in fact, none of the cited sources, as far as I can tell, is a article about Peter Zed from a reliable source. I was not able to find any articles about Peter Zed with my own google search, either. Of course, I have no objection to recreation of the article if and when somewhere, a few significant sources write about him in a significant way. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "I was not able to find any articles about Peter Zed with my own google search"... This is typical wikipedia gangbanging at its worst. Complaints were made about the page and it was edited... "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." There are two direct references on the page linking to articles from two different adult industry sources attributed to Peter Zed. More references will be added but the scope of complaints is not clear. Are those who are complaining here prepared to begin scouring all asult industry journalists and pro-wrestlers to destroy entries? — Sevencraft (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Reply. I am sorry if my comment was confusing for you. Articles written by Peter Zed are not helpful sources; what's needed are significant articles about Peter Zed. As it is fairly clear that you are Peter Zed, you are the person most likely to know if such articles exist; if you have been profiled or interviewed in significant sources, it would be helpful if you would tell us where those sources are. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Two more references have been added, one from Pro Wrestling Torch and one for Frank Magazine. Please do not make baseless accusations regarding whom is who. Are those that are prepared to delete this entry prepared to delete all pro wrestling journalist entries and adult industry journalist enties? Sevencraft (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I'm going to have to jump to FisherQueen's defense here. The "accusation" about Sevencraft and Peter Zed being the same person, I believe is entirely true. This article http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=ea_article&sid=49452 written by Peter Zed reads at the end "You can reach Zed with your questions at sevencraft@live.com or join him on WikiProject Adult industry". I'm not a detective, but it seems very coincidental that the current username of the editor pushing to keep this article and the stated email address of Peter Zed on the YNot entry are exactly the same. Wperdue (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
- Reply. It certainly isn't an accusation; it isn't a crime or a bad thing to be Peter Zed. However, it's pretty obvious that you are him, for the reasons Wperdue mentioned and also because you're showing the characteristic editing pattern of a person who is writing about himself. It might be very useful that you are Peter Zed, because that means you probably know what newspapers and magazines have profiled you, and what books have been written about you. Or, if none have been written yet, you could simply say, "I'm afraid you're right that I don't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and save us all a little effort. I can't find the article about you at either of the links you mentioned; the Pro Wrestling Torch link doesn't appear to mention your name, nor does the Frank Magazine link, unless I'm looking in the wrong place. Certainly neither of them is an article that you are the subject of. It might help you to look at the reference section of our article on Dave Meltzer to see what a well-referenced article about a wrestling journalist looks like. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever! Sevencraft (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And on the 7th day God did striketh down the non believers and flood their lands with the waters of Noah. the sins of those who have transgressed against the freedom of the Jesuit people will forever be consigned to non digital television sets. A somewhat aborted attempt at bringing more information to the encyclopedia that 'anyone can edit'Sevencraft (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its a shared account with technically one user typing and one person looking over my shoulder. You should hear how pissed my partner is at this bailjob. Thanks for the introduction and looking forward to increasing more notable entries. Cheers. Go ahead and delete. Sevencraft (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So can anyone find the section of Wikipedia that states one account will not be used by two editors at the same geographic location or is this just going to be another wasted space? Sevencraft (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not appear to meet general notability guideline, and several of the sources do not appear to correspond to their citations. HeureusementIci (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but since the creator of the article asked for it to be deleted, doesn't that mean it can be handled by speedy deletion right away? 24.99.242.63 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be, but since discussion is unanimous it's preferable to let it close as a consensus deletion rather than an author-requested deletion. It could also be closed as WP:SNOW at this point, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:37, 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. Xclamation point 00:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James C. Andrews
- James C. Andrews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Cannot find any trace of evidence that this person exists, or what he is notable for. Supposedly interviewed by Jonathan Ross and Jay Leno, and featured/profiled in the Guardian and Independent newspapers, but Google and Gnews searches turn up nothing. Fails WP:V at least. Tassedethe (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Tassedethe (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Clicking on the references shows that this article is an obvious hoax, and a wider search reveals that the subject is not notable (if he even exists). Ironholds (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. None of the "sources" actually mention the subject, as far as I can tell. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The person that started this article added information to the existing The Book Quiz article to include him as a guest for two dates. If this is determined to be a hoax, then the full editing history needs to be examined to see if other unverifiable content was added. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as blatant hoax. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:57, 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 keep. Xclamation point 00:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Weiss
- Jeff Weiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Possible hoax, didn't want to CSD and be wrong. T-95 (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Legitimate actor. I added a couple of refs to support. There are many more out there if needed. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep not a hoax, but the article is short, poorly written, and makes some strange claims, such as winning an Obie award in 1959, which according to the NYTimes article was just a year after he dropped out of high school. Possible? I guess. Likely? Not really. No objection to deletion if the article isn't substantially improved in the next month or so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral.The article needs a complete rewrite if it is to be kept. However, I do see that a playwright named Jeff Weiss won an Obie, but in 1980, for a play called That's How the Rent Gets Paid. Assuming this is the same person, the article should be kept if it is rewritten and sourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. The article has not been improved sufficiently yet to warrant keeping it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep, notability highly questionable, but the NYT reference is a WP:RS that's high-profile leads me to expect a marginal pass of WP:NOBJ. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Great work by ttonyb1 make the notability obvious. At least one entire New York Times article was written about the guy. The article's a stub now, and the tiny bit that is there might be wrong...or it might not be. But it doesn't seem to be a hoax. Flying Jazz (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edib Kürkçü
- Edib Kürkçü (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Prod reason "Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition" still stands. Rettetast (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, it looks as if he may be on the fringes of International selection. However all the external links on the article are broken. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - youth player with no top level experience. Fails WP:Athlete. Parslad (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - has never played at a professional level, only for the club's under-age affiliate team. Claim that he was called up to the national squad is unlikely but possible (I find it hard to believe that a strong national team like Turkey would call up a player who has never played for his club's first team, but I guess it's possible), however it is unsourced and being a non-playing squad member doesn't confer notability anyway...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. The TFF website only lists one Kürkçü, and it's not Edib. Jogurney (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as player fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 20:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. When/if he plays professionally, could be reposted. -- Alexf(talk) 12:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hak Ja Han
- Hak Ja Han (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
She is the wife of Sun Myung Moon, the leader of the Unification Church. However she herself has not be the subject of coverage by secondary sources as required by WP:N. This article has been used as a WP:Coatrack by both members and critics of her church to talk about other topics. It has very little reliable information about Mrs. Han herself. Redddogg (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, duly sourced throughout, though indeed it looks like the sources and the article in general could use some inspection and cleanup - the subject satisfies WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or mergeWeak keep(to True Family, per existing merge proposal). I made a major attempt at finding third-party sources for this article about a month ago, but found very thin pickings (most mentions were incidental to discussion of her husband). Since then there's been an on-going attempt to load the article up with UC-affiliated and questionable-reliability sources in an attempt to 'bulk it up' to give the appearance of sufficient coverage to be notable. Further, I have yet to see much evidence of prominent actions that were independent of her husband and/or received significant notice outside her church. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "UC-affiliated and questionable-reliability sources" have since been removed & more third party sources added. I do have concerns about the lack of weightiness of much of the material (much of which pertains to the topic's attempts at seeking publicity), but think that there's enough here to warrant keeping. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is well-sourced, even if most are about her public role and not so much about her private life. She seems to be an important person and should have a WP bio. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Did a bit of clean-up work on the article already - now in process of adding to it with additional WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep More than meets WP:RS and WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Contra the nom, I count six references in the article as it exists now which speak specifically of her (albeit generally as "Mrs. Moon" or "Moon's wife" rather than by name) in their titles. That seems to me to clearly meet WP:N, and V is clearly met by independent sources. Merging an article with sufficient sources like this should be an editorial consensus--not an AfD mandate. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to Han Hak-ja. The title as it is is an older style of Korean names in English. The article name as it is is amost never used. (I am a Unification Church member BTW) The other would at least be her correct name in Korean. She is more often refered to as "Mrs. Moon" in English. Incidentally the information that in Korean culture a wife does not take her husband's family name but keeps her birth name is not mentioned in the article. I mentioned it in article which mentioned her and it was moved to a footnote, and then (I think) removed. I will assume good faith and not think that editors were trying to make Rev. and Mrs. Moon sound "weird" because they have different family names. Instead I will assume that most WP editors are clueless about good non-fiction writing and don't know that a good non-fiction writer will try to put him or herself it the place of his or her readers and try to guess what questions they will ask and what things they would want to know. Thanks for putting up with a long AfD vote. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose rename - The majority of WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources refer to the individual under the current article's name. Cirt (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all readers reading "Hak Ja Han is the wife of Sun Myung Moon" will ask "Then why don't they have the same family name?" What do you think of the article including a note that explains this point? Steve Dufour (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, like I said, the vast majority of WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources refer to her as "Hak Ja Han". Cirt (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to be an issue in other Korean bios. I added a small note to the article and a link to Korean names for people interested in this topic. p.s. Deletion would be silly for an article on this person who has attracted world-wide attention.Steve Dufour (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, like I said, the vast majority of WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources refer to her as "Hak Ja Han". Cirt (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all readers reading "Hak Ja Han is the wife of Sun Myung Moon" will ask "Then why don't they have the same family name?" What do you think of the article including a note that explains this point? Steve Dufour (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Recent changes to the article have had the effect of taking some coats off and putting some more on. Clearly there is not enough material to write an article about the topic. Redddogg (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, these were events organized by the subject of the article, directly prior to world tours by the indvidual promoting these organizations. Highly relevant. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then write articles on these organizations, world tours, and events if they are so important. Redddogg (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, they could be independently notable, but that does not preclude these events and organizations from also being noteworthy and relevant to the subject of this article, as well. Cirt (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then write articles on these organizations, world tours, and events if they are so important. Redddogg (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions for "keep" voters: The article now has 35 sources. Could you refer me to one that would give me any substantial information about Mrs. Han? If not how is this WP article not WP:Original research? Thank you. Redddogg (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These are all secondary sources, not primary. There is no original research in the article. Cirt (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. If each secondary source provides one sentence and you put all those sentences together to make an article, that would be WP:Original research.Redddogg (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully disagree with your assessment of the article. I have done a great deal of work and research to improve the article with secondary sources; WP:RS/WP:V sources which directly discuss the subject of the article herself. It was not an easy feat. Cirt (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for trying. Your hard work, which really was outstanding, did improve the article but did not make the subject of it notable since she has not been covered in depth by reliable secondary sources as WP:Note requires. Redddogg (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for acknowledging the hard work that I have put into this article. It is most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then, thank you again. Here is a quote from WP:Note: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Redddogg (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for acknowledging the hard work that I have put into this article. It is most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for trying. Your hard work, which really was outstanding, did improve the article but did not make the subject of it notable since she has not been covered in depth by reliable secondary sources as WP:Note requires. Redddogg (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully disagree with your assessment of the article. I have done a great deal of work and research to improve the article with secondary sources; WP:RS/WP:V sources which directly discuss the subject of the article herself. It was not an easy feat. Cirt (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. If each secondary source provides one sentence and you put all those sentences together to make an article, that would be WP:Original research.Redddogg (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article has some issues, including coatrackism as nominator mentioned. However the subject is clearly notable from the amount of news coverage as well as coverage in books. Borock (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per almost everyone above. Should never have been nominated. "Hak Ja Han" in quotation marks and "Moon" returns 31 books in Google scholar, mostly books by new religious movements scholars, over 6000 hits in Google, hundreds or thousands of news articles in English covering a 40+ year period, and who, together with Sun Myung Moon is considered "God's body," "The Second Coming of Christ," "Messiah" (try Googling "Hak Ja Han" "co-messiah"), "The True Parents of Mankind," etc by a worldwide religion - there's absolutely no question she's notable. Strongly oppose merge for the same reasons. Oppose re-name - This is English Wikipedia. Btw, Cirt and others have made tremendous improvements to the article. They should be highly commended. -Exucmember (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 06:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Smedley (developer)
- John Smedley (developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Subject is a developerPresident at Sony Online Entertainment. Of the article's two sources, one is the subject's biography at SOE's website, which is not third-party, and the other one is not online. While this is not a problem per se, from its title it seems to be and article about SOE and not about the subject itself. Therefore, I contend that the article does not meet WP:N in that it has not received non-trivial coverage in multiple WP:RS. In addition, the article has been a target for disgruntled Star Wars Galaxies players. Firestorm Talk 05:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage by secondary source material, and thus fails WP:N. Antivenin 05:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sony Online Entertainment. Smedley is a source of derision among MMORPG fans for various unpopular changes he's made to games, but there's not really enough biographical info for a second article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep President of a major divison of Sony is notable. If his professional work is sourceable, it does not matter about the presence or absence of biographic detail. DGG (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you say that? There is a clear distinction between having sourceable professional work, and being notable for that work. And I don't understand how being president of a division of Sony is notable. If it was, he would have numerous references in Google, for example, which he does not. Antivenin 14:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fwiw, he actually does have very numerous references in Google. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of coverage in independent reliable sources found by Google News (the last month, older), Google Books and even Google Scholar. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is clear from the article & his job that he is in the position to greatly influence the growth & nature of a major industry. Coverage of this person is needed. -- llywrch (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Francesco Carotta
The result was No consensus. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Icewedge (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yung Mercury
- Yung Mercury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I'm bundling five articles here, all related to a musician named Yung Mercury: his biography, a record label he formed (whose website is located on webs.com), one of his songs, and two of his future albums. I can not verify any of the claims in any of the articles. In Yung Mercury, it is claimed that two of his songs have Billboard charted, and in I Here You it claims that the song reached #12 on Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles and #7 on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, which should make his existence easy to verify, which I can not. I have an overwhelming feeling that these are hoaxes.
Bundled articles:
- Bald Eagles Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- I Here You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Rise to Money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Spared One (Yung Mercury album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. I had it on my watchlist, meant to nominate myself. -- Y not? 02:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all: trivial 3rd party coverage. Non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, concur with the nom. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 08:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete I had actually asked an admin about the feasibility of deleting these articles, as I had some serious issues with the lack of sources to verify anything in these articles, looks like someone beat me too it however. These all appear to be elaborate hoaxes, so delete. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:V, in addition, it probably isn't real. FingersOnRoids♫ 20:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 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 Hurt (band). –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Spatola
- Paul Spatola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability outside band Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRedirect If I could quote from WP:MUSICBIO: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Since Paul Spatola already has a mention at Hurt (band), and has not shown individual notability, I'd recommend the article be redirected. Antivenin 06:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Curious, the quote you use to support your argument says redirect, yet you vote delete!!!!! Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 08:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, I meant redirect. I deserve to be whacked. =( Antivenin 13:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the parent article per WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 08:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Hurt (band) per above, as this musician is not independently notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 20:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. BJTalk 09:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Merritt (songwriter)
- Chris Merritt (songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
apparent vanity page per WP:VANITY, sources are mostly not notable per WP:NOTE, possibly WP:FANCRUFT Aurush kazeminitalk 22:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I am not convinced by the references; the ones that are actually articles are blogs. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Bad references 99.246.183.10 (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment footnote 5, from Billboard, mentions neither Merritt nor his band Paperface. Why? Can this be verified? Bearian (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: despite the many sources which initially look good, there is no in depth coverage of Merritt by secondary sources to show notability beyond his local area. He also fails the other notability criteria at WP:MUSICBIO, ie hasn't charted, released two or more albums on a major or important independent label, won notable music competition, etc. --JD554 (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Peter Beale. MBisanz talk 00:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Stevens
- Alex Stevens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Prod reason: "Child actor who received no media attention during or after his "acting" career which ended when he was about 5. Still a minor, not notable (a character can be somewhat notable without his actor being notable). Only 59 distinct Google hits."[35] Contested because "add reference and external link", both are to IMDb though, which does not address the reason for this ProD at all (I never claimed that the article was incorrect, only that the career of this person was insufficient wrt notability.) I will list three similar AfDs as well, but will do so sperately, as the notability of these persons is independent of one another, even though the prod / deprod cycle was similar. Actor has two Google NEws hits, but both are very much in passing[36]. Fails WP:BIO Fram (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appearing on a popular television program is a good path to notability, but I don't imagine his character had much of a role during the years he was on. Child actors at that age are practically set pieces, but if someone knows that he played an important, memorable role in the series, I am happy to reconsider. Jvr725 (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Peter Beale, as a somewhat plausible search term. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Whitfield
- Roger Whitfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable local town councillor and prospective candidate for brand new minor party at forthcoming Euro elections. Fails WP:POLITICIAN by a long way. Prod removed by creator. Black Kite 09:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per the litmus test of notability, he fails as he's only been written about for WP:ONEEVENT (see search here). Fails notability per WP:POLITICIAN. Fails point 1, 3, and 4 as his positions haven't been high enough to justify outright notability. He may fulfill point 2 as a Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage but I feel that that's overwritten by WP:ONEEVENT. OlYellerTalktome 21:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, councillor for a minor town, and now a candidate for a minor party that even the most optimistic supporter would have to say has very long odds of actually getting elected. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN notability guidelines. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete, not yet notable. Deletion Mutation 15:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Victoria Sugden. MBisanz talk 00:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jessica Haywood
- Jessica Haywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Prod reason was: Non notable "actress" (acted only between ages 0 and 4, so not much acting involved there). Has not received any media attention and even very little attention in general (only 38 distinct Google hits). Being a minor only notable for something she did passively and which did not get her muich atention, there is no reason to have this article." Prod removed without adressing the problems (added a link to IMDb, which established verifiability of a sort, but this was never under discussion). No Google News hits[37], only 41 distinct Google hits[38], none of them the kind of coverage required in WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Victoria Sugden, surely.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails the multiple significant roles part of WP:ENTERTAINER, and even then, I'm not so sure the one role she had was at all significant. Mbinebri talk ← 00:55, 26 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 00:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Victoria Sugden as a somewhat minorly plausible search term. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:ENTERTAINER. Also, I do not feel that a redirect to Victoria Sugden would be useful, as anyone searching for that term would be presumably want information on the actress, not the character she played, and Haywood is only mentioned briefly in the character's article.--Unscented (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, no notability. Consider redirect. Deletion Mutation 15:11, 28 March 2009 N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. BJTalk 09:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Smith (American Footballer)
- Chris Smith (American Footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
fails WP:ATHLETE, and just not notable enough for us yet. Rodhullandemu 22:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete non notable amateur sportsman, fails WP:Athlete. Parslad (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A college football player, with no claim in the article of winning awards or other notice that would meet WP:N. (Didn't bother with gsearch due to number of false positives this common name will get.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Two weeks and still no clear direction to this discussion. Hopefully a little time will clarify the matter. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James Forde
- James Forde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Prod reason was: "This minor has not received significant media attention (89 distinct Google hits, no Google News hits)" Prod removed without adressing these problems (IMDb link added). The 98 distinct Google hits[39] include a mini-profile on the BBC website, but this is as part of their own programming, not as a BBC news report or anything, so is not the independent coverage required in WP:BIO. The only Google News hit[40] is a truly passing mention. Fram (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep, With Reservations, this actor doesn't satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER as he is famous for only one role. However, EastEnders is very notable television show (in Britain) and I find that some of that notability is inherited in this case. (Even though it's a BLP, with all the associated risks.) As an actor in an important and notable ensemble cast, I would say let's keep this for now. Although "notability isn't temporary", if he gets booted from the show and never works again, we shouldn't have an article about him. I could also be convinced if I am told that he has absolutely no speaking role or such a minor role as to be irrelevant. (I have never seen the show, only read about it.) This is a mixed response, but this is a difficult case. JRP (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If someone with more knowledge of the show can demonstrate that he is not an ensemble player, that is role is trivial, I may remove my !vote. I can just work with what's on the page. JRP (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:22, 28 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, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Come back when yer famous, innit. Rd232 talk 02:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I agree with JRP. He does have a speaking part in EastEnders and appears regularly, and probably with time his part in the show will grow, assuming that the character (and actor) remain in the show. But we don't know what will happen in the future. anemone
│projectors 21:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ted Simonett
- Ted Simonett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable bit actor. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Canadian_Tire#Advertisements; this article mostly argues for notability of his "Canadian Tire Guy" character rather than the actor himself. JJL (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sort of. This one is a bit of an oddball. The suggestion to redirect has merit. However in doing the research to determine if Ted Simonett was notable, what I kept finding was the "Canadian Tire Guy" actually seems to be notable. Articles such as this and this would indicate that "Canadian Tire Guy" has reached some form of iconic status in Canada similar to something like the I Am Canadian beer campaign. There is this interview with Ted Simonett, but I don't feel a single article from a university newspaper is sufficient to hang the notability of an article on. Based on the available sources, I am proposing that the article be moved to Canadian Tire guy incorporating basic verifiable biographic information about the actor that played him, as well as documenting the character he played in the advertising campaign. I am prepared to do the necessary research, sourcing, and editting if there is consensus for this proposal. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum - after a thorough read of the Brock Press "interview", it's a fine example of why university press needs to be viewed with a very critical eye with respect to use as a reliable source. It appears to be mostly made up. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment concur that there's a good case for the notability of Canadian Tire guy per the gsearch I had done, and that a move and subsequent reworking of the article to focus on its title is a reasonable outcome. JJL (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Move Is notable mostly for being the Canadian Tire guy, but he also played in other movies. I have no problem with a move/redirect if the article is rewritten to better fit the new title. Acebulf (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Francis
- Alex Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Prod reason was: "Non notable child actor. He has received no significant media attention (no Google news hits, less than 100 distinct Google hits)." Prod removed without adressing the problems (added IMDb link). 74 distinct Google hits[41], no Google news hits[42]. Fram (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As with the case of James Forde's AFD, if this actor was an ensemble player in a significantly notable show (such as EastEnders, I would keep the article with reservations. There isn't enough information here to make a decision either way, so I'm not going to hazard a !vote. As an actor, he wasn't credited for the first two months when he performed the role, which tells me that the role is small and potentially trivial. If someone comes back and updates the article to give more information about Francis' role in the series, I could be convinced to shift to a weak keep OR is there is enough information about this "Nick Jr. promotion" that separately establishes some notability, I can be convinced. (For example, if he was chosen for that promotion because of his work on EastEnders as a child actor, that confers notability.) As it stands, I can't take a position yet, but I wanted to at least contribute some thoughts to this discussion. JRP (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not uncommon for actors to not be credited until their role becomes important to the plot, so I'd consider the first two months not being credited as a plus for the current status of his character on the show. - Mgm|(talk) 11:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:20, 28 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, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER. Rd232 talk 02:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. BJTalk 10:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tyrrell Eiland
- Tyrrell Eiland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is lacking good sources and is rife with redlinks, neither of which bode well for this person's notability. Powers T 17:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: in regards to redlinks, you are referring to Jewish-Conservative (I think meant to point to Conservative Jewish movement)? Ottre 17:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, as well as the redlink categories. Powers T 19:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unelected political candidate (WP:POLITICIAN). I42 (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no notability apart from being a candidate, and per WP:POLITICIAN that's not enough. JohnCD (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete this page when the person is a declared candidate for office, there are several people editing this page. so leave and allow the authors to complete the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avity (talk • contribs) 06:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. BJTalk 10:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ricardo Chára
- Ricardo Chára (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Footballer not yet made his fully-professional debut. Chara played for Centauros in Categoría Primera B, but not the top division of Colombia. (Discussing Categoría Primera B is fully-pro or not please go to somewhere in WikiProject Football Matthew_hk tc 10:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ricardo Chara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been deleted through prod. Matthew_hk tc 10:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE; has not made an appearance in a fully-pro league, and youth caps do not confer notability. GiantSnowman 11:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alexf(talk) 12:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article suggests he played in the Copa Mustang but I suspect the author was confusing Ricardo Chará Lerma with Diego Chará Zamora (who does play for Quindío. Jogurney (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article says Chara plays in Italian Serie A, which if true would pass WP:ATHLETE, as it is a top professional league. I found a few sources that may verify this:[43]. Grsz11 16:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That link pretty emphatically proves that he hasn't played in Serie A, as it gives his total games played as zero.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, no appearances in Serie A - so he is not notable. --Angelo (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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 delete. Tone 22:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Katie Marie
- Katie Marie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Artist has released four albums and claims one charted single, but three of the four albums are self-released (including the last one: funkee fish is her own company[44], as is KM[45]). The only other one, "Reach for me", was released by Spinout, for which I was unable to determine its notability but which has no article here (not evidence of not being notable, but indicative nonetheless). No Google news results for that album[46] or the last one[47], and that one gets only 54 distinct Google hits[48], not of them from reliable independent sources. She is listed on Allmusic (but no biography, only the simple directory listing of her music), the billboard.com links in the article are copies of Allmusic so are a bit misleading. The article claims that she had one #1 charting single: again it has no Google News hits[49]), and the one chart given as example of her #1 status actually lists the song as having a highest chart position of ... #374 (#48 in the subgenre of acoustic folk).[50] Taken together, this fails WP:MUSIC. Fram (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Did my own searching to check the nominators claims. All info given by the nominator seems to be dead on. Fails WP:Music. OlYellerTalktome 21:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Chart claims can't be backed up, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the excellent research done by the nom seems to be right on the money. She might conceivably have made #1 on some obscure web chart somewhere, but that's hardly an indication of real notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom. Deletion Mutation 15:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. BJTalk 10:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bart Thomas
- Bart Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Claims regarding crime disputed. Possibly non-notable. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: I am initiating this listing to help Hedgerjoe (talk · contribs). See article's talk page for more info. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete page and history. An overriding consideration in biographies of living people is, do no harm. Better safe than sorry, particularly in cases involving alleged paedophilia. Consider doing this speedily and blanking the page in the meantime.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I tried to speedy this page long ago for the above reasons, but after sources were added I backed off. Beach drifter (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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 keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kumiki Gibson
- Kumiki Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The subject is non-notable, the text only lists different jobs, without saying why that was really important. Besides, the article is constantly used for edit-warring and WP:BLP violations. PaterMcFly (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While I am quite sick of watching this article, I should point out that it gets about 200 views per month. –xeno (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject appears to be sufficiently notable. ←Spidern→ 18:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability and sources are OK. Problems with content and editors isn't a reason to delete. Gigs (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She was "Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights" -- which makes her notable AFAIAC. The last paragraph does read like a puff piece, though, & it would help the article if its tone were improved. -- llywrch (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. BJTalk 09:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lori Haigh
- Lori Haigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Another woman suing over abuse by a priest. Whilst the phenomenon is notable, the individual victim is not, sorry. This is news for a bit and forget stuff, (1EBLP) - not "record for ever in a bio". (The individual claims and details in this are also without direct referencing, but that's beside the point). Scott Mac (Doc) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Person notable for one event only. Jd027 (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Facepalm, indeed. "Lori has since closed her gallery and has kept a relatively low profile." Yes, so low that we shouldn't have ever had an article on her. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 00:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ljubisa Bojic
- Ljubisa Bojic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This blogger is not notable, nor is his "Serbian Web Journalism School". There are no independent news sources that refer to him or his school. All I can find is self-published work or non-notable references. There was a previous nomination in June 2008, which was appealed and left pending outside sources, see log and [51]. His bio on his own website is here, which might help the decision: http://www.ljubisabojic.com/bio.htm#04 Fences and windows (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was also deleted under a slightly different title in June 2008, before being recreated without the accents. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ljubi%C5%A1a_Boji%C4%87. Fences and windows (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, he was nominated for a CNN Blog Award, so he could have some fringe notability at best. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think that indicates notability. Apparently anyone can send their blog in, and then the judges "nominate" a limited number of blogs from the proposed ones. That is a lot different from CNN actively finding and nominating blogs themselves. From the page "We invite you to discover the 12 blogs that were nominated for the final round! Among the hundred applications sent, a special committee - composed of the Management and the people in charge of the Multimedia Department at the CFJ - have selected the following candidates that remain in the race for the "Grand Prix" and the "Judges' Special Prizes"". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Is the "CFJ/CNN European award for the best student news blog" really notable, and enough to show notability? It got only a smattering of coverage in the French press last year, and there's nothing about these nominations: http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?um=1&ned=uk&hl=en&q=cfj+cnn+blog. p.s. I would be surprised if the creator of this page weren't Mr Bojic himself. Fences and windows (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:N. South Bay (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete: I am a little bit concerned that there might be additional evidence of notability which we are not seeing due to language differences but what I am seeing in English is probably not enough. A few of his articles get as far as Google News, so I don't think he is just some random blogger but I don't think he quite makes it over the line to be a notable journalist, at least not yet. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if he is notable in another language, then the article belongs on that language's Wikipedia rather than en.Wikipedia. twirligigT tothe C 19:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If a subject is notable in one language then it is notable in all languages. Wikipedia is one encyclopaedia in multiple languages. I do agree that the lack of an article in any other language is not encouraging but it is not fatal. I think is is pretty clear that this article is going to get deleted but lets do it for the right reasons. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, simply not notable, fails WP:N. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:59, 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.
Living people proposed deletions
- Morley Vernon King (via WP:PROD on 30 December 2008)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamau Kambon (2nd nomination)