Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People: Difference between revisions
m Archiving closed debates |
Archiving closed XfDs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People/archive Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/DeletionSortingCleaner |
||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hélio Cunha}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hélio Cunha}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac D. Smith}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac D. Smith}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hepburn}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clay Matvick}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clay Matvick}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Ipiña}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Ipiña}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Haydar Bengi}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breanna Lynn Bartlett-Stewart}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Canham}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Canham}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florian Tschögl}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florian Tschögl}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muna Abigail }} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie James (motorcyclist)}} |
Revision as of 11:50, 23 June 2010
Deletion Sorting Project |
---|
|
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to 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:
- Edit this page 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|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 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.
Note: In most cases there is another more specific category than this one.
Please use on these instead:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers (generally excluding adult film performers)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Athletes
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Businesspeople
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment/Announcements (e.g. models)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional characters
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion for adult film actors and actresses
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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tyvon J. Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to be notable. After some Googling I have not been able to find any substantial references to him other than social networking sites, his own company's website, forum posts etc. The one external reference to him that I can find - Yorkvision - looks insubstantial. A bit iffy (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —A bit iffy (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2010 (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) 00:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Suggestion: If, in the next few days, no one else responds to this Afd, or if the article isn't enhanced, could an admin simply treat it as a "PROD"? Soon after nominating this for deletion, I felt I should have "PRODed" it instead of putting it through the Afd process as I think it's fairly straightforward candidate for deletion.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable. 20-year-old who has done a little freelance game designing, and recently got his first job in the industry. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom and MelanieN. Dewritech (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lance Grode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. Worked with some notable people, but this doesn't of itself confer notability. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous editor. Empty Buffer (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If for no other reason, qualifies under the alternative standard at Wikipedia:Notability (academics): "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor".--Technopat (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Article currently needs de-hyping, but that's not an AfD issue.--Technopat (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Note that the alternative standard also says "When used, this criterion is generally applied to indicate that a tenured full or associate professor in a high ranking institution in the US, or equivalent rank elsewhere, is above the average". The subject of this article is an adjunct professor, according to the references cited, and so appears to fail both standards for WP:ACADEMIC. Empty Buffer (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see any evidence that he passes WP:PROF, and the only stories about him I can find in Google news are a few nearly-trivial ones about shuffles among entertainment executives. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2010 (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) 00:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Certainly not notable as an academic: only an adjunct professor, with no evidence to indicate passing WP:PROF. No evidence of significant specific coverage to show passing WP:BIO either. Nsk92 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Clearly doesn't meet WP:PROF. He does technically meet the criteria "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor" in the literal sense that 50% of academics meet this criteria, but I think the spirit of the criteria is that he is significantly more notable than the average college prof, which Professor Grode doesn't appear to be. That's subjective, of course--just one wikiman's opinion Vartanza (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Delete Doesn't meet notability standards. The page is just self-hype. Simply having claimed (un-sourced)to have worked with famous people doesn't get you a wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.137.89 (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was as follows. Whenever we have an article where the subject has requested deletion, especally when the individual is genuinely low-profile, we need to have a serious look at the article, its suitability, and whether that request should be granted. As should be obvious to all, an article on a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom isn't going to go anywhere, but McCoy is nowhere near the same notoriety as a head of government.
I see no credible evidence, that the requested deletion isn't a genuine request from the subject (or his duly appointed representative), so this closure will proceed under the assumption that the request is valid. How much weight to give that request, however, remains under my discretion according to deletion policy. However, there are a few things that most explicitly don't matter, that are worth mentioning here. First is Jimbo's !vote; while he has a delete button, and there is an entire CSD criterion specifically for WMF office actions, they were not used in this case, hence, his arguments must, and are being, considered just as those by any other user. Second, the stuff that has happened on AN/I regarding this AFD, and even the one !vote to delete this article based on those events. Both must be thrown out of my considerations, as truly tangential to this debate and the article at hand.
What we're left with here, is a debate around BLP1E, and this article's standing towards it. In this case, we have a broad, both in numbers and strength or argument, consensus that this is a BLP1E, sufficently so that the subject's deletion request becomes almost immaterial- there is consensus here to delete without using that as any form of "trump card". The result is, therefore, delete. Courcelles (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Houston McCoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK problems. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep. Other problems with this article, of which you definitely are aware, attest to the notability of the case. I suspect that silencing this beehive will merely shift the war elsewhere. East of Borschov (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You really shouldn't assume. I'm not suggesting deletion because of the editing, I'm suggesting it because an article on an living individual who's only claim to notability is the fact that he shot a mass murderer and that he suffered problems from that. Unless you think the details about his personal life are notable, the "Houston McCoy was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in 1998 by a doctor from the Department of Veterans Affairs in Waco, Texas, who attributed the condition to the tower shooting three decades earlier" here pretty much summarizes the entirety of this article. I feel the same way about Ramiro Martinez but I'll see how this discussion goes before that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Searching all of the links above yield results except in Google scholar. He is high-profile in articles about the Texas Tower shooting. Blocking a user doesn't cast this article into the dump pile. It has a large number of other editors and it is fairly well sourced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sourced, and more than one event is attached to the person. I don't think deleting this or merging it into some other article really solves anything, especially behvaiorial problems of an editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really disputing this, but what is the second event you are identifying? In reading the article there seems to be a lot about the shooting, and a couple of related issues (such as the worker's comp claim in regard to the shooting), but nothing that's clearly a second event. Am I missing something, or do you see this differently? - Bilby (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a second event, precisely, but is linked to the original event: I'm referring to the dispute with the city over the Workman's Comp case. Yes, it's a bit of a stretch to call it a "second event" per se, but I think it's significant in terms of PTSD and how it's dealt with. In any case, in my mind it extends his notability past the actual Whitman incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - that's fair enough. :) I'll need to think about my own take on it, but it gives me something to think about. - Bilby (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is merging it into Charles Whitman a good idea?--PinkBull 04:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't think so, there's too much information which is pertinent to an article on McCoy, but irrelevant to an article of Whitman. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it would make sense if the Charles Whitman article would be renamed and reformatted to an article about the incident, as is the norm for these types of WP:ONEEVENT type of situations. --PinkBull 06:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like how we separate Seung-Hui Cho from Virginia Tech massacre? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having an article on the incident and the killer (as the Virgina Tech massacre) makes more sense then having an article on the killer and the person who killed the killer (as in this situation), in my opinion.
- But regardless, I did not read the other comments here and did not realize the background leading up to the Afd nomination. If the article is being used to bother a person in real life it should be deleted. This is a close call to begin with because McCoy's notability does appear to originate from one event. In circumstances like these, it would probably be most appropriate to lean towards deletion. I think its due to situations like these that we have in place the WP:BLP1E policy. We don't want to be in a situation where we "have" to have an article on a quasi-notable person because at one point in the person's life (s)he received significant coverage in reliable sources.
- Note, that even if deleted, the battle regarding this person will most likely shift to Charles_Whitman#Houston_McCoy_and_Ramiro_Martinez. But the total removal of any mention of McCoy is not a good idea and is not supported by any Wikipedia policy.--PinkBull 14:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that, speaking in general, the idea that objections from the subject of an article should be consider in an AfD dsicussion is a dangerous one, since it sets up a circumstance whereby the encyclopedia might be manipulated to its detriment by artifically created controversies. The way to deal with objections is to insure that articles are accurate, fair, sourced, and strictly NPOV, not by considering deletion. That said, I will agree that in this particular case, notability is on the cusp, and editors can easily disagree whether it should be kept or deleted on that basis. I do not, however, agree that outside considerations should play any significant part in these discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I probably agree with that. This does not present a case where personal objections are being used to trump Wikipedia policy. The circumstances here establish a case of WP:BLP1E. If not for the real-life issues, I would have ignored the Afd or perhaps even voted to keep, only because the article as it currently stands is well written and well-sourced. However, now that the subject requests deletion because the article causes him distress, I would fall in line with WP:BLP1E and vote to delete.--PinkBull 02:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that, speaking in general, the idea that objections from the subject of an article should be consider in an AfD dsicussion is a dangerous one, since it sets up a circumstance whereby the encyclopedia might be manipulated to its detriment by artifically created controversies. The way to deal with objections is to insure that articles are accurate, fair, sourced, and strictly NPOV, not by considering deletion. That said, I will agree that in this particular case, notability is on the cusp, and editors can easily disagree whether it should be kept or deleted on that basis. I do not, however, agree that outside considerations should play any significant part in these discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What are the other events? Here is one -- he sued MGM over how he was portrayed in a movie based on the shooting. Maybe you would argue that this is not a separate event? Several years ago, when blp1e was new, a wiseguy suggested we should merge the article on UK PM Tony Blair into the article on George W. Bush -- because no one would have ever heard of him if it weren't his support of Bush's war policy. McCoy sued the studio. If we were going to try to shoehorn that into another article why shouldn't it be shoehorned into the article on the movie? When there are multiple targets one could argue an article should be merged into I think that is a strong argument that the article should not be merged. Geo Swan (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kendall R. Phillips (2004). Framing public memory. University of Alabama Press. p. 81. ISBN 9780817313890. Retrieved 2010-06-21.
Both policemen who shot Whitman sued MGM after the made-for-TV movie was released. Martinez received a settlement; the other policeman, Houston McCoy, whose name was not used in the film, received nothing, even though the film portrays him standing by passively as the actor playing Martinez fires the fatal shot. Whitman's autopsy showed that it was McCoy's bullet that killed the sniper.
- Strong delete (indeed, there is a case for speedy here). The claim of notability for this individual is a weak one, and the article has persistently been misused as a forum for harassment and/or the perpetuation of external disputes. As a result, deletion has been requested by the article subject and members of his family over a period of years, and while that is obviously not controlling in our deletion and content discussions, it bears significant weight when the claim of article-worthiness is as thin as it is here. This is a situation, of a type that is more and more common, whether the role of the Internet in perpetuating privacy-invading, negative, and disputed information about an individual has the effect of damaging, in actuality or perception, that individual's life. Wikipedia is not the chief offender in this instance, because the underlying contents of the article will remain readily available whether or not this article or some of its content is deleted, but we ought not to gratuitously magnify the problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - However the article has been used is something that should, and has been, dealt with outside of deleting the article. And my response to the subject and his family requesting deletion can best be answer with Don Murphy. Now, his article results in the opposite, that editors on Wikipedia are the targets of harassment, as well as damaging, in actuality or perception, the editors here, but if Murphy's article still exists, then I believe this one should also. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The two articles and the underlying situations should be addressed on their own merits; the analogy between the two articles is a weak one, and injecting Don Murphy into this discussion strikes me as totally unhelpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you on the OTRS team? If so is your assertion that the family requested deletion based on your review of an OTRS ticket? In general I am inclined to ignore assertions that the subject requested deletion, when there is no OTRS ticket to verify that a request actually came from the subject of the article. Geo Swan (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a large deleted history on the talk page. Also, a particular (now blocked) editor with a personal COI with the situation has recently been posting complaints he made years ago. Nevertheless, I think this article can be deleted on its own merits, regardless of the prior history. In my mind, Newyorkbrad, if the history has been deleted, it is best not to discuss it at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I would like to be crystal clear on this -- has anyone who has access to the OTRS logs confirmed that McCoy, or a family member of his, has requested this article be removed. I suggest that if there is no OTRS confirmation we discount all claims that he requested removal. Unfortunately there are partisan POV-pushers on the wikipedia, and claiming the subject requested removal, or even impersonating the subject of an articles is a trick some vandals use. Geo Swan (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a large deleted history on the talk page. Also, a particular (now blocked) editor with a personal COI with the situation has recently been posting complaints he made years ago. Nevertheless, I think this article can be deleted on its own merits, regardless of the prior history. In my mind, Newyorkbrad, if the history has been deleted, it is best not to discuss it at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The two articles and the underlying situations should be addressed on their own merits; the analogy between the two articles is a weak one, and injecting Don Murphy into this discussion strikes me as totally unhelpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: There's nothing notable here at all. The one event for which his name is brought forward is the Whitman shooting, and it is appropriately covered in that article. The entire PTSD/worker's compensation issue is irrelevant, and is a fairly normal act of due diligence on the part of an employer faced with a compensation board finding that they believe will be onerous; it would never have made the newspapers if not for McCoy's name being attached to it, because it's such a common event. The article doesn't even say what the outcome of the worker compensation matter is. There is no relevant material in this article that is not covered elsewhere. Add on the requests for deletion from the subject and his family over the course of years, and really, deletion is the only logical conclusion. Articles like this are backwater BLP problems that won't be resolved by any fancy technology. Risker (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I've never commented on this type of stuff before. As a "user", I found the page useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedzsan (talk • contribs) 03:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: the pertinent information can be included in "Charles Whitman" or an article about the incident. fwiw, I think Ramiro Martinez is also not-notable, however deletion is less important there as Ramiro Martinez has not receded from the spotlight like Houston McCoy has. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 09:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- The blp1e assertions are, IMO, inappropriate, if Houston himself is covered in WP:RS which don't focus on the shooting incident. I believe the references supplied so far make clear this is the case. WRT the WP:COATRACK essay -- this essay is routinely mis-cited in {{afd}}, (1) as if it were a policy; and (2) ignoring its actual advice. The Coatrack essay is clear in its advice that deletion should be a last resort when attempting to deal with a coatrack concern. There is no record on Talk:Houston McCoy that the nominator, or anyone else, ever tried to raise this coatrack concern. The coatrack essay makes some interesting points. I like the names the author of the coatrack essay gave to different kinds of coatracks. I like the "wongo-juice" name best. What I generally find, when people claim authority under the coatrack policy, is that when they are asked to be specific about which of the different types of coatrack described in the essay they think an article contains an instance of, they are unwilling or unable to do so. For me this very seriously erodes how much confidence I have in their arguments. So, I ask our nominator to be specific -- which kind of coatrack do you see here? And why didn't you voice your concern on the talk page, instead of nominating the article for deletion? Geo Swan (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'll explain. The problem is that this page claims to be on the person who shot Whitman but in reality is simply on the Whitman shooting itself. The vast majority of the text (the "Confrontation with Charles Whitman" section) is focused on the events of one day. The BLP issues comes from that section describing what the following (I'm guessing) living individuals did: McCoy, Jerry Ray, Ramiro Martinez and Allen Crum. The problem is that's poorly sourced (a single link at the end isn't sufficient) and instead of having a single place to discuss the details of the event (and yes, whether or not they charged up or they ran up or if Martinez shot him afterwards or didn't has been disputed), there are multiple articles containing the same information all with slight differences. As to the talk page, if I think an article should be deleted, what am I supposed to say on the talk page? "Hey, I think this article should be deleted but instead of actually listing it and having the discussion, let's talk about it here and decide whether to list it and have a second discussion"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry, in your reply, were you trying to explain why you called on the authority of WP:COATRACK? Suppose you succeed, please explain how you would answer challenges that your shoehorning of all the coverage of McCoy's PTSD, McCoy's awards, McCoy's lawsuit against MGM, and journalist's attempts to get McCoy's comments on the Virginia Tech shootings, into the Charles Whitman article lapsed from COATRACK? That material has nothing to do with Whitman, and doesn't belong in an article about him.
- Multiple articles offering conflicting accounts of a single event, without reference to one another, is a problem. You suggested that the solution to this is to confine all coverage of the incident to Charles Whitman#Confrontation with Charles Whitman. However, if Martinez and/or McCoy are independently notable, then an equally valid approach would be fork that section into a separate article, and having each article have an introductory paragraph, followed by {{main}} or {{seealso}} template directing readers to the new Confrontation with Charles Whitman article.
- Blp1e is inapplicable, because there are multiple events -- including Martinez and McCoy suing MGM in 2004. Was there some other BLP issue that concerned you? If so could you please spell it out?
- Why should you have raised your concerns on the talk page? Because you asserted deletion was authorized on the basis of WP:COATRACK. I am going to mention, again, that COATRACK is an essay, not a policy. And its advice is that deletion should be a last resort, when one has a COATRACK concern. You are not using deletion as a last resort, as the essay you cited recommends. Instead it was your first reaction. Geo Swan (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'll explain. The problem is that this page claims to be on the person who shot Whitman but in reality is simply on the Whitman shooting itself. The vast majority of the text (the "Confrontation with Charles Whitman" section) is focused on the events of one day. The BLP issues comes from that section describing what the following (I'm guessing) living individuals did: McCoy, Jerry Ray, Ramiro Martinez and Allen Crum. The problem is that's poorly sourced (a single link at the end isn't sufficient) and instead of having a single place to discuss the details of the event (and yes, whether or not they charged up or they ran up or if Martinez shot him afterwards or didn't has been disputed), there are multiple articles containing the same information all with slight differences. As to the talk page, if I think an article should be deleted, what am I supposed to say on the talk page? "Hey, I think this article should be deleted but instead of actually listing it and having the discussion, let's talk about it here and decide whether to list it and have a second discussion"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Magic 8-Ball sayz: Delete per all the del-!votes above from the folks with seriouz-clue. I did look this over myself, too ;) [repetition of arguments omitted]. Jack Merridew 18:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E. Sole Soul (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- various readers have hinted at a mysterious past history of problems with this article. Unfortunately, the efforts to excise all history of these problems have robbed the rest of us of the context we need to reach our conclusions as to the future of this article. The article's talk page has been courtesy blanked, multiple times. But those performing those courtesy blankings made no effort to inform the rest of us that there had been courtesy blanking. They didn't say why they performed the courtesy blnaking. They didn't offer a brief summary of the material on the talk page, when they performed the courtesy blanking.
This is important because some contibutors here, citing those past problems, have said that the article should be deleted, with no attempt made to merge material into other articles. Others, with knowledge of these mysterious past problems have asserted that deletion, with no merge, will just force the problems previously confined to this article into other articles.
I suggest someone with access to the deleted material read it, and offer a brief and non-inflammatory description of these mysterious past problems. I suggest this {{afd}} should be relisted once the description of the mysterious past problems has been provided, and we can all reach an informed conclusion. Geo Swan (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My gut feeling on this is that since Jimbo Wales wants it deleted, then anyone with a modicum of power, or a desire to have a modicum of power, appear to jump on the bandwagon. Not to mention that there have been some rather bad faith comments about those who posted to support retention vs. those in power (or those characterized as having a "seriouz-clue", while those who have posted to support retention have been summarily dismissed with those words, apparently we don't have a "seriouz-clue". There have several reasons given for why WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, including a highly publicized suit for Workman's Comp as a result of the whole incident as well as the lawsuit against the film company. WP:COATRACK hasn't been given a rationale for why this is coatrack. I'm aware of the meat and potatoes of the mysterious past history, and although my comparison to another article subject wanting his article deleted was also summarily dismissed, I'd venture to say that anyone related to McCoy has not engaged in wholesale harassment of editors on Wikipedia while touting an agenda to get it deleted. This person is notable and there is an agenda at work here to get this article deleted. That content is not suitable for merging with the Whitman article as it goes well beyond the scope of that article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish to argue that the only reason I listed it is because Jimbo wanted it, feel free to ignore the other articles I've listed. In fact, instead of waiting, I've listed Ramiro Martinez as well. As to the merger question, what part of the article isn't already at Charles_Whitman#Houston_McCoy_and_Ramiro_Martinez? Both McCoy's confrontation with Whitman (the largest part) and details regarding the PTSD diagnosis are there (or at least summarized). Is it your feeling that the information about McCoy's high school, his marriage, or the awards he has received because of the shooting either cannot be incorporated into the Whitman section or are so notable they deserve to be kept in a separate article? Last, I really question whether the suit was so highly publicized. The only source about it describes it as "Cop who killed UT sniper", indicating that it's only notable because of who filed the suit, not about the case itself. It doesn't like a published opinion, some crucial legal issue (like the length of time for a PTSD diagnosis) or would even have been reported short of the individual filing it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WRT merging: (1) the material on McCoy's lawsuit against MGM, his awards, his PTSD -- they don't really have anything to do with Charles Whitman. You cited the WP:COATRACK essay, as if it were an official policy, and you may have been trying to defend that as a justification for deletion, asserting that the material on the texas tower incident was really about Whitman, not McCoy, and didn't belong in an article on McCoy. Please don't both call on the authority of wiki-essays -- and ignore their advice. Shoehorning that information into the Whitman article lapses from the advice of the essay even more than the examples you cited earlier.
- You write "I really question whether the suit was so highly publicized..." Are you questioning whether the reference you assert was the only reference was an WP:RS? You seem to have overlooked the reference I added about the lawsuit. Are you questioning whether that reference was an WP:RS? I think if you review WP:NOTNEWS, you will see that tabloid style "publicity" is supposed to play a limited role in our decisions over notability.
- Some participants here have argued that any kind of merging is a bad idea -- due to unspecified vandalism, or slander, or something. You seem to know something of this past history. But you haven't addressed the view they seem to be putting forward, that merging any other article with material from this article would irredeemably make that article a magnet for the same vaguely hinted at vandalism or slander campaign. As the nominator I request you address their concerns.
- When someone suggests an article should be merged, but there are multiple articles for which there are reasonable arguments it should be merged, I think this is a strong argument that the article should remain a separate article. I suggest that is the case here.
- The book on suicide by cop -- a phenomenon that was unrecognized in 1966, stated that McCoy said Whitman could have shot him and Martinez, and didn't, because he was waiting for the police to shoot him. As a cop who described the suicide by cop phenomenon decades before it was identified as a pattern, as possibly the first cop to describe this phenomenon, an argument could be made that suicide by cop was an appropriate place to merge this article.
- We don't have an article on the movie The deadly tower. The topic of the movie merits its own article, because only part of it relates to Whitman.
- Various of the references I read as I looked into this {{afd}} stated that the shootings drove home the need for police forces to train and equip SWAT teams. So SWAT team would be an additional possible target for a merge.
- Merging with any of these articles undermines the value of the wikipedia's coverage of McCoy for readers interested in the role McCoy played in the other topics. Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish to argue that the only reason I listed it is because Jimbo wanted it, feel free to ignore the other articles I've listed. In fact, instead of waiting, I've listed Ramiro Martinez as well. As to the merger question, what part of the article isn't already at Charles_Whitman#Houston_McCoy_and_Ramiro_Martinez? Both McCoy's confrontation with Whitman (the largest part) and details regarding the PTSD diagnosis are there (or at least summarized). Is it your feeling that the information about McCoy's high school, his marriage, or the awards he has received because of the shooting either cannot be incorporated into the Whitman section or are so notable they deserve to be kept in a separate article? Last, I really question whether the suit was so highly publicized. The only source about it describes it as "Cop who killed UT sniper", indicating that it's only notable because of who filed the suit, not about the case itself. It doesn't like a published opinion, some crucial legal issue (like the length of time for a PTSD diagnosis) or would even have been reported short of the individual filing it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete not really enough to survive WP:ONEEVENT. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This individual is not notable for anything other than this one event, and regarding other aspects of the subject's life, there seems to be nothing more than trivial information. In cases of borderline notability, the wishes of the article subject should be respected. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As that wise-guy, who suggested the Tony Blair article be merged with the George W. Bush article, on blp1e grounds pointed out, the judgement as to what is "trivial" is highly subjective. The wise-guy claimed everything in the Tony Blair article was "trivial", except that he supported the Bush war policy.
- You assert McCoy's wishes should be respected. As I have asked other people who have made this assertion, did you review an OTRS ticket that showed that a request for deletion was received, and verified to have come from McCoy? No one else has been able to document that McCoy did, in fact, request the article be deleted. So I suggest we ignore the suggestion he requested deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article is not about anything encyclopaedic. The gentleman's personal life is only of prurient interest even where citations exist. He is not notable except for one single event. And one tends not to be notable for simply doing one's job. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen this "Simply doing his/her job" argument before. I would like to see it added to the "arguments to avoid" essay. One could make this argument about almost all of the clearly notable individuals who have individual articles. One could make this argument about all the US astronauts, for instance.
- This article could do with significant improvement. Frankly, so could the article on Charles Whitman. As I looked into all this, in the last few days, I came across WP:RS that covered elements that aren't properly covered in any of the related articles -- included the one on Charles Whitman.
- Some WP:RS described the incident as triggering the recognition of the need for Police departments to train, equip and field SWAT teams. I believe, with more research, WP:RS that specifically said the personal troubles McCoy faced would have been lessened or would not have existed, if he had been prepared for this kind of assault through modern SWAT team training, and if he had the after-incident psychological counselling SWAT team members are supposed to get. Some of the WP:RS I came across certainly implied this.
- I added a reference that addressed the "suicide by cop" angle of the incident. The Charles Whitman article did not address this angle. The book I recently cited specifically stated McCoy thought that Whitman could have shot him and Martinez, and chose not to, because he was waiting for cops to come shoot him.
- So, no, I do not agree that McCoy's life is of "only prurient interest". Geo Swan (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You do say a little in a lot of words, don't you? In this case you might make a better point by saying less. I notice a lot of rhetoric, but got bored at about word ten. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For no other reason than the antics of certain 'random IPs' *cough* on AN/I. HalfShadow 21:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just want to clearly note that although a registered editor was blocked based on the assumption that certain 'random IPs' *cough* on AN/I, they did not run a checkuser on those IPs, all of which tracerouted and geolocated far, far away from where the registered editor is located. So I don't accept that as a valid rationale. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While I found the article interesting, "15 minutes of fame" doesn't seem like a valid notability criterion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He was notable enough that he was sought out by interviewers following the Virginia Tech shootings 41 years later. So please consider this "41 years of fame" -- not "15 minutes of fame". Geo Swan (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks to me more like 15 minutes, with another 15 minutes 41 years later. Interviewers do dig up old stories now and then. There are a bunch of "Where are they now?" stories I would write if I had the time and was getting paid for it. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He was notable enough that he was sought out by interviewers following the Virginia Tech shootings 41 years later. So please consider this "41 years of fame" -- not "15 minutes of fame". Geo Swan (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't feel this subject is notable enough to merit his own article. Perhaps it could be merged into a broader article documenting the entire incident? Chickenmonkey 00:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with qualification: I am persuaded by the argument that this article falls under the prohibitions of WP:BLP1E, and thus should be deleted. However, I wish that when the determination is made, we could have final decisions include clear "arguments" like a court decision would from a judge. My concern is that it be absolutely clear that we are deleting this issue only because of WP:BLP1E, and that the personal appeals of the subject and/or any high ranking members of the WP team have no persuasive power. I would like it clear that we are not setting a precedent that personal appeals from BLP subjects have any bearing on our decisions. That is, if a person meets our guidelines, and our information is properly sourced, that person does not have recourse to have the info removed for any reason. I know that this is current policy, but I wouldn't want this AfD to make others believe that our policy is shifting. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The suicide by cop quote really must be kept. Also, if this is a BLP1E issue, the proper course is to create and article about the event, or redirect to the one that exists. In this case, the article is the shooter's article. I don't think that's logical, exactly. Houston McCoy is not an element in the life of Charles Whitman, he's an element in the U of Texas shootings. - BalthCat (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record -- although several people have claimed McCoy, or his family, requested the article be deleted, no one has cited an OTRS ticket number, showing that this request was received and verified to be from McCoy or his family. Maybe there was a (unverified) request, left by an IP on the now deleted talk page. That would be far from sufficient for me to trust it really came from McCoy or his family, as some pov-pushers have been known to spoof that kind of request. Geo Swan (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I have recently begun to think about BLP1E in a fresh light, and think that the way we currently frame it may be missing a core point and therefore leading to some problems. BLP1E is one aspect of a wider problem. The real question is not "Is this person known for only one event" - although that's almost always a valid indicator pointing to the real question "Do we have enough information about this person to write a legitimate biography?" In this case, we know almost nothing from reliable sources, outside of what he did on the day of the shooting. We know he filed a workman's comp case years later. We know he didn't get a penny from suing MGM about the movie. But we don't know a million and one other things, some subset of which would make him independently interesting and allow us to write a quality biography. I should like to add that just as "Jimbo wants it deleted" is no argument for having it deleted (and is not an argument that anyone actually made), "Jimbo wants it deleted" is no argument for keeping it, and a bit insulting to those who happen to agree with me, most of whom I haven't spoken to about this entry at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Standard biographical information, d.o.b., marital status, academic career, career prior to, and after, whatever made an individual noteworthy is desirable. I suggest however, it should all be considered incidental. I have suggested however that there are individuals who merit an article in the wikipedia, even though we know absolutely nothing about them. False Geber was my poster-boy. In the middle ages, when books were written long-hand, some educated men, who wanted to have their ideas widely distributed, even if they didn't get credit, attributed their new original work, to a famous scholar from the past. "False Geber" attributed his work to Jābir ibn Hayyān, an Arabic polymath who had lived several hundred years earlier. Unlike most of the other guys who attributed their new original work to other people "false Geber" published something truly important, the process for purifying and using Sulfuric acid. So Issac Asimov included him in his excellent Biographical Encyclopedia of Science, which covered the 1000 most important scientists in history, in Asimov's position. I wrote more about the lessons Asimov's biography of "false geber" hold for us here, and here.
- The Comment above states "But we don't know a million and one other things, some subset of which would make him independently interesting and allow us to write a quality biography." I'd like to know whether you are suggesting we delete all biographies that are not "quality biographies"? If so could you please explain whether a "quality biography" differs from the biographies that comply with our existing wikipolicies on biographies? It seems to me that this biography does comply with our policies on biographies.
- Two years or so ago one of the volunteers who focussed on organizing our biographical articles told me the wikipedia then had over 800,000 biographical articles. How many of those articles have gone through the vetting process to be considered "good quality" articles? Isn't it a very small fraction? Articles that are read frequently by intelligent readers, who are also contributors are the ones most likely to officially listed as "good quality" articles. But other articles, that cite good WP:RS, and are written from a neutral point of view, remain useful, even if they lack polish. Depending on the topics that interest them, I bet there are regular readers, who find the wikipedia an excellent resources, who have never read one of our "good quality" articles or featured articles. Geo Swan (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking over Jimbo's commentary, I don't believe he used the term "quality biography" in the same sense as "good article" or "featured article" as you are interpreting the phrase. Rather, it seems to me he meant "quality" in the sense of containing sufficient biographical information about a person's life that the article merits being called a "biography". This article fails being a biography in that sense. And to your last point, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This article does, roughly, comply with our policies on biographies (in terms of how it is written and sourced), but it does not comply with our policies on notability. Wikipedia is a work in progress and, as such, it currently includes loads of articles that, while being of good quality, are not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. A quality biography could be written on any of us. The benchmark for inclusion is, I would think, notability. Houston McCoy does not meet that benchmark. The fact that we do not have an adequate amount of reliable sources to improve the quality of our coverage on him is merely a supplementary detail. Chickenmonkey 21:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google book search for his name and the word "shooting" and you see many books about such things do mention him, this a notable case. [1] He also, decades after the shooting event, was interviewed by national news media, asked to give expert commentary on the Virgina Tech shooting. People still consider him notable enough to write about and talk to. Dream Focus 00:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not an easy one, the article has been on my watch list for about a year now, and i looked at it a few times in this period always wondering and trying to figure out why it was there. in our encyclopedia. With no satisfying answer. I agree with Jimbo and some of the other editors that there is not enough substance to write a valuable notable biography. IQinn (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The one event was clearly notable enough for an article, but not for a standalone biography due solely to his involvement in that one event. First Light (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We don't know enough to write a proper bio; the information in this article is covered elsewhere; and the subject has requested that it be deleted, which means there's a strong presumption in favour of deletion. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. Much as I hate to hop on the bandwagon, I really did try to think of a response to Jimbo's point that articles on people should be quality biographies. The only thing I could think of was the issue of not much being known of someone save for one event, and I think that information would be better dealt with in the article on the event itself. If someone else can think of an objection, I would happily change my #vote (not that it would matter), but I honestly can't think of one. My thoughts ran to Anaxamander, a greek philosopher of whom we know next to nothing, but that article is far, far more informative than this. I'm torn here. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 01:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thimio Gogozoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a procedural re-listing, per the outcome of this deletion review. The main justification for reconsideration was based on the argument that a reference purporting to verify a posthumous military award (which may have also provided more in-depth coverage as well) was not considered in the closing of the AfD (as well as other concerns regarding sock-puppetry and other misbehavior). There was considerable debate whether or not this award met the criteria for WP:MILPEOPLE (which it itself merely an essay), or if the cited coverage was substantial enough for WP:BIO and/or WP:N. This determination was complicated by the fact that the sources are both non-English and offline. As this is a procedural listing, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He has been decorated by the People's Republic of Albania on 1962 with the highest award for an Albanian who has given his life for a cause other than the Albanian cause; passes WP:MILPEOPLE. Cheers. kedadial 23:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage in any sources, even non-English ones, his name is just listed along with many others. Fails both WP:BIO and WP:N. Regarding the award, all we have to go on is the word of several Albanian users. And even then he does not pass WP:MILPEOPLE. Athenean (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Since there is not a SINGLE additional argument provided after the 1st nomination (Apart from User:Zjarri's attempt to misinform the community) I'm voting for deletion as per previous arguments. Also the supposed medal he got wasn't the country's highest award (doesn't meet wp:n for sure)Alexikoua (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Which attempt to misinform the community? What is this accusation? Can you provide a diff about when he tried to misinform anybody? As far as I remember, the main problem for this relist was that user:CrazyMartini, a sock, but now readmitted had voted in the process. In addition two Greek users (Megistias and Michael X the White) resurrected from the dead just to vote for the deletion of this article. Indeed they had been idle for awhile. --Sulmues Let's talk 14:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Ignore wp:npas vios) The reason the we have a 2nd nomination is because [[2]] the lack of a reference was explicitly mentioned by the closing admin as the reason for deletion, a relist to evaluate the new (?) source provided by ZjarriRrethus will be helpful. I note also that a participant in the debate wrote "Keep if [the medal] can be verified". (19 June). Zjarris "new" source (doesn't meet wp:verify -its offline) [[3]]) about the medal was added on 6 June. The afd closed on 8 June [[4]] with the reason that "Lacking a citation for that medal, there's nothing here." The closing admin, was full aware of this 'source' and gave this answer [[5]]. Now we have a second nomination without additional sources and arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically if Zjarri will be online in the next 6 days he'll scan the book and we keep the article. Let's see if we'll be lucky. --Sulmues Let's talk 22:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You forgot to say that this medal isn't Albanian's highest honor, so even if he scans it, it will not pass wp:n. (You are informed about this in the relist discussion).Alexikoua (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically if Zjarri will be online in the next 6 days he'll scan the book and we keep the article. Let's see if we'll be lucky. --Sulmues Let's talk 22:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : As in the first nomination, we have not One source to make him notable. A medal we can't verify, moreover, as stated,this medal was not the country's highest award.CrazyMartini (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes Wikipedia:BIO#Any_biography point 1. As I said in the relist procedure [6], Gogozoto cannot be held to pass notability through MILPEOPLE, because the Spanish War is a sui generis case. In case this AfD should decide for deletion, which I would find very odd, we'll create an article on the list of the fallen Albanians in the Spanish War and Thimio will redirect there. However, I think he deserves an article as the only hero in the Spanish War from Chameria. I'm sure other material will be added to the article in the future. --Sulmues Let's talk 09:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A redirection is appropriate, since wp:MILPEOPLE and BIO#Any_biography prohibits creation of such articles (wiki policy doesn't agree that if he is from Chameria he deserves his own article).Alexikoua (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I said Keep, because Gogozoto meets BIO#Any_biography which says: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. He has received many post mortem awards, the highest of which is Per Merita Patriotike, the highest that could have been received for an Albanian for deeds unrelated to Albania. --Sulmues Let's talk 10:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well you misuse now wp:BIO#Any_biography in order to claim that wp:MILPEOPLE is nonsense.Alexikoua (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg your pardon? I'm not misusing any wiki policies: I think Gogozoto clearly passes wp:BIO#Any_biography, and as I already explained my stand on WP:MILPEOPLE during the relisting process, MILPEOPLE IMO doesn't apply to Gogozoto. Hope this is more clear. --Sulmues Let's talk 16:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a very weird argument, according to this logic every single soldier (also auxiliary personnel, nurses etc.) that fought at wwi should have an article here, since they got this medal (some 10million people).Alexikoua (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg your pardon? I'm not misusing any wiki policies: I think Gogozoto clearly passes wp:BIO#Any_biography, and as I already explained my stand on WP:MILPEOPLE during the relisting process, MILPEOPLE IMO doesn't apply to Gogozoto. Hope this is more clear. --Sulmues Let's talk 16:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well you misuse now wp:BIO#Any_biography in order to claim that wp:MILPEOPLE is nonsense.Alexikoua (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I said Keep, because Gogozoto meets BIO#Any_biography which says: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. He has received many post mortem awards, the highest of which is Per Merita Patriotike, the highest that could have been received for an Albanian for deeds unrelated to Albania. --Sulmues Let's talk 10:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A redirection is appropriate, since wp:MILPEOPLE and BIO#Any_biography prohibits creation of such articles (wiki policy doesn't agree that if he is from Chameria he deserves his own article).Alexikoua (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Athenean. A Macedonian (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Athenean. Fails on requisites, both of sources and being notable.Megistias (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Athenean good explanation. --Tadijaspeaks 19:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Armando Riesco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable working actor. Has had small roles in a number of major motion pictures, but notability is not inherited. No real sources to establish notability. I am skipping PROD as the article has been around for four years. Cerejota (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP Actor has appeared in many films during the last 5 years, including Che Parts 1 & 2, the series 3lbs, and Garden State. Has received publicity for work in local New York press.--XLR8TION (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- My tendencies are that the article should be kept as a stub with the possibility of expansion. Yet, I realize that the article has been around for some time and that the actor has participated in lesser roles. It should be expanded to included the actors current status as to notability. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per pushing nicely at WP:ENT. The Find sources above shows numerous more-than-trivial coverage and review of this actor's work from 1999 through 2010,[7] so WP:GNG is met as well. In agreement with Tony the Marine, I believe that it serves the project to have this remain and be improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Actor has numerous roles and a long career. Keep. Scanlan (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Roles are notable enough. First Light (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tariq Kahn (doctor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP, very thinly sourced, no wikilinks, signed by author. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 02:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. andy (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete per nom. I think there might be potential for an article, but as it stands the article is very poor. Proper sourcing could clean up the issue, but for now I think delete DRosin (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Ali Khan Mohmand. There's a suggestion that this is part of a walled garden. andy (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was the admin who deleted a prior version at DR.TARIQ KHAN as an A7. Before deletion I did a quick gsearch to see if I could improve the article to avoid an A7, and couldn't find sources. Glad to reconsider if sources showing notability appear. (FWIW, "signed by author" isn't a deletion reason, it's an editing issue.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 23:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fred Fields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N, with a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject has published illustrations in several books and games which makes him notable. The article is moreover sourced by third-party material and does therefore not fail WP:BLP nor WP:N. De728631 (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Notability is not inherited. The only reference given is from Dragon (magazine), which is not independent since it's published by TSR, Inc./Wizards of the Coast (or was, at the time of publication), the guy's employer, thus it cannot be used to establish notability. Coverage by actual independent source is completely lacking.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I started this one back in November, and I'll admit I didn't use any citations at the time (my bad). Fortunately, in March, the article was built up a fair bit and a source was added. Since this was done fairly recently, I am confident that more sources are out there somewhere. BOZ (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NRVE, WP:BURDEN. You have to provide the sources, not just allude to them possibly existing.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Reasonable claims of notability, likely search term, sourcing is sufficiently reliable, especially given the noncontentious nature of the article content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of reliable, independent sources. So obscure is this unnotable comic book artist that most of the hits I found were about different Fred Fieldses, most of whom have a better claim to notability than this one. Seriously, check out Google Books if you don't believe me. Reyk YO! 00:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No independent sources (the one in the article is from a magazine his artwork appears in). Notability is demonstrated through coverage, which this person does not seem to have garnered. Quantpole (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added one - or at least the hint of one; I'll try to dig up more info on that regarding his appearance in a current exhibit in Chicago. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - good find, however, since it's just one exhibit with his works amongst many others, it's probably not enough to pass the criteria offered by WP:ARTIST.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but that just appears to be a flyer for an exhibition. It doesn't really tell us anything about this person. Quantpole (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per nom and Quantpole. Codf1977 (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Reasonable claims of notability. Hooper (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Brandon (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dana Knutson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
DELETE. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N, with a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Part of a large walled garden. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It does not fail WP:BLP because it is sourced by third-party material. The publication of Knutson's artwork moreover makes him notable. Sources can probably be improved but there is no need to delete this article. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Notability is not inherited. The only reference given is from Dragon (magazine), which is not independent since it's published by TSR, Inc./Wizards of the Coast (or was, at the time of publication), the person's employer, thus it cannot be used to establish notability. Coverage by actual independent source is completely lacking.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Reasonable claims of notability, likely search term, sourcing is sufficiently reliable, especially given the noncontentious nature of the article content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per prior Keep votes. I am confident that more sources are out there somewhere. BOZ (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The prior keep votes are extremely weak. There is no evidence of notability within the article, nor is there anything in the way of substantial coverage from reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N based on what's actually in the article not my confidence about what's out in cyberspace somewhere, somehow, some time. I see the article canvass squad have heard the call. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- fails WP:N because of the lack of substantial, independent coverage. The claim that his work being notable makes him notable cannot be sustained because it requires us to deny WP:NOTINHERITED, as well as WP:AUTHOR. Reyk YO! 01:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, WP:NOTINHERITED makes clear that notablity can be "inherited" from notable work to creator; the major source of notability for creative artists/craftspersons is their creation of notable work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Is just another nomination in a string of IDONTLIKEIT deletion noms by the same user. Hooper (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sue Ellen Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
DELETE. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N, with a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the only independent source given is The Birmingham News. I couldn't find the cited article from 2004, but did get 2 hits from 2008, however coverage was trivial, not significant.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. Claritas § 17:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul Bonner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
DELETE. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N, with a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2010 (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) 00:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No proof of notability, or reliable sources; this is almost a speedy delete. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 23:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephan Martinière (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per WP:BLP, WP:N and WP:NOT a personal resume hosting website. The subject severely lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: the subject seems to have won a Hugo Award, which is pretty prestigious. Seems relatively notable & I found a few citations. Thoughts? --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 17:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. My thoughts are that the WP:BLP should have been the subject of at least two pieces of non-trivial coverage provided by a reliable third party source. Do you find any evidence of that? (Or at least one?) JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 17:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's cool - I wasn't sure if that was worth notability or not (not been around for a while). Actually now i think about it probably not. I cited it in the article anyway in case it sways anyone :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 18:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails WP:CREATIVE. Armbrust Talk Contribs 02:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple Hugo nominations, plus a win, plus numerous other awards, is not considered "significant critical attention"? News to me. --GrifterMage (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hugo Award winner and Emmy award nominee. Garion96 (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Hugo Award winner. Edward321 (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Without any sort of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications, this is nowhere near a "speedy keep". Its more like a slow delete. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - winner and 4-time nominee of the Hugo award, the highest honor in speculative fiction and art. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - concur with those above me, although the article could use more citations. BOZ (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep as he's won the Hugo Award for Best Professional Artist, and a pile of other awards listed here. He is absolutely notable. The nominator obviously didn't even bother to review the articles s/he nominated (see here). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing I can say absolutely about the subject of this article is that non-trivial coverage from independent reliable third party publications is explicitly lacking. One would think that if winning a Hugo award somehow makes someone inherently notable, they would have some sort of coverage to follow and validate that suggestion. I'm not seeing it, are you? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One would think you had read the guidelines and policies you were quoting as foundation for these noms. Being an award winner of one or more notable awards qualifies anyone for notability. And it's very likely that all of these award-winning artists have been covered in one or more magazine and newspaper articles. You can verify the winning of the awards using multiple sites (and many of them are already verified in the articles). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm familiar with what I'm quoting, and I feel I'm being fair and consistent here in my readings of WP:BLP and other relevant policies/guidelines. This person may have won an award, but it doesn't seem they've received any kind of substantial or non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that point and I'll withdraw this nomination straightaway. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 03:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP is not an article inclusion policy; it only applies to sourcing of information within articles about living people, not whether an article should exist. That's what WP:N is about. This discussion is about whether the article should exist here or not, so let's stick to the relevant policies, okay? Winning multiple notable awards more than qualifies the individual as notable due to his work receiving "significant critical attention" and the artist being "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" (especially the Hugo Award and the Chesley Award, which are the top awards in his field). The information can be sourced due to the high profile of the awards. I'll see what I can do to add more sources (though the Hugo already has multiple sources). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm familiar with what I'm quoting, and I feel I'm being fair and consistent here in my readings of WP:BLP and other relevant policies/guidelines. This person may have won an award, but it doesn't seem they've received any kind of substantial or non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that point and I'll withdraw this nomination straightaway. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 03:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One would think you had read the guidelines and policies you were quoting as foundation for these noms. Being an award winner of one or more notable awards qualifies anyone for notability. And it's very likely that all of these award-winning artists have been covered in one or more magazine and newspaper articles. You can verify the winning of the awards using multiple sites (and many of them are already verified in the articles). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing I can say absolutely about the subject of this article is that non-trivial coverage from independent reliable third party publications is explicitly lacking. One would think that if winning a Hugo award somehow makes someone inherently notable, they would have some sort of coverage to follow and validate that suggestion. I'm not seeing it, are you? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 04:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as above, any Hugo winner is ipso facto notable. Rate the article as Stub- or Start-class if you think it's lacking sources. —WWoods (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Multiple significant awards and nominations, cited in the article, sufficient to meet WP:BIO inclusion guidelines. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deleted as hoax (of some kind). Gwen Gale (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mathieu Ógan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Try as I might, I'm unable to verify a single thing in this walled garden of hoax articles, so let's delete the lot shall we? 2 lines of K303 13:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Included in the nom are:[reply]
- Noah, why hath thou forsaken me? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Number Forty7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- File:NoahÓgan.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unverifiable. The Mathieu Ógan and Number Forty7 articles both link to Edgar West, which is also unverifiable and another possible hoax. snigbrook (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as bollocks. The articles in the Guardian and the Independent would be online and googlable if they existed. But they don't. "Why hath thou forsaken me" -- oh dear, our "artist" can't even manage the morphology of early modern English. (Bone up on it via the very first line of this.) Want some lonely-people-looking-lost art? Here you go. -- Hoary (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, it's thou hast, hath was an Elizabethan conjugation (of to have) for 3rd pers. sing. has. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, hoax. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. --John (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Haji Mohammed Motasin Ali Lodi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There appear to be claims of notability, but as this is written so poorly it's really hard to tell. But no sources, and there are none that I can find using this name. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I cannot see much assertion of notability and certainly no evidence thereof is offered. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. This article is near illegible but from what I can read it fits CSD A7. N/A0 04:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I cannot find anything about the subject using Google … without any WP:RS it's just WP:OR. Happy Editing! — 70.21.13.215 (talk · contribs) 23:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sarah 15:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul Gerard Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an article about a Dr. Who fan. The assertion for notability is that he is an important figure in Australian Dr. Who fandom and has won Double Gammas which are awards for excellence in Australian Dr. Who fandom. There is no significat coverage in reliable sources, and the award is not a major award. There is some claim for sources at Talk:Paul Gerard Kennedy but they are unconvincing. Whpq (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The "sources" are extremely brief mentions in a couple of National Library data entries, and a couple of fansites. So fails WP:BIO. Besides that, the article also appears to be an autobiography, and the significant contributor (and asserter of notability) the subject.. Frickeg (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. WWGB (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no independent reliable sources. The only "citation" on this article is in fact a wikilink to the Double Gammas, a fan club, which also has no reliable sources (the Australian Science Fiction Bullsheet (groan) might come close if the link weren't dead, but I still doubt it). I'd say delete both of them.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note the COI of the main contributor, User:Chewy6202. The article subject's nickname is apparently Chewy.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Anil Khetarpal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Vanity article that fails WP:BIO. JaGatalk 21:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 22:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 22:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -non notable surgeon.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hélio Cunha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Primarily a WP:V problem, it's hard to say if there's also a WP:N problem. Lack of any coverage in Google News and the like makes it difficult for this article to pass the basic notability guideline. With respect to WP:ARTIST, which is more specific, there's no coverage that would confer the article notability on most of the points (the exhibitions have apparently not gotten coverage, etc.) with the exception of 4(d) "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.". The article does claim inclusion in several galleries and museums, some of which are notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, but I other than the artist's web site, I haven't been able to find any verificiation for any of those claims. I did find one piece listed in a database of the collection of the Saramento museum ( http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.csarmento.uminho.pt/nephl_3152.asp%3Foffset%3D288&ei=2twaTIOJIovUNeTHzMsL&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBoQ7gEwATgK&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522H%25C3%25A9lio%2BDomingues%2Bda%2BCunha%2522%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN ).
In general, however, I haven't figured out how to source nearly any statement in this article through reliable, secondary sources independent of the author, most of what's out there is essentially WP-mirrored, from the artist himself, or from information provided by the artist to galleries, etc. j⚛e deckertalk 02:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 04:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 04:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unreferenced since August 2008 and notability is not clear since there seems to be no coverage by third-part sources. The piece listed in the database of Saramento Museum was offered by the painter himself, so I think we should not consider as a evidence of notability. Lechatjaune (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Jayjg (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Isaac D. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable military officer. No sources are provided, and despite some reasonable claims to notability in the article (the list of awards), I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. There doesn't in fact seem to be anything particularly remarkable about him. Robofish (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of the sources that have been found and added by User:Bearian, I think reasonable evidence of notability has been provided and no longer wish to see this article deleted. However, this AFD should be left open as others have expressed a desire to delete the article below. Robofish (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with this article being deleted. DocYako (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete - notability not established, no sources in two years. SeaphotoTalk 05:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think this noses over the threshold with the awards and other improvements by Bearian; still needs a lot of work in terms of career, and I would like to see the citations for the awards. Good work! SeaphotoTalk 17:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete: unreferenced, and notability not firmly established. The Silver Star gives me pause, but then, there are no details on the circumstances (when, where, what, etc.), thus the weak in my !vote. The rest seems like your typical sernior officer. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Admittedly, the article was terrible, but I have found several cites in about an hour. He was the same rank as Colin Powell in 1983, and later got his second star. He won a Silver Star; he wrote a major report about the education of army brats; and in 1989, his claims case became a precedent for the DOD. Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I found more cites and copyedited the stub. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at WP:MILPEOPLE, and I think he passes due to factors: 2. Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times; or 3. Held a rank considered to be a flag or general officer, or their historical equivalents (does Major general count?); or 9. Were recognised by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Silver Star is the 3rd highest award for valor (not 2nd), only awarded to him once, and isn't even referenced. Merely being a flag officer isn't enough when one considers the millions of flag officers that have been in the US military in recent years, especially since he lacks any kind of significant commands. He hasn't been recognized by anyone as any kind of source (the one report written isn't unique at all, typically general officers generate reports at the cyclic rate and are mostly written by thier staff anyway). All in all, despite the refs mentioning him in passing, he hasn't done anything notable in his career. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 18:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at WP:MILPEOPLE, and I think he passes due to factors: 2. Were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times; or 3. Held a rank considered to be a flag or general officer, or their historical equivalents (does Major general count?); or 9. Were recognised by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:MILPEOPLE is an unadopted guideline and falls down precisely on this point: just because they were flag officers do not mean that they are notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, my interpretation is that flag officers are presumed notable. The sources attest to his notability. Maj. Gen. Smith was a trailblazer. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. And trailblazer in what, exactly? Race? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 18:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Gen. Smith got his second star before Gen. Powell got his. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. And trailblazer in what, exactly? Race? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 18:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable flag rank officer. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources in the article would seem to meet WP:N at this point. The citation from the Louisiana House of Representatives certainly counts as a RS independent of the subject as does the ROCKS link. The Silver star and notations in books pushes it over in my opinion... Hobit (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, largely as per Hobit. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clay Matvick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability. A few sources (I've two, several passing mentions (see Google News in particular). Certainly enough to establish a few lines of job history. But none of the sources I've seen "address the subject directly in detail", to quote WP:NOTE. I think I was trying to be too pedantic about WP:NOTE, and wish to withdraw the nomination. j⚛e deckertalk 17:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (added by nom): The ESPN source is arguable, I guess I feel it's iffy (not really secondary, promotional in context). --j⚛e deckertalk 17:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A lot of more-than-trivial coverage in many reliable sources from 2002 throu 2010[8] would seem to poke nicely at WP:GNG... and adding them to the article might seem a surmountable issue. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:55, 20 June 2010 (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 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As the comment said above, this sportscaster has significant amount of coverage and therefore should be considered notable. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 01:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment I'm reviewing my nomination based on the comments, etc., by Michael Q, Parent5446. I have been through, as I believe I did before, the text of every readable article in that search on the first page and well into the second--I did do searches on Gnews, Gweb, Goobs before. In reviewing these results so far, I haven't found an entry yet that did more than identify the subjects job title. Perhaps I'm being blind, and if so I apologize, would either of you be willing to point me at two articles ("signficant coverage") which provide more than a sentence worth of information ("address the subject directly in detail")? Or even one, not counting the ESPN bio I mentioned in the original nom? --j⚛e deckertalk 01:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Took a deep breath, reviewed the sources more. I think I was being too pedantic about WP:NOTE. Thanks for your patience, folks. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my own observations above. As I commented about surmountable issues, and with a grateful nod to the nominator's courteous withdrawal, this one is now on my personal list of articles that I will improve in the next day or so. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for being willing to improve the article! --j⚛e deckertalk 16:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done some expansion and got his awards sourced. More to do... more to do. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this just goes to show that the article can be cleaned up and should not be deleted. This AfD should probably be speedily kept, as not even the nominator is in favor of delete anymore. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 21:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed (as nom), as an "involved party" it's inappropriate for me to do it, I believe. I believe even non-admins can close an entirely non-controversial speedy keep, however, as per WP:SK. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pedro Ipiña (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:N and WP:V concerns. Passing mention of an exhibition at the Org. of American States (see OAS external link), one or two passing mentions in Google News. No other signficant, reliable secondary coverage that I can find, although I may be missing other sources--I don't see enough material to write a biographical article from. Unsourced for nearly three years. (Neutrality tagged for most of that time as well.) j⚛e deckertalk 17:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2010 (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) 00:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is mention of several exhibitions, but not enought to meet WP:N in my opinion. Doesn't seem to be the subject of any articles or books. --Joshua Scott (formerly LiberalFascist) 03:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 08:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Arthur Canham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A Google search for Arthur Canham + Trade Commissioner (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Arthur+Canham%22+%22trade+commissioner%22) finds exactly two hits: this article and a page listing this as a new article. I am not sure this is a hoax but the notability of the subject appears to be asserted based solely on inclusion one source. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Likely hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per criterion G3RussianReversal (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search for "A Canham" + "Trade Commissioner" brings up a three additional, independent references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durhamhe (talk • contribs) 00:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Please note the three additional references to Arthur Canham as South African's First Trade Commissioner that have been added. Durhamhe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durhamhe (talk • contribs) 09:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Furthermore, as well as the three additional references, the original first reference to the 'Southern African Dictionary of National Biography' is to a highly respected source. Durhamhe. Please note fifth independent reference - to the 'Journal of the Department of Agriculture', Union of South Africa - added. Durhamhe[reply]
- Keep Sufficient references. [9] provides verification and the position is notable. I do not think the hoax assertions are correct. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG, and as follows. Trade commissioenrs have, in the past been considered notable as sub-cabinet officials. Ghits are not helpful for a man who flourished 100 years ago. The references cited are reliable. This is not a BLP, nor a hoax. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per DGG, the link he provided doesn't contain "Arthur Canham" at any point. If that simple search is incorrect, please correct me. But all of the above searches seem to rely on DGG's assertion, of which I can't find support for. Shadowjams (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2010 (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) 00:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. The first 2 delete !votes were posted before it was established that this person indeed exists. Further discussion is needed on the issue of notability. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. From DGG's source: "Mr. A. Canham, upon his appointment as Acting Trade Commissioner to the Union of South Africa in London, relinquished his duties as Secretary of the late Industries Advisory Board on the 6th August, 1918". I think he was sufficiently important to be considered notable.--Michig (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for providing some explanation of that source. I'd note a few things. Of all the sources, DGG's is incorporated into the article now, and of those 4 cites that are online (1's offline) 1 is a pay-wall citation, another one's DGG's cite, two discuss an "A. Canham" and the other has a single reference to "A. CANHAM, ESQ.". In none of these is Arthur Canham discussed. Perhaps that's normal for the time, but A. may also refer to Ambassador, as I believe esquire may too. I'm not saying it's a hoax, but I would like some more discussion about the actual evidence here. I worry about piling on when the evidence ultimately is unclear. I would ask the article creator how they knew about this topic. Shadowjams (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This refers to "Mr. Canham, Trades Commissioner for the Union". This doesn't prove that his name was Arthur but is that really such an issue? I see no reason to assume that the book cited is not valid.--Michig (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most men present at the cited meeting of the Africa Society are referred to by initials with surname. In another archived piece about the Africa Society at http://afraf.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/XVIII/LXX/142.pdf, Arthur Canham's full name is recorded. The tendency to refer to men by initials and surname at the relevant time is also evident in the other Web citations. The hard copy 'Southern African Dictionary of National Biography' does make clear that South Africa's first trade commissioner was Arthur Canham. References to a South African trade commissioner called A. Canham during this period can only be to the same person. Durhamhe.
- Keep The sources seem to legitimately be pointing to this person (i.e., "Arthur"). First Light (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Florian Tschögl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Questionable
nobilitynotability; possible vanity piece. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Comment:
- Delete: article fails WP:GNG.
- Comment: there is no article for Tschögl in the German, Hebrew, or Yiddish wikipedias. While Tschögl would appear to not be notable, I would most strongly argue that the article is not a "vanity piece" - see this Google Books result.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is GNG?? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A typo. Oops. Apologies.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: according to Die Gerechten Österreichs. Dewritech (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this one is difficult, in my opinion. My first thought is that the article falls foul of WP:ONEVENT, but that is not necessarily cut and dried. It is difficult to determine notability here because the article does not state how notable the award of Righteous Among the Nations is. Is it a high/notable award like the Medal of Honor/Victoria Cross? I don't know. What I am saying is that the article needs some more biographical details and information to help readers decide the notability of the subject. Is there anything else that could be added? Perhaps someone could translate a few of the sources: that might help reviewers make up their minds about the notability of this subject. Currently I don't think it has significant coverage in realiable sources. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: for evaluating of notability see Righteous among the Nations; more details of bio might be difficult in cases like this: normal people doing extraordinary things secretly, often risking their life for their convictions - and afterward just continuing a "normal" life. Dewritech (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Righteous among the Nations award seems analogous to the awards listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Notability that create a presumption of notability for their awardees.--PinkBull 19:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the list on the article about the award there are over 22,000 recipients. Are we saying then that they are all notable enough for a Wikipedia article on the basis of that award? Within the military history project the notability bar for award recipients is usually set at the highest decoration a nation awards e.g MOH or Victoria Cross and equivalents (or multiple second level awards). This is so that there is a limit on the number of stubs that are created. My point with this comment is that such an award shouldn't necessarily confer automatic notability, the subject should also satisfy some of the broader notability guidelines such as significant coverage in reliable sources. So far the coverage seems limited to passing mentions. However, I'm not in a rush to see the article deleted so if someone can further expand the article with some biographical details and a statement of why receiving the award is notable, I would be fine with that. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 22,000 may not be that foreboding of an amount. The highest medal in the US has around 3,500 recipients (See Medal of Honor#Recipients), the highest medal in the UK has around 1,500 recipients (See Victoria Cross#Recipients), and the highest medal in the former USSR has around 13,000 (See Hero of the Soviet Union#History), to name a few countries. Also, unlike the Righteous among the Nations award which I imagine is closed to new recipients, there will likely be a steady increase in army medal of honor recipients.
- The WP:ATHLETE standard allows for (probably) thousands of perma-stubs to be created each year. The bio of a Righteous among the Nations recipient is more likely to be interesting then the bio of a baseball player who played three games in the Major Leagues, but is now eligible for a stand-alone Wikipedia article due to WP:ATHLETE.
- Regardless, I don't know if the Righteous among the Nations can fairly be compared to a country's highest medal of honor. Also, the notability standard at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Notability has never been accepted as a notability guideline, and is only an essay. Just throwing the idea out there.--PinkBull 00:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru 03:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to be cleanly verifiable, and if the notability is at the border of what is and isn't, I'd rather lean towards inclusionism when there is verifiability. I think there's a decent chance this isn't a permastub, that someone will eventually be able to flesh this out with information from non-online sources, e.g., "ad Vashem" by Anton Maria Keim. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The information is verifiable and the award is fairly significant (it honorary citizenship and a pension from the State of Israel, should the recipient choose to live in Isreal). Passes WP:BIO. Movementarian (Talk) 08:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.