Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:48, 24 June 2010

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Authors. 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|Authors|~~~~}} 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 Authors. 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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

For the general policy on the inclusion of individual people in Wikipedia, see WP:BIO.

Authors

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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]

Stone Wallace

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm finding only one source for reviews and it looks, well, highly biased (and maybe a blog, I can't tell). No RSes I can find, but the name is fairly common... Hobit (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 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) 00:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides no sources all the article says is that he writes books for a living. So no assertion of notability.Borock (talk) 11:57, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hamburger

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is an autobiography that lacks independent sourcing and does not indicate notability sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia QueenofBattle (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hamburger fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Claritas § 20:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he is lacking any notable accomplishments as an attorney, and none of the references are reliable. Was he a leading editor on a law review or journal? Has he served an a major bar association committee? Has he taught at an accredited college or law school? Did he clerk for a notable judge? Bearian (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC) See also User:Bearian/Standards#Notable_attorney. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ref 3 is OK, but all the rest are primary sources. He's been quoted around the financial and trade press, [1][2][3] but I don't think the coverage is independent enough or substantial enough for us to put together a neutral and well sourced biography. Someone might be able to dig up better coverage, so I'm open to persuasion. I don't like editors using private notability standards - looking for independent, reliable, secondary sources is the right approach. Fences&Windows 22:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- p.s. He meets one of Bearian's standards as he was editor-in-chief of the law journal of the University of Miami School of Law.[4] Fences&Windows 22:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:25, 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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Lau

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Chiropractor lacking GHIts and GNEWs of substance. Claim to fame is self-published non-notable book and "people's choice" award. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable - only claim of notability (award for healthcare provider of the year) turns out to be a "readers choice" email from one person. 7 09:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a miss-statement, if referring to this source, which is a Straits Times article/column. It refers to nominations for that award being by email, and quotes from an email or two. That does not mean the person was voted for by just one person, it simply means the nomination was received by email. The Straits Times is one of the leading newspapers in Singapore. --doncram (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. Please re-read the whole article before claiming I am misinformed. I have now read it twice. The Best Health Care Provider awards issued by the Straits Times went to three doctors mentioned in the top section: Dr Lau Tang Ching, Dr Benedict Tan, and Ms Jeanette Jackson-Yap. Not to Kevin Lau. After the main section of the article, in the readers choice section, it clearly indicates that the single letter referring to Dr. Kevin Lau was one of the top four selected from "about 100" letters sent in by readers across for all health care providers in the area. It does not indicate whether or not there was more than one letter for any provider. 7 23:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears notable; vote for Delete above seems mis-informed. --doncram (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regardless of the newspaper's status, I fail to see how a "people's choice" award comprised of "about 100" popularity votes would make one notable. Please help me understand how this might be "non-trivial" coverage or an award of substance. ttonyb (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending some further showing of notability. The "readers choice" award doesn't seem to be "a well-known and significant award or honor" (per WP:ANYBIO). According to Amazon, his book is published by CreateSpace, which is a vanity press. Media coverage mentioned in the article might suggest that he is on his way to notability, but I'm not sure he's achieved it yet. According to the article, his name is "劉子傑". I get 27 hits on google news archives ([5]). Courtesy of google translate, I can tell that most of them are about athletes (two on a baseball player, the rest on a basketball player), except these: [6], [7], [8], which are clearly not this guy. (The name translates Liu Zijie). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no actual coverage in either English or Chinese, either by GNews or by directly searching in newspaper websites (like Lianhe Zaobao in Chinese, Straits Times and Channel NewsAsia in English). I read Chinese and can confirm that the hits pointed to by Moonriddengirl are about different people with the same name (which is rather common, especially among Cantonese-speakers). cab (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the notable articles that suggest Kevin Lau to be an important and significant figure in both nutrition and spinal correction http://scoliosis.com.sg/media-appearances.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.187.133 (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC) — 124.157.187.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
http://scoliosis.com.sg is his own website. 7 22:45, 28 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) 04:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Johnson (entrepreneur)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. simply writing one book and a chapter of another doesn't mean you're notable. no real extensive coverage for him either [9]. LibStar (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any significant coverage of him. We could add something about the book to Internet safety. Fences&Windows 23:14, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Cesari

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:CREATIVE. coverage mainly for authoring one biography but no significant accolades for this. [10]. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 23 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) 04:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sima Yari

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable selfpublished poet. Only references are to blogs, book selling websites, and mirrors of Wikipedia.Farhikht (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and check this!:) Farhikht (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this poet. Joe Chill (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 23 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 speedily deleted, hoax, see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mathieu_Ógan and Special:DeletedContributions/Alexantonios. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar West

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unverifiable; possible hoax snigbrook (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a medium for defining new concepts. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The "sources" are not. For an AfD of more of the same, see this stuff. The creator of this whimsy has been trying and failing to convince since 2006. -- Hoary (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT, WP:N, to name a few, not to mention the above and nomination.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:02, 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) 03:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Prantera

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still little to no assertion of notability in this article after 3 years since the last AfD. Essentially no coverage of this author in reliable sources, so fails the WP:GNG.

Weak keep Article needs cleaning up but I think the author does just about meet notability criteria. I agree with outcome and comments on previous AfD. I think nom.'s statement that there is 'essentially no coverage of this author in reliable sources' is a bit harsh, but I can see that the article in its current state could benefit from an AfD discussion. DRosin (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—There's little available on her biography but her books are widely reviewed and she is listed in the International Who's Who of Authors and Writers 2004. Perhaps marginally notable.—RJH (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources, and thus fails WP:GNG. Claritas § 17:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has has multiple books published by extremely notable publisher Bloomsbury [11][12][13][14] Her works have been reviewed by the Los Angeles Times [15], the New York Times [16] and The Herald [17] just to name a few.--Oakshade (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reviews, albeit brief, in major newspapers look good enough for me. If she were a musician this type of coverage would pass notability; it's harder to reach this level of coverage for books.Minnowtaur (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As noted above, Prantera's books, while largely out of print at present, have been published by major publishers and reviewed in respectable journals including the TLS. [18] She's in that difficult mid-list position where, because she hasn't published since 2003, most of her books are not much referred to online. John Self (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once notable, always notable...and she gleaned reviews in major papers when her books were in print....Vartanza (talk) 08:16, 22 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. no consensus after three weeks of discussion JForget 00:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sepideh Jodeyri

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person fails WP:BIO and no reliable source in English and Persian has pointed her notability. The sources of the article are two generalist newspaper which is not at all enough for notability. There are tens of literary magazines in Iran and I didn't find good things about her on this online database.Farhikht (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of significant coverage. Claritas § 16:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sepideh Jodeyri seems to be an important exponent of Iranian literature - poet, translator, organizer (additionally, some of the sources suggest her participation in the local feminist movement). I found coverage in multiple languages: Persian, [19], English, Dutch. The translation of the titles of refs in the Iranian article looks reliable. I admit, this is just my conjecture that's based on my instinct rather than careful analysis. However, that's all I can do, this article needs an attention of people familiar with the Iranian cultural scene and language. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- This source is about the Khorshid Prize and not about the poet. As I know, self published work is not reliable as a means to establish notability and accroding to this, her work has to be the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.Farhikht (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interview with the poet, am I right? Is she an organizer of the Khorshid Prize? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In fact, she is the founder of the prize.Farhikht (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, here is an interesting Swedish article about the prize. Publishing and promotion of woman's poetry in Iran seems to be quite complicated. Farhikht, please, could you look carefully at the Google Search result for the Persian version of her name? Some of the listed pages link to the reliable news servers. Google translator is weak and I can't read the script. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it. Most of them are blogs, and some are little things (and not reviews) about her books. This link didn't work. In Iran we have many literary magazines and I think that a wikipedia article about a poet need this kind of source.Farhikht (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort, Farhikht. I'm still inclined to keep the article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck to you.Farhikht (talk) 13:25, 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, Shimeru 07:47, 26 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) 00:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 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) 00:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolas Schreck

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced BLP, notability questionable, article full of gossip. Yworo (talk) 05:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation if someone wants to include in-line sources (with page numbers) to the books which allegedly support these allegations. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 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) 01:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zeena Schreck

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long unreferenced BLP, questionable notability, full of gossip Yworo (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The individual does have some coverage[20][21][22][23][24] and the article may be salvagable... but it does needs a MAJOR sandblasting. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Among those five examples of "coverage", this is a fascinating article indeed -- but ZS has only a bit part within it. Hoary (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well... that article offers something more than a trivial mention, it addresses the subject directly and in detail... and WP:GNG specifically allows that the subject need not be the main topic of the source material. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's the direct and detailed (or not) address: Some of [her dad's] diabolic transmissions can be heard as well on the somewhat campy 1966 LP The Satanic Mass, which features various unholy rituals, most spectacularly the demonic baptism of his three-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Zeena. ¶ Zeena Schreck was most likely the world's first famous Satanic toddler. Besides practicing the black arts, Schreck too is a musician; also an actress, photographer, and writer. She reigned as High Priestess and public spokesperson of the Church of Satan from 1985 until her resignation in 1990. "World's most famous [anything]" is always promising, but unfortunately I can't think of any other satanic toddlers and suspect that there's little competition. -- Hoary (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: She's second author of a book that I (in the reality-based community) vaguely infer consists of twaddle and that Amazon says is "Bestsellers Rank: #1,347,382 in Books": rather dismal in its own genre, if you consider that this thing makes it to "#10,458 in Books". It's claimed that she's a photographer -- any noteworthy exhibitions or published photobooks? -- Hoary (talk) 21:12, 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, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I LOL'd a little at the ranking# 1,347,382 in Books. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:06, 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) 00:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Tether

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed. notability? (google shows 14 hits, including blog + facebook-page) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources which can establish notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published writer, no mention in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that subject satisfies WP:AUTHOR. Hqb (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability. Claritas § 17:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE. Joe Chill (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability Vartanza (talk) 08:15, 22 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Haeseker

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO. The sources in the article fail to establish notability for the subject as they are written by the subject. Further, I can find no third party reliable sources that establish notability. Pinkadelica ^♣ 23:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 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) 00:02, 25 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, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep We have normally regarded being included in an anthology as a major factor in notability for a writer.This single one seems adequate DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "We have normally regarded...". Yikes! Turn off the Kagan hearings. Wikipedia is not a court, we don't do precedents, and thank God for that because judges notoriously pick whatever precedents suit their desired end. Forget anthologies; how's this for a precedent? 160.39.212.104 (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inconsistency is not a virtue, but a sign of immaturity. We don't follow precedents in the exact sense the anglo-american legal system does; we do establish our practices through custom as well as formal rule-making. What we consistently do amounts to a guideline. Needless to dsay, we can change it if we chave agreement to do so, as with any guideline or policy. Inclusion in an anthology is essentially the rough equivalent of the more formal WP:CREATIVE guidelines that are worded to apply to visual artists: b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 2 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. Theoretical notability based on a number of major publications isn't enough when the article is fundamentally unsourceable. ~ mazca ^talk 12:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Fredricks

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography without any third party sources. Has authored a number of books, but I don't see any indication that they have received much attention. Leivick (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. The number of books listed at World Cat Identities and the fact that they are published by a reputable publisher is a positive indication of notability. Being specialist Dummies guides, they are unlikely to attract much in the way of mainstream reviews. There may well be reviews in the specialist press. More problematical for me is that the article has been written by the subject and has a promotional tone. I would suggest stubifying and keeping but I can't say I feel strongly about it. I have just tagged for the computing Project. Perhaps someone over there might take an interest--Plad2 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 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) 00:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep' - author of a dozen how-to guides in a popular series. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 26 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) 00:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is an unsourced BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The number of books i9n a major series from a major publisher is notability enough. I removed the advertising for her and her company. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No third-party sources, only authored a few books of notability, she is not notable as an author and has not received any acclamation or praise for her works. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 23:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete This is an unsourced BLP. This requires sources. Since there appear to be none this must be deleted as BLP is a policy and trumps AUTHOR. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all articles must be supported by independent, reliable sources of which there are currently none in the article, nor have any been mentioned in this discussion. The 'Keep' "votes" above argue that she is notable based on her writing even in the absence of sources covering her. In another context it may make sense to use such heuristics as firm notability rules, but given that the article is a BLP I can't see keeping it in the absence of sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO, and we can't keep a BLP without sources. Claritas § 09:51, 10 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 Sarah 15:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Nicholson (poet and author)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a paid-editing job as a result of this posting on elance.com. The job description reads "Would like a Wikipedia entry created for my work (already written). More work to follow if this turns out satisfactorily. See http://peternicholson.com.au" The service provider is a user named "Leghari_K

This should be deleted as a promotional puff piece where the subject is attempting to manipulate Wikipedia for his own personal gain. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for this type of promotion

This has been deleted multiple times in the past so I suggest deleting and salting. This page was userfied and then moved back into the mainspace without any major changes after the userfied copy was put up for MfD. (See here.) Them From Space 10:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article content does not explain why he's notable. Minima c (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability limited, fails WP:GNG etc. Claritas § 17:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article content does not explain why he's notable, spammy too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above Vartanza (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already stated. But I would also add that this article previously had an image of its subject which was deleted from Commons, so it disappeared. It now has an image of the subject, File:PeterN1.jpg. It was uploaded to Wiki by User talk:Leghari k who claimed it was GFDL-self but he did not create the image and does not own the copyright to it. Moriori (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put the new image up for deletion here. Them From Space 14:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Waverleywattle/Peter Nicholson (poet and author) as "delete". Bencherlite ^Talk 19:39, 23 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 Withdrawn from the multiple notes on my talk page made within minutes of my prod/AfD of this article, the rapid fire "keeps", the unnecessary personal attack, etc, it seems clear this AfD can not possibly run in a proper fashion due to the automatic bad faith presumption that anyone daring to nominate an article created by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for deletion must somehow want to contribute to whatever personal issues he is having with other editors at the moment. Will at least attempt to be have better faith than those who ran to his defense and hope that the current activity on the article will continue past this withdrawal so that the article is improved to the point that actual notability is shown rather than just adding sources confirming her dates of birth, date, and releases of her books. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Terhune Herrick

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable author. Fails WP:N and WP:AUTHOR. While it is clear that her mother and her one surviving brother are notable, Christine seems to have been fairly unnotable and has not received the significant coverage of her other family members. She does not have independent, significant coverage, primarily just mentions in relation to her family members. Prod removed by article creator, who created and abandoned the article in May 2007, not returning until it was prodded) with claim that having a NY Times obit makes her notable. Same creator also twice removed a notability tag. Two obituaries alone do not make a person notable, particularly when the obits cited appear to be similarly worded and likely are from a singular source (most likely Terhune family). Reprints/rewrites of those obits, if any, also do not make her notable. A single review of one of her books is also not significant coverage of the author herself (added by creator after removing the prod). While Mrs. Herrick's mother and brother are clearly notable subjects, she herself does not appear to be so and the notability of her family and one or two of her works. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oddly enough Wikipedia states that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Two obits satisfies that rule, and it is just silly speculation and original research to say that the New York Times and Chicago Tribune are "similarly worded and likely are from a singular source (most likely Terhune family)". I imagine that all books on Abraham Lincoln have the same information too. That is the nature of biographies. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obits alone do not make her notable, particularly if said obits are simply press releases from the family (they have nearly identical wording, at least from your citations), and just two is not "significant coverage". Random short reviews of one or two of her works is also not significant coverage. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction The NYT times review of her book was added by me. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I deserve some loathing too, I added a second one, there are four more. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is loathing anyone. Kindly refrain from remarks that may indicate a presumption of bad faith. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See her profile in Notable American women, 1607-1950: a biographical dictionary, Vol. 2, p. 188-189 (available at G-Books) - notable and verifiable, an interesting and important part of US history. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That, at least, is not an obit and is actual coverage of the person, versus the reviews of her novels. However, its preface indicates that it relied heavily on Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography, which is not a reliable source itself (no idea on the rules when one source uses a unreliable source). It is also still just a single point of actual significant coverage, that is independent of the subject. However, it is also still a WP:Tertiary source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. A stupid and time-wasting nomination. Dekkappai (talk) 06:52, 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 no consensus. going no consensus to allow some space for improvement and tranbslation of sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jelena Tinska

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP, no indication of notability per WP:BIO according to the article and an (English) Google search. Sandstein 20:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Comment Assistance of translating Serbian language sources [25][26][27] is needed else WP:UNKNOWNHERE may be this article's downfall. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:54, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly has a fair few sources, even if we can't translate them accurately. She's also well known in Serbia, it seems, and the article, while unsourced, isn't libellous or poorly written. Default to keep. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until we can get a better translation, etc. as there do appear to be reliable sources, and it doesn't make much sense to delete prematurely, if the shortcoming is our lack of knowledge at the moment and it is reasonably correctible Vartanza (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsourced BLP, no evidence the person meets the notability guidelines. Lustralaustral (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you might reconsider if the many Serbian sources found in Find sources receive translation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:35, 29 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) 01:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep per my comments above. Article is now undergoing cleanup. Expansion and sourcing have commenced. Additional help would be appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:32, 2 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) 00:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Goodyer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:CREATIVE, unreferenced WP:Autobiography per WP:BLP, zero GNEWS hits, zero coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. Empty Buffer (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 09:28, 15 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) 00:00, 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) 00:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. No sourcing, and even as listed, his accomplishments don't seem like much from the standpoint of WP:N. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 2 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. Consensus seems to be the article does not pass WP:V or WP:N NW (Talk) 13:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Rush

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Publicity page seeking to establish notablility of a non notable person. No references to verify and no true notability asserted. All external links are spammy in nature Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kay rush is a notable person in Italy.User:Lucifero4
- Using Google, which I agree is not the ultimate arbiter of notability, I see no notability for this person from reliable sources, certainly yet. When and if Kay Rush is verifiably notable then she may have an article with pleasure. So far she appears to have been very involved with self publicity in this article in an apparent attempt to create notability. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise one's self. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kay Rush has been the host of San Remo music festival, Raiuno is also the most viewed tv station of Italy.User:Lucifero4
    - Please see this google search. Wikipedia requires verifiability, assuming that this is notable. If you have relevant citations then add them to the article. That is what will save it, not the making of statements here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please see San Remo Festival#Hosts, where Rush's name is absent. This looks to be the festival you mention. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That is a link of rush in San Remo [28], then a link from Raiuno official website where Rush is mentioned with the surname Sandvik[29] the surmane of his stepfather .User:Lucifero4
        Youtube is not a valid source for citations. As for the other one, I thought Rush was a lady. If you have valid citations please ensure that you add them to the article. Note that they must pass WP:RS to be acceptable. Adding links here is pointless. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I have place the links in order to show to everyone that Rush is a well known woman and because you have written that you can find citation about rush in Sanremo.User:Lucifero4
        And I can still find none. 'Sandvik' is Sandvik; where does Sandvik equate to Rush? Where can this be cited? And Youtube is not relevant here. FInd citations and place them in the article if you can. So far all you are achieving is a long and fruitless discussion. The article is a curriculum vitae and an advert. It is borderline Speedy Deletion material. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        IMDB: "Pazza famiglia" (1995) TV series (as Kay Sandvik) - BalthCat (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        IMDB is a user edited site and thus not a reliable source. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Google reveals plenty of adequate if not ideal sources. The most reliable mistakenly spells it with a C, so I suppose we can't "prove" anything. Just pretend the information doesn't exist, since you can't find it in a peer reviewed article, I guess. Or does that mean we have to spell her name wrong, since it's sourced as such? - BalthCat (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires Reliable Sources, not adequate sources. It's an encyclopaedia, not a gossip column, and it is certainly not a place for Kay Rush to establish her own notability as she appears to be seeking to do. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, why is verifiability a suggested tag under WP:ATD? (Also don't bother me with Rush's COI, that's a completely separate issue.) - BalthCat (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so keen on saving the article, cease the rhetoric and hop in and edit it and save it that way. Currently is is pretty much blatant advertising. Wikipedia is not a place to post your resumé. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer I think this would benefit from relisting. The original listing was slap bang in the middle of a set of procedural nominations and/or relistings and may have been obscured. I see insufficient interest even to classify this as no consensus at this stage. Your mileage may vary. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:36, 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) 00:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability is asserted multiple times, such as She wins a Telegatto, the Italian equivalent for an Emmy. The claim is that she's all over notable television networks and shows. This may be a BLP but there appears to be nothing contentious, this really ought to be brought to the attention of some WikiProjects for fixing. - BalthCat (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete."Notability is asserted multiple times"? In this article it is, yes, but there are no references to show so outside wiki. Moriori (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this refers to me: Sourcing is a problem to be fixed. WP:ATD says If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. - BalthCat (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your chance then. If you fix the problem, I'll change my vote. Moriori (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your "vote" isn't needed. You might take to heart that it's as much your responsibility as mine to find proper sources for this article. - BalthCat (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like hell it is. Every editor has the right to ask people to justify/reference their creations/work. It is not our responsibility to come along after them and do their job for them. We're already busy trying to make wiki look like an encyclopedia.Moriori (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So in what way is it my responsibility more than yours? WP:ATD is pretty clear. If you want to do something extraordinary, like delete an article with clear assertions of notability and significant indication in weak sources that notability may be verifiable, then YOU go the extra mile. The verify tag exists for a reason: tag it and move on. - BalthCat (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How disingenuous. I didn't say it is more your responsibility than mine. I said editors have a right to ask people to justify/reference their creations/work without having to do it for them. It is revealing that you think my vote isn't needed. Moriori (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well this isn't my work, or my creation, so challenging me to justify and reference it is making it my responsibility to fix this article's problems. There's nothing disingenuous about calling you on that. Your vote isn't needed (by me, at least) because you haven't provided a justifiable reason for deleting this article, considering the clear meaning of WP:ATD. Considering that it is clear from reading Google results that Kay Rush/Sandvik is at minimum marginally notable, it is entirely justifiable to suggest that there's no good excuse to ignore WP:ATD. - BalthCat (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks. You said sourcing was a problem to be fixed, and I called you on it. Even if this survives afd, it will attract further attention unless it is adequately referenced. Moriori (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is what I said bollocks? Yes, I said it was a problem to be fixed, see WP:TIND. Tell me how WP:ATD and google's indication she is at minimum marginally notable not add up to keeping the article with a verify tag? - BalthCat (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a well known radio personality in Italy. That's what the first result from a Google news search told me. [30] Plus if she's won a notable award, that counts too. Dream Focus 04:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is asserted plenty of times, but there's no genuine significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails [{WP:BIO]], WP:GNG. Claritas § 07:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Precisely the reason I nominated it. This page seeks to establish the subject's notability, it does not record it from reliable sources Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you people ever actually read WP:ATD? Sourcing is not a justification for deletion if there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is notable and sources can be found. Has anyone who has recommended delete bothered to go looking? has anyone informed a relevant WikiProject? has anyone asked anyone who speaks Italian or who lives in Italy? Sourcing is a problem with a solution. If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. WP:ATD then proceeds to specifically tell you that the { { verify } } tag is there for you to use. How is this not an obvious directive to keep articles that assert notability until there is indication (aside from some googling) that the article is unverifiable? - BalthCat (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Speaking as one of you people, a term which I find to be disparaging to the point of general incivility, I have read it. I have chosen to nominate it because those tags have just plain not workd. If you care that much then leap in and edit it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would need an army to fix all the articles nominated for deletion despite WP:TIND, WP:PAPER, and WP:ATD, among others. I'm not entirely sure what would satisfy people at this point, to be completely honest. Pazza famiglia 2 had an average audience of 5.4 million viewers as per this. I find other Google book references, but I can't read Italian. - BalthCat (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The burden of finding sources to establish notability is on those who believe the article should be kept. I looked, and could find none that satisfied me. This article is basically a WP:RESUME for a non-notable person. SnottyWong ^babble 04:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doubt has been expressed over whether sources are likely to exist. To rebut this, sources should be shown. Yes, there are many claims of notability, but no sources to back them up. At the moment WP:V is as much a problem as WP:N. Bear in mind that had this been created a couple of months later it would have been deleted as BLPPROD. I cannot imagine why we should be any less stringent going through an AfD than sticking a prod on. Quantpole (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I legally changed my adopted name back to my birth name, hence the confusion with Rush and Sandvick. In Europe, they had difficulty spelling and pronouncing my name Kay Rush Kayrush (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Article in English about me and my name change: http://www.onmilwaukee.com/ent/articles/kaytalks.html Now that we are past this obstacle, what do I need to do or cancel to make my page acceptable? It was already in Wikipedia Italia; I only translated it. I am also in Wikipedia Spain because I worked in television there for four years. I have not had any problems in either of these countries. If I have to cancel some sentences, no problem. I do not need the publicity; I only wanted the page in my mother tongue for people who do know me in the United States. Thank you. Kay Rush Kayrush (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have looked at the Italian and Spanish articles. As far as I can determine, the sources there do not pass WP:RS either. Their standards may be different from here, of course. I have no way of judging. But, so far as I can tell, even using those sources as citations fails to assert and/or verify notability. Ms Rush has asked me for advice on my talk page, and I have responded there in the hopes that she may yet find appropriate sources to allow this article to be kept. I have also advised her that editing an article about one's self is deprecated. Perhaps an editor who feels strongly about keeping this article might approach her to help her avoid COI. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- after nearly two weeks at AFD, the side advocating keep still have not satisfied WP:BURDEN- and I can't find any substantial coverage either. Reyk _YO! 01:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To be fair, for the first week the notice was somewhat lost. Even so those concerned with editing the article only seem to have switched a gear yesterday by asking (above) what to do. Yet the Italian and Spanish articles also suffer fromthe same problem. As someone commented above, I, too, do not read these languages, but I was not satisfied that the media I could find in them were themselves {{WP:RS]] compliant, so reading the text was hardly relevant. And there is Google Translate. We also know that anyone can wrte a book and that you acquire an ISBN as a matter of course whether your book is vanity published or mainstream published. WP:TIND was quoted above, an amusing essay, but just that, an essay. WP:PAPER was quoted, something which looks like a last ditch attempt to save the unsavabale. "Look, we can't actually find any references for this, but let's keep it anyway, we have shedloads of room" is not a valid argument. Itls like taking in all the stray mongrel puppies you can find and pretending they are pedigree dogs and entering them for Crufts. When Ms Rush becomes notable and verifiable, then the article on her has a place here. However I can find, so far, nothing to suggest that she passes our criteria. And her references to "my article" reinforce my belief that this is a publicity exercise, an advert. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would also refer to an article about me as "my article", rather than "the article about me" for brevity's sake, as she might refer to "her picture" whether or not it was taken by a provessional photographer or a hobo on the street, so long as the subject was her. I believe the COI issue is completely irrelevent to this AfD. - BalthCat (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps I can simply point you to these: WP:RESUME, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFIABILITY. This article fails. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:29, 27 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 00:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Kripalvanandji

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I lean slightly in favor of deletion. I created the article (in a different, earlier form) because somebody had inserted bio into the article Kripalu, where it was an irrelevant digression.

Can't find high-quality sources on this person, and there were some very questionable edits, possibly made by fanatical devotees. I've abandoned ship.

On the other hand, am philosophically an "inclusionist," and don't see harm in having available a lousy article about an obscure person.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 10 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, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an expert here, but complete lack of sources to back up any claims. All the refs are from http://www.lakulishyoga.com/ and its subpages. — Timneu22 · talk 12:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [31], [32], [33], [34], and [35]. Joe Chill (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete brief mentions in a couple of books doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Lustralaustral (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one of the books is a brief mention. He goes by three different names: the name of the article, Bapuji, and Swami Kripalu. Also, it's four books and the fifth reference is a page that is devoted to Swami Kripalvanandji. Joe Chill (talk) 22:51, 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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Laserna

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this person. Fails both WP:CREATIVE and WP:PROFESSOR. Joe Chill (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this non notable biography. --Stormbay (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject seems to be an expert and respected authority in the field of sociological and economic research in the South America. I found only brief biographical mentions about him [36], [37], [38], but a large number of publications and citations at Google Books, Google Scholar, WorldCat indicate the importance of this scientist. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely quoted in major media as an expert, not just in his own language but in the Christian Science Monitor [39], Boston Globe [40] [41], New York Times [42], Newsweek [43], and BBC News [44]. These aren't nontrivial sources about him but I think they indicate a pass of WP:PROF #7. The article we have is short and factual and although it is currently unsourced the sorts of things it says look like they should be easily sourceable. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:12, 13 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) 00:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets notablilty by all the sources given above; WP:N: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Dewritech (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per the references provided above.--Technopat (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to close this "keep" as that is the consensus but seeing that the article is currently unsourced (but sourcable), I recommend that it be userfied or incubated and then moved back into mainspace when sourced. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 23 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (and even he's not sure) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R. N. Taber

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this BLP fails the notability requirements. I have added a full set of ISBNs after checking the bibliography on Google Books and Worldcat, these appear to be self-published. I find no evidence of independent news items or independent reviews. The single review included (from the LGBT History Month site) has no evidence of who the reviewer is, and that site accepts book reviews from anyone prepared to email one in. The site oneandother is no evidence of notability as the point of the performance art installation was that non-notable members of the public took part. Unless someone can produce at least one independent review demonstrating impact then the article fails WP:GNG.

Unfortunately, I see that the page history shows some possible COI contributions and that contributor has not responded to associated notices on their talk page. Consequently notability here may be over estimated. Fæ (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep I found a couple of notes under his full name (Roger Taber). This one is simply a mention of a poerty reading at a London LGBT Arts Festival, but this one is a little more extensive and describes him as a professional poet. I'll add them in to the article and see if I can unearth anything additional. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 13:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this BBC blurb describing him as a "top poet". That seals the deal for me, I've changed my opinion to 'keep'. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 13:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds, probably sufficient. I note that the Scarborough Evening News and the BBC Somerset news both count as local sources rather than national and are weak evidence of impact in the GNG context. Fæ (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although my original intention was to endorse deletion based on the former state of the article, I'm finding many mentions in various local papers and reputable primary sources. He certainly does seem prominent and well recognized within the LGBT community. As poets do not always receive the same amount of attention as novelists, the fact that I am able to find so many references to him being a noted poet solidifies notability for me. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 14:10, 8 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) 00:42, 15 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, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion above. Hobit (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the points above are sound, and document that notability exists - Ponyo's research seals it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:28, 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.

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Val chua. Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Authors Proposed deletions

Licia Troisi (via WP:PROD on 25 December 2007)
Leidra Lawson (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Nicholson (poet and author)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Terhune Herrick‎}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Green (PR manager)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jelena Tinska}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Goodyer}}