Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People: Difference between revisions
Listing Thomas Van Pelt |
Archiving closed XfDs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People/archive Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/DeletionSortingCleaner |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathieu Ógan}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathieu Ógan}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haji Mohammed Motasin Ali Lodi}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haji Mohammed Motasin Ali Lodi}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gerard Kennedy}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Khetarpal}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Khetarpal}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hélio Cunha}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hélio Cunha}} |
Revision as of 15:29, 24 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 redirect to Confederated_Tribes_of_Siletz_Indians. There's not enough context in this article to even determine whether or not this person is notable so I'm redirecting this as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thomas Van Pelt (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)
Only claim to notability seems to be as the father of Sam Van Pelt, whose biog is currently up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Van Pelt. I've done a fairly quick search, but I can't find anything to support the inclusion of this article (there are some genealogical refs, but that's not notable). I haven't gone for CSD, as it's the kind of subject that might possibly be sourceable outwith a Google search. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Both Sam and Thomas van Pelt are mentioned in The Rogue River Indian War and its aftermath, 1850-1980, p. 13 (available at G-Books). However, I can't find more substantial coverage, just minor mentions. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand there is little notable references to post these two men on Wiki, but I noticed their names on the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians with no description, and since these two men are my grandfathers I used what little information I could to bring any such information to their posthumous pages. With the history American Indians have these two men fought hard to try to keep the tribes of their ancestors alive, and apparently the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians hold Thomas and Sam in high regard for their support during that period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urok89 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But no hard feelings if you feel Thomas and Sam's pages HAVE to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urok89 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With all respect to your ancestors, Urok89, verifiability is important for Wikipedia. Their importance should be noted by multiple independent and reliable sources. Furthermore, editing articles related to you is rather discouraged here, it is considered as a conflict of interest. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 24 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) 00:57, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark Atherton (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)
Unsourced BLP for which I can't find any significant coverage (see Google results) beyond this primary source. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 24 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) 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP articles must have sources. --Rockstonetalk to me! 01:07, 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 redirect to Confederated_Tribes_of_Siletz_Indians. There's not enough context in this article to even determine whether or not this person is notable so I'm redirecting this as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sam Van Pelt (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)
The subject isn't clear to identify. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 10:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As it stands it's close to a CSD:A7, because "important" isn't a good enough claim to notability. But a bit of searching does find some references which place him in context. This book suggests he was an early commentator on native American life. This account of his wife might be relevant (though it looks like it's only a local newspaper). This seems to get a mention in a few Oregon journals. All in all, that's probably not enough for notability, but I'll reserve judgment for a while in case anyone else can find anything. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Van Pelt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 24 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) 00:57, 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 delete. Tone 20:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eric P. Early (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)
Promotional article about a laywer. Only claim to fame I see is being a Super Lawyer for 2005-2009. Looking for input. mboverload@ 04:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete cv: WP is not a respository of curriculum vitae, nor is it a venue for promotion Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I agree with the above, Wikipedia is not a repository of curricula vitarum. JIP | Talk 06:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Mr. Early has been the face of headline events in recent time, and is a well-known figure in the legal field whose biography is of interest to many, many people. This page has been here for years and deserves to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colormagazine (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This is a gentleman who has helped to re-shape recent newsmaking transactions and has directly effected the lives of other extremely well known professions, also listed here in Wikipedia. There are only two references in this article, however there are FAR more references available on Eric P. Early through a simply google search. This is a leader in the legal community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.134.38 (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The above is the user's only edit to Wikipedia ever. JIP | Talk 19:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually this user has now also contributed to an article about Alex M. Early - as has Colormagazine above. I smell COI and have nominated that article for deletion as well. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete Not notable. Lustralaustral (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely non-notable lawyer. No significant references provided. He has represented a few celebrities, but notability is not inherited. "A simply Google search" as 76.175.134.38 recommended finds nothing of note. Google News finds nothing. Google Books finds nothing. The "super lawyer" designation is awarded by a commercial firm. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 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 no consensus. There are a number of reliable sources which have mentioned this person as a KKK branch leader, as the founder of The New order, as the organiser of rallies, as well as the court case. While a number of sources are local, that the person is also covered in more than one published book is enough to meet our notability guidelines. The article does, however, need sourcing. We cannot have biographies of living people which are unsourced. The article must be reliably sourced within 24 hours of the closure of this AfD or it will be deleted. SilkTork *YES! 08:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dennis McGiffen (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)
fails WP:BIO; any notability is from his arrest and conviction, thus failing WP:BLP1E Ironholds (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Southern Poverty Law Center (or Morris Dees#Innovative legal strategy). The article is poorly written, but there are a few items supporting a hint of notability. A 1994 article in Time briefly mention McGiffen as heading the Illinois chapter of the Knights of the KKK, just as his group was splitting from Thomas Robb. Another reference also refers to him as a Grand Dragon of the Illinois Knights of the KKK and he is mentioned many times in a book written by an FBI agent and an FBI informant (they refer to him as the Illinois Aryan Nations state leader). There are a few other GBooks hits. An ADL reference refer to him as a leader in the Aryan Nations. I don't claim that this is a media report on which to build a claim of notability, but it does summarize his involvement with the crime alluded to in the article. GNews hits show mostly local news reports, but there was one in the Washington Post. Location (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. With only 901 google hits, I don't think it's notable. T3h 1337 b0y 20:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've noticed that you've been recommending keep or delete on solely the basis of GHits in virtually all of your AfD recommendations. Please note that Wikipedia:BIO#Invalid criteria states: "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking), or measuring the number of photos published online ... When using a search engine to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the links." WP:GNUM and WP:GHITS may also be relevant. Location (talk) 20:42, 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, T. Canens (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Grand Dragon in the KKK, multiple stories with in-depth coverage. A major political figure in the racist fringe, meets notability.Minnowtaur (talk) 08:58, 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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sabrina naumann (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)
Not finding any significant coverage beyond one (moderate) source in German. Looks below the level we'd generally expect of a model. Hobit (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Absolutely not notable. Jared Preston (talk) 07:58, 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 keep per sourcing improvements. It's a bit early dating from when the listing was completed, but I can't see any way the overwhelming consensus could change in the next day or so. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- David A. Cherry (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) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of reliable, independent coverage. Most of the hits I found for "David Cherry" were for a history professor who writes books about Roman law, and this guy has more of a claim to notability than the comic book artist. Similarly, "David A. Cherry" mostly returns material on a prominent neurosurgeon. You'd think that, with the web's fixation on pop culture, a comic book artist would get as many or more hits than a history professor or a neurosurgeon if he was at all notable. Reyk YO! 00:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Being artist guest of honor at a Worldcon seems adequate notability, limited to at most one person per year since there have been Worldcons, making the count approximately 70. Being nominated for the Hugo Award
811 times seems also to be adequate evidence of notability, per WP:ANYBIO#1. (Sources for facts in the article would be helpful, however.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Keep, per Arthur Rubin, who I see is doing good work adding sources. Artw (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has won notable awards, proving he is notable. Dream Focus 02:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per arthur rubin. book is from donning, a small but significant specialty publisher of sf/fantasy work.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A major name in SF/fantasy book cover illustration, with adequate markers of notability in our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ANYBIO #1 is tailored to this, as Arthur Rubin pointed out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above Keepers. BOZ (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep as a winner of 8 Chesley Awards, the highest artist award for speculative fiction artists (even higher than the Hugo, IMHO). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to be a WP:HEY since no one has !voted to delete since the Hugo Award bit was sourced. Jclemens (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - per all the above; I'd close it myself as an obvious WP:SNOW, if Twinkle had that tool. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - Looking at the article as it existed when it was originally nominated for deletion makes me wonder if the nominator actually read the article as his claim of non-notability seems spurious at best. At that point, at most it should have had inline references requested. At the time, article noted that he was a Worldcon Guest of Honor, a multiple Hugo nominee, and a former president of ASFA.Shsilver (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Perhaps the nominator confused a different person of the same name? htom (talk) 21:49, 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 keep. T. Canens (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- David Ho (artist) (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)
Deleted. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N, with a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Certainly seems from the article like he may have sufficient notability, but the best coverage I found was Daily Review article, Locus Magazine online, Infinity Plus review of one of his books. --Michig (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—He was one of the winners of the 2009 MacWorld digital art gallery[1] and the 2003 International Digital Art Awards.[2] Not sure how notable those are. He is the artist who painted the cover for the Omen (album) album.[3] There appear to be plenty of other sources available to demonstrate notability.[4][5]—RJH (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Awards and Books sections appear to speak of notability, for me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Award winning artist. Artw (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per other Keepers - although it is necessary to add some citations, as this is currently an unsourced bio. BOZ (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as winner of multiple awards and recognitions. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Just another in a string of IDONTLIKEIT nominations by the same user. Hooper (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember to assume good faith. The nominator makes no such request for deletion based on not liking the article subject. freshacconci talktalk 21:36, 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 merge to Baltimore Police Department#Salvatore Rivieri. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Salvatore Rivieri (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)
I think this is a pretty clear cut case of a WP:BLP1E. While I don't in any way condone the actions of Mr. Rivieri and am certainly not interested in whitewashing these incidents, the fact is that Mr. Rivieri was only in the news briefly for a couple of (closely related) occurrences. He's a non-notable beat cop who got some bad press due to his behavior--nothing more. Per BLP1E, when "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." That seems to be the case here (I'll add that the existence of two different videos does not change the fact that this is basically a "single event," with said event being the officer's perceived unprofessional behavior and the reaction to it). Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I once thought of proposing this article for deletion for the same reason suggested by the nom. But as I looked it over, I realized that the officer has come to media attention for two similar but separate events: the one involving the teen and the one involving the artist. Also, the one involving the teen especially was nationally publicized (see WP:Depth of coverage). Several months after it occurred, the YouTube video surfaced nationally, was presented on the front page of AOL News and other sites, and was used to make a case regarding the treatment of youth by officers (a lasting effect). A civil was to follow. I had also at one time considered merging this back into Baltimore Police Department from which it was split, but I found reason enough for this officer to have his own article. Sebwite (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with and redirect to Baltimore Police Department#Salvatore Rivieri. Per WP:EVENT, the event is notable enough to deserve a place in Wikipedia, however, there is currently no need for a stand-alone article on the person. Location (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, as the nominator I'm also quite okay with this option and can help with the merge if the closing admin determines that this is where the consensus is. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:53, 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) 00:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Baltimore Police Department#Salvatore Rivieri, as per WP:BLP1E. Incident did not receive coverage on par with Rodney King or Abner Louima, which would have allowed for separate bios for the main protagonists in the incident. --PinkBull 22:25, 4 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 no consensus. With 3 people for keeping the article as Murder of Leanne Tiernan, and 6 for deletion, this is (barely) short of a consensus for deletion, especially given that the last "delete" opinion cites WP:BLP1E, which does not apply to dead people. Sandstein 05:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leanne Tiernan (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 recreation of the article Murder of Leanne Tiernan, this article fails WP:BIO and also WP:NOT unfortunately people get murdered all the time and just because the victim was a minor doesn't make it any more notable. Here is link to previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Leanne Tiernan Mo ainm~Talk 08:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I think the Nom the first time this was up for AfD was spot on "Muderered schoolkid. Hit the newspapers at the time. No evidence of notability beyond that. Not encyclopedic", that is not to say that it is a tragic case but just one of probably hundreds that took place worldwide on 26 November 2000. Codf1977 (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I think the last AFD got this right and the article should be deleted again. She is not notable and neither is her murder. There is also a copyright problem with the text of the article. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the Kidnap and Murder section are almost word for word from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2116337.stm which is used as the source. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 11:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As nice as this article is it is not a biography it would potentially work as a Murder of article or a broader Article on the murderer but this one is not notable a biography please see Murder of Amanda Dowler and Peter Sutcliffe for how it shold be done.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Murder of Leanne Tiernan (first choice) or Keep. Clearly meets WP:N and WP:BIO. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. WP:NOTNEWS is the only real reason I can see to delete, but the depth of coverage (the case study in particular) would seem enough to overcome that. I'll note that no one above has given a reason to delete other than "not notable" and as the article clearly meets WP:N (or at least a "Murder of" article does) those !votes aren't exactly policy/guideline based... Hobit (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Under the current title it is not notable as she herself was not a notable person outside of the murder case. The current article title and the subsequent content is what is being discussed. Also the above are not votes as each one give differing reasons for deletion. The root of the reasoning may though be the same policy but that is irrelevant. Move to Murder of Leanne Tiernan or better still incorporate in to the article regarding the murderer. If it is incorporated in to the articvle on the murderer all the sentimetality must be removed.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- This kind of murder gets a lot of publicity at the time, and again if the culprit might be released prematruely, but tends to be forgotten (except by the bereaved). If kept, Rename to "Murder of ...". Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rename. The case received extensive coverage over a long period - it was a high profile investigation and trial. Being cited as forensics case study by the UK Forensics service, another forensics website, and a scholarly article[6] is a sign that the coverage was not just routine. It also got covered by Jane's[7] and Crimewatch.[8] "Tends to be forgotten" is no reason for deletion as notability is not temporary, and it wasn't forgotten in Yorkshire: [9][10] I don't understand how editors believe that deleting such high profile criminal cases improves Wikipedia, as this is not trivia or tabloid fluff. Fences&Windows 20:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there was a TV documentary called "Killer in the Woods" made about the case:[11] People do get murdered all the time but that's a terrible argument for deletion: we should have an article on each and every notable case, and this is a notable case. Fences&Windows 20:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep only if renamed otherwise per F & W. This is not a biography, and probably never can be because the poor victim is not notable. The killer has a far greater claim to notability, and this probably could be turned into an article about him without much difficulty. I have no problem with a "Murder of" type article, although my experience is that they tend to develop too much along the lines of a memorial. Still, either one would be an acceptable way to refocus this content without deletion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom and WP:BLP1E. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:57, 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. T. Canens (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bishop John Wynn (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)
Borderline promotional piece for a minister without a clear assertion of notability or an independent source that has covered him. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 02:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, notability not established, Google check reveals nothing other than promotional pieces. SeaphotoTalk 04:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I tried a clear up and to find sources, but essentialy nothing notable here despite the assertations in the article at various stages of it's development. Also the account creating this clearly has a WP:COI (that in itself is not a reason to delete, but just adds to the impression this is a puff piece). Essentialy most if not all information comes from the pastor's own website which is not a WP:RS. Pedro : Chat 07:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete promotional piece on non-notable clergy Vartanza (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. The article fails to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Yes, there is a COI/promotion issue in place, but the language of the article is neutral enough that it's not a candidate for speedy deletion as spam. —C.Fred (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer: You may want to check the contributions of Wynnbio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) when this AfD is concluded to make sure there are no duplicate articles. I just deleted Bishop John Wynn (International Church Fellowship) under CSD criterion A10 as a copy of this article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: promotional, unsourced, no indication of notability, extremely POV language ("His mother has served faithfully in ministry", "Bishop John Wynn is a devoted father of eight beautiful children", etc.). -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not really seeing notability here. Indeed, while the WP:COI and WP:PEACOCK issues aren't reasons in and of themselves for a delete, it does seem to add credence that it is a promotional article. --Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 19:49, 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) 01:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Roland Nicholson, Jr. (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)
Perhaps estimable but not demonstrably notable person; sources not sufficient for BLP; blp-prod declined. PhGustaf (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The references are a mess, and this is forgivable given that this is User:Columbia Student's first article. But even if everything in the text were fully documented, this is not a notable person. PhGustaf (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 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) 00:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete His best claim to notability appears to be as drought coordinator for NYC, which could be a major position during a drought, but I couldn't find any coverage of him doing this or of the position itself Vartanza (talk) 02:42, 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. Discounting BITE keep reason, and figuring out the user actually requested it be deleted, also seeing the additional delete !vote, I'll close as Delete. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ian McCormack (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)
Neither notable nor encyclopaedic. Technopat (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. “All over YouTube” and “having a feature film made”, among other criteria, are not degrees of notability for an encyclopaedia. --Technopat (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - I have addressed these issues. Please view the changes to the page. I contend that this entry is notable. Please compare to Fred Figglehorn - what makes him "notable"? I saw him on YouTube once. How many people know Fred? There are thousands of Wikipedia articles of "Fred" notability and less. Remember the Jedi links. If there is a specific issue with the article that can be addressed, please let me know. Someone wanted a citation added (that was great!) I had missed it and I used a biased word "inspired" which I missed as well. Due to this specific issue that was raised, I added a citation and changed the language. I've added more citations, including a secular London newspaper link. Your comment was at 6:41. Please review the current changes and advise me of specific things. I really appreciate all the advice so far, but the vaguness of your comment above and in light of all the entries on Wikipedia that fall into that camp (though this entry exceeds it in droves) I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Thanks again! :—Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildrenOfLight (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Sorry Technopat, I didn't see your response on my page - must have been too busy writing this :). I'll just wait for your next response now. Thanks! ::—Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildrenOfLight (talk • contribs) 16:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing to show me this article merits a place, The fact that Fred has an article is not a reason for Ian to have one. (I usually use Bill and Ben as examples...) I'm not quite sure why Fred does, in fact. The article strikes me as promotional (non-profit maybe, but promotional nonetheless). (A non-profit prophet?) (Sorry.) I can't see widespread coverage in reliable independent sources in the references, either. I'm willing to be proved wrong, as always. Peridon (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - What are reliable, independent sources to you? Can religious figures not be included in Wikipedia simply because they haven't been interviewed on CNN or The New York Times? How are you determining what is a reliable independent source? I came to writing this article from reading Wikipedia, not from any preconceived notions I might have of what is "objective" or what is "notable" or what is "reliable". How else do we as editors of Wikipedia judge what is Wikipedic than by what Wikipedia IS?
- I've come across fascinating people of all religious backgrounds who are chronicled here - without what some people seem to think are "reliable independent sources". What about Jerald F. Dirks andRobert J. Fox? I could list many, many more What makes them notable? They are known by countless people IN their religious tradition and maybe by a few people outside.
- And yes, the fact that Fred has a page did lend itself against people who said that just because someone has YouTube videos doesn't mean they are encyclopedic. I was glad to find Fred on Wikipedia. I saw him once on YouTube and thought he was really funny (some of the times). I wanted to find out more about him and where to go to do that? Wikipedia of course! This is why I like Wikipedia. Why do you like Wikipedia?
- As to the "promotional" aspects of the article, please be specific - I will gladly edit what is truly promotional. I have already had some very good advice which I have taken to heart and made changes. If you are going to be critical of the article please leave something that is constructive for me to work with. The subject of this article is known for his story - everywhere he goes he tells his story. Since his story IS largely who he is, I have included it in some detail. I don't understand how it is promotional to do that in a situation where the person's story is the reason they are known.
- Again, I really, really appreciate specifics and constructive criticisms that can help me as the creator of this page into a better one (I'm finding it really difficult to take anything away from these vague posts to make the article better). Thank you again,
Sincerely :ChildrenOfLight (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per
WP:SINGLEEVENTWP:NRVE. Many people have been declared legally dead and lived to tell of it. Gobonobo T C 05:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Amending my last. The article does not establish the notability of its subject beyond his brush with death. The listed references do not seem to amount to significant coverage and come from questionably reliable secondary sources. Gobonobo T C 21:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I dissagree Gobonobo and have pasted appart of my answer below to Peridon: "As far as I can tell the only thing that needs to be varified in a situation such as this is that the person is really who he says he is (Ian McCormack) and that he is somebody of note with exposure. CBN, Sight Magazine, Revelation TV interview, etc verify that he isn't my next door neighbor or a ficticious person; The TV interviews, published book, Google search results on his name, YouTube presence, etc show that he is noteworthy by Wikipedia standards - probably not by Britanica :)). What else needs to be verified? The supernatural aspects of his story? No where does it say in the article that his story is true - it is simply his story that has made him popular. What needs to be varified? Again, that he isn't my nextdoor neighbor, someone I know, some fictitious person that I put up on Wikipedia. Ian's story is not on trial here. That he is who he says he is and who I've said he is, of course, is on trial and that is perfectly illustrated through my citations. All we need to know is that he isn't some fraud who has no popularity or coverage that I'm putting on Wikipedia and who you can't find if you Googled him - who's story you couldn't find if you Googled it.
- Religious articles on wikipedia that do not stray into politics don't deserve the kind of scrutiny that Pat Robertson has. He has said some very politically charged things that 3rd party, independant, secular, mainstream media has covered - is that the only way a notable Muslim, Buhdist, or Christian speaker can be accepted on Wikipedia by your standards? To say some nasty things about people so that CNN will tune in and then we all get a mainstream secular source for the article? I certainly hope not because it isn't very Wikipedian." Thanks for the ammend, and really, this should not be an exercise in editors sharpening their swords on some new guy. It seems like you guys are really going the extra mile here to make this endangered animal extinct. The article is innocent and unpolitical. Think of it as a cute little rabbit or a majestic wolf that some vicious Sarah Palins with guns are trying to blow away :)
- - Gobonobo, the WP:SINGLEEVENT nowhere suggests the deletion of such articles but rather is a discussion of whether the event be covered or the person. I believe Ian falls into this category: "In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved." I don't understand the logic you used here in calling for the deletion of this article. Wikipedia is a different breed of encyclopedia than what we grew up with and I love it for that. I cannot understand all of this persecution over an article that has many relevant sources and extensive links. The only thing people seem to be arguing over at this point is whether or not they subjectively feel it has a place at Wikipedia. I declare, what makes people think they can determine for other people what is "encyclopedic" or not? If there are 13,000 people who have viewed just one of Ian's many different interviews and videos on YouTube, not to mention the thousands upon thousands he's personally talked to since the 80's, don't you think those people would like to find a summary on Wikipedia? What on earth do you use Wikipedia for? I'm a scientist - do I use Wikipedia for scientific relevance? No, I don't because I've found it to be inaccurate and faulty on a number of occasions. If you want to apply the editor's sword somewhere do it there! That being said, all the constructive editing suggestions I've received so far have been great - it has really made it a better article and I'd be happy to receive more. But I can't understand the logic I'm seeing here on this page. Please explain to me how WP:SINGLEVENT allows for the deletion of an article. Thanks for your comment
- Sincerely ChildrenOfLight (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC) 208.38.107.242 (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you find inaccuracies, please correct them - or at least join in the talk page discussions about them. Peridon (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sightmagazine piece is not really a piece 'about' - it's mainly quote. I'm not sure about the status of the magazine, either. CBN? Easily confused with CNN or CBS, but it is the Christian Broadcasting Network - founded by Pat Robertson. Both are Christian publications, not mainstream independent journalism. I especially have doubts about anything connected with Robertson. As to WP:SINGLEVENT, I'd also point to WP:NOT#NEWS. Peridon (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tagged Dinks and Fox for their lack of good referencing. Peridon (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Peridon, first, thanks for the reply, I appreciate it. 3rd party independant sources do not have to be mainstream. Jerald F. Dirks (what, are people deleting these things now?) andRobert J. Fox as a few examples. As I understand 3rd party and Independent, the Christian Broadcasting Network is both to the subject of this article - they were not involved in his experience (3rd party) and they are in no way associated with his organization or church (independent) other than the fact that they are both share a common faith. How is this an issue in this case? Let's get to the bottom of what needs verifying here.
- As far as I can tell the only thing that needs to be varified in a situation such as this is that the person is really who he says he is (Ian McCormack) and that he is somebody of note with exposure. CBN, Sight Magazine, Revelation TV interview, etc verify that he isn't my next door neighbor or a ficticious person; The TV interviews, published book, Google search results on his name, YouTube presence, etc show that he is noteworthy by Wikipedia standards - probably not by Britanica :)). What else needs to be verified? The supernatural aspects of his story? No where does it say in the article that his story is true - it is simply his story that has made him popular. What needs to be varified? Again, that he isn't my nextdoor neighbor, someone I know, some fictitious person that I put up on Wikipedia. Ian's story is not on trial here. That he is who he says he is and who I've said he is, of course, is on trial and that is perfectly illustrated through my citations. All we need to know is that he isn't some fraud who has no popularity or coverage that I'm putting on Wikipedia and who you can't find if you Googled him - who's story you couldn't find if you Googled it.
- Religious articles on wikipedia that do not stray into politics don't deserve the kind of scrutiny that Pat Robertson has. He has said some very politically charged things that 3rd party, independant, secular, mainstream media has covered - is that the only way a notable Muslim, Buhdist, or Christian speaker can be accepted on Wikipedia by your standards? To say some nasty things about people so that CNN will tune in and then we all get a mainstream secular source for the article? I certainly hope not because it isn't very Wikipedian. Thanks again for the reply,
- I've tagged Dinks and Fox for their lack of good referencing. Peridon (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sightmagazine piece is not really a piece 'about' - it's mainly quote. I'm not sure about the status of the magazine, either. CBN? Easily confused with CNN or CBS, but it is the Christian Broadcasting Network - founded by Pat Robertson. Both are Christian publications, not mainstream independent journalism. I especially have doubts about anything connected with Robertson. As to WP:SINGLEVENT, I'd also point to WP:NOT#NEWS. Peridon (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you find inaccuracies, please correct them - or at least join in the talk page discussions about them. Peridon (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SincerelyChildrenOfLight (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think the content from the Christian sources qualifies as independent, it more closely resembles promotional material. That leaves the article as it is with insignificant coverage in a local paper, but no reports from medical sources or other significant coverage. Hekerui 23:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Hekerui,
- The Christian sources only need to varify that Ian McCormack is who he says he is and not what I'm saying he is. They don't need to varify his story. They prove he isn't my nextdoor neighbor, someone I know, some fictitious person that I put up on Wikipedia and they help establish, along with the videos, google searches, YouTube presence, etc that he is "notable" by Wikipedia standards.
- His story is not what is on trial. He says it happened just like Smith Wigglesworth "believed that God had cured him of hemorrhoids". It is his personal story that happened to him that he is sharing with the world. If I remove the part about him being certified dead by doctors, since at this point I don't have any 3rd party independent medical sources, would that satisfy you? He still claims he died and came back to life, but on Wikipedia there is no mention of doctors and certification. I feel like I might have got somewhere here - I will edit the article forthwith. Thanks for the input and please sign your post so that I can see who you are and keep up the conversation. thanks,
ChildrenOfLight (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT
Okay everybody, I deleted all references to medical certification of death and time period for death and doctors doing anything. I think it is now entirely in Ian's mind without reference to others. His story as it is doesn't need any sources other than himself (unless I've missed something) per Smith Wigglesworth "believed that God had cured him of hemorrhoids". All the other sources establish his notability and the fact that I'm not putting up my buddy or youth pastor or whatever and that this article isn't a prank. Let me know how you feel - I totally see Hekerui's point and maybe this is what you all have been saying all along. I think it reads a lot better and makes more "encyclopedic" sense. Thanks
ChildrenOfLight (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:DONTBITE. As a Christian I have voted for keeping this entry. The author is a newcomer and I see genuine sincerity in him. --GnuDoyng (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- GnuDoyng, thanks for the KEEP - and congratulations! You are the very first person to ask to keep this page. REMARKABLE! I would appreciate any input you have on the article to make it better. Thanks,
- WP:DONTBITE refers to treatment of users, not articles. "As a Christian I have voted for keeping this entry." really takes the cake. Hekerui (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Glad to meet you Hekerui, I'd appreciate it if you addressed the COMMENT and looked at the changes on my article page. I'd appreciate any other specific suggestions you have (the medical thing really helped) - if there is somewhere else in his story that we need 3rd party independent references, let me know. As to who he is, I think I have extablished that beyond a doubt through Wikipedia standards. Thanks again and I'd appreciate any input,
ChildrenOfLight (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I too can see what looks like sincerity. What I can't see is the notability. Peridon (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, Peridon, what is notable in your opinion? Explain to me why Ian McCormack isn't notable with all the references and links by Wikipedia standards. What articles do you think ARE notable? He certainly is more notable than Judith A. Ramaley. I'm writing as I read, not as I think (ie I'm judging notability by what I like to see on Wikipedia - articles about movies, YouTube people with a strong presence, characters I come across on the web with a strong presence there, obscure Jedi warrior facts :), Lord of the Rings character Bios, etc). I wouldn't use Wikipedia to write an article about the Queen of England - its not safe for that - would you? (It would be a good starting place to write an article on the Queen of England if the references and links are good).
- I'm convinced now, that what is happening here is entirely subjective at this point. People who would never even glance at anything remotely resembling a 'Near Death Experience' or never feel that arthritic spiritual/religious bone in their body are the ones arguing it isn't a notable article. How many people need to see something or know about it before it becomes "notable"? Hundreds of thousands (at least) of people in the US think CBN is noteworthy, but you obviously aren't one of them :). You know there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of examples on Wikipedia of Expanded Universe fame, whether they are comic book characters, comic book writers, illustraters, etc. How many people know about them? Are they notable to you? Maybe to you and everyone you know, but certainly not to other people. I'm okay with that - that is what makes Wikipedia different. Are you against what Wikipedia IS?
- Thanks for the comment (although it was kind of vague, and frustrating, and sabertooth, and...:)). Please be specific.
- ChildrenOfLight (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, I wouldn't use a Wikipedia article on Queen Elizabeth to write a college paper on her unless I used the links and references as a starting point for scholarly sources. Reading my post above just a few minutes ago struck me that people might think I was suggesting we delete Queen Eizabeth's page :(. Which wasn't what I meant at all. I like the Queen...and her dogs. All I'm trying to say is that you thinking Ian isn't notable is an extremely subjective determination that would flatten the majority of Wikipedia articles. Most Wikipedia articles are about people or things that you and I have never heard of before, nor are they notable (judging by your standards) Not a soul I know in the whole country knows who Judith A. Ramaley is and I can guarantee its far less than those that know Ian McCormack. So how do we "subjectively" determine notability? I think it ought to be off web presence (if the person is known well that way) or positions attained (such as Judith - even if they aren't notable for anything they did and aren't known by anyone) and I'm sure there are more, but these are pertinent to the discussion at hand. Do you see the dangerous dance this is becoming? Let's be objective here and realize that there are an awful lot of people who YOU don't know about (and OBVIOUSLY don't care to know anything about) who ARE notable to a certain large populace (in this case mostly Christians). Thanks for the post and sorry I had to add more to it :)
- ChildrenOfLight (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT
Peridon pointed out on his talk page that a professor such as Judith A. Ramaley might be covered under WP:PROF. This may be so, I'm not sure yet, but while I was reviewing this page, I discovered that there are guidlines for porn stars but not for religious leaders - that's pretty sad and shows a subjective biased in my opinion. It seems like religious figures are simply tolerated here but not encouraged whereas pornstars actually have guidelines (it is disputed only over the awards given). I understand if a religious person is political or vocally opposes other religions that we need to be really careful how we as editors deal with that just like with politicians, but Ian falls more into a "celebrity" standard than a religious or political figure. His videos and interviews seem to come more from that angle. He is not on a stage of debate like many other religious figures (aka Pat Robertson) and ALL political figures are. I certainly hope I'm not seeing things the way they are. Please help clarify this secular versus religious source issue in light of my post's peculiar situation. Thanks everybody, and remember "secular" doesn't equate to "objective". I posted Peridon and my discussion below as it is directly relevant and probably should have been done entirely here. ChildrenOfLight (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion with Peridon
- There's a lot of articles that aren't currently referenced properly, or about notable subjects. They get found eventually - mostly... (There's about 13 million articles.....) Ramaley is the president of a university - so far as I can see, she meets WP:PROF. There isn't a Queen of England at present to write about - Liz II is Queen of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There already is an article about her - Elizabeth II. This is an encyclopaedia - things here should be verifiable in reliable sources. I prefer sources that don't have a religious or political bias - or suspicion of - and definitely ones that combine the two. I also don't like trade sites that base their 'reviews' on press releases. Am I against what Wikipedia is? Would I have made 8,400 edits if I was against it? I don't like rap, but I worked to save an threatened article on a particular rapper because I could see notability there (unlike in many other rappers). I don't see it here. Peridon (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying then that you are only interested in seeing articles with secular sources? Are you saying that someone who is notable within a religion or movement but hasn't done anything stupid or outlandish or a stunt to get secular publicity isn't notable? Sounds to me like you're gearing up to remove all the religious articles that don't have secular sources. That is very dangerous and is, in other words "censorship". I am not promoting anything here, I am sharing an article on someone who has notability on Google, TV channels, YouTube, and within the Christian faith.
- I don't agree with your belief that sites that have religious bias can't be sourced as reliable in this situation - we are not dealing with anything political in this post, nor are we "verifying" Ian's belief and proving it - it can't be proved - its his personal belief. Why do we need a secular source? I am not writing an article on Pat Robertson who said some very hurtful things and earned some of your precious secular sources by hurting people and gaining notoriety. As I've said so many times it now comes easily to my tongue, Ian's story is not on trial here (it was until I removed "certified dead by doctors"), the trial is whether he is a fraud who no one knows and has no web presence, figment of my imagination, someone I personally know, or sombody that has no Web presence. Just because you've been an editor for some time doesn't mean you're objective. Please provide me with the link to your rapper - I'd like to know what you find notable and how you subjectively determined it. I'm glad to hear you don't suggest every article for deletion - I was worried there for a while :). Remember, Ian's views are not on trial - what needs varifying at this point is simply that he exists and that he is notable by Wikipedia standards. Thanks for your post and I appreciate your reply. Thanks again ChildrenOfLight (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, you don't agree about the sources. Let's leave it to the consensus. As to the rapper, that was probably a couple of thousand edits ago and I can't remember his name. Can you remember what you had for tea on 27th May 2008? I just remember it being unusual for me to get involved with it, and that I seem to remember digging out some sources (and probably doing a copy-ed as well - I just itch when I see bad text). I don't doubt Ian exists. What I'm trying to do is establish if there is notability. I am always prepared to change my mind - but by seeing evidence not by being hectored. Peridon (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I can remember, it was Earl Grey tea (the only kind I drink in spring). Remember, you gave the example, so don't get ruffled about it. I genuinly want to know how people who took the time to request my page be deleted are judging that it should be deleted and since I can't get at the bottom of it, I thought maybe if I look at stuff you've done, I can figure it out. You took the time to suggest my article be deleted - it isn't very polite to then call my requests for more details as "hectoring". I want to know what standards you use for "notability" since you have based your position on a vague concept that really comes down to subjectivity. And the "consensus" is inately biased against anyone new here, so that isn't a very constructive way of going about it either. I hope you're not upset that someone is trying to defend their article from deletion and is asking for rock solid reasons, wouldn't you? Thanks for your reply and I hope you don't consider this "hectoring" - makes me wonder who Hector was to get it named after him :) ChildrenOfLight (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually meant the meal 'tea' but no worries. Peridon (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildrenOfLight (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Actually I can remember, it was Earl Grey tea (the only kind I drink in spring). Remember, you gave the example, so don't get ruffled about it. I genuinly want to know how people who took the time to request my page be deleted are judging that it should be deleted and since I can't get at the bottom of it, I thought maybe if I look at stuff you've done, I can figure it out. You took the time to suggest my article be deleted - it isn't very polite to then call my requests for more details as "hectoring". I want to know what standards you use for "notability" since you have based your position on a vague concept that really comes down to subjectivity. And the "consensus" is inately biased against anyone new here, so that isn't a very constructive way of going about it either. I hope you're not upset that someone is trying to defend their article from deletion and is asking for rock solid reasons, wouldn't you? Thanks for your reply and I hope you don't consider this "hectoring" - makes me wonder who Hector was to get it named after him :) ChildrenOfLight (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, you don't agree about the sources. Let's leave it to the consensus. As to the rapper, that was probably a couple of thousand edits ago and I can't remember his name. Can you remember what you had for tea on 27th May 2008? I just remember it being unusual for me to get involved with it, and that I seem to remember digging out some sources (and probably doing a copy-ed as well - I just itch when I see bad text). I don't doubt Ian exists. What I'm trying to do is establish if there is notability. I am always prepared to change my mind - but by seeing evidence not by being hectored. Peridon (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot of articles that aren't currently referenced properly, or about notable subjects. They get found eventually - mostly... (There's about 13 million articles.....) Ramaley is the president of a university - so far as I can see, she meets WP:PROF. There isn't a Queen of England at present to write about - Liz II is Queen of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There already is an article about her - Elizabeth II. This is an encyclopaedia - things here should be verifiable in reliable sources. I prefer sources that don't have a religious or political bias - or suspicion of - and definitely ones that combine the two. I also don't like trade sites that base their 'reviews' on press releases. Am I against what Wikipedia is? Would I have made 8,400 edits if I was against it? I don't like rap, but I worked to save an threatened article on a particular rapper because I could see notability there (unlike in many other rappers). I don't see it here. Peridon (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Okay, I'm compromising again :). I don't feel we need any more "secular" sources than the blurb I posted from a local "secular" paper, but just for those who want to see more...I've some "secular" blurbs about Ian - basically just telling the local community who he is and where he'll be speaking.
http://www.hawkesbaytoday.co.nz/local/news/man-who-died-to-give-talk/3656811/
http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/s/36122_what_happened_when_i_died_talk
http://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/4212622.Death_survivor_to_give_talk_in_Manorbier/
It's just more verification that he exists. Should I add any of them? As far as further notability goes, I could add a ton of links to churches that have advertised his talks (but I feel that it is all secondary to what I have already posted). Thanks, ChildrenOfLight (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As of now, the article has multiple independent RS which make non-trivial mention of his story. Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a Christian, delete with respect. The independent citations are just local event notices, not interviews with or real articles about Ian McC. I suggest the article's creator should copy it to a user subpage for now. If the feature film achieves wider notability then this deletion is without prejudice to re-creating the article with better sources. WP:IRS may be helpful. (See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to understand why some comparisons to other articles don't carry weight with experienced editors.) - Fayenatic (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, Fayenatic, you are agreeing with the others that "independent" really means "secular"? I think this needs to be established in the rules then and I'm not at all a proponent of doing so. It seems to me that there is an interesting dichotomy becoming apparent through this exercise between the people who use Wikipedia and the people who "professionally" edit it - at least the one's I'm meeting here on this AFD page. I'm not at all in favor of turning the Wikipedia I know and use into an online free version of Britannica, but I've come across a lot of editors who seem to have this as their goal (I particularly like Peridon saying, in effect, that they'll "eventually get to them all" - most likely all the articles I like to read :)).
- Don't get me wrong, I think exercises like this AFD discussion are good because they test the material to see if there is something genuinely behind it (I would, however, have appreciated more discussion before it was instantly put up for AFD - felt like someone was a little trigger happy - "shoot first, ask questions later" :)) or if it is simply someone making stuff up or posting an article about a local car garage that has no notability except to a local town. I feel I have more than adequately done so for Wikipedia standards and its coming down to a subjective discussion of what is "notable" and what is "independent". By web standards alone, I'd say Ian is notable, not to mention the rest, so why are people still asking for secular sources? I suppose if he sold his story, made lots of money off it, and lobbied to get onto CNN, everyone would be happy (like a lot of the evangilists you can find here). That is really sad :(. Ian doesn't lobby to get any fame or notoriety, he comes on air because he is ASKED. With that in mind, its incredible he has notability at all! Someone point me to where "independent" = "secular". Thanks for your post Fayenatic but I disagree with your logic - please prove me wrong. Also, why is everyone posting "as a Christian" now, as if that somehow adds weight to their argument (specifically Fayenatic and Gnudoyng)? Thanks,
- ChildrenOfLight (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, Fayenatic, I think you're looking atWP:IRS and taking the most skeptical, critical, approach to applying it here. Where there is room for valid disagreement, one should take caution before proposing judgement - as Tolkien wrote (through Gandalf), "do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement." (I hope I'm not geeking anyone out here by quoting such a source :)) Perhaps you have taken great care in your decision to cast the vote - you know best :), but I think we'd all agree, that there is "the letter of the law" which can be applied rather harshly and "the spirit of the law" which is what we all would prefer to operate under, I think (I hope). Thanks again.
ChildrenOfLight (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the case of a religious speaker, a secular source would be demonstrably independent. Without that, we have to look for multiple sources that are of broadsheet quality an with coverage that is not promotional in nature. I thought there was only CBN, but having looked at SightMagazine.com it looks not bad -- but I've never heard of it before, and it has no article here yet, so I'm not sure how solid a source it is. These articles, however, are essentially autobiographical; there is no independent journalism verifying them. I remember an AFD about another evangelist where I'm sorry to say I concluded that the guy had exaggerated the parts of his story that gave him notability. I'm not doubting McCormack's integrity, but we need more solid coverage than those interviews to support an article in Wikipedia.
- "As a Christian" was to acknowledge that the majority-view participants here are interpreting sound policies objectively, not targeting Christian articles for deletion. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you're saying Fayenatic, but Ian's story (as it is written on Wikipedia) can't be verified because it all happened "once he died". His story is his personal belief and no one is saying that it is true or false.
- I disagree with "we need more solid coverage than those interviews to support an article in Wikipedia" because it often doesn't. This is a valid argument (despite your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) because we must judge what is Wikipedian by what IS Wikipedian. Should we throw out Smith Wigglesworth because there aren't any of your precious secular sources? (at least I didn't see any there) Should we scrutinize him because there aren't medical sources to the issues he said he was suffering from and then "believed he was healed from" - its just unbelievable how we're all stretching here to swing the axe. Again, I think prudence is the better part of valor and very few people seem to be thinking in a Wikipedian fashion (judging new articles by what Wikipedia IS). Thanks for the comment - the debate is fascinating :)
- ChildrenOfLight (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, what was the name of that evangelist? It would be nice to get some specifics so I can do a little of my own research here (both you and Peridon used a vague entity that you didn't name as supporting evidence) - I'm sure you can name him and I'll look him up on Google :) Thanks,
- Sincerely ChildrenOfLight (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- THE LONG GOODBYE
I have decided to remove the page Ian McCormack for the time being rather than drive the issue to a glorious last stand (epic though it might be :)). I have appreciated all the comments and discussion we have had here - looking back, this is an incredible work we've done here in so short a time. I personally maintain my article's merits, but will endeavor to meet some of the standards I feel the community has pressed rather harshly upon me. I understand I am new and the first AFD is somewhat of an initiation process to make sure young inexperienced whippersnappers know what their getting into. Though not falling into this category myself, I have learned a great deal about how to write a better article from this debate.
Sourcing
I'm a little bit concerned about the "religious" sourcing argument and people calling for "secular" sources as somehow "more reliable". People who have faith don't really think that just because someone (or an organization) doesn't have faith, somehow their investigation into "faith" is going to be objective. People who don't have faith generally do think that a secular mode of investigation is somehow "objective" AND they certainly don't think that a religious network is going to be. There is no such thing as objectivity - we may approach it at times, but I think it’s always better to state what you believe so others will know your slight bent. Fox news says it’s balanced but it really isn't - its conservative (I wouldn't trust it for objective info on Obama). CNN argues its objective but it isn't - its liberal (I never trusted it for objective news on Bush). Muslims best trust Muslim sources (on issues of their faith), Christians best trust Christian sources (about their faith), and atheists, agnostics, and the like best trust secular sources (about anybody else's faith). Just a thought. Anyways this is turning into a whole discussion in and of itself:).
Dichotomy
I feel that there is a dangerous dichotomy developing within Wikipedia (perhaps it has always been there). I have used Wikipedia since my college days in the early 2000's and I found the fount of popular (but not necessarily "notable") material fascinating and welcome. I loved finding stuff here that I'd never find in any encyclopedia (comic book characters, religious zealots, lesser known actor bios, YouTube stations, and the like). I respect those who believe it should be "more serious" but perhaps they should recognize the vast amount of users who enjoy it for what it is now (ha! maybe what it was then - who knows maybe all the stuff I used to look up has been deleted). I will refer to them as the Wikitannicans (Wikipedia +Britannica). I'm not sure why they want to exclude so much (is there a size limit to Wikipedia that I don't know about?).
The Prophecy
It would be unfortunate (for everyone) if a split occurred and we users had to go elsewhere (consider this a prophetic warning if things keep going that way - maybe you all know this and I just think I'm on to something :)).
The End of All Things...or is it?
That being said, I know that most editors started out as users and still are, of course. Maybe some of them need to return to their Wiki-childhood :). I look forward to further collaboration with you all and will attempt to do what little I can to make Wikipedia a better place (in a few years maybe I'll be a Wikitannican working on Wikitannia - who knows, maybe I'm too liberal right now:)) Thank you all for the ride - I'll fall on my own sword now :) Sincerely ChildrenOfLight (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I hope we are all on the same page regarding how to evaluate this article. The question should be whether McCormack is notable as a speaker and evangelist. What we think about his claimed death/near-death experience and vision is irrelevant to whether he should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. I did a search in the Google News Archive for articles containing the words "Ian McCormack" and either "Christian" or "jellyfish", and I only found a few. So if he has not been in the news that much, particularly for a person who is active in the present day, I tend to think he is not notable. However, particularly if the film in development about him actually gets produced and commercially released, that may change in the future. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:31, 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) 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. [12] 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 [[13]] 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) [[14]]) about the medal was added on 6 June. The afd closed on 8 June [[15]] 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 [[16]]. 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 [17], 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,[18] 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. -- 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 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[19] 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. [20] 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.