User:Erwin/Scratch1

Wikipedia's inclusion policy for articles on individuals can be found at WP:BIO.

Wikipedia's policy on writing about living people can be found at WP:BLP.

Scan for BLP AfDs

Living people[edit]

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 and merge it is then! Fram (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Earthsong[edit]

This webcomic does not appear to meet the notability criteria listed at WP:WEB. Specifically, evidence does not appear to presented within the article that "the content itself has been the subject of 'multiple' non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (emphasis mine). Whether the publishing of this webcomic by Seven Seas Entertainment qualifies it as being "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators" is unclear. Robin S (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the author's article for deletion, because she is not notable except for the webcomic:

Keep and merge per WP:N and WP:V. Merge the author's article into the publication's article. The webcomic is also a book, published by a mainstream publisher: Seven Seas is an imprint of Macmillan, acquired as part of their expansion into graphic novels as noted in Publisher's Weekly. The book has been reviewed by at least a couple independent sites. The author though is not notable other than for this book and webcomic, therefore the author's article should be merged and redirected to the book's article. For accomplishing the merge, there is very little content in the author's article, it could be placed directly into the book's article as a section, or placed on the talk page of the book's article for editors to integrate whatever of it is not duplicated info. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 15:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep and merge per above. JulesH (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep and merge per above. Hiding T 09:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 09:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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. The rationales provided are not totally robust, but the consensus here is very clear. Anthøny 03:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Ter Horst[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Pefpw9691 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep - 10 playboy covers amount to "coverage" in my opinion. Renata (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. *Very* notable according to WP:PORNBIO, has been featured multiple times in a dozen magazines. I have trouble finding online reliable sources for the appearance claims since those appearances were 10 years ago, but I see no reason to doubt it based on the google hits out there. --Amalthea^Talk 19:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Just a note though that the term "mainstream" was meant to apply to non-pornographic media. Is Playboy considered a mainstream magazine in the Netherlands? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  - It is? I hadn't realized that it might mean non-pronograhic media, but in fact I think Playboy is considered a mainstream magazine in most countries. In fact I would imagine that being featured multiple times in notable *any* media estabilshes notability right away, by WP:BIO. In any case, the bit that reads that "I was Playmate Of The Month, Playmate Of The Year and had five front covers on Dutch Playboy. They also voted me Sexiest Girl Of The Century" is only referenced via an offline source, but is in my eyes also enough to establish notability.
    Thanks for the heads-up WRT WP:PORNBIO. --Amalthea^Talk 21:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Priscila Sol[edit]

Only claim to notability is being a nominee for 2 awards, but has never actually won anything, doesn't appear to meet notability criteria, for WP:PORNBIO JoshuaD1991 (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. She does meet PORNBIO for her AVN award nominations, as it says "Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award" (emphasis added). Tabercil (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep per WP:PORNBIO. Nominations for well-known awards are good enough. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- update: Pricila Sol also won a Venus Award in 2004, another recognized award now added and cited. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep per award and nominations. Epbr123 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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 after discounting the various antics of new and anonymous contributors. Sandstein 19:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Brett Salisbury[edit]

This person is non-notable. The sporting achievements are minor, the modeling claims are questionable, and the opening claim of being a nutritionist is unsubstantiated other than by an, as yet, unpublished book (also subject to an AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Transform_diet). Poltair (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Thank you, Poltair, for regularising this additional nomination. This person is not notable, the sources aren't reliable, his achievements aren't important, and I don't much care how long his commute is. It all just reads like advertising puffery for his book. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

- - Do NOT Delete The harlon Hill finalist is bigger than any all-american list. There are college athletes that have this title and only this title with wikipeida articles.This list alone qualifies him as the ELITE. Again, the sourced article here will tell you where and how long he played pro football. Male Super Model: ***Comment The harlon Hill finalist alone qualifies him:

1. Harlon Hill Finalist: http://www.harlonhill.com/Archives/candidates_by_team.htm 2. Hall of Fame Collegiate Player: http://www.wsc.edu/athletics/football/archives/passing/ 3. All-American Quarterback, Pro-Football Player with Helsinki Giants, and Prague Panthers: http://www.palomar.edu/athletics/football/history/ 4. IMDB Actor for Promise me this: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2086154/ 5. Filands sexiest male and male super model: http://www.paparazzi.fi/ 6. Google Brett Salisbury at the news tab, go to all dates on left...the articles are endless on this guy! TheWizard49 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment As previously discussed at the Transform Diet nomination: 1) Being a finalist for a comparatively minor college football trophy is not notable. 2) Whose Hall of Fame? If it's just one college, that's not notable. 3) Whose all-American listing? Is that notable? 4) The IMDB entry shows that this film is the only one by its production company, that the director also wrote the screenplay, and that virtually none of the actors even have a photograph online. It looks like a non-notable production. 5) I'm not convinced that's a notable achievement or a reliable source. 6) Oh yeah? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Addendum OK, so I forgot to click 'all dates' in Google. This stuff just appears to be local press coverage of his college career, though. 'Brett Salisbury gets passing grade'? Spare me, please. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My final comment on this matter: Many articles are written in finnish and Czech, You need to verify that. Every tab on the bottom (Mormon Missionaries, Wayne State College, Brigham Young Cougars, Nutritionists etc) qualify him as he was a member of each. This cannot be denied. Whether it's big or small in your eyes, the articles written ALL verify this. Again the All-American list of JC Gridwire is an elite group. The male model articles are again in italian and Finnish. Find a way to translate those and go from there. Take care. I'm done with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't speak a word of Finnish, and my Italian is rusty at best. Simplly having his article listed in a series of Wikipedia categories is neither a claim to verifiability, nor notability. Not every Mormon missionary is notable. He's only regarded as a nutritionist (as noted in the nomination) because of his unpublished book. I belong to a couple of dozen Wikipedia categories, but none of that makes me notable. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No offense Mr.Brit but you havn't quite got the resume as Mr. Salisbury! Don't over due it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you can dispute the claim or attack the credibility of Brett Salisbury. However, the book the tranform diet needs to be removed. I agree. It's not on shelves. However everything he has done and has been verified is noteworthy. I see he has been on the list for 3 years. The transform diet was recent. Vote to remove transform diet, but leave Brett Salisbury —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Note to closing admin additional deletion discussion regarding this article can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Transform_diet (relocated from the main deletion discussion as being off-topic). -Verdatum (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete I did a fairly signifigant cleanup of the article for WP:BLP. I cannot see establishment of notability either as a sports star or as an author, as per WP:BIO. All I see are runner-up standings and minor awards. -Verdatum (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Concerned about the lack of references for his sporting and modeling achievements - many of them do not link to anything relevant (and the readers poll for a local newspaper is not an appropriate reference). Also concerned about the EFAF Cup. I'm not American, or otherwise have much knowledge of American Football, but Wikipedia says EFAF is only the "... second highest level of club competition ...". This seems way down the ladder of notability: America -> Europe -> Europe 2nd league. This guy has obviously done a lot of things in his life, I'm just not sure how notable (aka Wikipedia notability) they are individually. An article should be able to explain to someone like me (i.e. someone with little knowledge of football, which is his main claim to fame) why the guy is notable (and I should be able to verify the claims). At the moment, it does not do this. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Verdatum. Stifle (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per AlexTiefling. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of football also-rans in the U.S. If this person was notable as major contributors to the article claim, there would be sources to back it up. Movingboxes (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting News On Salisbury: According to International Football Scouting Report online by Professional Scout Ken Robinson, he says "Here are the TOP 10 Paid Players of All Time in Europe: #1 Estrus Crayton #2 Xavier Crawford #3 Tony Rice #4 Brett Salisbury #5 Tom Young #6 Ron Lopez #7 Petrus Pankki #8 Sammi Alalammpi #9 Damon Huard #10 Jeff Loot

Please go to: http://www.leaguelineup.com/guestbook.asp?url=ifs-scouting&sid=859417480 Of this list Tony Rice was Heisman Trophy finalist in college, Sammi Alalammpi played for the NFL Europe Barcelona Dragons and was Salisbury's receiver. The article also says Salisbury was First Team all-Europe in 1995 Quarterback and player of the year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

- That link just leads to a forum post from a guy called 'ken', who doesn't sign his posts, and whose email address proclaims that he's a '24/7 sports fan'. No evidence to suggest that the poster is a professional scout; and even if he were, a forum post is not a reliable source. Frankly, American football in Europe is hardly a notable sport at all! AlexTiefling (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The NFL Europe was hardly a notable sport in Europe? Wrong! 7 players per team in Europe each played in the NFL of America. What are you talking about AlexTiefling? The EFAF is an affiliate of that league. YOu need to get your facts straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.244.15 (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not true Alextiefling, Ken Robinson is the IFSB Pro Player Personnel director and is a scout for the CFL Ottawa Renegades. And continues to scout for Pro and other colleges. Again, you don't follow through with all your facts Alex. Go to this page, He is the second person listed with all Ken Robinson's creditals: http://www.indoorfootballscoutingbureau.20m.com/custom.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.244.15 (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting note on Salisbury: he dated the countries most famous beauty queen, Miss Finland of 1991, Tanja Vienonen, who is now known as Tanja Karpela. Who now seems to be a very prominant politican in Finland. They claim she was our equivalent of Cindy Crawford. Every finnish report confirms this as does the magazine (Seitseman Paiva) http://www.seiska.fi/ In my opinion any guy who would date Cindy Crawford of their country is definately notable. Salisbury Confirms this on his site transformdiet.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- You have no source for that. Ms Karpela appears to have been married twice, and to have a fairly well-documented and public love-life. Can you find any coverage at all in a reliable news source or other independent location - preferably in English, French or Swedish, so I can read it? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally after dating Tanja Karpela. Salisbury was named as Finlands Sexiest Male according to www.seiska.fi/ To put this in perspective. George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp are Americas sexiest males previous winners. Salisbury was the entire country of Finland's in 1996...That is pretty damn notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously - America is not comparable to Finland. To be acclaimed the sexiest man in Finland is not the same magnitude of recognition as to be acclaimed the sexiest man in the USA. (Likewise for 'Tanja Karpela is Finland's Cindy Crawford'.) There are more than twice as many people in Salisbury's home state of Ohio as in the whole of Finland. And the opinion of some website as to who (this week, or month, or whatever) is the Sexiest $Gender in $Location is not in itself notable or reliable. Such sources change their minds at a whim; it's pure promotional puffery. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of AlexTiefling's opinion, he continues to use "promotional puffery" statement. ALEXTIEFLING IS NOT FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and his opinion continues to bash Americans. He cannot be taken seriously. No body on here can deny the success of salisbury regardless of what country he or she is from or AlexTiefling's future opinions on this subject. He has never had a positive thing to say, check out each of his wiki debates. His opinion holds little value and water and in his latest opinion above only proves the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.244.77 (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please avoid Arguments to the person (ad hominum arguments). The editor's history and personal details do not appear to relate to the arguments he has made against this article. Thanks. -Verdatum (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
KEEP Salisbury, I agree with the user above. I'm not someone who comments on people but after reading this entire log and looking at the person, Brett Salisbury is a notable person. I would also nominate user ALEXTIEFLING to be removed as an editor from this page. He seems that no matter what is proven, it's not good enough. NOMINATE TO REMOVE ALEXTIEFLING FROM THIS WIKI DISCUSSION —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've travelled extensively in the United States, and no-one who knows me would call me anti-American. But that's not the point. This isn't (or shouldn't be) about my personal attributes. I'm using the expression 'advertising puffery' and its derivatives because I believe it to be a factually accurate characterisation of the claims being made. I don't think that this individual meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, and I don't think your sources are reliable. You can't nominate me for removal from this discussion; if you really think I should be banned from Wikipedia, go right ahead and report me on the Administrators' Noticeboard. I think you might find that course of action counter-productive, though. My argument here remains consistent: Brett Salisbury is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, and here's why:

He didn't win the award he was nominated for. The award is notable, but failing to win it isn't.
I can't find any confirmation that his 'All-American' status was promoted or endorsed above a regional or even college-specific level - which would seem to be a basic point for its acceptance. In any case, it's argued above by a 'keep' supporter that this is less notable than nomination for the Harlon Hill prize, which as I've argued, isn't itself a notable achievement.
His status as 'Finland's sexiest man' is neither verified, nor reliable, nor objective.
His relationship with Ms Karpela is not substantiated.
Second-division American football in Europe is not a notable sporting activity, at least in my opinion; if my expertise on the US is doubted, at least let me comment on Europe.
His book on dietetics is unpublished, and thus ipso facto not (yet) notable. It may very well remain so after publication.
This debate (and the related one on the diet he promotes) has been characterised by ad hominem attacks, apparent conflicts of interest, overstated hype, and the appearance of sockpuppetry.

AlexTiefling (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep Brett Salisbury, everything is substantiated. I went on to look up Salisbury and since he was a kid winning in the world series until now. I also went on the sites above and was able to google salisbury in the finnish magazine seistamen paiva. There are clearly over 40 articles and sub articles obtainting to this including his relationship with MS. Karpela as she is quoted as saying 'Brett was a great guy and I wish him all the best" Source: www.seiska.fi/

I too nominate to Remove ALEXTIEFLING from Wikipedia. He is a pest and does not help the wikipedia community. Salisbury has done more than half the male models listed in wikipedia. Go verify that. I just did —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

- Er, how did you verify that?AlexTiefling (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I remind User:168.12.253.66 not to indulge in name-calling? AlexTiefling seems to be being civil in their arguments; there's no call to go making these sort of comments. Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The argument is not about Salisbury being an Author, ALEXTIEFLING needs to remove that argument. This is about Salisbury being notable. HE IS. It also states in the articles in Europe Salisbury made over $125K per year. THATS NOTABLE AS A PROFESSIONAL ATHLETE. If you can't read finnish, you can't comment on what has been said ALEXTIEFLING, go get a translator!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if an independent Finnish-speaker is willing to give up some time to this matter, I'd love to hear what these Finnish sites say. However, a search of seiska.fi for the name 'Salisbury' produced no hits. '0', at least, is the same in English and in Finnish. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I just searched Google for '"Brett Salisbury" Tanja'; I got seven hits. All the relevant ones are Wikipedia and its mirrors. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete - I don't think that notability has really been established. Also, the article is rife with weasel words (though this in itself is an argument for cleanup rather than deletion) Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

KEEP - It looks like it does need a clean up. However Salisbury is notable. ALEXTIEFLING doesn't seem credible. Remove him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.238.173.38 (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- What process for removing me were you intending to apply? AlexTiefling (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment 68.223.102.70 says I'm a big contributor to the Salisbury Family and I'm a close personal and business friend. This looks like a bit of a COI. Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes but that user has not contributed to the past 5 entries! Remove ALEXTIEFLING. Keep Salisbury and his brother they both are celebrities

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.157.110.11 (talk)

- Has anyone proposed removing Sean Salisbury? As a TV presenter and NFL player, he's clearly notable; I would defend the retention of his article if the question were raised. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You will observe the absence of the page Alex Tiefling (also of ALEXTIEFLING). What do you mean "the past 5 entries"? Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, while I'm at it, should one draw any conclusions from the phenomenon that all the anonymous editors are afflicted with the same curious idiosyncrasy of spelling "ALEXTIEFLING" in upper-case? Pseudomonas_(talk) 19:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

KEEP -I watched Salisbury play against the London Monarchs in the early 90's in England. He was fabulous and MVP of the game. Keep Salisbury, he is more than notable. Remove the hatr ALEXTIEFLING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.157.110.11 (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Is MVP in a single match a claim of notability? Is it a transferable standard? Or is it just more unsourced opinion? Again, what procedure should be followed to remove me? And what is a 'hatr'? AlexTiefling (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

teh hatr. HTH Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

- The sudden onslaught of anonymous IP's voting both to keep and remove "ALEXTIEFLING" always spelled in all caps (removing an editor is not even something that can be done here) and always neglecting to sign their comments strongly suggests either Sockpuppetry or Meatpuppetry. I hope that any all all involved realize that this is a discussion to gauge concensus, not a vote, and that closing administrators are clever enough to notice these sort of patterns and dismiss them when forming conclusions. Those wishing the article be kept would do better to spend their time improving the article or improving their arguments to match policies and guidelines than to spend time attempting an attack on dissenting editors. -Verdatum (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to relax. He is defintely notable. Take into consideration most of the attributes salisbury had were pre-internet days. Therefore many things in English are tough to get, especially if the guy fell out of the spotlight after (it looks) like 1997. Knowing this, one cannot say he is not notable, simply that he HASN'T BEEN notable since 97. But that he did EARN everything up to that point. Call him a one or two hit wonder, but he still made the news in more than one way. For that reason and after everything I have read. KEEP him, but remove Transform Diet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.244.77 (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.wsc.edu/athletics/hall_of_fame/bios/football93.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.244.15 (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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 both. Sandstein 19:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Pierre Picault[edit]

Entirely speculative article on an individual who may or may not be a World War I veteran. Sole available sources are a blog entry that cites Wikipedia and Robert Young's World's Oldest People group, which is not only not an acceptable source for Wikipedia, but even itself admits that there is no media coverage of the individual. This person may indeed be one of France's last surviving World War I veterans but, until he gets coverage in third-party, independent, published reliable sources, this is original research. Cheers, CP 20:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:BIO at the moment, per nomination. Even if he is officially one of the last WWI survivors and gets news coverage he might still fail due to WP:ONEEVENT. --Amalthea^Talk 11:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Since Fernand Goux asserts notability in the same way, I extend this nomination by this article. He was mentioned in [1], which is far less than significant coverage. --Amalthea^Talk 11:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Paul, if you want to talk about verifibility, fine, but don't speculate about whether it's a true case or not, since the mantra is "verifibility not truth", and anyway, it's obviously true and not 'entirely' speculative. Amalthea, there are other sources about Fernand Goux. You've had months to add some, but much better to delete someone else's contributions, eh? All the veterans are notable for 1 event so why don't you nominate all of them? It was quite a big event though, you know? 78.145.35.67 (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
- Comment For Goux, the burden of citations and verifiability ALWAYS lies on the individual who added the material, so please do not be uncivil to another editor as you were above. I noticed that you !voted Keep. On what criteria do you base that on? Cheers, CP 19:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment As I said, I base it on it being perfectly verifiable, but presumably the burden you mention is why so many people prefer to destruct rather than construct. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
- None of the veterans are notable alone by having fought in WWI, according to the notability criteria. The "one event" I was referring to was them being among the last living WWI veterans, which I am convinced is by itself also not enough to establish notability - WP:ONEVENT. Keeping lists (Surviving veterans of World War I, Last surviving World War I veteran by country) is not covered by this of course.
  That being said, I do expect that a great number of those "last survining veterans" will be otherwise notable due to "significant coverage in reliable sources" - see Frank Buckles and Erich Kästner. I do not see it at the moment with the initially nominated article, and I do not see it with Fernand Goux. All I can find are unreliable sources (blogs, ...) and/or trivial coverage.
  In particular, Bart Versieck aka Extremly Sexy being "told by Laurent Toussaint" does not comply with WP:V I'm afraid, and I still highly doubt that the fact makes him notable in the first place.
  I have no prejudice against recreating these articles once they pass the criteria of course, but at the moment I'm convinced that they don't.
  --Amalthea^Talk 13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Apart from Wikipedia entries, Robert Young's group, and the blog that has been cited in the article, I have not been able to find any source that mentions Picault. A blog is not a reliable source, especially considering it cites its reference to Picault to a Wikipedia article. Considering the flaw with Robert Young's record of this person, as noted by CP, and the fact that the relevant Wikipedia entries do not provide appropriate sources to back up their mention of him, I suspect that the article on Picault could be a hoax. I could be wrong, but the evidence does suggest this. Re-iterating what CP said, 78.145.35.67, you were acting in an uncivil manner towards Amalthea when you said "Amalthea, there are other sources about Fernand Goux. You've had months to add some, but much better to delete someone else's contributions, eh?". That type of behaviour will not do. Plus, .67, you said the "it's obviously true". How is it obviously true? Also, I would like to address "but don't speculate about whether it's a true case or not, since the mantra is "verifibility not truth"." That mantra is true, and the fact that we can't verify that this person exists is the reason why I believe this article should be deleted. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Firstly, I know the mantra is the rules, that's why I repeated it, and I know that's why you want to delete the article. The point which you haven't understood is that if you say "I only care about the rules" and there is nothing in the rules about truth, then why would you discuss whether it is true or a 'hoax'? Because you're trying to have it both ways. And in doing so, you're implying that another editor is a liar (which is more uncivil than my sarcasm). Because Bart Versieck has said that he was told by Laurent Toussaint that this is a true case. And since Mr Toussaint is one of the leading experts I said it was obviously true. But you don't know any of this because you haven't taken a few minutes to look into it. You've just jumped to conclusions like every other Jonny come lately out of the woodwork and insulted other people's efforts and intelligence. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
Comment Captain celery, a hoax is not allowed under Wikipedia guidelines. Accusing an article of being a hoax can be seen as an uncivil act if there is no evidence to back up that assertion. In this case, the lack of any reliable information regarding the existence of Picault does give some ground, imo, to the idea that the article is a hoax. If I have offended anyone with my suggestion that this article might be a hoax, I would like to apologise for that. I do not wish to start an argument, but I feel I must address the following; I am not happy that I have been accused of having "jumped to conclusions". I have conducted an expected level of research into this case, imo. I am aware of what Laurent Toussaint told Bart Versieck, since I found out about them when I was looking at the talk page of Surviving veterans of World War I, and from the comment I have recently made on the talk page, you can see that I did look at that article before you mentioned these two people. Toussaint may be right about Picault, but until his information is backed up by accessible and reliable sources, the Wikipedia community can't simply take his word, as stated by Wikipedia guidelines. This is not because I believe he is a liar, but because his information needs to be verified, as the mantra you have put forth states.JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I accept that you researched it, and that if you had known who Laurent Toussaint and Bart Versieck are, then you would have come to a different conclusion. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
Comment I do not mean to sound rude, but it is the verifiability of Laurent Toussaint and Bart Versieck's opinion that counts, as opposed to knowing "who Laurent Toussaint and Bart Versieck are". JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom and JEdgarFreeman. If some reliable source/s can be found the article can be easily recovered. For the moment both fail WP:RS and WP:V. Moondyne 02:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sideline text collapsed

Collapsing material not directly to articles nominated for deletion. Cheers, CP 05:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Here's my problem with you folks. Last night someone evidently went on the main article and changed Fernand Goux's name to 'Barthezz' and it took 45 minutes before one of the regulars reverted it. Where were you then? But if I make a change, it's reverted within seconds. So much for being guardians of the rules. Delete Picault's article. Fine. But why delete Goux's when there's a perfectly reasonable source? Only because he's a newly discovered French veteran. What rule is that, the law of the bandwagon? It's so hypocritical. One of the other articles has the same level of citation. You won't delete that, either because it's been on so long, or just because you don't know about it. That's because you know nothing about this article. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
- Comment Some edits on Wikipedia are responded to more quickly than others. I believe this is not generally due to prejudice, but because it can take time for an editor to notice an edit that needs to be addressed. I happened to check the article in question soon after you had made the edit I proceeded to reverse. The fact that I reverted your change, 78.145.35.67, within "seconds", was a coincidence as a result. You may not believe me, but it is the truth. The source cited in Goux's article is reliable, imo, but I believe its coverage of him is trivial. According to WP:Notability (people), "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". What I have quoted is a guideline, but I believe trivial coverage in one reliable source is not enough to establish notability for Goux. 78.145.35.67, you said "One of the other articles has the same level of citation". Please could you tell me which article that is? I ask because I would like to investigate it, to see if it deserves to be on Wikipedia. You also said "or just because you don't know about it. That's because you know nothing about this article." I do not see how my knowledge of the article on Goux has anything to do with my knowledge of another article. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Celery, I'm going to warn you again not to be uncivil. It's not tolerated here and, frankly, it's not helping your argument any. If there is another article with the same level of citation, then you should point it out. I will note that I have successfully nominated several poorly-cited veteran articles and also plan to nominate Battista Serioli for a second time in due course. Cheers, CP 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment I think it's obvious to anyone that my last comment wasn't the slightest bit uncivil. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
Comment I found it uncivil that you suggested that I "know nothing about this article". I advise you to follow what CP and I have said about being civil. Being uncivil in Wikipedia will not help your cause, and if you are uncivil in the future, you will find yourself in trouble. I hope that you will be civil at all times from now on, and I hope that you will be a valuable Wikipedian into the future. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You implied that we were either incompetent or biased against you ("So much for being guardians of the rules") depending on how one takes that statement, called us hypocrites (actions being "so hypocritical") and told us that we "know nothing about this article". That's a far cry from commenting on the contributions, not the contributors. I think that all three of us have said enough about our opinions on whether or not this page should stay and this long sideline is becoming somewhat irrelevant and disruptive to the deletion debate. Let's take a break from this page, cool down, and let others comment on this deletion. I am going to collapse the part of this discussion that begins after Moondyne's !vote to delete, in hopes that it will end; it is not appropriate on this page.Cheers, CP 05:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep. There should have been a separate AFD for it, since unlike the Picault case there is some verifiable information. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that the article on Goux does contain information that can be cited to a reliable source (specifically, the website that is cited on the article). However, I believe the cited website's coverage of him is trivial. According to WP:Notability (people), "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". What I have quoted is a guideline, but I believe trivial coverage in one reliable source is not enough to establish notability for Goux. If more reliable sources can be shown that mention Goux, I will consider advising that the article on Goux is kept. Until that time, I believe Goux's article should be deleted because WP:N has not been met, imo.JEdgarFreeman (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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 AKB48. Kevin (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Tomomi Itano[edit]

I doubt simply being a member of a theater troupe is sufficient to establish notability; indeed, there is no significant assertion of notability in the article and it reads more like a fanboy scorecard than an encyclopedia article. — Coren ^(talk) 23:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Actually, it's more of a idol/singer group than a "theater troupe". I just had no time in adding more information to the article by far.. she has appeared, having important roles in dramas and films, commercials and radio programs, in which you may search while I get some time in few hours to add, or simply view the article on ja. What's needed to be notable than having important roles in filmography? (I'll re-edit the "Topics" section if that's what you meant by "reading a fanboy scorecard") --staka (T ・C) 00:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You might want to check WP:BIO, or WP:BAND which might apply more for notability guidelines. And yes, the "topics" section is what I meant. All that's missing is "Turn on: walks on the beach" for otaku perfection. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 01:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay so I added more filmography and removed topics section. I've checked WP:BIO and it does meet the "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions" criteria. And with WP:BAND, the group has been a topic multiple times in the Japanese media, and has been placed on a major music competition, or rather an major annual music event on television in 2007 (Kōhaku Uta Gassen). She is notable. --staka (T ・C) 03:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to AKB48. As far as I can tell [2] [3] the topic did not have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances". I think one can apply WP:BAND "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band" here. I can't find significant coverage anywhere to make her notable by WP:BIO, but of course I can't speak Japanese.
I might be wrong though: ja:板野友美 has a section on her TV appearances. I can't judge if those are significant appearances in notable TV performances though. --Amalthea^Talk 11:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect per Amalthea. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Staka. --Bolonium (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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 & salt. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Piotr Blass[edit]

Still doesn't seem to meet notability guideliens. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non notable failing candidate. He might be notable some day, but not now. Fails WP:N. Undeath (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Also, this should be the fourth nomination, not the second. Also,this was deleted in the first and second AfD. Undeath (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete and salt or leave as stub. In the past this has been a problematic article, the subject has edited the article himself adding lots of positive spin, there is also quite a lot of negative press about him (see deletion log). There are sources aplenty see for example [4]. Mathematically he is borderline notable for his work on Zariski surface, being editor and translator of influential Elements of Algebraic Geometry Five by Alexander Grothendieck, an being involved with an early online mathematics journal Ulam Quarterly. Balancing the negative press and the subjects account would be a tricky task and the only stable state for the article seems to be a stub. --Salix alba (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete and salt history is quite clear here. --Buridan (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Neutral for the moment. I am not sure about his notability as a politician (the older version [5] does cite quite a few sources) but academic notability under WP:PROF is passable but weak. It is true that he was the editor-in-chief of Ulam Quaterly, which may indeed have been the first online math journal. However, the journal's existence was fairly brief (1992-96) and it never really managed to get off the ground. Notability from editing Grothendieck's notes is derivative. In terms of his own work, MathSciNet shows 33 papers (the last one in 1996), none are widely cited. WebOfScience shows top citation hits in single digits for his papers. Similarly, little in terms of citability in GoogleScholar[6]. However, his book with Jeffrey Lang on Zariski surfaces is widely held in academic libraries per WorldCat[7]. Still, for a mathematician, I would want to see some more direct evidence in terms of citability. If judged purely as an academic under WP:PROF, I would probably have !voted "weak keep". I am not sure about the political activities and the past problems with this article on WP. Nsk92 (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
question I remember this article from previous AfDs (this is it's fourth). The DR decision to unsalt was based on "Significant new information has come to light since the deletion." but reading this new bio, I see no new information, no claim to notability even (failed candidates for local office fail WP:POLITICIAN, and a weak claim to pass WP:PROF). Does anyone know what this "new information" was? Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it was [8] which was a complete rewrite differening markedly from the deleted version [9] (I've just restored this for comparison). --Salix alba (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC).

Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete The article fails to demonstrate that the subject is notable in any way. Fails WP:BIO, fails WP:PROF, fails WP:POLITICIAN, fails. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
delete I think his political activities fail WP:POLITICIAN (local gadfly of WP:NOT#NEWS variety, no eternal historical impact), and fails WP:PROF (main claim to notability as I see it is via book co-authored Jeffrey Lang, and the most common blurb I see for the book mentions it containing Lang's dissertation work). Given the long history of this article, and the failure of it to show a consistent trend towards accumulating stronger claims to notability, I suggest a re-salting is appropriate. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete and salt as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The version linked to by Salix Alba contains one possibly notable claim: an on-line mathematics magazine (unnamed) from 1987, and a write-in campaign for governor of Florida in a race for which our article lists 147 total write-ins. I don't think that's enough. Weak delete. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Hamilton (academic)[edit]

A non-notable Senior Lecturer in photography. Would appear to both fail WP:PROF as an academic and WP:CREATIVE as a photographer. nancy ^talk 07:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete I moved this page from Hugh Hamilton (photographer) as this person was an academic, not a photographer. Article fails both WP:PROF as an academic and WP:CREATIVE as a photographer. Jenafalt (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above. --NZQRC (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Keeper ǀ 76 20:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Kiyoshi Kawakubo[edit]

Unnotable voice actor that fails WP:BIO. Almost all roles listed are minor roles, and no sources are given to back up any of these claims, just ELs. The whole thing may just be a copy of the JA article which is also completely unsourced. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep I am still working on it.Kitty53 (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you were still working on it, why did you move it from user space to article space? In doing so, you were making a claim that it was ready to be launched and notability was established. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I made a mistake! Okay?!Kitty53 (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I change my vote to Redirect to 81 Produce, then.Kitty53 (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I don't think it fails WP:BIO since it meets the first criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER.--Nohansen (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I guess that counts.Kitty53 (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Are any of his roles actual notable and do the series those roles qualify as "notable"? And, again, where are the sources to back up all the roles listed? Between ANN and the 81 profile, only part of the roles are covered. The rest have no sources at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I pretty much think so. You're making me want to change my vote back to Redirect to 81 Produce.Kitty53 (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I change my vote back to keep.Kitty53 (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment There are some parts in the JA article that I try to translate, but it always comes out mistranslated, so if I added it as it came out, it would be all wrong.Kitty53 (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep What, we're deleting totally random articles on real people now? I say keep this since its deletion wouldn't actually contribute anything to the project's credibility, weight issues, manual of style or any of that. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Um, we delete articles on real people all the time. Not every person in the world is notable for inclusion, and we aren't here to be a replica of IMDB, ANN, or any other voice actor directory listin, which is all this is or is likely to ever be. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep His voice credits are notable. Asher196 (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete, given the current state of the article, there is nothing which denotes sufficient notability for retention Annette46 (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete non-notable per WP:N and WP:RS. ukexpat (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I change my vote back to Redirect to 81 Produce. I feel like I have no choice.Kitty53 (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And thus another potential fine new editor is railroaded by deletionists. Wikipedia will be MUCH better now, I'm sure. Take heart, Kitty53. SOME of us appreciate your dilegence and work. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Voiced one of the main characters (Marco's father) in 3000 Leagues in Search of Mother and one of the two antagonists in Bubblegum Crisis. He is also the voice of Grospoliner.--Nohansen (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are no sources discussing these folks (relating to all the voice actor AfDs at the moment), they shouldn't have articles. It doesn't matter whether (we) anime fans think they are notable or important because of the roles they have played in some series, few of which are even considered that relevant/notable in the English speaking world because outside of Japan, anime is still a niche market. In reality, most don't even get that much coverage in Japan because voice actors are like TV actors in bit roles, with only a few exceptional ones out there who achieve claim and fame enough to be widely covered in various sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BIO is not limited to "the English speaking world". These actors are either notable or they aren't. And, as far as the first criteria for an WP:ENTERTAINER is concerned, they are because the roles they've played are significant.--Nohansen (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep While several listed roles are minor, he has had major roles in major series as mentioned by Nohansen. Edward321 (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep The same as Edward321. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Nohansen. I note that WP:ENTERTAINER #1 doesn't require that the roles be covered, only that they be significant within the production and that the production be notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment These AfD's seem to be related as by the same nom about similar actors and created by the same editor - I linked to them at the top for other editor's ease but nom has now deleted them twice so am adding here: Banjeboi 03:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Rhys Griffiths[edit]

Previously deleted by PROD. Footballer fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully professional league/competition. --Jimbo^[online] 12:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete unless the Welsh Premier thing is high enough according to the "experts" it's just another speculative article which fails our policies/guidelines for notability and verifiability (both of which are required for inclusion). Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep — The individual in question clearly exists; nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
~~Speedy~~ Delete per Kurt and nom. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment/Question The article states that the subject plays for Llanelli A.F.C. which is a club in the Welsh Premier League. Is the Welsh Premier League not a fully professional league? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- No, I think it's a semi-pro league. As far as I'm aware, the only professional clubs in Wales are Cardiff City, Swansea City and Wrexham, all of whom play in the English league system. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 14:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom. "The individual in question clearly exists; nothing else matters. Kurt Weber" That has to be one of the most senseless things I have ever heard. Based on that there would be 6 Billion biographies on Wikipedia. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  - And there's no source for most of those 6 billion (actually more like 106 billion) articles. Over 99 percent of them would have no information on the person at all. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep as the Welsh Premier League seems to be at the highest level of amateur football. See the article on it. Kurt, your voting "Keep. The individual in question clearly exists; nothing else matters." on every AfD on a person is rather disruptive, and the closing admins probably ignore it. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Stan burdman[edit]

Article was deleted as A7 but DRV overturned holding that nobility was asserted. However, notability is not demonstrated, and no independent reliable sources are present so deletion is still appropriate unless they can be found. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless reliable sources can be located and incorporated into the article. I supported overturning the speedy delete when the question went to DRV because process is important, but this is a BLP and no reliable sources are presented in the article at present. DickClarkMises (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete, guy with a webpage, a podcast, and some videos on YouTube. No assertion of notability, was a perfectly valid A7 speedy in my opinion. --Stormie (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:V Annette46 (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Meets WP:V, but not WP:N. I can't find anything that makes me think he's notable. Hobit (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete zero Google news hits on "Stan Burdman". Fails WP:BIO and WP:V--Rtphokie (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Geogre's law. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not notable, and barely verifiable. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete, clear failure of WP:N and more specifically WP:BIO due to lack of reliable sources. The complete lack of reliable-source coverage as far as I can see renders this apparently unsourceable. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete with a clear forecast of snow, as I suspected all along. (Thanks, Stormie, DickCM, and others on both sides of the DRV.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Wizardman 05:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Justin Curzi[edit]

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. Sandstein 17:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Amaryllis Knight[edit]

Procedural listing for User:Fatbat who made a malformed listing with an edit summary of "Amaryllis Knight in no way a TV personality, nor did she "co-star" with Jack Osbourne in the Mongol Rally - she appeared on screen for no more than 5 minutes". No opinion here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Plenty of references in the article, inline citations. Seams notable to me. Callelinea (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete despite the references/inline citations in the article. The references are either trivial, primary source, and/or unreliable. I say weak because I did find one item in the LA Times which deal somewhat more with her than with the motorcycles but, I don't think that with or without the stuff in the article means she meets the threshold for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep Meets WP:BIO Notability established through mentions in multiple reliable independent sources. I note that users have deleted things in her page such as Norman Foster being her step father. Her mother and Step-father divorcing does not change the nature of her relationship with him. Galliano7 | talk 21:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep Meets WP:BIO I created this article as Amaryllis Knight is of interest to countless people. Her notability is documented in multiple third-party sources, including the The Financial Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle. She is the owner and co-builder (as per these articles and others) of what has been awarded the "best custom motorcycle company, 2008" by Esquire Magazine UK. The recent motorcycle she built along with her fiancee Ian Barry won "Best Custom Motorcycle" at the only International motorcycle Concours Legend Of The Motorcycle, where she was awarded the prize by Jesse James, along with Ian Barry. Knight has done notable and high profile charity work, as well as appearing along-side Jack Osbourne in the Mongol Rally and Jack Osbourne: Adrenaline Junkie series in three episodes according to IMDB. Knights family are of interest too. Although this is not reason for inclusion, it is of additional interest to many. Agreed with User:Galliano7, that although Knights notable mother divorced her step-father Norman Foster, Baron Foster of Thames Bank, this does not change the fact that Foster was and is indeed, independently her step-father.- Ash773 | talk 20:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments notability is not inherited so who her parents or step-parents are/may be etc is not remotely relevant to this conversation. Nor is her being the fiancee of anyone (as this also falls under notability is not inherited. The company has won an award (good for them, that still doesn't make her notable), IMDB isn't a reliable source. Being of "interest to countless people" does't make one notable either. It seems to me that all her supposed notabiliy is based on who she is related to, who she knows, or to the company that she co-founded (none of which make her notable in her own right). Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Meets WP:BIO Notability established-several independent and reliable sources. Not just the co-founder of the company, but a celebrated custom bike builder who is of public interest to the motorcycle community. Her family/who she is engaged to is not Notable but is interesting. Being a character that has appeared on multiple seasons/episodes of a prime time television show that has aired worldwide is also of public interest, as is her humanitarian work, as seen on Prime time Tv, Oprah and various magazine publications. LAmusic3 | talk 06:47, 21 August (UTC)
Keep. Meets WP:BIO Multiple references - notability and public interest authenticated through independently verifiable and reliable sources.JzoJames | talk 07:17, 21 August (UTC)

Please can you show me where the subject of this article (not her company, or a motorcycle, or her fiancee, etc) has been covered in a significant, non-trivial manner in reliable 3rd party sources. The ones present in the article at the moment don't show this so instead of just saying they exist over and over again, please show them to us. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Here are a handful - the motorcycle is a motorcycle she built, that won the most important motorcycle concours in the world this year, and it is in this context that she is mentioned, as well as being mentioned as the owner/ co-founder of the company, a rally car driver, an entrepreneur and having starred in the Mongol Rally with Jack Osbourne.

JzoJames | talk 09:42, 21 August (UTC)

Okay. Falconmotorcycles nor IMDB are reliable 3rd party sources. Your ITV and Oprah links still don't work, Press Releases don't normally qualify as reliable 3rd party sourcing, the LAtimes thing you provide isn't about HER and barely mentions her name, please give me something new that I haven't already commented on above that actually meets our criteria for inclusion. Just saying something meets a criteria doesn't cut it. Just saying she is notable doesn't make it so. And just having a group of people that have all worked on the same extremely small group of articles repeat the exact same rationale over and over again doesn't make the subject actually meet said criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Falcon Motorcycles is not quoted in the links, an independent article written by Intersection Magazine is available from their site, and that is what the falconmotorcycles link downloads. Oprah link is now working. ITV is still working on this end. 1st LA Times article mentions her multiple times, second LA Times article is about her and the company she started with Ian Barry, the rest of the article pertains to the bike she built and won a show for (as per the San Francisco Chronicle article and others). The Press release is from the site of the largest and most well respected International motorcycle concours in the world, which was attended by 7000 people, and where knight was awarded the prize for "best custom motorcycle" this year for the Bullet Falcon. (refer to San Francisco Chronicle article). People being interested in the same sets of things or people makes sense to me. Are you in the motorcycle world? If you are not a fan or this subject is not your expertise, maybe this is why you are not aware of her and it would be best to leave the subject to be edited by the people in the know. JzoJames | talk 09:26, 22 August (UTC)

Keep. Meets WP:BIO Notable figure in the motorcycle world and culture. Independent refs and citations. Halfmoon3 | talk 18:51, 21 August (UTC)

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. Waggers (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Harriet Spicer[edit]

Unreferenced for over two years, fails verifiability policy. Also questionable notability — being in the Judicial Appointments Commission does not convince me. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete and I have added Francis Plowden to this list - I believe these two articles only exist to make the entire list of Judicial Appointments Commission into bluelinks. Black Kite 11:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep. A Google News archive search reveals notability several times over. Is it really too much to expect people to do a few seconds' basic research before nominating for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Harriet Spicer now has plenty of references satisfying WP:V and WP:N. I added extra references to Francis Plowden, and so he clearly passes the same policies. Tassedethe (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

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. - Mailer Diablo 17:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nikki Jackson[edit]

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per nom.--S_RX 20:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Awards are minor and not well known Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete doesn't meet the WP:PORNBIO criteria and hasn't been covered enough to meet the general notability guidelines either. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn Where were all those sources when I went looking for them? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesse Winchester[edit]

Reads like a fansite, makes a few claims, but overall he seems to fail WP:V. A search for his name and various keywords turned up no reliable sources besides this and a couple interviews, which I don't think are enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Meets several WP:MUSIC criteria: (1) Subject of multiple non-trivial published works (for example, see [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]). (2) Has had a charted hit ("Say What", #32 on Billboard, May 30, 1981). (5) Two or more albums on a major label. I suspect he also meets two or three additional criteria, but these should be enough. BRMo (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep - meets notability with multiple reliable sources per BRMo -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep - covered by several notable artists, scarcity of other information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgina Smith[edit]

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per nom.--S_RX 20:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Ty 01:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Armando Romero[edit]

Fails WP:N, WP:RS. Wizardman 14:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete due to the absence of citations from reliable sources which are required to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
VERY STRONG KEEP, I just added alot of external links and plan on doing more research on this artist. Very notable. Callelinea (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
They don't seem to be links to reliable sources, like mainstream media. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep the article needs fixing, and work but the article is worthwhile..Modernist (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Rock Williams[edit]

This article may be a hoax - a Google search for "Rock Williams" and "KFWR" only turns up this article. The charges of sexual harrassment cited in the article are also not confirmed in an online search.WP:RS and WP:V, to put it mildly. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete, the charges are libelous against Steve Harmon, in and of itself a reason to delete this quickly. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, those charges have been in the article for 2 1/2 years!!! I've removed the blp violation. Corvus cornix_talk 03:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete as article fails to meet the notability standard, does not include any references from reliable third-party sources. - Dravecky (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Note I've cleaned up the article and feel strongly that no longer qualifies for a Speedy Delete although unless notability can be established I still feel that it should be deleted. - Dravecky (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete not notable. I came to this article expected it to be about the sax player, a well known session musician from Nashville but found this DJ instead. Not finding any references to backup his notability.--Rtphokie (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

John Blanchard[edit]

No sources other than the author's webpage. Claims to be a writer of evangelical religion, has a dubious degree, and makes claims of importance, but not proven. There seems to be many people with the John Blanchard's in the press. This article has been on wikipedia and if here's notable, I would have thought someone would have added one source in two years.

Note this is not John Blanchard (politician) or John Blanchard the movie director of The Last Polka.[18] If this is deleted, one of these more notable Johns should replace it.We66er (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:COPYVIO. See [19]. It appears that he may be notable (award, bestseller claim, number of books sold) but as of right now this article is nothing but copyvio and a list of things he has written. Unless someone volunteers to completely rewrite this, it needs to be deleted, probably speedily. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete. So many books, so little notability. WWGB (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per copyvio concerns. In case you are wondering, I'm not related to this guy. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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. In the time after the last "delete" opinion was submitted, the article has been substantially expanded. The subsequent discussion has unanimously come to the agreement that the amount of media coverage dedicated to this subject, and the length of the period of time over which that coverage occurred, distinguishes the subject from a typical WP:BLP1E case. The decision to keep this article does not rule out its conversion into an article about the event rather than the person, if editorial consensus exists to support such a renaming and/or rewriting.

With respect to the contribution of Jimbo Wales, who is in the minority in this case, I assume that he meant to express his opinion on the subject in an editorial capacity, rather than in his capacity of founder (in which capacity he could have deleted the article outright or otherwise enforced his appraisal of the situation). I refrain, therefore, from assigning any particular weight to his opinion in the closure of this discussion. Sandstein 18:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Tjandamurra O'Shane[edit]

This article appears to violate WP:BLP1E. It is about a private person who is known (and not that widely) only as the victim of a single incident. A Google search on "Tjandamurra O'Shane" gets only 354 hits, and many of those are on WP clones. Donald Albury 14:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

- Comment. If you search alternate spellings the total is more like 1500 Ghits. WWGB (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 14:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. This "private person" gave his most recent media interview just days ago [20]. As I said during the last AfD, "notable and received lots of media coverage at the time. Requires expansion, not deletion." -- Longhair\^talk 14:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Note: "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." - so the fact that he was interviewed does not in any way imply that we should have an article about him. He's still notable only for one event.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  - But also in BLP1E it refers to someone who "essentially remains a low-profile individual". Recent interviews with major news outlets hardly support that. the wub "?!" 14:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete. Classic violation of BLP1E. If current policy doesn't allow that things like this be speedied, then that policy needs to be clarified. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete - as Jimmy said, this is a classic single event bio. - Philippe 16:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete as Jimmy and Donald rightly identify this is a WP:BLP1E case; we should not be hanging millstones round people's necks in this way. I'd be open to persuasion abut a redirect to an article on racism and aboriginals (apologies if that's not PC, no offence intended), if one exists, that is certainly a valid topic, but this is just tabloid aggregation and we really should be better than that. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete or Possible Merge to an appropriate article on Aborigines. I concur that this is classic WP:BLP1E case - there is no indication of any coverage of this individual other than for this one event. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete - A quick search using some keywords doesn't really show anything this could be merged into, and per WP:ONEEVENT shouldn't be on the encyclopedia. The 'expected result' of the last AfD per the event newswise obviously hasn't happened.--MattWT 22:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep: With great respect to the earlier comments, this was not an ordinary injury victim. People are involved in accidents and injuries all the time, which make the news but are not worthy of remembering. I understand that reasoning. However, most Australian people know of Tjandamurra O'Shane. I'm sure there's racial incidents all the time in every country, but this one struck the Australian populace because it became a poignant example of a racial attack against innocence. The incident touched the nation, and the nation followed Tjandamurra's progress for years. I didn't have anything to do with the article, and just came across it on the AfD list, but still, more than 12 years after the event I remember Tjandamurra O'Shane. It's an event that meant something to Australia, even if it means nothing to the rest of the world. If anything, the article is too short and should be expanded. If you described a Los Angeles guy called Rodney who was a taxi driver and also the victim of a racial attack, on that evidence alone you'd say delete it. But when it means something to a nation, you keep it.--Lester 22:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Then where are the citations to reliable sources explaining and discussing the significance of this incident? While Google searches are poor tools for assessing notability and significance, the paucity of non-Wikipedia derived Google hits about the subject of the article indicates to me that the incident may have made a big splash in the news at the time, but has no enduring encyclopedic merit that justifies the existence of an article about the victim in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 23:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  - re: Comment - Most of the major Australian media organisations only began putting their content online after 2001. It's actually difficult to search for anything before then. The Courier Mail, the main newspaper for Brisbane and Queensland, keeps a list of the top events to occur in North Queensland during history, and the 1996 event surrounding Tjandamurra O'Shane is listed prominently. (Link: Courier Mail).--Lester 23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    - ARTICLE IMPROVED - Just noting the point where I have made some improvements to the article, with new references.--Lester 01:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I claim some authorship of this article. Tjandamurra's 18th birthday was considered national news - [21]. The Education Department compiled a report into risk and security in schools a month after the incident - [22]. The Law Institute of Victoria had a comment about the compensation available to him - [23]. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep more than just a BLP1E. Most major media outlets in Australia covered his 18th birthday, 12 years after the initial event. This pretty much proves the national significance of the initial event. This isn't some long forgotten crime, this is a crime that horrified a nation and is therefore of encyclopedic value. RMHED (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - But no doubt because of the original event. Follow up stories, birthday wishes, and such do not assert notability.. --MattWT 04:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. This goes beyond WP:ONEEVENT. Aside from the horrific attack, Tjandamurra has a famous aunt and was also given the gift of a world title belt by a world champion boxer [24]. WWGB (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Having a famous aunt does not assert notability in the smallest way, and being given the belt is because of the burning. This still applies under WP:ONEEVENT in my view with a stretch, but definitely does not pass notability. --MattWT 04:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep not a WP:ONEEVENT as per Richard Cavell, RMHED and WWGB hsve said. Bidgee (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep The random attack on a 6-year old Aboriginal boy is notable through being profoundly significant in Australia, and in the field of indigenous/European relations. The attack and Tjandamurra are indistinguishable. Wikipedia could not carry an article about the attack without it being an article about Tjandamurra. I have added a little extra information with appropriate citation. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - There should not be an individual article on the attack at all, Wikinews is for that. I would support a merge with any article you can find however that deals with Indigenous and European relations.. --MattWT 04:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment - This remark makes no sense, Wikinews is for recent news, not historical events.--Grahame (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment As I mentioned in the previous AfD, O'Shane was one of Who Weekly magazine's most beautiful people of 1996. --Canley (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Per WP:ONEEVENT 'If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted'. Are there any sources that refer to him not because of what happened to him in the fire, or directly related to it? Non trivial coverage would support the articles existance in the long run, not just to save an article that may be deleted in the future. --MattWT 04:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

To MattWT, I realise you've only been at Wikipedia for a few days, but it would help if you posted comments in the order that you make them, and not keep changing your comments later. Thanks,--Lester 07:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The amount of attention recieved at the time and continuing to this day makes this a clearly notable event. Where else should it be placed? Perhaps we should go with one of our typically ridiculous titles like 1996 Indigenous Australian child combustion incident? It's all very well saying things like "we should not be hanging millstones round people's necks in this way" - but it's not us who did that. We can't magic away the overwhelming media coverage. the wub "?!" 09:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep, with due respect to those who are saying "delete because of BLP1E", I'm going to have to disagree. The attack on O'Shane generated truly staggering coverage at the time, and the fact that he's still getting coverage in notable sources only underlines his notability. Saying that the article should be deleted because it all stems from one event is like saying that Phan Thị Kim Phúc should be deleted because all of her notability came from a single event. While it may technically meet the BLP1E definitions, I really don't think that cases like this one were what the community had in mind with that particular policy. As long as the material in the article is well sourced and uncontroversial (which, as far as I can see, it is), I don't see any problem with the retention of this article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC).
Keep. Per Lester, ~~Donald Albury,~~ Richard Cavell, RMHED, Dolphin51, the wub, etc. We do have articles on these folks (see Jessica McClure, for instance) and if Janda stops doing interviews and registers concern of privacy we can re-evaluate what needs to be here. One event concerns are valid as most minors don't have a lot of notable things going on. He's apparently a performing indigenous dancer so it could help to add sections to the article to help differentiate and organize the material. The sources are under utilized, IMHO, especially the recent interviews with him. Banjeboi 09:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment How did I get on that list? I nominated this article, and still support its deletion. -- Donald Albury 11:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment. My bad, zigged when I meant to zag. Banjeboi 12:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep I welcome Jimmy's suggestion that the policy be clarified, but not so that "things like this" can be speedy deleted. WP:BIO1E mentions those involved with "a particular relatively unimportant crime" – a pretty wishy-washy statement, and one that I don't think applies here. I don't agree that WP:NOTNEWS applies to an individual known to millions of Australians over twelve years after the event. --Canley (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
keep Yes, he is notable primarily for one event but it was an event that made international attention and the fact that it is still being followed up 14 years later demonstrates the high degree of notability associated with the matter. Moreover, the fact that now as an adult he is giving interviews demonstrates that he doesn't have a large amount of concern or extreme desire for privacy so such arguments do not hold water in this case. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep WP:BLP1E is regularly abused and misinterpreted to mean "delete any article for any person whose notability can be traced backed to a single event, regardless of anything else that has occurred in their life", and this selective misuse of policy is only further perpetuated here. While initial notability stemmed from a single incident, O'Shane's continuing coverage in the media, backed by independent reliable and verifiable sources, clearly meets the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Even for those who believe BLP1E is a valid justification to not have an article for O'Shane, the refusal to follow BLP1E's guidance and renaming the article -- "In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." -- is only further evidence that the policy is being abused. Alansohn (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep (consider renaming if feasible.) The racially motivated crime here caused a huge outcry, and the attention caused by this makes the event encyclopedic. For other examples, consider the Rodney King case, and the 2005 murder of an African 12-year old at Holmlia which is covered in the general purpose encyclopedia Store norske leksikon. If BLP1E is the concern (I am fairly ambivalent to this, on one hand I can understand the problem of victim->notable, on the other hand this person has been covered for a long time since the event, and given a spot in an Olympic torch relay as well), renaming the article to cover the event is a better option than outright deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. It was never established that this was a racially-motivated attack. Streeton never revealed his motive, only saying that he had been planning to burn someone since Year 2 because he had been bullied at school. [25] WWGB (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep The crime perpetrated against Tjandamurra caused a very large public reaction in Australia and was very prominent front page news at the time. Since then there have been regular reports on Tjandamurra's progress in the media. Whether this crime was racially motivated or not it is worthy of keeping simply for its original and continuing significance in Australia and in Queensland in particular. Jenafalt (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep and possibly rename. Even if it did apply, BLP1E is not grounds for deletion. It specifically states that we should "cover the event, not the person" if the subject meets other criteria for inclusion. Continuing coverge over more than a decade and events such as the benefit concert clearly demonstrate notability. No policy-based reasons for deletion have been presented or supported. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Rename to the event per WP:BLP1E. Not sure why so many people (including those who should know better) think BLP1E supports deletion. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment - a number of editors have suggested renaming, which I can see might be a compromise, but so far there have been no suggestions as to a better title than the current one (except my somewhat fatuous suggestion). Any ideas? the wub "?!" 12:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree if there were some great new name a move might seem reasonable but the objections all stemmed from concerns of BLP and much if not most of teh current information would likely be kept. Banjeboi 22:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  - Yes, but the BLP1E and BIO1E concerns are meritless. 11 years later, last week, this guy has major media exposure, with photos, looking back on the event at his 18th birthday. Per WP:NOT#NEWS "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." 11 year later followups would not exist without the event, but these articles extend beyond merely recounting the event--they cover his 18th birthday, current state, enduring effects of the injuries, and basically revisit him as a person. All evidence is that this event was suitably notable in Australia that it makes news 11 years later. Fundamentally, I don't care whether it's called an event and includes some info on the gentleman's bio, or his bio and includes info on his event. We have WP:RS for all of it and no compelling reason to not cover it. Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep Either as an article on the event or on the individual. The extensive coverage over such a period of time persuades me that we should have an article on this and goes beyond a WP:BLP1E for me. Davewild (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep I find it similar to Crispus Attucks: "Little is known for certain about Attucks other than that he was killed in the Boston Massacre." Or Matthew Shepard. The fact that he was attacked by a bigot is not really notable, but the response that he got is notable and makes him notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus (non-admin closure). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Abbas Ansarifard[edit]

Contested prod. Subject fails notability. There is no significant coverage. ~ Eóin (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete. There are no references, and this article has been in existence for over two months; not notable. Wikieditor06 (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Needs citations for verification. Probably could be restored, I see some notability here. --Lord Sunday 22:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep. A fee sources exist [26] and there are probably more in Persian. Chairman of a top tier football club seems notable to me. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. GlassCobra 17:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Lee Sawyer[edit]

Article on young footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he's never played a first team game. The article made the claim that he has, but the reference provided did not state so, so I prodded the article. It was then deprodded and a new link to a BBC story claiming one first team apperance was added. However, I believe the BBC are mistaken. Their own statistics page claims zero apperances, as does soccerbase. The match report from the game that he supposedly played in also confirms that he did not play. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Move to withdraw as he has now played for Southend.[27] пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete until and unless he plays in the first team. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Obviously people are misinterpreting "made a substitute appearance" as meaning he came on as a substitute, when it actually means that he was named on the bench but did not play. – Pee Jay 20:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep The man is under contract and has been with the team since the age of 9. It's probably only a matter of time before an official and substantiable game appearance occurs. --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds like WP:CRYSTAL balling to me. For all we know, he may break his leg in training and never play professionally. We have WP:ATHLETE for a reason. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete - ESPN Soccernet also doesn't list any league appearances, [28] meaning he fails WP:ATHLETE. When he plays an official match for Chelsea Southend United or another pro club, this can be recreated. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Has played in one professional game, so he now satisfies the notability guideline. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRYSTAL. doktorb _words^deeds 21:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep for now. Player was only sent to a 3rd tier team a few hours ago. Surely before spending the time to involve everyone in an AfD one should assume good faith rather than being pointy and see if he is going to be playing. Let's evaluate based on Friday's game and then worry if it should be deleted or not. There is little point removing content that we are likely going to have to restore. Nfitz (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- The AfD won't close until the day of Southend's next game, and obviously I will withdraw the AfD if he plays. I'm getting quite tired of your attacks on my motivations for AfDs - there is no WP:POINT-making here. As I've said many times before, the real problems are (a) editors creating articles before people meet the critiera, and (even worse), editors deprodding articles that clearly fail the criteria (as you have done at least 15 times in the last month - 11 articles from which have already been deleted after AfDs). Restoring is no effort at all compared to having an AfD forced upon us all. I'm not going to add tens of articles to my watchlist and then check back in a week/fortnight/month to see if they have played or not. If they haven't played, then there shouldn't be an article. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails both WP:ATHLETE and the general notability criteria. There is little point creating content which fails the most basic of the criteria for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if and when he makes a fully-pro appearance. --Jimbo^[online] 09:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Note to closing admin - he has now played for Southend[29], so most of the delete 'votes' are no longer applicable. PhilKnight (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep - he's played for Southend now. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sadio Ba[edit]

Sadio Ba plays for K.S.K. Beveren, which is a second division football club. Therefore he fails WP:ATHLETE as he doesn't play for a fully professional league. Tavix (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep, don't forget his past clubs. He played for KVC Westerlo and maybe others in the Belgian top league, which AFAIK counts as professional, which is the yardstick. Sources are needed though. Punkmorten (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep has played in professional league. Tovian (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Governale[edit]

Unsourced autobiography. Doesn't seem notable, for example a search for "Michael Governale" funtime for baby (the latter being the software that is his claim for fame) turns up squat. Not to be confused with the Arizona drive-by shooting victim of the same name. MER-C 10:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Essentially a CV, and we are not a social networking site. --Dhartung | Talk 11:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Note — The two very closely-related articles, Flopsy The Dog and Giggles Computer Funtime for Baby, have both been G11'd (blatant advertising/spam). MuZemike (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per nom.. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 23:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST as well as not meeting the notability requirements per WP:BIO. MuZemike (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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 and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

David Sherer[edit]

American physician and author. Feels like an autobio and veiled spam for the guy's books. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep although I agree that it is reading mostly like an excuse to advertise the book and that it desperately needs better references from 3rd party sources there are the hits here, although I'm not sure both Dr Sherers are the same person hence the weak. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep but rewrite It reads like an advert, but he does seem to have notable publications RogueNinja_talk 05:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep Agree with RogueNinja that the article needs work but there are sources:
- "Dr. David Sherer's Hospital Survival Guide: 100+ Ways to Make Your Hospital Stay Safe and Comfortable (Book)." Quest: Muscular Dystrophy Association 11, no. 2 (March 2004): 65-65. Abstract: Reviews the book "Dr. David Sherer's Hospital Survival Guide: 100+ Ways to Make Your Hospital Stay Safe and Comfortable," by David Sherer and Maryann Karinch.
- "Outliers." Modern Healthcare 33, no. 38 (September 22, 2003): 48. Abstract:Reviews & Products:DR. David Sherer's Hospital Survival Guide: 100+ Ways to Make Your Hospital Stay Safe & Comfortable (Book)
- Brayfield, Amy. "the POWER of a GOOD BOOK.." Arthritis Today 18, no. 4 (July 2004): 78-78. Abstract: Provides information on books for summer beach reading. "Play As If Your Life Depends on It," by Frank Forencich; "Dr. David Sherer's Hospital Survival Guide";
- Ostrowski, Marya. "Empower them!." RN 66, no. 11 (November 2003): 9-9. Abstract: Discusses contents of the book "Dr. David Sherer's Hospital Survival Guide". Tips for nurses in caring for hospital patients; Reasons for recommending the book.--Captain-tucker (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Sandstein 20:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Norm Ellefson[edit]

Reads like one huge copy-vio (although I can find no evidence). I think this page needs to be restarted from scratch.

(All the images in the article claim to be "not copyrighted" even though some are from newspapers. ~~Presently unsure how to approach removing the images, which are both here and at commons.)~~ Eventually all listed for deletion. Ian¹³ /t 09:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And I vote delete despite the transformation to a stub, now for notability. (The 2 significant races he entered for he didn't qualify.) Ian¹³ /t 09:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - I know nothing about car racing so the bloke may well be very notable but most of the article is a huge rambling stream of consciousness written in an extremely unencyclopedic style and in the first person (pretty much everything bar the first paragraph was added in one edit by User:Nellefson so it is likely an autobiography) and illustrated with pics which claim to be free use but almost certainly aren't. Suggest that all of this be removed as completely unencylopedic, remaining stub might then be OK...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
So are you saying delete then restore stub, because that sounds sensible to me. Ian¹³ /t 10:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I reckon just delete everything from "it all began for me" onwards, then the resultant stub should be OK to keep as is...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me like a perfect remedy. Keep the biographical facts, delete the novella.--Slashme (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment Have done as suggested and changed page to a stub. Now I'm wondering if it fails WP:N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmuk (talk • contribs) 13:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Wizardman 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dave Miller (musician)[edit]

NN musicican... no references since December 2007, and no real context to article...
The band he used to be in may pass WP:MUSIC, but this single person alone does not seem notable...
Per WP:MUSIC, "... members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." Adolphus79 (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 14:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete, nothing to prove individual notability per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

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 Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sergey Igorevich Yakovlev[edit]

The subject of this article appears to lack sufficient notability for inclusion: the subject does not seem to have received non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. No such sources are given in the article and an online search for sources (including a standard web search and Google News and Books searches) does not yield a single useful non-mirror hit. The article has been tagged for notability and lack of sources since June 2007, and the only reason I did not PROD it is that a Russian-language version of the article exists (link). While that does not prove notability by itself, the Russian-language article contains quite a bit of content (but, unfortunately, no real sources) which could possibly give an indication of the subject's notability. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This was both not listed by the nom and missed by DumbBot. It has been listed. Wizardman 22:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Notable Novosibirsk musician.DonaldDuck (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Notability requires objective evidence. Can you offer proof of notability, i.e. that the subject of the article has received substantial coverage in reliable sources? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 13:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete No evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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. Fram (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard Gough (sailor)[edit]

Weak claims for notability, "youngest weapon director in the Royal Navy" seemingly the strongest of the bunch. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom unless a third-party source can be provided - the only source is his autobiography which was self-published (Authors On Line Ltd is a self publishing company according to their website). Nick Dowling (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete One cannot "self-publish" oneself into notability. Edison (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete I have been unable to find any independent and reliable sources covering Gough, and thus I believe the article does not meet WP:N. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Zack Taylor (celebrity blogger)[edit]

Apparent autobiography of an apparently non-notable blogger and staffer for Hot or Not. While it does indeed have references, one is a tangential mention of him in the context of his website; one is a now-deleted post on www.365gay.com; one is a reference to an uncited claim on another Wikipedia page which was itself inserted by the creator of this article, and one makes no mention of the point it's supposed to be referencing – 'He is now the third ranked celebrity blogger in the world, and nicknamed "The Canadian Perez Hilton"' – the actual quote is 'In the short time since IsThisHappening’s late-summer debut, it has established an audience of 200,000 unique visitors per month, most with Canadian IP addresses'. – iride scent 20:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Autobiographical spam is pretty damning in my book. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep There is actually a CBC article which focuses on this blogger here. This does confer some notability on him. The CBC, like the BBC, a WP:RS Artene50 (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete as not notable. I agree with Quartermaster, it seems like spam. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep per Artene50 - DigitalC (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep. I can understand why this self-promotional material was listed, and I dislike the idea that this equates with notability, but (heaven help me) I've actually heard this person interviewed on CBC radio and treated as an expert on both celebrity news and high-profile blogging, oxymoronic though those concepts may seem. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper ǀ 76 21:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This person has yet to receive non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable publications. I think "autobiographical vanity spam" is a fair assessment, also. JBsupreme (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Keeper ǀ 76 20:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Kokoro Kikuchi[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage, no reliable source to back up claim that Air Gear made her "famous" when it was a secondary role, and all otehr voice roles listed appear to be either minor or secondary parts. All links are standard directory links in which almost every voice actor of any licensed series appears. Wikipedia is not a directory and it is not not a mirror of ANN, TV.com, IMBD, or any other voice actor directory listing. That is all this article is, a replica of those same listings, and without reliable sources or significant coverage anywhere, it is all it will be. Declined speedy.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep I don't know how to explain it anymore.Kitty53 (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Kitty53 is the article's creator. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete non-notable per WP:N and WP:RS. ukexpat (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete if and only if sources are not provided or found during this AFD. Clearly notable if verified. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. This voice actress play main characters in Air Gear, Coyote Ragtime Show, Digimon Data Squad, Shura no Toki - Age of Chaos. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you cite some reliable sources that verify that? Stifle (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's always ANN (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=25965). Not to mention, you know, the CREDITS of all those shows? 208.245.87.2 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Show credits would not be third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
But if a seiyu has played main characters in anime, then we can infer that he or she is notable. After all, WP:N and WP:BIO are just guidelines, which means they're more flexible than policies. Policies can have flexibility in a few circumstances, though, such as WP:NOR states that articles whose topics do not have reliable secondary sources should not have their own articles, but if one article about a fictional character suits the situation, and the work and the list of ...... characters are too long (all the content meets WP:NOT and the three core content policies), the character should have an article to avoid verboseness in the articles about the work and character list. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what possible source could be more authoritative than a production's credits? Given all other references would be based on those credits anyway, after all. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep she is notable. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Contra Zero Kitsune, those roles all are secondary (though more important than minor/incidental) and not the multiple "significant" roles asked by WP:ENTERTAINER. That leaves the only notability claim being the "famous for," which does not seem to be readily verified. If someone can provide a reliable source for that before the AfD is over, then we've got a keeper. Otherwise, it looks like a delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment These AfD's seem to be related as by the same nom about similar actors and created by the same editor - I linked to them at the top for other editor's ease but nom has now deleted them twice so am adding here: Banjeboi 03:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard Garvie[edit]

non-notable figure. This is someone who aspires to be a racing driver Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete An autobiography and/or Made-up gibberish. A random earlier version of this page even uses itself as a reference. It seems to mostly be madeup nonsense/an attempt at a sandbox page because of its creator's several unreferenced, random edits to the page which change the subject from a race car driver to a pornographic actor and back again. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong Delete Reading the edit history makes me think this article is primarily a coatrack for an attack page. David in DC (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Interestingly, it started out as a puff piece favorable to the subject. So favorable, in fact, that some of its text was a press release with "XXXXX" in several places where important information was not yet filled in. It reads like it might have been self-penned, or penned by the subject's publicist. The editor's user name is similar to the name of the subject's purported team. But it became a place for editors of an opposite opinion to dump unsourced, highly derogatory material. There's an object lesson here somewhere, I'm sure of it. David in DC (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This proposal is sensible and a good interpretation of the facts.
- Comment This entry in its original form was giving a false impression as to the stature of the subject. On that basis, commerce was conducted and resulted in fraud and could continue to do so. That is the reason why the entry should be a Strong Delete".
Speedy delete. Some local feud [30], has no place in Wiki. M0RD00R (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Regardless of the motivations of any editors, the article is unsourced and only talks about what he plans to do sometime in the future. If he wins the auto race then maybe write an article on him. Redddogg (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete without all the stupid crap, there is no assertion of notability. JuJube (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete for failing WP:BIO (all counts) and WP:RS (for not having any!) -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 10:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
'Delete vanity--DuckFan88 (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Cindy Pucci[edit]

This article does not demonstrate sufficient notability for inclusion and is not verifiable by quality sources. Specifically the article fails the test of WP:PORNBIO as Pucci has not been a serious contender for a significant award, made a unique contribution, or established herself in mainstream media. TheMindsEye (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep - According to AVN, she's appeared several times in mainstream media. Whether that's "featured" enough for WP:PORNBIO, that's good enough for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete not notable, fails WP:PORNBIO, no reliable sources, fails to win or be nominated for any major awards, and is not established in mainstream media. Annette46 (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- A little pointy, perhaps? Given your stance at this AfD. Epbr123 (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment Maybe Cindy needs more movies and a hairier pussy? Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep Has had a small amount of reliable, independant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep She has an entry on Internet Movie Database. She has her own adult title coming out later. A fairly long career as a glamour model and now moving into adult entertainment. That is noteworthy and news worthy. 71.163.8.65 (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Notability is not lost if someone changes professions. This nomination shows the flaws in the whole concept of even having WP:PORNBIO. Five regular movies so notability seems to be there. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Akane Omae[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage and all voice roles listed are minor and secondary parts, with most characters not even notable enough to be listed in their series articles. All ELs links are standard directory links in which almost every voice actor of any licensed series appears. Wikipedia is not a directory and it is not not a mirror of ANN, IMBD, or any other voice actor directory listing and this list does nothing more than replicate what those site have. Without reliable sources or significant coverage anywhere about this person, it is likely that this article will never more than it is now. Declined speedy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I am not yet voting, but I believe the article can at least expand in coverage based on the Japanese Wikipedia entry. Investigation should probably reveal some devoted articles from reliable sources; unfortunately, they will probably be in Japanese. -Verdatum (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep, seems notable enough. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: As Verdatum notes, the jawiki article does seem to show a rather extensive body of work, including major roles and a good singing career, almost none of which is reflected in our article. If someone with Japanese skills could summarize, it'd help with evaluating this AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. This actress plays main characters in Mahou Sensei Negima/Negima?! and Hamtaro. Anime News Network and Internet Movie Database are reliable sources. And the Japanese Wikipedia is more complete. This article needs more work, not deletion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Zerokitsune. Expansion, not deletion, is the clear remedy... Ranma9617 (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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 Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Klonsky[edit]

This article was reduced to a stub in April, apparently due to an OTRS complaint (see the article talk page). Nobody seems to have been interested in rewriting the article since then. In the state it is currently in, it does not assert or establish notability, and also lacks reliable sources. Sandstein 15:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, since the article has now been sourced to the point where notability is clearly established. Thanks, David! Sandstein 22:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
comment I expect the claims amount to notability. I'm not sure what you mean about "lacks reliable sources" two New York Times articles seem obviously over the WP:RS bar. As for the stubbiness, that doesn't seem to me to be grounds for deletion, an article could be written, and conceivably even brought up to FA status. The concerns the subject raised on the ORTS seem well founded, but I gather from Guy's response that he requested the falsities be deleted, rather than requesting complete deletion of the article. I'm strongly inclined towards keep on the basis of what I've seen so far. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. The NYT and LAT sources weren't in the article when it was nominated for deletion — at that time, it really did look like a speedy A7 candidate. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- response Thanks, I should have checked to compare the article version at nom... Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  - Always check the article history before A7 speedy nominations. Edison (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep I object to the invalid basis for the deletion nomination. Perceived "lack of interest in rewriting" a stubbed article is in no way a valid basis for proposing deletion. Klonsky objected to what he said were inaccuracies and slander in the article, so it was stubbed. But stubbing an article does not remove the notability of the subject, who was national secretary of the Students for a Democratic Society and thus a very important figure in the movement against the Vietnam War in the late 1960's. He appeared on CBS "Face the Nation" in 1972 as a spokesman for the New Left. Google News archive has 137 items about Michael Klonsky [31] , many with substantial coverage. Google Book Search has 196 references, many with substantial coverage. [32]. His more recent academic work in education also has multiple citations in reliable sources with substantial coverage. The article must certainly comply with the policies for biographies of living persons and be carefully referenced. He clearly satisfies WP:BIO and WP:N. He also satisfies WP:PROF. Edison (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is a valid reason for AfD if the stub is so minimal as to qualify for WP:CSD#A7. I could just as well have deleted it wholesale. Sandstein 22:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure). The page is properly referenced and notability has been established below. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ya Chang[edit]

Fails WP:N, WP:V. Wizardman 19:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:BIO, WP:BLP, WP:N, WP:V, WP:REF.--S_RX 20:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- BIO and N are the same thing; REF is a style guideline. It looks as if you are piling on WP links to appear authoritative, but does it hold weight? Punkmorten (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There may be a violation of Wikipedia:WTF. Otherwise the point seems to have been made. --Dhartung | Talk 01:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete, unreferenced biography with no evidence of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 01:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. He is actually a notable (but not really popular) comedian and recording artist in the Philippines, see here, here, and here. You may also want to know more about him here (that is, if you understand Tagalog). Starczamora (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —bluemask ^(talk) 10:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Pigman☿ 17:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgina Wilcock[edit]

Article is about a candidate for the election; she has never held any elected office and belongs to a minor political party. News coverage is limited to lists of who is running in the election, or on Green Party-affiliated websites. I don't think this passes WP:BIO. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete, there's a pretty decent consensus that candidates for office aren't notable unless they get elected or are Screaming Lord Sutch. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep, The Green Party of Canada is a national party that trends 12-14% in the polls. Pages exist for many other Green Party candidates, such as Mike Nagy and Claude William Genest, who are both running in by-elections two weeks prior to this by-election. This entry should be acceptable. (64.26.169.22 (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC))
Please see WP:WAX for information on why that argument is not usually considered convincing. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Mike Nagy is also being nominated for deletion, and Claude Genest has other factors that establish notability aside from his candidacy. justinfr (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Other non-elected candidates such as Rob Oliphant have a Wikipedia entry. I think this entry deserves to stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.32.97 (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that WP:VAX indicates that the 'there are other such' argument is not sufficient to prove that a deletion is not warranted (since other such articles may not yet have been noticed), however, I believe that consistency is nevertheless an ideal held by all, and since other articles on green candidates have indeed been noticed, I believe it is incumbent upon the proposer to state whether all green candidate articles should be deleted, or if only this one, why only this one, and furthermore to state in what respect he/she thinks that the green party is so minor that their candidates should not have wikipedia articles and also to state at what point a party would no longer be so minor that wikipedia articles might be justified. --Paulalexdij (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

First, WP:POLITICIAN is clear that unelected candidates aren't notable in and of themselves. Second, she fails WP:BIO in general, in that there is little coverage of her in the press - I've only found one article that would be considered a biography, rather than an announcement that she is running - and that was what appears to be a minor newspaper. Third, WP:WAX states that precedent - another Green Party candidate has a page - isn't a reason, as does WP:SEWAGE. Fourth, she is running in a minor political party - one that has yet to win any first or second level government seats as stated in Green Party of Canada. I feel that this impacts her notability - it is very different to be a candidate for a major political party than a minor one that has yet to win federal or provincial office. Do any of these, by themselves, make her not notable and thus the article worthy of deletion? Perhaps not, but all of them - combined - do. As far as I can tell, there is no case to be made that she is notable enough for an article, outside of "so-and-so does" which, as already mentioned, is not a valid argument. In fact, it is all the more reason to delete this article, as letting it stand will mean that the acceptance of this article will mean that every candidate, regardless of notability standards, will deserve one. Do we really want more WP:SEWAGE? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well I guess the crux of the matter is how important the Green Party is, and of course we do know that they have never won any seats. On the other hand they are one of only five parties who have polled enough to garner government funding, and they are one of only four parties to have run a complete slate in the last election, so they are clearly in a different league from really minor parties, such as the Libertarians for example, who seem to have only one wikipedia article for all their candidates (which can easily be done seeing as they have never run anything near a full slate). Anyway, imho, fwiw, I think this article should not be deleted. --Paulalexdij (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Clear Delete and Merge into article on relevant election as per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO1E. Candidates for office are not notable for that fact alone. RayAYang (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN as well as the general notability criteria. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't sufficient reason to keep or delete most articles and this is no exception. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)-

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ai Nagano[edit]

Unnotable living voice actress that fails WP:BIO. She is not the "subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." One voice role in one series does not make her notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep Cutey Honey is a notable role.Kitty53 (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep As Kitty53 said, Ai Nagano played Cutey Honey in the revival series Cutey Honey Flash. JuJube (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Last I checked, she has also starred in the Digimon series, and I'm pretty sure Digimon is a notable type of anime. She has also starred in the Pretty Cure series.Kitty53 (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  - Appearing in, or in this case having a voice role in, is not the same as starring in. She played a minor character in Pretty Cure and I think in Digimon as well. Also, it is good to note you are the article creator when saying keep. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    - She has voiced Suzie Wong in Digimon. Last I checked, Suzie Wong is a main character in the show.Kitty53 (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    - She starred as the main role in Cutey Honey Flash, not exactly a minor lead role. 68.81.95.231 (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
      - I didn't question Cutey Honey, but that still doesn't make her notable. No reliable sources, no extensive coverage. The article creator is throwing a bunch of directory listings in the article as "references" but they aren't and they don't meet WP:BIO at all. Again, where is the significant coverage. If her roles in Cutey Honey Flash and Digimon are notable and "made her famous" as the article claims, where is the extensive coverage backing up these claims to fame? Newspaper articles, discussion in books, heck, being mentioned in reviews of the series praising or condemning her work? Even her list of works is totally uncited, with it partially copy/pasted from ANN. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
        Why not look at the JA article, then?Kitty53 (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
        Because it is completely unreferenced, like almost all JA articles, which this just pretty much seems to be a copy of. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
        That's because she is a freelancer!Kitty53 (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I change my vote to redirect to Digimon Tamers, then!Kitty53 (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? She isn't a series character, so that would not be an appropriate redirect. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Because, oh, I don't know how to explain this! I worked so hard on that article! You put three of my articles up for deletion, all of which will probably be deleted! I'm having a bad day, and it's all because of you! And worse, I'm not being given very many options!Kitty53 (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If it makes you happy, I'll change my vote back to keep!Kitty53 (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a vote, its an opinion and it should be based on your reading of WP:BIO and your view as to whether the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If you feel it does, make one Keep comment, explaining why you feel it does meet those guidelines, provide sources and links (as needed) to back up your argument, and leave it at that. Going back and forth and back and forth clutters the AfD and is mildly aggravating. You may want to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD to learn how to discuss an AfD, and maybe glance over Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Also, it is not my fault you are having a bad day. You are choosing to be very emotional and dramatic over these deletions. I think you really need to learn to stop internalizing things so much and calm down some. You seem to get very emotional over everyday Wiki occurrences, which does not help anything at all and is only upsetting you. Step back, take some deep breaths, and have a cup of tea or milk. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep Like that other random Japanese voice actor's article posted above this AfD, there's no actual given reason to delete this. Just a bunch of forced, boilerplate "non-notable per WP:THIS and WP:THAT" wikilawyering that doesn't have any positive or constructive outcome in mind for the overall project. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear, and firmly agreed. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete non-notable per WP:N and WP:RS, not wikilawyering, it's wikipolicy. ukexpat (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. She played the title role in Cutey Honey Flash and voiced one of the five protagonists of Yes! PreCure 5. I think the article meets the first criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER.--Nohansen (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are no sources discussing these folks (relating to all the voice actor AfDs at the moment), they shouldn't have articles. It doesn't matter whether (we) anime fans think they are notable or important because of the roles they have played in some series, few of which are even considered that relevant/notable in the English speaking world because outside of Japan, anime is still a niche market. In reality, most don't even get that much coverage in Japan because voice actors are like TV actors in bit roles, with only a few exceptional ones out there who achieve claim and fame enough to be widely covered in various sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BIO is not limited to "the English speaking world". These actors are either notable or they aren't. And, as far as the first criteria for an WP:ENTERTAINER is concerned, they are because the roles they've played are significant.--Nohansen (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep as per Nohansen. lack of sources is gronds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Nohansen. I note that WP:ENTERTAINER #1 doesn't require that the roles be covered in "secondary source material," only that they be significant within the production and that the production be notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment These AfD's seem to be related as by the same nom about similar actors and created by the same editor - I linked to them at the top for other editor's ease but nom has now deleted them twice so am adding here: Banjeboi 03:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Kasumi Kitano[edit]

The subject of this article appears to lack sufficient notability for inclusion: the subject does not seem to have received non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. An online search for sources, including a standard web search (link) and Google News and Books searches, yields sources that are unreliable or provide only directory-level coverage of the subject, primarily in connection with her role in Dirty Sanchez: The Movie. Her other acting roles include (see IMDb) two single-episode appearances, a minor role in Shoreditch, and something related to Eve Online. Tagged with {{notability}} since June 2007. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I concur, at this point she fails WP:ENTERTAINER. --Amalthea^Talk 13:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no significant body of work, no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Issues of sockpuppetry and shenanigans aside, consensus on the notability issue seems clear. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Vince Palamara[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Exceptionally overwrought biography of a non-notable author/researcher, which appears to have been largely if not entirely written by the subject himself. He does not seem to have actually written and published any books of his own (one is "being published") and he apparently played in some non-notable rock bands. Nearly all of of the text is unverifiable through reliable sources, and the references section is a lengthy compendium of lists of books written by other people (which may or may not mention him), names, and citations to fringe sites, blogs, YouTube, etc. Delete. --MCB (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete With the exception of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, the subject lacks third-party coverage. Even if claims that other authors were referring to him when they talked about "a Secret Service expert" were verified, that wouldn't be enough to confer notability. Movingboxes (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete A Google search for his name turns up primarily self-promotional material. While he claims to be an expert, there is precious little that turns up proving that he is referenced by others as an expert. As he appears to be one of the only - perhaps the only - person who contributed content to his article, it doesn't appear that he is even notable in the JFK conspiracy community. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete. He is an author of some minor note in the conspiracy community, so this could go either way, but I'd say his constant efforts to use his article as a self-promotional device and reverting edits by others as "unauthorized" is enough to push it to delete for me. Gamaliel (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE The text is very much verifiable: if one has two eyes (or even one) and access to either the internet, a library/ bookstore, or both, it is extremely easy for anyone in the world to verify all my numerous claims and references; nothing but the facts contained herein. THIS ENTRY HAS EXISTED FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS IN ITS PRESENT FORM AND ALMOST ***TEN*** YEARS IN ITS ENTIRETY (IT WAS ORIGINALLY A WRITER'S "SNUB" [SMALL ENTRY]. I make zero money from my research, so what am I gaining by alleged "self promotion"? I AM in over 45 other author's books (often times mentioning my UNIQUE qualifications as a Secret Service authority), including a GOVERNMENT REPORT (The Final Report of the ARRB) and "The Secret Service: The Hidden History Of An Enigmatic Agency" by Prof. Philip Melanson. Vincent Bugliosi states that i am a Secret Service expert in his 2008 book "Four Days In November" and I was on THE HISTORY CHANNEL four times (including VHS/ DVD; still shown in the UK and YouTube), in newspapers, radio, nationwide lectures, YouTube, all over the internet, print articles, and countless journal articles; that's the facts. As the (or at least "a") civilian Secret Service expert, what more credentials does one need??? I mean, at the VERY least, don't do something as drastic as deleting this entry (which is very popular for search engine hits and inquiries), but take it down to its original form as follows, if need be (!): "Vince Palamara is a civilian authority on the United States Secret Service, especially with regards to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Palamara's work has appeared in over 45 books by other authors, numerous articles, countless internet articles, radio, and The History Channel." Vince Palamara, a.k.a. vincebethel 8/16/08 4:39 p.m. EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincebethel (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: the first revision of this article is four years old, not ten. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

incorrect criticisms of Vince Palamara entry The original edition of this article originated from person (s) unknown, NOT by Vince Palamara, back in 1998-1999, and read as follows: ""Vince Palamara is a civilian authority on the United States Secret Service, especially with regards to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Palamara's work has appeared in over [45; 32 back then] books by other authors, numerous articles, countless internet articles, radio, and The History Channel."Vincebethel (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC) vince palamara

Further note: According to some edit summaries User:Vincebethel is the subject of this article himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnar Hendrich (talk • contribs) 09:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

suggestion for revision to make everyone happy Bring the areticle back to its original form: ""Vince Palamara is a civilian authority on the United States Secret Service, especially with regards to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Palamara's work has appeared in over 45 books by other authors, numerous articles, countless internet articles, radio, and The History Channel."Vincebethel (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC) important note of self-editing To make the entry factually correct, updated information needed to be inserted AND ALSO THE NEED AROSE TO REMOVE INCORRECT ADDITIONS BY PERSON (S) UNKNOWN. Isn't the whole purpose of Wikipedia to be factually correct? The entry IS factually correct. Again, if need be, just replace the current version with the original entry: ""Vince Palamara is a civilian authority on the United States Secret Service, especially with regards to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Palamara's work has appeared in over 45 books by other authors, numerous articles, countless internet articles, radio, and The History Channel."Vincebethel (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

CommentWP:COI outlines courses of action for subjects who feel that their article is incorrect that do not involve becoming involved in editing their own article. You could have used the talk page to discuss the proposed edits with other editors and see if they agreed that the changes were a good idea. Your edits went beyond correcting factual inaccuracies and your edit summaries accused "unauthorized" editors of making changes. Per Wikipedia policies, you don't own the article just because you're the subject. You don't have to "know" the people who are editing the article for the edits to be acceptable. What is up for discussion is the notability of an article about the subject itself and the verifiability of any information that such an article might contain. In my opinion, your proposed revisions don't solve the problem--the subject isn't notable just because his opinions have appeared in works by others. The subject doesn't meet WP:BIO. Movingboxes (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

PERFECT WAY TO RESOLVE THIS WHOLE MATTER: VERY SIMPLE Since someone NOT Vince Palamara originally wrote the following, and it was up for a number of years with no problems whatsoever, why not simply delete the current entry AND replace with the following as originally written (and, as such, was acceptable under Wikipedia standards): "Vince Palamara is a civilian authority on the United States Secret Service, especially with regards to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Palamara's work has appeared in over 45 books by other authors, numerous articles, countless internet articles, radio, and The History Channel." Vincebethel (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC) alsoVince Palamara wrote two entire chapters in the best-selling book "Murder In Dealey Plaza" (2000), edited by Prof. James Fetzer, which was subsequently favorably reviewed by Publisher's Weekly, mentioning, by name, Vince Palamara himself. In addition, Vince Palamara appeared on the History Channel 4 times in 2003 (as a "Secret Service expert"). Finally, Palamara is noted in an official government report, "The Final Report of the Assassination Records Review Board." These facts alone merit the entry's inclusion, at least in its ORIGINAL (short) format: "Vince Palamara is a civilian authority on the United States Secret Service, especially with regards to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Palamara's work has appeared in over 45 books by other authors, numerous articles, countless internet articles, radio, and The History Channel." Vincebethel (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC) update-importantI had a total of eight different people look at the entry in dispute and they AGREE that it is indeed "overwrought". However, they all unanimously agreed that my original entry (NOT written by me)is fine and should REPLACE the current entry: "Vince Palamara is a civilian authority on the United States Secret Service, especially with regards to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Palamara's work has appeared in over 45 books by other authors, numerous articles, countless internet articles, radio, and The History Channel." Also, I am a published author many times over: in addition to my two whole chapters in a major over the counter best-selling book favorably reviewed by Publisher's Weekly (that also mentions my name), "Murder In Dealey Plaza", Edited by Prof. James Fetzer, I have had many articles published in leading research journals (see footnotes of original entry in dispute; overwrought or not, the facts are the facts). So, once again so it sinks in, DELETE the current entry but also REPLACE it with the aforementioned short substitution (this was originally entitled a Writer's Snub: I guess myself and others made the "mistake" of adding to it; never again for me; too much hassle from editors on here LOL)Vincebethel (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete. I'm unsure of the genuine notability of this extremely fringe character; the sources seem generally unreliable, but it is possible others could be found. However, there is a clear conflict of interest and the bulk of the article would have to be excised anyway. As a side note, the subject needs to realise that they should not excessively contribute to their own AfD. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. --MCB (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Key issue for me is the lack of reliable third-party sources about this person: mentions-in-passing don't count much toward notability, especially as the conspiracy-theory circuit seems to be a small walled garden where the same names keep getting circulated. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

DON'T DELETE As an informed observer, I think it is pretty petty, at this juncture, to remove this entry in its entirety; after all, the entry has been up for many a year. What's the problem? Fame and notability are all relative: there are many, many people listed on Wikipedia I haven't a clue as to who they are, etc. I concede that Mr. Palamara has a huge ego, and he shouldn't have added to his entry, but that, in and of itself, is not enough to justify removal. I believe that the current abridged entry is more than fair. And, if this is a contest, I can come up with a slew of persons to counter the delete bandwagon. Dave Jenkins, a fan of the man, not his egoDavejz (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

DON'T DELETE PART DUEX Mr. Palamara is a published author and has two online books, to boot; Mr. Palamara was featured on the program "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" in 2003 on The History Channel and BBC (UK); Mr. Palamara contributed to a slew of books, most notably, as he notes above, two entire lengthy chapters in Prof. James Fetzer's 2000 tome "Murder In Dealey Plaza". In sum, Mr. Palamara is very well known, indeed: between the books, radio, television, journal articles, internet articles, etc., he has been seen and heard by literally millions. Dave Jenkins, a fan of the man, not his egoDavejz (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

DON'T DELETE Do the editors of Wikipedia even CHECK the sources??? Mr. Palamara is noted prominently in many third-party sources: books, radio programs, and the aforementioned tv program. Just go on Amazon or check the links. I know it takes work but the evidence is overwhelming. Dave Jenkins, a fan of the man, not his egoDavejz (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

ALSO At the risk of sounding like a shill for the man, do Vince Bugliosi (author of FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER), former Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden, and the late and esteemed Professor Philip Melanson (author of THE SECRET SERVICE) count as reliable third party sources? Because, if they do (and they do), they all quote from and endorse Mr. Palamara.Davejz (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC) — Davejz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment At the risk of pointing out the incredibly, painfully obvious, Davejz's only edits have been to Vince Palamara (removing the AfD template) and this AfD discussion. Movingboxes (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'd also note that Davejz made changes to the article that Vince himself was proposing to make. A coincidence, I'm sure. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

incorrect Baseball Player Jerry Reuss, more to followDavejz (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment That was done after I made my comment, so it was correct at the time it was made. Movingboxes (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Davejz, also note the template at the top of the page. Astroturfing doesn't work here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

popularity of entry/ years online I guess I just cannot comprehend Wikipedia. If this entry was here for several years and had alot of internet traffic, why pull the plug now (throwing the baby out with the bathwater)? Mr. Palamara has it right above: short and sweet. Commence sarcastic editor comments now ;-) Davejz (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Amazon shows a book by Vince Palamara, The Third Alternative (spiral bound), dated to 1993, self-published and currently unavailable. (The book lacks an ISBN). That book has one single review by an Amazon customer, awarding it five stars. Curiously enough the favorable review is written by Vince Palamara. I join the editors above who argue that the case for notability has not been made. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete. Disregarding the self-promotion, sources seem weak or unreliable. Stronger sources need to be cited (and listed in a more standard, readable format) as in the articles for James_H._Fetzer, Philip_Melanson, Vincent_Bugliosi (these articles are referenced in the Palamara article). As it stands I don't think notability has yet been established. As Gordonofcartoon says, "mentions-in-passing don't count much toward notability". Can any other (notable) sources be provided (eg. newspaper, magazine articles, reliable websites)? I'll have to see if I can find the History Channel footage, but I am unsure if that in itself would prove notability, just that the person in question was on TV. More sources? Mojowibble (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

do not delete Boy, you people need to brush up on your reference checking! I mean, the issue isn't whether Palamara has an ego (many people do), but the notability of his pedigree and so forth. Well, a very simple check of You Tube found his History Channel appearance [see The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 7, segement one: The Smoking Guns; Palamara is called a "Secret Service expert" with a label on the screen saying the same thing, to boot] and a Google books search found several notable books he is referenced in, including basically being a co-author of Fetzer's remarkable Murder In Dealey Plaza with his two chapters, as Fetzer was merely the editor, not to mention many other over-the-counter books he is prominently noted in, lioke the Final Report of the ARRB he mentioned before (also: a quick check of Amazon shows Palamara actually has TWO books, not one: the other is listed as JFK: The Medical Evidence Reference, while both of his current books are available as online e-books). Palamara is indeed in BOTH of Bugliosi's JFK works (in Four Days In November, he is listed as, and I quote, a "Secret Service expert") and, while he curiously is not in Agent Bolden's book, he is on Bolden's website in the "reviews" section (html, not a blog by Palamara). I have seen quite a number of Wikipedia entrees of dubious quality, authenticity, etc. Compared to those, Palamara, warts and all, comes out shining. I say keep the entry as it appears now and move on.Jessica120 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

- — Jessica120 (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hi Jessica120, could you reference these books you found on Google Books and Amazon in the article? It would better prove notability. Also the reference section on the article as it currently stands is very messy which makes proving notability harder for human beings to deal with. Mojowibble (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

'notability-and ego-proven My pleasure, Mojowibble :) ;-) Here they are: [33] is a general Google link to many, but not all, of the books Palmara has either authored or appeared in. [34]Is the official U.S. Government Report entitled Final Report of the Assassinations Records Review Board, a federal panel that existed from roughly 1994-1998 and charged, by Presidents Bush (the first, not ole W) and Clinton to uncover all the Kennedy facts and papers.[35] is Murder In Dealey Plaza, including two complete chapters authored by Palamara (I saw this book at Borders, so it is over the counter!).[36] Is "Brothers" by Salon.Com founder (and MSNBC guest-friend of Chris Matthews?) David Talbot, yet another major over the counter volume I saw at my local Borders Books.[37] Is another over the counter book that I even own (!), "Ultimate Sacrifice"-Palmara is noted on at least 30 pages, maybe more (his Amazon.Com review here lists himself as a "proud contributor"). [38] is Palamara's History Channel appearance, which was also a DVD-I saw it at Best Buy-I did my homework ;-)[39] is a non-Palmara website based in the UK (meaning, he did not out it up himself! The man knows self promotion, as he goes on forever in search engines-wow!). [40] is another non-Palamara website that appears to be run by anti-conspiracy advocate John McAdams.[41] is a major non-Palamara website, JFK Lancer out of TX and CA' he has at least 3 articles online. Everyone knows who Vince Bugliosi is (world famous crime fighter and author)-well, not only is Palamara in both of his JFK books, he is called a "Secret Service expert" in Four Days In November and on Bugliosi's own website: [42]. [43] is a lengthy 1998 article on Palmara from the major newspaper of record in Pittsburgh, PA. Finally, [44] is former Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden's official book website-Palamara is called a leading civilian authority on the Secret Service. Ego and self promotion aside, and the ill-chosen decision to edit his own entry (no doubt due to ego and self promotional concerns), his story indeed checks out. I say punish him by keeping the entry in it short form, as is, and BANNING ANYONE-INCLUDING HIM-FROM BEING ABLE TO UPDATE IT FURTHER. Good idea, huh? ;-)!Jessica120 (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

editing complete-no need to delete ;-) I fixed his entry. It is now a nice, no frills entry. His musical career is not notable, so I didn't mention it LOL ;-)Jessica120 (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Two of the claims that Palamara is an expert - the Bugliosi book and "Echo from Dealey Plaza" - are actually on the dust jacket. Not the book. I doubt those count as primary sources. The only book I saw that referenced him as an expert is "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax." While he is occasionally referenced, it is briefly. Last, I find it strange that two new Wikipedia members are involved in this discussion, editing the article in the same way that Palamara earlier suggested, citing lists of the same references, and only contributing to Vince Palamara and the AfD. (Ok, User:Davejz did make a small edit to another page, but that hardly counts.) I'd also note that User:Jessica120 made an edit to this article using "her" raw IP address, 216.183.185.133, which nslookup indicates comes from the Mount Lebanon, Pennsylvania library. This city is a suburb in the south of Pittsburg, which - oddly enough - happens to be near where Mr. Palamara lives, according to his [MySpace page.] (Bethel Park, Pennsylvania is a mere 5 miles away.) This is almost certainly a sockpuppet. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I have opened up a sock puppet case on vincebethel: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Vincebethel Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per non notable, COI, and obvious self promotion attempt from the socks above. Writing two books non published books and being mentioned on TV a few times is not grounds for being notable. --MattWT 12:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

newsflash: I no longer care: I command you to do my bidding -delete this entry pronto There are, quite frankly, much (much!) better online encyclopedias nowadays(and I have a mountain of information online already: can you say redundant LOL). I had a nice 8+ year run on Wikipedia; it served its purposes...but it got old. So, I give you my permission---in fact, I COMMAND YOU: deleting my entry is tantamount to respecting my wishes and acknowledging my genius (to leave it up serves the opposite purpose LOL)---to delete my entry pronto. You editors need to get a life big time: you guys crack me up! :)Vincebethel (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As you aren't the only contributer to the article, it isn't your choice. The article will most probably be deleted after this AfD due to its notability issues, so don't worry. In future, whatever online encyclopedia (and i'd like to see you find a better one than Wikipedia) you go to, try and act a little more mature and cut the insults. Thanks for your contributions and I hope you stick around. --MattWT 05:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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. - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandie Caine[edit]

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per nom.--S_RX 20:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete - She has one BGAFD award but those awards aren't exactly well known. We seem to value the FAME Awards which is also fan voted but that has coverage from adult press like AVN and XBIZ. I'm hedging on this but it's hard to find reliable sources on her other than relying on her website (which unfortunately doesn't provide a biography). I'll keep looking. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO JoshuaD1991 (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve Burke[edit]

Prod removed so procedural AFD. However, not sure how this chap meets WP:BIO. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not Monster.com.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete I see no assertion of notability. Speedy per A7, possibly advertising too Computerjoe 's talk 22:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete No evidence of notability. --Dweller (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete he fails the notability criteria, has not been covered in reliable 3rd party sources, and Wiki is NOT a number of things (Webhost, CV site, etc). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Shane Keister[edit]

In a search for this artist's name, I've found nothing but directory listings. He may be prolific, but for the most part he seems to fail WP:V. We know that he played on a bazillion albums, but that's all we know. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 14:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep and clean up. According to this article here, Shane Keister has been nominated for a Grammy, won three Dove Awards, won two Cleo awards, and won an Emmy. He has been a part of many Grammy nominated albums including Steven Curtis Chapman's Signs of Life and Five For Fighting's American Town. He has been a part of Grammy winning albums like Steven Curtis Chapman's Speechless and he co-worte songs for and played on the Grammy winning album Age to Age by Amy Grant. The article needs a lot of work, but he is certainly notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Antmusic (talk • contribs) 18:35, 17 August 2008

Keep - firstly, the article is in horrible shape. The huge block of name-dropping certinaly needs to go. However, a search of Google News would seem in to indicate that there might be some notability and tagging for references would be appropriate -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that long list of musicians and replaced it with a cited note that he has worked with such people as Billy Joel and Elvis Presley. I also added a reference to one of his GMA Dove Awards. As Whpq noted, other references are available as well. It does appear that he has had enough third-party coverage to justify a keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd expect you would have to look long and hard for "written evidence" of some of the information included here and simply wouldn't find any. I went to high school with Shane, sang in the choir he accompanied under Phil Varney and played in one of the "competing" bands in the area, but it may be that it isn't much help unless someone writes it all down somewhere and publishes it. Some of the additions I made come from first-hand knowledge and appear to have been removed by individuals who probably were trying to "make the article fit standards", even though they may not know Shane at all or didn't know him during the period I did. Of course, this leads back to the issue of whether or not the information can be verified. I can do that, but I suspect it's not the kind of citation that might be necessary. I think it's clear that Shane deserves a place in musical history for the many things he has accomplished and I'd hate to see the article removed in light of all this. In sum: Clean up: yes; remove: no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.15.59 (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Fram (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Jorge Queirolo B.[edit]

moved to

Was tagged for CSD per Wikipedia:ANI#Article_Jorge_Queirolo_B.. I declined to speedy because the article appears sourced and author meets minimal notability requirements with two books in a national library, see Fiebre amarilla en Zanzíbar in Chile's National Library, and Cambodia in same. That was before I saw the WP:AN/I reference. I'd feel better if we had more discussion before deciding one way or the other. I did not find any Google News or Google Scholar references. Nothing helpful on Galenet. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 21:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 21:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Very Strong Keep, I looked on Amazon.com and two of his books are listed there. He is obviously notable in my book. Callelinea (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete Please take a look here for the full rationale. This article has been created against COI policies and is a cross wiki placed vanity article. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Clear vanity spam to several wikipedia projects. Mayalld (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete. Multi project vanity spam. His sole publishing company Ediciones Altovolta is owned by Queirolo himself. --jergen (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per m:Multilingual_speedy_deletions#Jorge_Queiolo_Bravo_and_related_articles. —Giggy 08:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete, per ANI, Jergen and Giggy. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment Confimation that he is the owner of the editorial publishing his works: on the blog for ediciones altovolta he is the only poster, a web publishing a short history of him claims he is the owner of the editorial [45], on this web he is listed as the contact for the editorial [46]. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Being listed on Amazon does not convey notability. Having two books in a national library is a minimum requirement. Forgot to check for an ISBN number-- that's another. Having books in a national library is not sufficient. My reasons for bringing it here instead of Speedying the article are my lack of resources for researching Spanish language authors, my reluctance to delete unless I am certain, and the long-standing nature of the article. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Enric. The most I could get on the one link was that it said "Contemporary Authors" in Spanish, which sounded like the "Contemporary Authors" publication I use to resource articles about English language authors. Dloh cierekim 14:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In terms of es support I would expect Kved to be along at some stage (he was the one who alerted me to the issue). As an es admin he should be able to give a valid view. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The ANI above notes it was deleted from es:. Perhaps their COI restrictions are stronger than ours, but I can't find the reasons for the deletion over there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at es:Usuario_Discusión:Jorge_Queirolo_Bravo#Sobre_tu_articulo, it was speedied by an admin because: a) a AfD on 2007 had closed as delete and b) a discussion between several admins determined that the article was self-promotion (WP:COI) and not relevant enough to stay on the wikipedia. Additionally, a checkuser determined that most of the IPs creating the article were from the same ISP as the subject. Also, link to deletion log[47] and link to the 2007 AfD [48], which was cut short by an admin who speedied for self-promotion two days after it was opened. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If a subject is notable and the tone is neutral, the motivations of the article creator are really irrelevant. The question in my mind is whether or not the subject meets WP:BIO on the English Wikipedia. I have seen nothing that demonstrates that he does, but I cannot read Spanish. Placing the article on multi Wikipedias is concerning if the intent was to promote his work. However, judging by his WorldCat results here and in my nomination statement, I would say such an effort has been unsuccessful.] Cheers, Dloh cierekim 15:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Very strong Delete, as said above, Ediciones Altovolta is in fact owned by Jorge Queirolo Bravo. The first time the article es:Jorge Queirolo Bravo was created in es.wiki was by the user es:Usuario:Altovolta: He said that he was Jorge Queirolo Bravo and he was the owner of Ediciones Altovolta. Second, searching the National Library of Chile we found a couple of articles written by Jorge Queirolo Bravo and only 3 of them available to public ("Antología cultural : recopilacion de artículos y ensayos periodísticos sobre temas culturales, literarios y artísticos", "Cuentos indecentes" and "Pasándola bien"). All of them, published by Ediciones Altovolta. Google throws up references about Jorge Queirolo Bravo, but mainly blogs and opinion articles in literary web pages, curiously all of them signed by him. The deleted article in es.wiki was a flagrant violation to neutral point of view policies, and please let me quote you from es:Jorge Queirolo Bravo:

El oficio de escribir llevó a Jorge Queirolo a autoeditar sus propios libros, ante las múltiples dificultades que tuvo con las casas editoriales establecidas en Chile, las que prácticamente le imposibilitaron la publicación de su obra cuando todavía era relativamente anónimo. [...] De a poco se convirtió en un renombrado editor, creando su propia empresa especializada en el tema, conocida con el nombre de Ediciones Altovolta, la que ha crecido hasta ser una de las más grandes de Chile. A Queirolo se le considera un editor de primera clase y muy profesional en todo sentido.

Which in a fast and rough translation approximately means:

The writing business took Jorge Queirolo to self-publish his own books, because of the multiple difficulties he had to deal with the publishing houses in Chile, which practically make him impossible to publish his work when he was still anonymous. [...] Slowly he became a well known editor, ^{[citation needed]} creating his own publishing house known by the name of Ediciones Altovolta, who grown into one of the biggest in Chile.^{[citation needed]} Queirolo is known as a first class editor and a professional in all sense.^{[citation needed]}

Between other paragraphs in which he ennoble his writings and books and grumble about the publishing houses in Chile and how they despise his work. To me, it's a clear case of self promotion and cross-wiki spamming and should be speedy deleted from all involved wikis per WP:V, WP:POV, WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Hope this helps, and I will be around if any other es.wiki POV is needed. :D Cheers, KveD (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete, per KveD's analysis and m:Multilingual_speedy_deletions#Jorge_Queiolo_Bravo_and_related_articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete In the strongest possible terms, per all the above. Delete without delay per WP:SNOW and then SALT. ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete should discourage absolutely this kind of multilanguage spam --Sailko (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Atwood[edit]

Non-notable blogger who has a podcast; no published works and not well known within his field. Article provides little or no relevant biographical information and contains no real encyclopaedic content, nor any reasonable assertion of notability. IngeniousCritic (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete. Fails to back up the assertion of notability with reliable sources. While notability is asserted, it isn't really proven out: no awards for the blog, no recognitions, etc. —C.Fred (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete: fails WP:Bio. Toddst1 (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete as the article doesn't mention why the subject is notable. Fails WP:BIO. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 07:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete, fails WP:N. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete - sources fail to establish notability, and there would be nowhere useful to redirect. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep He is actually an author for the technical book: ASP.NET 2.0 Anthology and he has also been a keynote speaker at the 2008 CUSEC conference. His blog is quite popular and I think that with some time, the article has potential. Althena (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sofia Mendez[edit]

Non-notable actress. Google search lists social networking as top finds, and one hit on anime.com for voicework. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete: Non-notable actress. Schuym1 (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete: NN actress with a trivial IMDb entry ... fails WP:ENTERTAINER ... also note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12 Minutes to Heaven ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.91.179 (talk · contribs) _{20:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)}
- Comment Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Davis (actor). — 72.75.91.179 (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete, as non-notable.--Boffob (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NN, although she's pretty hot. Evidence of sock and meat activity in the revision history. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:BIO. I agree with Scjessey, though; she's a pretty girl. Prettiness != notability, however. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 16:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per related discussions HERE Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable OR, written by meatpuppets. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Article asserts she is best known for a film that has not been released yet, which seems an excellent example of non-notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete "best known for (a movie that hasn't finished filming yet)" says it all to me. From a policy/guideline perspective we're talking failure to meet both notability and verifiability criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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/redirect to Argyria#Reports in humans (non-admin closure). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul Karason[edit]

Procedural nom for an IP. Contested prod, rationale for deletion was:

Media coverage seems to be nothing to do with the subject, and everything to do with turning blue - little more than another "man bites dog" story (WP:NOT#NEWS). That the article is verifiable does not by necessity mean that this person is notable. We're not short of an article on people turning blue, and the sources would suggest that historically this was not uncommon (albeit not to this degree). This article does not contribute to "the sum of human knowledge". Closedmouth (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral as nominator, my nomination should not be taken as a vote for deletion. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Merge & Redirect to Argyria#Reports in humans. He is already mentioned there, as well as several sources including. Adding the additional sourced material should be fine. Turlo Lomon (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Turlo Lomon. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment Anyone can do an editorial merge. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Merge. No scope for a personal article. JFW | T@lk 19:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Turlo Lomon. When the article is about the condition, write about the condition, not the person. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete His disease is notable (and already has an entry) but he is not. He's just a by-stander to a notable condition, but otherwise is not involved with it. 216.121.230.246 (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep Although, in this condition, I would vote for a merge/redirect, I think it actually has a bit of potential for information about the person himself. As for the discussion seeking deletion because the article focuses mostly on his affliction, how often do we delete actors articles for talking too much about filmography... wouldn't that belong on the movie page? Mroduner (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Rajvee[edit]

No Notable references. Request delete. Youtube video and program schedule are hardly what could be called references. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per nom, no significant coverage in reliable sources. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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 List of 18XX games. kur ykh 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

David Hecht[edit]

Non-notable game designer with no awards and not much in the way of sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to List of 18XX games. As designer of several games of this series, this seems to be an appropriate redirect target. Regretfully, I can't seem to locate any online sources (which, of course, need not cover everything). --Craw-daddy | T | 11:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to List of 18XX games - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthur M. Dula[edit]

Procedural nomination. Prod'ed by IP editor, but I think intent was to nominate for Afd. Reason for Prod was "Does not meet criteria for notability." Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep as subject is the focus of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (like this one [49]) and is now properly cited with inline references. - Dravecky (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 05:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep looks like a good addition to Wikipedia to me, well-sourced and notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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 WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Brooke Fraser[edit]

The subject of the article has requested [50] deletion citing real world problems arising from repeated errors in the article. The subject appears to be only marginally notable so courtesy deletion after an AFD is within guidelines. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep. Brooke Fraser is huge in New Zealand, as evidenced by almost 400 000 Ghits. Many subjects would prefer that their Wikipedia article did not exist, however, provided the article passes notability guidelines, it should remain in the article space. Ms Fraser or her representatives are welcome to make referenced updates to the article if they wish. Particular concerns should be addressed through WP:BLP, not deletion. WWGB (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep, you are kidding me people. A reminder to the nominators you are actually meant to do a search before nominating an article for AfD. Two #1 NZ albums, #29 in the Aussie charts, and #90 on billboard, and that's from just reading the article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to point out that Spartaz was nominating this article at the request of the subject. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I was aware of that from the intro, but the claims should still have been checked. The fact that the Nom says the "subject appears to be only marginally notable" comes across as that they've not even taken 30 sec to look at the article. IMHO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep as per major star above. Looking at this history I can only see a couple of edits obviously done my her mngt and that was several months ago. Article doesn't appear to have problem content. - SimonLyall (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep per WWGB. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Too well-known to be deleted upon subject's request. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
keep. Keep! Sorry about the real world errors. We can think about notability, but we can't stop people from being dicks. plan 8 (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. If there are problems they need fixing (and Wikipedia makes this ridiculously harder than hard for a biographic subject, so I sympathise), but the subject is clearly notable. Webmink (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
keep one of the most notable individuals to request deletion as far as I'm aware. We should of course work with Fraser to fix any serious problems in the article. However, this is by no means an article we can reasonably remove. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

*Delete: The article does not contain one URL or link to independent commentary which demonstrates her notability. If she is notable, there must be some commentary out there. Why is it not in the article? No wonder there are currently errors in the article. At the moment, the article is mostly unreferenced babble taken from fan websites. I will change my stance if some online references to independent commentary are placed in the article. Delete the article now. Bring it back another day if it is rewritten from factual sources. --Lester 21:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep Have added ref from New Zealand Herald which confirms her US chart success, clearly satisfying WP:MUSIC. Murtoa (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. When I was in New Zeland she was bigger than L&P. --Roisterer (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

::Comment: So now there is a reference for the charts. But still no reliable online reference for the commentary. If she's "bigger than L&P", that's even more reason to expect some minimum standards with the article, and more reason to expect reliable sources for the commentary. As the subject complained about the factuality of the article, plus the inclusion of only unreliable references for that commentary, the article should be swiftly deleted, to be returned at a later date if someone puts the work into finding reliable references.--Lester 03:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Per WP:ATD, if a page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. To this end, I have added a clean-up tag. However, this article's subject meets a relevant notability guideline viz. WP:MUSIC and I don't think it breaches WP:BLP - therefore I don't believe there is a basis for deletion. Murtoa (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my previous comments, due to added material.--Lester 09:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Question - how does one access the subject's request to prove that it actually exists? JRG (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul Green (UK musician)[edit]

OK, I could be well wrong here. He does seem to be a guitarist of some web presence, and he does seem to have played with Suzi Quatro, which /might/ make him notable. However, aside from a lot of self promotion and the odd mention here and there as a bit-player, I can't find any real independent sources for this. Troikoalogo (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete Without coverage in reliable sources session musicians are not really notable. --neon white talk 01:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete - the guy has obviously been around the music scene for years. However, being a session musician is not sufficient. There is is no significant coverage of him nor awards. A somewhat reluctant delete but a delete nonetheless. Smile a While (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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 on notability per WP:PORNBIO (non-admin closure). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Tyler Faith[edit]

Non notable porn actress, has done nothing notable, doesn't appear to have won any significant awards, or started any new 'trends' JoshuaD1991 (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete, doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ She hasn't won any awards that I can find. Keep at it, tho! --Advocate (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep She's had a high amount of coverage at AVN.com. This could be developed into quite a good article. Epbr123 (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep Epbr123 has improved the article enough to show her notability, close but I think she makes it. I recommend making it a stub. Good work!--Advocate (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep - per above. --THFFF (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Frank Andoh[edit]

Does not assert notability for this footballer. Punkmorten (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep, meets WP:ATHLETE as he plays at the highest level of football in Ghana. This is confirmed here. This article also confirms that he plays for Ghana's under-23 national team. 96T (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Who said the Ghanese league was fully professional? Punkmorten (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep this person definitely meets WP:ATHLETE. Tavix (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep; meets WP:ATHLETE as he plays at Ghana's highest level of football; it doesn't matter whether it's professional, as it's the highest amateur level. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Amateur clause doesn't apply to professional sports like soccer, it applies to mainly amateur sports such as rowing and canoeing. Punkmorten (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Sandstein 20:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hugo morris[edit]

A photographer with a website, a blog and a MySpace address but with no independent sources (or compelling evidence of notability). Prodded, prod removed, so here we are. Hoary (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete No compelling assertion of notability. A MySpace site, a blog and a mostly "under construction" homepage don't add up to WP:N, and Google turns up little besides some promotional material and some photo credits. I couldn't find the claimed recognition in The Guardian, The Telegraph or The Times, so this may just mean that they've used his photos once or twice (and not credited him online). Also per Geogre's Law. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 16:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Couldn't find claimed notability via his own website (under construction) link or via other searches. Jenafalt (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Protest Deletion Jenafalt, please explain what part of WP:BIO fails, furthermore, a website which is under construction does not remove notability but just makes it more difficult to find, the simple process of matching images from website and album covers on the artists websites verifies images, and few results on a google search also does not limit notability. Additionally, using non-internet sources such as checking the photo credits on the album artwork verifies notability. Jenafalt's claim of notability through own website goes against the basic principle of WP:BIO Author 22:13 19 August 2008 (BST) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Should have worded thmy comment better I meant that I could find no claims to notability through either his own site or other searches. The relevant part of his website called clippings was under construction so I could find nothing there to help. Fails WP:BIO because of lack of notability. So I think this article is a Delete. Jenafalt (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no credible evidence of notability. Thus fails WP:BIO in general and WP:CREATIVE in particular. nancy ^talk 09:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Wizardman 15:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Angelo Starr[edit]

I doubt that this singer is notable per WP:MUSIC. He was member of a notable band: that doesn't make him notable. He's the brother of a notable person: doesn't extend notability to him. He released one or two solo songs (but no albums): doesn't suffice either. PROD was contested without comment. B. Wolterding (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete I did find this[51] but there were no other sources that were not more than trivial mentions. - Icewedge (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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 to delete. Black Kite 23:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Leo Blair (senior)[edit]

Notability is, by practice and precedent, not automatically conferred on the parents (or spouses, or children etc) of notable people, and Wikipedia is not obliged to describe their largely unremarkable lives. Suggest redirect to Tony Blair, where any useful information herein is already available. Deiz talk 12:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to Tony Blair. Leo hasn't done anything noteworthy (being the father of someone notable doesn't make you notable). TJ Spyke 17:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. Long-standing consensus is that non-notable relatives of notable people should be mentioned in the notable person's article. Stifle (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep Notable as the father of Tony Blair and a significant influence on his early life. Just the tenuous connection between The Daily Worker and today's Labour Party is noteworthy. Socialism, imagine that! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"...he worked as a copy boy on the Communist Party newspaper The Daily Worker". That = notability? You did read the article? So you're suggesting that anyone who has fathered (or even "influenced") a notable person, or who has worked as the most junior of copywriters on a niche publication deserves their own Wikipedia article? Bizarre, certainly the weakest interpretation of notability guidelines I've come across in a long, long time. Deiz talk 04:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you accept that Tony Blair is notable? If he is notable, then the reasons for why he holds his particular set of political viewpoints are notable. The influence of political attitudes within the home during childhood is generally accepted (admittedly probably not on Wikipedia) as being a significant factor in the biographical history of politicians. The fact that Tony was raised by someone who's youthful connection to the Daily Worker (and assumedly an acceptance of its editorial stance, even if they didn't get to write the editorials themselves) changed to the Tory party over time is certainly relevant to the broad picture of Blair. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BIO has nothing to do with a parent "influencing" their child. If you believe this should be included in WP:BIO, by all means propose an addition in the relevant place. However, as the legislation currently stands, Leo Blair entirely fails the Wikipedia measures of notability. If you don't like WP:BIO, or just flat-out disagree with it, then say so, but please don't continue to make these convoluted, fallacious arguments that completely ignore the very well established measures of notability on Wikipedia. Even if these events in the life of his father were in some way influential in Blair's later years, they can quite properly and adequately be mentioned in the Tony Blair article, a fact to which you seem entirely oblivious. I note from your duplicated "keep" vote below that you may have even less experience with deletion discussions than I previously realized. Deiz talk 14:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're such an expert on policy, I won't have to remind you of WP:NOTAVOTE Andy Dingley (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

~~Merge and redirect~~ ~~Would Leo Blair Snr. deserve an article of his own if Tony had died at birth? Nope. SP-KP (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)~~ (see revised opinion below) SP-KP (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Tony didn't, therefore your argument is a fallacy. Blair is notable, the causes of Blair are notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How many generations do you propose we go back then? SP-KP (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As far back as is relevant. If he'd been raised by great-grandparents on a diet of Marx & Milton, we'd wish to record that. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we would, but in the article about Tony Blair (or if we find enough material, perhaps in an article entitled "family influences on Tony Blair). SP-KP (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep I must agree with Andy, his influence on Tony makes him notable. And it's also interesting how despite that, he was a Tory! Computerjoe 's talk 23:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Urge closing admin to ignore the vague "keep" votes above which make no reference to policy or practice, are unsupported by reliable sources, and rely on vague notions of "influence". Any opinion which starts with "Notable as the father of Tony Blair..." has clearly been made by an editor unfamiliar with the concept of notability, and how it is applied on Wikipedia. Deiz talk 23:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"clearly been made by an editor unfamiliar with the concept of notability" I'm also familiar with the concept of an ad hominem. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Your response could easily be interpreted as rude, and is quite possibly a breach of WP:NPA and certainly WP:CIVIL. Back onto the point, Leo Blair Sr has news articles about him[52][53], which are reliable sources. I realise these probably don't meet the requirements, but there'll be more which a quick Google didn't reveal. Computerjoe 's talk 08:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Where we do have articles on Prime Ministerial ancestors, e.g. Daniel MacMillan it seems to be because of notability in their own right. Conversely, there aren't articles about non-notable Prime Minsterial parents - e.g. those of Ted Heath or John Major. SP-KP (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Other stuff doesn't exist" isn't a policy. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on, Andy, you can't really think that that was my line of reasoning - re-read what I wrote. I was suggesting that based on which ones we have and which we don't, that editors HAVE actually given some thought to whether a particular prime ministerial ancestor deserves their own article or not, and that they've (without exception?) decided that the notability of the individual themselves is the deciding factor. Your explanation - that this is a coincidence - surely isn't a serious one? SP-KP (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

And which policy are you suggesting supports your opinion? Because it is extremely clear in policy and practice that notability is not genetic, which appears to be the sole argument underpinning your position. Deiz talk 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ Even if Tony Blair died at birth, Leo Blair (senior) is notable in his own right. Maybe not interesting enough to make me sit down and create the article personally, but certainly more than would oppose an AfD. Is the encyclopedia project better or worse for the existence of this article? It's better than our usual fancruft. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I struck this keep because you already "voted" above, but you are of course free to make further comments. the wub "?!" 11:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep I'm not sure what "fancruft" is, but reading between the lines (well, the letters then) of it, I agree with Andy. Having searched no end of dictionaries of national biography etc (Oxford, American, etc) for additions to my main project and found about a third of the people in them not allegedly "notable" enough for WP (well they are, but nobody's included them), it's clear that our whole venture is skewed. If this bloke, not to mention each and every idiot who appears on Big Brother, is "notable" enough, then Blair Senior, a law lecturer at Durham and author of the book The Commonwealth Public Service (1958, described by the journal Canadian Public Administration (vol 2 issue 4 p. 255, find it via Wiley Interscience) as "an excellent primer on the Australian Federal Public Service") clearly is. Or are we assuming that people's notability diminishes as time goes on? Oolon (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep That's better - NOW we have a reason to keep the article; thanks Oolon. How about we direct our energies now at turning the article into something which majors on the genuine reasons for Blair Snr's notability. Nothing wrong with mentioning the biological trivia too, though, of course. No harm in a bit of padding. SP-KP (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Another reliable source specifcally about Leo Blair here [54]. The sources specifically about him together with published book mentioned above is in my opinion enough to establish notability - I suspect if we looked further we could find more published work by him (although possibly difficult to find given how long ago) and more articles written about him (although again difficult to find due to the number of times he's mentioned purley as Tony's father). Dpmuk (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Computerjoe 's talk 11:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong Delete Notability is not inherited. Mr. Blair has no accomplishments of any note except with respect to having fathered his more famous son. If the guideline means anything, he isn't notable enough for an article. Getting human interest articles on him in the context of Tony Blair's family doesn't come close to establishing independent notability. RayAYang (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Information: I've now been through (via Nexis UK) just about every English language newspaper pre-1985 (which seemed like a reasonable date), plus Who's Who and various other sources, and can find no mention of Leo Blair in them. So I reluctantly conclude that, if he's notable at all, nobody took much notice of him. Oolon (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Evan Davis (actor)[edit]

I have done my best to make Evan Davis(actor) more of a biography instead of a resume. I have also changed one of the links. Hope this helps. I do not believe Evan Davis (actor) deserves to be deleted. He has more than enough facts to prove his existence and merit in the entertainment industry. I am not a sock puppet, I am trying to help out an acting friend that I know. I am not the same person and will give out my name if needed. Wikipedia asked the original author to re-edit the article, then he was unable to do so. I was not aware of a rule that forbids authors knowing each other. Thank you GoldenMonkey78 (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete per lack of notability and the fact that it is essentially an autobiography co-written with meat puppets. There are serious conflicts of interest in this and related articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is in regards to Evan Davis(actor), 12 Minutes to Heaven, Sofia Mendez. I am not a sock muppet, I was asked to edit these pages for Evan Davis, since he was told by an administrator he could not do and refuse to be called a meat puppet. I a fellow artist and do not believe these people should have their pages deleted or the film, because of my mistake. This is my first time on wikipedia, I apologize. We are trying to give Wikipedia facts not promotion. This has been a misunderstanding. Everything written on these pages is true and there are links to the sources. Thank you GoldenMonkey78 (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

When I signed up for Wikipedia I should have read the rules in depth. I apologize for the conusion. I changes my account from Evan2001 because I did not like the name I chose. I thought I deleted it, I never meant to give the impression I had more than one account. GoldenMonkey78 is not a Sock puppet, this person does know me, but volunteered to edit my personal page. I would have ever posted on my own page had I known it was against the rules. I am simply an actor who is trying to post facts that I believe have artistic merit.Retrojew89 (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete regardless of the behaviour issues the subject fails our notability and verfiability guidelines. Though the article contains lots of "references" they are primary source, trivial, and/or non-reliable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Before you delete at least tell me how I can give you notability and verfiability. I have seen this actor live on stage, watched their films and they do exist and will eventually end up on Wikipedia whether it's today or in the future. However, the references I posted are not trivial and are reliable, they are the same reliability as other well known or up and coming artists. GoldenMonkey78 (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't Delete Evan Davis (actor) has IMDB credit for an award winning film Thumb Pow, which does match Wikipedia's guildlines for notability. He may not have all his credits on there yet, but is a working commercial actor that will end up on Wikipedia eventually if not today. You say YouTube doesn't count, but that is his fan base and I supplied you with more than one video, once of which has people imitating his performance in a play. He is notable.GoldenMonkey78 (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Further to my comments at your talkpage. I think you need to review the policies. Youtube, IMDB, and several others you are using at the moment do not constitute reliable sources, or comply to other policies and guidelines to which you have already been pointed. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete as there are no reliable sources. Just so you're aware, GoldenMonkey78, IMDb is not considered reliable at all, as almost anyone can contribute without having their facts checked (this synopsis of the upcoming Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen movie is pure fan-fiction, and has been there for months! -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete as an autobiography written solely by meatpuppets. Violates WP:COI and WP:OR. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete with a comment to User:Retrojew89, User:Evan2001, User:GoldenMonkey78... Let's put aside for the moment that you may all know each other and be editing to each other's benefit (meatpuppet) or might even be the same person (sockpuppet). Let's ignore that for just a moment. There is no specific rule that authors cannot know each other or write about each other, however WP:COI states that such relationships should be declared when making those edits BLP describes how every statement in a biography must be well sourced... and there are further guidelines on how these edits must be done. All that aside.... the crux of the entire matter which brought this "relationship" to light is simply that the Evan Davis article, the 12 Minutes to Heaven article, and the Sofia Mendez article do not show notability in a manner accepted by Wikipedia. You have been unable to show even a minor notabilty per Wiki policies and guidelines. The articles as presented to AfD will likely not survive for just that reason. The various puppet cases now are a different (though related) matter and may result in these usernames being either temporarily or pemamently blocked. The place for the Evan Davis article about himself would have been his personal user page. The place for the film's article as it was being developed would have been his user sandbox. You might think about moving them there while still able. No promise that they will survive there, but if you are not blocked, you'll have them in a workspce... and if you are blocked temporarily, they'll be waiting. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete No reliable sources, and no evidence of anything, even in the sources given, that would satisfy WP:N or WP:ENTERTAINER. The fact that the actor has one IMDB credit is completely non-notable; I have two IMDB credits myself (for feature films I've had supporting roles in)[55], and I'm under no delusions that I'm notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article! References to YouTube, FunnyOrDie, etc., likewise non-notable. Note to User:GoldenMonkey78: You may very well be right that he "will end up on Wikipedia eventually", but he's clearly nowhere near notable to be on Wikipedia now. Articles aren't added to Wikipedia about things that people anticipate may become notable in the future. --Smeazel (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per Smeazel Atlandy (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete per no evidence of any notability given by reliable sources. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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. It's either a no-consensus to delete, or a keep - either one results in the article remaining. Most of the initial deletes have been addressed/changed and while one remains, it appears as if evidence has been presented to address that. Remaining article issues can be addressed with clean-up, notability has been established. TravellingCari 15:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Cremo[edit]

Unnotable promoter of pseudoscience (creationism) and conspiracy theories. No assertation or demonstration of importance, lacks sources and has little value. We66er (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As nominator, I'd say this is borderline keep. The National Center for Science Education review demonstrates that, as far as fringe people go, he is notable. We66er (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete per reasons stated above. Being a "challenger" of science isn't worthy of Wiki inclusion. Beemer69 ^chitchat 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above. Neutral ClovisPt (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
~~Delete:~~ only citation is self-published. No evidence that this individual has garnered notice in creationism/conspiracy theory circles, let alone from "the world at large". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep: article is currently written to obfuscate his notability, which appears to be as a Hindu creationist and cryptoarchaeologist. The article needs to emphasise this, and give WP:DUE weight to scientific criticism of his claims (e.g. here & here). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Both of those reviews are already linked in the article. It's just a matter of incorporating what they say. Zagalejo^^^ 04:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that's precisely my point -- giving voluminous mention of talk radio trivia & the topic's self-description, while relegating scathing scientific views & reviews to the ELs is gross WP:UNDUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Just remember that the article is a work in progress. I'm not submitting it to FAC or anything. I just started poking around with it this weekend. Zagalejo^^^ 06:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ keep Cremo is at least borderline notable. He's in Gale's Contemporary Authors, has been the subject of some newspaper articles [56], [57], and is discussed in some depth here. Also, his book Forbidden Archeology has been reviewed in The British Journal for the History of Science [58] and appears in at least 446 libraries, according to WorldCat [59]. He has some weird ideas, but he's fairly significant in his "field". Zagalejo^^^ 06:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 18:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: what "field" would that be? His 'academic affiliation' (to the Bhaktivedanta Institute, itself an unknown quantity) is in the field of 'Consciousness studies', which seems to be unrelated to his claims. Also, none of the links you gave yield full-text of the material cited -- meaning we have no indication as to how much depth they cover Cremo in (per WP:NOTE). Therefore, they do not really add much to the discussion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

By "field", I was referring to "forbidden archeology" and all that. It's not a legit academic field, but it is an area of interest to creationists and the like. I don't know how long those articles are, but it's clear that Cremo is the subject of each of them, so I think we should err on the side of inclusion. In any case, he has an entry in Contemporary Authors and the Chambers Dictionary of the Unexplained, either of which should be enough to confer notability. Zagalejo^^^ 19:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"'forbidden archeology' and all that" is hardly a useful definition of a "field". Cryptoarchaeology or pseudoarchaeology might be -- but I don't see any mention of him in either of those articles. His views are only of interest to Hindu creationists, not creationists generally. Given all information to date seems to be centred on discussion/criticism of his claims, rather than biographical information on the man himself, I would suggest expansion of the above wikilinked articles to cover his ideas (with WP:DUE weight to the criticism they have received) rather than attempting a biography that would simply be a WP:COATRACK for these claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I put "field" in scare quotes for a reason. Don't fixate on it. There is some more biographical information at Contemporary Authors I could throw in. Zagalejo^^^ 05:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Not everything in Wikipedia has to meet strict academic guidelines. What a boring encyclopedia it would be were that true!--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment regarding Hrafn's suggestion regarding "expansion of the above wikilinked articles to cover his ideas". The views of Cremo and ISKCON (who publishes his books) are already given Undue Weight at Hindu views on evolution, since both hold views that are only held by an extreme minority of Hindus. ~ priyanath ^talk 22:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete, does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the sources in the article? Zagalejo^^^ 18:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  I don't have an issue with the sources. I still can't see him meeting WP:BIO. Perhaps you can indicate which entry there he meets. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  Well, I just think he passes the general Notability criteria (subject of multiple, independent sources). He has a balanced, multi-paragraph entry in this book and an entry in Contemporary Authors. His books have been reviewed in many places [60], [61], [62], [63], and he's been the subject of several newspaper articles [64], [65]. He's also discussed, in varying length, in these two sources: [66], [67]. Zagalejo^^^ 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep sure, a lot of people disagree with the theories put forth, but they are notable theories. The sources are not exactly "widely known", but I'm okay with that on this particular "specialist" topic.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep Article makes specific claims of notability, backed by required sources needed to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Zagalejo and Paul McDonald. Banjeboi 00:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Zagalejo and Paul McDonald et al. Notable pseudoscientist as shown by many refs above and in article.John Z (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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 both. Sandstein 19:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Pierre Picault[edit]

Entirely speculative article on an individual who may or may not be a World War I veteran. Sole available sources are a blog entry that cites Wikipedia and Robert Young's World's Oldest People group, which is not only not an acceptable source for Wikipedia, but even itself admits that there is no media coverage of the individual. This person may indeed be one of France's last surviving World War I veterans but, until he gets coverage in third-party, independent, published reliable sources, this is original research. Cheers, CP 20:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:BIO at the moment, per nomination. Even if he is officially one of the last WWI survivors and gets news coverage he might still fail due to WP:ONEEVENT. --Amalthea^Talk 11:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Since Fernand Goux asserts notability in the same way, I extend this nomination by this article. He was mentioned in [68], which is far less than significant coverage. --Amalthea^Talk 11:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Paul, if you want to talk about verifibility, fine, but don't speculate about whether it's a true case or not, since the mantra is "verifibility not truth", and anyway, it's obviously true and not 'entirely' speculative. Amalthea, there are other sources about Fernand Goux. You've had months to add some, but much better to delete someone else's contributions, eh? All the veterans are notable for 1 event so why don't you nominate all of them? It was quite a big event though, you know? 78.145.35.67 (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
- Comment For Goux, the burden of citations and verifiability ALWAYS lies on the individual who added the material, so please do not be uncivil to another editor as you were above. I noticed that you !voted Keep. On what criteria do you base that on? Cheers, CP 19:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment As I said, I base it on it being perfectly verifiable, but presumably the burden you mention is why so many people prefer to destruct rather than construct. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
- None of the veterans are notable alone by having fought in WWI, according to the notability criteria. The "one event" I was referring to was them being among the last living WWI veterans, which I am convinced is by itself also not enough to establish notability - WP:ONEVENT. Keeping lists (Surviving veterans of World War I, Last surviving World War I veteran by country) is not covered by this of course.
  That being said, I do expect that a great number of those "last survining veterans" will be otherwise notable due to "significant coverage in reliable sources" - see Frank Buckles and Erich Kästner. I do not see it at the moment with the initially nominated article, and I do not see it with Fernand Goux. All I can find are unreliable sources (blogs, ...) and/or trivial coverage.
  In particular, Bart Versieck aka Extremly Sexy being "told by Laurent Toussaint" does not comply with WP:V I'm afraid, and I still highly doubt that the fact makes him notable in the first place.
  I have no prejudice against recreating these articles once they pass the criteria of course, but at the moment I'm convinced that they don't.
  --Amalthea^Talk 13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Apart from Wikipedia entries, Robert Young's group, and the blog that has been cited in the article, I have not been able to find any source that mentions Picault. A blog is not a reliable source, especially considering it cites its reference to Picault to a Wikipedia article. Considering the flaw with Robert Young's record of this person, as noted by CP, and the fact that the relevant Wikipedia entries do not provide appropriate sources to back up their mention of him, I suspect that the article on Picault could be a hoax. I could be wrong, but the evidence does suggest this. Re-iterating what CP said, 78.145.35.67, you were acting in an uncivil manner towards Amalthea when you said "Amalthea, there are other sources about Fernand Goux. You've had months to add some, but much better to delete someone else's contributions, eh?". That type of behaviour will not do. Plus, .67, you said the "it's obviously true". How is it obviously true? Also, I would like to address "but don't speculate about whether it's a true case or not, since the mantra is "verifibility not truth"." That mantra is true, and the fact that we can't verify that this person exists is the reason why I believe this article should be deleted. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Firstly, I know the mantra is the rules, that's why I repeated it, and I know that's why you want to delete the article. The point which you haven't understood is that if you say "I only care about the rules" and there is nothing in the rules about truth, then why would you discuss whether it is true or a 'hoax'? Because you're trying to have it both ways. And in doing so, you're implying that another editor is a liar (which is more uncivil than my sarcasm). Because Bart Versieck has said that he was told by Laurent Toussaint that this is a true case. And since Mr Toussaint is one of the leading experts I said it was obviously true. But you don't know any of this because you haven't taken a few minutes to look into it. You've just jumped to conclusions like every other Jonny come lately out of the woodwork and insulted other people's efforts and intelligence. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
Comment Captain celery, a hoax is not allowed under Wikipedia guidelines. Accusing an article of being a hoax can be seen as an uncivil act if there is no evidence to back up that assertion. In this case, the lack of any reliable information regarding the existence of Picault does give some ground, imo, to the idea that the article is a hoax. If I have offended anyone with my suggestion that this article might be a hoax, I would like to apologise for that. I do not wish to start an argument, but I feel I must address the following; I am not happy that I have been accused of having "jumped to conclusions". I have conducted an expected level of research into this case, imo. I am aware of what Laurent Toussaint told Bart Versieck, since I found out about them when I was looking at the talk page of Surviving veterans of World War I, and from the comment I have recently made on the talk page, you can see that I did look at that article before you mentioned these two people. Toussaint may be right about Picault, but until his information is backed up by accessible and reliable sources, the Wikipedia community can't simply take his word, as stated by Wikipedia guidelines. This is not because I believe he is a liar, but because his information needs to be verified, as the mantra you have put forth states.JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I accept that you researched it, and that if you had known who Laurent Toussaint and Bart Versieck are, then you would have come to a different conclusion. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
Comment I do not mean to sound rude, but it is the verifiability of Laurent Toussaint and Bart Versieck's opinion that counts, as opposed to knowing "who Laurent Toussaint and Bart Versieck are". JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom and JEdgarFreeman. If some reliable source/s can be found the article can be easily recovered. For the moment both fail WP:RS and WP:V. Moondyne 02:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sideline text collapsed

Collapsing material not directly to articles nominated for deletion. Cheers, CP 05:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Here's my problem with you folks. Last night someone evidently went on the main article and changed Fernand Goux's name to 'Barthezz' and it took 45 minutes before one of the regulars reverted it. Where were you then? But if I make a change, it's reverted within seconds. So much for being guardians of the rules. Delete Picault's article. Fine. But why delete Goux's when there's a perfectly reasonable source? Only because he's a newly discovered French veteran. What rule is that, the law of the bandwagon? It's so hypocritical. One of the other articles has the same level of citation. You won't delete that, either because it's been on so long, or just because you don't know about it. That's because you know nothing about this article. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
- Comment Some edits on Wikipedia are responded to more quickly than others. I believe this is not generally due to prejudice, but because it can take time for an editor to notice an edit that needs to be addressed. I happened to check the article in question soon after you had made the edit I proceeded to reverse. The fact that I reverted your change, 78.145.35.67, within "seconds", was a coincidence as a result. You may not believe me, but it is the truth. The source cited in Goux's article is reliable, imo, but I believe its coverage of him is trivial. According to WP:Notability (people), "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". What I have quoted is a guideline, but I believe trivial coverage in one reliable source is not enough to establish notability for Goux. 78.145.35.67, you said "One of the other articles has the same level of citation". Please could you tell me which article that is? I ask because I would like to investigate it, to see if it deserves to be on Wikipedia. You also said "or just because you don't know about it. That's because you know nothing about this article." I do not see how my knowledge of the article on Goux has anything to do with my knowledge of another article. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Celery, I'm going to warn you again not to be uncivil. It's not tolerated here and, frankly, it's not helping your argument any. If there is another article with the same level of citation, then you should point it out. I will note that I have successfully nominated several poorly-cited veteran articles and also plan to nominate Battista Serioli for a second time in due course. Cheers, CP 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment I think it's obvious to anyone that my last comment wasn't the slightest bit uncivil. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
Comment I found it uncivil that you suggested that I "know nothing about this article". I advise you to follow what CP and I have said about being civil. Being uncivil in Wikipedia will not help your cause, and if you are uncivil in the future, you will find yourself in trouble. I hope that you will be civil at all times from now on, and I hope that you will be a valuable Wikipedian into the future. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You implied that we were either incompetent or biased against you ("So much for being guardians of the rules") depending on how one takes that statement, called us hypocrites (actions being "so hypocritical") and told us that we "know nothing about this article". That's a far cry from commenting on the contributions, not the contributors. I think that all three of us have said enough about our opinions on whether or not this page should stay and this long sideline is becoming somewhat irrelevant and disruptive to the deletion debate. Let's take a break from this page, cool down, and let others comment on this deletion. I am going to collapse the part of this discussion that begins after Moondyne's !vote to delete, in hopes that it will end; it is not appropriate on this page.Cheers, CP 05:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep. There should have been a separate AFD for it, since unlike the Picault case there is some verifiable information. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that the article on Goux does contain information that can be cited to a reliable source (specifically, the website that is cited on the article). However, I believe the cited website's coverage of him is trivial. According to WP:Notability (people), "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". What I have quoted is a guideline, but I believe trivial coverage in one reliable source is not enough to establish notability for Goux. If more reliable sources can be shown that mention Goux, I will consider advising that the article on Goux is kept. Until that time, I believe Goux's article should be deleted because WP:N has not been met, imo.JEdgarFreeman (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Living people[edit]

Earthsong[edit]

Rachel Ter Horst[edit]

Priscila Sol[edit]

Brett Salisbury[edit]

Pierre Picault[edit]

Tomomi Itano[edit]

Piotr Blass[edit]

Hugh Hamilton (academic)[edit]

Kiyoshi Kawakubo[edit]

Rhys Griffiths[edit]

Stan burdman[edit]

Justin Curzi[edit]

Amaryllis Knight[edit]

Harriet Spicer[edit]

Nikki Jackson[edit]

Jesse Winchester[edit]

Georgina Smith[edit]

Armando Romero[edit]

Rock Williams[edit]

John Blanchard[edit]

Tjandamurra O'Shane[edit]

Abbas Ansarifard[edit]

Lee Sawyer[edit]

Sadio Ba[edit]

Michael Governale[edit]

David Sherer[edit]

Norm Ellefson[edit]

Dave Miller (musician)[edit]

Sergey Igorevich Yakovlev[edit]

Richard Gough (sailor)[edit]

Zack Taylor (celebrity blogger)[edit]

Kokoro Kikuchi[edit]

Richard Garvie[edit]

Cindy Pucci[edit]

Akane Omae[edit]

Michael Klonsky[edit]

Ya Chang[edit]

Georgina Wilcock[edit]

Ai Nagano[edit]

Kasumi Kitano[edit]

Vince Palamara[edit]

Sandie Caine[edit]

Steve Burke[edit]

Shane Keister[edit]

Jorge Queirolo B.[edit]

Jeff Atwood[edit]

Sofia Mendez[edit]

Paul Karason[edit]

Rajvee[edit]

David Hecht[edit]

Arthur M. Dula[edit]

Brooke Fraser[edit]

Paul Green (UK musician)[edit]

Tyler Faith[edit]

Frank Andoh[edit]

Hugo morris[edit]

Angelo Starr[edit]

Leo Blair (senior)[edit]

Evan Davis (actor)[edit]

Michael Cremo[edit]

Pierre Picault[edit]

Living people Proposed deletions[edit]