Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:33, 2 June 2009

WP:BLPFD

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Living people. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Living people|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Living people.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people/archive

Purge page cache

watch

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

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

{{{linktext}}}

Living people

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Scapillato

Everyone so far agrees, a borderline notab case. What does the community think ? Triwbe (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this is borderline unless one radio interview is considered sufficient to cast doubt on his non-notability. Drawn Some (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it took 38 hours for an admin to decide on a WP:CSD#A7. --Triwbe (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a radio interview would probably make an admin decline a speedy and appropriately so. Drawn Some (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources for a BLP? THen no blp.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bali ultimate. لenna vecia 21:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the radio interview would be a valid enough source to escape speedy oblivion, but it doesn't meet the expectation of substantial coverage strongly enough to escape AFD. Delete; no real notability demonstrated. Bearcat (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. Andrew Gonzalez

Artist is not culturally significant; page originally created by artist's girlfriend Aletheia82 (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to call this a bad faith nomination. I can't verify the claim that the page was originally created by the artist's girlfriend, and the artist seems notable, but I can't verify all the references in the article due to NSFW content. I also find it suspicious that the AfD template was placed on the page by an IP, and the nom's first edit was to create the AfD discussion page. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was the original IP who nominated the page for deletion, but I created this account when I didn't seem able to add a reason for the nomination as an unregistered user. re: the girlfriend, she notes as much at http://heidiallen.com/rapidfire/2006/07/02/a-andrew-gonzalez-artist/ (this is where I found the initial link to the article, by the way). The references given are all obscure sites--if any better sources exist, they should be cited instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aletheia82 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all "references" i clicked on linked to irrelevant links with no speak of the subject in question. not notable. Rmzadeh ► 15:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if these unsourced accusations are true, the source of the article is irrelevant. The artist is notable, and the article is only lacking a few inline citations. I find it even more suspicious that Aletheia82 is an account seemingly created only for this delete attempt. - JeffJonez (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that without any credible sources, the article Cannot be called notable right? Notability means significance coverage which means sources, the motives of the person electing the article is irrelevant. we are to assume good faith, the only matter is the quality of the article Rmzadeh ► 16:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that the artist is notable, which I based on the number of publications in which the artist has contributed. The article may not yet represent that notability in the opinion of some, but I believe that it is merely formatted poorly, contains some content that is currently unsourced, and in general needs a little TLC... not deletion - JeffJonez (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, the majority of the publications linked to no longer exist (three out of five lead to dead areas). Additionally, the quality of the publication should matter as well, no? A small newsletter and a self-published magazine probably don't qualify for the Wikipedia notability standards, from what I understand of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aletheia82 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made it quite clear in my initial response to Kuyabribri that I created this account in order to provide a reason for the nomination (for what it's worth, I don't personally know either the artist/his girlfriend). I find it a little curious that you don't perceive a conflict of interest in the article's creator re: the artist's significance, but you seem to see one in my account having nominated the article for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aletheia82 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your claim is true, it's not automatically a conflict of interest if the article is notable and reflects a neutral point of view. What I find suspicious is that you either have chosen not to stake your reputation as a wikipedian on this effort, or that you have no previous experience editing here. - JeffJonez (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The claim on the website you linked proves nothing. That blog post was added in July 2006. I cannot find any indication that an article on this individual existed on Wikipedia until September 2006. Regardless, we can't prove Puroprana (talk · contribs) is Heidi Allen without using CheckUser, and I don't believe we can justify using CU in this case. Frankly, the original author's identity is irrelevant and should be disregarded, as COI on its own is not grounds for deletion. Notability, on the other hand, is grounds for deletion, and this discussion should focus on that. I will not make a judgment on notability until I can check the sources with NSFW content. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've validated the links in the "other media" section, which do speak to notability. Many of them were suffering from link rot, and simply needed to reflect target site redesigns. - JeffJonez (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Heidi Allen (Puroprana). A couple of points:

1) I am A. Andrew Gonzalez's girlfriend. However, I did not create this Wikipedia entry.

2) A. Andrew Gonzalez is definitely culturally significant within the visionary art movement. If you follow the movement, you've heard of him and are probably familiar with his work.

A little elaboration:

When I originally came across this entry, it was a stub, and there was a request for an editor to work on it. I was already a Wikipedia editor, and had access to the necessary information, so it seemed like a natural fit.

That was some time ago. I hadn't worked on the entry since then, although other editors have. I've just now finished an update to include more recent publications and to delete the section that listed some of his art shows.

The updated Publications and Other Media sections should provide ample evidence of Mr. Gonzalez's significance as a visionary artist. My relationship to him has no bearing on the information that's presented there.

On a side note, I've left the Children of God information as it is, other than correcting some spelling errors. I'm not familiar with the Children of God, and the editor who created that portion of the entry clearly is. Puroprana (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question any reviews? any work in museums? any solo exhibitions in major venues? any works in major juried exhibitions? any prizes? sand, any sources for the analysis in the Paintings section? I recognize that some of this is unlikely for new artistic movements, but we do have to wait until someone outside Wikipedia recognizes them.DGG (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your questions. I've created a new 'Shows, Exhibitions, Collections, Prizes' section. I've also added two links to analyses of Gonzalez's work in the 'Paintings' section. (I'll change the title of that section to 'Technique & Influences' once I'm done writing this, to better reflect the section's focus.) I do want to note that, although Gonzalez has won top prize at juried exhibitions at the past, artists tend to stop entering juried exhibitions once their careers reach a certain level. Just the same, I did include the references in my update. In hindsight, I'm glad this entry was challenged, because it's now much stronger, more focused and readable. :) Puroprana (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability has not been established. Fails WP:ARTIST. Article is also not written in an encyclopedic tone, rather it is more like what I would expect on a personal website. لenna vecia 21:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Grayson

does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) Xsmasher (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – declined A7 speedy tag by User:TenPoundHammer. This is an AfD case, not a speedy one (which holds a lower standard than WP:MUSIC). There are a few claims of notability, so the AfD discussion should decide. Jamie^☆S93 18:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Greco

Not notable - essentially zero secondary source mentions. worthawholebean _talk^contribs 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and clean it up. Needs more information for it - a LOT more. I'm going off of not WP:BIO, but precedent - see Frederick W. Smith for such a precedent. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a huge difference between FedEx and a small bagel chain though. 76.127.178.193 (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not convinced that size really matters in this context. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 13:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete~~ as a copyright violation from http://www.brueggers.com/about-us/leadership-team -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have removed the copyrighted content from the article, which left behind a short stub, and declined the speedy request. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage consists of quites from him about the company. No coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Bruegger's is much more than a "small bagel chain" it is a fast casual restaurant very similar to Panera Bread. Bruegger's is not a small company either; it is comprised of over 300 stores, fairly large in the restaurant industry. James Greco has done much more beyond just running Bruegger's, though. He was recently named Restaurateur of the Year by Nation's Restaurant News, the leading publication of the food service industry. James Greco is frequently mentioned in various news media and is definitely worthy of a Wikipedia page.68.109.18.69 (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you cite sources for this? Being mentioned isn't sufficient to meet notability. Can you point to an article written about his award as restauranteur of the year? -- Whpq (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are links to several recent articles about either Mr. Greco or significantly quoting him on his company: http://www.nationsrestaurantnews-digital.com/nationsrestaurantnews/20090518/?pg=64,

http://www.nationsrestaurantnews-digital.com/nationsrestaurantnews/20090511/?pg=56, http://www.faremagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=52D7168A259A440ABF429933A03841C0, http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS119746+07-May-2009+BW20090507, http://www.nrn.com/article.aspx?keyword=&menu_id=-1&id=346982. There are plenty more, simply google "James J. Greco" or "James J. Greco Bruegger's" and your search will be filled with articles. He is an important man to the industry, the business world and beyond and thus it is important that he have a Wikipedia article.68.109.18.69 (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I remain unconvinced. The references establish the Bruegger's is notable (which isn't in question). -- Whpq (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up as Dennis said. Via WP:BIO, most of anonymous's articles qualify, as do others with a google search (For just one example, if you have a high beam account, you can check out the chain leader one here: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-142569319.html). He does have a notable award, and it seems like his contribution as CEO for this brand has contributed it to being as big a chain as it is today, perhaps even "part of the enduring historical record". -User:Umdunno 04:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references in the article plus the ones above are sufficient to convince me that the subject meets WP:BIO and WP:N.--Kubigula (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Company is notable, subject is not. لenna vecia 21:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory McMillion

Delete. The classic WP:BLP: Was a regular dude prior to his 15 minutes of infamy and returned to being a regular dude when the 15 minutes were up. Article also seems like a WP:COATRACK for soldier misbehavior. brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this one. He's notable for one thing, but the one thing is a crime, not, say, bugging Barack Obama in front of a camera. And my usual position is that coatrack issues are best dealt with editing, not deletion. Otherwise we'd be deleting lots of stuff, starting with Pro-life or Irreducible complexity. Hairhorn (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article on looting in the Iraq War or one on wartime looting in general. It's clear that what he did was wrong. The article is about his crimes, not he himself. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with a combo of Brewcrewer & Northwestgnome. If there's a more general article where the info fits merge it there, but doesn't look like there's a need for a standalone article based on this one incident.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Brewcrewer, Northwestgnome & Cube lurker :) If there were a general article about looting we can redirect the name there, but AFAIK there's no such article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There should be articles on the general topic of wartime looting and on that which took place in Iraq. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E Niteshift36 (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deletetion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Poling

One third party source but not enough for WP:N it seems. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; subject (User:Chanpol) wrote it, in his sole edit three years ago, and it doesn't appear to have been substantively improved since then. --Golbez (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Further sources are available [1], [2], [3], [4] etc. Clearly enough to satisfy notability and verifiability requirements. Quantpole (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NYT reference convinced me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs work but subject notable enough - Emmy award winner. Lame Name (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me, fellows, but if these references are so great, perhaps one of you would like to put it in the article? After seeing three keeps in a row mentioning a half dozen valid references, I went back and ... the article remains completely unchanged, and thus my vote remains a delete. --Golbez (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is articles for deletion, and not cleanup. The discussion is to determine if the article should be kept. Sourcing is established in this disussion, and as such I would say keep. Improving the article can happen during or after the AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This discussion is not valid sourcing for an article. The article must be seen on its own, and as it is, it fails the criteria for inclusion. --Golbez (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. This is a sounding of the general consensus amongst editors. Maybe, just maybe, people are at work, or enjoying a sunny afternoon, or waiting to see what the general consensus is, and have not the time or inclination to rewrite an article, which, a couple of minutes with Google reveals, has obviously erroneously been proposed for deletion, right now but will get back to it as soon as possible. Lame Name (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Sorry, but have you even read WP:DEL#REASON or WP:BEFORE? We don't delete articles because they aren't currently good enough, we delete them because they can't become good enough (with some exceptions like copyvios).
    - "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" So we are allowed to keep a BLP with entirely inadequate sourcing so long as AFD has found sources? All I ask is that sources be placed in a BLP. --Golbez (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - But that doesn't say anything about putting those sources in the article itself. It's not up to those voting keep to make the article better, that's the general job of all editors. All we do is assess whether it meets wikipedia's requirements, which this blatantly does. If the sources are there to verify an article it is totally against the deletion process to delete. Quantpole (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've added Quantpole's references into the article. One of them was apparently already there, and the last one probably belongs in The Suburbs article. "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" hardly applies here since the reliable sources have already been presented. Jafeluv (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:MUSICBIO as an Emmy winner and, as Quantpole pointed out, covered in several reliable sources independent from the subject. Jafeluv (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Scott (singer)

I tried redirecting this to Lady Antebellum, but it was declined by the author, who said that her winning an award from SESAC (verified here) and writing the majority of Lady Antebellum's material was enough for a standalone article. Besides the fact that she recorded a non-notable, self-released album with her mother (Linda Davis, who is irrefutably notable), I see absolutely nothing that makes her sufficiently notable for a standalone article. (Keep in mind that all of the band's material was co-written by the other two members as well.) This article, as it stands, repeats material from Lady Antebellum's article in a desperate attempt to not be a stub, but I think she still fails to meet the criterion for individual member of a band, as she has not "demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lady Antebellum-- Rmzadeh ► 15:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!I Just created it two days days ago, so there's the article is in its infant stage. As to why this should be kept;

Songwriter of the year from a "major" organization - SESAC CMT.com
Listed as co-writer for 3 of the band's singles which have charted - Love Don't Live Here (#3) , Lookin' for a Good Time (#11), I Run to You (#9).
As for significant coverage, see interview with the official blog of Vanderbilt baseball team, interview with metromix.com, coverage from GAC. This is all you need to pass WP:NOTE, since its significant coverage from reliable sources. More coverage about the Songwriter of the year award.

So, Award + Songwriter with songs that have charted + Significant Coverage = Keep. Article is thin now, but it can definitely be improved. Corpx (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Corpx's well reasoned argument. Even if this article was just a stub for now, that would not be a valid reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SESAC is a major performing rights organization. Its songwriter awards are notable, just like those from ASCAP or BMI. Having won a notable award from a notable organization, the subject is clearly an independently notable songwriter. Her possible lack of notability as a musician, the only thing the nominator took into account, is plainly irrelevant. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Corpx, I too, agree with Rlendog. Just because it's a stub doesn't mean is should be deleted. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie loades

While some assertion of notability is hinted at, I think this is a case where the person falls a bit short. Of the two links offered, one is the person's MySpace entry. Tyrenon (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sufficient notability. Passportguy (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, tried to find something to verify the information about the patents. ~~When I tried to verify it at http://patft.uspto.gov/ there is no indication that she holds any patents.~~ I don't think the freshpatents site is reliable source for this info. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, my search for the Patents was in the wrong spot. That does not change my opinion. There is not enough to say she is notable even with the patents. Many people hold patents, but just that fact does not make one notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The patent aren't held in the US, but are European patents as per: http://v3.espacenet.com/searchResults?locale=en_GB&IN=Melanie+Loades&compact=false&DB=EPODOC--Simonhw (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.R.Harikumar

Article was previously deleted at CSD. It has since been recreated by a different author. Article has multiple issues, not much improved upon by the first version. Not eligible for CSD because of notability issues. No articles link to it, and it is a dead-end. Neu_tralle 12:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Neu_tralle 12:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Neu_tralle 12:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, post hatse. Way too promotional (self-promo?). Looks like it was written by his PR person, assuming that PR person wasn't very good at what he or she does. I realize that The Hindu is a reliable source, but something about the text in the references cited comes across as somewhat promotional as well. I just don't think he passes notability standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete of this self-promotion. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if we take his achivements at face value he does not seem to meet any notability criteria. He has one state level award althought the award's notability itself is debatable. --Deepak D'Souza 08:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Shaikh

Contested prod. Article is an advertisement for Shaikh and his series of video lectures/organization. No reliable sources provided and I could not find anything outside of facebook/myspace/linkedin profiles. TN X Man 11:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Essentially a praise article. I was involved in an edit war a couple of weeks ago that resulted in a less praise-y article ([5]) but still did not establish notability. I was tempted to list this article here at that time, but I did not want to give the impression that I was trying to settle a content dispute through deletion. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Praise article full of peacock terms. Trevor Marron (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable advertisement piece, possibly written by the subject. لenna vecia 21:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sibyll kalff

Prod deleted with no improvements so AFD made: the document looks like a resume, number of irrelevant links with no relevant sourcing. notability highly in question and the quality is very much lacking. decide for your self Rmzadeh ► 08:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. Websites exist, but they appear to be primary sources. Only one article on google news from the Tehran Times? Shadowjams (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability indicated, although I appreciate the minutiae listed in her resume. There are no references given; I doubt this could saved. What's that rule again about articles with lower-case surnames in the title? freshacconci talktalk 12:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete: Having removed they copyvio resume[6], there's nothing left to show notability meets WP:SPEEDY#A7 (does not indicate why its subject is important or significant). --JD554 (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Letting the AfD close will allow easier speedy deletion in the event the same article is recreated later. As it stands now, some admins might decline speedy under A7 (despite the lack of any claim of notability). Shadowjams (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the AfD was closed as a speedy delete it could still be used for a speedy G4 if recreated. That said, with the latest changes I believe that it now fails for an A7 as notability has been asserted, but I still vote delete as it hasn't been established. --JD554 (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Patrick McGovern

Promotional biography of a non-notable person MickMacNee (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a quick Google search throws up nothing at all on the subject, completely against WP:BIO's guideline that A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thinly disguised resume page for a grad student; none of his activities are notable, it's all standard grad student fare. Hairhorn (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established despite pompous resume. Quantpole (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no clear claim for notability and no sourcing to indicate it either. -- Whpq (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael de bono

Article claims some notability, however a Googl search does not turn up much and from the article i would say that he doesn't have enough notability to be included. Passportguy (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Appears to be a young artist starting out, with little evidence of notability thus far. 99.168.86.206 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was considering tagging this myself but didn't per WP:BITE.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 00:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ delete. Fails WP:ARTIST because his work has not been a substantial part of any of the exhibits listed on the page ~~(the question of which quantity is taken as "substantial" still remains)~~. ZabMilenko 05:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: His name seems to appear as Michael Debono at this ref. ZabMilenko 05:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Karowich

Article claims some notability, but I'm not sure this passes the bar. Passportguy (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Various searches show someone known somewhat by other Canadian architects, but no indication of notability outside of that group. Two things in the article also hint at a lack of notability: his current job (works for the city of Mississauga, a Toronto suburb), and his book is published by a vanity publisher: [7] Hairhorn (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It really falls on the last step. Highest Heights (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Isupov

Inpossible to read, maybe also non-notable. Highest Heights (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article was only "impossible to read" if nobody tried to give the creator any help with formatting. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ginormous résumé that they didn't even TRY to make into a true article. Seems they've mistaken this for Résumépedia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did you even TRY to help the editor who was unfamilar with Wikipedia formatting? If you're here to help build the encyclopedia rather than to knock down others efforts to do so then I suggest that you help out the newbies rather than bite them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. He does get some hits in Google News, which may or may not add up to notability, but this is not a helpful start to an article. It is such a mess that it would be better to delete and start from scratch. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This has masses of good content that we won't have a hope of recreating if the article is deleted. The only problem is that the creator doesn't know Mediawiki markup - is that a reason to delete an article on such a notable subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well done for parsing any sense out of it. I have struck out my delete vote as the current content is effectively a rewrite. It wasn't simply a formatting issue. When a biography or resume is so obviously pasted in from another source it is quite likely to be a copyvio but I am happy that the extent of the rewriting has neutralised any such concerns. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please be civil, assume good faith and refrain from making unsourced negative remarks about living people. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see what's uncivil about my observation that this is a resume. If you think you can improve this article and make it objective, fine, but don't go around throwing WP word salads at people because you disagree with their observations. JuJube (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you had made the observation that this is a resume then it would have been fine, but accusing the article subject of vanity is not civil. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I were accusing anyone of anything, I'd direct my comments to the article creator. As stated, it is merely a witty catchphrase standing in for "Subject is not notable given what the article demonstrates and further research obtains nothing. Most likely a vanity page." I don't see vanity as a negative buzzword, but I guess some people do, so I'll discontinue my catchphrase. Too bad, it was witty enough to get quoted in an anti-Wikipedia article once. Wait, I guess I see your point now... x_x JuJube (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [8][9][10][11][12] and many more. The article creator is obviously unfamiliar with Wikipedia formatting, so shouldn't the reaction be to help rather than pile on to demand deletion of an article about a notable subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe if someone re-wrote it with sources, I'd consider changing my vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe you could have looked beyond the article creator's technical inability to format the article correctly and seen that that the article already had loads of sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On formatting this to make it look half-way presentable I've found that right from the beginning it contained many sources, including quite a few magazine articles with Isupov as the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added another 29 reliable sources on top of the ones the were there to start with, and made a start on formatting/wikifying. I've spent a good few hours doing that, and it's now bed-time in my time zone, so maybe one of the editors above that complained about this being badly written would like to make some further improvements? I think I've used up just about everything that can be viewed via Google News[13], but I haven't even looked at the Google web search results[14] yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Multiple works in major museums is notability for an artist. We accept there standards of what is notable in the field. Or are we a better judge than the curators of the MFA Boston, and LA? and of about a dozen others in a number of countries? DGG (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep after Phil Bridger's clean-up.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Winnett

The article was (improperly) PRODded with the reason "Subject is not noteworthy, page has been created as a joke as "Winnet" is a slang term for faecal adhesion." The person does ~~appear to~~ exist ~~through a Google search~~, though. My reason for deletion is that I don't think this person is notable per the Wikipedia guideline of notability. Tinlinkin (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources don't show notability. Being exhibited on its own doesn't show notability. Searching only gives blogs and the like. Quantpole (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but don't salt - this is a real 22-year-old artist, but who is just not yet notable. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might be notable one day, but not today. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the "home" web site is a set of free pages via his ISP, and in the name of Tom Winnett not Sebastian Winnett. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alix Smith

An artist with public showings, and the relevant art pages blurbs. Generally fails WP:CREATIVE though. Habanero-tan (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the sources given in the article are enough for the subject to meet the general notability guideline and the speciifc guideline for people - they show significant coverage from reliable sources. Included are this write-up in the New York Times and this from Artnet. Guest9999 (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guest9999. -- Hoary (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good sourcing. first time I've heard Art Review and NYT articles described as blurbs--two NYT full articles!!-- If one is going to say such things, then no artist has sources. DGG (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alcides Moreno

This person is notable only for having "miraculously" survived a 47-storey fall in a window cleaning gondola in December 2007. This was previously nominated about a month after the initial event and generated no consensus. Now with about 18 months perspective it is clear that he has not got long-term notability and the article should be deleted per WP:BLP1E. At the very most he deserves a one sentence entry in a list of people who have survived falls from great heights type article (if one exists) Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have notified every significant contributor to the article (excluding those who declare they have left the project) and everyone who commented on the first AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability does not expire and, in any case, here is recent coverage from all over the world which demonstrates that the nomination's assertions are false. WP:BLP1E is not relevant because there is no separate article about this event of which this is a spinoff. If, as suggested, we merge this content into a more general article about falls from great heights, we would retain this heading for its edit history and as a useful search term. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The recent coverage you refer to isn't actually recent. If you look at the sources you will see that they are from the time of the incident. Maybe they come up with recent dates if they have been archived by the websites. Quantpole (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notable people are a subset of newsworthy people but are not equivalent. This clearly falls into BLP1E - this person is known for nothing else. Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vesna Vulović gets notability for her amazing fall, but this guy isn't a world's record. Clear case of WP:BLP1E. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I still agree with my original assertion that this was WP:BLP1E. No evidence since has been presented that would suggest otherwise. Redfarmer (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One event. Survival does not count as a second event. And wehre one event occurs, there is no policy I can find which says the single event must have an article at all. Collect (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and further expand. WP:BLP1E states "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources.". Without question, the event was significant, the individual's role within it was singular, the event was exceedingly well documented nationally and abroad, and it continues to have ramifications. The amazing survival of this man, despite what he experienced, not only makes the article noteworthy and encyclopedic, but its continued coverage in relation to other similar events and its use as a reference in articles unrelated to the man, show that the continued significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources of this man, the event, and his subsequent recovery, triggered coverage and its referencing in other safety issues, nationally AND internationally make it more than qualify for inclusion PER guideline: New York Times 1, New York Daily News, NYP, The Sun, NJ.Com 1, Workers Comp Insider, Daily Gotham, Gothamist 1, Daily Mail 1, Taipai Times, BBC News, Independent, UPI, Bloomberg, NYC.gov, National Ledger, The Ledger, Gothamist 2, KATU, London Evening Standard, New York Post 1, NJ.Com 2, Seattle Times, The Age, Indian Express, Sky News, The Guardian, ABC News, Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Mail 2, New York Post 2, NJ.Com 3, The Times, Sunday Express, Slate, Newsweek, WCBS, The Doctor Weighs In, US Law, Brunei Times, The Star, Etc, etc, etc... there are hundreds of in-depth coverages of the event, its cause, its repercussions, its results, and its notable uniqueness echoing all over the world. This man, the event and its consequences leaps past the WP:GNG like a rocket. Time for just a little WP:COMMON SENSE folks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that there are so many opinions that this topic is not sufficiently notable suggest that the common sense is different from yours. Bongo matic 14:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP1E Hipocrite (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting and succint. But I am confused. Can you possible expand your answer and show how you determined that WP:BLP1E's specifically allowing such articles through its stating "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources" does not apply? Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not Hipocrite, but from my perspective the answer is that I do not believe the event was "significant" for the purposes of a long-term, global, general encyclopaedia - it has had no lasting impact on society, window cleaning, sky-scraper construction, safety legislation, etc.
  Also I would dispute that Mr Moreno's role in the event was "substantial" - the event (the falling window-cleaning platform) happened to him, and he played no part in its cause (I've seen nothing that suggests he caused it directly or indirectly), its progression (as far as I'm aware he was just a passenger and did not accelerate, slow, impede or facilitate its progress under gravity), or it's outcome (his actions did not, as far as I can see from the sources quoted, cause, avert, exacerbate or mitigate the injuries to himself or his brother, nor did his actions prevent anyone on the ground getting hurt, and they played no significant role in the damage or lack thereof to building, ground, platform or equipment). That he survived and his brother did not was that Alcides got lucky and landed on a pile of cables with his limbs under him while his brother did not. If this seems harsh, consider the analogy of two passengers in an airliner that crashes, that one of them survives and the other doesn't does not mean the survivor played a substantial role in the accident.
  
  The reason the event was newsworthy outside of the locality in which it happened (and I agree that it was) is that one person survived. Neither this though, nor any human-interest stories about his recovery, make a biography about Alcides Moreno encyclopaedic at this time. Iff he goes on to become a notable person for other reasons, related or unrelated to this accident then this article can be recreated as a paragraph in that biography. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not a significant event. If it were a significant event, it would have an article created before I just made this comment. Since it doesn't, it's just trivia. Hipocrite (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable for one event. Coverage does not seem to be ongoing. Though there are extensive news stories, they are the typical sort of 'fluff' reports that end up getting picked up by lots of newspapers. Quantpole (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Thryduulf makes some good points above. Alcides Moreno was just along for the ride as the gondola fell. He in no way compares to John Hinckley, Jr. who was the driving force between the one event that makes him notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT without prejudice to the creation of an article about the event which is arguably notable. Bongo matic 14:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E - despite the story being covered "as far away as the UK"! ukexpat (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I have seen some editors state that they lately look more at notability than human interest. In essence I agree, but are the two in certain cases not alike? Sure, Borat character landing on Eminem at mtv music awards is human interest not really notable (the hits on yahoo for that are astonishing) but is this the same? Is it notable to know someone survived a bullet in the head? It has happened. How about multiple black mamba bites? A fall from 500 feet? This is notable to me to a degree. I often watch the news to see what happens in real life that is potentially dangerous otherwise seemingly irrelevant. It makes one wiser. I for one do not look so much at the technical side of passing this WP or passing that WP, I think of this encyclopedia as "what will be noteworthy or interesting to the generations that follow..." and if I am the one taking a nasty fall maybe it is good to have in mind that 1% survive instead of certain doom. Forgive me this childishness, just a thought. Turqoise127 (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable that people have survived snake bites, falls from 500 ft, etc. but that in itself does not make the survivors themselves notable. Some of the rest of your comment sounds like you are confusing newsworthiness with encyclopaedic notability. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wikipedia is not a news repository. The lack of any coverage beyond the initial incident is proof that this event has had no lasting impact and this person is not considered notable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not necessarily think that a few stories in reliable sources make someone notable if there wasn't something notable there to begin with, but the number of highly respectable sources for this is sufficient. . We seem to have two rules now at WP. One, except for BLP, 2RS=N, regardless of how non-notable the event of person or event may have been in any normal meaning of the term. The other , applying to BLP only, is that it has to be more than one event, unless the event is particularly important. For everyone who quotes BLP above, do you realize you are saying that when he eventually dies of other causes he will become notable? If anyone thinks that actually makes sense, let them explain why. I think this article is the poster child for inconsistency of WP guidelines. DGG (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really agree with that. An article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Dean Farrar Street collapse) I did a small amount of work on was deleted as NOTNEWS despite having about 5 sources, 3 of which (I think) were well after the event had happened (and more were available from the time of the event), and there weren't really BLP concerns there. It just highlights the randomness of AfD really. (Bitter? Moi? ;-) ) I agree with your general point that the criteria are more stringent for BLP, and quite rightly so. Maybe the encyclopedia loses some good content, but it's probably better safe than sorry. Quantpole (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) erm, please could you explain how the BLP guidelines mean that when Alcides Moreno dies of natural causes he will become notable? I have been involved in several notable events in a non-notable manner, and there are reliable sources for my involvement in several non-notable events. Neither these individually, nor collectively mean that I am notable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I also disagree. The formulation 2RS=N doesn't mean that everything mention in those 2RS gets a separate article. As noted below in my opinion, it seems possible to me that the event (multiply covered in reliable sources) is notable, subject to NOTNEWS (I don't have a view). That is not to say, however, that the person, as opposed to the event, merits independent coverage. Bongo matic 02:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the key point of my argument is that this is all a matter a judgment, and should have had a full 10 days discussion. DGG (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What should have had a "full 10 days discussion"? This is article is undergoing a full discussion here at this page; and any issues you have with guidelines or policies should be taken up on the appropriate talk page or central discussion page where they will get noticed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was arguing against the possibility of peremptory delete via BLP policy, or snow, as has sometimes happened here. DGG (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This does seem borderline but is a whisper away from meeting notability. People like this often go on media tours and start a second career as a motivational speaker of sorts. If there is evidence of this story moving into the second act, as it were, then WP:Heymann keep. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: No matter how many newspapers covered it, it's still a WP:BLP1E Niteshift36 (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As others have stated I see this event as being remarkable enough to qualify for an exemption. But, even if it weren't, policy suggests covering the event, not the person. So, which article would this notable event be covered in? I suggest there isn't one. Geo Swan (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then create an article on the event. There are adequate sources above. See WP:SEP (it is certainly not my problem as I am not convinced of the notability of the event per NOTNEWS). Bongo matic 04:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

would it satisfy you then if we changed the title? DGG (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't satisfy me if the title were just changed, because this article as it is written at the time of this comment is about the person not the event (as should any article at this title). So any article about the event you want to write will need different content and a different title, so you might as well start a new article. You would have to demonstrate though that the event is notable enough for an article, and I've not seen any evidence that it is (that is not to say there is no evidence, I've not looked and have no interest in looking). Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and adjust title and contents into an article about the event which everyone seems to agree is notable based on the very substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't agree that the event is notable enough for an article, nor that the coverage was "substantial". The event was newsworthy, and it is easily verifiable in multiple reliable sources, but neither of these facts make it notable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious case of WP:BLP1E, no matter how much of a short-term stir it raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)

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. Could have been speedy deleted, per author request, but apparently this went unnoticed. Jamie^☆S93 14:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Alexander

Actor with one appearance in a soap and some minor commercial and extra work, fails WP:ENT. Also no citations apart from imdb. Google search reveals no liklihood of finding citations. Grcaldwell (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Racepacket (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-notable, not much more to say - Vartanza (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you guys can delete it now i only needed it for college work. Bobdol123
YOU CAN DELETE IT NOW DO YOU NEED A GUIDE TO ENGLISH OR SOMETHING? Bobdol123 —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Najm rehan (film maker)

Looks A7 fodder to me, but the possibility of notability has me going AFD route instead. The list of films made is long, but there is no real indication that any of them are notable. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NOTE. ttonyb1 (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject fails WP:BIO. The redirect should be deleted as well. Hekerui (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'd suggest that this doesn't need to come round again, those advocating deletion would put their energies to better use by pushing for a merge. Flowerparty^☀ 00:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hollie Steel

WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS, also a WP:MUSICBIO failure. Otterathome (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a news item, not a long term piece of knowledge. It's a perfectly good news item, but it's still trivia, and as such has no place in an encyclopedia. This is no judgement on Hollie Steel, it's a matter of "what is knowledge". 19:00, 3 June 2009 (GMT+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpgcwiki (talk • contribs)

The topic is not trivial as it has sparked action by the UK government. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... which belongs in a discussion at the BGT page. Steel may have been a victim, but that does not make her notable. I42 (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and or Merge to the appropriate series. As an aside, seriously, a third AFD in the space of a month? Really? You couldn't have just opened a merge discussion in on the article's talk page? Umbralcorax (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "couldn't have just opened a merge discussion in on the article's talk page?" There is already a small discussion of about whether there should be a merge and one on whether or not it should be deleted. I won't vote yet, i would leave it a day or two to see what media attention she might receive in the dailies. A day after the competition has ended is perhaps too soon for a discussion on whether or not it should be deleted, especially considering Cowell's record of signing up the finalist. Uksam88 (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough to be documented in the wikipedia, the extent of media coverage regarding the subject available also indicates the article should be kept. --Da Vynci (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How does "one of ten finalists on the third series of the ITV reality show" imply notability? The subject obviously fails WP:MUSICBIO, falls under WP:ONEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. — Rankiri (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per our guideline notability is established "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This topic has massive coverage in such sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic, and I'm not at all sure that a losing contestant of a reality show can be seen as encyclopedic and historically notable. WP:N itself makes it clear that media sensationalism should not be used as a sole determinant of one's notability: It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute...However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability - particularly for individuals known for one event. WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ONEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS provide much more specific and relevant instructions and the subject happens to fail all three of them. — Rankiri (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Britain's Got Talent (series three). She has no notibility. If she has a page then why hasn't Stavros Flatley got one? Or 2 Grand? Or Shaun Smith? She was one of the finalists who got nowhere and doesn't look like she will be getting anywhere anytime soon. She is 10 years old and has proved that she would be unable to perform frequently and I doubt she'll get a record deal. When nothing happens with her in two months time, it will be deleted, so why not get rid of it now? It doesn't even contain any info that couldn't be explained in BGT Series 3 page. I think a list of BGT Series 3 finalists page should be created (a bit like The X Factor contestants one) and Hollie can be in there.

These other finalists do have articles, as may be seen from the blue links. Making this highly notable topic a red link like your proposed destination would be absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look more carefully. One is to a redirect to the parent article, one is to a DAB page (there is no actual relevant article) and the other is to an article also up for AfD. I42 (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have an account but I am not logged in atm so I would still like you to consider this statement even though it is by an IP user 83.71.56.210 (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, despite the fact I hope we can write a biography on her later. Currently, she is notable only for her appearance on the show, and so any pertinent information should be included in the articles on the show. If she gets signed, releases an album, has a film made about her or something, then we can reconsider. J Milburn (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is already notable for other matters such as her medical history and return to school which have been headline items. This third party coverage demonstrates clear notabilty for all aspects of this person, not just her performances. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The story is not over for Miss Steel. Many who lost have gone onto fame and fortune and deserve to have their story in our wiki. --Dane Sorensen (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Dane Sorensen[reply]
- Yes, those who go onto fame and fortune do. Has Hollie? No. Will she? Possibly. The article can be recreated if and when she becomes known for something outside of the show. J Milburn (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Making predictions is a bad thing.--Otterathome (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She will most likely be forgotten in a month. No notabilityJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not expire but, in any case, it is already over a month and her notability continues to climb. Yesterday, the cabinet minister responsible for culture and the arts commented specifically, "She gave a fantastic performance in the final..."

Delete as I said in AFD#1, this is a textbook case of BLP1E. She is not notable for anything other than being the object of media attention for one day a few weeks ago, then again for crying on stage. Unlike Susan Boyle, she isn't a human interest story. Unlike Diversity, she didn't win. Unlike Julian Smith, she didn't even place. And unlike Shaheen Jaffacake, she wasn't even known about until her audition. And finally, she's ten years old. We should have as few articles about minors as possible, and the articles we do have about children need to have airtight assertions of notability. This is not. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think your ethnic slur helps your argument in any positive way. Radiopathy •talk• 01:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...there's an ethnic slur there? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Shaheen Jaffacake...?" 83.71.35.103 (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a nickname that me and my sister coined because we couldn't remember his last name, only that it began with "Jaf". Sceptre ^(talk) 07:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's no more an ethnic slur than calling me "J Milby". J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not an ethnic slur per se, but it seems like you're making fun of him, or calling him "Jaffacakes" because a Middle Eastern name is "too hard to pronounce", or whatever. Radiopathy •talk• 15:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can easily be seen as an ethnic slur. Editor explination shows good faith. I suggest all editors should be more careful in future without saying what was said was wrong. Duffbeerforme (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: This little girl is EXTRAORDINARY and already famous across the globe. Worldedixor (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BGT is famous across the world. She is not famous in any other context therefore this is a case of WP:1E. I42 (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:MUSIC #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." Passes WP:NOTNEWS: we're not talking cat-up-a-tree stuff here. Passes WP:1E with a lot of international media coverage. Radiopathy •talk•

- Placed would mean they came in first or second or third. Being in the finals does not mean they placed. It means they were a finalist, nothing more, nothing less, which does not meet criterion #9.--Terrillja _talk 06:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BGT is a major music competition since when?--Otterathome (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A show that's broadcast to the entire UK and seen by millions of people is major, yes. This isn't a local church cantata or something like that. Radiopathy •talk• 00:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Additionally, from WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEVENT:

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... If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

The way I see it, this little girl is no Lee Harvey Oswald. — Rankiri (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing more notable than other finalists. --Saigon punkid (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have links and articles for the other finalists, such as Susan Boyle with whom the world's media have repeatedly made direct comparisons. The precedent is therefore clearly that we should maintain this material rather than deleting it and leaving a gaping hole. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Boyle gained more coverage but this is anyway moot - she was placed in the top 3, Steel was not. I42 (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Radiopathy. We can revisit this in the future if need be. A merge and redirect would be my second choice. Johnleemk | Talk 05:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Britains's Got Talent Season 3 Most of the references are tabloids, definitely not the most reliable sources, and what has been stated by them was later refuted by the subject of the article, see the talkpage now. I would support a few sentences in the contest article on her, but moving her entire article over there would be WP:UNDUE. If she later goes on to make a career in music and meets our criteria for general notability or music, I would hold no prejudice against recreating the article, but at this point we are grasping at straws to talk about what she will become. I do not however see her as meeting the criteria for inclusion at this time.--Terrillja _talk 06:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She does not fail NOT#NEWS but she does fail BLP1E. I don't consider BGT a 'major music competition' for the purposes of WP:MUSIC. That said, she quite obviously should have won. MickMacNee (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britain's Got Talent (Series 3). She isn't notable besides her BGT participation. Unlike some people that have ~~played small roles in TV shows~~ appeared in a number of ads, or won a National Dancing Competition beforehand. Also, her placement is not high enough to qualify per WP:MUSIC.--Alasdair 11:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quite clearly a case of WP:BLP1E. It's quite possible she'll gain inependent notability in the future but WP:CRYSTAL makes it quite clear that has no bearing right now. I42 (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E is not appropriate, being for "low profile" people, not artists whose performances generate headlines around the world. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reason she is notable is due to the current media attention surrounding her performance in the semi-final. Once the news has blown over, the article will no longer be notable. 84.67.89.61 (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Pyrrhus16 16:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no choice under policy, she is notable for a single event, you don't get an article for that. I would rather wait a month and see if she gets any further attention or not, but we don't have a procedure for deferring judgement of AFDs, so we'll just have to undelete the article if she does get the additional attention required. --Tango (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ per WP:MUSICBIO #9 - Has won or placed in a major music competition. This is a talent contest which is a bit quibbly but deleting is not needed here. No prejudice for restoring once independent notability is secured. -- Banjeboi 23:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep, She's going on a national tour so will undoubtably meet our WP:GNG with rounds of media coverage whether or not she continues a singing career. -- Banjeboi 02:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This national tour would be the Britain's Got Talent tour, of course. I42 (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Britain's Got Talent (series three)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.217.69 (talk • contribs)

K E E P !!! YEARS WILL PASS AND PEOPLE WILL NEED A REFERENCE, WHICH IS THE PURPOSE OF AN ENCYCLOPEDIA AND OF WIKIPEDIA. THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER PEOPLE LIKE OR DON'T LIKE THE CHARACTER, IT'S SIMPLY A REFERENCE. PLEASE USE COMMON SENSE AND ACT ACCORDINGLY !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osantaella (talk • contribs) 02:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect Pitiful argument. Where's the reference to the little girl who got all the way up to the final in the third season of Starsearch, but then lost? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect → Britain's Got Talent (series 3), which is where all these finalists should remain until we see what they do next. pablo_hablo. 09:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree in spirit but we should treat each seperately as they may have prior and secondary notability issues besides their reality TV fame. -- Banjeboi 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A disruptive repeat nomination per WP:DEL. The person is making news yet again today for two reasons as the regulator OFCOM has got involved and the government says that it is going to act. This was on the BBC Radio just now and it is easy to find continuing news items from the last 24 hours which headline this person with big splash photos, e.g. this and that There is no case to answer here as deletion is quite inappropriate. The proper process has not been followed as the nominator has not made the slightest attempt to discuss the matter at the article's talk page. The claims of policy support BLP1E and NOT NEWS are both quite bogus: the first because this person is not low profile and the second because this is not a routine news story like a weather forecast or traffic report. This topic is a summary of major news items which have had worldwide coverage. It is clearly our policy to incude such and our readership expects it. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I FULLY AGREE with your Speedy Keep (this is not an additional vote) - I also want to add that Hollie is being recognized as notable in the US and the UK and interviewed on several major networks. Worldedixor (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Britain's Got Talent has been hugely successful this year and is being recognised as notable worldwide. Like him or not, Simon Cowell knows what he's doing. Is Hollie Steel independently notable? Not yet. She may well have a bright future and when she does we will have an article about her then. I42 (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking duplicate vote.--Otterathome (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A month after the first nomination, and back here once again. Her age is unique for any performer. She has plenty of coverage in third party new media. She meets all requirements for an article. Dream Focus 09:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Of a disruptive nomination. Returning an article to AfD over and over, and repeating ad nasuem the same delete arguments over and over, simply because one is unhappy that it was not deleted on previous occasions, is the worst sort of repeat disruptive nomination and meets the definitions of WP:POINT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was one AFD a month ago that was no consensus, it seems sensible to me to hold another AFD once the situation has developed more to see if there is a consensus now. (The 2nd AFD was immeadiately withdrawn since the nomination was a simple mistake.) --Tango (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - still, a disruptive nom; the only thing that's apparent here is that the subject's notability ihas increased, not diminished, since the first nom. The second nom, BTW, was not "a simple mistake", but rather a blatant disregard for WP:BEFORE, and like this one, demonstrates more of a bias against the subject of the article than any regard for Wikipedia policy. Radiopathy •talk•
Of course the 2nd was a mistake. The nominator thought she had been eliminated when she hadn't, that has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Whether it would have been a legitimate nomination or not, had it been correct, is irrelevant, it still shouldn't be counted as a previous AFD since no discussion took place. The subject's notability has increases, but her potential notability has decreased. During the last AFD she was a potential TV talent contest winner, during this one she is not. Whether or not you think we ought to keep or delete articles based on potential notability, that is still a change that the nominator good, in good faith, consider worth reopening the discussion. --Tango (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1st AfD was closed as "keep" on May 12, 2009 (3 weeks ago). 2nd AfD on May was closed as "keep" on May 27, 2009 (9 days ago). 1st AfD was and was modified from "keep" to "no consensus" on May 24, 2009 (12 days ago) after a DRV disputed that 1st closure. Now we have a 3rd AfD within 3 weeks of previous AfDs and the DRV, all repeating the same arguments from the previous deletion discussions. 3 actions in 3 weeks? Sorry, but I see the continued efforts to delete this article as as disruptive even with the greatest of good faith in the repeated nominations, as repeated nominations of an article in any editor's refusal to accept the decisions of earlier discussions runs totally contrary to the POLICY standards set forth in WP:CONSENSUS. Sure, consensus can change... but in 3 weeks?? Nope. No sale. No offense intended, but it seems too much like pointed gaming to suit me. Common sense and civility would seem to indicate that allowing an article to be improved, improves the project as a whole... specially as her notabilty continues to grow {and not diminish as is claimed). All one needs do is check the news. Open a new AfD in 3 months... not 3 weeks. Sheesh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was a mistake then, it is a mistake now. Worldedixor (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Striking duplicate vote~~.--Otterathome (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Striking duplicate phrase. Those are not duplicate votes. Everyone knows that one person one vote. My ONE vote is expressly and unmistakably for SPEEDY KEEP.Worldedixor (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have edited your previous contributions (against guidelines) to make it appear that you did not make multiple !votes, but it is clear from the article history that when Otterarhome made his comment you had explicitly made three separate !votes. Since then, and after you were reminded this was not allowed, you have made a further new comment below which has the appearance of a fourth !vote. Your opinion is as valid as any other but might I suggest it is likely to be discounted by the closing admin if you continue to ignore policy. I42 (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find your lack of faith disturbing. As this is not a vote, repeat comments are quite permissible and you have made repeated comments yourself. Please see Tu quoque. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course multiple comments are allowed - but, as I said, multiple !votes are not. You only get to recommend keep/delete/merge/whatever once, unless you strike your previous recommendation. There is no lack of good faith here; the multiple !votes were correctly struck, that was partially undone by the original editor, so the policy has been more clearly explained. This is a lively debate which is getting somewhat passionate so let's try to comment on the article and not the credentials of the contributors. I42 (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that we should remove all digressions about the nature of !votes now that this enthusiatic editor has shown good faith and willingness to amend their comments to avoid confusion. Finger-pointing and scolding in a pseudo-officious way does not assist amicable discussion. Please remove all such irrelevant templates and digressions to assist in the smoothing over of this matter per WP:COOL. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, she is a very talented little girl, but the fact that she has appeared on the show and will be in the tour does not make her notable enough to have an article dedicated to her. This article should be deleted, and perhaps re-opened in years to come if she is successful in her career, should she continue to perform. For now, though, she is not notable and therefore the article should be deleted. ElphaPearl (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable gameshow contestant. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already voted for STRONG KEEP above. I want to add that when I first heard of Hollie Steele, my FIRST instinct was to look her up in Wikipedia... Keeping the article and improving it would do Wikipedia justice. Worldedixor (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Delete There is nothing in WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC that suggests subject is sufficiently notable for an article, and WP:BIO1E rules against whatever notability arises from being an unsuccessful contestant. Wikipedia is not the place for items of ephemeral interest. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 10 applicable reasons taken from the guidelines that you cite. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."
"...significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"
"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."
"Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following."
"Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."
"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."
"...as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified."
"Has won or placed in a major music competition."
"Has performed music for a work of media that is notable"
"Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions."

OK, let's have a look at those points one by one.--Alasdair 10:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Hollie was given coverage solely due to her BGT performances. No matter how many sources there are it's still a matter of BLP1E.

No, some of the coverage relates to other matters such as her remarkable medical history or her doings at school. People are interested her now as a person - they want to know everything about her. This is not our judgement to make - this is the judgement of independent reliable sources, per our guideline. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Children have been participating in talent shows around the world for ages. There is nothing that makes her any more significant or interesting.

The existence of lasting global coverage for this topic demonstrates that you are mistaken - the matter is clearly considered both significant and interesting. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. I don't see how a Hollie's performances are so historically valuable, considering that there are so many people like her in the past.

There are few people like her in the past - I can think of just two Bonnie Langford and Lena Zavaroni. We have ample space for such a handful of entries. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those two are not similar - they went on to have independent fame. When, and only when, Steel does the same, then she should have an independent article. That you can only think of those two is a perfect illustration of why that is so. I42 (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Every talent show contestant has fans during their time in the show. However, it can not be assured that many of them are not brought in during the heat of the moment. It's questionable whether a reasonable niche can be retained in the long run unless there is evidence that suggests that her fanbase is large enough.

We do not require exact numbers because there is no formal test. It is a matter of common sense by which we should not delete an article when there is reasonable evidence that there is a significant readership for it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Again, there is nothing unique and innovative about a child soprano singing in a talent show, considering the many that have done before her.

There are several distinctive features - her serious illness, her tears, her second chance and the resulting ministerial interest. Again, it is not our call to decide such notability - the test is performed by third parties for us who show that the matter is distinctive by their abundant coverage. We are not judges - it is other third parties who have the red buzzers. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. This also contradicts with BLP1E. Former contestants of other talent shows get articles written due to additional things (i.e. releasing new singles, albums etc.) rather than their time on the show. I don't think Hollie should be an exception.

We have explicit guidelines for other shows which say that finalists merit separate articles. This show is clearly of outstanding global interest and so should have deeper coverage than other shows, not less. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Hollie's role within BGT won't grow any larger now that this series is finished, not beyond the on coming BGT tour.

We already have enough material for a substantial separate article. Folding all this into the show's main article would be diffcult owing to the size of the coverage and the details which are purely related to her, not the show. Moreover, the tour will generate further coverage, as will the government's actions, which are just starting. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. I would agree if she placed in the final 3. Finishing off the podium isn't a high enough placement for that to be warrented.

There were two levels of reward - outright winner, with its £100K prize, and finalist, with its place on the tour and payments for same. Hollie is in the same place as Susan Boyle - successful finalist. She seems far more notable than that saxaphone guy, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. This is probably the most valid statement but considering she doesn't have anything else to vouch for her, Hollie ought to be redirected to the BGT series 3 article.

One reason is enough as topics are not required to qualify upon multiple counts. To delete an article, you have to demonstrate that it is completely without merit - a hopeless case. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10. #OK, so she appeared in Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat. But has she played in any roles beyond extremely peripheral ones, such as those kids who accompany the narrator? I'd agree with this had she played something like the child version of Cossette.

We already have multiple performances in her separate appearances on BGT which have attracted separate independent coverage. I am not familiar with her other show appearances but they indicate that this is not a one-off - she has a developing career. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's agree to disagree then. Since we intepret the guidelines differently. However, point 9 you referred to has a bracket stating the possibility of redirect, and that I disagree with all your other points, I still believe in redirects.--Alasdair 13:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the proposition put by the nominator is that the article be deleted, lock stock and barrel so that nothing remains - no content, no edit history and no redirection. If other editors were as reasonable as yourself, we would not be having this discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? Really tough one this- I can see that this will become increasingly common as time goes by. Wikipedia is a kind of imortality and it is certainly true that 'off the podium' people could dissappear without trace. Its difficult at the moment to see that it might be neccesary/realistic to delete a page for someone who is so high profile at present from an encyclopedia which has a seperate page for every underground station in London, yet we SHOULD consider this kind of thing very carefully as we could be setting the precedents for oodles of TV competitions and 9-day-wonder celebrities for the future. Myself I wouldn't have a problem with keeping a page for anyone from such a major competition as BGT, who makes it as far as the roadshow afterwards. If the producers consider it worthwhile keeping such people on the roadshow, they stand a reasonable chance of maintaining/establishing themselves. Although its true that the page could be revived later, I see no harm in keeping the page for a few months- really, if we imagine that a reasonable number of people will want to look at the page in the next two months, then it might as well be there- I do, so imo it should. If we really want to delete the page, its not the end of the world- however I do think we should consider a compromise, such as creating a seperate page for the Roadshow finalists of each season with a small article on each. IceDragon64 (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal for consensus. There are aparrently quite polarised views here and unless the closing admin sees a strong reason to do otherwise, I imagine this AfD will close No Consensus. Whilst that may be seen "as good as" keep, that will likely result in another AfD a few months down the line especially when, as I suspect, the news coverage dies down and we are all watching the next X Factor instead. But I don't think the views are actually that different - there's the "keep, she's in the press everywhere, she's notable and deserves her own article" argument, and there's the "she's part of Britain's Got Talent's notability and should be covered only as part of that" argument. Both of those arguments accept Wikipedia will cover her in some form, it's more a matter of emphasis and depth of coverage. I suggest we take inspiration from the X Factor articles and:
- We cover all ten of the finalists with brief biographies, as part of the Britain's Got Talent articles, ideally as a sub-article - as, for example, exists at List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5).
- We make the same assumption that the X Factor articles do: top three are inherently notable; the remainder have to go on to achieve independent notability for articles of their own (remember - there's an X Factor tour, too - that doesn't count!).
- All finalists which do not have their own article redirect to the biography list.

That way we will preserve at least the bulk of this article plus all the other finalist articles (which have either gone, or look virtually certain to be deleted) whilst keeping within the context of BGT. When independent notability of sufficient significance is established (which to me implies participation in some notable event on their own merits - not because of BGT), then it is time to spin off an additional, separate article. (Eg: Hollie Steel lands a performance on the West End or has a hit record - independently notable; Hollie Steel turns on the Christmas lights because she's that girl off the telly - not notable; Hollie Steel signs up for a record deal - not yet notable but an indication she will be soon!).

Is there any mood to agree? I42 (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and start the article with what you presently have. Ask admins to userfy any that need that and then allow the tour to come and go. Once that winds down look to appropriate merge discussions for any that still sow little promise. -- Banjeboi 11:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome I42's constrcutive attitude but must beg to differ. The proposal is to have a rule but we don't do rules here because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Notability is not a matter of nice tidy rules. It is essentially driven by sources. If the world decides to notice a topic and write about it then it thereby becomes notable for our purposes because this is good evidence that the world wants to read about the topic and that we have good sources to summarise. This is the case for Hollie and so that's that. If this spoils some nice neat pattern that some editors wish to impose upon this material then that's too bad. Notice the way in which the main article Britain's Got Talent (series 3) has been constrained by the pattern-making attitude into a series of dry tables. These are almost unreadable and are not the style of article which we are supposed to produce. The current Hollie Steel article seems better in that it has a proper narrative structure and is of a digestible size. The tabular format may be useful in helping readers navigate this material but it should lead to proper articles which can actually be read. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are about these people/groups as BGT contestants, not as performers in their own right. Thus, if we are to consider them, it would seem most logical to consider them as BGT finalists- IE, collectively. If the subjects become notable in their own right, information about what they have achieved since the show can be included in a separate article- a standard biography. J Milburn (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Warden - I might not have expected full agreement, but I didn't really expect that rationale. I am not proposing rules - I am proposing we try to have an accepted framework which we reach by consensus - much like other similar events have. This seems to be exactly in the spirit of Wikipedia, where consensus is the preferred approach. This framework could not override existing policy, and would not be set in stone, but it could lead to a way forward which has majority support. I continue to believe that the deletion of this article would be correct under policy (and think that is likely to happen either now or in the near future - unless independent notability ensues) but I see the proposal as an acceptable alternative. It is one which the X Factor articles have already established so this is hardly a radical approach. I42 (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep keep as there are definite sources and the repeat use of AFD until the outcome wanted is reached is slightly bewildering. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Whilst it is confusing, WP:CREATIVE is an extension of, not a substitute for WP:N. If it meets the latter, the former is irrelevant. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Hagins

AfDs for this article:

Fail WP:Bio/WP:Creative Only one minor independent film to credit, without release. Minor appearance at convention. Only one project project foreshadowed, with no indication will ever be completed. Not evidence of cult following, or interest extending much beyond immediate family. Notability fails. Guidelines see WP:CREATIVE Rotovia (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:CREATIVE fails Rotovia (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed that this doesn't pass WP:CREATIVE - Vartanza (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - WP:CREATIVE is not relevant if the subject passes the general notability guidelines. The article already contains references to establish notability. And interest remains even after the initial coverage as evidenced in this Bloomberg article from January 2009. Aside from that, there is coverage in Dread Central, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Austin Chronicle, CITY News -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A minor independant film (not realesed) is not sufficiant notability, and comes under WP: Creative anyway Rotovia (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - We do not judge notability directly ourselves. We establish it because others have made note of the subject. These articles are not passing mentions. They are specifically about Emily Hagins. The fact that she has done what she has done as such a young age has been noted by multiple reliable sources which are independent of the subject. That is exactly what wikipedia notability is all about. WP:CREATIVE does not supplant the general notability guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article is not about a film, but is about the filmmaker... who has the coverage per guidline to surpass both WP:GNG and the basic inclusion criteria od WP:BIO. WP:CREATIVE is subordinant to them both. Kudos to Whpq for some fine digging. Nuff said. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CREATIVE is the applicable standard and even though this young person is probably a marvel amongst her family and friends, she is not notable in the sense that term is used here. --KenWalker | Talk 03:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect assertion. WP:CREATIVE is subordinant to applicable crtiteria of WP:GNG and the basic criteria of WP:BIO. You may as well be arguing that she does not pass WP:ATHLETE. That she meets WP:GNG is what gives here the pass, not a perceived failure of tertiary/subordinant guidelines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. If one carefully reads WP:CREATIVE, one will note that it is a section from WP:BIO, which includes under the "Additional criteria" section (of which WP:CREATIVE is part of) the following very explicit statement: Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. which is exactly the situation here. -- Whpq (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Mike Tyson. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desiree Washington

Deletion rationale:

1. WP:BLP1E—She was only a contestant in that beauty show, didn't win any other awards either (at least the article doesn't mention any other notable award that she won). So basically she is known only due to her being raped by Tyson. OneEvent bio.

2. The BLP isn't balanced:covers only negative aspects of her life. (Don't tell me to fix it; I couldn't find any RS discussing her other biographical details.) --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 06:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The one event of this “one-event bio” was culturally quite significant. And “balance”, for the purposes of Wikipedia, is determined by what is available from “reliable sources”. —SlamDiego_←T 08:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "culturally significant" incident (wait, what's 'culturally' significant about it?) is already in Mike Tyson's article and if the event is significant, and there is much content then make a separate article about the incident. Desiree's biography here is nothing but "She was a contestant, was raped by Tyson and Tyson was sentenced". Reliable sources are important, and in this case they are limited to covering the rape incident. What else about her do you think makes her notable other than the rape? --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 08:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The rape brought very pronounced attention to a number of things, including the differences between being an able athlete or an economically successful member of an ethnic minority and being a proper rôle-model, and the relationships between men and women that prevailed in their shared community.
    Essentially, you're introducing standards here (got by a strained reading of actual policy), and want us either to argue that “Desiree Washington” does not fail your standards or to agree that it should be deleted. I don't feel any need to show that Desiree Washington or Madge Oberholtzer have any importance beyond being the sole legal victims of notorious crimes. I don't feel the need to show that Lee Harvey Oswald would be at all important without one event, nor to find “reliable sources” that talk about whatever fine things he did when he wasn't taking pot-shots at officials. —SlamDiego_←T 09:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the incident was quite high-profile. There must be limits to the "one event" principle e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald is only famous for one event. Is there pro-Tyson POV-pushing here? PatGallacher (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Assume good faith. —SlamDiego_←T 09:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:AAGF. PatGallacher (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - See your question: “Is there pro-Tyson POV-pushing here?” Assumption of an assumption of good faith is an initial position, not to fly in the face of the evidence. Meanwhile, it is rather pure speculation to propose that there is pro-Tyson POV-pushing here, especially as PirateSmackK has expressed a concern that Ms Washington is being presented in an inappropriately negative light. —SlamDiego_←T 09:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the incident is significant, (perhaps it deserves its own separate article, there is a lot of information of the incident that is missing from Washington's article) but the person who got raped is not notable. There is no detailed biographical coverage at Desiree Washington, just news about a rape incident and its court's findings. That's how WP:BLP puts it

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options.

The woman is otherwise non-notable, and I see no reason to have a negetive-ish BLP hanging around. As for "PoV pushing"-I didn't even know about this incident until yesterday when I read Tyson's article, and I don't think my views towards him are positive. --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 12:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having a separate article on the incident itself operationalizes as the “Keep and rename” proposed by Malik Shabazz below. Shabazz draws our attention to “Tawana Brawley rape allegations”, so let's look at that article. It offers biographical details about a living person (Ms Brawley), and does not offer the sort of balance that you have insisted should be present. (I remind everyone that WP:BLP is not simply about articles intended as biographies per se.)
I don't see that it makes a whole lot of difference whether the article is named “Desiree Washington” and goes into considerably more detail about the rape, or is entitled “Michael Tyson rape of Desiree Washington” and retains the present level of biographical detail about Washington while adding more about the rape. —SlamDiego_←T 01:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case for an assumption of good faith is inadequate in the face of some of PirateSmackK's other actions. He has been indefinitely blocked for various acts, including an attempt to swindle special privileges from a bureaucrat. —SlamDiego_←T 14:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Avoiding harm, unless suitable further information about her life can be found. Otherwise, should be covered in Tyson's article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The beauty pagent comment is almost a red-herring. We don't normally have articles for victims of violent crimes, even committed by celebrities. Why should this one be different? eaolson (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Change the focus of the article to the incident, as opposed to Washington herself. Examples include Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangum. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's enough to say about the incident to justify a separate article; certainly, not one as long as those two. Moreover, it's worth noting that in both those cases, the people accused of rape were not notable in their own right (and neither were the accusers), which means there was no alternative to having independent articles. In this case, Mike Tyson certainly is notable, so we can avoid having this article by merging the content there (where, in fact, it is already covered). Robofish (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What name would you propose, and would “Desiree Washington” redirect as does “Tawana Brawley”? —SlamDiego_←T 01:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - (a) There certainly isn't as much to say as there is about those cases, but there was plenty of ink spilled over the Tyson/Washington incident. (b) I think possible names might be Rape of Desiree Washington or Mike Tyson rape case. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The first title is right out, IMHO. The second one is better, but that might open things up to be even worse on the BLP front than the current article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mike Tyson. Per WP:BLP, we shouldn't have an article on this person - she's non-notable except for this one incident, and so our article is hardly a fair and neutral picture of her life. On the other hand, her name appears in Tyson's article, and it is a plausible search term, so it should probably redirect there instead. The rape incident is covered in his article to the extent that it needs to be; there's no need for this separate article. Robofish (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the victim to the rapist? What a spectacularly poor idea. Hopefully the victim doesn't Google. 122.49.173.240 (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable for her pagentry and the Mike Tyson incident. Plenty of sources about to feed and improve this article as well.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.There is nothing on this page that isn't on the Tyson page. Change a footnote if you have to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.24.32 (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepThere is tons here that is not on the Tyson page. Did you actually read that entry??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.17.179 (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. I know we normally don't relist an article with this many comments, but I really think that this could benefit from a few more eyes. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator is indefinitely blocked.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For reasons some of which lend credence to a notion that the expressed concern for Ms Washington was a smokescreen for the sort of PoV-push that PatGallacher feared. —SlamDiego_←T 14:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mike Tyson. Robofish's answer is persuasive.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is not a notable person. No need to redirect anywhere. If there is an article on the case, that is no problem. But there is no need for an article on its victim. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E clearly applies here, no reason to redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plausible search term, surely.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Mike Tyson- the person is not notable. No problem with producing a rewritten page on the incident. TerriersFan (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- no need to delete, not enough infothis should redirect to Mike_Tyson#Rape_conviction.2C_prison.2C_and_aftermath Pahari Sahib 17:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- While I think a keep and a rename is a better option, the redirect (with a possible protect of the redirect, if it comes to that) is certainly a reasonable compromise. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per WP:BLP. She is not notable for her pageantry and the article is not neutral. The only source is to the news story of Tyson's lawyer pointing out that she's lied about being raped before. We needn't preserve the history of such an article. Relevant information is located here and thus the page should redirect there. Additionally, this discussion should utilize {{afd-privacy}} and {{noindex}} upon close. لennavecia 21:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-neutrality is not a reason for deletion; it is a reason for revision. Further, your treatment of the claim that she lied as simple fact is grossly inappropriate. —SlamDiego_←T 05:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per WP:BLP. Eusebeus (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Scoda

Mayor of a community of 14,000 people. Not to say that mayors of such communities can't be notable (we wouldn't delete Bill Clinton's article if he became a smalltown mayor!), but this guy demonstrates no evidence of notability for other reasons — even impressive high school sports coaches aren't generally notable. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say speedily. I don't see any indication of notability for this small town mayor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Wasn't this nominated before? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If so, it was under a different name. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Non-notable. لenna vecia 20:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Flowerparty^☀ 00:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura White (singer)

No notability other than her involvement in The X Factor (UK series 5) so WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E apply. All the X Factor finalists have biographies at List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5); there is nothing of note which justifies a separate article. I42 (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for separate article at the moment. If she is signed and releases an album etc then she will probably be notable. Quantpole (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her BBC coverage is extensive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reference to this Laura White on the BBC website which is not about the X Factor. [15] I42 (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. BLP1E is not a reason to delete - please read it. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be surprised to note I have read the policy and understood it. There is already a biography at List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5) which satisfies that policy, so this article should be deleted. I42 (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, BLP1E suggests merger in such cases, not deletion. This person is so notable that questions have been asked about her in Parliament and so it is a nonsensical suggestion that we should completely delete this article and doing so would violate our editing policy. In any case, the 1E argument is moot because the article contains sourced coverage of her subsequent career and there is continuing coverage of her in reliable sources within the last month. Your 1E was last year so that argument is a bust. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you are misusing WP:PRESERVE again - that is about cleaning up poorly written material. I contend that she has done nothing notable apart from X Factor (when that was is irrelevant) so 1E most certainly does apply. I42 (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1E isn't for people who have done something notable, it is for low profile people. The subject is much noticed for her own performances and so passes WP:ENTERTAINER. WP:PRESERVE tells that we don't delete material when we wish to rearrange it - we use ordinary content editing so that the contributions and edit history are respected and improved. Deletion is both disrepectful and unhelpful and not at all appropriate in this case owning to the great notability of the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disrespectful how exactly? Quantpole (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is disrespectful to an aspiring artist to suggest that their notable accomplishments are of no account. It is disrespectful to the numerous good faith editors of this article to suggest that their contributions are utterly worthless and so should be deleted. It is disrespectful to our intelligence to suggest that BLP1E provides a reason to delete in such cases when it so clearly suggests merger. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confusing wikipedia terminology of notability (for which there are various guidelines) and real world notability which is necessarily subjective. If you're concerned about the history being lost, then I personally have no objection for the article to be redirected to the x-factor page, and the histories merged. Quantpole (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are content with a merger, then please amend your !vote above. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already at [[16]], per the nomination. This article should be deleted. I42 (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many, many news articles (several are BBC as earlier !vote KEEP pointed out) on her. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all those articles were published within the same two months on the same subject making it a WP:1E. That search also seems to bring up lots of other unrelated Laura White's.--Otterathome (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the sources which demonstrate the clear notability of the subject, not the irrelevant ones. For example, see Laura White sings to sell out Manchester crowd which demonstrates beyond all question the notability of this artist. It seems absurd to claim that a person who is headlining before sell-out crowds in a major city is a low-profile person of the sort that BLP1E is intended for. WP:POINT seems relevant. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article it is actually about the X Factor tour, of which she was part. It's still about X-Factor; it's still 1E. I42 (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but an event doesn't involve multiple performances on different days. An event is a one-time occurence like a meteorite striking the earth. And in this example it becomes plain to see how specious and overzealous legalism in the applicaiton of WP:1E would require wikipedia to AFD Tunguska event. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree entirely. She is merley a player in the notable event which is the X Factor, no matter how long that event extends for. Articles on West End shows, for example, don't have articles on every single performer within it simply because it runs every night (and maybe even tours the provinces) - but it's exactly analagous. Right now she's simply part of the X Factor show. I42 (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also fails WP:MUSICBIO.--Otterathome (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since she has had multiple performances over the years, she certainly passes WP:1E. Which aspect of WP:MUSICBIO does the !vote claim she fails, specifically? For in my mind she certainly meets: criteria #4
Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
--Firefly322 (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any non-trivial coverage in a reliable source about her being on an international/national concert tour in the article.--Otterathome (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this "X Factor star Laura White set to wow the crowds in Liverpool", she is doing engagements in advance of the X Factor Tour Live 2009. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article is about her singing in the Echo Arena, and the x-factor tour is a trivial mention.--Otterathome (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is perhaps the beginnings of independent notability because she seems to have been booked as herself; it's not part of her X Factor appearances. It's a step forward, but it's not a national tour and it's somewhat trivial coverage, so its still not sufficient. I42 (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. overall keep, Basileias pulled up some reliable sources Nja²⁴⁷ 10:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Texe Marrs

The article is mostly sourced to Marrs's website or radio program. Other sources include a google search, associated conspiracy websites, blogs, and other similarly dubious sources. WP:N and WP:V both require that the article contents be sourced to reliable 3rd party sources. As it currently stands, that does not hold, and as such the article does not satisfy our inclusion criteria. Rami R 06:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, that being so, please tag it to say that it needs third party sources. Texe Marrs is quite well known for his conspiracy theories, even outside the religious right (I'm not religious, and not right wing, and I created the article!!!)--MacRusgail (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article can be improved. The "Google Search" while tacky can be re-worked. Marrs has authored a lot of material and is quite well know in the conspiracy area. It would be a shame to delete this. Basileias (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Texe Marrs is regularly referred to in books by American Christian fundamentalists, and KJV advocates. I think he is a notable figure on that landscape, just as Art Bell, Rush Limbaugh etc are, even though they're not that well known in Europe.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: It needs serious work on sources, but a lot of his books show up when I search Amazon and some of the sources would qualify as wp:rs. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second Niteshift's comments. Sources need improving, but notable.-MacRusgail (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the article currently stands, there is not a single reliable source in the article. If this individual is truly notable, there should be no problem introducing real sources. Rami R 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These may well be print sources. A serious flaw in Wikipedia is that we assume everything is online. Having researched something else recently, I can assure you this is not the case.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick scan. The Witches' Voice, Alpha and Omega Ministries, Dr. James White, Catholic Answers and Karl Keating all seem like reliable sources. Basileias (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just want to reiterate that unreliable sources can

reliably document the characteristics of a topic thought to cover the unreliable. Quotes from a delusional person who has become notable can be illustrative. This doesn't remove the requirement for some notice by reliable sources but citations only to unreliable sources may be an ok start if notability is likely. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Smith (singer)

WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Otterathome (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to the appropriate series. There's enough verifiable information here that losing it goes against our best interests. Not sure if it should be kept as its own article, but deleting it should not be an option. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no verifiable information here other than that which pertains to Britain's Got Talent so delete per nom. There is nothing left to merge - that which isn't covered elsewhere is opinion and rumour - and none of it is sourced. I42 (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with what the previous comment says, plus I'm unsure if being in the final is notable enough to warrant a page. Others like Shaheen Jafargholi may have the same standing with him in the competition, but Shaheen has attracted considerable attention away from the show, and overseas. As far as im aware, Shaun Smith has not. (Kyleofark (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Not yet notable for anything outside of the competition. If and when he gets signed, we can discuss the issue again. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete didn't place anywhere in the final. Not notable for anything else. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into the series article. Not notable enough... --Saigon punkid (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to the appropriate series. Maybe because the show was on weekend, there aren't any news, however this week we can know if he's signed. Ferpunk (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough. Pyrrhus16 10:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER as he was one of the stars of a show which got the biggest UK TV audience for 5 years and which starts a national live tour this month. I have added a couple of sources and there are many more available. Note also that deletion would contravene our editing policy as there are obvious alternatives to deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see WP:ENTERTAINER being met. As you acknowledge, he was part of a show, not multiple shows - textbook WP:1E. I42 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been multiple events - the audition, the semi and the final. There will now be many more events as BGT goes on the road with the finalists as a stage show. There is already national media interest in this person and detailed coverage which provides ample sources for a separate article. There is absolutely no case for deletion as this would be contrary to our editing policy. Please note that your textbook, WP:BLP1E, says nothing about deletion: "In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options.". And it is talking about low-profile people, which is no longer the case for this person. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the show involved multiple performances, it was still a single event - there is only one article about the series, after all. (In the same way that the two innings and five days of a cricket test match, and multiple different reports about a news event, each describe a single event.) I don't see how this person is no longer low profile - he is still only notable from his appearance on the single tv show and has no independent notability. I do not believe WP:PRESERVE is relevant - that says (paraphrasing) clean-up, don't remove but, specifically, "as long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article" - and the contention here is whether they do belong in a finished article or not. I do agree with you, per WP:BLP1E, that there should be a redirect to the main article, and the main article could even include more of a bio than it does - so long as the bio is not given undue weight. FWIW I also believe it is quite likely we will see more of Smith in the future but that means nothing now. I42 (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree that the article should not be deleted then please amend your delete summary opinion above. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is an editorial decision, not an administrative one. A redirect is required after a merge, but if there is nothing to merge, a redirect can simply be created. J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(-> Colonel Warden) There was nothing in what I wrote that suggested I had altered my view and I would request you strike your comment suggesting I had. I42 (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was - you indicate that we require a redirect and so wish to retain this article heading. Above you state that there no sources but this is now incorrect. Please amend your !vote accordingly as deletion is not the way to retain such material. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's only one show, so he hasn't starred in 'multiple' performances. Which criteria of WP:MUSICBIO does he pass? Because he doesn't seem to meet any of them.--Otterathome (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there have been multiple performances over a period of some weeks. The common title and setting does not make them the same. They have been broacast and reported seperately and there are more to come as the finalists go on a tour of the country making further performances. It is absurd to claim that this is one event. Try buying one ticket and then claiming admission to all performances... Colonel Warden (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which number of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria is that?--Otterathome (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers #1, #4 and #9. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 is all WP:1E coverage, #4/#9 BGT is not a concert tour and not a major music competition. So unless there's something I'm missing, you are mistaken.--Otterathome (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing in all respects. BGT is a major music competion which consists of multiple events. It has already been touring parts of the UK such as Glasgow, Birmingham and London and continues with a series of tour dates in places such as Sheffield in which Shaun Smith is contracted to appear. Finalists receive payment for these tour appearances and so Shaun Smith is already a significant professional. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sorry it's not a major music competition. In music competitions, participants only play music. BGT accepts any act doing anything (dancing/juggling/comedy etc) And BGT isn't a concern tour either, even he did decide to tour with them, it would be WP:CRYSTAL which would probably end up as trivial coverage anyway.--Otterathome (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's a major music competition - one of the biggest. And his place in the ongoing tour is assured - it's all part of the contract. Why would we delete this article to put it back it 10 days or after the other numerous events which follow? Colonel Warden (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether this is a music tour or not, it is the BGT Tour, not the Shaun Smith tour, so WP:1E would still apply. Quibbling about whether there have been multiple appearances or not is entirely missing the point of WP:1E - it is the event, not the participant, that has the notability. Until he steps out of its shadow there should not be a separate article no matter how many times you see him on the show or how often the show is written about. So, #s 1 and 4 are discounted. #9 is perhaps open to interpretation, but the X Factor series established the precedent that "placed" means top 3 - which is why I !voted keep for Julian Smith (3rd), but not here. I42 (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:MUSICBIO #9 - Has won or placed in a major music competition. This is a talent contest which is a bit quibbly but deleting is not needed here. No prejudice for restoring once independent notability is secured. -- Banjeboi 23:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BLP1E Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --haha169 (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he influenced the first ever appearance in a chart of a well-known song. At least ensure that is not lost by merging and redirecting this information. Thank you. --can dle •wicke 18:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you mean to say Merge instead of Keep then?--Otterathome (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 15:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Hill (American soccer player)

Fails WP:ATHLETE. Appears to have played college soccer, followed by a number of attempts to sign for European teams. But lacking any evidence these occurred, no cites, and article has a history of fallacies being added. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if everything in the article were sourced, we'd still only have a semi-professional footballer, and they're no more notable than minor-league baseball players, who are virtually always deleted — you have to be fully professional, not just semi-. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ClubOranje^T 10:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete I have coached and known this player for over 10 years. Not only have I seen this player grow as an athlete but as a respectable person as well.I had even tried to recruit him while I coached at the university of Hartford. I believe that the current version of the article is due justice for all of the hard work put into his career. I would also like to add that la liga segunda A and B divisions in Spain are all fully professional leagues. I personally watched Josh during his play there.I will send citations in due time. Sincerely - Richard Rollins former U of Hartford goalkeeper coach and star goalkeeper academy national director —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.144.189 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cites would be good, please supply. But unfortunately it's all been promised before. This article has consistently overstated his achievements and has even had fictional events added to it. So much so that all uncited material can only be viewed with scepticism. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I agree cites would be good. Have searched extensively and failed to find anything - obviously WP:GNG isn't going to save him so he is hanging by the faint hope of WP:ATHLETE assuming claims of competitive game time at Malaga are real - but until it is verifiable I don't buy it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues doesn't list Segunda División B as fully professional league so CE L'Hospitalet cites would need to be pretty damn good. I don't doubt he exists, but he doesn't seem to have achieved notability--ClubOranje^T 10:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Giant Snowman 10:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article does claim that he "saw action with the Harrisburg City Islanders", who are in USL2, which we take to be a fully pro league. However, there is no proof of this. Unless some can be provided, I go for delete. Also, the article reads like a resume from the player's agent. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable subject. If proof he meets both WP:ATHLETE and WP:N is provided, then I might change my mind, but I don't see any evidence of this here. --Angelo (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single mention of him, or any other American keeper for that matter, at Excelsior anywhere on the internet. And besides, the club would never even consider paying the Dutch non-EU minimum footballers wage for a keeper. 62.163.32.2 (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with this article Keepertastic here I need help with this article I have the backing evidence of the account of this player. But when I put the links up they do not appear as the others have. And as for the EU minimum comment the player in question according to the U.S. Soccer Federation played on a Swedish Passport. Please help with this and is there anyway to translate the articles because they are in something called Catalan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepertastic (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Mai

Non-notable adult model. Fails both WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:PORNBIO as neither of the criteria can be verified by reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed that she doesn't pass WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:PORNBIO - Vartanza (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. لenna vecia 20:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jamie^☆S93 15:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Smith (saxophonist)

WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. No recording contract. Otterathome (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEEEP HE IS AMAZING —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzie12344 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that even if we delete this article now, will need to be re-created soon. Very popular now, recording deal and album will soon materialise.Will be similar to Escala_(group). --Sulfis (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whilst I disagree with User:Sulfis above (WP:CRYSTAL), the X Factor series established a precedent that the top three finalists are sufficiently notable for their own articles. I42 (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not notable outside the competition yet. I fail to see finalists as inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Simon is going after him for money. We know that albums are going to be released, an notability will be clear soon after we delete it. This is Susan Boyle and Jafargholi all over again. --haha169 (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable and I think instead of deleting it we should try to improve it. Spiderone (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Article passes WP:Notability with Google News showing 880 results for "julian smith saxophonist", with more to come I am sure. Article simply needs improvement, and more than a day to do it. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above just like ♫ Cricket02 (talk) says above i belive it passes WP:Notability.Kyle 1278 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until we have some solid evidence of notability outside of the show. Jafargholi was kept because he has also had some notworthy acting roles, Boyle was a real "special case", so it's not fair to comapare to them. Though he was placed, third place on BGT doesn't seem to carry much weight- Johnston (last year's third place) was not considered notable until the record deal was confirmed- the precedent here is to delete until some third party notability comes up, not assume that they're notable because they will probably get themselves a deal. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of top 3 finalists in a series watched by 18.5m [17], and sufficient press coverage (as per ♫ Cricket02 above) make Julian Smith sufficiently notable to merit a Wikipedia article, in my view. (And yes, I think we may well see a recording deal from him in the next few weeks - although I concede that is crystal-ball-gazing). _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with User:I42 above --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly keep. Incredibly talented saxophonist with an original song choice, capable of molding the most unlikely songs to fit his style. Sure to be heard more of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.227.212 (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep he did place third, getting almost as many votes as Susan Boyle, but there needs to be a better assertion of notability. And I think that there is a strong possibility he'll get signed onto Syco anyway. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability outside of Britain's Got Talent. There's a lot of WP:CRYSTAL going on in this AFD. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep – The reliable sources in the article show at least a minimal degree of notability. Merging can always be discussed outside of AFD. MuZemike 23:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SNOWBALL doesn't apply here as this is far from unanimous. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ Speedy Keep. I don't know why but in articles for the USA talent shows, all finalists (12 in all) are notable, but for the English programmes of this type all but the champion get deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Vickers). By US guides here ALL finalists are notable. Let's stop demeaning UK talent please. --Triwbe (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joolz Gianni easily passes WP:BAND. --Triwbe (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree There needs to be some standardization of guidelines when it comes to finallists in ALL notable competitions. In addition to my comments above, I believe this individual ALSO passes WP:Music #9 Has won or placed in a major music competition. (I interpret this to mean talent competition as well when the finalist is a musician). ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the guidelines should be made more conservative, so that they are inline with our 1 event guidelines. As a universal guideline, that should come before the WikiProject guidelines that relate to one TV show. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that too. However, in this case, I cite from WP:BLP1E that If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. It is my personal opinion that at least the top 3 in any of these competitions to be a large individual role, where millions upon millions of votes have been cast, and people will want to come here to learn more about the finalists. (Nice to be on the opposite side of an argument with you for once my friend). :) ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking that! I can't believe I still argue to delete these- I love BGT, and I really enjoy writing articles about the contestants. J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to X-Factor/Idol WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS comments, those shows are musical shows, being a finalists makes them pass criteria 9 of WP:MUSIC. BGT is a general talent show, not a musical competition. And if you hadn't noticed, most finalists of those musical competitions have released at least one single or album. The 'oh he's so good and popular, he's bound to get a recording contract' is a big WP:CRYSTAL comment.--Otterathome (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the subject has already recorded professionally, talk of WP:CRYSTAL is quite mistaken. Per WP:BEFORE, please research topics before bringing them to AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Otterathome. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Idol_series#Biographies_of_contestants is not WP:OTHERSTUFF, it is the application of existing wikiconsensus on what is notable on an existing highly comparable subject. It more relevant because it has been developed for this exact situation, unlike WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:1E which are for more generic cases. Such guides exist in specific sports, arts and science bios as well. --Triwbe (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was for articles on finalists in musical competitions, not general talent competitions.--Otterathome (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm an American, but series 3's gotten so much press, people here are watching it on Youtube, and at least in my case, turning to Wikipedia for information on major contestants, including Julian Smith. I personally think for notable contestants on notable shows, they ought to have an article at least temporarily. Notability can be a transient thing in these cases, so why can't such an article if the contestant ends up fading away? We are not set in paper. Deletionists seem to think we've got to make the decision to delete right away. How does that increase the utility of Wikipedia? —Tox (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that is not what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not here to showcase the current "thing"- it is not a newspaper, it is not a gossip magazine. It's an encyclopedia. Yes, we're quicker to cover things than other encyclopedias, but that does not mean we should be inclined to cover things that should not be covered. Notability is not transient- fame is transient, notability is not. J Milburn (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does cover current news - just see the main page for its section In the News which routinely covers current events.

Did you even read what I said? "Yes, we're quicker to cover things than other encyclopedias, but that does not mean we should be inclined to cover things that should not be covered." So, sure, we cover elections before paper encyclopedias, but there's no need to have articles on gossip, to have articles about local news stories or have a whole article on a single event (unless that event is particularly notable). J Milburn (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not local news, it is global. And it's not a single event - it's multiple events. There is not the slightest case to answer here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to Tox, attempting to demonstrate the flaws in his arguments generally, rather than talking specifically about Smith. J Milburn (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Highly notable topic for which many sources are available. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, much of this seems to focus on his recent career but his discography seems to date from 2001 and he seems to have performed with several notable people. --can dle •wicke 18:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I'm wrong, this seems to suggest he has been around since 1993. --can dle •wicke 18:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aurelio Nuño Morales

I originally speedy deleted this as I didn't feel that it asserted notability. Quite whether he won awards or a company he worked for (or founded) did is somewhat unclear. Consequently I've restored it and brought it to AfD for consensus Ged UK 21:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not really sure why this was nominated for deletion riffic (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No lack of notability that might justify deletion, awards for his company are being mentioned in the article, keep --Goodgirl - talk to me 21:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well sourced to establish notability. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this case the creative person doesn't have works in museums and libraries, he actually designs the museums and libraries, which is something most architects do not have the honor of doing. I don't see why this was nominated either. Drawn Some (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomo Miličević

I and also User:Nouse4aname, have reverted this page (a couple to times) from an article to a redirect for 30 Seconds to Mars, as the person is just a band member WP:MUSIC. However plenty of IP users (may be all the same user, but the IP address changes) have reverted back to an article, claiming notbility, due to very minor bit parts as an actor. I think we need a concensus if the page should stand, or be fixed as a redirect. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because another band member of 30 Seconds to Mars, just as non-notable[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Tomo Miličević passes WP:MUSIC criteria. Shannon Leto passes WP:MUSIC criteria and he is also an actor. He has appeared in tv in addition to the band, then that satisfies notability.--Dear87 (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very easy to state this, however you must prove it to be true. Please clearly explain which criteria these people pass at WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomo Miličević passes criteria 1, 2; see 30 Seconds to Mars discography, 3; see A Beautiful Lie#Charts, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9; see List of awards and nominations received by 30 Seconds to Mars, 10, 11, 12. Also in the page, there are reliable sources. Shannon Leto passes every criteria.--Dear87 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I have been trying to explain. Neither Tomo nor Shannon pass these criteria. 30 Seconds to Mars (as a band) has received widespread media coverage, chart hits, awards, tours etc, however, Tomo and Shannon (as individuals) have not. Just because the band that they are members of has achieved these things, does not mean that they as individuals have. Notability is not inherited, and these claims of notability belong only to the band and not to the individual members of that band. Does that make sense now? Nouse4aname (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, every page of a musician that plays for a band must be cancel?--Dear87 (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because some members of bands also have individual notability. For example, Jared Leto is a member of a notable band, but as an individual he is notable for being an actor and having several major roles in film and TV. Similarly, Billie Joe Armstrong is a member of several notable bands, owns a record label and is often given coverage in the media that is independent of his involvement with Green Day. It is true that there are some articles that exist in wikipedia that shouldn't be there, but it will take time to find them all and correct them. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Shannon Leto is also an actor. Although he has appeared in some films as minor roles, however he is an actor.--Dear87 (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone is aware of the fact he has had some minor appearances on film and in tv but nowhere near the 'significant multiple roles' required. They add no weight to the article. --neon white talk 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and expand. This guy passes WP:MUSIC criteria and he is also an actor. He has appeared in tv in addition to the band, then that satisfies notability.--Dear87 (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot vote twice. --neon white talk 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and create a new redirect. Without a doubt redirect Tomo Miličević for failing WP:MUSIC. He also fails to pass WP:GNG as although the band is covered well by multiple reliable sources, the individual is not. The article should be deleted to prevent such easy recreation in future, with well referenced sections merged to the main band article. I believe that Shannon Leto should also be redirected for failing WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Although he has appeared in some TV/films, these have been only very minor roles, and under WP:ENT, actors are only considered notable if they have had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." Clearly Jared Leto passes WP:ENT and this is why he gets a separate article but the other members of the band do not. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shannon Leto. According to WP:MUSICBIO, "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article". 30 Seconds to Mars and The Wondergirls seem like notable bands to me. Merge and redirect Tomo Miličević to 30 Seconds to Mars. No "individual notability for activity independent of the band" established. Jafeluv (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ivan Taslimson

Unreferenced biography of a living person. I could not find coverage in reliable sources from a brief search. The entire prose section of the article appears to have been lifted from this blog; the rest is effectively a résumé. Skomorokh 08:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability. -[[Ryan]] ^{(Main Menu)}_{(Language Selection)} 12:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no trace of the independent coverage required for verifiability and to establish notability. Nuttah (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. non-notable Xavexgoem (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stepan Vdovine

Being a school trustee is not of sufficient notability to deserve an article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A former school trustee of a small suburb of Vancouver doesn't come close to meeting WP:POLITICIAN; the references don't seem to lend him individual notability. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Talk about nonnotable! Unless someone comes up for sources to meet the general notability guidelines, there's no reason to keep. Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bashar Kiwan

BLP lacking in the required multiple independent reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage indicating notability. Original prod was removed by the creator of this article an account that appears to be a SPA account here solely to write about this person. After the prod and tags asking for sources the only source that was added is to a site called "ArabAd" which suggests paid advertising/press releases a.k.a. something that would fail the requirement to be independent of the source. The site requires a subscription to even see it, so most people have no idea what it even says there. Even if this were to somehow turn out to be a source that meets our criteria, it's only one, and we need multiple ones to demonstrate notability. DreamGuy (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per noms description of the current "source" and in addition, the admittedly English language and western culture biased search of google news does not provide any sources for Kiwan, and the only results for his company AWI return the not related to Kiwan: Australian Wool Innovation. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- from the press release site, it appears that the company name is "al Waseet International" - which also produces no sources on google news. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsource, except for press releases. Hipocrite (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding his notability, here are some results from Google News in English: [18]

Here are some results from Google France: "bashar+kiwan"&cf=all Retfoc (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out specific articles from reliable publishers about the subject of this article? The ones I have been able to find about the subject of this article do not appear to be reliable sources and the hits in reliable sources are not about the subject of the article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mention in Entrepeneur magazine (certainly a reliable publisher) count: [19] Retfoc (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused by the "[c] 2007 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com) " at the bottom of that listing - who/what is al bawaba? what is their relation to Entreprenuer that Entreprenuer prints their copyright content? what is the relationship between al bawaba and Bashar Kiwan? There were too many "unusualities" about the item for me to give it full credance as a reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 07:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like it's a publication, and that Entrepeneur magazine picked up the article somehow. I agree it is strange, but after the preliminary research you have already done I'm fairly confident that you will agree that the individual is notable and worthy of mention in Wikipedia. The organization he leads employs over 6,000 individuals, and as you can see from this page they are rapidly expanding: [20]. Here are two existing wikipedia articles that mention the Waseet newspaper: [21] & [22].

Looking forward to your feedback.

Retfoc (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, until I have a better sense of who how and why this copyright material came into Entrepreneur, I am not willing to say that it is independant third party content which is accurate and fact checked. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help? From the bottom of the page:

COPYRIGHT 2007 Al Bawaba (Middle East) Ltd. Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission. Copyright 2007, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Basically it's been reproduced with permission.. Not sure who Gale Group/TCC are!

Also please see this article which mentions him receiving an award for excellence in advertising [23]

Bye for nowRetfoc (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Thü Hürlimann

Article appears promotional. I checked Google for usable references, but didn't see anything in the first few pages. If this can be properly referenced, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with the Nominator: the article looks highly promotional, and I too searched for sources that would demonstrate notability but found nothing. Yilloslime ^T_C 03:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too have not been able to find any sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. لenna vecia 20:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Taylor (composer)

Non-notable composer? The name is common, so it's difficult to search for, but this article has been here for years with no improvement and no reliable sources. Attempts to search for the subject name plus his works come up with nothing except a lot of Wikipedia mirrors. Nothing in Google News for the combination of composer and work. The history of the article indicates that there was apparently a previous deletion discussion in 2003, but the resolution was to keep. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks non-notable to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I would prefer to be able to keep an article which has been on Wikipedia for over five years, and is about a topic (an avant-garde composer) which wouldn't necessarily get a lot of popular attention, I can't find any independent sources, and none have been provided. If some reliable independent sources are found before this AfD closes, I may reconsider. ~~I don't know how the 2003 VfD (votes for deletion) discussion can be found.~~ --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found that VfD discussion and copied the text to the talk page. The discussion did not involve the subject's notability, but whether the article should be deleted based on the subject's request. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, there were two VfDs within the space of a few days. The first one did involve notability. Both are now copied to Talk:Robert Taylor (composer). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I spent some time with this, examining his website particularly regarding performances of works and trying to track down anything on the internet or in books or news and came up short. I may have found a couple of trivial mentions of him as a french horn player but nothing as a composer. I'm not even sure if he is the "Bob Taylor" whose son "Robert Taylor" is a conductor, but regardless, he doesn't meet our notability standards regarding in-depth coverage or by WP:CREATIVE. Things were much less difficult in 2003 but it looks like he didn't meet the standards back then either but the article was kept anyway. Drawn Some (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Herron

I removed a CSD A7 tag from this article but being a minor league player, he appears to not meet WP:ATHLETE. Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First round pick makes him notable.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 20:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep, or merge to St. Louis Cardinals minor league players. I've cleaned up the article and added a number of refs. I'd like to see a bit more in the way of quality refs (and they may be out there, but I'm running short of time right now) before I'm in the strong keep camp, so I'm also okay with a merge.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Might make it under WP:ATHLETE someday, but right now is still a minor league player. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Sawyer

AfDs for this article:

Previously deleted article brought back after userfication w/o anything concrete to show for it. No photography books published, awards won, well-known photographs, inclusion in anthologies, or anything else that makes a photographer of note. Main editor — major COI — claims notability on presence of work in museums per additional criteria in WP:CREATIVE (is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries), but only three claims can be substantiated and these only through a catalog card, search engine, and a list with over 3,000 names. Per WP:BIO's "Basic criteria," I would argue such sources don't contribute toward notability in the same sense that primary sources don't (no coverage involved). Only independent secondary coverage demonstrated is left over from previously deleted version: a review in PF Magazine that backs up nothing of note (mainly bio info) and a few sentences in a book on having discovered Christie Brinkley. The rest of the sources are self-published, don't verify the text, or primary. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 15:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, this article fails to achieve notability. The additional facts of the previous deletion, the recreation by a COIed editor, the survival of a Speedy Delete request by the narrowest of justifications, and the obvious stretching of the thin documentation are all further evidence of the attempts to create notability through the existence of an encyclopedic article. Sawyer would be better served by an article written after he achieved acclaim, rather than this promotional item. TheMindsEye (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not worried about the need for readers to do some work (typing name in search field, etc) to see that claims that Sawyer's work is held by museums are indeed verifiable. However, the verifiable holdings may be rather less than what's suggested above. One of the three places is said in the article to have just two photographs; the article is silent about another (the V&A), which turns out to have what appear to be three catalogue entries for the same item: "Errol Sawyer, photographer" upper surface of jewel case. / Contains Powerpoint Presentations and Word documents. / Local Notes: / Donated by Errol Sawyer. / Subjects: / Photography, Artistic -- Netherlands. / Genre or Form: / CD-ROMs -- Netherlands 2002. A self-donated, self-published CD is, I submit, rather minor. ¶ I'm also worried about what sourcing there is. Take the claim that "Since 1984, Sawyer has worked on multicultural beauty projects for Vis-A-Vis Magazine." This is footnoted with a link to what turns out to be an article about beauty whose only mention of Sawyer (or photography) is "Photography by Errol Sawyer". So all the "source" shows is that at least once, directly or indirectly, Sawyer recently worked for Vis-A-Vis. ¶ A number of editors have tried their best with this article, and it's better than it was. Maybe the "Article Rescue Squadron", as invited by Genovese12345, can find some critical discussion of Sawyer's work. I'll postpone my "!vote" for some days. -- Hoary (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It seems much effort has gone into rescuing this article already, and the sources just aren't there - Vartanza (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I think there was just enough previously, and clearly enough now. His work is in the collection of several major museums, and several articles have been written about him--either alone would be sufficient. I really regret to have to say it, but I have the impression that the opposition to this article by the nominator is not necessarily in good faith; the history of the article shows excessive concentration on one minor point about the sponsorship or discovery of a particular model, and I think that' was the focus here--the questioning of the sources is in excess and pointy; the magazines listed are significant magazines,and print sources are just fine. I have tried to help the author find more, and to tried to persuade her not to includes some of the inadequate sources; I wish the article was stronger, but it is still strong enough. I cannot recollect the degree of challenge and disbelief shown here to any other similar article. DGG (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, what are these "several articles" that have been written about him? I've seen a single article (as a PDF briefly hosted by WP) in a magazine: Hoeneveld, "Errol Sawyer". What else is there in any magazine or book? Further, I don't think my characterization above of the "sourcing" for the assertion that "Since 1984, Sawyer has worked on multicultural beauty projects for Vis-A-Vis Magazine" is in excess. (It's certainly pointy: my point was and is that even what appears to be sourced may not be. I think that both you and I are free to make points. If we dismiss this AfD on suspicion of pointiness, we might as well dismiss the article for embarrassingly obvious pointiness; indeed, COI has already been claimed, although I'd say that OWN has been a much bigger problem.) But back to sourcing. Since I pointily pointed out on 31 May that it was off, and indeed since the "Article Rescue Squadron" announced a planned rescue effort, no improvement has been made. The article's main author probably has an unrivaled knowledge of what may have appeared in the press, etc, and I infer that what's cited in the article is all that exists to be cited; if it isn't, then let's see improvements by other editors. -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think DGG is a bit guilty of exaggeration in justifying his keep vote. But I agree with Hoary that there's likely nothing more to be found in terms of secondary citations/significant coverage to add to the inadequate amount the article currently has. If there was, the article's main editor would know to find it and have put a quick end to this months ago, but instead has been almost entirely focused on trying to "cite" existence of work in museums, when that work might just be more self-donated CDs like with the V&A, which no notable photog would have to resort to. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 03:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, "weak" in that I suspect that Sawyer does merit an article but there appear to be next to no materials for creating one. The page at intute.ac.uk is much cited, but this is only incidentally about Sawyer and instead is primarily about his website; it seems unlikely that Mary Burslem (whose name appears on many of these entries) would have done more than repeat assertions either contained within the website or provided within any recommendation of it that she may have received. Since the start of this second AfD, neither the "Article Rescue Squadron" nor DGG nor indeed anybody else has actually done anything to rescue this article, which in the past has been fiercely defended by one editor (who at times seems to want to own not only the article but its talk page too). Not that it should matter much, but I like quite a bit of the little JPEGs I have seen of Sawyer's work; if his book City Mosaic is published (as has been promised) or there is some major exhibition then I'd expect that this would get some discussion somewhere. A new article could then be considered on its merits (and not speedied). In the meantime, this one can be userfied to Efsawyer. -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're misinterpreting what the Intute page is. It's not about Sawyer's website — it's from Sawyer's website; i.e., it's a mirror, as the first sentence is, "This is the website of fine art photographer Errol Sawyer," and the publisher is cited as Fischer. Burslem is just the person who catalogued the entry apparently. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 03:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's a copy of part of Sawyer's, then perhaps you can point to where within Sawyer's site is written "This is the website of fine art photographer Errol Sawyer". I can't. (The Flash on that site is an irritation, but there aren't many [quasi-] pages to look through.) The publisher of the site is indeed Fischer. "This is the website of" would be a clunky thing to say on that particular website but it's just the kind of thing that an exhausted cataloguer might write about it, and indeed the cataloguers often do write it: here, here, here, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - My assumption is that the first sentence is added in such articles in order to state where the info presented came from, but it's not an important point at this stage. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 19:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uwe Diegel

Possibly autobiographical, page created by user name matching subject's. Only other editor goes by the name of subject's company. Prod was deleted, no explanation for notability, so I'm bringing here. There are a fair bit of references on patent listing websites, but nothing else; one newspaper reference in 'Le Bien Public', but can't get to the article (March '05). Doesn't pass WP:BIO. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced autobiography of a non-notable businessman. لenna vecia 18:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

James Fairchild (transport)

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Toral

Non notable; fails WP:BIO. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no clear notability. --CliffC (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I have added some info and there appears he has some notability, probably more with more looking. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability. لenna vecia 18:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability-meter didn't even twitch. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James deaker

Non notable. One google news hit and that is [probably] a PR release by the company. ("NEW YORK -- Rapt Inc., the industry-standard provider of advertising yield management solutions, today announced the formation of its Advisory Services practice."...) Shadowjams (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - according to WP:BIO, a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. All I can see in a Google search of Deaker is a whole bunch of Facebook and Twitter profiles. Additionally, the part about being the son of a sports broadcaster does not establish notability - see this guideline - 'notability by association' appears not to establish notability at all! JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can anyone tell me what "reserved media monetization" means? The only ghit for it is this article. He does appear to be head of "Publisher Advisory Services" (whatever that is) at Microsoft, but they employ a lot of people and there will be many heads of departments of varying degrees of notability (or otherwise). He's probably doing a good enough job - Microsoft took him over with Rapt.com and kept him - but is that notable? Hardly. Peridon (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit made to address the concerns of Peridon on use of "reserved media monetization". Included additional external references. Tried to make it clear that the claim of notoriety is based on the reputation as an expert in digital yield management. Not on his relationship to the sports broadcaster. Given that the claim of notoriety is based on being an expert in a very tightly defined space, request an opinion from an expert in the digital media space on whether this meets the threshold for notoriety prior to a deletion decision Phiman NZ (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Much clearer. However... I'm still not convinced of notability. BTW, I think that Phiman NZ might have made an interesting Freudian slip here. We are looking for 'notability' rather than 'notoriety', although the latter may ensure the former. In the case of someone connected with banner ads, I wonder.... Peridon (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established, Google lends nothing. لenna vecia 18:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The PropheC

Prodded by someone else with explanation "The article was speedily deleted, restored, deleted, and restored again. This is the third version, as far as I know. The sources are still the same - insufficient" but prod was removed. Filing AFD on behalf of the prodder. DreamGuy (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe salt after all the re-creations. None of the sources is significant. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the author of misplaced {{prod}}. --Vejvančický (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for extremely poor source quality. All are useless, with the exception of the BBC, which barely mentions him. Quantumobserver (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage in reliable source is lacking. - Whpq (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources - all are blogs, zines and websites. Someday, perhaps, but not now notable. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable autobiography/vanity piece lacking any reliable sources. لenna vecia 18:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacen Tan

I think this is iffy, but I'm not sure this is enough to pass WP:ENT. Independent film director from Singapore (so systemic bias concerns) who has made four short films (five coming), all on the internet. The first has notability claimed from the number of internet views (which admittedly has some press), whose article is another issue. The sources are mostly blogs but ultimately I don't think this quote, literally, and this piece are enough to make it. Probably just a bit too crystal bally to include right now. No hits through news or books but again, systemic bias concerns since it is Singapore's underground film industry we are talking about. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements to article, and continue improving. Perhaps request assistance from WikiProject Singapore. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements. 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Granite thump (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Pipes

non notable writer, mentioned once in Daily Telegraph for collecting unusual cycle lanes, web master of a channel 4 tv programme's website and managing editor of a CAD magazine in the last 70's... none of which really make him notable. No doubt a talented man, but not encyclopaediatic. Festen la vida (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Whoah there, hoss! He's FRSA - a Fellow of The Royal Society of Arts and IMHO that confers notability. Also, he's notable as per WP:PROFESSOR for his textbooks. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The RSA admits anyone as a fellow who can find someone to sponsor them and can stump up £145 a year.[24] Fellowship is by no exclusive, and there are currently about 27,000 fellows. I have no opinion yet about the subject's other claims to notability but being an FRSA shouldn't provide an automatic pass. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Response. Hmmm...OK, I had thought that FRSA and FRS were equivalent for the purposes of verification under WP:PROF, but I would be prepared to concede that FRSA, as per Phil Bridger does not automatically confer notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 12:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources demonstrate his notabilty so the topic is encyclopaediatic. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might have to elaborate further on this. How do the sources demonstrate his notability? In theory you could write "the sources demonstrate his notability" on any sourced article for deletion. I'm also not sure he passes WP:PROFESSOR - he's certainly published some works, but I'm not sure if they count as "significant impact". I'm tempted to go for Delete Greco Roman Empire (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by the nominator, there is an article about this person in the Daily Telegraph which is a major newspaper. There are numerous other references to this person and his work out there. This is the essence of notability and so the nomination seems to be an oxymoron. It is a fundamental policy that we tolerate imperfect articles, allowing them to be improved. Our deletion process therefore indicates that, in cases of uncertainty, we do not delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that an article in the Daily Telegraph is enough to make someone notable? The article in question refers to essentially a piece of trivia about the individual. He is surely not notable as a "collector of short, unusual and misplaced cycle lanes"? Greco Roman Empire (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Telegraph article is a substantial one and describes him as having a cult following. His website has been covered in numerous other newspapers and so this alone is certainly enough to justify inclusion here. This comes on top of his numerous other accomplishments and so his encyclopaediaticity is clear. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. References provided show that the artist did chart, thus satisfying the notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Malinaccier (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gathania

Ninth place finish on Swedish version of Idol is a far cry from notability. Only sources on article are a trviail mention on a blog (can't tell if it's official or user, as it's in a foreign language) and what looks to be her own website or marketer's website. Would need multiple independent reliable sources with nontrivial coverage to demonstrate notability enough for an article here. DreamGuy (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blame it on you is gettin heavy airplay. she will be big. keep da page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.76.224 (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can you provide any evidence of that, such as links to radio station web sites? If it can be verified then the subject might pass WP:MUSIC criterion 11. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is evidence. The google results on Swedish State Radio (Sveriges Radio). http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=Gathania+site%3Asr.se&meta= . It shows some playlists and that Get It Out was on DigiListan for some weeks. This shows she's got airplay on BBC 1 http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=Gathania++site%3Abbc.co.uk&meta=Linnea94 (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not-notable at this stage. She may enjoy chart success in the future, but right now she's just an Idol contestant. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Striking !vote; re-!voting below. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added some references. She is signed with a record company in Great Britain and Sweden, that makes her notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linnea94 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Linnea94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, and "she will be big" is not an argument to keep. See WP:CRYSTAL. لenna vecia 18:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jennavecia. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 12:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I suppose you and Jennavecia either didnt read the WP:ENTERTAINER or the article itself because that guidline say See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc. Gathania is a musician and not an entertainer. And she fulfills point one and two on WP:MUSIC Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Linnea94 (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see "Blame it on You" in either the UK or Swedish charts (UK, Swedish 1, Swedish 2) so I'm not really seeing how WP:MUSIC 1 and 2 apply - she's "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" in her capacity as a contestant (hence WP:ENTERTAINER), not - so far as I can see - in her capacity as a musician. WP:MUSIC 2 would apply if she'd charted, not simply by being signed to a record label (which you suggest above makes her notable). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No not Blame it on You but Get It Out is in Swedish 1, week 7-8. And here [25] on your third link. There are two non-trivial references in her article from Realtid and The Sun. Linnea94 (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:MUSIC 2 ("Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart"): "Get it Out" reached 27 in the Swedish charts (chart complies with WP:Record charts). This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

27th on a Swedish chart is not notable by any stretch of the imagination. What, are you kidding me? DreamGuy (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, merely noting that the article achieves notability according to WP:MUSIC. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the evidence of chart success. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with evidence of chart success hwsknudsen

—Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC).

Comment: My understanding is that being signed doesn't make a subject notable per se (WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles); it's charting or media reports that do. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dana S. Nau

Is this professor particularly notable? And the fact that the article was created by an user named Dsnpost (talk · contribs) suggests some interesting conflict of interest issues. Unless notability shown, delete. Nlu (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just one of many marginal academics using wiki for vanity. Bonewah (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Accusations of vanity are against multiple policies on civility, assumption of good faith and biographies of living persons. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full disclosure: I am not Dana Nau, but I am one of his many former research students; it should be obvious from my edit history that I have only a passing familiarity with Wikipedia. I assume (though I don't know) that Dsnpost was Dana Nau, and clearly any self-promotion in Wikipedia is fraught with peril. That said, I read WP:ACADEMIC, and Dana Nau seems to qualify for notability rather easily, both by criterion 1 (see his citation statistics, as well as the references to SHOP2 and some of his other work at Hierarchical task network) and, as a AAAI fellow, for criterion 3. Philosophically, though, I don't know where Wikipedia stands on articles that should have been created, but probably not by the editor who created them. Incremental Improvements (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. According to GScholar [26], this guy is cited like there's no tomorrow. It may be self-promotional, and tacky, but passes WP:ACADEMIC nonetheless - Vartanza (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yeah, I agree this guy passes WP:PROF by a country mile.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Auto eligible by WP:PROF Criteria 3. He is an elected Fellow of AAAI (1996), it's the fifth reference, this shouldn't come up for AfD. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), and probably other criteria as well. Citation impact clearly indicates notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Vartanza. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yutaro Fukushima

Unreferenced BLP about footballer who has never played in a fully-pro league that fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Article was PRODed, but PROD was removed with any references or support that article satisfied notability or verifiability requirements. It is clear that no such person is on the playing squad of Thespa Kusatsu. Jogurney (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player. Giant Snowman 22:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player failing WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Player history thinks he played for Thespa in 2008, but never took the field in a competitive match, and even if he did Thespa appears to be in J-League 2 which is not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues and therefore Yutaro Fukushima fails WP:ATHLETE.--ClubOranje^T 07:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 03:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N --Angelo (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Kash

Contested prod. No notability established. Hasn't won a championship in a notable promotion. No third party sources to help indicate notability. Nikki♥311 15:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 15:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:ATHLETE says that people who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport are considered notable. I did some sleuthing and found that Kash does meet this guideline; [27] contains an interview that the subject of the article has been in Elite Pro Wrestling, Adrenaline Rush Wrestling, NWA Indiana, Fight Sports Midwest, KOTC Charity Show - the NWA is the National Wrestling Alliance. According to the Wikipedia article on the NWA, The National Wrestling Alliance (NWA) is the largest governing body for a group of independent professional wrestling promotions and sanctions various NWA championships in the United States - it seems to me that this qualifies as a 'fully professional level'. So, yes, I would say that Kimberly Kash does satisfy the requirements of WP:ATHLETE and I think this should be kept. JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, professional wrestling is different from being a normal athlete, as the "professional" part isn't as clearly defined. Working in small time independent promotions does not make someone notable. Yes, the National Wrestling Alliance itself is notable, but not every promotion within it is. I would compare it to the restaurant chain McDonald's being notable, but not the individual restaurant that is down the street from my house. Or, you can consider small-time promotions equivalent to a "farm league" in baseball. I'd like to point out precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talia Madison. Madison, like Kash, only competed in a few small-time promotions and did not have any reliable third party sources when her article was deleted. It was continuously deleted as non-notable for months, even after she joined Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (the second most high profile wrestling promotion) and wrestled on television several times. Nikki♥311 20:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment - Hi Nikki, OK, so you're not objecting to me saying that WP:ATHLETE says 'people who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport are considered notable, but you're concerned over whether the NWA is the professional level of wrestling? JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear, so hopefully I can explain it a bit better. Kash competed in NWA Indiana, which is a minor promotion within the control of the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA). The NWA itself just oversees the territories (from minor to a few bigger ones, see List of National Wrestling Alliance territories), but is not a promotion itself. Also, the NWA was a lot more notable in the past than it is in the present. Not every promotion within it is considered "notable". What I'm saying is that Kash hasn't worked in a "fully professional" capacity because she hasn't worked for any larger promotions or held any championships, within the NWA or elsewhere. She has, however, worked for Shimmer Women Athletes, but only in their Sparkle division. According to the official website [28], "SPARKLE is the pre-show at the live SHIMMER events. It serves as a method of trying out potential new female talent for future appearances on the SHIMMER DVD series without putting their matches on the main show, or releasing those matches on video in any form. Since the SPARKLE matches exist specifically to be dark matches, and to give opportunities to new talent before appearing on our DVDs, we do not release the SPARKLE matches on video." Therefore, I wouldn't consider that meeting the requirements for "fully professional" either. Nikki♥311 23:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK then, so are you going delete on this one? JulieSpaulding (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes. I nominated it. :) Nikki♥311 19:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see no notability within the article nor in my search for enough information to justify the article. Will probably become notable one day. Once she is covered by more reliable sites and works for either ROH, TNA, or WWE. Though if she is very pretty I see WWE picking her up since they couldn't care less about anything else. Anyway, once then, she may be notable, but for now, I don't believe she is. Unless she is related to Kid Kash, and then....she will still not be notable.--WillC 06:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable womens wrestler. Afkatk (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SNOW Valley2city^‽ 06:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denaldin Hamzagic

Non-notable soccer player; was drafted but not signed to a pro contract; no pro experience; no significant amateur achievements; fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE JonBroxton (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player. Giant Snowman 00:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsigned draft pick. Has not played in any games for the Revolution, not-notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was never signed by New England, hasn't been on their roster since well before the season started. Nfitz (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer. --Carioca (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom as non-notable. --ClubOranje^T 10:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N --Angelo (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Hofbauer

Contested PROD. The article was originally PRODded by myself with the rationale "fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully-pro league." The PROD was removed by Varbas (talk · contribs) who claimed that "plays in the fully proffesional FA Premier League WP:Athlete." However, as the player in question has yet to make an appearance – simply signing for a team is not enough – he still fails WP:ATHLETE and the article should therefore be deleted. Giant Snowman 11:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Straight forward delete. Another youth player who has yet to make an appearance in a fully-professional league and/or competition, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE and he also fails general notability at WP:N. --Jimbo^[online] 13:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about non-notable athlete. Jogurney (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the user contesting the original PROD (Varbas (talk · contribs) ) has been blocked as a sockpuppet. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reserve / Academy player hasn't yet played first team. Age group caps for his country are not enough per ATHLETE, not as subject of RS for GNG --ClubOranje^T 08:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenta Furube

BLP about footballer who has never played in a fully-pro league that fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Article was PRODed, but PROD was removed with any references or support that article satisfied notability requirements. It is not enough to be a non-playing member of the team. Jogurney (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player. Giant Snowman 22:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable... worth mentioning that the deprodder was blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user, so it never should have even made it to AFD. DreamGuy (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE in never having made the field, non notable per WP:GNG. --ClubOranje^T 10:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N --Angelo (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Vigorito

Vigorito never played professionally. As no appearances record in Serie A nor Coppa Italia Matthew_hk t c 21:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 22:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this site confirms his one appearance (in a fully-pro league) that the article claims. He therefore meets WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 22:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no record in http://www.cagliaricalcio.net/ http://www.gazzetta.it http://soccernet.espn.go.com/players/stats?id=115025&cc=4716 http://www.channel4.com/sport/football_italia/clubs/cagstats.html Which match he actually played? Goal.com is sometimes reliable. Matthew_hk t c 22:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Cristiano Lupatelli played 23 Serie A games in all-time or 2007-08 or 2008-09 season? Non of above. Matthew_hk t c

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was under the impression that goal.com is not considered a reliable source at WP:FOOTY. Unless a reliable source can be found to show that he has played a game, this article doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. King of the North East 14:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFI - My Italian is not what it once was (and it used to be crap) so could someone decipher his role here please.--ClubOranje^T 09:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Guardian has him having never played a game for the club. This Source seems to place him behind Federico Marchetti and Cristiano Lupatelli in the pecking order at Caglairi, so unless a source other than the Goal.com can prove he has played a first team game, he is non-notable.

Delete I can ensure he has never played a game in 2008–09 season, I have checked at Gazzetta, Cagliari Calcio and Calciatori.com, none of them show him having ever played a game. --Angelo (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Cruise

Contested prod. No notability established. Hasn't won a championship in a notable promotion. No third party refs to help indicate notability. Only debuted in Shimmer a month ago. WP:CRYSTAL. Nikki♥311 15:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 15:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom.--WillC 06:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a minor promotion that I'm not even sure qualifies as professional. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Afkatk (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Fails WP:ATHLETE. لenna vecia 18:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hammer

The article is essentially a vanity page for a minor political candidate with little possibility of making an impact. This is the second time this candidate has run for governor of Maine in 2006 his candidacy received no official votes and raised only $420.00. Highground79 (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bernie Sanders was also a quixotic political candidate once. A candidate that had no chance of winning. Then, he won. Maine has had a history of electing independents to office. While conceding that this is no Jesse Ventura, there is a populist anger sweeping the country, and if this guy is any kind of politician at all, he might be able to take advantage of it in a way that he wouldn't have been able to before. In 2005, this probably wouldn't be notable. However, it is 2009 and the world has changed. --Genovese12345 (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 2006 Alex's candidacy received only $420.00, due to the fact that his campaign was derailed by a major auto accident in which he was struck by a pickup truck while a pedestrian, which occurred in Nov. 2005 approximately one month after he announced his campaign, and landed him in the hospital for for 29 days (and almost a year on crutches). As a write-in candidate in 2006 his vote totals may not have been required to be submitted to the state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.111.64.29 (talk • contribs) 29 May 2009

The above comment was added by a user who vandalized this AfD by deleting the original nomination. I have retained the comment without judgment as to how much weight it should carry. I am neutral on this AfD but will continue to monitor it for vandalism. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I amended it, keeping some of the negative information but trying to put it into some context. If it is ok, I am trying to put out a basic starting Wikipedia entry with information that others may not typically have, which can then be modified etc. as the larger community wishes. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexforME (talk • contribs) 16:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure what kind of monkey business is going on here, but there are no references to support notability per WP:BIO. BLPs must have references for verifiability as well. Drawn Some (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO; no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. We can't keep the article on the presumption he might become notable in the future. Robofish (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTE, WP:BIO. Not notable, unreferenced, and we just can't keep it there in case he does become governor (If he does, then we can restore the article). -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet either WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harbans Srih

Wholly unreferenced BLP, tagged for notability and references since April 2008. Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. لenna vecia 03:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:MUSICBIO states that a musician is considered notable if they're covered in sources independent of the subject - like [29] for example - or has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable - which Srih has satisfied from a quick search. JulieSpaulding (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it says multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. What other RS is there? Also, who are the notable acts on Acid Jazz Records label? لennavecia 19:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with you; there aren't any sources, but the part about releasing two or more albums on an indie label appears to be a valid constitution of notability too. I think that the bit about sources should be a mandatory criterion, not just 'if you don't satisfy this one, choose another from the list' type of thing. JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other criteria still need to be verifiable, but in that case the sources just have to be reliable. Non-triviality no longer matters if sources are used to verify one of those other criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Right, but Acid Jazz Records isn't a major label. Their artist roster does not include "many" notable performers. لenna vecia 05:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per wp:musicbio and lack of sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 1) We don't have multiple secondary sources. 2) The albums are not backed by reliable sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Lay

Non-notable BLP. Has only held minor roles. لenna vecia 02:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her website lists her filmography, mostly uncredited/no-name roles, just 11, she might get some good roles soon, and gain entry then. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: May be notable someday. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Sindane

Non-notable per WP:BLP1E. لenna vecia 03:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP. The subject is a private citizen who is not likely to be written about in the history books, and deserves to be allowed to live the rest of his life without the first web search result for his name to be a reminder of troubled times. I refer to WP:BLP rather than WP:BLP1E because I mean that it is the spirit of this policy that dictates deletion, not one clause that is more often misused that used in the correct spirit. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sudarsan Yennamalli M.

A young artist with only one exhibition to his credit. No notability at this time or references to indicated any notability freshacconci talktalk 10:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 10:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't indicate why the individual is important or significant.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not notable. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Handbury

fails WP:BIO. not much coverage, most coverage mentions her in the context of her husband Matt Handbury who gets mentions in the media because he is the nephew of the actually notable Rupert Murdoch. WP:NOTINHERITED if I ever saw it. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to have little independent notability. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 08:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just plain non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 00:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Craig L. Russell (software architect)

No real notability shown. BLP lacking reliable sources, none found Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails notability requirements. Based upon the edit history and the license of the photo, the article is either an autobiography by the subject or the photo has a false license. DreamGuy (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - appears to have co-authored at least one O'Reilly manual. Possible notability. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: You found no sources? Okay, here's 35 Google news hits, 80 Google scholar hits, and 20 Google book hits (a couple of which aren't him, but most are). I believe there's enough there to establish notability. And autobiography isn't a reason to delete, in any case. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found no independent reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of the subject. Do any of your hits satisfy the guidelines suggested by wikipedia policies? Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Are you changing the rationale for the AFD? I was talking about notability (per the rationale) not whether there are sufficient sources to write an article about someone we agree is notable. So far as notability goes:
    - WP:CREATIVE: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. Google Scholar appears to show him easily qualifying here.
    - WP:CREATIVE: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Again, Google Scholar shows he was an author of the Object Data Standard; this ACM search shows it's been cited dozens of times.
    - WP:ACADEMIC: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources...the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work. See previous.
    - WP:ACADEMIC: The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity...may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study. I note that Java Data Objects, which he co-authored, is held in over 100 libraries and was published by O'Reilly.
    - He contributed to 97 Things Every Software Architect Should Know (ISBN 9780596522698, also published by O'Reilly); contributors are described as "today's leading software architects."
  And so on, and so on. He qualifies under both WP:CREATIVE and WP:ACADEMIC in terms of citations; now it's just a matter of finding sources that talk about the person and not just his work. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Who is this we you talk of? Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - PS. I concede I did not consider the true relevence of the google scholar hits before my reply, I have not looked enough at what relevence the results are. When I said about reliable sources, "none found". I was meaning independent reliable sources ABOUT Mr Russell. I concede that citations and influences may make him notable but I'll leave that up to someone who better underdstands such requirements. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Subject clearly passes notability requirements as shown by Dori. Article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Varbas (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Above user has been blocked as a sockpuppet of banned account User:Azviz. I have removed his comments as banned users aren't allowed to post under new accounts. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dori did not show that the "Subject clearly passes notability requirements". Hits are not reliable sources. Varbas (and other editor name used) knows that. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everything Dori said, good work :) Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - rubbish article, but he is notable per WP:CREATIVE. Bigger digger (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 00:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Hornuss

Has never played a game in a fully professional league, failing the minimum inclusion threshold. Punkmorten (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league, and no other claim to fame. Giant Snowman 17:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:ATHLETE made 3 substitute appearances for MKD. Added ref. article needs work --ClubOranje^T 09:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cluboranje. Nfitz (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, passes WP:ATHLETE having played five fully-profressional games for MK Dons. --Jimbo^[online] 10:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MK Dons appearances. matt91486 (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ClubOranje 62.163.32.2 (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Pease

Not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better references can be found. A Google News archive search turns up references to other people with this name, but the only reference to an actor by this name was in a list of actors in a stage play. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it could be a hoax, it's not an acceptable article on a living person. Hipocrite (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A hoax? The link to the Internet Movie Database would show the person is real. Dream Focus 11:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[30] Hipocrite (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a list of all of his television and film roles. All of his television appearances, have been for notable television shows. His total career makes him notable. Dream Focus 11:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - He does not meet any of the criteria under WP:ENT, all of the roles listed are clearly minor. In any case, that would only have established a presumption of notability. To actually be notable, we would need substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. IMDb is not a reliable source, so we have no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Has anyone seen any of these episodes? Was his role in at least two of them significant? If so, he meets the criteria. Dream Focus 23:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of any reliable sources that discuss this person (imdb seems to be it). As an actor, he has won no major awards or otherwise been recognized as making a significant contribution to his field. Fails bio.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What we have is evidence he is a working actor, not evidence hat he is a notable actor. -- Whpq (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless reliable independent sources appear we must delete for now. -- Banjeboi 23:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, does not meet notability, need independent reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Might be notable someday, but today isn't it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Football Icon. — Aitias // discussion 00:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hurrell

Contested PROD, reason given was; "Winning the television talent contest is a substantial claim to notability; the referenced article appears to be as much about Hurrell as his football career".

However, WP:NOTNEWS states "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. 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."

His footballing career alone does not pass the criteria for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE, as he has never played in a fully-professional league/competition. --Jimbo^[online] 13:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete - not notable for a stand-alone article, but his career perhaps deserves a mention at the Football Icon page. Giant Snowman 13:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless I am mistaken, he passes the first criterion of WP:ATHLETE as having "competed at the fully professional level of a sport". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the clubs he has played for are fully professional. Cool3 (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Delete. Turns out I was mistaken. Cool3 (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Football Icon. Subject does not meet WP:ATHLETE, as nominator points out. Claim to notability per WP:BIO appears somewhat weaker than I thought when de-PRODding, as it's predicated on coverage linked Football Icon. At the very least, "Sam Hurrell" is a credible search term, suggesting a redirect would be appropriate. CJPargeter (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something I'm missing? Isn't Chelsea F.C. a fully professional club? And at least to my underinformed eyes, St Albans City F.C. looks like one too. Cool3 (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chelsea is a fully-professional club in a fully-pro league, but Hurrell never made an appearance for them. Hundreds of kids go through club academies but never play in a competitive match. St Albans aren't a professional club, even if they were, the league(s) they've played in has to be fully-professional for him to qualify. A list of fully-pro leagues can be found at WP:FPL. --Jimbo^[online] 15:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you. Cool3 (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Football Icon. Subject fails WP:ATHLETE by never having played at a fully professional level of the sport. His claim to notability rests only on having won the talent show, so per WP:NOTNEWS, he is not personally notable, though he should be covered in the article about the show. As CJPargeter points out, his name is a credible search term, so merge and redirect seems the best option. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Football Icon as player did not make the required level for footballer and therefore a bit WP:ONEEVENTish, unlike winner of series 2 who actually did become a footballer of note. --ClubOranje^T 02:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Football Icone per comments above. --Angelo (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Reilly (author)

not noteable/vanity page Psykosonik (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No evidence has been shown that this is a vanity page, so to accuse the article subject of vanity is incivil, a failure to assume good faith and a breach of our policy on biographies of living persons. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines and the WP:SPA that created it does give it a whiff of self promotion. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear to pass WP:AUTHOR. لenna vecia 18:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mokhless Al-Hariri

AfDs for this article:

Recreation of previously deleted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mokhless Al-Hariri. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Might just be notable as an author, but not adequately referenced. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His books are self-published, or rather published by his company, GDG.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Ongelungel

Unreferenced BLP, fails to meet WP:CREATIVE. لenna vecia 02:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Delete No evidence of any notability whatsoever. Nothing relevant on Google except WP mirrors and the family website [31]. No actual reason to be sure even of his real existence. DGG (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Winner

Non-notable chef. She "has won many national recipe contests", but a Google News Archive search returns no reliable sources to confirm this. A Google search returns mostly information from user-generated sites, such as Cuisineart Stand Mixer. Cunard (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yeah... A friend of the author? Highest Heights (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NOTE. ttonyb1 (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wholly unreferenced autobiography fails to establish notability, Google lends no help. لenna vecia 18:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find her on Amazon either. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barney B. Rasor

Non-notable subject per WP:BIO. The military decorations listed, while admirable, do not meet the requirements for notability. Created by an editor who has created several biographies of friends and family members. Drawn Some (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say keep for only one reason. Mamurra and Titus Pullo. That his military record was important enough to be noted in a book makes him the modern equivalent of these two. Therefore, it should stay. --Genovese12345 (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources aren't sufficient to meet WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ In addition to the awards he received, this man is notable as first African American to serve as command sergeant major of the Southern European Task Force. Varbas (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. DreamGuy (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment 'Notability' is dependent on the availability of sources, not how admirable we think someone is. Did Mr Rasor's appointment receive a significant level of coverage in independent reliable sources? Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still have to say keep. Rasor was apparently a prominent enough African-American that he was also featured in an edition of Jet Magazine in 1966. [[32]]. I will once again reiterate that if Pullo and Mamurra are mentioned solely because they are mentioned in a history of military campaigns, I don't know why this is any different. The only thing that seperates this is era. And, in the case of Rasor, he did hold a high level enlisted command position, meaning he was probably of far greater importance to the American Army than Pullo was to the Roman legion. --Genovese12345 (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed your second "Keep" to "Comment", you can't !vote more than once. Drawn Some (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Rasor is only mentioned in passing in that article - this isn't "significant coverage" as required by WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO; no significant coverage in reliable sources. We can't just say 'being the first African-American sergeant major of the Southern European Task Force makes him notable'; we have to prove that with references in reliable sources, and here they simply don't exist. Robofish (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Robo. No significant coverage in reliable sources to support claims to notability, thus fails WP:BIO. لenna vecia 18:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Atkinson-Lord

Art director at a minor theatre in London, does not seem to be particularly notable Passportguy (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre 503, Southwark Playhouse, Baron's Court Theatre (amongst others) are all theatres of a similar level in London and all have wikipedia pages. Atkinson-Lord is the founding director of the theatre which is totally groundbreaking in it's support of emerging artists in London. Notable enough I think. Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. - Admittedly, Atkinson-Lord is probably not famous outside the UK, but her work at Arch 468 is significant and unique in London Theatre culture. It's also worth noting that Phil Willmott has a wikipedia entry and was the Artistic Director of a Theatre company operating and a similar level to Arch 468. Goodgreif (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Baron's Court Theatre is a redlink, so that argument doesn't wash. And the importance of the theaters has no bearing on the importance of the art directors. Are the art directors of the other theaters you cited in Wikipedia? In fact, there is nothing in the theater's article which indictaes its notability, and it probably should be deleted, as well. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability isnt transitive. Even if her place of employment is notable, it does not mean that she is. Corpx (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OK, she had a short profile in The Stage, but that if you read it it just seems to be a human interest story about someone having difficulties starting her career. I know that Google hits don't equate to notability, but I can't see how any truly notable person in 21st century theatre in a Western country could possibly get only 54 web hits and these two from Google News. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redd Stylez

~~Part hoax (if he landed a part starring as himself in a movie, why are there no Google news archive hits on him?),~~ part promotional, part non-notable. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't call hoax, as imdb (yes, I know) lists him as a credit for the movies. But I see no notability elsewise either. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rely on IMDB for debunking a possible hoax, as you note, it's not a reliable source. Drawn Some (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it could be a hoax, it shouldn't be an article. Unverifiable. Hipocrite (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing about this article makes any sense with regard to verifiability and looks to me like a hoax. The imdb entry can be discounted as anyone can send in info to be added and their (imdb's) checking systems are less than efficient. I believe it to be a combination of a hoax and vanity article. --Web Hamster 12:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think it's a hoax, as there are MP3 downloads available under this name on MP3.com, however, notability is clearly not established. لenna vecia 19:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Mitcham

It's unclear what's going on here, if it's a mistake or a hoax. I cannot find any WP:RS on the named individual, on google or google news, or in the references provided. However, there is an individual who closely matches the name "Meredith" instead of "Mitcham" who is in some of the references. The children listed in the infobox also have the name Meredith. I would normally change the name and correct it, however the creator's username is similar to the article name, and the name is used a number of times. I want to be sure it's an error and not something else before correcting it. Shadowjams (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refs don't mention her, article was created by somebody called Mitchamz, her husband I'm guessing. Conical Johnson (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wouldn't worry too much about a name change in a female, they happen all the time due to marriage or divorce. I see here that her name at one point was "Lydia Mitcham Meredith". However, the four references listed do not constitute in-depth significant coverage to establish notability for her so the article should be deleted. Only three are independent and although she is quoted the articles aren't about her and don't discuss her in any depth. Drawn Some (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That probably explains the name issue. I hadn't found the husband's name, which clears things up. The sources included are reliable, but they don't indicate enough notability. Shadowjams (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I find her quoted in a couple places like here and here and here for the same thing. Mentioned here. All local notability though. ZabMilenko 09:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in third-party sources. لenna vecia 19:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also the image is a joke. The clothing appears to have been painted on in MSPaint. To the closing admin, when this article is deleted, that image needs to be taken care of as well. لenna vecia 19:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sounds like a very nice, non-notable person. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Garrett

No clear notability established, no inline citations, no articles on books authored. If the subject passes the notability criterion, it's not clear what the basis is. Pete (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google news gives me nothing. I'm really unsure what claim to notability I'm supposed to be even searching for here. It's a common name, but there are no claims to notability here (other than book authorship, and the books don't appear to have articles or be particularly notable). Shadowjams (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO, no significant coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO no RS of him or his books (and remember the fact that he's written books is not enough, it's that people have written about *him* or the books). --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot be rescued since no good sources exist - Vartanza (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above. And the rescue template has become a joke. Tagged on anything, regardless of whether or not it's worthy of improvement or inclusion. لenna vecia 19:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion regarding rescue template moved to talk page. لenna vecia 04:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: Rescue tag. Drawn some has added the Rescue tag[33] seemingly indiscriminately to about ~~100~~ 60 articles in the past two days. I am reverting most of them. Fences and windows (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wasn't even considering a major contributor of two of the four books that were listed as written by him, only secondary co-author on the remaining two, no reliable independent sources demonstrating notability on his own. DreamGuy (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: If the consensus is to "delete," rather than complete deletion, this article should be turned into a redirect to Chris Garrett (Oregon politician) (or that article should be moved here). -Pete (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow... "complete deletion" is a different vote from "Delete"? I would agree that if this is deleted the existing article should be more readily accessible, either through a redirect or page move. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never really sure how detailed to make comments here. Maybe my point is just obvious, and I shouldn't have bothered. Sorry! -Pete (talk)

Pete, you're right. Good note. لenna vecia 22:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless appropriate references are forthcoming, the article ought to be deleted. The use of the {{rescue}} tag is entirely appropriate, given the high number of hits the title of the article gets on Google News etc. Skomorokh 22:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, it is appropriate, in fact, this is exactly the situation for which it was created. Drawn Some (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced bio. Hipocrite (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have a blog, do I get an article too? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the many "delete" votes, Mr. Garrett clearly is notable per WP:BIO as he as works in "many significant libraries". WorldCat shows his programming book held by only 40 something libraries but they are mostly university libraries and his second book is held by over 170 libraries. Primary sources may be used to verify an article. Drawn Some (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources that discuss the subject of a BLP beyond en passant? No encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Eccles, The Jack of Piel

Autobiography; gsearch not turning up notability. Can't find book publisher in gsearch; author not listed in any libraries in worldcat. Prod contested without comment by IP editor (who also removed the maintenance templates). Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Authors name brings up no google hits from non-trivial sources relating to the subject; no google book hits on Graham Eccles as a performance poet, as well as no google news coverage. There is simply no information on the subject from verifiable sources, and thus no article can be written to pass notability requirements. Mrathel (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable. Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources → no article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here is verifiable. Also, the thing about juggling, no news outlet would cover such a thing --Genovese12345 (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a very possible hoax, even if the guy has a very nice jugular.Tyrenon (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Likely not a hoax but certainly reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability is not evident. FWIW most poets would have to have quite a few reliable sources extolling their impact before we'd include them here. -- Banjeboi 00:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Pope

Non-notable musician, questionable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, none of the bands or people he has allegedly worked with appear notable either. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage from non-trivial sources. — Σ xplicit 06:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Tilson

Subject isn't notable. The only references in the article are primary sources and neither one is reliable. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of third party, reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage that demonstratess notability. DreamGuy (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Street has interviewed him, Miami Herald has written about his founding his company, and there are about 580 articles either by or quoting him, and it looks like he's been interviewed on CBS 60 minutes and FoxNews, and he has been quoted and his articles referred to by Business Week and Newsweek. The references on the article page may not be good, but that shouldn't disqualify the article, it needs to be improved. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage appears trivial - Vartanza (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: but as a stub. The article is crap, but the subject is notable. Along with those 580 news ghits, there are also 41 Google Scholar hits and 47 Google book hits. He's been quoted in a lot of major magazines and cited by a number of books as a leader in his field... but you couldn't tell that from the article as it is now. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He regularly writes for notable publications/sites and had coverage by third parties. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Ueland

Contested prod. Unreferenced BLP. Plays on the second tier in Norway, Norwegian First Division. That is not a fully professional league. Fails WP:ATHLETE and there are no other significant coverage that fulfills WP:BIO#basic criteria. Rettetast (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nom seems to have gotten it all. Delete. Quantumobserver (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK thanks for the explanation guys. I had absolutely no idea that this wasn't a fully professional league. Division One and Two in English football are professional and are notable teams and players. Thanks for clearing it up. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player. Giant Snowman 14:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has extensive media coverage [34] and thus meets WP:N which trumps WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, that's not media coverage, thats called a Google search - and not even of the person this AfD relates to. --Jimbo^[online] 10:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops cut and paste typo ... fixed. Search was of media articles only. Nfitz (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - But were any of them actually about his playing exploits or just trivial name-checks. --Jimbo^[online] 08:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, the top two for instance are in-depth articles about the individual player, in one of the three largest newspapers. Lampman (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The first article is about the player being on a trial in another first division club, the second article is about him being injured when coming back to Bryne to play against his old team. Both articles origins from te local newspaper Stavanger Aftenblad, but are also published in Aftenposten because of the collaborative effort 100 % fotball. Rettetast (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional player with extensive media coverage. Lampman (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage is trivial, not notable enough to meet WP:N. Fails WP:ATHLETE too. --Jimbo^[online] 11:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE and WP:N failure. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 23:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Young $tack$

Non-notable rapper, unsourced article. I was unable to locate any reliable sources that discuss Mr. $tack$ and/or his achievements. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything other than a MySpace page for "Young $tack$". Fribbler (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There do not appear to be any reliable sources discussing this rapper. Despite the claim in the article that he charted a single, I was able to find nothing about either Young $tack$ or his song "Hatin on Me" on either allmusic.com or billboard.com. Aside from this, the article does not assert notability, and there are no reliable sources anywhere to indicate it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Stanfield

Non-notable musician. She has a non-trivial biography in Allmusic, but the only other hits I found were Amazon and press releases. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: minor performer who does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MUSICBIO. Eusebeus (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 23:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rehyn

Promotional article about a "young and inspired" singer. There is evidently a campaign going on: the same peacocky prose is all over the internet - a Google search finds the identical text in a dozen different places, so that it is hard to know where this is a copyvio from. The article could be de-peacocked and de-copyvio-ed, but beneath the hype what it amounts to is, she has released one EP and got some reviews in Milwaukee papers and a couple of fan-sites. This is not notable per WP:BAND. She may go on to become notable, and then an article would be appropriate, but for now Wikipedia should not be part of her publicity campaign. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why this subject has multiple entries/articles is because the one got deleted by TexasAndroid while I was still posting it. I made a new one and it didn't get tagged until I mentioned I made a new one to TexasAndroid. I am new at this and TexasAndroid apparently removed the block on the Rehyn and redirected Rehyn (Ren) to the Rehyn article.

I have looked at two other artist articles on this site to use as examples. They are Nothern Room and Edward Bell. I followed those templates to write Rehyn's article and I don't see how they are any more successful then her. You could make the the same argument for the articles on Northern Room and Edward Bell. I thought I was being neutral in pointing out only facts on the subject. If someone would like to help get this article where it needs to be, please help. I will find out more about her birth date etc.--Funtup (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Unless more sources can be shown to indicate notability, and not reviews in local papers, I am now thinking that this falls a bit short of the notability requirements. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over several articles in the music/band section now and I would questions acticles on Lights Action, Northern Room, Edward Bell, The Alps (band), etc... I could probably make the same delete case for 50 band articles on this site based on the delete case for the Rehyn article. Will the articles from these bands be deleted as well? Maybe a general standard should be set because from the examples that I've pointed out, I really don't how you can argue one article being deleted from the next.--Funtup (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TexasAndroid, that is the easy way to get around my argument while not answering with a strong rebuttal. Rehyn does have a notable licensing deal with MTV, Oxygen and E! networks. It's only a matter of time until you hear one of her tracks on one of those network shows. She has also had review from California.^[1] She also has a write up from TAXI (A&R) but it's no longer online. I do have a hard copy written by Craig Streaman, Manager A & R from TAXI (A&R). When you hit the itunes link, her tracks are being downloaded/popular level is high. You probably thought the same thing with Meiko when she first started.--Funtup (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to an interview with site in the UK: http://www.piewatch.co.uk/2009/05/rehyn/ That's not a local newspaper.--Funtup (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further reply to your remarks higher up: the fact that the article was created more than once here in Wikipedia is not a problem, what I meant was that the Google link above shows that the identical same fluff about a "unique balance between a timeless lyrically driven base" etc is found word-for-word the same on soundtrack.mtv.com, eventful.com, ourstage.com, thesixtyone.com, myspace.com, shankhall.com, last.fm, cdbaby.com, bebo.com, famecast.com. That's what I mean by a promotion campaign going on; and when a new editor pops up repeating the same words here, it looks like part of the campaign, and Wikipedia dislikes, in fact refuses, to be used for promotion.

It is also a problem because (a) those words must be copyright to someone and (b) words like "unique" "inspired" "timeless" "soulful" are peacock terms (click that link) - ad-speak, subjective praise suitable for PR puff pieces or record sleeves but not for an encyclopedia.

The words could be rewritten, the real problem is that she doesn't (yet) meet Wikipedia's requirements as set out in WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. As regards the other articles you cite, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an easy way out: it explains the principle that the existence of some doubtful articles is not to be taken as an excuse for relaxing standards and admitting more. Finally, for your "it's only a matter of time" argument, read WP:UPANDCOMING. I'm sorry to give you so many links to policies, but we have these arguments over and over, and it saves writing it all out each time. JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the lack of coverage to establish notability, this article is promotional, and also a possible copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esben Ertzeid

Plays on the second tier in Norway. Not a fully professional league. Fails WP:ATHLETE. No other significant coverage that fulfills WP:BIO#basic criteria. Rettetast (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence that he has played in a fully professional league. The Norwegian First Division is not a fully professional league, many players have other day jobs, in some teams 100% of the players have other jobs besides football. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkmorten (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I know, Bryne operates as a professional club. There is a long precedence for Norwegian First Division bios. Lampman (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there. I went through all Norwegian footballers yesterday and found five. There are hundreds of players in this league. Rettetast (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Five? There are at least eight playing for Bryne alone. Lampman (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a professional club isn't enough, it has to be a professional league. And there is no such precedence. Punkmorten (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other players have other merits that makes relevant for inclusion. Five was the number of players that only had 2 tier experience. Rettetast (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can a player and club be judged based on other clubs? There is nothing in the Norwegian promotion system that prevents an amateur club from being promoted to the Norwegian Premier League. If that happened, would we have to delete all player bios from that league? The implication of this practice seems absurd. To me playing on a professional level means playing for a professional club. Lampman (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NOTE#Notability_is_not_temporary. Rettetast (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player. Giant Snowman 14:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lampman is correct - the implications here don't make sense. Professional player, who plays for a fully-professional team, at the national level, in a mostly-professional league. WP:CS dictates that deletion doesn't make sense. Besides, isn't this all irrelevent; he seems to have extensive media coverage [35] and thus meets WP:N which trumps WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless you can find a reliable source from that Google search about his playing exploits, then it might pass general notability - listing a Google news search doesn't prove anything. Until then, he still fails WP:ATHLETE (as he hasn't played in a fully-pro league) and general notability criteria as well. --Jimbo^[online] 10:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's repeatedly covered in Norway's largest and most reliable news outlets: Dagbladet, Verdens Gang, Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation. Lampman (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just links to searches. Please give us links to extensive coverage about the player. As far as I can see all these articles are just match report where Esben Ertzeid gets mentioned. Rettetast (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE and WP:N failure. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 00:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mourad Topalian

WP:BLP1E - entire article is about criminal charges related to a weapons case. Should be deleted and restarted fresh on the case, if it's a notable case at all. Hipocrite (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there no suitable merge targets? Rd232 ^talk 13:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The merge target would surely be an article about the bombings, which doesn't exist. Apparently, the bombings are not notable enough for an article, but this person is notable because he admitted (20 years later) to storing the explosives used. That's WikiLogic for you. Physchim62 (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the article about Topalian should be kept, as he was a chairman of Armenian National Committee of America. We have articles about other chairmen of this organization, like Ken Hachikian. The info about Topalian's criminal case could be split to a separate article. Grandmaster 13:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A search by Google shows that Hachikian is much more notable for different issues (including as a current chair of ANCA) while Topalian is mostly notable for the weapon's case. I can't find any other facts from Topalian's biography or any notable activities within ANCA. Gazifikator (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google search gives 1,120 hits. [36] Google books search: [37] - 31 hits. I think this shows notability. Grandmaster 14:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, the great majority of sources is dedicated to the case and his possible (unproved) participation [38] not to his person or something notable out of this case. Gazifikator (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion in UNO also demonstrates notability. Grandmaster 16:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Rd232 ^talk 11:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Index to Proceedings of the General Assembly 2000-2001. Turkish delegation mentioned Toplian's case in its memos, circulated at the General Assembly. Delegation of Armenia responded. Grandmaster 12:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, checking the links to the article, Topalian is mentioned in the article about Carmine Agnello. I think this could be another argument for the need of an article about Topalian. Grandmaster 07:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. contains unproved allegations against a living person and some misinterpreted sources. Also no other notable facts for this person except of this "case". Gazifikator (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. subject is only notable for ONEEVENT, and thus the article will be a permanent magnet for BLP violations. Physchim62 (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The person is notable, otherwise NBC wouldn't produce a program about him [39]. In addition, he was a leading figure in the Armenian National Committee of America and made immense contribution to the growth of Armenian American political advocacy. Chippolona (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or we can rename the article to United States v. Mourad Topalian. Basically, the current article is all about this case. Chippolona (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be reluctant to accept that because (a) it requires the case to be notable enough for its own article, which I think is doubtful. (b) it will still effectively be about a single individual, so risks seeming an end-run around WP:BLP1E; (c) if it only reported what was actually demonstrated in court, it would be rather short. Rd232 ^talk 16:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP General Notability Guidelines say: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. No doubt, the topic satisfies the criteria. Chippolona (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He may be notable for something more than ANCA and criminal charges. If so, then keep. brand спойт 16:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe not very impresive biography, but it doesn't mean that this person is not enough notable. Rsolero (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's neither an argument nor an opinion. Do you think he's notable enough or not, and why? Rd232 ^talk 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On present evidence this is WP:BLP1E. Inclusion of lots of unproven allegations is the main reason to have the article; cutting to what is actually demonstrated in court leaves relatively little (which could be merged to ANCA, perhaps). Rd232 ^talk 17:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant political implications. Not iust the usual sort of felony charge. DGG (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason to delete this article, Mourad Topalian was the chairman of Armenian National Committee of America and a very notable figure in the Armenian diaspora. Baku87 (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topalian was indicted by federal prosecutors on charges of participation in the 1980 bombing of Turkish Mission in NYC, and plead guilty on the charges of storing illegal explosives, serving sentence after that. He is also a recipient of "Freedom Award" of ANCA for "advancing the Armenian cause". I think both are notable enough worthy of dedicated article in Wikipedia. Atabəy (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topalian was both chairman of a notable organisation and was found linked to quite a notable crime. Parishan (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Nation Blue. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lyngcoln

Non-notable musician, questionable sources, and yet another n00b who doesn't know how to fill out the "background" field in {{Infobox musical artist}} properly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the content, not the editor, and assume good faith. Nakon 04:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It just frustrates the hell out of me when people can't fill out a simple infobox. Note also that this musician is only a member of several red link bands. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment based on the article I would suggest that whilst the musician is probably non-notable there is a potential and worthwhile arguement that the band, The Nation Blue, is notable and that the article should be re-drafted along those lines. Maybe in future Ten Pound Hammer you could provide some assistance to new editors rather than being so critical. Dan arndt (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Nation Blue, no notability outside band. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Nation Blue, as most of his notability seems to be associated with that group. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terese Pencak Schwartz

Delete fails WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced article and I don't see any reliable sources available to support notability. I'll be glad to reconsider if someone else finds sufficient in-depth coverage. Drawn Some (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all BLPs with no reliable sources about the subject of the article.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, the author of this article should provide necessary sources. Rsolero (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terese Nielsen

Delete fails WP:GNG, nothing to show how she differs from zillions of other freelance artists Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - A Google News Archives search turns up some results. Unfortunately, the archives (e.g. [40], [41], [42]) all cost money to access. From the snippets on Google, I would infer that the coverage is significant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, weak keep. The King's sources: 1. From the San Gabriel Valley Tribune comes a 1100+ word article on the artist, with interview, and illustration. 2. Some appreciation in The Washington Times (with illustration): "Did any pieces stand out? Is this a joke? Piece No. 45, titled "Savant," shows the determination of artist Terese Nielsen. Could she, through color, lighting and recognizable objects, allow the viewer to enter the world of our heroine, Savant? Sharp reds complement stained glass of vibrant blues and violets as light coming through the panels highlights a woman obsessed with knowledge. Imagine British artist Dante Gabriel Rossetti tickled into a mood by a Sex Pistols album to fully appreciate the Nielsen style." 3. Passing mention in The Denver Post, really: "The studio's art gallery...opened in 1998 and is host to local and international artists such as Terese Nielsen, whose work has been featured in comic books and on 'Magic: The Gathering' gaming cards. Pieces at Dark Millennia run from $150 to $10,000; Nielsen's painting of the comic book character The Maxx fetched $2,600. However, art lovers won't find perky portrait or straightforward still lifes here." Drmies (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She differs from other freelance artists in that she is one of the most notable Magic: The Gathering artists. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Parsons

fails WP:ENT. Ironholds (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There does not appear to be any independent sources which cover this person in a substantive manner. A few sources list the jobs he has held, but that does not supply the depth of coverage required by the inclusion criteria at WP:N. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:ENT, no significant coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable entertainer. Note that there is an article about his character, Ethan Lovett, which article seems to be getting a free ride on the theory that all characters in this soap opera are prima facie notable! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just sent that one to Afd too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Lovett. – ukexpat (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I cleaned up the article and made a 1st pass at adding references; he's a contract player on a notable American series, that should count for something. It's a relatively new stub, perhaps we can give it some time to develop? And not that the actor's notability can necessarily be asserted by the role, but the character himself has been recently established as the only son of two notable/famous characters from the series (I commented as much in that AfD).— TAnthony^Talk 19:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those references hardly amount to the "significant coverage" required, IMHO. Why should a "contract player on a notable American series" count for something? Should he get a free pass on the notability requirements? – ukexpat (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The newly added references do not add significantly to the claim of notability. There is a biography on the website of his employer; which cannot be used to establish notability since it is not independent. There is an IMDB entry which amounts to nothing more than a bullet list of jobs held. There is a short interview with Soaps.com, which is about 10 lines long. I wouldn't call this substantial coverage. If there is nothing more than those three, I can see no way this article meets WP:N standards... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment -- "time to develop" sounds like another variation on WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not suggesting that we wait until he has more credits or is more famous, I'm just thinking that no one has yet looked for additional sources. The fact that he's a contract player on a series (rather than a guest star, etc) increases the likelihood of something existing. I have someone who amasses recent soap magazines, I'll ask there, and as the series has just established that the character is the child of notables, I expect further coverage. Obviously an AfD is a good way to ignite efforts to improve an article, I just hate to have article deleted quickly before possible avenues are explored.— TAnthony^Talk 21:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of notability on Wikipedia. If you pull in 200 soap magazines discussing the character in great detail they're worth squat - why? Because they cover the character. It doesn't matter if it's the most important character to be seen in shitty soaps for over a decade, this is an article on the actor and it is direct coverage of the actor as the actor that counts. Soap magazines are very good for articles on the character, but not for articles on the actor. Ironholds (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand WP:N, and I don't quite get your snarky attitude ... there's actually an interview with the actor in the Soap Opera Digest that's currently on the newsstands (June 2, 2009), and I've cited it in the article. Which was my point. I didn't create the article, I'm not a fan of the guy, and I don't know that the article will end up meeting the criteria of WP:ENT, but I find it exasperating when articles get rushed to deletion and editors like yourself get red in the face when challenged. We found several references in one day, it seems counterproductive to slash and burn now and ask questions later.— TAnthony^Talk 09:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, we don't create articles for people hoping that someday sources will be found. After the sources are found, feel free to use them to recreate the article... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:ENT. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements by User:TAnthony atfter nomination. As a recurring (45+ episodes) character on a soap opera which itself has an incredible fan base and cult following (no, I don't watch it), I can accept in good faith that he has the notability required per WP:GNG. Time to start digging through the soap opera digests. That they are not included yet is no reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - several references and some info asserting notability were added after May 27, 2009 (when the initial "Deletes" were recorded), so ... — TAnthony^Talk 04:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several independent sources cover information on the actor including both soap opera press and mainstream entertainment press. Contrary to what Ironholds said above, the actor interviews from the magazines give information on the actor as well as the character, such as where Parsons was born, raised, and schooled, and what film roles he held. All of which is covered in the article. Rocksey (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I am aware that relisting in these circumstances is outwith the process at WP:RELIST, the consensus based on a !vote-count would be to delete the article, but there were several improvements during the AFD, which it would be unfair to ignore. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per expansion. Significant role on notable soap opera. Granite thump (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER which requires multiple notable roles. لenna vecia 19:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, if we followed that one to the letter we would lose a lot of articles. Come on now.— TAnthony^Talk 16:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Good. The fewer poor-quality articles on non-notable people, the better. لenna vecia 18:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Rivkin

AfDs for this article:

Does not seem to be notable enough for inclusion. Brianga (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've watched this article for a while; it's cleary an autobiography or a very close COI, although neither of those is absolute grounds for deletion. The story of CryptoLogic Inc does seem notable; his leadership of other companies seems less so. So I'm uncertain as to notability. I can say for sure that this page keeps getting POV promotional rewrites, some of which I've tried to edit.

... I didn't notice the previous AfD when I wrote the above. Can't this be speedy deleted as recreation of a deleted page? Hairhorn (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't notice it either. It probably can, but I'll let another admin do that. Brianga (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some GNews hits, but nothing that could be called a reliable source. Add that to the fact that this was previously deleted by discussion, and I'd say delete. Quantumobserver (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems promotional, no meaningful sources - Vartanza (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
article author's comment below pasted to bottom of page by me; please don't "top post", it makes the discussion very hard to follow. Hairhorn (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hey there, I am the main contributor of this article. I am kind of new at writing wikipedia articles but I have been a very close follower of both Cryptologic and Fun Technologies and find mr.rivkin deeply interesting (Crypto basically invented the software that allows for online gambling and he did found the company) . With that said, I would really appreciate your tips and advice inasmuch as writing this article and writing articles for consumption on wikipedia is concerned as I would really like to keep on writing about companies and people that I find interesting and worthy of wikipedia. I have spent considerable time writing this article and I think it is unfair to delete the page based on your arguments.Rhalliworth53 talk

I think everyone is open to hearing an argument for keeping the article. But you haven't really made one yet. You'll have to find some independent sources to establish his notability. If you need help, you can try checking the guidelines on notability, notability of individuals, notability of companies and verifiability. Hairhorn (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Company/product may be notable, but this person is not. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --rogerd (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Tyler

An undrafted player from a division II college (Portland State University) has been with two teams and has yet to make either which fails him for WP:ATHLETE and the only sources I can find specifically about him is the story about his release from the Patriots last year and the Cowboys this year. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 00:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the relevant notability standard. JJL (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 01:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 01:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. No significant coverage in reliable sources. لenna vecia 17:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 00:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Fikerle

Doesn't seem to be a notable musician, no notable awards, questionable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Multiple albums, multinational tour, multiple bands (one two three on wikipedia), and multiple years of activity passes WP:BAND #1, 4, 5, 6, and possibly 10. The article has even undergone a peer review. The refs are not bad either and appear to be sourced from sites like http://smh.com.au and http://mlb.com which are not very questionable. ZabMilenko 11:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those bands are at AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which can be taken as evidence that afd is being used as cleanup. The articles could have been merged. ~~Rampant deletionism not only creates a backlog but solves nothing. /me shakes head.~~ ZabMilenko 01:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment provided that at least one of the two articles currently subject to AfD are retained, then there is sufficient justification for the retention of this article. I would suggest that any determination of this Afd be held in abeyance until a determination is made in respect to the other two articles. A futher alternative would be for an editor to find independent verifiable references relating to the artist in question, as opposed to articles relating to bands within which she is a member. Dan arndt (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, member of notable band Love of Diagrams, and news coverage exists. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronny Espedal

Plays on the second tier in Norway. Not a fully professional league. Fails WP:ATHLETE. No other significant coverage that fulfills WP:BIO#basic criteria. Rettetast (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By " not a fully professional league" do you mean to say that this club and player is amateur? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season	Top scorer, club	Goals
2008	Peter Kovacs, Odd Grenland	22
2007	Kenneth Kvalheim, Notodden	23
2006	Mattias Andersson, Strømsgodset	19
2005	Daniel Nannskog, Stabæk	27
2004	Paul Oyuga, Bryne	18
2003	Markus Ringberg, Fredrikstad	19
2002	Morten Gamst Pedersen, Tromsø	18
2001	Bala Garba, Haugesund	18
2001	Bala Garba, Haugesund	18	Marino Rahmberg, Raufoss

Here are some past top scorers for the same league Are all these non notable?. To me inclusion of what article is acceptable or not in respected to clubs in this division is shady given that some are professional players and others are not. If for instance we were to delete the above articles then people are likely to complain that they do have some claim to notability having played for professional clubs or having international experience. How do we find what or what not is appropriate by evaluating the player based on the club when they might have had previous professional experience etc? All I'm saying is if we delete this we may as well nuke hundreds of others like Thomas Sørum etc. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that inclusion on wikipedia not solely should be decided upon what club a player has played for. This is also how WP:BIO functions. All players that have played on a fully professional level are automatically "notable". If not we have to go to the basic criteria which is decided upon the presence of "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". In my opinion Ronny Espedal does not fulfill this criteria.

To the players you listed. Péter Kovács has played on a fully professional level, Mattias Andersson has played on a fully professional level, Daniel Nannskog has played on a fully professional level and has won the Norwegian Premier League, Paul Oyuga has games for his national team, Markus Ringberg has played on a fully professional level, Morten Gamst Pedersen should be obvious, Bala Garba has played in the Norwegian premier League and for his national team, Marino Rahmberg has played for his national team and Thomas Sørum has played in the Norwegian Premier League. Kenneth Kvalheim is the only one of these that fails WP:ATHLETE. However he, in my opinion, he fulfills the basic criteria. Rettetast (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By first glance, I recognise almost all of the above mentioned players as players who have contributed greatly to Norwegian football. The only one I was unsure about was Marino Rahmberg, but he has played for Derby + several other clubs. But almost all of the top-scorers mentioned above have played/plays in Tippeligaen, except for Paul Oyuga, Kenneth Kvalheim & Rahmberg. When it comes to whether or not Addeccoligaen is a professional league, I would say it is. The league is sponsored, and the players are paid salaries. But whether or not this player is notable or not, I'm more unsure of. The article doesn't actually give much extra info, besides a photo, birth date and his employer. lil2mas (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence that he has played in a fully professional league. The Norwegian First Division is not a fully professional league, many players have other day jobs, in some teams 100% of the players have other jobs besides football. Punkmorten (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK thanks for the explanation guys. I had absolutely no idea that this wasn't a fully professional league. Division One and Two in English football are professional and are notable teams and players. Thanks for clearing it up. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's fair to make assessments of the individual players or the individual clubs. But to assess a player based on other clubs in his league seems strange to me. That's an unreasonably strict interpretation of what it means to compete on a fully professional level. Lampman (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is also how WP:BIO works, but there is nothing special about this player. At least that I have found. Rettetast (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player. Giant Snowman 14:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless I;m mistaken, this sounds like the equal to minor league baseball or semi-pro football. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE and general notability. --ClubOranje^T 10:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE. No substantial references that meet WP:N either. --Jimbo^[online] 11:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Petruzziello

this is a biographical page made by a non-notable therapist. The article is purely self-promoting links to the authors website to increase his business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanroyle (talk • contribs) 12:52, May 26, 2009

Comment - Bad faith nomination (nominator's history shows several attempts to hijack the external links, and placement of WP:SOAPBOX wafflings). I will attempt to restore the original links an examine them for WP:N. They seem to be mostly local newspapers, however. Marasmusine (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - the most substantial source, the Manchester Evening News, seems to be little more than a press release. The remainder are small articles in local newspapers. Marasmusine (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The Machester Evening News article is substantial, but I agree, it seems to be a press release. Thoughts? How reliable is that paper considered to be? How about this source? [43]. Overall there is some coverage: [44] but not much. This article strikes me as highly borderline as far as notability is concerned. I'm leaning towards a delete but I'd prefer to hear more perspectives before this is closed. Cazort (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only coverage is either from WP:RS-failing sites or trivial/press release reprints. Would also think that true notability for a Wikipedia article would require more than just local newspaper coverage from the area in question... local semi-notability is not encyclopedia notability. DreamGuy (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem notable to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This person has also featured on several national newspapers all over the world see links including national tv and national news papers
http://excelwithnlp.com/media.html
MEN - "Trainer To The Stars" & (Front Cover)
Campus Stars Get Second Chance To Impress
Colin Kazim Richards
"Its Not All Doom & Gloom"
New Year - New You
Fit For Football
Motivate clients with NLP
College Offers Shot At The Big Time
Lancashire Evening Post feature
Jimmy's Goal
"Generation Xpat" - Sunday telegraph Sydney Australia
Australian & British Soccer Weekly interview with Jimmy Petruzzi
"Fitness Training For Soccer" - Peak Performance
"Jim Shares Soccer Skills" - Rochdale Observer
"NLP and Blackburn Rovers F.C" - The Guardian Newspaper
The Australian and British Soccer interview with Jimmy Petruzzi
"Jim keeps ball rolling" - Australian and British Soccer interview
"Pederson and NLP" - The Guardian
Bury FC (1) (2) (3)
Ivory Coast Football Team
Mind Coach
Half Time Psychology
Personal Trainer
Sideline Warrior
Football Academy
World Cup (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.74.131 (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also written articles for world wide publications such as peak perfomance
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/football-coaching-half-time-psychology
http://www.pponline.co.uk/blog/pre-season-training-football-jimmy-petruzzi-40738
http://blogs.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/worldcup/2006/06/a_last_word_from_the_angola_ca.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIjDAMFJz_s
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.74.131 (talk • contribs) 21:44, May 26, 2009

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.74.146 (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please do not delete this page as the person attempting to put the deletion in is a vandalist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.75.146 (talk • contribs) 22:16, May 27, 2009

other articles to support page
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/football-coaching-half-time-psychology
http://www.pponline.co.uk/blog/pre-season-training-football-jimmy-petruzzi-40738
http://blogs.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/worldcup/2006/06/a_last_word_from_the_angola_ca.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.75.146 (talk • contribs) 22:18, May 27, 2009

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/football-coaching-half-time-psychology
http://www.pponline.co.uk/blog/pre-season-training-football-jimmy-petruzzi-40738
http://blogs.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/worldcup/2006/06/a_last_word_from_the_angola_ca.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersuperduper (talk • contribs) 22:23, May 27, 2009

do not delete this page please this person has featured in national press, is a radio presenter do not delete
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/football-coaching-half-time-psychology
http://www.pponline.co.uk/blog/pre-season-training-football-jimmy-petruzzi-40738
http://blogs.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/worldcup/2006/06/a_last_word_from_the_angola_ca.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIjDAMFJz_s

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/football-coaching-half-time-psychology
http://www.pponline.co.uk/blog/pre-season-training-football-jimmy-petruzzi-40738
http://blogs.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/worldcup/2006/06/a_last_word_from_the_angola_ca.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIjDAMFJz_s

http://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/1131301.africa_trip_on_cards_for_jim/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersuperduper07 (talk • contribs) 23:19, May 27, 2009

Note: User:Supersuperduper has placed a comment on the talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus Cheers. I'^mperator 21:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Richman

Probably non-notable. A prod on the page was contested 700 ks ago with "contest prod - he is a well-known author & journalist and thus notable - will address sourcing & other concerns ASAP", however, the page has not been edited since. Bob A (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of reliable sources, lack of notability. Appears to be a noisy libertarian in the blogosphere, but that's about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I contested the prod, but haven't had a chance to cleanup the article yet. Mr. Richman appears to be a fairly well-known author. For example, his papers ~~high~~ have significant citations on GScholar: [45]. He is the author of multiple notable books (as defined by WP:GNG - being covered by multiple RS). He has also held several significant posts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"For example, his papers high significant citations on GScholar", I don't understand that sentence. Bob A (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in present form. Few cites on Google Scholar, no publisher given for books authored, does not pass academic/educator standard. Independent influence must be demonstrated. May do better as journalist/blogger if article is rescued. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep it and improve it. One should be very cautious before asking to delete an entry. I pretend that eradication of this entry is not the best solution. Only few things should be removed or modified. --Ludovic Sesim (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One should be very cautious in all of one's edits. But the sky will not fall down if a marginal BLP is deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Facione

Non-notable former mobster and failed politician. Article is little more than a long quote from a newspaper. Fails WP:BIO. Astronaut (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Just not enough coverage. The only paper I found covering Mr. Facione was the Deseret News with a grand total of nine article all written between August 1 and August 14, 2005 which coincides with the release of his book. In addition, a Google News search of the book shows the same 9 articles as mentioned above. With no additional coverage outside of Utah, I would have to say delete as just a local guy with his 15 minutes of fame long gone. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 19:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His 15 minutes may not quite be up yet[46], but I think Shoessss' has the right analysis.--Kubigula (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability above any local level, not to mention now being very much out of date. Would need a major overhaul to reach notability, and would need to drop what is probably not fair use of a newspaper article (which, considering how much is, used, might border on a copyright violation).Tyrenon (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Van Zant

Recent controversy shows that this page only existed to put the individual in a bad light. While I, for one, am sure that all the links painted a truly accurate picture of this man, I can see nothing that warrants this guy having his own artilce. This is an orphan article that provides no useful information. Certainly there are far, far more accomplished coaches than this guy. Timneu22 (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources, and the fact that he most certainly has not reached the "fully professional" or "highest amateur" level of his sport. Quantumobserver (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources, lack of notability. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 01:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks sources that are reliable and independent of subject. BRMo (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the nominator; delete. ClintonKu (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to LiveWorkPlay. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keenan Wellar

Available in-depth sources all seem to be about the organization which he co-founded and acts as the spokesman for rather than about him. I can't find significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Drawn Some (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into LiveWorkPlay after removing all unsourced material. I agree completely with your points. Is a deletion discussion even necessary here? I would say to be bold: deleting unsourced assertions is always an acceptable bold thing to do. There would likely be little material left for a merge, warranting only a sentence or paragraph on the main page. And if there is controversy, I think it could be handled by a merge discussion. It would be hard for people to argue against a merge unless they came up with sources covering this person in depth, which I couldn't find. Cazort (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment, I think nothing would be lost by keeping a redirect in place--not only will it be useful if people type the name into the search box, but it may discourage re-creation of the page, esp. if people can see the history of the merge. That's why I'd prefer merge/redirect to deletion, even if all the material ends up being deleted. Cazort (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is the page gets no traffic so there is no way to build consensus. It might even get re-created. A merge and redirect outcome is fine with me. Drawn Some (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge not independently notable as an individual based on the current page content. I see no problem with a redirect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Ylitalo

An IP editor, 91.154.4.243, placed an AfD tag on this article (without completing the nom) on May 13th. Am bringing a discussion here, because the user provided a deletion rationale on the article's talkpage: "Considering for deletation. Being vandalized and this article is not even about an important person, sure he is a musician and producer and label director and whatnot but not necessarily in need for an article." No opinion at the moment, simply opening a discussion. Jamie^☆S93 14:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now sourced and notability ascerned by sourced material. Debresser (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither his MySpace page nor a link to his own company qualifies as an independent reliable source. In fact they would probably qualify as the least reliable possible other than an attack page. Drawn Some (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few 3rd Party Sources - Vartanza (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Naked News.Kyle 1278 23:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Sinclair

No notability outside Naked News, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Naked News. No estabilished notability for own article Paulbrock (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect per Paulbrock, appropriate in this case because the material is at least partially verifiable and she was the first newscaster for the show. Drawn Some (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect per Paulbrok. --Kyle1278 19:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and re-direct. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Detete - Single source does not establish notability. Relevant information already present in the Naked News article. لenna vecia 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The delete votes dealt with the issues that would affect his notability, whereas the Keep votes simply stated he was notable. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Riggenbach

The subject is non-notable, and the article is mostly an autobiography. Bob A (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Little or no RS coverage, although he seems to have a decent body of published work. Quantumobserver (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article, until yesterday, when I expanded it in hopes of saving its life, could hardly be called "an autobiography," since I did not create the page. Until yesterday, my only participation in it at all was to correct my birthdate. As for whether I'm "notable," the Marquis Who's Who in America seems to think I am, but what does it know? Jriggenbach (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was 2 days ago, and that edit contributed almost the majority of the content of the article. See WP:AB and WP:N. You seem to be new here, so I don't blame you. Bob A (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Riggenbach is well known in the Libertarian world, and even for those that don't know his name, his voice is recognized as he has recorded a large body of work at The Mises Institute, most notably audio books by Murray Rothbard. He was a featured guest on The Lew Rockwell show just the other day and LewRockwell.com is well known as the best read libertarian site in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.229.42 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only because his books are fairly widely available. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: normally I'd say that as In Praise of Decadence (ISBN 9781573922463) appears to be in over 200 libraries, when combined with his Google Book and Google Scholar hits, the article should be kept. I'm !voting delete, though, for two reasons: primarily, because the article currently has no third-party sources. If none can be found, there simply shouldn't be an article. Secondly, because, as the subject himself wrote above, 'As for whether I'm "notable," the Marquis Who's Who in America seems to think I am, but what does it know?' Well, WP:BIO explicitly says "entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability." If that's the best he's got to prove his own notability, then I don't think we've got enough here.
But as I said, it's mostly about how the article currently contains zero verifiable reliable sources. Per WP:BIO, again: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I just don't see that we have it in this case. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dori. Willing to change if sources are found, but until then it's insufficiently referenced for a BLP. لenna vecia 19:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. لenna vecia 17:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Moreau

Non-notable activist. Google search returns only self-promotion and trivial mentions. Article is faded to be an eternal unsourced stub. Damiens.rf 20:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't even recall specifically why I created this stub. If my rationale of her being the lead author on a "key premature birth study" is inaccurate, then there is no notability to speak of. - Roy Boy 00:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above. No notability shown. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Adding some information about research productivity from Scopus. He own CVis a little out of date. /either notable or else near it., DGG (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let me preface this by saying she may pass on some other grounds besides WP:PROF, e.g. if she is a well-known activist or a science popularizer (I'll defer to others to judge this aspect). However, if the primary basis is WP:PROF, then she conclusively fails the notability test. The article's wording suggests she's a professor/PI, but the Princeton website lists her as a postdoc. However, the real issue is her scientific record, which is misrepresented in the article. From a quick Web of Science search:

The main claim of notability the article furnishes is this: 'Her most cited paper, "Contraception: From accessibility to efficiency " in Human Reproduction 18 (5), pp. 994-999 z)2993) has been cited 48 tijmes [sic]' – we are led to believe that she is lead author or primary contributor. WoS gives the author list as Bajos N, Leridon H, Goulard H, Oustry P, Job-Spira N, and the COCON group. Checking the actual publication, we find her name listed in a footnote. Evidently her contribution was not sufficient to qualify for the primary author list.
The other main claim the article makes is this: "She has published 30 [[peer-reviewed article, in standard journals". WoS lists only 10, mostly non-cited journal articles (although one of them does stand out from the rest with 17 citations). Why the discrepancy? Partially, it is the fact that some of the "peer-reviewed standard journals" listed on her CV are not academic journals at all, so they do not appear in WoS. For example, checking the "Population and Societies" (a 2004 article on her CV – note that the 'full text' link next to this pub actually goes to some entirely unrelated Pubmed page) homepage, it describes itself as a "popular science journal published in French and English". As near as I can tell by browsing a few articles, this publication is something like a population-related news magazine – articles tabulate a lot of facts and statistics, but do not furnish new research results (which scientific journals, by definition, must do). Here's a recent example article. The other factor in the 10/30 discrepancy seems to be other articles that she only appears in a "group author" footnote on (as above).

Again, perhaps she qualifies as a science popularizer, but I think the most accurate description of this individual as an academic is that she is a postdoc who has a research record roughly commensurate with others that are also early in their careers. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It is accepted that authorship is only valid if the name is in the main list of authors. "Acknowledgements to...", Useful discussions with...", "and the something group" etc. do not count. Academic practice is to list all contributing authors in author list even if there are 100 of them. Some high energy physics groups do this and may have an author list of half a page of fine print in their papers. Record of LP is adequate for an early career researcher but the revelations of Agricola44 show that WP notabilty has not yet been achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Not a notable researcher. DGG, your edits to this article were below your normal par. Fences and windows (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't matter what criteria she can sneak in under, still not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep. I realize this article might be at the hand of a sock of a banned user, but G5 would obviously get countered by many people in here and sent to an AfD. Since it passed the AfD, and that I've been convinced of his notability, it's a keep. Valley2city^‽ 20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislav Menshikov

Article created by the sock of a banned user, and the subject's notability is not exactly evident. He gets many Google hits presumably due to his prior service as a Soviet spokesman to Western media and because he is a published author, but no clear sign of extensive coverage. I'm bringing this to AfD per the discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Poor_judgment_and_questionable_timing_on_a_speedy_deletion. Sandstein 21:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per WP:BAN (having after read the ANI post, naturally). We cannot recognize contributions from banned users. They are banned, which means they are not welcome, plain and simple. MuZemike 00:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- G5 is a license, not a mandate. We have it so we can quickly delete problematic material from banned users that doesn't specifically meet one of the other CSDs. But if the article is otherwise useful...--chaser (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:IAR. The subject clearly meets the standard of WP:NOTE, although the article could be improved. Sometimes I think that the goal of building a good encyclopedia ought to take precedence over the ever-important mission of punishing banned users. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Writing a book with John Kenneth Galbraith goes a long way to putting you over the threshold of notability. This guy looks like <redacted> but that's neither here nor there. I looked over WP:ban and there is no absolute requirement to delete articles by banned users; that would be a very baby/bathwater nose/spite-face sort of thing. Hairhorn (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have redacted a violation of WP:BLP in the above comment. Sandstein 05:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a violation of WP:BLP, and relevant to the discussion here, to observe that Menshikov has some sort of association with Lyndon Larouche (the Larouche article mentions Larouche's presence at an 80th-birthday celebration of Menshikov, with a source, as well as the fact that a Larouche organization published a Menshikov book) and that this might imply some level of fringeness on Menshikov's part. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see which part of BLP I violated. Could you clarify? Expressing your opinion ("looks like") is not libel, except perhaps in extreme cases. And there is no requirement of neutrality in a deletion discussion; in fact it would make deletion discussions rather difficult. Hairhorn (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redacted text can be see here (please ignore the wrong edit summary). WP:BLP requires more than just refraining from libel. It strictly prohibits all unsourced derogatory content concerning living persons on all of Wikipedia pages. It is certainly possible to refer to this man's adherence to this or that movement in a non-derogatory manner. Sandstein 09:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein is right. We should never use derogatory language like "crackpot" about living people (whether editors or subjects). This isn't a forum where cutting remarks are clever. The encyclopedia covers all topics, including beliefs, some of which are strange or unusual and held by a relative few. We're not here to judge. Every topic and subject should be treated in a neutral manner. Will Beback talk 09:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment in question was probably careless on my part, taking it out doesn't change the essence of what I said. So I'm not going to whine. However, I will point out that this issue brings up a flaw in BLP, because it requires many other things that are impossible in a deletion debate: neutrality, you can't "appear to take sides", you shouldn't represent the views of a small minority, and so on. There is a "non-article space" section of BLP, but it does little to paper over the hole. Hairhorn (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems very clear to me that G5 speedy deletion is not appropriate in this case: per the ANI discussion, the page was created six months prior to the imposition of the ban, so it is not true that the page creation happened in violation of the ban. I think we should decide this case on the merits of the article rather than blindly applying rules. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article is much improved. The link to the alleged Galbraith book is dead, what is required are reliable independent sources of recognition and these don't seem to be here. However, the fact that the LP is a fringe operator and is banned from Wikipedia, in my view, does not affect criteria for inclusion. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
? unless the article is much improved ? We should not keep/delete on these grounds. Is the subject suitable for an article? (Otherwise all stubs should go.. well there is merit in that argument...) Rich Farmbrough, 17:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Given that the link to Galbraith is referring to this book and is trivially replaceable, it seems the threshold for NOT is met. The complaint that he gets many Google hits because he was a spokesman seems specious; Tony Snow would have disappeared without a trace (notice there's not a single ref in the Early career section) if not for the fact that he was the White House spokesman and worked with Rush. I fail to see the distinction between these two cases - if Snow gets an article, why not Menshikov? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as created by a banned user (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2). Failing that, Delete - marginally notable if that; no reliable sources to support a biography. I might speedy delete this myself if it won't cause confusion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tom, check out the ANI link at the top of this discussion; the deletion of the article due to its being created by a later banned user is what started this whole thing. --GRuban (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herschelkrustofsky was blocked 5 May 2006. He used sockpuppets to evade the block, causing it to reset. The article was created 18 May 2007 by one of his socks. The probelem isn't the perfectly correct speedy deletion of an article created by a banned user, it's the (botched, necessarily corrected) recreation. Speedy delete was and is appropriate, but if that might cause confusion, the article should still be deleted for the reasons above - lack of notability, and no sources to support a biography. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Herschelkrustofsky's account was not blocked between 5 may 2007 and 27 July 2007. The article was created on 18 May 2007, not by a banned user, but by a sockpuppet of a user who was not blocked at the time. He wasn't evading a block (whether or not he thought he was). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the logs and Gwen Gale is correct, to my surprise. (Not surprised that she's right, just that I'd forgotten the sequence of events.) It appears that HK's one year block had expired and it wasn't reinstated until July. Though he never returned to editing under his own account, he was apparently using four different socks that month, plus IP adresses. Those accounts had started edited while HK was still banned, and previous socks had been found as late as November 2006, so the ban should have been extended then. I think it's safe to say that his short unblocked period can be ignored considering his bad faith activity before, during, and since. Anyway, let's keep this discussion on whether to retain the article or not. We can't fix the past. Will Beback talk 07:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As I said at ANI, I couldn't get too stirred up about seeing the speedy deletion of an article begun by the sock of a user with such a long and woesome block log but otherwise, this AfD is the most straightforward way to deal it now. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Writing a book with John Kenneth Galbraith (one that gets mentioned in Galbraith's obituary [47]) is notable. Writing other books, lecturing internationally, being an official Soviet govt representative on US television, being interviewed by Pravda [48] would probably qualify even without it. Supporting Lyndon LaRouche is ... not a disqualifier. :-) --GRuban (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arguments that the article was created by a banned user are COMPLETELY irrelevant. A speedy is wholly out of line. The user was banned for edit warring over the controversial Lyndon LaRouche, which apparently is still a battleground and currently protected. There is no evidence whatsoever that the subject of this AfD Stanislav Menshikov was created in an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia, so we should relate strictly to the merits of that article. To repeat what has been stated above, writing a book with John Kenneth Galbraith is a clear pass for notability. I agree with the analogy to the Tony Snow article. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes. Notability of the topic is the only thing which should have sway in this AfD, rather than the contrib history. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We shouldn't care about what a banned user did - we banned them because they were being disruptive. Deleting what they did merely because they did it merely extends that disruptiveness beyond the ban. So to address the issue at hand: is the subject notable enough for inclusion (WP:N)? Probably yes. Certainly if Wikipedia had been around in the late 70s when he was at the UN this wouldn't be an issue, I get the impression there must be many sources from that period. Rd232 ^talk 12:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per GRuban, & the fact that he was a diplomat at the UN -- this is how I understand the passage "spent six years on the Secretariat of the United Nations in New York". -- llywrch (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Book Search [49] shows many print references to, or publications by the individual, unfortunately many are snippet view, and it is not easy to discern which are reliable and independent sources, or which are from some moonbeam press. But [50] calls him "former UN official and staff member of the Communist Central Committee." [51] says he is of the Russian Academy of Science. He was written about in Newsweek back in 1963[52]. The Hoover Institution in 1974 called him "the third ranking member of the Central Committee's International Department[53]." His co-author Galbreath called him a "[54] distinguished Soviet economist."These bonafides would suffice for anyone else to satisfy WP:BIO. We should be in the business of having as complete and accurate an encyclopedia as possible, and not get into a snit because someone who worked on an article touched it and gave the demonstrably notable subject cooties. If the bad guy put POV material or unsourced statements in the article, then edit it from the sources available down to a referenced stub. Edison (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable for soviet governmental positions if for nothing else. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Menshikov is a leading Russian economist. I have expanded the article slightly. --Coleacanth (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question So what happens when a banned user does write an article about something that is bulletproof notability? Delete it until someone else rewrites it from scratch? rootology/equality 23:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any topic of "bulletproof" notability will probably be notable enough that an editor in good standing would want to write an article about them. Everything in Wikipedia is done on a case-by-case basis. Any editor in good standing may restore edits made by banned editors, but by doing so they take full responsibility for the material. See WP:BAN They should not give the appearance of being a meat puppet who acts at the behest of a banned user.
- A particular habit of this banned user, along with many POV pushers, was creating content that supported the POV he was pushing. While in some cases the individual contributions may have appeared NPOV at first glance, a little research showed that they in fact skewed the overall project. While I don't care so much about the notability of Menshikov, I note that this case is a good reason for the rule. Based on how rarely this article has been linked to,[55] it does not appear that anyone other than SPAs have shown interest in the subject. If an involved editor hadn't complained I doubt that the initial deletion would have been noticed by anyone. Will Beback talk 00:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest further discussions of this policy are best conducted at WT:BAN. Will Beback talk 00:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as we continue to pretend this is an encyclopedia, I support greater lenience in applying notability standards for articles about legitimate scholars/thinkers than those conerncing pop culture flashes-in-pans. I find the discussion as to whether the article was crated by a (gasp) banned user to be petty and somewhat surreal.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is no clear demonstration of notability.--Kubigula (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bjørn Ingvar Kydland

Contested prod. Bjørn Ingvar Kydland plays in the Norwegian First Division. This is the second tier in Norway, and is not a fully professional league. Fails WP:ATHLETE. No other significant coverage that fulfills WP:BIO#basic criteria. Rettetast (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I assumed being a first division team that footballers would automatically be professional and of note. Things must be a lot different in the UK than in Norway. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence that he has played in a fully professional league. The Norwegian First Division (which is the second tier) is not a fully professional league, many players have other day jobs, in some teams 100% of the players have other jobs besides football. Punkmorten (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player. Giant Snowman 14:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has extensive media coverage [56] and thus meets WP:N which trumps WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless you can find a reliable source from that Google search about his playing exploits, then it might pass general notability - listing a Google news search doesn't prove anything. Until then, he still fails WP:ATHLETE and general notability criteria as well. --Jimbo^[online] 10:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional player in professional club, satisfies WP:ATHLETE. Extensive media coverage, here's a couple of examples of articles about the individual player in large, reliable sources: [57], [58] Lampman (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those roughly translate into match reports where he gets a name check rather than an article specifically about himself, hardly enough to pass WP:N. --Jimbo^[online] 08:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just patently wrong, in both those articles he's the subject of the headlines. Lampman (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A headline in a newspaper doesn't make a player notable. --Jimbo^[online] 21:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. Trivial mentions in reliable sources, no significant coverage. لenna vecia 17:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Prinz von Sachsen-Anhalt

Notability is not inherited -- I believe this one fails WP:BIO. Gsearch turns up only nominal hits, Gnews didn't turn up anything at all. Links in references section are to his adopted father, not to him. Ray^Talk 18:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 18:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Nominator said it all. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think perhaps an expanded section on the adult adoptions in his father's article might be merited, but individual articles generally don't seem to be merited in cases such as these.Tyrenon (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:BLP1E, a person notable only for one event, and lacking reliable sources to meet the primary notability criterion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Carey Bt Mohd Johari

Prod contested, so here we go. Single event notability as a contestant on Malaysian Dreamgirl. No hits on GNews, Google search gives this page as the top choice and the show wiki page as second, Malaysian Dreamgirl website as third, nothing else. No references in the article either. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be known for a single media event but the article is unreferenced. MilborneOne (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per wp:BLP1E Niteshift36 (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. لenna vecia 17:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Anthony Ince

Jack of all trades, master of none. Looks like an autobiography. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to meet the WP:N guideline.Intelligentsium (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok all, This all is refferenced. Whats the violation? Those links have been deleted. --Cecil Anthony Ince 22:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs)

Delete Fails notability requirements and is obviously autobiographical. Beach drifter (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not Notability? Is not the Kansas City Star a Reliable source? Is not the Missouri secretary of State a Reliable source?--Cecil Anthony Ince 23:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs)

I suggest you read the notability guidelines, WP:BIO WP:ENT WP:POLITICIAN Beach drifter (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the notablity guidelines, and i have had much press in the state of missouri. I provide those links and i cite those Sources. I have been appointed to many different political party positions. I have proformed on stage publicly with advertizing in missouri and texas. Yes i think i meet the guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs) 23:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the guidelines well, you would understand that you need significant coverage from reliable sources. You don't have anything close to that, and you're not doing yourself any favors adding yourself to a ton of lists and creating a dozen redirects to the article. Beach drifter (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It have has significant coverage and all are reliable. The Kansas City Star, The St. louis Post Dispatch, local radio, local news papers all over missouri. I have even been on Fox News. That is significant and reliable. Do I need to audition for comedy central or co-star with Robin Williams??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs) 00:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A one or two line blurb with your name it is not at all significant. A press release you sent in to the paper is not significant. Luckily the guideline breaks it down for us: Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.

Let me say that i had full pages write ups in many papers. a full leaghth Television interview. A large underground following that spans over two states. I have preformed on stage over 150 times.

I can't beleive you beleive Its not notible, or that they are reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Request remedy to this AFD --Cecil Anthony Ince 23:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilince (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The artical meets guidlines, and has been edited to do so.--Cecil Anthony Ince 00:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete, references lack sufficient detail to establish notability. CliffC (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obvious non-neutral autobiography. If he is as notable as he claims then someone else will write up an article about him guaranteed. Otherwise this is blatant "look-at-me!!" promotion and violates WP:COI. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 07:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second suggestion, keep but block user from editing his own article. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 07:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is that even technically possible? – ukexpat (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, read Wikipedia:Topic bans. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 07:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage is not of sufficient detail to be considered substantial. Much of the coverage is mere mentions or blogs and press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what looks like self-promotion. In any case not meeting WP:N. Rd232 ^talk 22:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the WP:BIO requirements, no significant coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a musician, comedian or politician with any significant coverage. Let's wait until there's some proper coverage of notable achievements. Fences and windows (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article is much improved without the list and sufficient sources exist. Hopefully it will develop and remain list-free to avoid a return trip here.--Kubigula (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood marriage

Seems to have a lot of WP:OR (what constitutes a short marriage, and the lead). It is a list of living people without any referencing (bar one), and the purpose of the list is not clear. I am (currently) neutral on the subject, but this should have an AFD and has been raised on the BLP notice board. Martin451 (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Martin451 (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Martin451 (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Martin451 (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I suggested before. There are no sources which support the notability of this expression. If there were it could be a Wiktionary entry, but not a Wikipedia article unless the topic was discussed in depth in secondary sources. There are no sources that say the long list of married couples where one or both works in the American entertainment industry are examples of "Hollywood marriages." Nor are there even sources for the data on any of the couples except one.Steve Dufour (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Back to keep per new sourcing) the term "Hollywood marriage" does see a lot of use Google, Google News, and Google Books. Strongly suggest that sense of OR be removed through WP:Cleanup and article receive proper sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If to be deleted, then perhaps do so without prejudice and userfy to author, as a future rewrite may be able to address concerns of this AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BLP nightmare that is not notable enough for an article. لenna vecia 12:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Jennavecia puts it, it's a BLP nightmare. I've removed the list of people for the mean while, but I don't doubt that some idiot is going to put them back. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I followed the links provided by Schmidt, but thery seem to be random combinations of "Hollywood" and "marriage". There's no evidence that it is a term with a special meaning, unlike "Boston marriage", for example. The actual text of the article appears to be original research. Will Beback talk 18:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Several new sources have been found, so let's see what can be made of them. If the article still has problems after the sources have been mined then we can bring it back here. Will Beback talk 22:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting topic, I wish there were some references. Rsolero (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list of unsourced examples should stay deleted (obviously), but, unfortunate as it is that there are no references, I suspect that such references can be found by someone genuinely interested in the topic. For example, I've quickly found this, and I don't give a rat's ass about the topic. Rd232 ^talk 21:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's possible that an article on this could be written. I don't think the source you provided really says that the exact expression "Hollywood marriage" is an established phrase. I have never heard it, although I understand the concept, and I have lived in California most of my life. Well, the other part of the state, not near Hollywood. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that source uses the expression 8 times. Rd232 ^talk 00:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't define it or say that other people use it.Steve Dufour (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it's a newspaper article, not an etymological dictionary. But it's an article which clearly expects the reader to recognise the phrase. Rd232 ^talk 00:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the article lumps different things together under the one title, "Hollywood marriage." These include weddings done (at least partly) for publicity and marriages entered into sincerely but which failed due to the pressures and temptations of the entertainment world. What was not mentioned is fake marriages done to hide the fact that one or the other person is gay. I don't think you can put all these together under one title, although they are important topics for concern and/or study.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - provisional that the terrible list stays deleted. A Gbooks search returns 550 hits. Abundance of sources. From the first 10 hits I picked four sources which I added to the article. It's a real shame that people find time to comment on AfDs, voting delete due to "lack of sources", without taking that marginally extra effort to actually look for some sources - grossly violating WP:BEFORE - deletion is the last resort. Listing and categorizing a lot of celebrity marriages into "short", "medium" etc is a terrible idea, from WP:BLP concerns - and the list should stay deleted. Power.corrupts (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is improved, especially by losing the list. However it now seems to be saying that any marriage involving people in the movie business (in the USA) is a "Hollywood marriage." Steve Dufour (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete articles because they need improvement. We delete articles if they have no potential for improvement. The results of my Gbooks search proves that this concept is mainstream, passing WP:GNG, and certainly WP:V. Somebody with an interest in the topic can improve it, but it won't be me. The article was taken to AfD because of BLP and OR issues - they are now gone. Power.corrupts (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article going to be about marriages of people in the American entertainment industry? Or is it going to be about the expression "Hollywood marriage"? If the first then I think it is original research. If the second then it probably belongs on Wiki-dictionary.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Wiktionary, I'm unable to judge the development potential, perhaps we could give it a chance, right now it at least passes RS. As somebody noted above, the page Boston marriage has survived so far. I have no subject matter knowledge, I have a regular marriage. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people living in Hollywood do too. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The phrase and phenomenon has been discussed since the 1920s:[59][60] Here's an article in the Telegraph on the topic:Movie stars plus marriage equals disaster. Here's a quick pick of some more sources:[61][62][63] Fences and windows (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for those cites but what could we say in an article based upon them beyond the dictionary definition: "A Hollywood marriage is a marriage between two Hollywood celebrities"? Will Beback talk 01:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - we could say things about the difficulty of having a marriage in the public eye, for one, in the particular context of the movie business. Rd232 ^talk 07:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - (EC) The problem here seems to be, that all the editors at this AfD, deletes and keeps alike, seem to subscribe to WP:IDONTLIKEIT - so we will have to leave article improvement to somebody else. Thanks to Fences and windows for locating the New York Times article. How painful it may be, the article clearly passes WP:V and WP:GNG. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Παπανικολάου Κωνσταντίνος

Declining speedy; Can't make sense of this (click on "Google translation"), can't say that it's an A7, taking to AfD. - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this article is also under consideration for translation atWP:PNT#Παπανικολάου Κωνσταντίνος.Synchronism (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Greek, and don't know how to speak Greek, but I will babelfish it and edit it as I go along. Eurovision 2009 and 2010^{Sasha Son}_{Sakis Rouvas} 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done. The article can now be found as Papanikolay Konstantinos and he can now be establised as a notable Greek journalist, so I say keep. Add external and internal links and this could be a really good article. Eurovision 2009 and 2010^{Sasha Son}_{Sakis Rouvas} 19:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some copy edits to attempt to make the text clearer. Neutral on AfD though. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the given name is Konstantinis and the surname should be Papanikolaou (this is the only combination/spelling which yields results) Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: needs an expert (and by that I mean a Greek-speaker. I have made some efforts to find sources and have nothing for my efforts (save the correct spelling of the man's name, the fact that he exists and is a journalist). I am loathe to say delete as I suspect Greek-language sources may be available. I cannot read them though and am further impeded by the fact that his appears to be a common Greek name (shared by a sportsman). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest waiting until the page has been fully translated until we reach a consensus. Eurovision 2009 and 2010^{Sasha Son}_{Sakis Rouvas} 12:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to RfD since the link is a redirect. The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be pointless. The article the link redirects to is the article which is the subject of this afd. Just because the article has moved, doesn't mean we automatically close the AFD--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I couldn't find an article about him in the Greek Wikipedia.[64]]. A Google news search isn't that promising.[65] A web search is more promising, revealing that he is giving a speech on June 11. It seems like he is nationally notable, as a journalist, but I don't think he meets the Wikipedia inclusion standards laid out here. Currently this article is basically an unsourced BLP and reliable sources aren't readily available, but (Like bigdaddy) I concede that sources could possibly be found. This article was unsourced to begin with and perhaps should not have been translated. It might have been better if it were WP:transwikied to the Greek Wikipedia to give it the best chance for development and then deleted here per A2, with the hope that a better article would come about in the future, possibly based on the one originally submitted here.Synchronism (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Synchronism. Unsourced BLP. Willing to change vote if sources are found. لenna vecia 18:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the English language Wikipedia, not the Greek one. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noemi Letizia

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}}.

Not notable. Fails WP:BLP1E among others. Asserting that someone was "made famous for receiving a gold necklace" borders on the ludicrous. The article is poorly sourced, and the subject's father says he intends to sue what sources there are for libel (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090526/twl-will-berlusconi-answer-teen-scandal-3fd0ae9.html) Harry the Dog WOOF 11:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, this article has no place in an encyclopedia. -[[Ryan]] ^{(Main Menu)}_{(Language Selection)} 13:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Silly entry. This topic is worth no more than a sentence at Veronica Lario or Silvio Berlusconi or somewhere... Hairhorn (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this deserves an entry in Berlusconi's article. As to the libel suit, if that goes somewhere and Berlusconi gets embroiled, then this might be worthy of an article, but those are big "ifs" which have not yet transpired.Tyrenon (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not really notable. Salvageable content could be moved to Silvio Berlusconi if it satisfies WP:WEIGHT. Easy on the eye! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable gossip. Not notable for an encyclopedia. Of course, if Silvio marries her, has children by her, then divorces her, we can revisit notability at that time. Weak support for including a mention of her in the Silvio Berlusconi article, but frankly, that guy sleeps around so much we could fill an entire encyclopedia solely with his individual conquests. --Quartermaster (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if the affair will have heavy consequences she won't be notable, on it.wiki we speedly deleted the article four times. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedy deleted just because they feared it could in fact survive a votation: Wikipedia it pages to delete: "Immediata e non semplificata, perché potrebbe anche finire a votazione. --Salvo da Palermo" ("Speedy, not simplified, because it could be voted"). --ElfQrin (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you didn't read anything about the deletions we made: you're wrong, here there's a lot of consensus for deletion. In thetalk page only two users (you and Felisopus) and a troll (a recidive one, already banned) asked for creating again the page. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is 4 days later then the speed deletion. --Beechs (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, similar to Monica Lewinsky (for the implications). --ElfQrin (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing like Monica Lewinsky. In that case there was proven misconduct with an employee. In this case, there is gossip (denied) about a family friend. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ugh. Not notable. Good lord. لenna vecia 12:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's just a silly girl who's one of Silvio Berlusconi's flings. Non-notable - unless it is revealed she's not a fling but that she is actually his love child, in which case the article will have to be re-introduced and re-written. Tovojolo (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's face it, if Obama was in Silvio's position, this would have been a featured article by now. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable and of current importance. Maybe the story will disappear soon (it's mentioned rarely on Italian TV but that's probably because Berlusconi owns or controls most of the media) and if so it can be deleted but for now it seems importance and relevent. I'm sure someone will discount this comment because I'm not a logged in user but it doesn't matter anyway because Wikipedia is now controlled by over-zealous admins so there's never a democratic vote (or even a normal discussion) anymore.--217.203.178.11 (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)— 217.203.178.11 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment this is exactly backwards — we don't write articles on people when they're in the news, then delete them when they "stop being relevant". That's newsworthiness, not notability. We write articles only on topics that will predictably be of future as well as current interest. --Trovatore (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is at the center of an international scandal which involved the image of the italian prime minister and that of his country too. --Felisopus (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC) (small note: more than half million hits in only two weeks)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --82.53.108.79 (talk) 21:36, 28 May — 82.53.108.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
KEEP This is Wikipedia's chance to show it's not open to political meddling. The page has been deleted from Italian Wikipedia and should have been kept there. It should also be kept here. This is a present political issue and if anything it should be expanded. Removing it goes against all the principles of democracy by which Wikipedia was founded. If Italy's internal media can't be free at least let the internet remain free. KEEP, KEEP, KEEP, KEEP, KEEP!!!!220.238.68.173 (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC) — 220.238.68.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I belong politically to the left (and pay attention to this affair is political mistake), I live in Italy and italian media are dedicating too much time to this affaire, wiki must have no political scopes so the keeping of this page "for web freedom" is quite wrong. --Vituzzu (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis is shame. --87.15.38.150 (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)— 87.15.38.150 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Personality of high current relevance, appearing in quality media all across Europe. --Alib (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. An she does pass the notability requirements.--Judo112 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BLP1E says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." (Emphasis mine.) That doesn't seem to be the case here. Even if her alleged affair with Berlusconi is never proven, the allegation in itself has sparked what's expected to be one of the most expensive divorces in history. Plus, she's a professional model. Not exactly the kind of person that keeps a low profile even if they're not involved in any sort of scandal. — Red XIV ^(talk) 18:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I should point out that her father's libel suit makes her more notable over the allegations, not less. — Red XIV ^(talk) 18:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable and notingh like Monica Lewinsky. --87.13.167.126 (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)— 87.13.167.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete non notable. --82.55.162.50 (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)— 82.55.162.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment She is certainly likely to remain low profile. Monica Lewinsky she ain't. This allegation alone didn't spark the divorce. His wife has commented previously on his infidelities, and she has expressed political disagreements. If she goes on to do something notable, she should have an article, but for now mention of her should be confined to the BLPs of the relevant people. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would appear a lot of the deletes are do-not-like votes. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep very notable - there was an article in our local newspaper only today with her picture. This is coverage across the world and not just on one occasion. This means there is multiple independent sources covering her. Satisfying the WP:N criteria. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about the WP:BLP issues? Most of the allegations made in this article have been strongly denied. The article as it stands is poorly sourced gossip. I am sorry, but no one is "notable for receiving a gold necklace". If that is her only claim to notability, as the article asserts, the article must go. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is still shoddy, but there is plenty of relevance that can be added. The Berlusconi article is already over-long and sub-articles are required. The story is still developing - Berlusconi has gone to the courts to prevent publication of photos of the party at which Letizia was allegedly a guest. Maybe in a week a proper decision can be made. Pontificake (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Shoddy" BLPs need to be improved immediately or deleted. Since nothing more can be added to this article beyond speculation, rumour and gossip, it should be deleted until such time as a substantial and factual article can be created. In the meantime, mention of the controversy belongs in Berlusconi's artice. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is interesting to the public, potentially politically important, and we presumably can produce adequate sources. Something which is ostensibly causing the divorce of a major political figure is noteworthy almost by definition. OP says "the subject's father says he intends to sue what sources there are for libel" - this actually makes the subject more noteworthy. Article could stand to be improved, but presumably can be. Let's hold off on the delete for now and look for progress or lack thereof in another few months. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC) -- Added: Someone seems to have added the "del" (strikeout) tag to my vote for me. DON'T DO THAT, and I have reverted it back to"Keep". Although I have mentioned below some factors which could be taken to argue against "Keep", my vote is still "Keep", for the reasons I've already given. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE Spam & gossip. --82.53.107.111 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)— 82.53.107.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The problem is that if the article is libelous, Wikipedia is in line to be sued as well if the article is not quickly deleted. It is one thing to mention the controversy in Berlusconi's article. It is quite another to create an article about a person involved in that controversy, who is not otherwise notable, repeating insinuations and gossip that cannot be shown to be factual. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment': Wikipedia:Libel for info, though it is very brief. Obviously enough, this article needs to adhere to WP:BLP. Everything that's not properly cited can be removed immediately. However, IMHO, whatever is cited should stay, and IMHO we should be able to assemble enough properly cited material to have an adequate article under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have no idea what the legal situation is if an Italian citizen sues a USA-based nonprofit for libel over an article that quotes mainstream sources. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Noemi Letizia in Italian Wikipedia seems to have been deleted on grounds that it was "non enciclopedico" - http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussione:Noemi_Letizia -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep. I think the Monica L. reference above is just. Neither has yet proved herself to be interesting in herself, but both have played notable parts in big (or at least moderately big) stories. A reader in twenty (or two hundred) years time who comes across a reference to her in an old play will think very well of Wikipedia if they find a brief description of her. [If the deletion motion were that Wikipedia should avoid mention of any living person I might reverse my vote.] Ian Spackman (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Be very careful comparing Noemi Letizia with Lewinsky. These kinds of comparison are precisely why this article needs to be deleted. There is simply no evidence of any sexual impropriety between Letizia and Berlusconi and to suggest so is libelous. If it is later shown that there was impropriety, then the article can be re-created. For now, Noemi Letizia can redirect to the appropriate section in the Berlusconi article so those looking for information on the story based on her name will find it. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me it is entirely unimportant whether either of them had sexual relations with anyone. Why would that be of interest to me? My comparison is simply that they are are/were unknown young women who had notability thrust upon them by the actions of important older politicians. Both will be footnotes, at least, in the history books to come and our value as encyclopaedists will be increased by helping future historians write those footnotes.

Yes, it is unimportant in one sense. But when you say the name Monica Lewinsky, what is the first image that comes to most people's minds? Fellatio in the Oval Office? The whole reason ML is notable is because of the sexual indiscretions. NL has denied any such indiscretions, going so far as to say she is a virgin. So comparisons between ML and NL in terms of their relationships with the powerful men involved are entirely inappropriate at this stage. It leaves Wikipedia open to the legal pursuits that are being threatened. Do you really think that the actions of the two politicians (one taking sexual advantage of an employee, the other hosting a birthday party for a young woman and giving her a present) are in any way comparable? All I am saying is be very careful about drawing these comparisons as the only basis for keeping this article. The mention of her will be just as easily found by historians in Berlusconi's article, with a redirect from here.. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. Its just a news story, thats all, coppied from a single source allmost word for word. Quode (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a transient scandal. If the story winds up bringing down Berlusconi's government, then she might be as notable as Monica (well, no, probably not, but at least in the same ballpark), and the article could be recreated. But there will be time for that. Wikipedia is not a news outlet, and hopefully especially not a scandal sheet. --Trovatore (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --79.2.0.235 (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)— 79.2.0.235 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. This is NOT a transient scandal, this is NOT spam! Noemi Letizia is a personality of high current relevance, appearing in quality media all across Europe. Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's exactly the problem — current relevance. We don't care about current relevance. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. From a sourcing point of view, news articles are not good sources, and as far as I know there are hardly any other sources that mention her. --Trovatore (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News articles aren't good sources? That's a shame since thousands and thousands of Wikipedia articles use news articles as sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say they weren't allowable sources. I said they weren't good sources. They're OK as a backup. But if there aren't any other sources on a topic, there's a good chance the topic isn't notable. --Trovatore (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we are going to stop trusting the BBC and the New York Times as sources, we might as well just stop creating new articles unless someone has already written a book. I would also point out that BLP problems or other things that can be cleaned up are reasons to improve the article and are not reasons to delete an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not about "trusting" them. It's about the distinction between momentary newsworthiness and encyclopedic notability. The Silvio Berlusconi article is a particularly embarrassing example of what happens when editors throw in every silly People-magazine style minor outrage the man committed in the week preceding. This article seems to be an outgrowth of the culture in that article. --Trovatore (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues must be addressed immediately. This article has barely been improved since its creation. The reason for that is that based on what we know, it is impossible to improve it. If we were to remove everything that was a BLP problem in this article there would be nothing left, certainly nothing to assert notability. Reported gossip and innuendo is still gossip and innuendo. Just because the BBC and others choose to report what is happening does not mean that this article should be kept. There is a big difference between reporting on an event (a crisis, a scandal etc.) as the BBC etc. are doing and spinning that off into a poorly sourced article on individuals. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is also a good point, and it's worth noting that, under US libel law, we are probably safe from any suits by Berlusconi, under the American "public figure" doctrine. It is not technically impossible for him to win a suit in a US court, but it would be very difficult. For Ms. Letizia things are rather different. Both from a point of view of legal safety, and just common decency, we have to be especially careful what we say about her. --Trovatore (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I completely agree that BLP issues are urgent, and should be fixed as soon as possible, and I have left a notice [66] at WP:BLPN regarding this article. I just don't think it's a valid reason to delete an article with multiple very reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You can add The Washington Post, Telegraph, Times Online and France24 to the list as well [67]. - Mailer Diablo 22:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was interested who she was, so I came to wikipedia. The scandal is big enough to grant her entry here, plenty of reliable sources talk about her. Enegrea (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. WP:BLP1E, non notable. Yet another sicking little article drummed up by those who believe that Wikipedia should be gutter press. Physchim62 (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An incredible example of WP as National Enquirer competitor, and violating BLP standards both as to nature and sourcing of claims. I am an extrordinarily firm believer that BLPs must not be tabloid-like, and I would suggest that anyone reading this would read the Weekly World News each week :( . Collect (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statements in the article are sourced. This issue keeps getting brought up, but I'm not sure anyone has cited a specific example of a blp violation in this article. Sources are internationally known and respected news organs like the Guardian and the NY Times. If there is a problem, let's fix it, but crying out "BLP violation" without specifying where is not very helpful. (Just as an aside, the Weekly World News is no longer being published) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statements like the very opening sentence: "Noemi Letizia is an 18 year old Italian woman, who has become the center of controversy..." Is she really? The controversy surely surrounds Berlusconi, and she is a player in it. To say that she is "the center of controversy" implies that she may have done something wrong. There is no evidence at present that she (or indeed Berluscon in this instance) has done anything wrong. And if she is not the center of the controversy, she is no notable. She can and should be mentioned in a discussion of the controversy, which should take place in Berlusconi's article, or a separate article on the controversy itself if it becomes important enough for that. Harry the Dog WOOF 05:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll grant that you may have a point about her not being the "center" and I have edited the article to remove that characterization. However, I do not grant that if she is not the absolute center of the controversy, she is not notable. Lynndie_England and Linda Tripp were both bit players in political controversies and both have their own articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. The point is that Wikipedia does not have the same protection under US libel laws with Letizia as it does with Berlusconi. That means we have to be very careful what we say and how we characterise her, implicitly as well as explicitly. Just because otherwise reliable sources are reproducing what others are saying doesn't mean we should include it. If the BBC were to say. "According to the National Enquirer..." would we consider that reliable? Harry the Dog WOOF 06:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Irrelevant. --Alfie (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very relevant; statements sourced; one of the major causes of Veronica Lario's decision to file for divorce; the case that first opened italian media's eyes over the sexual misconduct of italian PM as a civil servant: naked Mirek Topolánek has been photographed with naked girls in Berlusconi's harem, in Berlusconi's villa. So, is this what they use to do during meetings? Well, that's relevant. Nightbit (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But there is no evidence that Letizia played any part in any of this. This is precisely why this article is a BLP violation. Let's discussed sourced instances of Berlusconi's indiscretions by all means, in his own article and Lario's. If Letzizia is mentioned there, that's one thing, but to make her the center of these events, when she is no such thing and there is no evidence that she herself did anything wrong is a violation of WP:BLP. Harry the Dog WOOF 05:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you claim that there is no evidence she played any part in the events described in an article that is about her? If Silvio came to her birthday party (which I don't believe has been disputed anywhere) then she "played a part." The exact nature of her role is not defined in the article because it is not clearly defined by the sources, and that is as it should be, but clearly she is part and parcel of this incident. What else would you have us believe his soon-to-be-ex-wife was referring to in her statement regarding their divorce when she said that she "cannot remain with a man who consorts with minors" Beeblebrox (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have been more specific. It is precisely when we start talking about hareems etc. that we are in trouble. What i meant was that there is no evidence that Letizia has been involved in anything improper with Berlusconi, that any "indiscretions" have taken place. The whole premise of this article is that something improper has happened (in which case Letizia might be notable as an individual). Berlusconi "consorting with minors" would be his impropriety (if indeed he dd anything improper with them), not the minors'. There is no evidence that Letizia has been engaged in anything improper, much less been a member of any hareem; to even suggest or imply that is libelous. It is tittilating, but it's not encyclopaedic. Harry the Dog WOOF 06:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good reasons to keep an eye on the article, and to edit to make sure it accurately reflects what is in the sources, but not good reasons to delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are arguing that it's OK for Wikipedia to retain libelous content? According to WP:BLP it is not. And right now, the entire premise of this article (that Letizia has somehow engaged in improper behaviour) is libelous. Therefore the article should be deleted. If evidence emerges that she has engaged in improper behaviour, the article can be recreated. In the mean time, discussions of Berlusconi's improprieties can take place in the article about him. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I can't see anything in the current version of the article that could be considered libellous. I've not been able to go back to the origial source as I don't speak italian, but I don't think that Noemi is hinted as having done anything wrong. Pontificake (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Allegations involving Letizia ...". That is quite simply libellous. There are no "Allegations involving Letizia...". An allegation "involving Letizia" implies that she has done something wrong. There are allegations against Berlusconi (that have neither been proved nor disproved yet) but there is no reliable suggestion that Letizia has been involved in anything improper, nor any serious allegations made against her either in relation to her actions or her character. Yet that is the premise of this article. Since the premise is so flawed as to be libellous, the article should be deleted. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. President Ronald Reagan was shot while in office. This is a news story involving Ronald Reagan. It says nothing against Ronald Reagan.
Suppose that Joe Schmo is in the press because of allegations that he bilked Bill Gates out of a million dollars. This is IMHO, an "allegation involving Bill Gates". It makes no implication against Bill Gates.
It seems to me that an allegation against X would be one implying that X may have done something wrong. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In those cases it is clear what happened. In this case, we are dealing with rumour, gossip and speculation. Therefore, "allegations involving..." could easily be interpreted in a negative way, given that Letizia is the subject of the article. That is why there is a separate article on the attempt on Reagan's life. If no one had been convicted, there would not be a separate article on an otherwise non-notable suspect all about how he was a suspect in the case. At most, the suspect would be mentioned in the Ronald Reagan was shot while in office article in passing. This is very similar. Whatever Belusconi may or may not have done, there is no evidence of impropriety against Letizia, who is otherwise not notable. The creation of the article, especially given some of the language it uses, clearly implies she has done something wrong, and is therefore libellous. Harry the Dog WOOF

(undent) You have based your line of argument on very shaky ground. This young lady is clearly over the bar of WP:N. Here is just one example, a quote from the New York Times:
First came a rare and inescapable torrent of speculation — in blogs, on television and radio, at dinner tables across Italy — about the nature and origins of his relationship with Noemi Letizia, a pretty blond aspiring model whose 18th birthday party he attended in Naples last month, and who has said she calls him Daddy. This was the party that caused Mr. Berlusconi’s wife to declare their marriage, one year older than Ms. Letizia, over.
Similar statements can be found in many of the other sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what your point is. None of this justifies her own article. This is still about Berlusconi and his wife. There is no evidence of any misconduct by Letizia, and as such we should not be creating an article about her that, by implication and even explicitly, suggests otherwise. In fact, the NY Times is wrong. Berlusconi's wife never mentioned Letizia by name. She spoke of him "consorting with minors". Indeed he seems to have done that, and there are suggestions that there may of been improper conduct. But to embroil Letitzia in that by name when she was never mentioned by name by Berlusconi's wife is wrong. So what exactly is her notoriety? That she is a friend of the Italian PM and he threw a party for her and gave her a present. Does that really make her notable enough for her own article? If she is cited in the divorce petition and more evidence comes to light, the article can be recreated. But this is an example of precisely why the article should be deleted. Gossip and innuendo is being extrapolated to involve a living person by name, with the clear implication that she has misbehaved, when there is no evidence of that at all. We can discuss the ongoing fallout on Berlusconi's page because he is a public figure and as such we have some protection in discussing his actions. But Letizia is a private citizen, and to create an article on her which suggests impropriety on her part leaves Wikipedia on pretty shaky ground. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some highly reliable sources according to which the relationship between Silvio Berlusconi and Noemi Letizia has played a huge role in the decision made by Veronica Lario to file for a divorce; sources explain the enormous economic, financial, political impact of such a divorce; sources explain how Noemi was promised a brilliant career as an actress or as a politician (which may well happen, if you know Mara Carfagna story); sources say Noemi Letizia was in Berlusconi's villa with many other girls and this group of girls (most of them) payed by Berlusconi has been reported by sources as Berlusconi's harem; sources explain how the Noemigate is influencing italian elections for the European Parliament forcing Berlusconi to maintain a low profile; sources report the position of the Vatican that - on this occasion - has asked Berlusconi to be more sombre. All this has been caused by the incident with Noemi Letizia - incident called by many sources Noemigate. I believe this is quite enough for Wikipedia to have an article on her or at least on the incident itself (we could move the article to Noemigate). Nightbit (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly not. You misunderstand Wikipedia policy. Let me give as clear examples as I can. Even though they are heavily involved in major stories, Madeleine McCann and her family do not have separate articles. Neither do Josef Fritzl and his family. Why? Because they are non-notable people who have been caught up in notable events. Exactly the same is true with Letizia. We have to be extremely careful when it comes to biographies of living people. If otherwise reliable sources choose to report gossip and innuendo (and indeed, report it incorrectly), that does not mean that Wikipedia should follow suit. Letizia is an otherwise non-notable person, like Madeleine, Kate and Gerry McCann, and like Josef and Elizabeth Fritzl. And like them, she should not have her own article unless she achieves notability beyond the particular event. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me you seem to be arguing against deletion but in favour of a move to [[Noemi Letizia ~~affair~~]], retaining the redirect (as in the case of Madeleine McCann and Josef Fritzl). The (presumably ex-) boyfriend would also redirect to that article. I could support you there, but I am not able to support either a deletion or a redirect to a subsection of the Berlusconi article: that is already unmanageably large and needs to be trimmed. Ian Spackman (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am arguing for deletion and if necessary (which is not clear right now) the creation of a separate article on the controversy if it proves to have legs beyond the current interest. In the meantime, discussions of Berlusconi's alleged indiscretions should be confined to the article about him. I know it's a fairly long article, but we still need to have material in the appropriate place, and someone with as long and varied career (and personal life) as Berlusconi is of course going to have a lengthy article. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A hard work has been made to rewrite this article. Now it tells the whole Letizia-incident (which has been very relevant in Italy in the last month) from a neutral point of view, citing reliable sources. Often newspapers, italian and foreign, give wrong details of the story. We need to keep this article to explain it clearly. 01:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.15.250 (talk) — 62.10.15.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . However, Harry the Dog is right. As today, Letizia's involment in this incident is fading, while the central point has become Berlusconi's lies and angry reactions (sources in the article). Deletion of this article would be wrong, because I (and the other contributors before me) spent several hours finding reliable sources to reconstruct faithfully the story (I repeat that this reconstruction is important because newspapers often give wrong details). The text should be moved in the "Silvio Berlusconi" main article, or in a separate voice named "Papi-gate", "Letiziopoli" or-how-do-you-call-it. 20:51, 2009-06-01 (UTC)
Delete because there isn't anything new comparing this article with Silvio Berlusconi, after applying the use of reliable publications. Perhaps if there is anything new in future it can be rewritten, but for now even the main article is better written and sourced than this one. - Mailer Diablo 22:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E Niteshift36 (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's gossip, irrilevant on Wikipedia. Even the italian wiki doesn't have a page for this.--Sid-Vicious (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't say it's gossip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.84.170.195 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - predominantly WP:BLP1E. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1BE. Mentioning her by name makes sense on the Berlusconi article; writing a complete article about her is both inappropriate and impossible. Nathan^T 20:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be impossible because it's already been done... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A complete article written? I disagree. Nathan^T 22:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. لenna vecia 16:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Phumulani Nyoni

Not a notable personality. Article resembles a facebook page and appears to be self-publicity, fails WP:N

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can find nothing out about him save the fact that he is an active participant on the message boards of online Zim newspapers. Since he apparently writes in English -- I think he is nn. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mess of an article, clearly written by the subject, fails WP:BIO. لenna vecia 12:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - did a quick clean-up but then looked for notability, there is none! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, despite numerous "sources". feydey (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Main claim to notability seems to be that he has a job. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suai Kee

With the release of one single that received only regional attention plus another available only on iTunes, subject fails to meet the criteria for notability set forth at Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. Subject thus far has achieved regional, not national, recognition. Inclusion on the Obama compilation fundraising CD is a plus, but is not sufficient to warrant a standalone article. As the article edit history shows, a Motown CD album has been forthcoming "soon" for several years; if and when it is released then an article might be appropriate. JohnInDC (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - An editor with an apparent interest in Keeping the article has been adding keep-type facts and arguments to the article's talk page here. S/he hasn't responded to a couple of suggestions to repost the material here and I feel a bit skittish (probably foolishly) in doing it myself without permission. Hence the link, to be sure that the issues get a proper airing. (For what it is worth I don't think any of the additional facts matter.) JohnInDC (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC) (Editor found the right place.) JohnInDC (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as admittedly having released not one album on a major label. If there's specific RS coverage or charting for her one single, I'll reconsider. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kiwikibble (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the subject has achieved fair amount of national recognition having done several tours including a recent national tour with Solange and Estelle. She has also done several co-productions with Akon. AmLucki (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC) The Allmusic database lists her Come Out Come Out Single/EP released in 2008 under the Universal label. She is the singer as well as the composer of the song. The database also lists Am I All Alone sung by her for the Obama CD. I believe she qualifies on the basis of clause 4 of the Criteria for Musicians and Ensembles which states Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. AmLucki (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmLucki (talk • contribs)
- My apologies for having added my comments in the wrong place - a newbie's privilige :) I hope I am doing the right thing now by putting the comments here

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment on the foregoing rationale for "Keep": I doubt that inclusion in the essentially static Allmusic.com database would qualify as "coverage" in a reliable source of a national tour, but even if it did, the actual entry is about as sketchy an entry as possible. The "overview", here, is blank but for her name and the genre "R&B", and the tab labelled "Biography" is grayed out, indicating that none exists. In short, the only information entered on this artist consists of her name, her genre, and the name of two songs she has recorded. If this is coverage, it is trivial, and does not establish notability. JohnInDC (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment on the relisting: are we going by the stated rules or is it something personal? Please read my comments carefully and do not confuse facts. My mention of the national tour had no link with the AllMusic database. Those are two independent notings. To restate my arugument in favour of the artist : she qualifies on the basis of clause 4 of the Criteria for Musicians and Ensembles which states "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country". The national tour which I mentioned has been widely covered by various magazines, radio stations, online music sites, etc. AmLucki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

- - - Comment. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. When you said she qualified on the basis of #4 (non-trivial coverage of her tour) while citing only to Allmusic.com, I assumed that that was the coverage you meant. If there was significant coverage of Suai on this tour (not just "the" tour) - interviews of her, human interest articles about her growing up & discovering music, that kind of thing - then by all means, link to it. Indeed you *need* to link to it. (I briefly searched for articles about that tour and found mostly local newspaper and periodical blurbs announcing or briefly describing it (i.e. "trivial" coverage); and those that said anything further focused on Suai's touring partners rather than on her.) JohnInDC (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. لenna vecia 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No landslide, but the weight of argument (User:Peter cohen's analysis is particularly convincing) and consensus favors deletion.--Kubigula (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bamping

Insufficient notability. Previous afds have established that members of orchestras (which in themselves may be notable) are not necessarily appropriate subjects, unless they perform regularly as soloists as established by independent reviews. Richard Bamping appears in some local Hong Kong publicity media, but I can't find anything substantial. I'd be happy to change my opinion if bona fide reviews can be found and the article improved to push this over the bar. Klein zach 02:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the points raised by Kleinzach. Eusebeus (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:MUSICBIO, criterion 6 - HKPO is a notable orchestra and has certainly had notable conductors. ukexpat (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Bamping performs as a soloist with HKPO, his name appears also in the programs of chamber recitals and he has performed in Northern America, Japan and Europe. I didn't find any detailed reviews of his playing, any recordings, I admit. However, I think that Wikipedia article may be useful for the readers. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My vote annuled per discussion here --Vejvančický (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem is that he doesn't appear to meet any of the Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. Item 1 is the relevant section here, which specifically excludes "reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble". --Klein zach 23:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the interview in HK Magazine, which is an independent general-interest publication, not "publicity media" (by which I assume the nominator means press release reprints?) and ukexpat's comment. cab (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Do correct me if I am wrong, but I think the HK Magazine is a free handout classified mag available in HK bars etc. In any case, Criteria 1 (see above) states that the person should be the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" (my emphasis). --Klein zach 00:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main point for WP:RS and WP:N is editorial oversight, not cover price or venue of distribution. Normally I'd agree with you and put a plain old "Delete" for a guy with only one non-trivial source about him, but given that he also may marginally meet one subcriterion of a subject-specific notability guideline, it tips the balance, at least for me. Cheers, cab (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would expect a notable contemporary classical musician to have a recording legacy that would be reviewed in Gramophone (magazine). I've searched their reviews database and archive and found no mention of him. Similarly, I would expect to see a live performance record that mentions notable venues by name and that features reviews in more than local magazines but in the mainstream press. I see no indication of such notability.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not quite there yet; insufficient evidence of solo works or pieces. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kelby Shults alleged harrasment incident

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

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

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

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

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

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. لenna vecia 16:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tempo (artist)

Subject does not meet notability standards for musicians. Article claims RIAA gold record status for a recording, but the only sources that mention this are from his own web site, the web site for his latest recording, or other sites that are word-for-word copies of the same material, or a press release (not reliable). Given that the gold-record statord status is dubious at best, I argue that he does not meet musician notability standards. If someone can find independent verification od the gold-record claims, I'll gladly reconsider. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No results for "Tempo" show up in the RIAA database, no idea what orifice they pulled those stats out of. No other sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Speedy as copyvio. Hipocrite (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The copyvio material can be removed and it can be reduced to a stub. I found one source at least, "Rapero Tempo dirige desde la cárcel la producción de su nuevo disco", EFE News Service, 2008-11-24. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Article not in English, I could find no reliable English sources. ⁂ Unlikely repair of copyvio is possible Rotovia (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was in english. Gigs (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite if possible He has an album coming out this month on Sony [68]. Releasing a major label disc while in jail is pretty noteworthy. One track has backing music from the London Symphony (granted, they're a fee-for-hire symphony, but still...). He seems to be much better known in Spanish, but there is no requirement that all source material be in English. Hairhorn (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stub If he's got multiple releases on a major label, then we should err on the side of caution. Gigs (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources and the label doesn't appear notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sony isn't notable? Hairhorn (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per source searches above showing no relevant results nor source support for claims of gold album. factor in the copyvio, nad youv'e got non-notable nothing. ThuranX (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason to discount sources that are not in English? Here is the EFE article to which I referred, reprinted in Billboard. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily, but no sources in English makes it very difficult to verify for English Wikipedia. Besides, this is apparently the only relevant source so far. Needs more. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know; it's just that editors in this discussion continued to claim there were "no sources" even after I provided that source. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did some more searching around. Rolling Stone has taken note of the "Free Tempo" campaign. And here and here are two more Spanish-language sources. It appears there is enough verifiable material that can be put together into a reasonably well-sourced article, if a Spanish-speaking editor could help out. I would recommend keep per WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Mawkes

Subject of the article doesn't meet WP:BIO. A single appearance on a television show in 2007 doesn't confer substantial notability or provide enough references for a useful biographical article. Nathan^T 16:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BIO shirulashem (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was a high ranking cop and was relevant to a few other articles I wrote at the time. I won't cry into my soup if people want to scrap it. --rakkar (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete many high ranking police officers are on TV at some point during their career. Now if he created a major controversy with his words, that might be notable, but as the article stands now, delete.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin D. Skelton

This article has many problems:

It is orphaned; no articles link to it.
It has weak sources. The first source apparently just describes his education, and the second seems to be a self-source.
It is a possible autobiography. The primary author is User:Voxaeterna; note that the article says, "He is artistic director of the musical collective Vox Æterna, which he founded in 1999". Several other edits were made anonymously by IP addresses in the range 87.65.xxx.xxx, which suggests they might all have been the same person. All remaining edits are tag-adding, category-adding, or bot edits.
There is no strong assertion of notability. This article reads like a resume; it lists Mr. Skelton's education, the various ensembles he has performed with, the various positions he has held, and a bit about his teaching, but I'm not sure I understand why he is especially notable. Looking through the list of notability criteria for musicians and ensembles, I see that a musician is notable if he "has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles"—Mr. Skelton might meet this one, perhaps.
There has been no significant work done on this article since 2007.

This article might be keepable if these issues are cleared up; I'm listing it here to try to get something done, since it's been stagnant for two years. —Bkell (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being an orphan has nothing to do with valid deletion reasons. A salient indicator, perhaps, but nothing to worry about. After all, it can only be fixed through editing something else while the article remains unchanged. NVO (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right. I listed that fact because it suggests that Mr. Skelton is not notable enough to be mentioned or linked elsewhere in Wikipedia. It in itself is not reason for deletion, but it complements my other bullet points, which should be taken as a whole. —Bkell (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Seems to be a talented working musician and scholar. As such, it would not be surprising to find sufficient evidence to satisfy notability, but I do not see it so far. Perhaps others more informed about his specialty can search for additional sources and comment. Any reviews? Edison (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and expand/improve. And add autobiography tag for now. - Vartanza (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, being an orphan and possible autobiography and not having been worked on recently have no relevance to a deletion discussion. Including those in the nomination can only serve to distract from the real issues of notability and sources. There seem to be two claims of possible notability in the article. First that the subject has "had great success internationally in numerous festivals and competitions". For that to hold water we need to know which festivals and competitions - even his own web site doesn't list them, and I can find no reports of any such success from Google News archive searches for "Kevin D. Skelton"[69] or "Kevin Skelton".[70]. Only five of those hits mention this Kevin Skelton, and in no case is there even a sentence about him - they are simply mentions in cast lists.[71][72][73][74][75] The other claim of notability is as a published scholar. He appears not to have held any position at an academic intitution, and, of the two published articles listed, one is known to Google Scholar,[76] with just three citations listed. This is nowhere near the level of WP:PROF. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although a fair case can be presented for that the person has verifiably fought in a boxing match, and that that there is one source which covers the person (this one) beyond mere result tables, the consensus still appears to be against keeping the article. The talk here about the subject also appears to be largely limited to internet memes and Youtube videos, which is a fairly weak foundation for basing an article. The boxing match was played in a school gym, and a further reasonable argument for deletion has been presented that the claims of being a professional boxer due to fighting and losing a single match, are little more than claims. Since the latter view has a rather large majority behind it, and present quite strong arguments, I belive that there is a rough consensus for deletion in this case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Zelenoff

Reason Lordvolton (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC) I stumbled upon a link to the Charlie Zelenoff article on the Kimbo Slice page. A quick perusal of the discussion page and I saw that another user had already highlighted the issues. I've removed the link from the Kimbo Slice article. This appears to be a hoax page.[reply]

Even if he did lose a fight to someone 1-13 (1 win 13 losses) it's not relevant.

Lordvolton (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, what made you think it was a hoax?--Vintagekits (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment, if you had read WP:ATHLETE you would have seen that People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport pass the notability criteria. As Zelenoff has had a pro fight (and another) on the way then he passes that criteria. He is notable not for his achievement but almost for his lack of it. A quick Google search would have satisfied that.--Vintagekits (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Zelenoff is a bit of an internet meme in boxing circles. Just Google him. I vote keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.142.128 (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~Delete - WP:ATHLETE doesn't work for most combat sports (boxing/MMA) because the status of being a "professional" in those sports is not equal to being a professional in say the NFL. While there's lots of talk about Zelenoff on forums etc, I didn't see much of significant coverage in reliable sources (WP:GNG), but as I'm sure some exists I'll go ~~weak delete~~. --aktsu ^(t / c) 08:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll go "delete" and rather change it depending on if some significant coverage turns up. --aktsu ^(t / c) 08:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually boxing and MMA are completely different in terms of their set up and structure - The vast majority of boxers fight as amateurs and less than 10% ever make it professional.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did Zelenoff have any amateur fight though? I get the impression that, while not smart if you want to have a legitimate career, it certainly possible to go straight to pro meaning we have quite the shortcut to be eligible for an article (maybe I should go get beat up to get my own article as well?). --aktsu ^(t / c) 09:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look forward to your debut and I'll be sure to get the PPV! ;) --Vintagekits (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, simply having one professional fight passes WP:ATHLETE much like playing one game for a soccer team. However, Zelenoff is now coming up for is second fight.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATHLETE: "[...] conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Is there any "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to show notability beside that (IMO faulty) criteria? --aktsu ^(t / c) 09:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BoxRec is a pretty reliable source and he shows up on a number of their pages.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that's about it. No mentions in news articles, no articles about him (that I could find; the one in the article does not come off as a reliable source), nothing. I don't think being listed at BoxRec equals the significant coverage in multiple sources WP:BIO calls for (which is what we should be looking for). --aktsu ^(t / c) 13:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although we dont count forum "chatter" here - a quicl Google search will tell you that this guy aint just your usual novice. He has a profile on BoxRec as well as Make-A-Fight and there is a full report on him FightFax (if you want to spend the 20 bucks on it) as well as the athletic commision suspension report. There is also article with regards his debut on Boxing Confidential and there was a report of his debut fight that was on Deep South Boxing which is reproduced on his Boxrec profile. Without crystal balling this, I am sure there will be more articles over the next month with his next fight coming up.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. One sanctioned fight held in a middle-school gym + pissing off people by smacktalking online does not equal notable in my book. Not that my opinion by itself really matter, but the boxing-media seems to agree by not covering him at all. --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. However, it reminds me of the discussions with regards the Kimbo Slice article that used to rage prior to his fight with Mercer. Obviously Zelenoff is a comedy act imo but its not necessarily the quality of the athelete that makes them notable sometimes its the lack of quality - e.g. Eddie the Eagle and Eric the Eel.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current pro fighter, even if a dreadful one and internet meme. There is quite a bit of chatter about about him in boxing circles and Youtube. His method of self promotion might well become the norm for more boxers in the future too so reference back to him is likely to be made for years. --LiamE (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's not a professional fighter. He fought at an Arkansas middle school. Are the spoofers making comments on this article? It needs to be deleted. The whole point of this article is to make a mockery of Wikipedia and link to notable fighters.

Here is a link to the fight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlxtDLPKnDA

The comments beneath it are interesting, "Just to let you guys know, you have been scammed for the last year. charlie zelenoff was a student at UCLA doing comedy for a class he was taking. i would say he was pretty successful after the first 3 months with the height of his popularity. now he does it to make a name for himself and to make money on the side. his goal is satire and to become an internet legend. charlie planned to quit before the fight started. his real name aint even charlie zelenoff. folks he is acting."

I guess we're not cooperating? I highly doubt this fight was sanctioned, but even it were he's not notable for anything other than trying and failing at being an internet legend. We're left deleting his spoof articles about himself and links on the Kimbo Slice page. We probably need to figure out which account he's using. Lordvolton (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, without getting into the merits or demerits of the points made above I would just like to point out that this delete !vote is made by the nominator of the AfD, just so as to avoid any double counting.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single fight does not qualify as competing "at the fully professional level of a sport" as per WP:Athlete, in my opinion. Will he be notable in the future? Maybe, but that's WP:Speculation. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, actually its does qualify as competing "at the fully professional level of a sport" as per WP:Athlete. Zelenoff holds a porfessional licence which was issued by the Athletic Commision in the State of Arkansas. Not that he needs it but he is also scheduled to have his second fight, this is not WP:Speculation and this fight has been registered with the state commision and is listed on BoxRec.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is a precident set out for similar individuals involved in sporting activity that this type of individual passes WP:ATHLETE. See the recent AfD for Christopher Roberto Ortega. Here is an inidividual who has played just a portion of a single play of soccer and this was deemed to have passed WP:ATHELTE. I would suggest that unless there is a breakdown for every sport with regards what is and what isnt or what does and what doesnt pass the line then WP:ATHELTE stands. Does a guy that has just driven 1 F1 race pass? does a pro golfer that is on the European tour but has never won a tournament pass? etc etc. Zelenoff is an idiot in my eyes and a pretty embarrassing one as well but that is part of his notability. He has qualified for a pro licence and has competed as a pro - that in my eyes crosses the line.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is only "notable" among the editors of Wikipedia who must put up with his antics. In his attempt to become an "internet sensation" he's wasted a lot of our time. He needs to stop wasting our time and invest those energies in becoming notable. A spoof fight that didn't even last a single round isn't going to be enough. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry who creates a Youtube page with something marginally amusing is as notable as the alias Charlie Zelenoff. Thankfully most of them don't resort to blatant self promotion on Wikipedia to achieve their goals. Lordvolton (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, now you are just ranting, which doesnt suprise me to be honest as in my opinion you havent come up with anything logical yet. To my knowledge Zelenoff has never edited wikipedia so I dont understand your comment saying "He is only "notable" among the editors of Wikipedia who must put up with his antics". Also please explain what you mean by a "spoof fight" - are you saying it didnt happen? are you saying the state athletic commision didnt sanction it? are you saying Slug Out didnt promote it? are you saying the official record of the fight on BoxRec and Fight Fax is a fake? I am no fan of Zelenoff but I am intrigued by the guy and his story, but that doesnt mean he is a fake, he is very much for real.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TreyGeek. Willking1979 (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Being a delusional / troll meme for a long period of time. He has gained quite a status challenging Deontay Wilder and others. – Wayfarer (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC) --[reply]

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Arvind Palat

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Alleged books published are one that is just a conference publication (not a real book) and one without even an ISBN. Was prodded seven days ago by someone else with the rationale "no real notability shown, no independent references", prod was removed at end of that period by an account known for deprodded masses of articles without reason. DreamGuy (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable academic autobiography. Hairhorn (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Weak keep, see below Only one significant books from an academic publisher; Capitalist restructuring ...; is in over 400 WorldCat libraries, I Pacific-asia ... however is just a conference proceedings volume edited by him, not written in over 200. WorldCat shows about 20 peer-reviewed articles as well. [77]. Probably not yet quite notable. DGG (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Per WP:Academic Criteria 5; he is the Sociology Department Chair at Binghamton Univ -SUNY. This should auto qualify even in the absence of the lack of references for the book? -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Middle management administrative position is not adequate for this category. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed, chairing a department is not indicative of notability; the chair is rarely even the most notable member of the department. Hairhorn (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- changed to Weak keep Actually, chair of a department at a research university is a position of prestige within a subject, and not a routine administrative position. I see he is now full professor there; the article is substantially out of date, as is the cv linked to from that article. I was judging from that when I made my previous comment. DGG (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Questions? is Binghamton University "a major institution of higher education and research."? What makes a "named/personal chair appointment"? Notability seems to hang on the answers to these questions which have probably been answered somewhere. Anyone know where? Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding prestige and chairs: chairing a department is a management position in a university, there is some prestige involved, but it is the same sort of prestige bestowed on anyone who rises management ranks in a corporation: (the path is roughtly professor -> chair -> dean -> principal/president.) But, this is not the same kind of prestige that's relevant here: being well known in your field, having many published works that are cited by others in your field and so on. The further along you are towards dean or principal, the further away you are from the research community in your field. Of the best known people in my field, almost none are chairs: being chair takes away time from research, and many people consider it a pain in the ass. (Also, don't confuse "research chair", which does have some academic prestige, with "department chair".) Hairhorn (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the above comments of Hairhorn as an accurate description of the academic world of research. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to be making the impact required to pass WP:PROF #1, and no evidence of passing the other criteria either. One edited volume, one book, and a bunch of papers, none of which appears to be particularly highly cited, adds up to an academic record that does not appear to be one of any great prominence. As Hairhorn and Xxanthippe aptly describe, chairing a department is also not unusual and explicitly not part of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus not to have a separate article, but proposed merge target seems to already have sufficient coverage without merging material from here. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starshine Roshell

Clear COI-violating BLP fails WP:AUTHOR -- only source given mentions this person in a passing way (mentioned she wore an evening gown at a union function in a gossip column that quickly moved onto other things). Keep Your Skirt On is only in three libraries as far as I can tell from WorldCat, failing standalone book notability guidelines. Real-Life Royalty is in some libraries, but certainly not an important body of work to give author a Wikipedia article, etc. per our standards. Slight argument to be made that the latter book might barely meet standards for an article on its own -- it at least meets some of the initial criteria instead of immediately failing, like the former book, but it looks like it'd be an uphill battle for even that. DreamGuy (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC) DreamGuy (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete She seems moderately prolific as an author and columnist, but I don't see any evidence of her works being cited, receiving any major notice, commentary. I would be convinced to keep if someone could turn up reliable, independent sources written about her, as opposed to written by her. I've been unable to find that. The only blurbs written about her that I find are in the context of promoting or introducing her column or books, and are thus not independent. Cazort (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Multiple books, at least one in a number of libraries, seems to squeak by...COI is not relevant, just tacky - Vartanza (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Fails notability, books fail notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotovia (talk • contribs) 00:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Santa Barbara News-Press controversy, not notable but significant in that context, metnioned a couple of times in that article. Drawn Some (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Relevant info already in Santa Barbara News-Press controversy. لenna vecia 15:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. لenna vecia 15:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isa Bagci

Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league or cup competition. Contested PROD. Bully Wee (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Passes WP:ATHLETE. Subject is a fully professional footballer who plays in the Scottish Premier League, which is at the top level of the Scottish football league system — above the Scottish Football League. Varbas (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has been blocked as sock of banned User:Azviz now. DreamGuy (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He does not pass WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a game in the Scottish Premier League! Bully Wee (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user was determined to be using multiple accounts during a sockpuppet investigation of a user banned for a string of socks used in AFDs to give faulty reasons to keep articles. Not sure why he isn't blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the investigation found that User:Varbas was not guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. Attacking me personally is not useful to this discussion. Varbas (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, the investigation found that you were using multiple accounts, and made a ruling that it was possible that the account was, in fact, being used by the banned editor but that not enough info was in yet. This is not the same as a finding of "not guilty". Misrepresenting sockpuppet investigation results with fake legalese to try to sound vindicated when you are not is highly deceptive... and, curiously, a tactic that the banned editor had also used in the past. DreamGuy (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal comments attacking me are not helpful to this discussion. Please abide by your Wikipedia:Editing restrictions that have been placed on you by the Arbitration Committee. Varbas (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My editing restrictions do not in any way prohibit me from making the closing admin aware of potentially invalid !votes, and accurately pointing out that you are misrepresenting facts is not a personal attack. The proper way to avoid having people point out misbehavior is to not misbehave in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Please explain how your WP:BF allegations make my "vote" invalid. Varbas (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banned users do not get to vote, so your votes are, as I said, "potentially invalid !votes", as you are currently under investigation. That's not bad faith, that's a simple fact. The closing admin should be aware of it, per AFD standards. DreamGuy (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails our standards for athletes in general and specifically for his field of play. DreamGuy (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 22:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To be a notable athlete you have to not just be on a team, but make an actual appearance in a regular game. That it takes actual play is I think generally agreed, and makes sense too , as an analogy will all other lines of endeavor. Notability is doing something notable, not just preparing to. DGG (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, he has never played for the Rangers first team. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete, the lad has yet to appear for the Gers; when he does, the page came be re-created. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; not enough independent subject coverage for WP:N, fails WP:ATHLETE in never having played. Recreate if and when --ClubOranje^T 09:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noel McCullagh

Non-notable candidate for an election Passportguy (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what exactly does non-notable mean? Barentsz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Since it is a person, the implication is that sufficient in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources doesn't exist to satisfy WP:BIO but there are some other ways of meeting notability requirements. Drawn Some (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a selection of the EU-wide articles on this chap and also one from Russia. Does this qualify as notable and how/when does the notice above the page be permitted to take down (or is that something adm do themselves?) not quite sure: love to learn! Barentsz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

See here for more info: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Generally articles stay up for a week to allow time for discussion unless there is obvious consensus on the outcome. During that time the article may be edited and improved. The outcome is based on the merit of the arguments, not by a vote. At the end of the week the discussion will be reviewed and the case closed or re-listed for more discussion. I'll add links at your talk page to important information if it isn't there already. Drawn Some (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone: drawn some and Passportguy. Hey> could you help me out? I'm searching for the function to organise the external links and the references. References: how do I link the text to the references below (like footnoting for a term paper)... ? I can see that there is a function as someone wrote the French version and they have done it on that version. where can I locate the instructions for that? Thanks very much ! Barentsz (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be what you are looking for: Wikipedia:Cite#Inline citations. Don't worry so much about the formatting though, wait until after this deletion discussion because if the article is not deleted there are editors who like to format references. Drawn Some (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable history, verified by indpendant sources. Some cleaning up needed Rotovia (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It actually needs more than just some cleaning up. It is hard to understand what the article is all about. However the person seems to be notable based on news coverage.Borock (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nom and comments support delete Nja²⁴⁷ 07:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Stepankovskaya

Person whose claim to fame is to have been "Miss Krasnodar". Lost another pageant and is a contestant in third contest. But as she hasn't won a major prize, I'd say she does not pass the notability threshhold. Passportguy (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think. I'm not sure how to gauge the notability for pageant girls, but if it's similar to athletes, competing in the Miss Russia pageant is probably worth something, especially coming in second. Representing Russia in a world pageant is surely notable (Olympics of pageantry), of course it isn't until December. لenna vecia 04:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the problem with the Olympics comparision is that there are a large number of competing "world" pagentries, so the level of lnotability is not comparable to that of being an olympian. Passportguy (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given this more consideration and considered Passportguy's point, she's marginally notable at best, but without a guideline on what determines notability for pageant girls, I'm going to have to lean to delete. Considering also that such competitions, or participation in them, rarely leads to significant coverage in reliable sources, there is no article to write here. لenna vecia 15:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfried Ellmer

While this is an intesting factoid, I cannot find any further trace of notablity of this person, nor do I have any indication that his "concrete submarine" ever made it into mass production. Passportguy (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sigh. If this were the trivia wiki, this might fit. It isn't, so it doesn't. I suspect advertising.Tyrenon (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial sentence, not a biography, and does not establish notability. لenna vecia 19:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Cornman

A championship is claimed, thus making this not A7 eligible. But the championship itself must be notable, and this one just not appear so to me. And absolutely nothing else in the article shows notability, IMHO. TexasAndroid (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the only reasonable notability claim is gold medal in a contest without wikipedia article, hence of unknown notability. Mukadderat (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mukadderat. Competition is not-notable, thus winning it does not lend to notability. Reads more like a mini-resume. لenna vecia 19:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David V. Johnson

A7 CSD was declined, saying notability is asserted. I'm sorry, but I just do not see how this meets notability requirements. TexasAndroid (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has gotten awards. You can debate whether or not the awards are notable, though. --I dream of horses (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The reason I declined this speedy (as a non-admin) is that the subject's notability is asserted by the awards he won, one of which looks pretty big to me. Whether these claims are dubious or the awards are not notable is another matter. Bottom line, the claims have been made, and that alone is enough for an article to get past Speedy Deletion. It is here at AfD that we can evaluate whether these claims can be substantiated, not at SD. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are quite a lot of news stories about his development activities, though it will take careful handling. See [78] . thje present article is a piece of PR fluff, but it need not be. the Entrepreneur of the Year award was in 96 [79], but I havent found it yet. DGG (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The source listed for the award is a press release from prwire.com, which isn't considered a reliable source. I didn't find any reliable sources in a Google search either - it's all sites related to his business, which aren't considered reliable. Without 2nd party sources, it doesn't look to me like the award is notable. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable (see awards section) Rirunmot (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Rundown of the awards:

Urban Land Institute Award for Excellence - 17 Google hits all either trivial mentions or from Johnson's own business sites. The only "news" hit is a press release, which isn't reliable or 2nd party per WP:RS.
Entrepreneur of the Year from USA Today, again only 10 Google hits, all from Johnson's own business sites, and nothing from Google news, not even from USA Today.
Environmentalist of the Year, Michigan Chamber of Commerce 3 hits, all from Johnson's business sites, no news hits.
Developer of the Year, Building Industry Association - 2 Google hits from Johnson's businesses, 1 news hit, unfortunately one would have to pay to see it, but it seems like a passing mention - the title is simply "People on the Move" - and at any rate it doesn't add up to significant coverage in reliable independent sources.
Distinguished Community Leader, Bloomfield Hills Rotary Club 3 hits, all from Johnson's business sites; no news hits.

I don't see any independent evidence that attests to the notability, or even the existence in some cases, of these "awards" - it's all from primary sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Possibly self-promotional. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keep arguments based on awards hold no water per Dawn Bard. (Nice work.) Notability not established, merely a puffed up and apparently fabricated promotional piece. لenna vecia 15:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It appears that the Entrepreneur of the Year award was from Ernst & Young, not USA today [80]. From what I can tell, he won the regional version of the award and was a finalist (but not winner) of the national version. –Megaboz (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sticking with my delete vote, but thank you for the clarification. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – After looking into this further, I believe his listed awards to be legitimate, but I'm not convinced they are significant enough for him to meet the notability guideline. There are many reliable sources which mention him, but the coverage is typically focused on the actions of his companies and not specifically on him. For instance, the Urban Land Institute Award for Excellence appears to have been given to the Victor International Corporation and not to an individual [81]. I was unable to find any reliable sources which have him as the main subject of their coverage. –Megaboz (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The confirmed fellowships and endowments meet the significant awards and honors criterion of WP:CREATIVE. Because the article received references late in the debate, later comments have been given more weight. Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Gallagher

Delete Originally prodded (by someone else) with explanation: Original research. Statement under References reads, "All information graciously provided through interviews with Ms. Gallagher. All information has been reviewed and updated as of (December 16, 2008). The link below was used to contact Ms. Gallagher and she submitted the information used in this page" Was deprodded by a serial deprodder with claim notable per WP:CREATIVE -- I see nothing in WP:CREATIVE that would apply to this person, as she fails every point. No independent reliable sources to establish notability for a full article, and the content of article was clearly generated to promote this person's work (until recently the content included: maryharden@hardencurtis.com. For information regarding performance rights, contact her representative, Mary Harden. (at end of line quoted above with the original research / text prepared by subject of article). Just looks like a page being used as a resume for someone who doesn't meet our requirements. DreamGuy (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who prodded this lady. I would suggest deleting the article as Original Research. A note has been placed on the Talk Page of the writer, who has submitted nothing else to WP. This seems to be a blatant case to me. If it is rewritten and resubmitted, then a new decision could be made. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This should be speedy deleted ASAP for myriad reasons, as noted above. Wikipedia is not for getting business or having your resume circulated. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this spamvertising. The absence of reliable sources that discuss the subject of a BLP in any depth that might help establish notability and allow for verification of claims made is usually strong grounds for deletion.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a clearly notable play writer. Easily passes WP:CREATIVE. Article needs to be cleaned-up. Not deleted. Varbas (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This account was blocked as a sock of a banned used, so invalid vote. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note This account was determined to be a sockpuppet account while a banned editor (who abused AFD votes by making false claims about notability and using multiple accounts to stuff votes) was being investigated. Not sure why this account remains unblocked. DreamGuy (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The investigation found that User:Varbas was not guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. Attacking me personally is not useful to this discussion. Please abide by your Wikipedia:Editing restrictions that have been placed on you by the Arbitration Committee. Varbas (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are still making that false claim even after having been told that nobody ever said you were "not guilty" and they instead at that time ruled that it was quite possible that you were the banned editor but that they didn't have enough info at that time to block you. And of course you know that you are currently still under an open investigation, especially after your recent behavior. Please do not try to deceive people by making highly deceptive statements about what the sockpuppet investigation. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I count four Delete votes (one of those Speedy) to one Keep vote (by a questionable account). Normally that would be a pretty clear consensus already reached. DreamGuy (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:N and WP:BIO. Reads like a rèsumè. Orginal research. Advertisement. Edison (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep because the subject is probably in fact notable; the publication record can be shown [82] , and if the plays can be shown to have been produced where the article claims, she's notable as having written them. COI as usual makes for a very bad article, but the subject can be notable nonetheless. Have either of the two people saying delete thought to look for sources? DGG (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "two people saying delete"? Five people have said delete. And this AFD should have been closed long ago as having clear consensus, and it still does. Mere existence of plays doesn't mean that they are notable or that she is ntoable by extension. We need good reliable coverage to demonstrate that, which isn't there. DreamGuy (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain how 5 - 3 is "clear" consensus? Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, at the time of the comment the vote was 5-2. However, he noted "long ago" which suggests, when coupled with his response to relisting, that he was referring to the 4-1 prior to relist, a clear consensus when one weighs the fact that one gives reason for speedy deletion and the sole keep has been determined to be a sockpuppet. لenna vecia 19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5-2 (discounting sockpuppet vote) is a clear consensus. 6-2 now even more so. DreamGuy (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. This just needs a cleanup. Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - autobiography that fails to establish notability Keep, I found a reliable source for the Guggenheim Fellowship. لenna vecia 19:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and expand. If this is true: "Guggenheim Fellowship, a Rockefeller Fellowship, the Susan Smith Blackburn Prize, the Rosenthal Prize, the Writers Guild Award, and three fellowships from the National Endowment for the Arts" then she is a major playwright. Certainly, she's had shows at major regional theaters....there must be reviews. I would go so far as to say that all winners of the Susan Smith Blackburn Prize are inherently notable. Autobiography is tacky, but does not undermine notability - Vartanza (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. chaser (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edsel Ford Fong

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Edsel Ford Fong

Delete: Non-notable individual despite voluminous cruft and refs. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Local notable character who gained enough notoriety to be sourced in several articles and portrayed in Tales of the City as an essential piece of San Francisco. Eauhomme (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell he is basically a foul-mouthed, surly waiter. I wish him well, but not on Wikipedia. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In New York, Jerry Seinfeld would have called him the Soup Nazi. Eauhomme (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eauhomme. Being able to achieve any kind of celebrity as a waiter, if attested by reliable sources, is itself a sign of notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps trimming excess cruft. Ultimately, I think an article on Sam Wo Restaurant should be created (as it is a spot that has cultural/historical and literary significance in San Francisco) and the article Edsel Ford Fong should probably be merged into it (Edsel's notability is completely intertwined with his job at Sam Wo). Peter G Werner (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is more notable? Edsel Ford Fong or Sam Wo Restaurant? (and I ask this as someone who is unsure of the answer, not being a resident of SF and having only heard of Fong). Eauhomme (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Wo is more notable – Kenneth Rexroth mentions it as early as the 1930s, and its still fairly well-known today. There was a clip on the Conan O'Brian show about it a couple years ago. These cultural references pre- and post-date Edsel Ford Fong. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into an article on the Sam Wo Restaurant. Mr. Fong is not particularly notable except in the context of the restaurant, which he was in some sense a part of. The restaurant is notable on its own.Tyrenon (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Covered in RS. لenna vecia 18:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because you can slip someone past criteria doesn't mean we need an article on them. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you know what? I vote to delete a lot of non-notable BLPs for useless nobodys. This guy is A. Dead. B. Well-covered by fairly major publications (and over a period of a while) and is weirdly, oddly, uniquely famous for being a horrible, horrible waiter. C. Not likely to attract the sort of useless fancreeps that make so many articles unmaintanable. In an encyclopedia full of badly written, unsourced useless garbage that i can't get deleted because of the ARS-bots, here's a piece of well-written, well-sourced, useless americana. Keep.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason as Bali ultimate's reason B. Revelian (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Marlantes

Contested prod. Novelist with no assertion of notability, other than the fact he has a book available on Amazon. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has a lot of awards and honors, I don't know if any of them are considered important enough to satisfy WP:BIO or not, maybe the sum of them are. Also follow this link: http://www.elleonliteraryarts.org/authors.php from the article and there is a whole list of authors and I am betting more or all of them have articles and that some of them may not be notable. Drawn Some (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know. The opening sentence states that he is best known as a writer, but his awards were honors related to his military service. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Generally, only recipients of the highest military award for valour (e.g. Medal of Honor, Victoria Cross) are inherently notable. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems like his work has won significant critical attention. It has won acclaim from well known people such as Jon Stallworthy, the editor of The Oxford Book of War Poetry [83] and is now showing up in newspapers such as the Oregonian [84]and the SF gate Rainman321 (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One published book, in almost no libraries so far. Navy cross is second level, and while it might possibly give an indication of notability, it would need more information. The WP article is a close paraphrase of the bio at ellon Books. The book and author may become notable, but it is not yet. Dunin's review is not a review but an announcement of a reading, and blurbs from other authors are not taken seriously as reliable. If Stallworthy is actually right, there will be sources. No prejudice against recreation when that happens. DGG (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. (How often is that said without sarcasm? ;)). لenna vecia 19:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Listen Campaign. MBisanz ^talk 12:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Hollingsworth

I don't believe this individual meets the notability guidelines for inclusion. In the article, all the sources used appear to be sources about the Mandela concert this person organized, not about the person himself; of the ones that I can access from here, none of them even mention his name. Google Web and Google News searches return no relevant results (the web search gets lots of social networking sites and a blog from some other guy who has the same name); Google Books search gets a couple, but they all seem to just be passing mention, and again they are about the concert rather than Hollingsworth himself (and many of the other results are a different Tony Hollingsworth, who appears to be a meteorologist or something). The original versions of this article read like a CV, and the current version doesn't seem to have any noteworthy content about Hollingsworth; I don't see there ever being a need for this article that can't be filled by putting this information on the Mandela concert article itself. Nothing else the individual has done seems to generated any significant third-party attention (apart from possibly the Jobs for a Change thing, which is cited to a book that I can't access right now; nevertheless, again, all the content about that could be merged into its respective article, rather than kept here). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I find coverage with regard to the listen campaign: [85], as well as some other coverage: [86], including discussion of some rather interesting things, like censorship. He seems very solidly notable to me. Cazort (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about this some more and I think it might be better to delete all problematic content and then Merge/Redirect into Listen Campaign. You are right that most of the sources being about the event. And that page needs cleanup. There is some interesting content that belongs somewhere. Cazort (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your searches turned up some stuff I hadn't seen before; particularly, this one might help somewhat with notability (since it seems to be, at first glance, about what he actually did, rather than just being about the event and mentioning that he organized it). That being said, though, I do agree there's still a general problem with most of the sources being about the events rather than him... I guess I'll just let this afd run and see what others think. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just my modest opinion, great events do not happen on thir own. Takes a lot of work and effort by somebody. This person seems to be one of the behind the scenes folks who makes it happen. Now, seeing the list of the events and their nature, I would almost say weak keep and improve a lot. Organizing good causes. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of the original piece, I accept many of the criticism you have made about this entry. But I do think Hollingsworth is a notable person, by virtue of the fact that he has produced some notable concerts. He is no less notable if the references to him are mainly references to the concerts. Surely, it is right for Wikipedia to carry an entry on such a person, bringing together the various concerts. With reference to a dialogue between you and a contributor (Wireless1917), you imply Hollingsworth was merely the organiser of concerts. It is also important that several of the concerts were organised as television programmes (which require different criteria), and sold to broadcasters around the world – no mean feat. Hollingsworth was responsible for this. The Mandela 70th Birthday Tribute would not have had anywhere near as much effect without the widespread television coverage – which in turn partly depended on bringing in a large number of top artists. Rogers Waters threatened to pull out of The Wall – Live in Berlin because he, Waters, and the people he had appointed had failed to bring in the artists. Hollingsworth, who was already acting as producer (itself no mean job for such an event), took over and the event was almost immediately resurrected.Peter Elman (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the policies WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability, Wikipedia doesn´t care how great of a job he did or how difficult the work was, but only what is said in and can be verified through reliable sources (ie, what has received significant coverage). For instance, when I was little I climbed the most ridiculously high tree on my street, and I guarantee you it was really difficult and when I got to the top it was really awesome. But that doesn´t mean I deserve a Wikipedia article because I did such a great job. --rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect into Listen Campaign all relevant info and delete the rest. He's not the subject of coverage, rather he's mentioned. لenna vecia 15:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. لenna vecia 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Millis

The author (and primary editor) is identified as Dmillis, rendering this as an autobiography with slight self-promotion. Digging for news articles about this person revealed one false positive and nothing else. Alexius08 (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try Google Books and Google Scholar instead. I found several books and a patent. Notability is still uncertain, though: the patent is obscure and many of the books appear to be self-published. Hairhorn (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found links on Google Books and Scholar, but I've yet to find evidence they're about the same person... - Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Niteshift36 (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Reads like an autobiography, notability issues, as well as likely COI. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Association with a few notable people and inventing a couple of patent-worthy inventions is not the same as notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Living people proposed deletions

Morley Vernon King (via WP:PROD on 30 December 2008)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamau Kambon (2nd nomination)

^ http://www.staump.com/reviews/32

[1] ttp://www.staump.com/reviews/32

[1]