User talk:206.174.139.40 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:08, 13 October 2008

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 keep. whether or not to merge him with his books is an editorial decision that doesn't require continued AfD discussion. There's clearly no-consensus to delete. TravellingCari 12:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark W. Smith

Started by an IP in 2004. No assertation of notablity and no sources (aside from his own book). A google search for "Mark W. Smith" turns up 19,000 of mostly unrelevant hits. He has two books (2004, 2006) of unknown importance. Also up for deletion is his 2004 book Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, which doesn't have a single source either.

Redirects: Disrobed: The New Battle Plan to Break the Left's Stranglehold on the Courts, The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, and Mark W. smith.We66er (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions, the list of Literature-related deletion discussions, the list of Authors-related deletion discussions, the list of Living people-related deletion discussions, list of Politics-related deletion discussions, and the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 04:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn lawyer with one book. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, and both articles seem to be written to promote his book. Redddogg (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has more Notes than votes. RMHED (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep His book - Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy was a New York Times bestseller [1] and therefore meets WP:BK. As for the article on Mark W. Smith, he is notable under WP:CREATIVE, bullets 3 and 4 as well as meeting the basic criteria at WP:BIO for notability. For the third and fourth bullet points, his book was a New York Times bestseller. For the basic criteria, he "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." He has been interviewed on CNN [2], Fox News[3] (both about subjects other than his books), by the CPAC director at Human Events [4], is described as a "prominent free-market conservative" by the National Journal [5], --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Philosopher. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per the reasons given by Philosopher. JasonDUIUC (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- because of the points raised by Philosopher. Reyk _YO! 01:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--but boy that article needs cleaning up. I'll take punctuation, who's got the rest? Drmies (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect both books into Mark W. Smith. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:34, 18 October 2008 (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. MBisanz ^talk 08:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emmalina

The person is not notable. The page lacks WP:NPOV and WP:RS and contains a lot of peacock terms. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article does contain reliable sources, however I'm leaning towards deletion of this article. The article subject has previously requested the article be deleted also [6]. -- Longhair\^talk 00:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She also made comments at her talk page about the article. See here, here and here. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments were made well over 2 years ago and before the article was significantly cleaned up. JRG (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up? She complained back then that editors were invading her privacy by adding such detail as her surname within the article. Her surname is still within the article to this very day, right alongside her middle name. -- Longhair\^talk 07:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well - I didn't do that. The article has been added to by unregistered users since then. We could easily take it out and that would stop the privacy concerns. JRG (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems to have gotten national coverage, e.g. the Washington Post, though not a great deal of it. JJL (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To quote WP:1E "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a news article per se - it's an article talking about some notable early Youtube memes. These were actually put in a single article as a spinoff from the Youtube page (which I did) and which had a much better claim to notability - but people didn't like that - they put it back to the single pages such as this one. JRG (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest all these types of pages be put back into a single article like "Youtube memes" or something. Just have their name, YouTube name and a paragraph of why they were notable on that site. I don't think a whole page should have been created about her. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't object to that. YouTube phenomena is certainly a notable subject for an article. JJL (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to this either - I think it would be a better way to go; while I think the subject of this article is notable there isn't any way we can get a Good Article length article out of this. Is anyone willing to do this? Longhair and the Yellow Monkey certainly aren't when I asked. JRG (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't offer to help because as far as I care, the job is already done. She's listed at List of YouTube celebrities, and that's all it warrants IMHO. Compared to the likes of Tay Zonday, this girl hasn't really done anything notable. -- Longhair\^talk 22:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - was a notable early Youtube meme when she first started blogging (and had one of the highest viewing rates) and there are verifiable sources showing that. She indicated the security concerns posed by Youtube itself when her account got hacked. The page has been fixed up multiple times in response to previous AfDs. The practice of repeatedly nominating for deletion should stop - there have already been 3 AfDs and the page has been kept (the third AfD was overturned). At the very least this should, if deleted, rate a sentence or two on the main page indicating this. Please note also that there are other Youtube memes on Wikipedia who are just as notable as she is and whose pages have been kept previously (and don't quote me OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I am very aware of it). JRG (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. -- Longhair\^talk 07:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is? Why don't I quote policy for the sake of it too? JRG (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, another AfD on this article is not disruption in any way. I said what I said, consensus can and does change. The article has problems, and we're here to discuss those problems, again, just in case consensus has changed and all... -- Longhair\^talk 07:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD was about 2 years ago in which time Wikipedia has changed considerably. I don't see how the page has been kept for so long. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these is basically no possibility of anyone caring about this person in 2-3 years. Transient nn YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason for deletion. Why are you so in favour of deleting everything? The person is a good example of an early Youtube meme who was forced to leave the site because of privacy concerns - that's what the articles indicate. Whether she is notable or not in two years' time is of no concern. JRG (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. Look at all the articles on my watchlist- about 5000 and a whole pile of other stuff. What has this person done that is notable? Nothing. BEing in the newspapers doesn't make one notable, else we will have all manner of car crash victims, random people who opposed a housing development and people who did well in high school competitions and got top marks in Yr 12. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this is different - internet memes are different from a one-off car crash victim. The articles don't just cover a one-off incident. JRG (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She was stalked at YouTube, and she's being stalked here. We aim to do no harm to living subjects, remember? -- Longhair\^talk 07:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason for deletion. The page should be semi-protected and watchlisted to keep out the vandals if that's the case. Other pages get attacked by fans too but they don't get deleted. JRG (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which "other pages" are these? Most likely they are very well known celebrities who have archived global or at least national success. That's why they don't get deleted, they have actually done something notable where millions of people know about their work. Emmalina however, was only notable inside of the YouTube community and for one thing only, a video. Even if the video was a "success", doesn't mean a wikiepedia article should be made for her. There are plenty of people on youtube who have had a "successful" video that don't have wikipedia pages.TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - according to my Factiva search, the October 07 edition of Wireless week magazine says that her videos were in the top ten most watched on the whole of the site over a 2006-7 period. JRG (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more or less per Longhair. Just being at the centre of a mildly successful internet meme (that everyone seems to have more or less forgotten about now) doesn't add up to notability, in my view. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete flash-in-the-pan youtube meme that clearly had no memorability or cultural impact, even on youtube. Subject also wants it deleted, and there is no reason we shouldn't respect her wishes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence she still wants it deleted. That was 2 years ago. You need to stop quoting that like it was made last week. JRG (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:BLP1E. Notability is not temporary, so just deleting the title and content of Emmalina is out, but the usable content is more appropriately merged as part of other articles about internet fame phenomena or internet security, per BLP:1E. The bio pic should be deleted as a courtesy per her talk page wishes. I don't know for sure, but I imagine the previous Afd results concluding she warranted a bio pre-dated the creation of WP:BLP1E specifically (but WP:BLP was created in 2005). MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's not just notable for a one-off incident though - she had long-standing following as an early Youtube meme. And possibly still does (I can't find any 2008 figures). Thank you for being reasonable though and suggesting what everyone else should have done - that this information does belong somewhere. JRG (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She is not an internet meme, her profile has not entered popular culture or parlance like star wars kid. She is notable for her rapid rise to attention from a virtual nobody simply because of youtube and her unique style of video, and that led to a notable act of hacking and withdrawal from Youtube. But these two incidents do no amount to a notable bio, and are arguably 1 incident per WP:BLP1E, hence why just delete is not appropriate. In terms of notability and references, she is no internet celebrity, we don't use just youtube rankings to determing that sort of notability. MickMacNee (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, clearly not notable - simply a popular user at Youtube who pulled her account for understandable reasons. Orderinchaos 08:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than just popular - 9th most viewed user according to sources. While OTHERSTUFFEXISTS could be quoted, it is an important consideration that the other popular Youtube memes have WP pages. As I've said earlier, I'm not against a single page for this - but the information needs to go somewhere. JRG (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy please - because most people here I don't think could care less about improving the encyclopedia when policies such as WP:NOT#PAPER exist for potentially less relevant articles, and I believe have simply voted keep for the sake of following others without properly researching the notability, I would like to have the content userfied to find out a better place to put all the content on this page. JRG (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Come on guys. This is an easy BLP1E situation here. A you tuber is not going to be notable unless the event was extremely huge. This wasn't. Undead Warrior (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Define huge. The event she is notable for reached reliable sources, and deserves addressing per BLP1E: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. ... In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person". MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I'm stating is that she was known for one thing and then she was gone. Are there any news stories about her today? Is she still the focus of attention on the web? No. She did one thing and was recognized for it for a while. She is not a notable person. It's a simple one event case. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Read everything I've already said, I have not said she is a notable person. But you are reading BLP1E wrong with regard notability for an event, you said it yourself, this was a recognised (notable) event, hence it does not get wiped off the face of wikipidia in the name of 1E. And it bears repeating, notability, either as a person or for an event, does not fade away over time, what that is is fame. They are not the same. MickMacNee (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No this is silly. Then some high school kid who gets in the news for winning two different science competitions will get an article. Not notable. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 01:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Two high school science competitions? What has that got to do with anything I said? MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What he's saying is that if anyone does one event and it gets a decent amount of attention, then they would get an article by your rationale. If someone does one thing that is notable, and only one thing, that is not worthy of a page on an encyclopedia. It might be worth mentioning in a large article that encompasses many one hit wonder you tubers, but, it does not deserve it's own article. Undead Warrior (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly a flash-in-the-pan in the news world and a simple case of a person known for one thing alone. Simply being in the news to the extent she has does not make here notable. She is not part of a meme, just another youtuber recovering from their 15 minutes of infamy - Peripitus (Talk) 02:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Undead Warrior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatabullet (talk • contribs) 05:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability beyond the one event, even if that event streched over a long time.Yobmod (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not one event though - did you even read the rest of the page? She was in the top ten youtube viewings for several years. Hardly "one event". And as I have said before I have no problem with a single article. JRG (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a disappointing article. Considering it's well-written and reasonably large, that's really saying something. I thought of nominating it a while ago, but I held off because of the inevitable "reliably sourced" comments. I'm sorry, but this is the first article I've read that has told me "there's nothing remotely interesting about the subject". Since the reliable sources are there, a blurb in List of YouTube celebrities would properly sum up the topic. --Pwnage8 (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The point being the result should then correctly be merge, not delete, as people don't seem to understand in here. If you delete it, then typing in Emmalina into wikipedia will get you nowhere, not List of YouTube celebrities or anywhere else that the sourced information belongs, per WP:BLP1E. MickMacNee (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No offense, but Emmalina is NOT a notable person so typing her name in Wikipedia should not take you anywhere. If she were notable, then she would be able to retain a page, but, her one event is not a notable one anymore. It was notable for a small while, but not anymore. And, if the result is delete, you can always redirect the page ti the list of youtube celebrities. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's your opinion only - but like most people on this page you haven't done a scrap of research - you just go straight off your own thinking. People spent time putting in work finding verifiable articles that show she had more than just "flash-in-the-pan" notability - but despite this good work it has to be spoiled by people who couldn't be bothered helping and improving the encyclopedia. You have no right to say things like that. JRG (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - This article reads like nothing more than a myspace profile. What screams at me when I read this is "Why is this person on Wikipedia?". --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        NO offense, but I have the right to say things like that. It's not degrading to anyone in terms of notability guidelines on Wikipedia. She is not notable. It's simple. Tell me how she passes WP:RS. Undead Warrior (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2008 (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. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Cassini

The subject of this article is a living person and he does not appear to meet notability standards. Also, if you look here, you will see that the article has been originally written (and by checking the history see that it has been substantially edited) by User:Seeplain. In the linked posting, Seeplain admits that he is writing about himself. He "thought it would be appropriate...to have (his) own Wiki entry." Deletion per WP:Notability and WP:Coatrack. ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can see how WP:Coatrack applies to this article. It is also true that this is largely an autobiography. However, WP:AUTO and WP:COATRACK are not necessarily reasons for outright deletion. So the question is notability, as usual. Cassini appears to have published articles himself in pretty respectable outlets and has also been discussed in third person, which is enough notability for me. The relevant references already appear in the article. Of course it should be improved by people who know something about the modern trends in road safety and that's why i added an "expert attention needed" tag to it, which was unfortunately removed. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is where we differ and why I have nominated for deletion. First, being an author does not automatically confer notability, no matter the outlet. Second, in my review of the references given I do not consider that the mention him in the "third person" in the manner that has been done is enough to establish notability. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and sourceable biography. The first few paragraphs need a vigorous planing for appropriate tone, but that's all it needs. --Lockley (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The rationale for the entry is that in the Wiki entry on Shared Space, Cassini is listed as one of five proponents. The other four have separate entries, so it seemed to make sense for there to be a separate entry for Cassini too, especially in view of his publications. This is an additional Guardian piece by him: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/21/congestioncharging.london Seeplain (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Seeplain, in the nomination above, I give information that I used to conclude that you are Martin Cassini. Since WP:AFD#How to discuss an Article for Deletion requests that people participating in the deletion discussion please disclose if you have a vested interest in the article, I will ask. Are you Martin Cassini? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response 1 - Is he a "proponent" of shared space of the same notability as the others listed in that article? I thought not. Two months ago, I researched that and could not find evidence of it. I tagged the entry of Martin Cassini in the list as needing a citation. This is beacuse all of the others on that list are on the official website for Shared Space. Martin Cassini is not. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response 2 - WP:Bio does not provide that inclusion in a list in an article in WP confers notability on the person. In fact it says "notability criteria also must be met for a person to be included in a list or general article; in this case, however, the criteria are less stringent". So only the opposite is true. If the biography of Martin Cassini is considered here to be notable enough for a WP article, then he would be notable enough to include in other articles. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response 3 - Being an author of articles on a subject does not confer notability. Per WP:BIO, there must be articles and sources which tell us about Martin Cassini in order for him to be considered notable. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The material involves a robust critique of standard traffic engineering practice, with humanitarian proposals for change, so a review by a traffic engineer is arguably irrelevant.Seeplain (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Clearly, a robust critique is not appropriate material for an article. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response 4 - I thought it was self-evident that seeplain is Martin Cassini - made clear at the outset when I was seeking an Adopter. As stated, the motivation was that I saw myself listed as a shared space proponent. I asked an Adopter, Amire80, if a separate entry was warranted, and he thought it was. Then PennySpender came along, who disagrees. Obviously I will abide by whatever is decided. I have no vested interest as such, but I think I have developed new ground in this wide-ranging subject which is being absorbed into mainstream thinking and policy. Other 3rd party references perhaps worth mentioning: I have been quoted as a "traffic expert" by the Daily Express. The Observer Comment editor asked me for a piece which was published. The Evening Standard often contacts me for quotes, as do numerous radio stations. I am quoted and discussed in the forthcoming book, In Search of Elegance, by Matt May, and cited by Tom Vanderbilt as a “fellow traveller”. 91.125.217.6 (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2008 (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. Mr.Z-man 23:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Tybel

The article makes some strong claims about a model, but neither the token references provided or my own searching can substantiate them. He does appear to exist, and does appear to be a model, but I'm not sure he's at the level claimed in the article. Verifiability and consequent notability issues. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything particularly notable. Clubmarx (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO not supported by sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:46, 16 October 2008 (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) 08:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wyatt

An article on a t-shirt maker who won a handful of votes in the 2004 Republican primary. Doesn't even remotely meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 02:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the lists of United States of America-related deletions, Businesspeople-related deletions, Politicians-related discussions and Living people-related deletions. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established Dreamspy (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2008 (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) 08:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Pelekanos

At first glance this is essentially a vanity article about an unsuccessful competitor on a TV reality show. I thought about CSD(A7), but the article does make a weak assertion of notability, and according to a Google search she has some exposure. Whether enough to meet WP:BIO, however... I have my doubts. EyeSerene^talk 20:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a contestant on a reality show doesn't mean that deserves an article. Clubmarx (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Clubmarx. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given that the article has no references, and exists mainly to promote her web site, CSD#G11 would have been appropriate. VG ☎ 13:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it did cross my mind, but I haven't been an AfD regular for a while and am unsure about current interpretation of the criteria. Next time... ;) EyeSerene^talk 14:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established Dreamspy (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTE,WP:V,WP:REF Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2008 (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. MBisanz ^talk 15:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Disraeli

Appears to be a hoax. Sources don't even mention a person by this name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails verifiability. Edison (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as a load of tosh. If "Law enforcement agencies including Scotland Yard, Interpol, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP-GRC) and United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have no active files on Disraeli" then he probably fails WP:Notability too. It is nice of these organisations to open their files so freely! Perhaps it just takes a phone call along the lines of "Look, I am writing this Wikipedia article..." for them to look someone up for you. Jll (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please Delete. Hoax, yes. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Funny how the two Mark Felt interviews listed as sources don't mention his name. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant WP:HOAX. A search for Steven Disraeli finds only Wikipdeia and an ad] for "Even Steven Revenge Consulting". Googling "Even Steven Revenge Consulting" one finds these same two links plus only one more... to "getsteven.com - the "Official" website. What a hoot. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Undead warrior tagged the article as a CSD:G3 candidate. It's not pure vandalism even if it is a hoax so I've declined the CSD. Let the AfD proceed. — X S G 17:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Hoaxalicious. Edward321 (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2008 (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) 08:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Ghauri

no established notability except from one minor source, reads as promotional Daviddavey (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable. Alexius08 (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Seems to be notable. [7] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? There aren't major sources from Pakistan or elsewhere that cite his work. Or am I missing something?--Daviddavey (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient notability. He's a TV personality in Pakistan, So ??? Annette46 (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Non-notable personality. doktorb _words^deeds 21:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- seems to be a NN journalist. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is behind major news programs. You may not value Pakistan news, but people in Pakistan do not value American news channels, yet we have articles on people who are probably less disticntive to American news. Wikipedia is meant to world wide, not just American.

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael F. Rogers

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails notability requirement per WP:Baseball. Millbrooky (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Batted .214 in rookie ball in 1987, then disappeared. Notability apparently based on a college home run record, but the Texas Rangers only made him a 20th-round draft pick so apparently hitting 45 home runs in 4 years of Missouri U baseball isn't overwhelming (it didn't even get him into the college's sports hall of fame). Name barely appears in any of the reliable sources referenced. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only WP:Verifiable information about Rogers is that he played a season of Single-A baseball and he once held his university's home run record (mentioned in passing). Everything else is either unverifiable or about the achievements of people around him. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable one year minor league career, college and high school achievements really do not address why this person should have a page. Hardnfast (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2008 (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. TravellingCari 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.

Aberra Molla

This is a vanity page created and written by Molla. (It was originally deleted, but then reinstated at Molla's request, which explains why his is not the first edit in the page history. The identity of User:Ethiopic and Molla is apparent among other places by his giving permission on the talk page for another editor to use his picture.) It is completely unnotable except for the quite dubious claim that he Unicodified Ethiopic, which I am unable to confirm with the Unicode Consortium. One source, on a web site which Molla has written several articles for (these articles are primary "sources" for the article), a paean calling him the "Father of Ethiopic", says that he created the first computer font for Ethiopic. Possibly true, but a long way from creating the Unicode proposal, and in any case we don't have bios on every person who created a font or even who wrote an accepted Unicode proposal. Molla has also added a claim to the Ge'ez alphabet article that he computerized the script,[8] and then repeatedly deleted claims that other people were also responsible for computerizing Ethiopic.[9][10] kwami (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically per nom. The only serious claim to notability is the claim to be the first to computerize the Ethiopic language. However, such a claim would need some serious verification and collaboration by independent reliable sources which does not seem to be available here. Moreover, the diffs provided by the nom show that there are valid competing claims references to which User:Ethiopic has been removing. Little or nothing of relevance in googlenews[11] and googlebooks[12]. Also, apparent WP:AUTO/WP:COI problems here. Nsk92 (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dr. Molla is quite notable for his achievements within the Ethiopian community, both online and off; note the Amharic version includes this article, and if you cut and paste, google search for his name in the Ethiopic text, you will get many more hits to Amharic language sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which achievements are those? AFAIK he hasn't contributed to Unicode as he claims, and lots of people have created Ethiopic fonts. In fact, in what I've read on his website, he lambastes Unicode for not accepting his proposals (the "enemies of Ethiopic" are making imperfect proposals, etc.). His English and Amharic sources are mostly written by himself, or interviews with him posted at his website. According to the 1991 article, he created an Ethiopic IME, but I don't know that that's notable. Maybe mention of his name in the Ge'ez alphabet article, but a vanity autobiography? Also, what is notable for Amharic wiki may not be notable here—I'm sure there are lots of local US politicians who are not notable enough to make it onto Amharic wikipedia—and the Amharic article is just a stub.

I've checked Google. There are 17 hits.[13] They are Molla's own website, English Wiki, Amharic Wiki, wiki mirrors, a couple web stats sites, a site on AIDS that mentions the CDCP brochure he translated into Amharic, and an Oromo blog, which allocates Molla one line of print for one of his patents, and then in the very next line credits Obbo Ayana Birru for having "Invented Amharic Type writer and brough the Geez scripts to the 21st century." That is, the only independent source denies Molla credit for his claims! kwami (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to also check the more common spelling "አበራ ሞላ" that brings up 69 more hits including several more articles about him in Amharic press. The Amharic wiki has only 3000-3500 articles total and is still waiting for many articles to be written, including many notable US politicians, but as knowledge grows over the decades and centuries, who knows how much more complete it could be one day 100's of years from now. But if you do not want to include notable information for the English encyclopedia, it is probably your loss. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A search for "አበራ ሞላ" gives 70 hits in the plain google search[14] (of which only 13 appear to be from unique addresses[15]), but 0 hits in googlebooks[16], 0 hits in googlenews[17] and 0 hits in googlescholar[18]. Of the 70 plain google search hits most appear to be some kind of wiki-mirrors as well as blogs ands bulletin boards, and certainly not passing WP:RS. A far cry from even passing WP:V, not to mention WP:N or WP:BIO here. Nsk92 (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether he actually did what he claims to have done is beyond the scope of our discussion here, but appears to be at the very least disputable and not exactly supported by any reliable sources I could find. Additionally, while autobiography/COI is not always in itself a reason to delete, when coupled with marginal-at-best notability the case becomes far more clear. Delete as being of questionable notability and unsupported by reliable sources and thus failing WP:BIO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TE's rationale. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not supported by reliable sources. Also not a sufficiently notable person.Annette46 (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the comments above of Nsk92, reliable sources are lacking to verify the claims. Edison (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd asked User:Codex Sinaiticus to join us, as he contributed to the Amharic article, and now that I'm writing this I see he's Til Eulenspiegel, above. Til, you'd said he's a "prominent businessman among the Ethiopian community", but that you don't know about his Unicode claims. From what Molla's been writing, it would seem the Unicode stuff is his main claim to fame, veterinary work is second, and he makes no mention of his business. (I assume you mean his computer business, not his vaccines?) He describes himself as "an Ethiopian veterinarian and writer", but the only piece of writing he describes is an Amharic adaptation of an CDCP Aids brochure—hell, I'm a writer if that's all that's required: I've published malaria pamphlets in languages that didn't have any, and published in other fields as well, but wouldn't claim to be notable. So we're down to his veterinary work. Is being a USDA veterinarian, the field test (two patents for the same test, it would seem), and student work at CSU "notable"? The field test that the patents are for isn't notable enough for even Molla to explain what exactly it is. But my opposition stems primarily from his self-aggrandizement (evidenced also by his deleting mention of any other contributors to digitizing Amharic). kwami (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep you all are being ridiculous, and some, such as kwami, are just being childish - why else would he start a discussion with the comment "This is a vanity page". If you can't read amharic, then you may not know all of the contributions that Dr. Molla has made to the Ethiopian community or to advancements in computers. Until you learn, you cannot say what information is out there or the effect of Dr. Molla's contributions. Those who can read and understand Amharic know better than to delete this page. Also, wikipedia is meant to be a global encylopedia, not just an encylopedia for those who speak English. The fact that you are considering deleting a page because you haven't found corroboration in English is an insult to the community. Finally, there is nothing wrong with deleting information that is incorrect, which is what was done in the past, which frankly just makes me wonder if you bothered to discuss the reasons for deleting that information as much as you are discussing this now.... no... I didn't think so. [anon.]

Amharic sources are fine, but this has no supporting sources whatsoever. There are no significant Amharic sources online, not just no English sources. We also have a general policy against autobiographies, and this is a vanity page—I mean, come on, stuff he helped his professors do in school? I could make my life sound worthy of an encyclopedia article if you gave me free reign. It has nothing to do with him being Amharic. If you, our anonymous voter, want the article to stay, why not add the Amharic sources that back it up? kwami (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2008 (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. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Free

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

Fails WP:MUSIC policy on bandmembers Ironho lds 02:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Crass is not expanded before debate's end. Keep if an adequate expansion is made. -R. fiend (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 04:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. The band itself is barely notable (no hits at all on the official UK Charts), but probably just about - certainly non notable individual members.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Crass easily pass WP:MUSIC; I wouldn't describe them as "barely notable". Ironholds (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. lifebaka++ 00:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Nguyen

DeleteArticle prev no consensus at AfD in 2006. This was created by spa IP address, and heavily edited by "DirectorPaul" which appears to be the subject. Article is completely unreferenced, nothing consequential turned up on gnews, and definitely not seeing any proof of subject's "numerous awards". "Popular cult classic film", Zombie Killers, that is subject's major claim to meeting bio specific notability criteria has a tripod homepage and no reviews or gnews hits found. It's not even in IMDB, nor are most of his other claimed credits. Fails WP:V, WP:N, bio, WP:COI etc. Horrorshowj (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and delete his Jane-finch.com website too. No sources asserting notablity. We66er (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply non-notable. Has had more than enough time to show notability, and none apparent. A hobby film amatuer, who pays to host them on his site rather than youtube.Yobmod (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:31, 12 October 2008 (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 Fueled by Ramen. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 11:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Janick

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

No evidence of notability, the reference is a press release Doug Weller (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fueled by Ramen. No other claims to notability. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 20:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no claim of notability in the article Clubmarx (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Caknuck. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. No claim to notability. Only source is primary, which shows nothing about notability.Yobmod (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2008 (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) 08:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Grapes

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

Fails WP:NM, non-notable person that asserts no notability and has no substantial third-party coverage DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 21:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you not like about the article. He is a relevant person, he is known around the Bay Area. There is plenty of sources to back up all the statements in the article. I have put links on there that back up these statements. I do not understand why it is proposed for deletion.

Sources: http://www.nbc11.com/newsarchive/16279733/detail.html http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=236320115

Nate Grapes and Nathaniel Curtis Freeman are the same person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnmhorn (talk • contribs) 21:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.

--Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please read WP:RS. MySpace and YouTube are not reliable sources, as well as the other sources you've listed. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 03:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Even if reliable sources were found for the claims, local notability does not equate with wikipedia-notability.Yobmod (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think NBC is. He is very well known.Why would you delete the whole article when there are news articles to prove the statements in the article. I have many many articles that would back the fact that he is a murderer but only CD covers and others for his rapping. I have his music and things along those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.195.42 (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - falls short of the WP:MUSIC notability bar. His being charged with a murder that has received only local mention doesn't make up the difference. The article itself makes only a weak assertion of notability - this must be changed if the article is to survive. B.Wind (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can you guys help me find more sources then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.195.156 (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question Where is the article link? How are people checking the sources without it? I'm ocnfused!Yobmod (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2008 (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. MBisanz ^talk 08:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles G. Hulse

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

No references; I couldn't find much on Google either. Biruitorul ^Talk

It's pretty easy to find his book on Amazon, http://www.amazon.com/Tall-Cotton-Charles-Hulse/dp/0758201214

03:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bio without sources and it looks like nobody is going to add any either. VG ☎ 04:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Seems to have written numerous works, though I had a hard time gauging how well-known/significant they are. Perhaps someone more familiar can help. Eatabullet (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, the article claims he's written numerous works, but can you or anyone else point to some mention of them outside this article? Biruitorul ^Talk 00:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you Google it, you can find a wide variety of his books mentioned. Admittedly I haven't researched it in depth but its definitely showing up in my search results.Eatabullet (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, we can't just go around keeping unsourced biographical articles on a whim. JBsupreme (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has written several books, published by major publishing houses. In Tall Cotton Google Books Amazon is published by Kensington Books, which we have an article on, apparently the 7th largest publisher in the United States. The Google Books scan sports a Publishers Weekly review comment on its back cover. He also wrote The Good Life Google Books Amazon in a collaboration with Gordon Merrick, whom we have an article on. It was published by Alyson Publications, which we also have an article on; it's not as big as Kensington, but neither is it a vanity press. The other books I can't find quickly, but I don't have to, that's enough. --GRuban (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivial sources about the author. This appears to be a problem still. RFerreira (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Princeton University says it has a lengthy newspaper article which describes Hulse's acquaintance with Merrick and their life together. So sources exist. --GRuban (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, these papers seem to be more about Merrick than Hulse though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per seeming lack of nontrivial third-party coverage. I am uneasy about any unsourced BLP, and this one is no exception. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:16, 18 October 2008 (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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy Fagin

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

Recreated after ProD. Does not appear to meet notability guidelines at WP:CREATIVE. gnfnrf (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There semes to be a bit on her that could improve the article and make it encyclopedic [19].
Delete Essentially no significant publications. I see nothing in the above G search that is usable as a RS. DGG (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2008 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Strozzi

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

Nice resume, but no real evidence of notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - mentioned in sources such as this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep for the same reason. At the pace you just nominated 2 dozen articles, did you even read through them all properly?JJJ999 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say puff piece? -- Biruitorul ^Talk 03:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability easy to verify. Being poorly written or "puffy" is no reason for deletion... only for improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What are clearly local interest pieces in a regional newspaper (even one that is a paper of record on certain issues) does not constitute "significant coverage" (IMO). Bongomatic (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a candidate for cleanup, not deletion. RockManQ ^(talk) 01:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Any reason this didn't go up for WP:PROD first? — X S G 02:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite all claims above, while searching the net for references I found nothing that could substantiate notability. Self-published books, people talking about a class she taught, but... nothing about the subject. — X S G 04:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lot's of self-generated publicity on the web, which is the place for it--not wikipedia. One self-published book. That sfgate took the hook doesn't mean that we have to. DGG (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2008 (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evin Daly

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

Interesting local figure, but of dubious notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure to establish notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Horselover Frost (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this listing. Mr. Daly is a big proponent of child abuse prevention in the US. All of the links on his bio are verifiable and if you want mroe information I'll give it to you. Robert Wise wallstreetduo@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.240.102 (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2008 (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Alisharan

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

This actor has only had one major role and I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. GNews gives only local stories (about him becoming a student). Even the celebrity gossip sites have almost nothing on him. I would have thought that a mojor role would lead to notability, but it seems not to be the case.08:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, apparently none to be found except for his study-related activities (and that's a single local paper, for all I can tell). Huon (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Notability questionable, two years of article and no content. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, the notability for this person does not exist. Hence the lack of sources. JBsupreme (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2008 (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Murphy (1965 - )

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 15:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:Bio with flying colors. Did several searches for this gentleman... (Paul Murphy, writer), (Paul Murphy, author), (Paul Murphy, critic), (Paul Murphy, artist)... and despite the common name, if one checks the source text to eliminate the wrong ones, one finds plenty to suport the article. It requires cleanup and wikification, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have cleaned up the article. Schuym1 (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I'll take a stab at a judicious bit of wikification. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a judicious bit of referencing is a higher priority if this is to survive AfD. I couldn't find anything useful when I searched for his name in conjunction with the titles of his supposedly main works, apart from the fact that they exist and can be bought:

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 8 October 2008

Did some wikification... and will look into sourcing... but am unsure as to how to handle wikifying his huge body of work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I moved the article to Paul Murphy (author) per WP:NAME. We never list a "birth dash" for a living person, and there was no author article yet. No opinion as to notability. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete unless MQS or someone can actually post the references to his work that he thinks supports the article. I didn't see any. DGG (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 05:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my searches above. For any notable writer of this age and nationality Google would be able to find substantial coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2008 (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) 14:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Sanchez (music)

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

No particular evidence of notability for Sanchez or his album Unmerited. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 16:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 03:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Given the number of times this has been relisted it could have been prodded and nobody would have noticed. Also, Google is hopeless for finding sources due to US Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. VG ☎ 04:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any sources when I checked the internet. Eatabullet (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2008 (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rostislaw Wygranienko

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

Notability not established through reliable sources. Wizardman 04:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has been tagged as unreferenced for over a year, so notability cannot be established. Unless there are some sources that show why the article is notable, it should be deleted.--Terrillja (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2008 (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 all to Panic at the Disco. lifebaka++ 00:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brendon Urie

AfDs for this article:

None of the members of this band appear to be notable outside of the band. A previous AFD (from 2 years ago) was closed as keep with "any unsourced biographies should be redirected to the Panic! at the Disco article and then expanded out as proper references can be provided". Each of these articles have about a paragraph's worth or less of sourced content with the rest being a history of the band. A redirect seems to be the only logical conclusion. I thought that, given the length of time since the last AFD, that I would go for fresh consensus instead of redirecting boldly. If your !vote is not the same for all five articles, please specify —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose straight redirects. Merge the relevant information, certainly, although I can see arguments in favor of letting Brent Wilson and Brendon Urie standing alone. I'd suggest that next time it might not be neccesary to bring this to afd, at least not until the d stands for discussion rather than deletion. Hiding T 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, of course. By "redirect", I meant to merge any verifiable and sourced notable content to the band's article and then redirect the members' articles to the band's. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all Per nom. they are not all clearly noteworthy except for being in the band. Hance the best place for info on them is in the bands page - this will help readers, which is the point of an encylopedia, rather than massage egos. Unreferenced biographies are strongly against policy an "should be deleted on sight" - why are they allowed to stand here?Yobmod (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still think they are all noteworthy. And besides, this is an encyclopedia and people come on here to look them up and learn what they can about them. Don't you all think we're jumping the gun a little to delete people from band's pages nowadays?--Bottle-Of-Musical-Joy (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~One !vote per person, please. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)~~ (User deleted other !vote)[reply]
- comment. why do you think they are note-worthy? You have secret sources that you are keeping from the article? They are not being deleted from the band's pages - most votes are to include then into the bands pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. They are not notable beyond the band and are subject to little editing other than vandalism. Merge all and protect the redirects to the band article. JBsupreme (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2008 (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 all to Panic at the Disco. lifebaka++ 00:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brendon Urie

AfDs for this article:

None of the members of this band appear to be notable outside of the band. A previous AFD (from 2 years ago) was closed as keep with "any unsourced biographies should be redirected to the Panic! at the Disco article and then expanded out as proper references can be provided". Each of these articles have about a paragraph's worth or less of sourced content with the rest being a history of the band. A redirect seems to be the only logical conclusion. I thought that, given the length of time since the last AFD, that I would go for fresh consensus instead of redirecting boldly. If your !vote is not the same for all five articles, please specify —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose straight redirects. Merge the relevant information, certainly, although I can see arguments in favor of letting Brent Wilson and Brendon Urie standing alone. I'd suggest that next time it might not be neccesary to bring this to afd, at least not until the d stands for discussion rather than deletion. Hiding T 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, of course. By "redirect", I meant to merge any verifiable and sourced notable content to the band's article and then redirect the members' articles to the band's. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all Per nom. they are not all clearly noteworthy except for being in the band. Hance the best place for info on them is in the bands page - this will help readers, which is the point of an encylopedia, rather than massage egos. Unreferenced biographies are strongly against policy an "should be deleted on sight" - why are they allowed to stand here?Yobmod (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still think they are all noteworthy. And besides, this is an encyclopedia and people come on here to look them up and learn what they can about them. Don't you all think we're jumping the gun a little to delete people from band's pages nowadays?--Bottle-Of-Musical-Joy (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~One !vote per person, please. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)~~ (User deleted other !vote)[reply]
- comment. why do you think they are note-worthy? You have secret sources that you are keeping from the article? They are not being deleted from the band's pages - most votes are to include then into the bands pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. They are not notable beyond the band and are subject to little editing other than vandalism. Merge all and protect the redirects to the band article. JBsupreme (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2008 (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. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illmind

Non-notable producer. Has worked with a few notable artist but not on any notable tracks. Tagged for notability and expansion since March 2008. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Worked with notable artists but nothing himself. We wouldn't give an article to the guy who produced Nirvana's lost demo tape, Echo and the Bunnymen's flop and Cream's first single which failed to chart, so this one should go. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 08:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep, producer for Little Brother, Sean Price, Boot Camp Clik, El Da Sensei, Supastition, Akrobatik etc. The fact that in this context producer means creator of the musical track is just one of many things wrong with KoЯn flakes' analogy above. WP:MUSIC doesn't say anything about producers of any stripe, and can be overruled by common sense in any case. 86.44.31.100 (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

illmind reviewed in in the NYT illmind in Scheme illmind in prefixmag illmind in Akrobatik review in Seattle Post Intelligencer blog 86.44.31.100 (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Times piece is a two sentence writeup of his Jay-Z remix album, in an article that writes up twelve different Jay-Z remix albums. Post-Intelligencer link is similarly trivial. As mentioned in the nom, there is no indication that any of the tracks he's produced are notable—working with a notable artist does not transfer notability to the producer. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there is no indication that any of the tracks he's produced are notable He produced (that is, produced and created the musical tracks) on half the last Little Brother album; am I to understand this was the non-notable half?

Early in his career he released an album under his own name on bbe / beat generation. Had he continued in this vein he would be notable per WP:Music as an artist in his own right; he would also have close to zero impact on hip hop as opposed to now. 86.44.27.95 (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that any one track on that album is particularly notable. If you'd like to show me that I'm mistaken please provide more information (chart success, etc.). If his work on the album was particularly notable, then surely there must be plenty of media coverage lauding his work, singing his praises. Similarly, if his impact on hip hop is so great, where is the coverage? —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that his impact is truly great, it's that it's much more significant (reaching many more thousands) than if he had continued in a vein (making producer albums under his own name) that would have made him compliant with WP:MUSIC as an artist. And it's not that you're mistaken insofar as you are trying to match him to various strictures in WP:MUSIC (as artist, as songwriter, as composer) but not looking at the body of work (which is to me self-evident as notable). Coverage will be along the lines outlined above unless he a) goes back to releasing under his own name b) dies or c) becomes a superstar producer (of which there are few). 86.44.27.95 (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2008 (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 all to Panic at the Disco. lifebaka++ 00:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brendon Urie

AfDs for this article:

None of the members of this band appear to be notable outside of the band. A previous AFD (from 2 years ago) was closed as keep with "any unsourced biographies should be redirected to the Panic! at the Disco article and then expanded out as proper references can be provided". Each of these articles have about a paragraph's worth or less of sourced content with the rest being a history of the band. A redirect seems to be the only logical conclusion. I thought that, given the length of time since the last AFD, that I would go for fresh consensus instead of redirecting boldly. If your !vote is not the same for all five articles, please specify —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose straight redirects. Merge the relevant information, certainly, although I can see arguments in favor of letting Brent Wilson and Brendon Urie standing alone. I'd suggest that next time it might not be neccesary to bring this to afd, at least not until the d stands for discussion rather than deletion. Hiding T 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, of course. By "redirect", I meant to merge any verifiable and sourced notable content to the band's article and then redirect the members' articles to the band's. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all Per nom. they are not all clearly noteworthy except for being in the band. Hance the best place for info on them is in the bands page - this will help readers, which is the point of an encylopedia, rather than massage egos. Unreferenced biographies are strongly against policy an "should be deleted on sight" - why are they allowed to stand here?Yobmod (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still think they are all noteworthy. And besides, this is an encyclopedia and people come on here to look them up and learn what they can about them. Don't you all think we're jumping the gun a little to delete people from band's pages nowadays?--Bottle-Of-Musical-Joy (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~One !vote per person, please. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)~~ (User deleted other !vote)[reply]
- comment. why do you think they are note-worthy? You have secret sources that you are keeping from the article? They are not being deleted from the band's pages - most votes are to include then into the bands pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. They are not notable beyond the band and are subject to little editing other than vandalism. Merge all and protect the redirects to the band article. JBsupreme (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2008 (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 all to Panic at the Disco. lifebaka++ 00:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brendon Urie

AfDs for this article:

None of the members of this band appear to be notable outside of the band. A previous AFD (from 2 years ago) was closed as keep with "any unsourced biographies should be redirected to the Panic! at the Disco article and then expanded out as proper references can be provided". Each of these articles have about a paragraph's worth or less of sourced content with the rest being a history of the band. A redirect seems to be the only logical conclusion. I thought that, given the length of time since the last AFD, that I would go for fresh consensus instead of redirecting boldly. If your !vote is not the same for all five articles, please specify —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose straight redirects. Merge the relevant information, certainly, although I can see arguments in favor of letting Brent Wilson and Brendon Urie standing alone. I'd suggest that next time it might not be neccesary to bring this to afd, at least not until the d stands for discussion rather than deletion. Hiding T 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, of course. By "redirect", I meant to merge any verifiable and sourced notable content to the band's article and then redirect the members' articles to the band's. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all Per nom. they are not all clearly noteworthy except for being in the band. Hance the best place for info on them is in the bands page - this will help readers, which is the point of an encylopedia, rather than massage egos. Unreferenced biographies are strongly against policy an "should be deleted on sight" - why are they allowed to stand here?Yobmod (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still think they are all noteworthy. And besides, this is an encyclopedia and people come on here to look them up and learn what they can about them. Don't you all think we're jumping the gun a little to delete people from band's pages nowadays?--Bottle-Of-Musical-Joy (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~One !vote per person, please. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)~~ (User deleted other !vote)[reply]
- comment. why do you think they are note-worthy? You have secret sources that you are keeping from the article? They are not being deleted from the band's pages - most votes are to include then into the bands pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. They are not notable beyond the band and are subject to little editing other than vandalism. Merge all and protect the redirects to the band article. JBsupreme (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2008 (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. ff m 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Von G. Keetch

The world is full of lawyers. I see nothing that distinguishes this one - fails WP:BIO. Ros0709 (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This lawyer is in the news a lot. See this Google News archive search and this one. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keetch has been the main representative of large coalitions of religious groups in making presentations of Amicus Curie briefs to the Supreme Court as well as many other courts.Johnpacklambert (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - what separates him from other church lawyers? The fact that he has argued cases in front of the US Supreme Court does not necessarily set him apart from the other lawyers doing their job. The fact that local media carries him with regularity is insufficient without demonstrating what he has done in terms of notability aside from simply being a mouthpiece. This bit of an article does not show that. B.Wind (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the rather poor formatting, the article has plenty of non-local sources that are sufficient to have him pass the notability guidelines. Anyway, he's a lawyer in secular courts, not simply a church lawyer. Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.The link provided by Eastmain disproves rather then establishes notability. The news links don't cover him. They cover different cases in which he was to some extent involved. In total, the ghits merely prove that he's semi-notable in Utah's legal community, thus falling far short of enycylopedia-worthiness. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the fact that many of the cases Keetch has been the leader of mulitple lawyers. He is not just involved in Utah, but has been closely involved with legal issues in Washington, Oregon, West Virginia, Tennessee and quite porbably other states. He was one of the two lead authors of the most widely cited study on the issue of regulation of religious land use, and was one of the key witnesses in the hearings that led to the passing of the RLUIPA. More importantly, his testimony has been sited to demonstrate why the RLUIPA is a legitimate use of congressional power.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 21:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, most cases are remembered by their plaintiffs and respondents, not the lawyers of record. How many people can state the attorneys of record of Roe vs. Wade without researching it? B.Wind (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, the lawyers who brought the case are notable. For example, if all Thurgood Marshall had done his entire life was bring Brown v. Board to the court, he would be notable. Anyway, you are still ignoring that it is the testimony that Keetch gave to the judicaial committee and his paper or religious land use, not just the many cases he has been involved in, that make him notable. I should have put Wyoming in the list of states where he has been involved in important cases, there is significant role in the Handcart company site issue comes to mind.Johnpacklambert (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2008 (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 all to Panic at the Disco. lifebaka++ 00:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brendon Urie

AfDs for this article:

None of the members of this band appear to be notable outside of the band. A previous AFD (from 2 years ago) was closed as keep with "any unsourced biographies should be redirected to the Panic! at the Disco article and then expanded out as proper references can be provided". Each of these articles have about a paragraph's worth or less of sourced content with the rest being a history of the band. A redirect seems to be the only logical conclusion. I thought that, given the length of time since the last AFD, that I would go for fresh consensus instead of redirecting boldly. If your !vote is not the same for all five articles, please specify —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose straight redirects. Merge the relevant information, certainly, although I can see arguments in favor of letting Brent Wilson and Brendon Urie standing alone. I'd suggest that next time it might not be neccesary to bring this to afd, at least not until the d stands for discussion rather than deletion. Hiding T 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, of course. By "redirect", I meant to merge any verifiable and sourced notable content to the band's article and then redirect the members' articles to the band's. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all Per nom. they are not all clearly noteworthy except for being in the band. Hance the best place for info on them is in the bands page - this will help readers, which is the point of an encylopedia, rather than massage egos. Unreferenced biographies are strongly against policy an "should be deleted on sight" - why are they allowed to stand here?Yobmod (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still think they are all noteworthy. And besides, this is an encyclopedia and people come on here to look them up and learn what they can about them. Don't you all think we're jumping the gun a little to delete people from band's pages nowadays?--Bottle-Of-Musical-Joy (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~One !vote per person, please. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 23:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)~~ (User deleted other !vote)[reply]
- comment. why do you think they are note-worthy? You have secret sources that you are keeping from the article? They are not being deleted from the band's pages - most votes are to include then into the bands pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. They are not notable beyond the band and are subject to little editing other than vandalism. Merge all and protect the redirects to the band article. JBsupreme (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2008 (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. MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Slattery

Lack of notability Yumegusa (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of notability is an undertsatement. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The linked prizes (Roland Robinson Literary Award and Harri Jones Memorial Prize for Poetry) give the illusion of notability but both the prizes are of dubious notability themselves. Of course, Slattery is no less notable than half the musical groups that somehow manage to be included here, but that's not saying much! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consistent with WP:BIO, "the person has received a notable award" (AWGIE Awards) [20]. WWGB (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an "additional criterion", which counts for little if WP:BIO#Basic_criteria fail to be met. Moreover, the subject fails utterly to meet the WP:CREATIVE criteria specific to his field.--Yumegusa (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ABC reference (reliable and independent enough for most) attests to four of his awards and states His poems have appeared in literary journals, newspapers, magazines and on radio throughout Australia, Europe, North America and Asia. That's approaching notability for mine. Murtoa (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has clearly sustained a level of significant publishing and prizewon achievements. User:Words Australia 05:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Words Australia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having your work published in national newspapers and literary journals is a noteworthy benchmark in my books. User:Australian Reviewer 05:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Australian Reviewer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've won a few awards and had poetry published frequently in anthologies and journals, but I'm modest enough to realise I'm not notable in the overall scheme of things. If winning a few obscure awards and having writings published in poetry mags was really a valid criterion for having an article in WP, there'd be room for little else here. Is anyone seriously claiming that the subject meets WP:CREATIVE (criteria for authors, filmmakers and other creative practitioners)? Because if an author doesn't meet these criteria s/he's not notable; that's what WP:CREATIVE is there for.
  --Yumegusa (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That's not what WP:CREATIVE is there for. You'll note that regarding additional notability criteria such as WP:CREATIVE, two things apply - Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included and Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. I revert to the overriding consideration - 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 - which I think Slattery meets. Murtoa (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst not 'famous,' certainly a "noteable" enough name around the European literary magazine scene. And perhaps, given that Slattery lives in Australia, is of note in itself! The Roland Robinson Literary Award and Harri Jones Memorial Prize for Poetry are not Nobels or Bookers, right, though popularity doesn't equate with notability. And saying that the sentence "Lack of notability is an undertsatement" is not useful criticism is an understatement. User:Rachael Dept Engliska 08:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Rachael Dept Engliska (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
~~Keep~~ Yumegusa, upon a brief check of both the WP:Creative page and a random list of poets from the UK, what percentage of those 312+ poets do you think adhere to the criteria? User:Rachael Dept Engliska 08:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly he has published wider than other ‘minor’ poets (eg. Jaya Savige, David Musgrave, Samuel Wagan Watson, Bronwyn Lea and B. R. Dionysius) with pages here on Wikipedia. User:MassachusettsPoets 09:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — MassachusettsPoets (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Pointing out the there are other pages which fail to meet the necessary criteria is a very weak argument for keeping one.--Yumegusa (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep§~~ Slattery’s page could be effortlessly enhanced – a quick G shows 30+ references that could make the page more encyclopaedic. User:MassachusettsPoets 09:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An admin might investigate the apparent sockpuppets dominating this discussion. WWGB (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ A daily growing web-base means a daily growing Wiki-base and Slattery's noteworthy poetry clearly meets the criteria. User:MassachusettsPoets talk (talk) 9:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Googlecheck = published widely. User:Words Australia 05:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Words Australia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see WP:BIO#Invalid_criteria: "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits)", "When using Google to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the links."--Yumegusa (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've picked up on WWGB and opened a SSP case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Words Australia with User:Words Australia temporarily blocked.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO and has provoked a sock flood. Stifle (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2008 (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. Wizardman 00:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Santos

AfDs for this article:

Still nn Bat ears (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Check out the logs for this article. It has been created, deleted, created again, deleted again (...on and on), protected, un-protected, and now created for a sixth time. Reid Santos is still a nn minor leaguer. Once Reid Santos is a MLB player, only then should there be a Reid Santos article. Bat ears (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article stands I don't see an assertion of importance/significance and unless he somehow meets the criteria in WP:ATHLETE or WP:N (neither of which is supported in the article) than he doesn't belong. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Once he actually plays in the majors he can have his own article, but not until then. Black ngold29 22:14, 12 October 2008 (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Coria

Fails notability for biographies since September 2007. Article is orphan and has very few Google hits. I was unable to find any article referring to him. Magioladitis (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I got quite a few relevant Google hits that seemed to match this fellow's article. Perhaps with some sourcing the article could be kept, unless he fails the artist criteria. Right now it's hard to tell, given that the article doesn't cite any sources. FusionMix 18:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google News archive search finds plenty of sources, and he also seems to meet WP:MUSIC criterion 5 with multiple albums on a well-established label. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:19, 12 October 2008 (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 Unanimous Keep. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 03:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey Mosley

Concerns about the sheer amount of unsourced bio info and cruft that has no relevence to notability if in fact there is any, has been tagged for clean up for sometime and not much is happening. Maybe a possible redirect. neon white talk 10:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is currently in poor shape, with unclear notability and WP:BLP violations. However she has received enough coverage in reliable source (for example [21] and [22] ) to be considered notable. --Megaboz (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are those show any independent notability from the group she belongs to, both are about Flyleaf not her. Remember notability is not inherited. To be considered notable there must be evidence of coverage independent of the group. see Wikipedia:Notability (music) --neon white talk 09:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs serious revision RogueNinja_talk 14:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain further. --neon white talk 17:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This article contains some non-trivial coverage of Mosley apart from Flyleaf. (Section beginning "Hey Dad, come over here", for about 1000 words). Source has been introduced to the article. CJPargeter (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As i pointed out before the coverage is not independent of the band. The question that you have to ask is would she have featured in this article had she not been part of a notable group? i think the answer is a definite no. It's reliant on her being part of a notable group with no suggestion that she is otherwise notable. --neon white talk 23:04, 16 October 2008 (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe J Thomas (actor)

Non-notable voice actor (most of his career seems to be fairly minor roles). Article is written by the subject, so conflict of interest is apparent. CyberGhostface (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable roles listed. Edward321 (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of sifnificant roles. no reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Perhaps you could all give me a hand with this. I'm the article's author. I would like to be able to provide information on my career to my growing list of fans. I understand that this is an Autobiography, and that COI exists. I have been up front and honest about being the author. I've tried to be as factual as possible in my edits, and have provide some notable roles (ie. Lex Luthor in Mortal Kombat, and Raven in Vesperia - which helped to sell out the Xbox360 in Japan this year, and Sawatari in Bleach is a major supporting character). I have numerous notable stage roles, but have left many of them off to focus this article on Voice Over work.

Sorry to be a bit of a Wiki-Noob, but please let me know what you'd need to see to prevent this article from being deleted. Joeactor (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (be nice to the newbies, everyone!) sadly, joe, we have to go with delete on this one--but here's why: Wikipedia is not a web server, web hosting service, or other place for self-published material. It is instead an encyclopedia -- which means that articles should all have third party sources, verifiability, and notability -- which means that the general practice is that we don't write articles about ourselves -- which means that your page about yourself will likely be deleted, just like my page about myself was deleted when I was new to Wikipedia. And since the article basically already exists at User:Joeactor/Sandbox (which is an appropriate place), then it will probably get deleted. You could also move it to something like User:Joeactor/Joe J Thomas (actor) if you'd really like to keep it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paul. The "User" page is a good second option. One additional question: Can User:Joeactor/Joe J Thomas (actor) be referenced by other Wiki pages? You see, I originally started my page because my role in Marvel Ultimate Alliance was incorrectly assigned to another Joe Thomas (darn common name!), so I'd like to keep the rest of Wiki accurate by pointing to User:Joeactor/Joe J Thomas (actor) if that's allowable. Joeactor (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment oh, you bet! Check out User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach to show a directory of articles I'm working on to re-introduce to Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Putting aside COI issues, the guidelines for notablity for entertainers are here and the general guidelines are here. What you need is someone not connected to you or your performances publishing something non trivial about you in Reliable sources. Read through these three pages and you will have a good idea how to make a page that lasts. As to your question about refering from the rest of Wiki to an article in your user page the answer is no, the guidelines say One should never create links from a mainspace article to any userpage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected Thanks! what I meant was that other users could view the web page, not that they should "link" to it from an article page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question Thank you Duffbeerforme - very helpful information. I do have one question, though. I originally created the entry to address an incorrect link to Joe_Thomas_(actor), who was credited with voicing Marvel Ultimate Alliance. How can this correction be made if there is no "Joe J Thomas" entry to refer to? Joeactor (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove the link and say "The Joe Thomas that this article links to isn't the one on this game".--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As CyberGhostface says, remove the wiki link. Change it to unlinked text with the name as shown in the games credits. Also the game has a IMBD page. You can add an external link to the game page to provide a link to somewhere that has information about who voiced the role. IMDB is not a reliable source for showing notability or as a good source for verifying information but it can be a good place to link to as outside info. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a link to imdb on the game article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete little more than a CV which does not assert notability. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:59, 12 October 2008 (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 {{csd-a7}}. Deleted as A7. Housekeeping. (non-admin closure) Protonk (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian allen ksfy

TV journalist of dubious notability, bringing it here after declining an A7 speedy tag. Sandstein 10:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 anyway. No assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:16, 13 October 2008 (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Via Paxton

AfDs for this article:

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Epbr123 (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. HollyHuntaway (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sourced, and shows no sign of being notable. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Last AfD was a clear consensus keep and nothing has changed since then. Xihr 04:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Except consensus can change. I'm still wading through the google hits to try to verify her biography. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure it can, but there's zero evidence that it has here. Continuing to bring it to AfD despite clear consensus keep and no actual evidence of consensus changing whatsoever (that isn't even the argument the nominator makes here) is just trying to do an end run around consensus. If consensus doesn't matter, then we might as well all just pack our bags and go home. Xihr 01:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Except prior "consensus" did not provide any evidence and ignored WP:V. Further, WP:PORNBIO was not established, giving a guideline to review the notability of the article. Consensus is changing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm afraid that doesn't make sense: Consensus is changing because you don't agree with it? Consensus was a clear keep last AfD; either that was wrong, or it was right at the time but the consensus is changing (though there is no evidence for that). But you're arguing both. That is simply nonsensical. Either consensus means something or it is pointless, and it's one of the founding principles of Wikipedia. (P.S. Where are the nitpicking arguments of delete votes?) Xihr 07:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Prior consensus is being challenged by this afd. The multiple delete votes are evidence that consensus may be changing, but this is not confirmed until the closing of the afd. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found her myspace page which claimed she was Voluptuous Magazine's Model of the Year for 2000 and 2001.[23] However, that's not an independent reliable source for a self-serving notability claim. Magazine is not notable, award is not notable so delete. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THIRD TIME'S A CHARM! Delete. Burn it with fire. This is a WP:BLP article which has no sources. Since there are some people who are wiki-stalking every edit I make now, YES I searched on Google News archives. I found ZIP, NADA, ZERO. JBsupreme (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also a grand total of 1 film review between AVN and XBIZ. No coverage of any kind found.Horrorshowj (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2008 (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 Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mitchell

Notable only for being in a marginally notable band, no sources found. Note that there is a football player with this same name, so if this is deleted, I would like the football player's page (Alex Mitchell (American football player) moved to this title and Alex Mitchell (disambiguation) deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added: There is also an electric violinist named Alex Mitchell worthy of mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.235.22 (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the irony of all this is that I only wrote the stub on the gridiron player when the dab page was brought up for deletion, so that it would be saved for having two bluelinks! FWIW, I think the musician (the one with Curve) may be worth an article, too so if the current nom is deleted it may be worth considering keeping the dab page and moving it' to Alex Mitchell, rather than moving the sportsman there. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 21:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Circus of Power article OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:43, 16 October 2008 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John J. McGraw

Delete. On available evidence the subject does not appear to meet reasonable notability or verifiability threshholds for inclusion. Suject is author of a single nonfiction book, published by a small 'independent' press that (going by material at publisher Aegis Press's website) has published only 4 other titles, 3 by this and one other author, plus one likely out-of-copyright reprint of a 1930s book. The publishing house may likely be connected with, or set up by, the author(s) themselves. Discounting the dustjacket blurbs, Amazon reader reviews and 1 or 2 blog mentions, a search in the usual places—GoogleScholar, GoogleBooks, JSTOR, WorldCat, etc—to see if the author or book have been cited, commented upon or otherwise mentioned by notable independent 3rd parties draws pretty much a blank, save for two general book reviews in not-very-prominent periodicals- one in the Journal of Religion and Health, another in Esoteric Quarterly. The 'book of the year' award comes from an otherwise quite low-key magazine ForeWord, a low circulation publ. apparently devoted to titles from small independent publishers. General ghits for the author/book are likewise at the low end of the spectrum. In addition there may well be a WP:COI aspect here, to judge from the article creator's other contribs consisting mainly of inserting links & mentions of the author & book. With no further demonstration of notability in the article, and no disrespect or opinion on author/book intended, ATM I can't see that this article meets N or V criteria for inclusion. cjllw ʘ TALK 04:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ his book gets reviews... and so does he...some not trivial. But this seems to be a one-hit wonder. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those searches are specific to this John J. McGraw or his book. Note, among others there's a namesake John Joseph McGraw of some baseball fame, many of those ghits in your searches refer to him, or one of the others on John McGraw (disambiguation). I couldn't see any non-trivial reviews of this author/the book in those searches that I hadn't already pointed out, but maybe I'm missing 'em..? --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I withdraw my delete because nom feels this search is not for this book. I was unaware that there were other books by this name written by other individuals with the same name. My bad. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, close to an A7 speedy. There is little or no assertion of notability in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost no references, very minor book & not much else. DGG (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:30, 12 October 2008 (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) 11:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ragsdale

Proposal for deletion due to lack of content which would tie this article to anything meaningful except for the naseba article. IMHO reads very much like a personal description on a homepage or such. piksi (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only real references are from the same small newspaper. Non-notable, non-verifiable.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Clubmarx (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with others that this appears not to be a significant or notable businessman — even if the company is notable, he doesn't inherit notability simply by being its founder, CEO, etc. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The requirements for WP:BIO articles is non-trivial coverage from multiple third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2008 (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) 08:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Vellani

Non-notable board game designer, who "appears to have withdrawn" and for whom there's no other evidence of notability. See this AfD for a related discussion. Would have bundled but was not aware of this article at the time. Bundling now:

Helmut Ohley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - same series of semi n-n games, no evidence of other notability
Lonny Orgler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gary Mroczka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note I am explicitly not listing those who seem to have other notability. TravellingCari 03:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin, should this end in delete, please note the number of re-directs in the above named article histories. May be a number to take care of. TravellingCari 04:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo _radda 00:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per prior AfD, and nom. None of these meet the notability requirements. Themfromspace (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --Az Cold As Ize (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note account above has been blocked as vandalism only. TravellingCari 12:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, and seriously consider deleting the list of 18XX games too. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, why is this being re-listed over and over? There is a clear consensus on this, from what I can see. JBsupreme (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2008 (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) 08:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Vellani

Non-notable board game designer, who "appears to have withdrawn" and for whom there's no other evidence of notability. See this AfD for a related discussion. Would have bundled but was not aware of this article at the time. Bundling now:

Helmut Ohley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - same series of semi n-n games, no evidence of other notability
Lonny Orgler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gary Mroczka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note I am explicitly not listing those who seem to have other notability. TravellingCari 03:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin, should this end in delete, please note the number of re-directs in the above named article histories. May be a number to take care of. TravellingCari 04:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo _radda 00:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per prior AfD, and nom. None of these meet the notability requirements. Themfromspace (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --Az Cold As Ize (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note account above has been blocked as vandalism only. TravellingCari 12:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, and seriously consider deleting the list of 18XX games too. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, why is this being re-listed over and over? There is a clear consensus on this, from what I can see. JBsupreme (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2008 (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. kur ykh 05:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zukhits

This reads like a fansite / advert, is poorly referenced, and makes no credible claim of notability. I have chased down the references for convenience:

The references do little to provide context on the subject of the article:

"Hernan Santiago: Recording Engineer". No mention of Zukhits or Buchanan on page.
"The Lab: Ask Duro". No mention of Zukhits or Buchanan on page.
"Kingz Kounty available at Tower Records". Mentioned as one of 5 producers on the record.
Baker, Soren (2002-04-11). "VH1 Kingz Kounty Review". VH1.com. Mentioned briefly as "promising" in passing in a longer article.
Buschmann, Uwe (2003-05-07). "German Kingz Kounty Review". Plattenkritiken. Mentioned once in passing on a German language web page about the album Kingz Kounty.
Baker, Soren (2002-04-07). "Neil Young Tries on a New Hat". Mentioned in a one-paragraph blurb on Kingz Kounty in a series of notes after an article.
"Ian London Productions". No mention of Zukhits or Buchanan on page.
"Big Sound Music Documentary" (2008). Article subject is conducting an interview broadcast on YouTube, not the subject of one.
"Tony Dawsey - Discography" (2007-09-11). No mention of Zukhits or Buchanan on page.
"MasterDisk Studios". No mention of Zukhits or Buchanan on page.

The creator of the page has, since my original tagging of the page, made several edits to the page in the form of removing tags and tweaking the references, but has made no material changes to the content or actually improved or provided additional references.

Bongomatic (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless proper notability can be provided through WP:Notability (persons) as my own search for Zukhits brings up trivial hits. The article and current references seem to be stressing and taking advantage of notability by association... but Notibility is not inherited. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having your name mentioned in passing in a few articles - however important the publication might be - is a far cry from being the subject of those articles. I see no legitimate claim to Wikipedia notability. JohnInDC (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal How about I reduce the article to a stub and take out the trivial material. As I've said before he is a credible producer with production credits on two commercially released CDs (Kingz Kounty and Bro Kin Haylow). As per wikipedia guidelines: A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1]

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries[2] except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble. Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." He satisfies the notability requirement because he has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works (LA Times, VH1, and the German article) whose source is independent from the musician itself and reliable. Therefore if I remove everything else the wikipedia guidelines should be satisified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPercy (talk • contribs) 22:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:56, 12 October 2008 (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) 08:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Vellani

Non-notable board game designer, who "appears to have withdrawn" and for whom there's no other evidence of notability. See this AfD for a related discussion. Would have bundled but was not aware of this article at the time. Bundling now:

Helmut Ohley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - same series of semi n-n games, no evidence of other notability
Lonny Orgler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gary Mroczka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note I am explicitly not listing those who seem to have other notability. TravellingCari 03:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin, should this end in delete, please note the number of re-directs in the above named article histories. May be a number to take care of. TravellingCari 04:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo _radda 00:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per prior AfD, and nom. None of these meet the notability requirements. Themfromspace (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --Az Cold As Ize (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note account above has been blocked as vandalism only. TravellingCari 12:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, and seriously consider deleting the list of 18XX games too. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, why is this being re-listed over and over? There is a clear consensus on this, from what I can see. JBsupreme (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2008 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gustafson

Not sufficiently noteable. Geronimo20 (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning towards the D-word. The main question is (ignoring the cruft about teaching and children's books) whether the subject is a notable pike angler... but I'm not sure that the single decent source (the Telegraph article) holds enough weight on its own (and Googling doesn't yield much else). This article has tested my adherence to policy and certainly stretched the boundaries of AGF so I wouldn't be too sorry to see it go, but I'm staying neutral for the mo. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 09:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Neutral Living in the local area, I thought he was more notable for his books myself. I don't particularly care about the article but describing is writing as 'cruft' seems a bit POV. 137.205.17.89 (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 137.205.17.89 (talk • contribs) is a suspected sockpuppet of the creator of this article --Geronimo20 (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough to have his own page. He is probably only notable around Oxfordshire for his books and maybe angling but that's about it. I haven't heard anything about him for years. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The books are almost unknown--and apparently self-published. DGG (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2008 (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. kur ykh 05:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlie Wong

If I understand precedent correctly, reality show participants aren't considered notable unless their importance has also been discussed in reliable, third-party sources. This particular person finished eighth on a season of Project Runway, and in my opinion, does not have the sources that would make her notability clear. I searched google briefly and didn't find the kinds of sources that I thought met WP:RS. Prod removed by creator, who appears to be Carlie Wong herself. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, myself, am not Carlie Wong, but the only wikipedia I planned on creating was for Carlie Wong (thus the username). And if Kelli Martin, Kit Pistol, Kevin Johnn, and Diana Eng can have articles for Project Runway when none of them are notable (and their articles are otherwise stubs), then Carlie Wong should be able to have one, too. Carlie Wong has shown a collection at L'Oreal Fashion Week and is preparing to show again in October. The four designers I have named above have never shown at a prestigious fashion week. So if they have this "notability" then why doesn't Carlie Wong? Perhaps propose to delete their articles?

I do understand you are trying to keep wikipedia orderly and the best it can be, so I appreciate you carefully checking my article (now with refrences/citations and celebrity clientele to come in the next few hours/days). So I really hope that this article doesn't have to be deleted, because I really do believe it is notable.

If there's any way you see the article can be improved as a matter of rhetoric, do let me know.

Thank you, Brett CarlieWong (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment speaking about other articles as a defense of this one is not an appropriate argument. See WP:WAX. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this person is known for one event... that she did not even win. The article is certainly sourced to heaven... but where is the notability? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wong is noted for Project Runway Canada and for L'Oreal Fashion Week. That's two events going on three. But if you really do feel strongly about deleting it, please do so. You are the experts, not me. So I'll completely understand if you do. No worries. :)

thank you for your consideration.CarlieWong (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Could someone knowledgeable advise, if you strip out the Project Runway thing, at what point would showing a collection at a Fashion week cross the notability threshold ? -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Losing contestants on reality shows aren't notable, but neither are high school football coaches like Mark Mangino: they can be notable simply by having multiple reliable sources, and neither being the losing contestant nor being a high school football coach disqualifies them from notability. Wong seems to have about five different reliable sources on this article, and (as the unsigned comment says) for different events, too, so I can't see how this person fails the notability test. Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't know why someone would make a username based off a real person if they are not said person. Even if they aren't, it's just going to lead people to believe that they are.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Carlie Wong is so notable then Biddell should have a page, since he won. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.247.26 (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2008 (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. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hoffmann

Non-notable figure skater, fails WP:V. At age 15, she's never even competed in senior nationals, which means she fails the WP:ATHLETE criterion of competing at the "highest level of amateur sport." With only 24 unique G-hits [24], almost exclusively Wiki mirrors and figure skating websites, there are no reliable sources evident that would fulfill the general notability criteria. Prod removed by creator without comment. RGTraynor 16:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets the general notability guidelines with significant coverage in Sachsische Zeitung one of Dresden's two major newspapers, [25],[26],[27]and [28]. RMHED (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The first article is two paragraphs long. The second is an article on that particular competition; Hoffmann is not the subject. The third is an article on a show by a local ice skating club, and Hoffman's sole presence in the article is that the photo accompanying it has her in it. The final link is another article concerning another competition in which she appeared. All are trivial mentions. Did you read through all of them first? RGTraynor 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that two paragraphs in a major regional newspaper combined with the other mentions is enough to meet the general notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I concur with User:RMHED. The subject meets the general notability guidelines per guidelines for notability (persons). One cannot expect The Washington Post to do an in-depth reprt on iceskating. The sources pointed out by User:RMHED are reliable sources independent of the event. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One can indeed expect the Post to do indepth bios on individual figure skaters, something that happens frequently, but beyond that, the answer to the frequently-asked question on Wikipedia "But no one's writing substantive articles in the mainstream media about my subject!!" is "Then WP:V dictates the subject does not merit an article." RGTraynor 16:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are about the event, not the individual, which means they fail the need to be non-trivial. -Djsasso (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2008 (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. Wizardman 12:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M. J. Khan

Pakistani academic. Too marginal in my opinion. Not that he hasn't had a nice career: he's currently a Fulbright fellow (which is prestigious but not so uncommon) and has a nice record of publication. Alas, this does not mean that there exists significant third-party coverage of his life or career. Google search is problematic because of this guy and others who also share the same name and initials. Pichpich (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable subject, and lack of published, third-party information. Jor dan ^Contribs 14:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply not exceptional (notable?) enough. 15:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Annette46 (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF based on the information available. His webpage[29] indicates that he is still an Assistant Professor. Nsk92 (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recent PhD (2004), assistant prof, few publications, none in major journals, no evidence for notability. --Crusio (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2008 (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) 12:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lorelei (bondage model)

Could not find any independent secondary reliable source that verifies notability. See WP:PORNBIO. According to WP:V, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete passes neither WP:BIO or even WP:PORNBIO. All the magazines listed appear to be grade-Z skin rags we don't even have articles on ("Ladies in Barefoot Bondage #1"?! Come on.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I agree with the above editors. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added an IMDB link, and still digging for info... SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary keep There is three years of improvement by a number of editors. This could have potential. Deleting it could kill an article by eliminating traces of it. Putting in a user space also hides it. Do not put it in my user space as I do not want porn there. This is not a case of an unknown star trying to write their own article. Is this person one of the more famous bondage stars? If so, this may have merit. Spevw (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say if the article has had "three years of improvement by a number of editors" and is still in the present condition, that's a strong indication that bringing it up to article standards is fundametally impossible due to a non-notable subject for whom no reliable sources exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 70+ IMDB credits at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1104292/, well-known figure in bondage movies. Regular top-10 appearances as a model in the SIGNY awards, and several times SIGNY best website winner for her bedroombondage.com site. -- Karada (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What are some of the reliable sources that verifies her fame in bondage movies? Even though I don't think top-10 finishes in SIGNY necessarily means she is a serious nominee for a well known award, what are some reliable sources that verify the SIGNYs? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If the SIGNY nominations award can be backed, and if they can be shown as being notable, then my vote changes. Otherwise I don't see anything in the article to show notability. Tabercil (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:PORNBIO does not apply here. Given the number of references in IMDB there is no reason to delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, bondage videos are a form of pornography so I don't understand why WP:PORNBIO wouldn't apply. IMDB doesn't refrain from listing pornographic movies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a BLP without one single reliable source. RMHED (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. Anyone can add anything to IMDB. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delte. Whether WP:pornbio or WP:bio apply, this fails both. IMDB is not a RS for anything, so it fails verifiability and notability, and i think most would agree that listing someone as a porn actress with no sources is a serious WP:BLP violoation.Yobmod (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2008 (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. TravellingCari 21:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Papadatos

Unreferenced piece with continuing COI issues. No notability established. Mfield (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: ARTICLE NOT TAGGED Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

retagged Mfield (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, no assertion of significance or importance. So nominated. ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete but not speedy. Asserts some notability through multiple exhibitions of the artworks. Inadequate references to keep, but enough to justify a discussion in the hope someone can find them in the 5 days.DGG (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exhibition history not enough to attain notability. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2008 (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, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myron Evans

AfDs for this article:

Subject has requested deletion of his BLP. Apart from his claimed discoveries in fringe science, subject is otherwise unnotable. Mathsci (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not accepted by the mainstream scientific community and it has not been presented by the mainstream press, so I guess it's not notable enough. bogdan (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Daniel (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mathsci (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and bogdan. Does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:PROF. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:PROF, and notability as a meme in popular culture is not established. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These sorts of articles are valuable to readers, who otherwise may have difficulty finding impartial information about a topic. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an inappropriate subject for a biography, as no independent biographical sources exist. He makes a number of claims to notability, including being a (or the) "Civil List Scientist", but these claims are entirely unverifiable from any independent source - while it is apparent from a primary source replicated on his website that he enjoys a pension of some sort from the Civil List, there is nothing in Hansard or on any government website to indicate why it is, and his claim that this is somehow an endorsement of his AIAS work is not supportable from a single independent source. There is, in fact, no reputable source for the existence of any distinction or title of "Civil List Scientist". The civil list for 2007 does not mention him or his purported title. This singular claim is emblematic of the the problems with verifying anything about the man himself. On the other hand, his theory may indeed be "notable twaddle". I would suggest that if four or five decent sources could be found discussing his work in at least reasonably dispassionate terms then an article on the theory may well be justified. This article, however, has to go as seriously failing WP:BLP. Guy 16:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This case is not really clear-cut. The editorial by Nobelist 't Hooft (cited in the article) mentions 15 papers published in the journal "Foundations of Physics Letters" (not part of Foundations of Physics and another two articles dedicated solely to refuting Evans' theory. On the other hand, the citation record is rather dismal: Scopus mentions two articles cited 14 and 13 times, the rest are in the single digits. Taken together, I think this fails WP:PROF and barring coverage in mainstream media, also WP:BIO. As an aside, not every theory that is wrong is pseudoscience. Given that this theory was published in respected physics journals (there are also articles in Physica B: Condensed Matter and Acta Physica Polonica, Series B), I would hesitate to call this pseudoscience. --Crusio (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have not commented on Evans' mathematics: he has claimed that the Bianchi identities are not valid for an arbitrary connection on a principal bundle. This is nonsense: it is not just pseudoscience, but extremely bad science. Mathsci (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For a real scientist, commiting errors is less bad than doing pseudoscience. I have no objection to "bad science". I object to pseudoscience without solid evidence. --Crusio (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in RL world of scientific research these labels are very rarely applied. A lot of good scientists make unintentional errors or oversights which they later correct. Mathsci (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There don't seem to be any notable contributions here, beyond theories which not only have not been accepted, but seem to qualify as pseudoscience. That doesn't qualify as notable. FlyingToaster (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to FlyingToaster (and Daniel above) This isn't a vote, please provide some sort of reasoning. Thank you. -- how do you turn this on 18:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My reason is the nomination, as I fielded (and replied to) the subject's request for deletion. My position in this debate was more to confirm the existance of said request (as it is in our restricted access system) and to suggest that I would agree with/support the subject's request. Daniel (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barely notable individual, and per reasonable request for this to be deleted, make it so. -- how do you turn this on 18:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His theories have not until now been accepted by the mainstream scientific community? How about are not accepted? But, as has been pointed out, he's just not notable. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing an reasonable test of notability and verifiability. There's just not enough out there to support even the barest of stubs in a reliable manner. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How many of the people claiming lack of notability have actually looked at this? It's clear that Evans is a crank whose ideas get no mainstream support, but it's equally clear that his ideas are notable enough to have provoked three reputable physicists to publish papers debunking them. Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is clear is you are violating WP:BLP here. This is not a forum to discuss your personal views on the subject. Please refrain from attacking him. (I suggest you remove your attacks as soon as possible) -- how do you turn this on 18:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:How do you turn this on, I am not sure your comments are helpful. You should be aware that one way of assessing a scientist's mathematical contributions is to look at mathscinet. Evans does not do very well there, as there are several published refutations of his work, confirmed by reviewers. This should not be mistaken for a personal attack: this is just an indication that he has repeatedly made errors in his mathematics. Please stop wikilawyering. Mathsci (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone a crank is a personal attack. -- how do you turn this on 22:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~User:How do you turn this on, only you have used the word "crank" on this page~~. The papers I mentioned and their corresponding reviews on mathscinet are now in the article: they point out serious errors in Evans' mathematics, which have been confirmed by neutral reviewers for Mathematical Reviews. Some of these articles were referred to in the editorial of 't Hooft. Mathsci (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC) (I have removed the mathematical criticisms: please see below) Mathsci (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"…only you have used…" – that is incorrect [30]. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad science usually is ignored by other scientists. Pseudoscience is almost always ignored. Here several people actually bother to write articles to refute his work. That's not bad, I think. Dosn't show notability, but gives the impression that his errors (published in peer-reviewed journals) were not of the "bad science" and "pseudoscience" varieties. --Crusio (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serious errors in his mathematics were pointed out in published articles, confirmed in Mathematical Reviews. Is it up to wikipedians to make value judgements about that? 't Hooft pointed out in his editorial that refereeing for Foundations of Physics Letters had been lax, with a particular reference to the published papers of Evans. Mathsci (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but 't Hooft doesn't say a word about the laxity (or not) of refereeing in FPL. But do we really need to go into all these detailed discussions about whether this is pseudoscience or not? There pretty much seems to be consesnsus here that this article should be deleted regardless. --Crusio (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(a) The mathematics has irretrievable problems (see the references here [31]). (b) 't Hooft wrote:

Between 2003 and 2005, the former Journal "Foundations of Physics Letters" (now subsumed into "Foundations of Physics") has published a series of papers by M.W. Evans. A partial list of these papers is given below. Together they would form a book that was intended to unleash a revolutionary paradigm switch in theoretical physics, rendering results in quantum field theory and general relativity, including the Standard Model, superstring theory and much of cosmology, obsolete. The magic word is ECE (Einstein-Cartan-Evans) theory, and the theory is claimed to have ignited frantic activities on the internet. In fact however, these activities have remained limited to personal web pages and are absent from the standard electronic archives, while no reference to ECE theory can be spotted in any of the peer reviewed scientific journals. This issue of Foundations of Physics now publishes 3 papers (G.W. Bruhn, F.W.Hehl, F.W. Hehl and Y.N.Obukhov) that critically analyse the ECE theory and its claims. M.W. Evans has declined the invitation to respond, referring to his web pages, http://atomicprecision.com. Taking into account the findings of Bruhn, Hehl and Obukhov, the discussion on ECE in the journal Foundations of Physics will be concluded herewith unless very good arguments are presented to resume the matter.

These editorial comments seem unambiguous: under the previous editor-in-chief of FPL, Alwyn van der Merwe, a long series of papers was accepted which presented a "new approach" to physics; however, the theory has been pointed out to have serious problems and therefore the journal will not publish any further papers on this topic. This shows a change in attitude to the previous editor, a friend of Evans, who accepted all Evans' papers: this could be summarised as laxness. In another editorial in the same journal, 't Hooft makes further comments:

During my first couple of months in this office, it became clear that fundamental questions in physics and philosophy also attract the interest of many laymen physicists. We receive numerous submissions from people who venture to attack the most basic premises of theories such as Special Relativity, but instead only succeed in displaying a lack of professional insight in how a physical theory is constructed. I suspect that some of these people may have been working somewhere in an attic, deprived from daylight for decades, determined only to reemerge with a Theory of Everything in their hands. Even though they may be very sincere, we have to disappoint such authors. New insights are gained only by intense interactions with professionals all over the globe, and by solidly familiarizing oneself with their findings, and we must make a selection from only those papers whose authors have a solid understanding of the topics they are discussing. Fortunately they also submit their work, and their clever inventiveness continues to surprise us. The foundations of our science are indeed very much worthwhile to be intensely studied. I am sure that progress of science strongly depends on the deep and daring insights that may be gained by taking a fresh look at the most basic facts that underly our present knowledge.

I can't see much room for confusion about what 't Hooft intended to say.

But yes, I agree absolutely with your last statement as I wrote below: the case for deletion does seem clear; and it is unnecessary to see what is crawling around under all these stones. Mathsci (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really have to discuss all this here? Evans' theory may be pseudoscience, bad science, or just wrong. It's not a personal attack to argue for one of these, but I don't see how it's relevant to this deletion discussion. OTOH calling Evans himself names ("crank") is a personal attack (although WP:NPA is not directly applicable because Evans is not taking part in the discussion). A combined reading of WP:NPA and WP:BLP should make it plain that Looie496 has violated the spirit of our policies. It would be clearly unacceptable in the article (even with reliable sources), and it would be clearly unacceptable here if Evans was an established editor rather than someone who simply started editing because there was a Wikipedia article on hims with a severe BLP violation (a "pseudoscience" box with no appropriate sources for justification). Is it so hard to understand that BLP subjects are human beings, and that even if some of these human beings should need to be humiliated for some reason, it is never acceptable to do this on Wikipedia? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that Mathsci had not seen the personal attack when writing his last contribution, so part of what I just wrote is moot. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's correct. Sorry about the confusion. However, I am in agreement with you. In fact I just removed the mathematical criticisms from the article, even though they are technically correct. As you say, since notability has not been established and the subject has requested the removal of the BLP, we really don't need to go down that avenue at the moment. Thanks for your input. Mathsci (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I apologize for using the word "crank". I assumed that as a signed entry on a discussion page this would be seen as my personal opinion. Please substitute "determined proponent of a fringe theory". Looie496 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like the discussion is tending towards deletion, and I'm fine with that. I just wanted to comment that if the article is deleted it should be because the subject is genuinely not notable or information about him is not verifiable, not because of concerns about the quality of his work. Even if it were to be established that his work were complete rubbish pseudoscience, this would not be a good argument for deletion. Wikipedia articles on pseudoscience provide a valuable service, by ideally being an unbiased (or at least neutral) description of the subject. We provide a resource that can help readers who have encountered a novel idea to determine whether it is accepted science, fringe science, or pseudoscience. We can't do that if we purge articles on pseudoscience topics from the 'pedia.

It's also not clear to me that the subject of an article on Wikipedia has standing to request its deletion. As long as the article is NPOV and properly cited, we should not cater to the wish of individuals to have unflattering information about themselves removed.--Srleffler (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I agree completely. Some pseudoscience is well-known, widely-reported and needs to be included in WP (think homeopathy, astrology, and other such stuff). And subjects can ask modification of their bio if it contains mistakes (or worse, outright lies), but suppose Sarah Palin would request deletion of her WP bio, that would clearly not be in the interest of creating a good encyclopedia. In the present case, however, there is no evidence of notability under WP:ACADEMIC. Neither are there verifiable, independent sources arguing for notability under WP:BIO. So regardles of whether the work of this person falls under "sloppy, bad science", "pseudoscience", or "wrong science, but honest mistake", there is a clear-cut case for deletion here. --Crusio (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two conflicting requirements: the need to alert WP readers to problems with fringe science (in this case ECE theory); and the more stringent rules for BLPs. In the past Evans tried to use his theory to justify the claims of the motionless electromagnetic generator crowd; more recently he tried the same thing with the Irish company Steorn. This sort of stuff is beyond the fringe. Perhaps one solution is to have articles describing several related fringe theories in physics, which are not biographical. Mathsci (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evans is not just a pseudoscientist; he is an aggressive pseudoscientist. He takes legal action against those who point out obvious errors in his mathematics. In the past, such scare tactics have been used only by the paranormalists (Uri Geller's notorious [and failed] legal attempt to silence James Randi, for instance). Evans has thus placed himself beyond the pale of polite academic discourse. More seriously still, he attempts to propagandize influential non-scientists (with, for instance, civil dignitaries turning up at the bogus Santilli-Galilei academic award ceremony at his behest) and to influence political decisions about energy sourcing. His followers also occupy posts, at various levels, in the educational system; thus posing a threat to the optimum education of impressionable students. His inclusion in Wikipedia amounts to another attempt to 'baffle the gullible with science' and it is only fitting that he should limit himself to Marquis Who's Who entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.107.2 (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are Mathsci and the previous anonymous vote are arguing for notability of Evans? --Crusio (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not in the least. This is only the second edit of the anomymous IP, and should therefore be disqualified. Sreffler was one of the original contributors to the article, so was contacted by me as a matter of courtesy. He is familiar with the "zero point energy" crowd, as you could soon find out from his editing history; hence my comments. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I think Crusio is right (and Mathsci has misinterpreted him). While the anon is arguing for deletion of the article, if what he/she says is true Evans would probably be notable and it would not be appropriate to delete. The anon has missed precisely the point I was trying to make above: bad science is not at all a justification for deleting an article. We want good, solid NPOV articles on bad science precisely to counter attempts to baffle people with propaganda elsewhere. The important issues here are whether Evans is actually notable, and whether information about him is verifiable. If there is independent media coverage of him taking legal action against detractors, propagandizing non-scientists, etc. then he is notable and these things should be covered in the article.

I am a bit uncomfortable that this AfD was initiated by Evans's request. Take a hypothetical example: Imagine someone intent on promoting a false image of himself and his work and using propaganda. Such a person might well be unhappy with Wikipedia's NPOV treatment, and might prefer to have WP say nothing rather than reveal things he might not want revealed. In such a case we would not be doing the public a service by complying with the person's request to delete his biography.--Srleffler (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say he was notable as an academic; and notability is never established on wikipedia as the result of a posting by an anonymous SPA. The criteria are WP:V and WP:RS. The AfD was initiated by a complicated chain of events, which involved among other things Evans blanking the article (as Carrot18), possibly sending emails to WP, followed by administrative intervention on the article itself. Only the statements of 't Hooft were left in the article, as Daniel and Crusio had removed everything else. [32] [33][34][35] The primary purpose of BLPs is not as debunking pages for fringe theories by scientific nonentities. I took the trouble to locate academic sources which showed the science was hopelessly flawed: some time back I included the external link to 't Hooft's editorial (replacing a previous debunking page withdrawn by 't Hooft) and had quite recently included four articles, reviewed in MR, pointing out irretrievable errors in Evans' mathematics. [36] However, his academic career and his subsequent web presence fail notability in the sense of WP:PROF, as the majority of participants in this debate here have pointed out. Mathsci (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Even if this BLP is deleted, anybody is free to write a non-biographical article on Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory, already listed on List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, using as sources Evans' published work (his books), its published application to the motionless electromagnetic generator and the published criticisms already mentioned here. Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An interesting parallel can be found in this AfD, where people are arguing that someone is notable because somebody else published an article (not three or more as is the case here) to show that someone's work is flawed... Note that I am arguing in favor of deletion in both cases, though. --Crusio (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete Frankly, I'm a little surprised when I looked for sources that I couldn't find more since I've heard of Evans. Evans is arguably not a willing public figure in the sense that all he is doing is publishing his personal theory and nothing more. Thus, his request for deletion should be given some weight. Simply being an academic may not put you into the category of willing public figure. Given that Evans is of borderline notability and is not a public figure, deletion for seems reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete: Self-publicist at best. --AlisonW (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2008 (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 Idol 2008. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Bergendahl

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. --TheLeft orium 15:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just because you are on a tv show doesn't make you notable Clubmarx (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above AlwaysOnion (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Idol 2008, the reality program on which she is currently a contestant. B.Wind (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2008 (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 ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Free

Probable WP:HOAX. One single of hers, "Get Back", allegedly charted as #1 for eight weeks on an unspecified chart, but I find no proof of that. Only film of her Filmography that I found at the imdb is The Simpsons Movie, but she isn't credited there.
She in any case fails WP:BIO, google news doesn't find any significant coverage, which it should for a 19 year old notable actress and singer from Canada. Amalthea^Talk 17:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the article was created by a sockpuppet of Zacharyy (talk · contribs). --Amalthea^Talk 17:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and block both editors. Clear hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If not a hoax, then the least notable music act ever. Bongomatic (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This pack of lies is a stub. You can improve it by deleting it and salting the remains. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2008 (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. MBisanz ^talk 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Andrew Roth

Fails WP:PROF. No third party references. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 04:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An associate professor of mathematics does not seem very notable. Let him do some more stuff before writing an article on him. Redddogg (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He works in algebraic geometry, which is perhaps the toughest area of pure math in terms of obtaining new results and where people do not publish a lot. I checked MathSciNet and he has 7 papers listed there (which does seem to be a bit low even for algebraic geometry). Two of them are in top-notch journals: one in Inventiones Mathematicae [37] and one in Crelle's Journal [38] That's very good but, in the absence of additional evidence, not good enough for passing WP:PROF. Citation hits, both in googlescholar and in mathscinet, are pretty low and neither the WP article nor his webpage give any other information (such as honors/awards, journal editorships, etc) that might indicate passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not give any evidence of passing WP:PROF nor can I find such evidence elsewhere. As Nsk92 reports, the publication record looks slim. I'm sure Queens U. had good reason for promoting him to associate but that's not enough to persuade me that he's notable enough to maintain an article on him here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the article makes no assertions of notability, and the Wikipedians above, who are skilled at data dumping in this field, find none. On a side-note, Gregory G Smith was created by the same editor from the same template, with the only real claim of notability the Aisenstadt Prize, and might stand looking at from someone who is more familiar with the field.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2008 (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. MBisanz ^talk 19:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dariush Kashani

Unremarkable minor actor. No feature roles in movie or television. Google news search finds passing mention (cast list) in a few theatre reviews. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFD was blanked and replaced with "To call someone an unremarkable actor sounds like defamation of character. Please remove these words and this entry. It's malicious." by article creator Gingerhillinc (talk · contribs). I'll leave a note on their talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a longer than usual listing of roles on IMDB, but as far as I can see they are all minor bit parts and the like. I strongly doubt that he meets the WP:ENTERTAINER notability guideline. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete can't find anything more than passing mentions in sources (with the possible exception of this, but it still doesn't provide more than a sentence discussing the him). Hut 8.5 09:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability. And, for what it's worth, the article creator has been indef blocked for making legal threats over this, and also has some serious COI problems. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While the creator was blocked, they have been unblocked, but based on comments on my talk page I doubt they will be returning to Wikipedia. In any case, that shouldn't be a factor in whether or not to keep or delete this article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; article is completely unsourced, appears to have been authored by the subject's publicist, manager, or agent, and other than a list of minor roles on IMDB, is unverifiable by reference to mainstream reliable sources. The only things I see are personal web pages or social/networking sites like Plaxo or Classmates. --MCB (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2008 (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 the consensus and also the risk of negative unsourced BLP. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander "Harry" Cole

Non-notable Pistachiones (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only reference that could possibly be helpful is from a student paper. Fails "significant coverage" and "reliable source". Bongomatic (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has done nothing significant or notable, according to the article. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2008 (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Lyons

Had a few roles but lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo _radda 00:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Searching Google news and choosing ALL dates brings up plenty. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. None of the roles to date have been significant. Minor non-recurring roles only in 15 year career. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2008 (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, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David James (singer)

Appears to be a somewhat blatant advertisement; not notable. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see any significant coverage or anything that would satisfy WP:MUSIC. It says on his official Myspace bio that his last album was produced in his mother's basement and that he mainly plays in clubs in LA. This doesn't give me hope that substantial independent coverage is out there. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic delete. This isn't even close - two download-only albums? Nothing else, no tours, no WP:MUSIC. B.Wind (talk) 03:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - 68.183.55.64 (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2008 (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. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Chey

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination following deletion review. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 7 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Chey. Note left at DRV. No opinion from me. Carcharoth (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Carcharoth (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nomination (no reason provided to delete). — CharlotteWebb 14:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: Since you don't care about what happens to the article, you shouldn't have nominated it.Schuym1 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Carcharoth was implementing the consensus arrived at at WP:DRV, which was to relist, so it was perfectly reasonable to nominate this without having his/her own opinion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references in the article and presented in the previous AfD and DRV. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated Tim Chey for deletion (the first AFD) because he does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. A Google news search does indeed bring up articles, but they are almost all mere passing mentions or simply credits as a director. Others are reviews of his films and not substantially about Chey. One article is an interview with Chey, but it is a UCLA alumni website, so fails WP:RS. There simply isn't significant coverage of Chey, and the sources mentioned at the end of the first AFD do nothing to address that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reviews of the subject's films are articles about his work, which is what makes him notable, rather than his shoe size or favourite colour. For all sorts of people such as politicians, business people, academics, sportspeople, rock stars etc. we accept articles about their work as establishing notability, so why not for film directors? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While what you say makes some sense, it doesn't appear to be the rule commonly applied to the notability of directors. If a director's films are remarkable in some way, there will be coverage of the director separate from film reviews, just as there is for politicians, musicians, sportspeople, etc. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep A review about a Chey film is a review of Chey's work as a director. Since being a director is what his notability is, his films being reviewed is a review of hiw work. It works for me. Pity the poor director whose never got a review. All that aside, he is an AWARD WINNING director. His notability is affirmed. How could the author have missed this???? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the IMDB listing for the 1997 Hamptons International Film Festival - Chey's film did not win. As for the Urban World Festival, an "audience award" from a cannot be judged as equivalent to a juried award, in the same manner that wikis are not acceptable as sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I did a little work on the article with cleanup, expansion, wikifying, and sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The films are notable, but he isn't. Schuym1 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for that... as without his directing and writing, the films might have had no notability at all, and thus this reflects his ability and notability. In this case, the two are not separate from each oether... they are mutually supportive of notability. He has been critically acclaimed just as have they... either in reviews, or in his films being reviewed: The Cristian Pulse, Christian Film News, Christain Spotlight on Entertainment, Joel Comm, Film Critic, Hollywood Jesus, New Christain Voices, Praize, Christianity Today, Pass the Popcorn, Ruthless Reviews, Christian Cinema, Alibris. There is enough writen about him, or he in conjunction with his films, to show a distinct notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty to establish notability. Malinaccier P. (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a director and his films are inextricably linked so notability of the films establishes notability of the director. -- Whpq (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just as you can't have a notable book without the writer being notable, so is it you can't have a notable movie without its director being notable. Dream Focus (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several editors have equated the notability of a director's films with the notability of the director themselves. I just want to note that this is contrary to both WP:CREATIVE and WP:NOTABILITY, however much it appeals to "common sense". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Perhaps not "equate", but they are definitely related, and acknowledged by bullet point 3 in WP:CREATIVE. A director plays a major role in the creation of a film. So if the film is a notable film, then he has played a major role in its creation. -- Whpq (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have missed the relevant part of that bullet point: "...which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". That's exactly what is missing in this case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2008 (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) 08:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Gilman

Resume like. No particular notability is asserted. It lists his hobbies and familiy description. Clubmarx (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Disclosure: I am the primary writer for the Don Gilman entry. Don is very well known in the simulation community for keeping alive the Harpoon simulation following the financial collapse of Three-Sixty. In addition, he has moved the simulation to a new level, with professional military organizations, such as the Australian Department of Defense and United States Naval Institute, using it as a training aid for military professionals. Perhaps if I stressed the simulation's professional aspect more, the article would be more acceptable?

Kip Allen (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Kip Allen[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He might be well known in the simulation community, but the policies that dicatate inclusion at Wikipedia are about notability, and verification using reliable sources. You would do good to read these policies, then you don't have to guess if the article passes or not. It isn't personal, it is about everyone to be included being held to the same three basic standards. As it stands now, the piece is compromised with wp:peacock terms and is a bit fluffy. I fail to see a bonified claim of notability, although it is likely short of a speedy delete under A7. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:45, 16 October 2008 (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piero Mazzi

Fails notability since June 2007. The article was tagged by the Notability wikiproject. I am just copying the reason from the Talk Page: It is currently unclear whether this artist is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, since no proper secondary sources are cited. By the notability criteria for biographies, independent reliable sources are required to make sure that the subject is notable. These sources might be, for example, an independent biography of the person, or press coverage in which he is covered in depth.

Currently, the article only points to a text "Piero Mazzi" of unknown origin; in fact, this does not seem to be a published book, at least I was unable to find it via the usual sources. If it is a independent source and not a self-published booklet, please make the reference more precise, e.g. by adding an ISBN number.

Also, I have my doubts whether the museum makes this person notable. First, dedication of a building, etc. to the person is not regarded as a fact establishing notability. Second, if the museum shows work of the artist, then it should be made clear that this museum has received sufficient recognition, say by press coverage in major newspapers. In the current state, there is no evidence in the article that the museum is not only a private, non-notable collection.. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I also cannot find confirmation of the book, the museum, or in fact any other reliable or semi-reliable reference to the artist at all other than what appears to be his own web site. Jfire (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There appears to be some sources available in Italian. I was able to find this relying on machine translation. An editor proficient in Italian may be better equipped to do the necessary research. The information in the article is npit sourced, but can be trimmed out and stubbed. -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So he had a commercial exhibition in Elba, and ....? Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and sources may be available in Italian, but I can't read Italian. That I managed to find one despite this handicap indicates that there are more available to an editor who has some proficiency in Italian. We delete articel the are unsourceable, not merely unsourced. -- Whpq (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can bid on an oil on board painting of his on Italian ebay here - 42 bids to get to €120 so far. That seems to be it. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not ready for this encyclopedia.....Modernist (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC) see below.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of meeting the criteria. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per Whpq. Fumoses (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not ready for this encyclopedia.....Modernist (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2008 (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kascha Papillon

Not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people), WP:PORNBIO: No awards, no indication of unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, and not featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. Also unsourced and tagged as original research since January. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I agree, there isn't much here. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete--Kascha appeared in several R-rated films and was one of porn's top starlets while she was active. She was easily the largest Asian star of her time, and the first Asian with fake blonde hair and silicon implants. She still has a significant cult following. LaughingLion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.

Result Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure).-- Magioladitis (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tamaki Saitō

Fails notability for biographies since June 2007. A prod last year was removed. Magioladitis (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Google search reveals some notable references. It may or may not satisfy WP:BIO, but the article just doesn't contain anything concrete to be retained.--Whizsurfer (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We generally nominate for deletion if we decide that there is no potential for the article to expand. In this case there is potential; after all Saito is considered to be the leading hikkikomori expert in Japan. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and expand, there is a substantial article on the ja wiki, I have asked for it to be translated at Wikipedia:Translation/Tamaki Saitō Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The BBC reference appears to satisfy notability requirements, and more references should be able to be added. --DAJF (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per above. Just needs a little work. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Referenced by a reliable source as being the leading expert in his field. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. It obviously doesn't fail notability for bios. Was the article even looked at by the nominator? I'm baffled. --C S (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the article's version when I nominated it and there is a tag there for 15 months. I don't think this is an obvious keep. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did check, and that's how I saw it listed Saito as "Japan's leading hikkikomori psychiatrist". Did you see that? --C S (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a text about hikkikomori referring to the name of Tamaki Saito in a single line calling him leading psychiatrist and information I couldn't cross-reference from somewhere else. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand what you're trying to say, but that is indeed an obvious keep, even if you don't know that. I would advise learning more about notability guidelines before more AFD nominations. --C S (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think article establishes notability? This is not what many editors who probably checked the article since June 2007 till now. The text on the notability text says: This article has to be deleted, merged or redirected or the tag has to be removed. A characterization in a BBC article without any more details is enough for you? Remember that we are dealing with a biography of a living person so we have to be very careful with verifiability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the BBC article more than enough established notability, and the article does enough to explain it. Plus we have the New York Times article that says so as well. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe with the NYT article added we are OK but I would like to keep debating about the "obvious keep". A single reference doesn't establish notability. I'll give you an example: BBC reported that Corfu wants autonomy. I am from Corfu and I'll tell you something: This is a BIG LIE. The Greek government tried to contact BBC for that. The guy interview in this article was complete unknown to Corfu until that and mainly of Greece's reactions. Conclusion: A single reference, not even about the person discussed, without being double-checked from secondary sources doesn't establish notability. Maybe BBC wrote that out guy here is "a leading doctor" because the person claimed that to the reporter. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the press is, while reliable, not infallible. I know Joey Skaggs has a habit of getting the press that way. Usually I treat a reference as okay until I find evidence to the contrary (I.E. a correction report) - Anyway, I concede that I should rely on multiple references; it is good that we have them in this case. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons outlined above WhisperToMe (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Recognised as the leading expert in his field. (As an aside, there is no way that BLP applies to this article - nothing that could be construed in any way as negative has been written here). Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn after new references were added, it seems this person establishes notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2008 (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, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony M.

Blatant advertisment; not notable; suspect COI violation. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons mentioned by nominator.--Boffob (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - 68.183.55.64 (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2008 (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) 08:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Vato

Blatant advertisement; suspect COI/autobiography -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not the best written article, but he has been on multiple episodes of two different TV shows, including MAD-TV, and has a published role in an movie soon to be released, plus has had minor roles in other shows. There is a lot of talk about him, just not so much in mainstream journals. Actually, just deleting the Trivia section would make it a decent article. There aren't any peacock terms, and the article is written fairly dry. That doesn't really matter, as content can be changed anyway. As for notability, I think he likely gets in just under the wire. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) — Sorry but this is pretty much exploiting Wikipedia's Search Engine Optimization capabilities for the person's benefit, hence WP:SPAM. Article can be rewritten when it's not in a blatant advertising of a tone. MuZemike (talk) 06:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's what I thought, but CSD had already been declined. I believe that was the wrong decision, but hey...I'm not among those who make those decisions, hence the AfD. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11). Textbook case. VG ☎ 13:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.- 68.183.55.64 (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2008 (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. Mr.Z-man 03:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Bennett

Subject appears to fail WP:MUSIC: No coverage evident, no verifiable album/single releases of any kind, no chart history, no awards evident etc. Article itself has serious issues under WP:VER (not a single cite, link or ref. Nor can I find any.) Guliolopez (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the only Molly Bennett I can find any sources for is not this one, so delete per nom. ww2censor (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN-Bio / unsourced - Alison ^❤ 06:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think that this article is a hoax. I think that it's strange that I couldn't find any sources (reliable or unreliable) for a 14 year old girl that released an album and has 11 Irish folk songs in circulation. Schuym1 (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I agree thisseems like a hoax. I find it hard to believe anyone could release 11 albums (the same number as U2) without any coverage or attention at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2008 (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 per the usual custom, the recommendations of very new and unregistered users are given less weight. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Hshieh

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}}.

Non-notable biography J3ff (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make stub continue to add references —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkripto (talk contribs) 23:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note to closing editor: Above account created on date of its first edit to this article. Bongomatic (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to stub, since awards received are significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.119.49 (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as it looks like a resume at this time, and individual isn't notable yet. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete resume like Clubmarx (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Put this on LinkedIn. JFW | T@lk 22:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stub add more verification/expand-- added by Ecotti

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

Note to closing editor: Above account created on date of its first edit to this article. Bongomatic (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Information can be verified-- erikasarkosi | talk 23:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note to closing editor: Above account created on date of its first edit to this article. Bongomatic (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hshieh is an influential lecturer at Harvard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.120.48 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. I have attended a few of Hshieh's lectures at Harvard. Given his contributions to 3D imaging, especially in cancer detection, I am surprised that this article is up for deletion. Most of his work is published in closed journals, but I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to add more references to this entry. Themonthcomes (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note to closing editor: Above account created on date of its first edit to this article. Bongomatic (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than enough info to justify an article. -Nard 02:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable researcher/academic. Fails WP:PROF in a blink. VG ☎ 12:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:PROF - not notable even if clearly very bright. Why are we being told a Stanford University freshman is an 'influential Harvard lecturer'? Even his CV doesn't make that claim. Large numbers of students can claim similar awards. And of course a clear campaign here by brand new editors. Doug Weller (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our standards for academics make full professors usually be notable, but to make a freshman be notable we would need extremely persuasive evidence which is not to be found here. No publications in refereed journals have been listed, and we don't see any reliable sources commenting on his work. Wikipedia does not have articles on any of the awards he is said to have received. EdJohnston (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from everything else (he's clearly nonnotable), if "most of his work is published in closed journals", that doesn't help his notability at all. Nyttend (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established Dreamspy (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing here seems to reach notability standards—G716 <^T·_C> 22:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely nonnotable, and wikipedia is no place to post ones resume. Themfromspace (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOT, WP:NOTE, WP:NOTWEBHOST Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2008 (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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{deletionlist|Living people|shortcut=WP:BLPFD}}
+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]].
-== September 2008 ==
+{{catscan|Cat1=Articles for deletion|Cat2=Living people|LinkText=Scan for BLP AfDs}}
+==Living people==
-[[Image:Information.png|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. The <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy+Beach?diff=240985042 recent edit]</span> you made to [[:Sandy Beach]] has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]] for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]]. You may also wish to read the [[Wikipedia:Introduction|introduction to editing]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-huggle1 --> [[User:LeaveSleaves|LeaveSleaves]] ([[User talk:LeaveSleaves|talk]]) 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
+<!-- bof -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark W. Smith}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmalina (4th nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Cassini}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Tybel}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Wyatt}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Pelekanos}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Disraeli}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aamir Ghauri}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael F. Rogers}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aberra Molla}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Free}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara McCluskey}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Nguyen (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Janick}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate Grapes}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles G. Hulse}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betsy Fagin}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariana Strozzi}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evin Daly}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Alisharan}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Murphy (1965 - )}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Sanchez (music)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rostislaw Wygranienko}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendon Urie (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendon Urie (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illmind}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendon Urie (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendon Urie (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von G. Keetch}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendon Urie (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Slattery}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reid Santos (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enrique Coria}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lacey Mosley}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe J Thomas (actor)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian allen ksfy}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Via Paxton (3rd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Mitchell (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John J. McGraw}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Ragsdale}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federico Vellani}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federico Vellani}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zukhits}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federico Vellani}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gustafson}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlie Wong}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Hoffmann}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. J. Khan}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorelei (bondage model)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitris Papadatos}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myron Evans (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Bergendahl}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Free}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Andrew Roth}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dariush Kashani}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander "Harry" Cole}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elena Lyons}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David James (singer)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Chey (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Gilman}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piero Mazzi}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kascha Papillon}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamaki Saitō}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony M.}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Vato}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly Bennett}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Hshieh}}
+<!-- eof -->
+==Living people Proposed deletions==
+<!--
+----
+<div class="references-small">
+''for occasional archiving''
+</div>
+----
+-->