Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:11, 17 April 2011

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to People. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

Note: In most cases there is another more specific category than this one.

Please use on these instead:

Transcluded onto Biography Deletion sorting page

not Transcluded onto Biography Deletion sorting page

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment/Announcements (e.g. models)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional characters
Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion for adult film actors and actresses

People

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa M. Kelly

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

Subject fails to meet relevant notability guideline (unnotable), the only sources provided are her own website and her self-published book at Lulu.com (i.e. a complete absence of reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy), thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify the information provided in the article have failed.Shannon Rose ^Talk 16:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose ^Talk 16:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose ^Talk 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose ^Talk 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose ^Talk 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose ^Talk 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose ^Talk 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose ^Talk 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose ^Talk 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Not notable, no reliable sources, only self-published sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO, I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Can't establish notability with reliable sources. C6541 (T↔C) 17:53, 23 April 2011 (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 _{Operation Big Bear} 16:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Dilthey

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

Doesn't seem to meet the relevant notability guidelines. I could only find a short article in local news and few mentions in books. Elekhh (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. Gets a passing mention in a book, and a passing mention in one article. There is no article about him in the German Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Newham

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

Doesn't appear to be especially notable, sources provided only mention him in passing Jac16888 ^Talk 18:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although English language sources are scarce, the New York Times called him a "popular television personality in China" which is a strong assertion of notability that creates a presumption that more in-depth sources exist in the Chinese language. The article needs attention from a Chinese-speaking editor. Chinese language sources are fine for this article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I concur with Cullen328. The NY Times and Chicago Tribune articles give enough indication that the person is notable, and sources would be available in the Chinese language. The existence of these two English language sources provide the basic verifiability needed to satisfy a biography of a living person. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen328 –HXL's Roundtable and Record 21:06, 30 April 2011 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Sivan

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

Non-notable local news reader. Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CREATIVE as news reader. most coverage verifies her role, or verifies her getting engaged. this is about as indepth as it gets [1]. almost all the sources in the article are from www.mediabistro.com. LibStar (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gerlach Flicke. –MuZemike 15:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerbarus Fleccius

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

The picture shown is by Gerlach Flicke, as per that article and the National Portrait Gallery. There are no accessible sources cited, and a search around (Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR, etc) reveals nothing. I assume this is some kind of mistake; in any case, it should be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gerlach Flicke; it's his Latin name. As a side note, you mention "no accessible sources," but the DNB was already cited at the time you nominated it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This being an obvious merge, the discussion should be closed. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article has a picture, source and small bit of info (i.e. Latin name he was also known by) so should be a merge to longer article rather than straight redirect. Definitely not a deletion candidate. Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Frank

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

This page is an unsourced BLP, tagged since 2009. It doesn't have any third party references, and the only external link is an official website about the subject. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^T/_S 05:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's often helpful to check an article's history when considering whether to nominate it for AfD. In this case, the history reveals that the article was the victim of serial vandalism followed by incomplete efforts to fix the vandalism. All of this left it without the sources that were supplied during the first AfD, which closed with a keep result on 22 August 2010. I've now restored the article to its condition at that time, which includes sourcing. I continue to agree with Cindamuse's keep rationale at the first AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was very visible a few years ago. I'm surprised there are not more sources available. But still there is enough provided to keep the article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If this was an article about Lisa Frank Incorporated, it would be a strong keep. What about moving the info to a page about the company itself? That could be a strong article. With Arxiloxos's rollback, the references are already there to support it, and really all we'd lose is the note about where she went to school. --Strangerer (Talk) 20:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the simplistic but not insignificant argument that the community has already given a "keep" to this topic before, regardless of the state of the article. Wickedjacob (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2011 (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. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saba Wahid

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

Contested prod. Article about a TV presenter on a lifestyle show who is claimed to be a household name and a media trendsetter. No evidence that the show itself is notable, and anyway notability is not inherited. But more importantly the only references are a brief mention in a glossy magazine (which does not refer to her as a media trendsetter) and an even briefer entry in IMDB. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:RS and WP:GNG. andy (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree, notability is not inherited; As above, Fails WP:ENTERTAINER --Whiteguru (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:17, 23 April 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Ferdowsmakan

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

Poorly sourced (entirely unreferenced if you exclude primary sources) biography of a person whose only claim of notability is having competed in a beauty pageant that she didn't win. If she becomes more verifiably notable in the future, then she can certainly come back at that time — but in the meantime, delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 3 passing mentions in gnews doesn't cut it. [2]. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing in-depth coverage of this pageant contestant. Appears to fail WP:GNG. --NellieBly (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article was just a copy/paste of her bio on pageant site, which is now removed, leaving almost nothing. No 3rd party sources to build on. --Rob (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Greer

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

WP:N, WP:V, unsourced BLP. Can't find reliable sources on which to evidence the notability of this photographer under the generali notability guideline, no apparent claims of notability under WP:ARTIST. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication of notability, I can't find a single source excluding the subject's webpage. Seemlingly no third-party coverage, and certainly insufficient. Nothing else in the article to work with as regards to notability (e.g. projects). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 18:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find sources. Once deleted, redirect to Ron Greer (disambiguation). Pburka (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Quraishi

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

With greatest respect to Mr Quraishi himself and to the editors of the article, I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As always - please, prove me wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:N of WP:BLP. Wikipedian2 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From what I can find on Google he is a news presenter on a music station, and has done some regional work in TV. Nothing that establishes notability. Seaphoto^Talk 07:19, 23 April 2011 (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 _{Operation Big Bear} 15:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Bienne

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

Nominated for deletion on the grounds of notability, which seems to rest on several talking head appearances in her capacity as a sex/relationship therapist and being the first wife of Simon Monjack (who himself was most famous as the widower of Brittany Murphy). There seems to be nothing in her career or life that makes her notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia Eliahna (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep After researching her appearances, I think she squeaks by on "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" WP:ENT. She may be primarily seen as a spouse of a spouse of a notable person, but her multiple and continuing appearances on television (including but not limited to her hosting role on "A Place in the Sun") I think barely crosses the line into notability. Wickedjacob (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear to be notable, her "fame" such as it is seems to be through her association with Monjack. Harley Hudson (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She was once married to someone, who was once married to someone else, who was famous - too many degrees of separation. --Burkina Faso (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2011 (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 Robert Curthose. Delete and then redirect but no objections to someone making this a dab if they prefer Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry of Normandy

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

An article had been created by myself and then doubted and deleted. See the discussion on Talk:Robert Curthose#Henry of Normandy, which leads to the conclusion that such a prince never existed.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & rewrite on the basis of the talk p. mentioned. The most impt authority for the period, Orderic Vitalis, is the source, and there seems to be no academic source refuting him, only the unsourced statement of a popular writer who gives a different birth order. DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - there is no need to have a separate listing for the controversy about whether he existed or not. His likely non-existence should be covered at Robert Curthose's page, which is sufficient coverage. And Orderic isn't the most important source for the period, just one of several, and the only one that mentions him. David's biography of Curthose does not mention him, and in fact clearly states that Sibyl only had once child (and sources this to Orderic and Wace) so while David is somewhat older, he's pretty much the only biographer besides Lack. Thompson's biography in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (here but needs UK library access or subscription) doesn't mention a son Henry, although she does mention illegitimate sons Richard and William as well as one attested illegitimate daughter and one possible illegitimate daughter. (The statements there about children from Sibyl are "Then in Lent 1103 Duchess Sibyl died, probably as a result of poor nursing after the birth of her son, William Clito, on 25 October 1102." The only other statement there about other children is "Robert's two illegitimate sons Richard and William met early deaths, Richard in the New Forest in 1100, and William in the Holy Land in the 1110s. Nothing is known of his daughter, the wife of Elias de St Saëns. Robert probably had a second illegitimate daughter, since Henry I made provision for his niece Sibyl of Falaise."). The proper place any mention of him is in Robert's article, along with the note that modern historians have not found the evidence of his existence convincing. I've also acquired Weir's book since the previous talk page, and she does not give any sources whatsover for her statements - and if Lack is disqualified by being a popular writer, then Weir should likewise, as she is also a popular writer. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A further bit. David, does specifically impeach Orderic, as he states "Soon after the birth of her [Sibyl] only child, William Clito, she died at Rouen, and was buried..." (Charles David Robert Curthose Harvard University Press 1920 p. 146) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the bit below from Oderic, I now think the best thing is to delete this article, redirect the title to Robert's article, and insert a footnote stating that Weir's named this person, but does not give a source, and the other sources do not agree there was such a person, thus covering us against recreation. Thanks for finding that Deacon, Im' still trying to find my copy of Orderic that's somewhere in a box... somewhere. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced keeping this as a redirect is even wise. Surely Henry of Normandy should redirect to Henry I of England? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Henry I?!Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Henry II, but definitely not this nonentity (or irrelevancy). Agricolae (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through Aird on gbooks, Sibyl and Robert had one son, and Robert had two known bastards. Alison Weir is not a reliable source. Maybe she made a mistake, or is confused. I seriously doubt she was conducting original research on the matter. Definite delete. If a reliable source comes up mentioning Henry, then we can recreate the article. I'll try to check out the OV reference in fmg.ac, but that isn't a reliable source either. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Ealdgyth. If the only thing known is that he might, or might not, have existed, then a separate article is not justified. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected fmg.ac does not give an accurate account of Orderic Vitalis. Contrary to fmg.ac's assertion, Orderic does name the son born to Sibylla and Robert the year after their marriage:

In September Duke Robert arrived in Normandy and, after being received by his people, went with his wife Sibyl to Mont Saint-Michel in peril of the sea. There he gave thanks to God for his safe return from his long pilgrimage, and afterwards consummated his marriage with the daughter of Geoffrey of Conversano. Next year she bore him a son, and Archbishop William baptized the child, giving him his own name. Duke Robert recovered his duchy without opposition, and held it for about eight years in name only ... (OV, X.17)

Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Monty ₈₄₅ 02:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe Merge, but definitely not Keep. Judging the evidence independently, this looks like nothing but a mistake, someone who never existed. It looks to me like someone has accidentally created a new child by combining a confused and ambiguous reference to the birth of Clito with a similar reference to the death of illegitimate son Richard. That being siad, even if such a child of Curthose did exist, he would abysmally fail WP:NOTABILITY, receiving no reliable coverage in the depth necessary to qualify. Looking at the existing page, there is nothing of value that one would want to Merge, and any comment on Curthose's page should be limited to a footnote, and contain text of an entirely different nature. Finally, the name Henry of Normandy probably shouldn't redirect to Curthose anyhow, as the name would be much more commonly used to refer to Henry II of England prior to succession, so I don't see there being any benefit to a merge. I go with the original nomination and with Ealdgyth's revised opinion (delete and add footnote to Curthose) - it would be best to simply uncreate the page. Agricolae (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it'd be Henry I rather than Henry II? Henry's agnatic line--his dynasty--is usually styled "Of Normandy", whereas Henry II's is "Of Anjou". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not. Henry I of England later became Duke of Normandy. Henry II of Normandy later became King of England. Agricolae (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood. Henry I's male ancestors were a family called "of Normandy" (William the Conqueror, etc); Henry II's were called "of Anjou". Henry I is hence "Henry of Normandy", Henry II "Henry of Anjou". Whether or not one was Duke of Normandy before being King of England isn't of much comparative relevance. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't misunderstood. I just don't agree that patrilineal ancestry is the sole, or even best, standard for naming people. Whether one was from Normandy is absolutely relevant, even if one's father came from elsewhere. This reflects actual usage of long standing: Henry II is commonly called Henry of Normandy prior to his succession - search Google Scholar or Google Books for "Henry of Normandy" and the matches are mostly to the future Henry II, not Henry I. I think, though, we are in agreement that Henry of Normandy most certainly should not redirect to Robert Curthose? Agricolae (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree much of this, but I never said patrilineal ancestry is the sole, or even best, standard for naming people. I will add, though, that "Henry of Normandy" for Henry II might come across as simply factually incorrect on the basis of 12th-century French naming practices. Usually I'd be more interested in what is perceived by experts to be factually correct than what the out-of-date and trashy books on gbooks say. That's just me though ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For all the calling of those Google matches out-of-date and trashy and factually incorrect, you are bringing nothing to the table but personal opinion. However you characterize the Google Books matches (and, oddly, ignore the Google Scholar matches) where are your corresponding scholarly references to Henry I being "of Normandy" in preference to Henry II? You may not have said that patronymic ancestry is the best criterion, but you seem to be taking it for granted at the expense of actual past usage. In discussions of the reign of Stephen and the marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine, references to 'Henry of Normandy, later Henry II of England' are all over the place. At the time of his marriage and at the time of his success in the war with Stephen, Henry was 'of Normandy'. He has been called this repeatedly and I don't see why we should ignore it just because Henry II's father came from Anjou and Henry I's father came from Normandy. This as all a distraction, though, from the question of whether the current Henry of Normandy page should exist or be merged or deleted. We can always make Henry of Normandy a disambiguation page. We don't want to have a pointless merge simply because we can't agree to which Henry it should really redirect. Agricolae (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this really puzzling. You have spend some time making an argument to me in which I have no interest in. I merely pointed out that Henry I is the one with "of Normandy" as a kindred name. This is just a fact. If Henry II is also called "Henry of Normandy" in some modern texts ... great. Congratulations to him. As you realise in those texts Henry I is already dead so it's not a means of disambiguating H II from H I, though were it ever used as such anyone who knows much about the period would guess it referred to H I (my point). Incidentally, usually when I say references are out of date or trashy, they are. I regard my own personal opinion as having weight, as I'm sure others do ... but it's up to each individual I guess. Absolutely sick of being told on these threads to respect printed works because they got published in whatever century by whatever amateur enthusiast and are now visible to the undiscerning masses on gbooks. Irrelevant! A work has authority if and only if it is reliable, not because it merely exists! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have no interest in the argument, yet you keep arguing - puzzle that for a while. You have pointed out that based on your own criteria, "surely" Henry of Normandy should refer to Henry I rather than Henry II. I have pointed you to hundreds of occurrences where Henry II is called Henry of Normandy. I too know a scholarly contemporary source when I see one. I too would have thought that anyone who knows anything of the period would hold my view, an opinion which I too think has weight ... but which also has all of those inconvenient citations to back it up, from scholars like Crouch, Keats-Rohan, Barrow, Freeman, King, Painter, Archer ... amateur enthusiasts and hacks all, I'm sure. But you just dismiss these all out of hand in favor of your personal preference, in part because Henry I was dead already (as you so succinctly say, Irrelevant!) but mainly just because. Obviously we are not going to agree here on who "Henry of Normandy" 'should' refer to. We are also not going to agree on the status of "of Normandy" as a so-called "kindred name" of scholarly standing. A disambiguation page would seem to be in order. Agricolae (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the hits on you're referring to on gbooks are for Duke 'Henry of Normandy' and such like anyway, and those don't support what you are saying. But point taken, no more 'arguing'. Should be a dab page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:34, 3 May 2011 (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. The keep arguments are not particularly policy based and the delete arguments appear relatively well grounded in policy. There is some consensus towards a merge but no target has emerged. I'm happy to undelete for a merge if a consensus for a destination subsequently emerges. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Hlava

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

The subject is not notable but for one action; has no prior or subsequent notable achievements Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems like pretty classic/clear WP:BLP1E to me. Note how the existing references -- and the article itself -- don't cover the article's subject at all, just his one accomplishment. I think opening his own bar does not quite qualify as a second accomplishment/event :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is instructive, as the Naudet brothers are notable because of the in-depth ongoing coverage of their September 11 video, whereas this person in contrast clearly is a case of WP:BLP1E. Cullen328 (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Naudet brothers video coverage is not "ongoing" coverage. The last time their video was publicly broadcast (on CBS) was in 2002. The Naudet video was their "one accomplishment". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.53.116 (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The IP editor is incorrect about the Naudet brothers film 9/11. An updated version was broadcast on CBS on September 10, 2006 to commemorate the 5th anniversary of the attack. The raw video was also a significant source document analyzed and discussed in the 9/11 Commission Report, published in 2004. It has been analyzed in depth in reports published by the New York City Fire Department, as it documents the activities of their senior command staff in the lobby of the World Trade Center that day. The significance of their video far transcends "one event". Cullen328 (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this is not notable enough for an article, could the incident be merged into another article? Ryan Vesey (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Hlava video was first broadcast on Sunday, September 7, 2003 on the program "This Week with George Stephanopoulos". Stephanopoulos had in the studio as a scheduled guest the then Secretary of State Colin Powell. The Hlava video was touted by Stephanopoulos as an "exclusive" to ABC News. The video led off that Sunday morning's broadcast. After it was over, Secretary Powell commented to Stephanopoulos and the television viewers that because of that imagery shown on the Hlava tape that that was the reason the United States was in Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.53.116 (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge the key points into other 9/11 articles - WP:BLP1E provides the specific example of the man who videotaped the Rodney King beating who doesn't have his own page. While 9/11 was of course of more significance, I think the principle of the event not the person still holds here. Moreover this particular recording was not produced until well after the event so had no impact on the public consciousness at the time.Asnac (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of notability. Keb25 (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the recent capture of Osama bin Laden, 9/11 news items are in the forefront of public discussion. Also with the approach of the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, anything describing the attacks is of newsworthy interest. Hlava captured both planes hitting the towers on a single section of video tape. His unique imagery is of historical and media interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.186.251 (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: The video's obviously well referenced, so the information should stay somewhere. We could rename it Hlava film, or some other made up Wikipedia term. I don't really want to try to merge it into the main September 11 attacks article. Where else would it be appropriate? Buddy431 (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per BLP1E; all coverage relates to the 9/11 video. Sandstein 07:03, 8 May 2011 (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. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomm Mandryk

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

Autobiographical article. Does not seem to satisfy WP:PEOPLE, but also does not seem to qualify for CSD#A7. References are listed (some reliable), but they do not seem to assert enough notability for the subject. Most sources mention how subject has raised funds, althought most of the article is original research and unencyclopedic. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although a little reluctantly. Certainly, a motivated young man who wants to do good, and has carried through that desire with action. However, the coverage, is light, and comes only from community newspapers. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. He sounds like a fine young man (although a lot of the information is unverified and the tone of the article is way too reverential), but the notability is just not there. I find one newspaper reference, in Niagara This Week. A CBC interview is mentioned but I could not find it. Three awards are claimed, but there is no indication of who actually presents the Youth Citizen of the Year Award or the Social Justice Award, while the Lieutenant Governor's Award turns out to be given to 1100 secondary school students every year [3]. Nice, but not enough. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2011 (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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Spelmann

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

The article failed WP:CSD, and yet there have been no attempts to improve it since. Currently, it conflicts with the following policies: WP:SOAP, WP:COI, WP:RESUME, and WP:N. It appears self-promotional, and was most likely written by the subject. Efforts have been made to identify news sources: [4]. The guest appearances on TV may be credible claims, but appear temporary and do not seem to have been the subject of any significant coverage. Mephistophelian † 18:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previously deleted because: 'Fails to meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Searches for him on the websites for The Express Newspaper, The London Evening Standard, The Mirror, The Stage...' Mephistophelian † 19:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Fails BLP. It is an autobiography. No 3rd party sources. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2011 (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. I'm not taking into account the two first "delete" opinions, as they were written prior to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's complete rewrite. A merger can continue to be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 20:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rakan Ben Williams

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

Difficult one. I think that might fails our notability guidelines and minimum requirement for sourcing. IQinn (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see how this can be considered notable. IJA (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is a hoax. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- RBW is a fictional character. Our article and our scholarly sources say RBW is a fictional character. There may be some blogs or commentators from the fringe of the MSM who have asserted hoaxsters are attempting to fool the public into thinking RBW is a real individual. But WP:HOAX bans creating articles that are hoaxes. You misunderstand the policy if you think it bans writing articles that are about notable hoaxes. Geo Swan (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sort of. It would be better if we had an article to redirect this to, but I'm going to rewrite the stub instead. Seems to be a phony name used for various al-Qaeda-oid propaganda moments aimed at Islamic comics fans.[5] You couldn't make this stuff up (well, I couldn't).Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As said that might be a difficult one. Thanks for improving the article but Michelle Malkin and a Rachel Maddow Show with Keith Olbermann hardly pass WP:RS. So does this now pass WP:GNG? IQinn (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's notable and should be expanded. memri is a good source on islamist terrorism. V7-sport (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well to establish notability it needs to pass our notability guidelines as WP:GNG what it does not do in the current form. IQinn (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — disinformation and dubious, unreliable sources. Mephistophelian (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz mentioned it would be better to have somewhere to redirect to. There was a lot of coverage by a large number of blogs at the moment and for about a year afterwards. Content is not much, and while it was suggested that he might have been a fake person, that didn't get much following either. I agree that these sources fall short of WP:RS individually, but I do think that in tandem they show it to be notable enough for mention without failing WP:BLP1E (that is, in case the subject is a living person), and also without absolute need for the subject to produce more content. Here is a pack of references, it's not everything that will come up, but they do provide an average of the available material and of its reliability: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=35207 11] 12 - frankie^MR (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the problem "by a large number of blogs". That is not enough. We need WP:RS and the links that you have provided are horrible example of sources that are NOT WP:RS. IQinn (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They verify the subject and that is one thing. It didn't happen as hard as to reach more main than Olbermann, but the thing to note is that every report is different, and I only linked some of them, no need to place more when they all say the same thing, and that difference I will argue is kind of notable. Then the first source is cited by several other papers discussing the middle east (that's how I came to find it). And then the subject is not only itself, but it is part of larger one, on terrorism, of war against terror, on fear propaganda, you name it. I think it should go to Al-Qaeda, but I'm no expert so maybe there's a better one - frankie^MR (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for your reply. I get your point and i agree that it has "a kind of notability" but i think it should at least meed our minimum requirements for an own article and that is WP:GNG. I still doubt that the provided sources add up to "significant coverage in reliable sources" as per WP:GNG. How about we move and redirect it to Al-Qaeda#Internet? IQinn (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, that's a very good target. There were several comments about the whole thing being targeted to comic fans, and that it was done by a media group, so Internet is appropriate - frankie^MR (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Scholarly articles have been written about this fictional character. I found an additional one with trivial effort. Geo Swan (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to al-Qaeda#Internet, per Iqinn and Patitomr. There are plainly sources available that verify and discuss the character of "Rakan Ben Williams," but I think that any information that can be amassed about Williams can easily be covered in the main article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2011 (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 _{Operation Big Bear} 17:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Zarezadeh Ardeshir

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

Fails WP:GNG. Under 1,000 Google hits, many of which are self-published either directly or indirectly. The guy is a radical activist & so SPS is to be expected. Sitush (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vanity article. Was amused by the fourth citation, however (his blog in Farsi). LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 00:19, 20 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Emerson (priest)

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

WP:N--can't find reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage of this priest, nor do I see claims that demonstrate inherent notability. The very common name is an obstacle to finding sources, so, as always, additional sources are welcome. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see any notability outside of the incident with which he was involved. Perhaps a merger to Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter is in order. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If someone can't come up with a single reference for this URBLP, merging is the least drastic outcome appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of notability and reliable sources. I see a few google hits, but all they tell me is that he belongs to the FSSP and is based is Edinburgh. St Anselm (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought he might be notable as one of the founding priests of the PFSP, but I could find no verification of that claim so I think a redirect is not appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. slightly supervoting in the close but I can't see that a further relist will make this clearer and the demands of V & BLP require sources for individals so merging to the appropriate chrch article seems the best ciompromise between keep/merge that satisfies all the relevent policies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarch Elijah

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

No indication at all of notability. There are no independent sources given, and Google searching produced none. (There are plenty of hits to non-independent and non-reliable sources, including Wikipedia, MySpace, blogspot, twitter, and sites which either clearly are or appear to be affiliated with the organisation that the subject of the article belongs to.) The article appears to be a promotional autobiography. A PROD was removed by an IP with no edits except to this article, with the edit summary "minor chage" (sic). JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Catholic Patriarchate is a new structure, that's why there are no many sources. It needs some neutrality, but this is not a reason for deletion. Fijalkovich (talk —Preceding undated comment added 06:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC). Fijalkovich has made no edits except on this topic.[reply]

Is there any reason to fear vandalism to the article? As far as I can see there hasn't been any yet. In any case, that is not an issue for a deletion debate. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a new "structure" and has not yet received coverage in reliable sources then it has no yet established notability by Wikipedia's criteria, which is a reason for deletion. Besides, the issue is whether this particular individual is notable, not whether the "structure" to which he belongs is. If and when he has received substantial coverage in reliable third party sources an article on him will be fine, but if there aren't such sources an article on him is not acceptable, no matter what the reason for lack of such sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is rather known in catholic circle for fighting against Assisi and the ex-head of UGCC L.Huzar. Not sure if there is much about him in English, here is one of Ukrainian sources http://www.gk-press.if.ua/node/1021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fijalkovich (talk • contribs) 15:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that all patriarchs are notable - it doesn't whether they get recognised by Rome or not. The church's website now mentions him. St Anselm (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and protect from vandalism for some time. Fijalkovich (talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. Not exactly a BLP1E case, but I don't see anywhere near enough independent coverage to support a BLP, nor do I see any independent coverage supporting the idea that a patriarchy established only two weeks ago is sufficient to create a presumption of notability. In any event, this is clearly not an appropriate title for the article, which if kept should be moved to the subject's birth name, under which the bulk of coverage seems to exist.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, where there is already some biographical information on him. If he meets notability criteria later through documentation in independent, third-party sources, a separate article will be justified. (Disclosure: I created the article on UOGCC.) --Chonak (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all patriarchs are notable. article should stay in its present state.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Reasons for re-listing: I found the reasons of keep mentioned till now to be invalid enough to be rejected outright. To mention that All patriarchs are notable has no basis on policy as far as I know. To mention that an article should be kept even though there are no sources (because some particular institution is new) goes against our verifiability pillar - which mentions that sources rather than truth defines the inclusion of any topic. Therefore, I find only the merge votes valid. But given the fact that ergo we have only two valid comments apart from the nominator's, this AfD is being relisted. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 14:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Anyhow.. Passes wp:bio.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have a usual outcome in deletion debates that bishops (and equivalent) are notable. Since patriarchs are higher and more significant than bishops, the "all patriarchs are notable" argument is not as invalid as the relisting admin seems to think. St Anselm (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that bishops and such are inherently notable?--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. It's a common outcome. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/René Henry Gracida. St Anselm (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I don't think that's purely a keep just by virtue of being a bishop, but by the coverage that being one in the Roman Catholic Church almost always provides as compared to a more minor body like the Ukrainian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the "History" section of this article still has no references, just as it had none when this deletion proposal was made. Is nobody trying to demonstrate notability by adding sources -- even non-English sources -- to the article? --Chonak (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to church article - All Bishops, or even Patriarchs, are not inherently notable. Yes, when it is a Catholic official or other major religious body they are almost always kept, but that should absolutely not be taken to apply to all religious institutions, especially a new one like this. As such, this cannot be kept as a separate article unless it passes the GNG. None of the sources providing significant coverage are independent, and therefore it does not. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:13, 29 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seb West

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ARTIST, no significant works, no news in gnews archives, books only list him incidentally. Does not appear to be notable. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable...Modernist (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:21, 18 April 2011 (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. Sandstein 05:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pendlebury

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

I goggled and looked the Jamie Oliver books and I can't find any reference to a person with this name Edgepedia (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was unable to find reliable, secondary sources to establish the notability of this chef, or even verify his existence. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 18:50, 16 April 2011 (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 _{Operation Big Bear} 02:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Mathilde Ducatillon-Sauthier

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

WP:V, WP:N Can't find reliable, secondary sources that mention the existence of or demonstrate the notability of this artist. I do like the artists work, but that isn't a notability criteria. The DE/ES/FR Wikientries are simply translations (or this is a translation of one of them, or whichever.) joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 23:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am also unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Tooga - BØRK! 00:38, 22 April 2011 (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 _{Operation Big Bear} 16:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gulzaeb Beg Ali

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

No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Seems to fail our guidelines to models, unsourced BLP, suspected vanity COI.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Modeling accomplishments are nothing special in the least. I can't say much about the TV presenting stuff but to an uninformed reader it doesn't look very impressive. Only one hit in google news, general google brings up a bit more (for example, [6] and [7]) but really not enough to meet WP:N. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:14, 19 April 2011 (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 nomination withdrawn. Closing over outstanding delete !vote per WP:IAR. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A. T. Powers

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

Notability issues. Being a "leading figure" is not a strong enough claim. Sole source of references is a book written by the article's creator. Normally a COI can be edited around, but in this case, you wouldn't have anything left and the individual still wouldn't pass WP:V or WP:N. Definitely WP:OR since the only source is the creator. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Author's comment): He was president of the American Baptist Association from 1957-1959; that establishes "notability." Billy Hathorn (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a solid 3rd party source to demonstrate that, I would be happy to withdraw based on that singular claim. The problem is that I was not able to find anything (outside your book or 1st party) that demonstrates that. If true, surely some major paper or organization that passes WP:RS would have something. I'm very concerned that several articles only have your book as the sole source. While that would be fine for some secondary sourcing, I'm confident it shouldn't be used as the sole or primary source of demonstrating or verifying notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you would have told me, I would done this a bit earlier. See below.

Tentative keep -- president of ABA would appear to demonstrate notability, but I'm really not inclined to dig through all the Austin Powers hits to find sourcing for this gentleman. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue at hand is that no verifiable sources can be found. The only source for the entire article is a book that itself is not notable (per WP:BOOK) and would not be qualified as a reliable source. This isn't an issue of insufficient verification, it is an issue of ZERO verification for biographical article. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article, merge relevant details (if any) to American Baptist Association. Fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR and lacks RS. No sources for "Austin Toliver Powers" in google books, google scholar, or google news archive. The only "A. T. Powers" in google scholar are unrelated scientists who appear to be living. The two books (monographs) about him was published by Bogard Press, which was/is part of his organization. If this person was notable there should be sources, but there aren't. The bulk of the article is made up from a local history publication authored by the creator of the article. Simply put, delete per article's failure to "pass WP:V or WP:N." HHaeyyn89 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your search skills are really subpar, maybe an adult education class would help a little. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Note that per our licensing, what you're really probably asking for is that the article be merged, left as a redirect, with the history kept for attribution purposes. We can't delete one article and then reuse the content in another article without significant attribution hoops. Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. President of an association of 2,000 churches seems notable enough to me. And I do wish that people would stop quoting internet searches to prove why someone who was prominent in the 1950s isn't notable! Just have a quick think about why that might not be very useful! The fact he existed is verifiable. His notability is clear. Which guidelines or policies does this article not meet? Sadly the verifiability policy is frequently misunderstood: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation [italics mine]. Not every single item in the article, as some people seem to believe. Which material in this article is controversial? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR A link was added, http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00617FA385C127A93C5AB178DD85F438585F9, that establishes notability. Unfortunately, the link is behind a paywall that requires $3.95 to verify. I take the addition by Billy Hathorn in good faith as accurate, and while difficult to verify, still passes WP:V because it IS available to verify. As for notability, being President of the American Baptist Association would qualify as notable by any reasonable measure, so I withdraw the nomination, and ask an admin to close as speedy keep at their earliest convenience. No other !votes needed. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't WP:SPEEDYKEEP an article while there are outstanding delete !votes -- a nominator's withdrawal does not obviate the discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nom still withdraw You are correct, however, it still should be closed without prejudice (someone else can AFD if they choose) as a nominator withdrawal, per WP:AFD. I had forgotten someone did say delete, so yes, it can't be speedy kept, only closed as withdrawn. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2011 (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 _{Operation Big Bear} 16:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckie Mauk

Chuckie Mauk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable murder victim. Google News Archive only brings up 7 articles about the case. ^[1] A Google search only brings up 1,150 results. ^[2]Laladoodle92 (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin – You may want to consider leaving this open 7 days from the 12th. Although the AfD was opened on the 9th the final steps were not completed until the 12th. ttonyb (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD hasnt been correctly made. It has to be place an notice on the articles front page ASAP.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It has been added; however, I must say I would have expected an experienced editor such as yourself to have added it (or at least requested assistance in adding it) when you noted that it was lacking the final steps. ttonyb (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.... I agree.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VICTIM. I can find more hits with a search of "Chuck Mauk", however, nothing of real substance. Other than the Nancy Grace hit, there really isn't anything beyond local news coverage. Location (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe there are reasons to believe that this person became notable beyond his own murder. The Jacob Wetterling connection, reward, nancy grace.. you can say whatever you like about Nancy but when she brings up a case its often highly notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding every case that is on Nancy Grace would be like adding every case that's been on Unsolved Mysteries or America's Most Wanted to Wikipedia. This case wasn't on Nancy Grace on a continuous basis (like the Caylee Anthony case) but it was on Nancy Grace as part of a special she was doing on Cold Cases, where her show featured a different cold case everyday. Also, the reward is only $5000; not a notable amount. Laladoodle92 (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:VICTIM. we don't create articles for every victim on the basis of a few articles. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:VICTIM. Not notable. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2011 (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 _{Operation Big Bear} 16:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMTES DU GARDIN

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

Bogus self-promotion of Pierre du Gardin. Nothing in this article can be verified, even the described coat of arms is not listed in Johannes Rietstap's armorial which has several arms of "du Gardin", but one with a golden tree on sinople, not blue. Nothing on fr.wiki to substantiate the notability of this allegedly great noble family. There's also a du Gardin family website which is a different family though judging from the coat of arms. De728631 (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability has not been established, and I could find nothing online that could be linked to this specific family. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lack of demonstrated or verifiable notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeniffer Viturino

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

Not a notable person. Intoronto1125 (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article appears to fall under WP:1E. There's no assertion in the article of the sources (albeit translated from Portuguese to English through the google translate feature) that her modeling work had reached notability. The one event is falling to her death from an apartment building. JamesAM (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing notable about her modelling career, everything sees to be about her (tragic) death, failing WP:1E. Giant Snowman 21:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 11:17, 17 April 2011 (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. This is an entirely unsourced article about a living person. By being nominated for AfD it has become contentious. WP:BLPREMOVE instructs us to "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". The article is therefore deleted without regard to the arguments about the notability of obscure (para-)nobility. But the discussion indicates that if any sourced information about this person is re-added to Wikipedia, it should be as an addition to his father's article, rather than as a standalone article. Sandstein 06:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Odysseas-Kimon of Greece and Denmark

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

The subject of this article is a six-year old who "is currently enrolled at knights bridge school in London". (Straight from the first lead paragraph.) It appears that this boy has never done anything notable, and he does not even come close to passing WP:BIO. His name appears in a few press reports having to do with his birth and the births of his siblings, and presumably he appears in the Gotha. That's not the in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG. The article was created by an IP when the boy was 14 months old, presumably on the (invalid) principle that notability is inherited. Hans Adler 19:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of this article:

September 2004: birth of subject.
November 2004: an IP creates the article
December 2006: PROD (article still unsourced at this point)
December 2006: PROD is removed and article turned into a redirect to the father's article
August 2007: article is restored, still unsourced
January 2008: article is turned into a redirect to the father's article
July 2008: same editor as in 2007 restores the article, still unsourced
April 2011: article still unsourced after 6 1/2 years, with no notability in sight.

Unaware of the history I prodded the article, but Calathan noticed my mistake. I have proposed deletion because (1) a redirect doesn't really make sense for a non-notable person, and (2) it's not clear whether to redirect to father or mother. However, redirect is a conceivable outcome. In this case I would ask for protection of the redirect. Hans Adler 19:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - but Wikipedia has been a bit lax in the past about Royalty, ~~and based solely on precedent, this would be a keep.~~ Prince Odysseas-Kimon is fourth in line to the Greek throne (if it ever comes back), and somewhere about 268 in line to the British throne (about as likely as King Ralph). A redirect to his father makes sense. I find zero sources online just about this kid. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure you are aware that the precedent-based argument is actually the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and only reflects the recent numerical strength of the fans of nobility cruft. There is no such thing as a Greek throne, as Greece has been a republic since 1974 and there is no reason to believe this is ever going to change again. (The Greek monarchy was a creation of European powers in 1862/63.) Being in the line of succession for this abolished throne doesn't even come close to satisfying WP:BIO as a politician. And 268th in line for the British throne is nothing. The prod in 2006 pointed to WP:Articles_for_deletion/Angelica_Kreuger, an article that was also deleted. That child was 88th in line for the British throne. And as a practical matter, there is simply no material for an article about this child. As usual for this kind of article, it consists entirely of nobilitycruft templates. In a sense this is also a case of WP:BLP1E, the only event that has ever been reported being the child's birth. Hans Adler 21:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know about the Angelica Kreuger precedent. I stand corrected. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, my "precedent" argument was and is based on WP:OUTCOMES, not WP:OTHERSTUFF. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. Somehow the absurdity of WP:Articles for deletion/Alexandre Louis, Duke of Valois and similar AfDs has disillusioned me w.r.t. previous outcomes of nobility-related deletion discussions. (A not-quite-three-year-old boy who died in 1676 and whose existence is only known from a mention in a letter by his mother. No other sources. AfD ended in keep.) But of course OUTCOMES is still sane as a general principle. Hans Adler 21:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece and do the same for the other children. - dwc lr (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article as is. This article and those on the remaining siblings are of historical and political interest and are relevant. We maintain articles on children of other monarchies, such as Viscount Severn (England), and even though the Greek monarchy is defunct at the moment, these are still persons of interest. Unless there is a removal request from the children's family, these articles are harmless. As to source-less, give the article time to develop (after all, this is a child) and gain sourced information. As there has been debate on this page, there is clearly interest in maintaining the page. Why not err on the side of inclusion? After all, that was the original idea behind Wikipedia.

Unregistered (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2011 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.20.79 (talk)

Wrong project. This is Wikipedia, not WikiGotha. This child fails all our notability guidelines. Wikipedia does not aim to give complete genealogical lists of modern representatives of formerly ruling families. And even if it did, it would be utterly pointless to do this by giving each member of such a family a separate page full of ornamental templates that have nothing to do with the person. Not even the Almanach de Gotha, or the various web pages maintained by modern royalty, uh, enthusiasts spend a full page on every little pseudo-royal rugrat or abecedarian. Why should we? Not even an average mayor of a medium-sized city gets an article here. Hans Adler 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "December 2006: PROD is removed and article turned into a redirect to the father's article", "January 2008: article is turned into a redirect to the father's article." There's the real problem, whatever those peoples' motivations. Not the person who restored it, who did absolutely the right thing, even if by accident or for bad reasons. If redirecting without discussion is not sanctionable, it should be. Redirected articles are only a little easier to find than deleted ones, and there is a reason we have AFDs, no? Anarchangel (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish you were right, but you are not. Try starting an AfD and saying up front that you want the outcome to be redirect rather than deletion. Anyone but a masochist will do that at most once. From the POV of AfD bureaucrat it's a criminal abuse of AfD because, according to them, "redirect" is technically the same outcome as "keep". Some admins even follow this ideology when closing AfDs and close near-unanimous redirect cases with "keep". Hans Adler 23:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summarise, merge and redirect to Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece. The nom is quite right that this kid is not notable enough for his own article. If he was the eldest son, fine, but he's the third, so until he does something particularly noteworthy, he's only slightly more notable than a regular six-year-old. Nightw 02:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into father's article and do the same with all his siblings aside from the eldest son. Morhange (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is in exceptional cases inherited, and one of them is reasonably enough the immediate family of monarchs. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you aware that this child was born 30 years after Greece became a republic? I wouldn't consider a grandchild immediate family. The fact that Greece is no longer a monarchy can of course easily be missed in this walled garden of nobilitycruft. Hans Adler 04:29, 19 April 2011 (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 _{Operation Big Bear} 02:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Maki

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

A (rather cursory) search of Google books, news and scholar fails to find any sources discussing the subject of this article. Absent sources, we shouldn't have an article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Pburka (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2011 (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 Miss World 2007#Contestants as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Consider this a keep close but please do not undo the redirect without sourcing the article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Stojanovska

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

An unreferenced biography for a person that doesn't really appear that notable D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If the claim is correct that she participated in the Miss World 2007, that would seem to satisfy the notability requirement, but sources aren't forthcoming even in the Miss World 2007 article, which itself is undersourced. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no sources specifically on Stojanovska, I'd say redirect to Miss World 2007#Contestants. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 16:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Miss World, miss Universe etc ..usually the delegates gets instant notability. For example participation in Miss World 2007 satisfies the notability requirements.--81.237.218.107 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I understand the requirements, this is enough notability to be included. If you look through the contestants listed on Miss World 2007 you will see many other articles in similar condition. Wickedjacob (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faith47

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. Not a notable subject. Taroaldo (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who challenged the CSD, I will abstain from directly supporting an outcome here, but I would like to point out this link [8] in the Bibliography seems to be some real coverage of the artist, though there may be dispute as to the reliability of the source for use in meeting the notability standards. Monty ₈₄₅ 23:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that "SensesLost" is a glorified blog, the coverage in question does nothing in regard to meeting the criteria set out in WP:ARTIST. Taroaldo (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My intent in offering the blog link was not to claim it is enough to satisfy the notability guidelines alone, I merely want to raise the issue that this person MAY actually be notable. Also, I may be more willing then most to accept a blog as a reliable source, but I think the blog appears to be enough of a reliable source that it could serve as part of the basis for notability if additional sources are found. The blog appears to me to be taking a pretty serious, journalistic approach, to its subject area, and to be more then just a personal blog. Additional information about editorial policy, accountability and a larger breadth of coverage would all make it a better notability source, but again, I think there is enough indicia of reliability that the blog in question should contribute towards meeting the notability guideline. I would also note that as the article refers to the artist only by their alias, the extremely strict reliability criteria for BLP cases seems less applicable here, though they are still relevant. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone in and provided two (plus a 3rd but it is just a passing reference) additional sources that support notability and that are a lot better then the blog, I have also cut some of the un-sourced fluff out of the article. While it could probably cut more, and maybe even stubified, I think it now has a reasonable change of meeting the general notability guidelines. There are a number of foreign language sources that appear in the google news search suggested by the AFD template that I suspect would further bolster the claim to notability, but I do not speak the language. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage appears unbiased. Coverage from Canada, Africa, UK. Article needs to be written better.... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The issue is not about biased or unbiased coverage: it's about whether or not this person meets the criteria in WP:ARTIST. The article, including limited coverage from a blog and a couple of websites, fails WP:ARTIST Taroaldo (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage exists in multiple reliable sources: [9], [10] are in Spanish covering her contribution to an art exhibition; this article covers a mural which she was commissioned to do; article covers he contribution to another art exhibition. This is in addition to the iAfrica, and Canada.com articles already referenced in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Medina (artist)

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

Working on notable work does not confer notability. Gigs (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Gigs (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They don't just use ANY artist to work on "The Incredible Hulk" or "The Amazing Spiderman". They use the best artists that they can get hold of. By default that makes ANY artist that works on these publications notable by default. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 18:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Working on notable works does not confer notability. Gigs (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Please try the template {{find}} before launching a deletion process. This artist is notable, you can find news and interviews on the web from good sources. CBR [11], The Chicago Tribune [12] and others [13]. --Crazy runner (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interview which is a primary source, and a offhand name drop in the other article, as far as I can see. That's not substantial coverage. Gigs (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding lots of coverage in The Plain Dealer, Chicago Tribune, The Washington Times and more. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? Gigs (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In The Plain Dealer, Chicago Tribune, The Washington Times and more. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Artists Angel Medina and Philip Tan illustrate the mess that will entrance the Spawn fan but will require that the average reader eat at least three hours before trying to digest the sequential-art event. " This is not coverage, this is an offhand mention of the name of the artist. So far no one has located any actual coverage to demonstrate notability. Gigs (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand where you are coming from in that you want the best possible sources, but I find it hard to consider deleting an article on a comics artist who has had a 20 year career on some of the world's most popular comics and who has been written about by several major newspapers, when meanwhile at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1/0 (web comic) we have a lot of people that want to keep articles on webcomics that existed for only 3 years and have no coverage in reliable sources. It seems we have a Wikipedia:Systemic bias toward comics published on the internet recently. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Mi-jung (manhwa creator)

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

Verifiability and notability concerns. Can't find reliable, secondary sources (or, really, anything) on this manga artist whose name is identical to a better-known judoka. Claims of two redlinked one-shots and a magazine publication do not give me much hope that there's much out there, but it's possible that this artist has had some other successes since 2007 when the primary content here was written, so, additional sources welcomed if you can find 'em, I couldn't. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 14:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if she is really the creator of a genre of cartoon art, then how could she not be notable? Why not question that point on the talk page of the article, instead of bring it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 12:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing makes the claim that she created a genre of cartoon art. For your information, the parenthetical in the article title is a parenethetical disambiguator, not a claim that the putative author created a genre, and is present to disambiguate her from the much better sourced judoka of the same name. We use that naming convention, where we disambiguate articles based on what someone allegedly does quite a bit. Certainly "Hey, this author created a whole genre of art" would, be something worth noting, although even so, it'd require verification through reliable sources. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular ^talk 13:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote from Keep to Delete - Oops, thank you for clarification Joe Decker. I change my vote to delete. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, made that mistake myself a couple times. Have a great week! --joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:41, 19 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Santiago

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

Yet another non-notable playmate. Damiens.rf 19:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't believe that any PMOY has ever been deleted. Looking at the template all names have links. In fact, I believe that all PMOMs have been considered notable. Subject is not notable for other reasons, but PMOY is a major recognition in its own right.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You put this better than I could. --Damiens.rf 15:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of them have done nothing beyond being a PMOY. That's why we no longer consider PMOY a criteria for notability. --Damiens.rf 01:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trout-slap nominator; Playmates of the Year are still notable.SPNic (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep your trout and give us the "significant coverage". --Damiens.rf 21:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another Playboy-related trout-slap nomination. Playmate of the year is a notable award satisfying PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2002. Not enough reliably sourced nontrivial information to support an independent article. Unlike most recent PMOYs, she has no significant non-Playboy credits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. I'm going to go against my normal grain here and say that a Playmate of the Year would seem to meet the spirit of WP:PORNBIO #1, "Has won a well-known award". I'd really only reserve this judgement for Playmates though, as they are an iconic part of American society. I don't see this as extending to Hustler Honeys, Penthouse Pets, etc... Tarc (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not weakly, but also per Tarc's rationale.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' - I will have to agree with Tarc, "Has won a well-known award" is met, which makes notability met. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is "Playmate of the Year" really an award? It's a marketing choice by Playboy management; the selection criteria have nothing (directly) to do with any achievements by the recipient, but on their expected role in promoting the magazine/brand. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said of any Grammy, Emmy, or Oscar. Worthy candidates often do not win for reasons outside their performances.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 11:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it can't. You're absolutely wrong on this. The people who select the awards you cite don't have a direct and immediate financial interest in the outcome. They may have conflicts of interests, and biases, etc, but in general their financial fortunes aren't directly affected by the outcomes. The competition is used to promote the industry, and the outcomes give financial boosts to the winners -- not the people who choose the winners. When you get down to it, the "Playmate of the Year" is chosen on the same basis that my local supermarket picks the cereal that's on the front page of its weekly circular. No matter how much better shredded wheat, or whatever, is than its competition, it doesn't make the front page unless marketing it sells more units. It's not a whole lot different from the process described here, about how another magazine generated its cover features.[14] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject is not notable. Milowent is not making an actual argument here, and we don't vote. Sandstein 20:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Nilsson

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

Non-notable model. Her previous afd was closed as keep mostly because there was an exemption on WP:PORNBIO that would consider any playboy playmate notable. This exemption was thus removed. There's not much written about this lady outside the fact that she was once a playmate. Damiens.rf 19:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The previous AfD was also kept because she had plenty of coverage in the press as indicated by the Google News findings. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. The previous AfD was closed as kept because at the time there were a explict rule on WP:PORNBIO that would deem all playmates as notable. There isn't much talk about google news on that afd. --Damiens.rf 14:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's a hint. Read the 2nd keep from that AfD and then read all of the following keeps agree with it or mention the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet WP:PORNBIO.--יום יפה (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2008. I don't see enough nontrivial, reliably sourced information to justify an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm missing something - if there were sources in 2010, why aren't those sources adequate now? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Because, since the previous round of Playmate deletion debates, the working consensus on how to handle their articles has changed. Rather than creating brief stubs on each Playmate, sourced mainly from Playboy sources (which have been, frankly, both promotional most of the time and dubious at least some of the time), the practice more recently has been to include short, factual entries in yearly list article, spinning off separate articles when more complete, better-sourced bios can be written. Note how the Playmates for roughly the last year have been treated, since mid-2010 when the previous round of debates resulted in quite a few deletions.I've been similarly converting some of the independent articles from earlier years to redirects lately, when the individual articles have contained little of no encyclopedic information beyond the list articles, and it's been uncontroversial so far. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pornbio fail, and refs cited in the article are trivial coverage or primary sources. AfD #1 was quite a knee-jerk parade or flawed rationales. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my vote last time which wasn't that long ago. a few editors are fanatic about redirecting this content into year articles, though.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - fails WP:BIO, per lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H. W. Tatum

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

Does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE. NW (Talk) 04:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 22:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources added. I can't and don't argue that he rises to WP:CREATIVE, but I also can't ignore the amount of coverage that the one statue of Selena has received, not all of which I've included. Color my rationale how you will (a spin on GNG, or just IAR), but this feels notable enough to me. I've teased some of the text out of Google snippets from the Kelso book, which makes it appear that the book has a small section on the statue (2 pages?), but I haven't gotten all of it. (A completely sensible alternative might be to merge to the article on the monument the statue is in.) --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the quantity and quality of sources allow him to pass WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2011 (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. However, since this is an unsourced BLP I'm going to move it to the incubator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubated to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Cassie Sumner

Cassie Sumner

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 19:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's also appeared in a number of TV programmes, so she's more than a "former model". There are GNews hits too, so I think this article can probably be sourced - sorry I don't have time to do it myself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raoulis (talk • contribs) 21:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Sheriff

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 19:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any reliable sources for this article. The only source I found was this from the Weekly World News. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search does show she was a model. But I can't find sources about her or her work. Thus, notablity can't be established and the claims can't be verified. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2011 (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. If the subject of this article has issues with it then go here for instructions on how to contact the foundation. No prejudice against a speedy renomination. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe McConnell

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 19:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article shows very little notability in the normal sense of this word, and the sources seem to be branches of her promoter-cum-employer. But maybe there's something else to her. -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why no picture of one of the most beautiful girls to ever grace the great British institution that is The Sun page 3. Zoe is my all time favourite page 3 model. She is also a very talented photographer. I checked her Wikipedia page to check to see if she is married. No info, why? Someone must know if this gorgeous woman is married or not. This page should not be deleted; it should be enhanced with a picture and more insight into Zoe's life and career. --HMFC1965 (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Why no picture [...?]" Because nobody is known to have provided one that has any of the applicable copyleft licences. If you can provide "insight into Zoe's life and career" (of course reliably sourced), this would help the chances of the article. If you could also provide a suitably copyleft photograph, then this would be the icing on the cheesecake, as it were. (See also WP:HOTTIE.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please remove this page - Zoe Mcconnell would like this page removed as some of the information on it, that we are unable to edit without ‘vandalism’, is detrimental to her current and future business. Due to its position in Google it now comes up as the number one search. This page was not created by Zoe Mcconnell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.232.132 (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. If it's deleted it won't matter, but if this article survives this deletion discussion (whether or not it was written by Ms McConell is not relevant), then please explain the problematic material on the article Talk page and I'll be happy to look at it for you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^X 20:31, 15 April 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Hall

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 18:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She appears to be a current model, not a former model -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - current model, and if it is true that she "won The Sun newspaper's Page 3 Idol competition in 2009," that is probably enough for notability. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm on the fence with this one - the page 3 competition could be considered WP:WI1E, and there's not much other reliable stuff out there on her. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malene Espensen

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 15:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as can be seen from the link above at Google News, she's been a Page Three model at The Star at least twice each in 2007, 2008, and 2009. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But improve, as sources referenced in the article are really weak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.195.109.67 (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC) — 132.195.109.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
delete - a page three modal is not a get yourself a wiki bio gold star guarantee, she is not notable at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
G12 Speedy Delete. Once you delete the copyvio from http://www.skins.be/malene-espensen/biography/ (warning for porn content), you'll find there really isn't much left worth saving. Additionally, two sources are nonexistent once you attempt to check them out. Cind.amuse 05:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article contains copyvio text but no indications of substantial third party coverage. I fail to see how appearing topless in a newspaper establishes notability. Sandstein 09:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Corrigan

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 15:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have made an impact. With roles and some media attention.Obviouly. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2011 (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 _{Operation Big Bear} 02:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raya Abirached

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

Minor television personality. No indication of third-party sources discernable from Google News and Google Books. General references in article are neither WP:RS nor verify article contents. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete, agree with Hrafn above, minor television personality. References cited are certainly not references; they fail WP:RS and have nothing to do with article contents above. Appears page is resourced by a fan of hers. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Mittal

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

Non-notable person. Only claim to notability is that he spoke at a conference of Python programmers. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just because if only this level of conference speaker notability gets you WP:N for an article, I can have one too 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sarcasm duly noted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2011 (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.

[1] ttp://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22chuckie+mauk%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives

[2] ttp://www.google.com/search?q=%22chuckie%20mauk%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=nw

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seb West}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Pendlebury}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jedediah Harrell}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie-Mathilde Ducatillon-Sauthier}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gulzaeb Beg Ali}}
@@ Line 50: / Line 49: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuckie Mauk}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COMTES DU GARDIN}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riccardo Buscarini}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeniffer Viturino}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terje Svabø}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Odysseas-Kimon of Greece and Denmark}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Maki}}