Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: this page is purely an aggregation page of transclusions and not in the same format
as other Deletion Sorting pages.  "Generic biographies" should be added to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People, which is transcluded directly below.
WikiProject Biography
General information (edit · changes)
Departments
Infoboxes
More biography infoboxes...
Biography work groups
Things you can do (edit)
Biography article statistics

This list is generated automatically on alternate nights.
view full worklist

Biography
articles		 Importance
Top None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 21 480 501
A 2 19 21
Good article GA 24 970 994
B 151 14437 14588
Start 2 110997 110999
Stub 337848 337848
List 111 111
Assessed 200 464862 465062
Unassessed 55108 55108
Total 200 519970 520170
Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

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.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

  • To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
  • 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. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  • You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Deletion sorting}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
  • There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
  • Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
  • You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to People.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or 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.

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



Purge page cache Watch this page

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


Contents

[edit] People

[edit] People Proposed deletions




[edit] Academics and educators

[edit] Stan Neeleman

Stan Neeleman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just an average professor DimaG (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • speedy delete non notable professor, one sentence mini stub that clearly states his lack of notability, not sourced at all, not even a single external link...no brainer.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. See the references at this Google Scholar search. --Eastmain (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The foregoing link actually confirms that this person doesn't meet WP:PROF. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The newspaper references show that he was a pioneer in using computer technology in law. --Eastmain (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. On one hand he does hold a named chair appointment at a decent law school, which I ordinarily would consider a sign of academic notability (of course, law schools often have bigger endowments and more named chair appointments than other academic departments). On the other hand his scholarly record appears thin: Eastmain's GoogleScholar search returns a grant total of 5 hits and GoogleBooks does not return much either[1]. GoogleNews (all dates) search gives 5 hits[2], so there does not seem to be substantial coverage in conventional newsmedia either. It does not seem to me that the subject passes WP:PROF based on these results. He does appear to be an active practicing lawer, according to his faculty profile[3], which might explain a relative lack of academic impact. It could be that he is notable as a lawer under WP:BIO but a verifiable case for this has not been made. Nsk92 (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Professor Sa'ad Medhat

Professor Sa'ad Medhat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is written like his resume, and is definitely advertising, his notability is also questionable. Google search: Sa'ad Medhat...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 17:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Should have been deleted per my original G11 nomination. Clearly spam/vanity piece. ukexpat (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I declined the speedy. Article can be stubbed to remove COI/POV issues. The discussion here should focus on notability issues. Tan | 39 17:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Some guy's resume. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and Move may be enough publications to pass WP:PROF. Should be moved per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) to remove his professional title from the article title. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you really want a copy-pasted resume to remain on Wikipedia? Baffling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • No, but AfD is not for clean-up. It probably means there's enough with which to write an article. I have no interest in doing so, but that's not a reason to delete. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
        • This would require a 100% word-for-word rewrite... oh, and a new title too. A cleaned-up version would be a whole new article, and even on the off chance that someone is up for it, there's no reason to keep the resume in history. Wikipedia is not C:/My_Documents Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
There. Now it's not a resume anymore. This conversation should be focusing on notability, not material that is easily deleted and sourced. Tan | 39 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep it would require gutting, which I was going to do, but someone beat me to it. Now just needs expansion. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:PROF. Eusebeus (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete the publications found by TravellingCarithe Busy Bee have hardly or never been cited (the most cited article has 5 citations). That's not even close to being notable. Unless the claim that this person single-handedly founded a new university can be substantiated, I don't see any evidence of notability. --Crusio (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep based on Travellingcari's findings. I added a source (a bad one, but it was the first I came across). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Hi. I'm the author of the original. So, obviously, I'm for keeping. I can understand that some may find the promotion of vocatonal skills in the UK (and beyond) somewhat esoteric. But the numbers of people involved and the amount of money make Sa'ad's work notable. He is widley quoted in the press and consulted by policy-makers and so his career is an important piece of information that many should be able to source from Wikipedia. As for doubts about him establishing Dubai University, this is well documented and recognised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weottelescope (talk • contribs) 07:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to be a CV. --Ecoleetage (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Articles for deletion archives This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Koh Siak Peng. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Patrick Hunout

Patrick Hunout (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

there are no reliable third party sources, so notability has not been established in accordance with WP:BIO Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep This Google search reveals 2,400+ hits on him here There are ample third party sources on him; this Citizendium article even references a paper Hunout wrote here--see the first article. He's clearly notable enough. Artene50 (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The question is not whether people are referencing his article, but are people writing about him. Only the later gives us source we can use in the article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a strange case. According to it's website, it seems that the journal that he is involved with (The International Scope Review) has not appeared since 2006. The Web of Knowledge lists just one article by him, cited a grand total of 1 times (searching for "Hunout", so I cannot have missed articles because of additional initials, for instance). If I search for all citaions (i.e. also to works not themselves included in WoK), I find one additional citation to his thesis (by himself in the one article included in WoK) and one to an article in The International Scope Review. Most of the entries listed on the Google search linked by Artene50 are entries in Wikis (perhaps/probably made by the subject himself?) and networking sites (certainly made by the subject himself). Many references listed in the article are from the The International Scope Review and it is not clear how independent this is of him (the fact that he is on the Board and even its founder does not necessarily mean that his articles get in without any scrutiny. Any well-managed scientific journal will scrutinize articles from its editors as carefully -if not more- than those from other contributors to avoid the impression of favoritism. I am the founding editor of a scientific journal myself, so I know what I'm talking about....). Hunout has apparently also published several books, which might be notable, but it is strange that none of those have ever been cited in WoK. In short, the only serious reference brought up till now is the one to Citizendium, and the fact that they cite an article by Hunout does not really make him notable. Unless other sources would crop up, I'd probably go for delete, but will abstain for the moment. --Crusio (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. As no additional sources seem to be forthcoming, I am going for delete. --Crusio (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. His work on job evaluation is well known and has been used as source in academic programmes and courses. The Review he is involved in is very demanding and his conferences as well. The bibliography mentions several publications at third parties. So he is notable enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

  • Comment Could you perhaps provide sources for the things you mention? If his works are used as text books in courses, that would establish notability, but there should be a way to verify that claim. The "Review" seems to be moribund. The current bibliography only mentions some works by himself and they don't seem to have had much if any impact. Perhaps I'm wrong, in that case, please present the evidence. --Crusio (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Crusio, unless more positive evidence to indicate notability under WP:PROF or WP:BIO is found. As Crusio said, WebOfScience shows precious little in the way of the subject't work being cited by other scholars. GoogleScholar also produces very few citations[4], with top hits of 4, 3 and 1. I am not seeing evidence of passing WP:PROF here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Closer examination of the Google scholar results makes the numbers look smaller: the "top hit" of 4 citations appears to be really one citation, in a paper by Frédéric Schoenaers, repeated 4 times. In addition I tried (by Googling "hunout syllabus") but failed to find any use of his works in the classroom. The closest I found was a false hit on a sociology class close to here which unrelatedly includes a web poll of top sociologists in which some respondent (perhaps Hunout himself) has added Hunout's name to a list of larger luminaries. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. Crusio, you are mixing up several things. The Review is not moribund, does not publish every year unless it has appropriate (of sufficient high quality) material. New Editorial Board for 2008-2010 shows pundit names like Inglehart. If you look at other Wikipedia articles like e.g. Amitai Etzioni bibliography it is also made of their own works. The issue is not to list a large number of publications but visibility, and visibility is indeniable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hunout is the President of a NGO not a pure scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As for that link in Citizendium, it got there as a copy of the Wikipedia article at the time [5]. We have removed it long since, they have not yet done so.DGG (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Crusio, Nsk92, David Eppstein... Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't delete. The discussion must be fair. Saying that "Hunout added his own name" is badly intended. There is no evidence of that. He is not a pure scholar but a manager and a policymaker, and as such cannot be seen through the same criteria. Even so he published with Moscovici, who is the pope of social psychology. His next conference shows a very interesting line-up of contributors, which shows notability. Let's keep him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessika Folkerts (talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Uh, what? Is it even ethical for us to do that? Ford MF (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can unearth a ref of substance. BLPs need to be absolutely the best sourced articles we have and this is far from that. Ford MF (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't delete. Those critiques may have hidden thoughts haven't they? The organization Crusio belongs to does not have a single reference, and the largest expert for social capital, Robert Putnam, who is world known, has only four, and a tiny bibliography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessika Folkerts (talk • contribs) 00:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't delete. I made a research on Google and, limiting myself to the first 10 pages, I found a considerable number of references for Hunout. Hunout was cited, mentioned, published or commented by authoritative institutions, editors, libraries, institutions, authors, sites, and blogs. He was mentioned by the World Bank, who is the authority for social capital, the area of expertise of Hunout. He was called by Oxfam International to sign along with 50 other economists a call to the G8 Ministers to end poverty, which clearly shows notability regarding social inclusion. He is mentioned in the book "L'Europe ou le grand bazar de l'immigration", by CNAM, by the French Ministry of Justice, by the International Review of Social History (Cambridge University Press). In a 2007 speech to the Human Rights Equal Opportunity Commission, the speakers says "Social capital is a contested term that has been defined many ways although I like the simple version that it “...is a set of attitudes and mental dispositions that favour co-operation within society (that)… equals the spirit of community” (Patrick Hunout, Social Capital Foundation)." Hunout is quoted by Joel Alleyne in his paper on "social networks and social media" (2007). He is analysed by Answers.com, NationMaster and CapitalSocial.eu for his work related to civil society, communitarianism and social capital. He was referred to by National Bank of Brazil for his work with Ziltener on the euro and the advent of a new European Leviathan.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk • contribs) note also: that ip 62.235.215.231 (registered to Belgian ISP not far from Terhulpen, Belgium) copyedited Jessika Folkerts's last comment as well. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Pete, smells like socks to me. Nsk92 (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mae-Wan Ho

Mae-Wan Ho (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article on a living person has sat since February 2006 without any reliable third party sources. Given her highly controversial opinions, that are argueabley pseudoscience, it's essential an article like this have substantial third party sourcing. Otherwise, it can only alternate between a hatchet job or a promo piece. --Rob (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, does "third party" mean "secondary source" as in "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources" or does it mean "tertiary source" as in "encyclopedias or other compendia that sum up secondary and primary sources". Are reliably sourced news articles or journal articles acceptable "third party" sources? Are her own reliably sourced books or journal articles acceptable sources to describe her own views? --EPadmirateur (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
"Third-party" means that Mae-Won didn't write it. Nothing she writes on her own can possibly establish her notability, regardless of who published it. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I vote for deletion and agree that this article can never amount to anything because the only stuff written about this person is either from herself or from non-reliable sources such as purveyors of alternative medicine or anti-GM activist publications. Mainstream science essentially ignores her pseudoscientific views. Ttguy (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • DeleteKeep as not having established notability through reliable third-party sources. This lack of reliable third-party sources means that the article has, at times, devolved into edit-wars over whether her CV substantiates fields of expertise claimed in her 'biographical sketch' (both sourced from the subject). There just isn't enough here for a solid article, let alone one that needs to carefully navigate a controversial subject. HrafnTalkStalk 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Nature article cited by Tim Vickers below meets the threshold of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk 08:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, because Mae-Wan Ho is notable by a number of measures. Third party citations have come and gone in the article that would support that. However, I doubt that any reliable sources or neutral presentation would be allowed by other editors. Since its inception, this article has served as a personal sandbox for a few editors who used it consistently to publish discrediting information about her, even after the material had been removed, and to remove or strongly dispute any positive information that might be put in it.
For example, User:Ttguy has used a set of favorite items for discrediting Mae-Wan Ho:
  • From the beginning through to the present, that she is a vivisectionist who likes to burn rabbits' eyes (and is therefore a hypocrite): [6] [7] [8] [9]
  • Also from the beginning, that she believes living organisms don't follow second law of thermodynamics [10] [11] [12]
  • that she has been involved in cloning humans and therefore a hypocrite [13] [14]
  • that she is a "AIDS denier" and the "treatment she recommends is selenium and other antioxidants" [15] [16]
  • that her claimed academic credentials are "inflated" and simple claims of what fields she worked in are false: [17] [18] [19] [20] Ttguy even has [his own webpage containing his personal analysis of Ho's credentials, which he uses in the article and in the talk to support the claim that Mae-Wan Ho's credentials are don't match her claims
  • that she may have been fired for incompetence from an academic position [21]
  • when positive or balancing information is added, it's removed usually for trivial reasons [22] [23], including the one third party reference that made it into the article [24]: why? because it was "POV"
Also User:Hrafn has disputed what should be non-controversial edits, for trivial or contrived reasons [25] [26] [27]
It's ironic that the first two editors to jump in and vote to delete this article are Ttguy and Hrafn.
So this is what WP:BLP allows: the unbridled two-year-long campaign to discredit a person's reputation, where deleted material is constantly re-added, and where honest attempts at balance and neutrality are smacked down to the point where the only thing left to do is delete the article. It would be impossible to add any reliable third-party sources to this article in good faith because, I'm afraid, they would be removed for trivial reasons within a day. I have no interest in Mae-Wan Ho or her positions but I strongly oppose the kind of editor POV pushing and bullying that is evident in this article. I asked in another place "is this the way WP is supposed to work for biographies of living people who happen to do something some editors don't like?" Hey, I guess so, and when it gets really bad, we just delete the sandbox. --EPadmirateur (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: If there has been substantial coverage in reliable third party sources that has been deleted from the article, then where are the difs? Please provide substantiation. All your other accusations are irrelevant to an AfD. HrafnTalkStalk 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • EPadmirateur , It seems you want a biography based only on Ho's writings. You were fine with my removal of negative material sourced to her research paper (like the eye buring), but you're happy to have positive things sourced to Ho. The problems with this article stem from the fact, there's no third-party reliable material to go off. So, all the editors inject their own opinions, because that's all there is: opinion. Wikipedians are left to debate what's relevant and notable about her self-claimed work. Wikipedias policy on deleting non-notable bios is actually in the best interests of the bio subject, who are most harmed by the inevitable original research that's conducted on them. It's unfortunate that this article wasn't deleted at the beginning. --Rob (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Not at all: I would gladly seek out reliable sources to provide information about her. However, I'm nearly certain that they would be removed for trivial or contrived reasons, as was done with the simple claim of what fields she has worked in. I thought that the policy for BLP was to provide balance as per WP:BLP#Criticism and praise and to avoid "biased or malicious content about living persons". If WP wants to permit POV pushing and bullying in BLPs as you seem to want to allow here, fine. Just let us all know, and by all means delete this article. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You are free to show us the reliable sources right here. Please also show the diffs of where an editor has removed a reliable source. --Rob (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I haven't searched for third party sources. Under the circumstances I don't much see the point. The two external sources that were removed mentioning Ho were deleted here.EPadmirateur (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[28] is an article on a blog where they have interviewed Ho. I dunno if this contributes to notablility or not Ttguy (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[29] tells us that Ho attended a meeting along with 1400 other people. Not sure this contributes to notability either. She is mentioned once in the article. Ttguy (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea how reliable these sources would be viewed but they are the only two that have been added. Ho is certainly controversial and influential as these two citations show and also here. Her work is cited in Meaning of life, in Black people, in Rupert Sheldrake#The Presence of the Past, in Horizontal gene transfer. Her name is listed on the List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" (original document here, page 2) and as writer on holistic science. She has 79 journal articles listed in PubMed. Those are 79 reliable third-party sources. Here are 13 articles or letters appearing in The Guardian about her or written by her. Here's a book review in New Scientist. Here's an interview, a lecture summary, a briefing to the European Parliament, etc. That's just for starters. I think there are dozens more third-party sources. What more do you want? How hard did the other editors try? --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You said "Those are 79 reliable third-party sources". Anything written by Ho is, by definition, not a third party source. I will review the other sources as much as I can shortly. --Rob (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Side comment: I think it would be a good idea of editors could go through the backlinks, and check how Ho has been used as a source in other Wikipedia articles. --Rob (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I think there are a couple of third party sources there that can be used in this article. I would also say that her own suitably published work can be cited as WP:RS when describing her ideas, as was the consensus recently in Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Self_published. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're what you're talking about. I wanted people to review the backlinks, where Ho is sometimes cited, since those should be removed or replaced by cites from recognized authorities. Ho is not a recognized authority in any field, and shouldn't be cited as such. Unless/until Ho is mentioned by a third-party, Ho doesn't belong on Wikipedia, anywhere. --Rob (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I think there are plenty of third-party sources (see above). She certainly has scientific credentials (see PubMed list above). But her notability comes from her controversial stances on a number of things, which can be reliably documented in third party news reports, interviews, etc. In addition, her own papers in reliable journals and books published by reliable independent publishers can also be used as a reliable sources for her own views (see the consensus recently in Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Self_published). --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Except (apparently) if these papers show her in a bad light (eg Burning rabbits eyes) - then these papers can not be used !!!! - right? Ttguy (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course, the experimental work on corneas can and should be used if it is relevant to her notability. Apparently even her AIDS denialism is not notable by the third-party source standard (I couldn't find anything), only her anti-GMO work. --EPadmirateur (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep this seems to be a very interesting person, she has some very interesting ideas, a whole lot of wrong ideas and possibly she doesn't always know what she's actually talking about. In addition, she seems to be somewhat hypocritical, and may in some contexts be considered a 'ho'. I've been somewhat rude, maybe I've made some overstatements, my apologies for that, probably not all she says is rubbish, it may in fact be very interesting to analyse how this woman has come to combine wisdom and knowledge with misinterpretations and other nonsense. Anyway, it should be the task of Wikipedia to clarify the whole mystery and controversy surrounding this person. 84.194.237.100 (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep apparently at least borderline notable as a scientist. About 60 published papers in peer-reviewed biology journals, cited reasonably according to Web of Science (GS is not helpful here, the papers are back in the 70s) Her papers on theoretical evolution in Journal of theoretical biology, a mainstream journal though in my opinion willing to publish pure speculation had 76, 65, etc citations. Some of her perfectly orthodox cell biology papers in good journals had 128, 71, 70. This counts as quite respectable. Her later work is not science, nor is it published by significant scientific publishers. However, it's widely noticed. I think it's deplorable, but it's notable. DGG (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable scientist with notable views on notable subject. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep a notably bad scientist. Not notable for their research or expertise, but the extreme opinions exposed by this person have gathered wide notice and a strongly negative reaction from their peers. See Nature news article for example. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Note - I've added some reliable sources criticizing this publication. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Be very careful here. She is a very controversal figure, but no assertion of her non-notability should be credited without a review of just who is asserting it and with what motivations. Notably bad might be very accurate, but quite notably bad. --Blechnic (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree completely with DGG. Her views on GM crops are clearly wrong to me, but she's a notable opponent. --Crusio (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Off topic. I'm not ready to dismiss everything she says, but I have gotten rather tired of hearing her at times. I work in agricultural genetics, so I've probably heard a bit more than most. --Blechnic (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per TimVickers, DGG, Crusio. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The New Scientist and Guardian sources linked above show clear notability. It seems that some people have trouble understanding that a subject's notability is nothing to do with whether you agree with them or not. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tim Vickers. Ford MF (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zdzisław Kaczmarczyk

Zdzisław Kaczmarczyk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, can't use prod tag because an admin removed it (>O_o)> Something X <(^_^<) 15:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. There are many references to him through google. Most are not in English but he looks probably notable. I think this AfD is premature. The article is poor and just a stub and needs work. I would flag with {{{notability}}} at most. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't speak Polish, but here[30] I think you find a book describing his life. If he was notable enough in Poland to have a biography published, he's probably notable enough for Wikipedia. Somebody who speaks Polish should check this reference and, if possible, also add some material to the article, which really is nothing much. --Crusio (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In light of the discussion below: keep.
  • Keep author of about 30 books in polish--some held in over 40 US/UK libraries, which for a Polish author writing on Polish history, is fairly substantial. But the article really needs some information besides what's there. since everything's in Polish, someone else will have do do the work here. I would like to be a little more confident though about the publisher and nature of the bio. DGG (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG and Crusio. Passes WP:BIO based on the published biography, and seems to pass WP:PROF as well. There is a bit more info about the biography that Crusio mentioned at GoogleBooks:[31]. The publisher of the biography, "Wydawnictwo Poznańskie", seems to be well-established as well[32]. Nsk92 (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as director of an important academic institute, and prolific author of books held by academic libraries. Wydawnictwo Poznańskie is the publishing arm of the Adam Mickiewicz University (one of my Alma maters [or is that almae matres?]), so there's no need to doubt the reliability of the biography. I've picked out some biographical details from amongst the WP:PEACOCK language at the link found by Crusio and put them in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Padgitt

Steve Padgitt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article does not give evidence or explanation of notability Ecoleetage (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Wow. Article is over five years old, with not much added. Delete A2Kafir (and...?) 02:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Cannot find any evidence that this professor meets WP:PROF. TN‑X-Man 02:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep well published and his rural planning work has been covered in reliable sources. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I see 12 or 13 articles, no books at all, and several dozen conference presentations. I;m having a hard time verifying his position, but he turns out to be an Emeritus Professor [33]--not all such pages appear in Google. He apparent is or was director of one ofthe sociology units of ISU Extension per [34], Frankly, less than convincing. The GNews links almost all come from the same presentation, but I have yet to identify it. Pre-internet era faculty without published books are often rather hard to document adequately.DGG (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Academics and educators Proposed deletions


[edit] Actors and actresses

[edit] Olivia and Ava White

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Olivia and Ava White Articles for deletion/Olivia and Ava White (2nd nomination)
Olivia and Ava White (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a case of toddlers filling a character role with little actual acting, in tandem between them. They do not continue to act as a collective nor will they do so in the future. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as per above. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not really notable aside from their one role on Days. Pinkadelica 05:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Whether they have had 'significant roles' roles per WP:ENTERTAINER is arguable, although a regular, recurring role on Days of our Lives is a pretty good start. There's also some evidence of a fan base, but it's not large enough or "cult-ish" enough in my view to push them over the WP:BIO line. Debate 木 13:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brittany Madelynn Daniels

Brittany Madelynn Daniels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actor. IMDB lists only four roles, all bit parts. Other appearances are asserted but no sources given. Talk page indicates she is an "up and coming" actor. Well, let's reconsider that if and when it happens, but for now she is not notable enough. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --John (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete based on the content of the article I'd have to say non-notable. As "cameo" appearance is quite a subjective term which (and no disrespect to Brittany or the author of the article) some people use to mean "extra" without using the word. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - clearly non-notable; the deadly "up and coming" phrase is used (code for "not notable yet"). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • addition - also note name of editor Hllywdbrit; I suspect a WP:AUTO violation by this s.p.a. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Her roles are supporting ones, but that is not the same as "bit parts". See http://www.dreadcentral.com/story/are-you-ready-saw-blade for a review of Sawblade. --Eastmain (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and with an apparent WP:COI problem thrown in as well. I agree that the term "cameo" is misused here: a cameo role is a deliberate insertion of a famous, notable, or recognisable person, probably the ultimate example being Hitchock's walk-ons in his own movies. A small part (bit part) or part as an extra isn't a cameo unless the person is famous or notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnotable date on lame MTV dating show and extra on One Tree Hill is what I get out of this (red-headed nanny was probably a scene where her and the nanny character played by Torrey DeVitto had a non-vocal scene with each other in the same shot). Nate • (chatter) 23:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adam seth Nelson

Adam seth Nelson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was previously speedy deleted under the name Adam seth nelson. The subject of the article is an actor turned public relations person. The article is long on name dropping and short on references. A search for reliable sources turns up nothing to substantiate notability. The only Google News result on a search for "Adam Seth Nelson" in quotesis a wedding announcement. Whpq (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Reply G4 applies only if the deleted article was previously deleted through AFD. The previous article was deleted through a speedy. And in any case, I don't know what the contents of the previous article were. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ranjan Kamath

Ranjan Kamath (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems like a non-notable and possibly self-promotional biography. Is completely unsourced. I checked Google, IMDB, and several specialty subscription film databases, including the Film International Index and Film Literature Index, both of which are international in scope, and got nothing. Sadly looks like there is no way to source at this time (and in the meantime, Wikipedia is not a webhost). I'd be happy to be proved wrong about the sourcing. phoebe / (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Luan Bexheti

Luan Bexheti (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable actor(?), doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER notability standard. Nadda in Google News. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • It looks like you understand Albanian. I don't. Is the link that you provided about a documentary that he was involved with or is it about him. Basically, has he satisfied the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:BIO?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems like a guy on his way up, but doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER yet: 1) no significant roles, nor roles in multiple significant films; 2) no evidence of large fan base or cult following; 3) no evidence of "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". While I don't understand Albanian, the link Eastmain refers to above only mentions him twice, among a list of other names, which makes it pretty clear that while he is somehow associated with the documentary, he is probably not the focus of it.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zakaria Saeed

Zakaria Saeed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actor Lars T. (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Actors are simple. Any actor of note (with a unique name) comes right up on a google search. This one doesn't.Elan26 (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Elan26
  • Delete. Not even a hint of demonstrable notability, unfortunately. Ford MF (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Javed Naqvi

Javed Naqvi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable journalist DimaG (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a newspaper columnist, he does not generate news, it appears that he only reports about it. He does not appear to be the anchor for the 7 o'clock news (thus a household name). Reporting newsworthy items as a columnist certainly does not automatically confer notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Actors & Actresses Proposed deletions


for occasional archiving


[edit] Athletes

[edit] Authors

[edit] Allan Bonner

Allan Bonner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person, page reads as advertisment. CSD - spam not approved, although looking at User talk:Allanbonner, this page (or a similar one to it) has been speedied in the past. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, weak keep. At least one book he authored has multiple citations, and at least one reputable media outlet has used him as a pundit. The entry needs a serious NPOV injection, but the subject is notable. The problem will be finding reference material not too badly infected with spin. 9Nak (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


I appreciate you getting back to me so quickly and trying to resolve this issue.

I am not sure what "weak keep" means. The reason his book as multiple citations is due to information from other industry experts or quoting people such as Marx etc... Many reputable media outlets have used him as a pundit in fact he is on BNN tonight speaking about a current controversial matter. I am not sure what NPOV inhection means. And he has been referenced by many media outlets and notable people so I am not sure what "too badly infected with spin" refers to. Is there information that should be removed for this to get approved?

Thanks again you are very helpful. Sarah Sarahanders1712 (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:StephenBuxton"

  • comment Explanations... Weak keep means that this person thinks the article shouldn't be deleted, but only just thinks that. NPOV Injection slang way of saying that the article is very biased, and needs rewriting with a Neutral Point Of View - see this guideline. Too badly infected with spin is referring to the sources - they are very heavily biased and putting a "positive spin" on the person. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Essentially, Sarah, this article is a vanity page written either by Mr. Bonner himself or people associated with him. It has been created in various forms in the past and has been repeatedly deleted. While I was the admin that declined to speedily delete it, I agree with what user 9Nak said about the issues. The article is not encyclopedic - it is really a promotion of Mr. Bonner, and needs to be rewritten to remove bias. Tan | 39 17:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't have said it better myself, thanks. I've trimmed back the article – so severely that it may now be an even better candidate for deletion. Can't find acceptable (non self-published) references to include most of the claims in the original; YMMV. 9Nak (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gerasimos Kalogerakis

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Gerasimos Kalogerakis Articles for deletion/Gerasimos Kalogerakis (2nd nomination)
Gerasimos Kalogerakis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article has been previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerasimos Kalogerakis. Article does not seem to show much notability. Captain panda 20:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ngarto Februana

Ngarto Februana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

An author of question notability. The primary author is User:Ngarto and thus likely has a conflict of interest. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Spartaz Humbug! 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Despite the unanimity of the discussion I have chosed to relist this because on the face of the article the subject is notable and COI is usually a reason to improve an article not delete it. Since consensus is supposed to relect policy I fell that wider input is required if we are to go ahead and delete this. Spartaz Humbug! 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Biado

Ed Biado (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Since they may have a lot of material published under a by-line on the web, the notability of professional writers and journalists can be tricky to understand. Most of the sources cited by this article are things written by Mr Biado himself, which does not confer him with wide notability through independent coverage by reliable sources which have published pieces in which he is the subject. There has also been odd, steady vandalism. A Philippines IP editor has tagged it as spam and as a joke, hinting something here is likely amiss. The article even quotes his Friendster profile. What's that about? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I brought this speedy up to Gwen following my own hesitations due to the vandalism mentioned above. It was tagged once as a hoax, but the person does exist as a published writer. I agree that I have not been able to find coverage of him yet, and if it isn't found it probably should be deleted (although some seem to be kept, and others deleted in AfDs). However I think the fact that he's a writer for a newspaper asserted enough notability to avoid a speedy on the grounds of A7. I plan to keep looking for coverage of him/his work during the AfD. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 15:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, despite his sage advice on socks. Socks are a "basic" consideration for any well-dressed man and attractive socks are an indispensible addition to all male wardrobes, an expert has commented. Thank you for that aperçu, Ed, sock expert; I plan to remember it and think I'll go with navy blue tomorrow. -- Hoary (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Trivial accomplishments. But none the less enough accomplishments that it wasnt a speedy. DGG (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete due to notability concerns. There are no independent and reliable source that is focused on the writer himself.--Lenticel (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] T.N. Baker

T.N. Baker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable author. All of the information seems to be a rework of the bio on her website, including the part about liking hot bubble baths. BradV 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • KEEP A quick google reveals that this is areal novelist, she has a novel out form St. martin's press, no small accomplishment. The novels appear to be black romance novels, or, perhaps, black chick-lit. I'm pretty ognorant about both genres. However, I think that four novels (that's how amny appear on Amazon) from real(i.e. not vanity) presses qualifies a writer for Wikipedia. About the article, however, what can I say. Wholly inadequate. But hang a needs improvement tag on it, rather than deleting it.Elan26 (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Elan
  • Delete There are no reliable secondary sources that establish notability. The only source is a personal website. Fails WP:BIO. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Captain-tucker (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, only source I could find was [40], does not appear to have multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability to pass WP:BIO since the depth of coverage is not substantial. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No significant coverage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is nothing to suggest that this writer is notable in encyclopedic terms i.e. having made a significant contribution to the field of work. Wikipedia isn't simply a list of every living author who has managed to get published.Austin46 (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mojtaba Pourmohsen

Mojtaba Pourmohsen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page was originally up for speedy deletion under A7, but I declined it because the article makes claims of notability. I think that this poet might be notable enough, because he appears to have won national journalism awards and has been connected to censorship practices in Iran. There aren't a lot of google hits, but many of them are in Arabic, so I can't read them. I did manage to find one article in English that mentions him. Overall, I'm ambivalent about this article. I stand by my declination of the speedy, but if the community decides that there just isn't enough out there about this guy, it should be deleted. Danaman5 (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment to add to above: I should also mention that I was searching for the romanization of his name in Google. If you searched for his name written in Arabic script, you would probably get more results. Unfortunately, I don't know Arabic.--Danaman5 (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • And I stand by my opinion it should be deleted, my reasoning behind that opinion can be found here.Shoombooly (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Or at least postpone the decision long enough to give anyone out there with relevant knowledge time to do a clean-up. If this was properly referenced then the notability issues might be addressed. But the article was only created in May and tagged in June, hardly seems time for people to take action to fix things before being deleted.Austin46 (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Auz

Martin Auz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiography, non-notable —G716 <T·C> 19:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no claim of notablity --T-rex 03:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Vallance (writer)

Tom Vallance (writer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability, no directly referenced sources. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note discussion is red-linked from article, attempting to fix with this cmt. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 02:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Notability not even asserted, much less demonstrated. Qworty (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Identifying the subject of the article as a regular writer/columnist/reviewer for at least two major publications, as well as the author of two books in his journalistic area, is certainly an assertion of notability. While Vallance apparently did his most substantial work in the preWeb area, even a rudimentary Google search turns up, for example, a description of him as an "expert" in his field from reliable sources, eg [41]. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fulfills notability criteria. Shovon (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep for The Enchantress Of Florence's reasons. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note:Since this discussion was never linked properly from the article I have relisted it for discussion. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 02:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 02:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reliable secondary sources describing the subject can be found. The current article appears to only be based on editor synthesis from primary sources. Whatever his achievements if they can't be verified by citing independent sources it will not be possible to write a neutral, original research free article about the subject. Guest9999 (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't find significant coverage on him. Every writer for a newspaper will have his name palstered throughout Google. But hits alone do not suffice for notability. There must be significant coverage of the article's subject, of which is lacking. Neither is being an "expert" considered notable for Wikipedia purposes. Every expert doesn't require an encyclopedia article written about him. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Authors Proposed deletions



[edit] Businesspeople

[edit] Russ Fradin

Russ Fradin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Probably fails WP:BIO. Involved with two successful small companies, but should be merged into pages for those companies, if they are notable themselves. - Snouter

  • Comment. There is another Russell Fradin who works as an executive, not to be confused with this one. - Snouter
  • Delete, unless someone can dig up some material on the man himself receiving public focus. - Vianello (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:COATRACK, failure to provide any evidence of notability. Corvus cornixtalk 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I wish people would not vote "delete" or "keep" on the basis of what is currently on a page. If you don't know a field, at least google the topic. Lots of lousy pages are improved over time if they are left up. This one made me just curious enough to type :"Russ Fradin" Adify , into google and news google. This guy is clearly attracting real attention as an individual entrepreneur. Unfortunately , I don't know enoughh about this business to write it up. It seems clear that he deserves an article. keep and put up needs improvement. Needs A LOT of improvement.Elan26 (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Elan26
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO. Article can be recreated if and when reliable sources that establish notability are compiled. (Having an immediatist philosophy, my personal opinion is that we absolutely should be judging articles "on the basis of what is currently on the page". Deletion until a proper article can be written is not a big deal.) — Satori Son 18:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I first voted delete, then keep when I saw there were news sources. I added a few. But honestly, most of the sources more demonstrate the notability of the company mentioned, Adify, than the man himself, who seems notable only in his position as president of the company. No source provided anything resembling biographic detail beyond that. Probably the best course of action would be to create an Adify article and redirect Russ Fradlin to that. I'd create the Adify article myself, but I've no mind for business topics, and after reading six news articles, I still couldn't possibly tell you what exactly Adify was in the business of. Ford MF (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot 00:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Holleyman

This article should be deleted because it lacks information about an unknown, unless it is expanded by someone who knows a lot about the man this article is dedicated to. Furthermore, any additional information should be backed by credible sources. Voice of Reason 19:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the information provided in this article is explicitly implied in the one concerning the Business Software Alliance. So there's no need to retain this really short article. Voice of Reason 20:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. As it stands, it isn't worth keeping, but the fellow is very notable indeed. He has had quite a legal career before landing at the BSA. I will try and put something up in the next day or two, but will not oppose a deletion until we have enough on an article. The stub is pretty useless. Ohconfucius 10:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Strong keep. Article has now been rewritten. No doubts at all about his notability. Ohconfucius 03:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Subject looks notable enough to me, anyway. Dugwiki 17:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geoff McIntosh

subject is not notable per vanity piece by non notable person WP:VAIN 56Ghits for "Geoff McIntosh" + binary. Article is suspected autobiography, as info is unverifiable (User:GeeMac per WP:V and WP:AUTO Ohconfucius 05:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - reads like an autobiography, not particularly notable. Leuko 08:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a resume host site. NawlinWiki 14:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. 11kowrom 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Peta 05:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a public resume repository. Dsreyn 16:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liane Ricci

Self written article, I don't think the subject is notable enough for her own article. talk to JD wants e-mail 14:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, unsourced, nothing in article indicating that anyone in the art world considers her to be notable (i.e., showings, works in museums, etc). NawlinWiki 15:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the show at Susan Eley Fine Artis verifiable but she was just one of three artists. Not yet notable enough. Dlyons493 Talk 20:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Businesspeople Proposed deletion



for occasional archiving


[edit] Lists of people

[edit] List of Irish French

List of Irish French (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list is unlikely to ever be completed, and is already covered by a suitable category. Fribbler (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of emo artists

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of emo artists Articles for deletion/List of emo artists (2nd nomination)
List of emo artists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wholly redundant to Category:Emo musical groups (both sort alphabetically), which is what List of emo bands and List of emo groups redirects to. Sceptre (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP At it again, eh? We've been through this. The List of emo bands is nothing but pure OR. The list that you want deleted complies with wikipedias current policy and guidlines and is by far a better list. You need to read WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. The List of emo artists complies with each. It is sourced by reliable and varifiable sources and is NOT influenced by personal opinion. Redundent my foot. If any thing, the List of emo bands should be deleted, as it violates all policy.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep per WP:CLN; categories and lists "should not be considered to be in conflict with each other" D0762 (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep No valid reason for deletion stated according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, bad faith nomination by the same editor who nominated it just two months ago where it was explained quite clearly that categories and lists are not exclusive. There is no valid reason to nominate the same article again. According to guidelines, "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap". The list should be used to improve the category, as suggested in guidelines, as the category contains poorly sourced articles. So i suggest this is closed and sanctions brought against the nominator if this and the disruption of the article continues. --neon white talk 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Explain to me how the list differs in any way from the category apart from the columning. All I can see is an alphabetised list - which is what a category is. The references can be added to the band articles. At the very least, the list and category should be synchronised. I think the passage you link to also doesn't mean what you say - I don't think it supports redundancy (and for the record, the reason for nomination is different - the previous one was because of the stigma attached to the label making it a synthesis and POV-pushing hotspot). Sceptre (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That it completey irrelevant. As has been pointed out many times and you well know that lists and categories should not be considered to be in conflict with each other. Neither is favoured by the community, the consensus is that they both should coexist and compliment each other. That is the current consensus and this is not the place to argue in favour of one or the other and it is certainly innapropriate to use an afd to try and make a point. The guideline WP:CLN clearly spells out the pros and cons of each and states attempts to delete one in favour of the other is considered inappropriate. "the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system - doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." The articles is also a valid fork of the main Emo article. --neon white talk 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
We've gone through this, read the guidline. It supports our position.(13Tawaazun14 not signed in)96.234.176.56 (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Does it? As many people thought it would be better as a category... Sceptre (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess the problem with a category would be we'd lose the sources, and without that people would start adding whatever they wanted to the category without justification. But I agree with Sceptre that the sources could be added to the band articles. D0762 (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Which is what the guidelines suggests doing. You use each to improve the other. --neon white talk 14:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Still seems like a reasonable list (per WP:CLN) with decent references. Klausness (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This list could probably be reformatted and rewritten into something useful, since it's just an a list of blue links without commentary, but it's a perfectly reasonable subject for a list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Politicians

[edit] Jacob Sanders

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Jacob Sanders Articles for deletion/Jacob Sanders (3rd nomination) Articles for deletion/Jacob Sanders (second nomination)
Jacob Sanders (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

First AfD was in 2005 second was in 2006 and the result was delete, this article has not gained any additional notability since then. Per the precedent set with all recent deletions of losing candidates and local councillors Darrenhusted (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Satwant Kaur Dogra

Satwant Kaur Dogra (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seemingly autobiographical article on a non-notable politician. I was unable to find any sources on the subject apart from a single story in a local paper. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable local politician. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable local politician.--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 20:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable, as above. Created by User:Satwantkaurdogra so quite possibly a vanity article. Rehevkor (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless referenced Looks like non notable. OK if referenced properly with reliable and verifiable sources -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 02:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Week Keep in the event of references add. The article needs a cleanup,wikify and more material -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 13:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Can your provide us with possible references ? Googling apparently gave Nil results -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 10:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Non notable, unsourced. Bidgee (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Week keep. I think the references I've put in the article just about do the job by giving coverage of the subject and confirming the positions held by her. These are not local papers as claimed by the nominator. They are newspapers that cover a state with a population of 10 million. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I meant "local" as opposed to "national"; I couldn't even find circulation figures in the paper's website. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather see an article improved than deleted any day—otherwise I would have PRODded it or brought it to AfD sooner—but I am still not convinced that this constitutes "significant coverage". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Some cleanup done by me... (Diff) I leave the article to 'fate' ;) -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 13:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Anderson (Mayor, Kinney, MN)

Mary Anderson (Mayor, Kinney, MN) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mayor of a small town which once seceded in protest of lack of government services. Though interesting, it's still only one event. Google shows very little other than this article. A previous prod was contested. Plvekamp (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Plvekamp (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This crosses the notability line to me on the second bullet point in WP:POLITICIAN. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep mayors are inherently notable. She was born in 1915, so Google hits are not going to be plentiful. Lack of Google hits does not support lack of notability, verifiable sources may not be online for someone born that long ago. The place to look would be in the local newspaper morgue. Actually, the article is sourced via paper, with articles in papers from Duluth and Minneapolis. So, maybe the morgues of not so local papers. The article is in serious need of rewriting, though. Dlohcierekim 06:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing indicating anything more than WP:LOCAL significance for this mayor of a town of 199. Additionally, the article seems suspiciously like WP:SPAM for the book about her. The article about the town covers the secession in sufficient detail. --Dhartung | Talk 07:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Pity the creator did not use the book to give us more substantial info instead of that fluff. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 07:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The notion that mayors are inherently notable is patently untrue. The town in question, Kinney, has a population of a few hundreds. Subject was not mayor at the time of secession. Punkmorten (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Mayors are not inherently notable, and there are no reliable sources about this one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It actually took me a while to come to this conclusion - the article does seem to have sources, and while they largely are unavailable online their existence seems to check out. She was indeed the mayor of Kinney during the 'secession' and played a role in it, thus the existence of some news articles mentioning her. However, the one single event that might have made her notable gets only lip service in this article - the rest is all fluff that does appear to be an attempt to promote a book. In any case, as Dhartung has pointed out, the secession (and her involvement in it) is well covered in the article about the town and beyond that there's nothing left for this article. Arkyan 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Kinney, Minnesota. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep' according to WP:LOACLFAME, local notability is, to some degree, noatbility. Ben1283 (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Politician proposed deletions