Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Living 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|Living people}}<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 Living 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.


Archive Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people/archive.
Purge page cache Watch this page

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

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

Contents

[edit] Living people

[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)
  • Delete: 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)
  • 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): [1] [2] [3] [4]
  • Also from the beginning, that she believes living organisms don't follow second law of thermodynamics [5] [6] [7]
  • that she has been involved in cloning humans and therefore a hypocrite [8] [9]
  • that she is a "AIDS denier" and the "treatment she recommends is selenium and other antioxidants" [10] [11]
  • that her claimed academic credentials are "inflated" and simple claims of what fields she worked in are false: [12] [13] [14] [15] 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 [16]
  • when positive or balancing information is added, it's removed usually for trivial reasons [17] [18], including the one third party reference that made it into the article [19]: why? because it was "POV"
Also User:Hrafn has disputed what should be non-controversial edits, for trivial or contrived reasons [20] [21] [22]
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. 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

[edit] Richard Stern

Richard Stern (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparent Formatting Error at AfD suggests that another user attempted to nominate for deletion placing tag on their behalf Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is Richard Stern, the subject of the article. I am requesting that the article be taken down for two reasons:

1. I am trying very hard to reduce my internet presence because I have career aspirations that would be impossible to meet with prospective employers referencing my wikipedia page; it has become a major hindrance to my personal and professional life and as such it is in my best interest to have it removed.

2. I am not a notable person. If I had any semblance of notability when the page was created, which was nowhere near universally agreed upon, it is long past. Further, the major basis for my article's creation - my youtube page at youtube.com/rickyste - has been removed. The article should be removed because in all honesty, no one cares about me, nor should they; I think you will find no one rushes here trying to save the page on its merits.

I plead with you to respect my wishes and conform to Wikipedia's own standards for article inclusion. Thank you. 64.245.33.164 (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Plvekamp (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Broad coverage in RS including interviews in which the subject voluntarily particpated and notability is not temporary. Jim Miller (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete I gave this careful consideration. I read every word of the article. I read Mr. Stern's comments here and on the BLP noticeboard. I even clicked over to Youtube to watch one of lazydork's dopey 3-minute videos about Rocky. He's a nice guy, but he's not notable in the strictest definition. The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy gives wide latitude to administrators to delete pages that would otherwise be worth keeping. I think this is a perfect example of where such discretion needs to be used. Previous cases of living people who requested that their biographies be deleted convinced some of my colleagues to propose an opt-out procedure for people of borderline notability who want their biographies removed. I support the proposal, which is not policy, and I would apply it in this instance.
Let me discuss the notability of Richard Stern in some detail. He is not notable in general. He is an ordinary American man in his late 20s who wants to live an ordinary life. By good fortune, he found a hobby uploading comical videos to Youtube, and he became a YouTube celebrity. He is now condemned to have a biography about his YouTube videos for the rest of his life, a biography that will confine the fullness of his life into the few hours he spent making, uploading and discussing these comic videos. He voluntarily gave interviews to news organizations such as the Miami Herald, but even this does not make him a public figure in the same way that a politician is a public figure. Articles about YouTube celebrities wind up in the back pages of newpapers where nobody reads them. The notability of Mr. Stern is essentially limited to the online realm and has not irrevocably spread into the real world.
You may ask if I would also support deleting the biography of Funtwo, the South Korean guitarist famous for his hack of Pachelbel's canon, who gave an interview to the New York Times, if Funtwo requested the deletion. Yes, I would support that. Even though Funtwo's video is much more famous than lazydork's video, the fundamental principle remains in my mind that individual people are not inherently notable for being online celebrities, even if their celebrity status is covered by offline news sources. If we want to have articles on them based on reliable sources, that's fine. But the minute the subject of a biography posts here and asks to return to private life, saying that the publicity around his short-lived online persona is negatively affecting his career prospects, it's time to delete the biography and find something else to write about. Perhaps it's not fair to the people who spent hours adding references and refining the infobox, but we can't satisfy everyone, and if we must choose whom to satisfy, the BLP subject's wishes take priority. I feel strongly about this, and I would encourage the voters and the closing administrator to account for the unique BLP factors. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment And this is where I always disagree with this interpretation of the policy. According to this [23], Mr. Stern explcitly sought out notability, saying "It was offensive to me that I wasn't like, the biggest star in the YouTube world." We're not talking about a youthful indiscretion here either. This is a law school graduate who intentionally pushed himself into the limelight, sought out notability, and has now decided that he wants to put the genie back into the bottle. I know that the decision will not be the one I am arguing for, and we will have yet another lousy precedent of letting people resign from their established notability, but it is still wrong to delete an article that obviously meets WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:OR because of a so-far imagined "harm" that might someday, somehow violate WP:BLP. Jim Miller (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Subject is covered in a number of RS, therefore notable. QED ukexpat (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It doesn't appear to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Perhaps a small listing at List of YouTube celebrities instead? -- Qaddosh|talk|contribs 18:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Within the lead of WP:BLP is the statement: An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". At times like this a judgement has to be made. Certainly we'd never delete the article of a national politician or an international superstar on request. However we can ask these two questions. Is WP harmed if there's no article on Richard Stern? I'd say no. Is Richard Stern harmed by the existance of the WP article? He says yes. Therefore let us do no harm.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this article is kept or merged, I suggest we rename the article, and remove all references to his real-life name from Wikipedia, to protect his privacy. --Rob (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with this as an alternative. His real name isn't the important feature of the article. --Faith (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Question - How do we know that the person alleging to be the subject is truly the subject? This goes beyond WP:AGF. If someone wanted another's article deleted that would be one way to go about it. Perhaps the subject is happy to have a bio here and is unaware of this discussion? I just went through this same thought process with Christopher Cuddy (User talk:Christophercuddy), who also says he wanted his article removed (and it likely could be removed). I think that if someone purports to be the subject of the article then they should contact the office (Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject)) and provide proof after which the office can note that here. Since the subject's wishes can play a part in some situations I think it is important to know if we truly have the subject's wishes. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply The subject has contacted me about a BLP issue before and used the same Email address. His story about canceling his YouTube account checks out, as well. I have no doubt it's him. Ichormosquito (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Ditto. Based on his editing history and his comment on my talk page, it's clear that no impostor would go to this length to fool the community. It's definitely genuine. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
        • If he e-mailed you from that account then cool. I'm not saying, just saying. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The subject is not that notable and much of the article does not pass BLP muster, in my opinion. We don't need an article on every person who gets 15 minutes of fame on YouTube.--agr (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It doesn't matter if the subject requesting is the subject or not, this is just YouTube 15 minutes of fame, long passed, agree with Reinhold completely. --Blechnic (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per all reasons listed above --Faith (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete I created this article and would defend it till doomsday, but the subject has made it clear he wants it gone. We can always bring it back. Call me crazy, but a record of the first breakthrough YouTube auteurs WILL have historical value. Ichormosquito (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Extremely weak delete. I want to make it very clear that the "I want it deleted" bit doesn't sway me in the least. I don't agree with OPTOUT whatsoever. That said, the notability of the subject isn't particularly convincing; in the deletion-heavy environment of today, I don't think that this would successfully pass an AfD anyway, even without the opinion of the subject. He doesn't pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Celarnor Talk to me 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jim Miller. As notability is not temporary, I guess I'm rushing here to try to save the page on its merits. The sources are reasonably strong in asserting notability, and even the subject's desire for such notability. I do think that moving the article to the user name makes a lot of sense, though. Maxamegalon2000 06:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This bio needs some work. However, I don't think it should be deleted. The Washington Post, Associated Press, CNN, and the Miami Herald, mentions on Wired.com and MSNBC.com, all spanning several months, all sources that are read and viewed by millions combined, how is that not notable? Notability is notability. Being notable does not mean that the person has to be important or famous. I don't see anything in the article that is defamatory so I fail to see how it would damage his reputation. His notability is not for an event it is for his actions, spanning a length of time, involving contemporary culture and youtube 'fame', for better or for worse, has been deemed, based on coverage and very reliable sources, an important part of contemporary culture. The newspapers are reliable sources and if his real name was mentioned in them I see no reason to remove his real name. This is not a case of basic human dignity because the article does not mock or disparage the subject directly or indirectly. Everything mentioned appears to be documented well. One could say that his actions will only be notable briefly and non-lasting, but since it is a part of popular culture it is very hard to tell what the futures holds especially since youtube celebrities, both past and present, tend to be mentioned on blogs and other resources often. The fact that people like Mr. Stern are embraced by contemporary culture and internet culture makes it noteworthy in my opinion. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC))
  • Comment: The problem arises, with bios like this, when Wikipedia is the only thing keeping someone in a spotlight when their 15 minutes has passed. --Faith (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only temporary notability. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per 64.245.33.164, Shalom, Qaddosh, Cube lurker, Blechnic, agr, Faith, and Ichormosquito. — Athaenara ✉ 10:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep how can Wikipedia do any significant harm to someone when the information can be found readily in major news sources on any google search? DGG (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is not a very good argument because searching for "Richard Stern" brings no contentious content except for Wikipedia in the first several pages of searching. --Faith (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: That is the exact point; without knowing 'lazydork', you'd only be searching for the man's name, and the only connection to this issue in the first several Google pages of hits would be Wikipedia! Therefore, we are holding the notability long after it has died down in Google hits. --Faith (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, but "lazydork" gets a quarter of a million hits; and it brings up some quality Google News hits. To "do no harm" is my top priority; but if it weren't, I'd suggest we simply rename the article. Ichormosquito (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete His notability is marginal, meaning deletion is within BLP policy. Somehow civilization will endure without this page on Wikipedia. Noroton (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm afraid I just don't see sufficient notability to merit an article. Also, in weighing the Encyclopedic value of the article against the subject's wishes, I believe that this subject's wishes carry more weight. The article does have the potential to harm the subject. Other web sources on the subject will eventually fall from view. Webpages come down. Copyrighted material falls behind pay walls. The ephemeral nature of the web will see much fall away. Wikipedia, we hope, will endure for considerably longer. Anyone who's tried to research on subjects who are falling out of the media knows how hard it can be to find information-- we are succeeding in becoming a free storehouse of all knowledge. Removing information about this particular subject will not seriously diminish that storehouse. In this instance, the greater good lies in acceding to the subject's request for deletion. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment--change to "delete per Faith's comment above." Dlohcierekim 12:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and retitle article as Lazydork instead, but as a biographical article this is definitely notable. Perhaps removing the given name would be an acceptable compromise? (jarbarf) (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steven M. Greer

Steven M. Greer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no indication of the subject's notability, and the article seems to be blatant advertising to promote the subjects commercial activities, including his $995 "training sessions" [24] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm tempted to suggest BLP1E applies, but the subject might not agree with me, so I'll stick with the basics. This person is not notable enough for an encyclopaedic article to be written, in that multiple non-trivial mentions in independent reliable sources have not been provided to satisfy our verifiability policy. The sources that are present are mainly self-published and/or faith-based (to whatever extent). The archived OMNI piece is the best source provided, but even that provides essentially no biographical information. There really is very little salvageable material in the article as written. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - over 50 Google Books hits for "Stephen Greer UFO" suggest he's notable in his field, however kooky that field may be. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Greer is a conman or deluded, and his fans have been making trouble on the page. Fifty hits doesn't prove notability, just verbosity. Maybe it should be deleted and redirected to Disclosure Project, since that is Greer's most notable project and involves some notable but confused individuals (including an Apollo astronaut). 131.215.64.195 (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • IMO, we don't exclude articles on conmen or deluded individuals from Wikipedia; nor do we delete articles because someone's fans are making trouble. Fifty printed books reference the guy; that sounds like some level of importance to me. It feels like you are making deletion arguments based on your opinion of the subject individual and what he does, which isn't what we should be doing here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You could be right. But I don't see any publishers there that look reputable. Rather it all seems to be publishers of fringe stuff with doubtful standards. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, the one non-trivial reference is the book that Amazon says is published by "Crossing point Inc" This company does not have a website and is not listed in Writer's Market (the 2006 edition). Since this publisher then either does not exist or is a tiny operation (a self-publisher?) this is not a reliable source for a BLP on a fringe topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • merge to Disclosure Project, this article fails WP:N, WP:BIO, etc. (per TimVickers). I happy to leave debate on whether Disclosure Project meet WP:N to another day. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. His books and their publishers are extremely iffy, and in any case his work is not notable per WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Sheffield Steel and Tim Vickers. Not notable. 9 redirect pages? Is that usual? Doug Weller (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As mentioned above Greer has backing of some very credible persons(Apollo astronaut or John Callahan, Division Chief of the Accidents and Investigations Branch of the FAA in Washington DC). He authored also several books which are available on Amazon.com. The users who initiated this deletion Malcolm Schosha (talk) and 131.215.64.195 (talk) have never contributed anything noteworthy to this page. They instead continuously removed content they called "nonsense", BS and were unwilling to discuss their views further in the talk sections. As a final argument in a non-existent debate they've marked the page for deletion. These are not the constructive principles Wikipedia is based upon. -- I-netfreedOm (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I hope you don't intend removing the AfD tag again if you are interested in keeping to Wikipedia guidelines. It clearly states you should not remove it. And this discussion should be about the issues, not used for an attack on other editors. Doug Weller (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Wikipedia also states that no vulgar language should be used in discussions. Citing such quotes from the mentioned users are by no means "personal attacks". This is part of the problem. If this offends you it is because on the one hand you demand complete compliance to the policies on the other hand you are silent about the mentioned violations. Why are you posing as unbiased if you've opted for deletion? I-netfreedOm (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment That's a further attack, this time on me. I note that you are an SPA, which is interesting. Doug Weller (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subject has given talks and maintains a website opn fringe theories. He also has written books on the subject, but these do not seem to be notable outside of a very small circle of fellow enthusiasts. Unless something more substantial comes up, does not meet notability standards. --Crusio (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Yes, he is a proponent of fringe conspiracy theories but he appears to be notable since there is sufficient coverage of him by reliable sources. GoogleNews gives 70 hits[25] for "Steven Greer" ufo. Most of them contain nontrivial coverage of Greer personally and his activities and often provide some brief biographical info as well (e.g. references to him as a former emergency room physician). GoogleBooks gives 49 hits[26] for the same search. I think this does satisfy WP:BIO:" If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". In this case there is a fair amount of nontrivial coverage over an extended period of time. I would say that he passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep In addition to non-trivial sources noted above, one finds numerous citations of public lectures, seminars and distinguished speaker engagements in the U.S., Canada and abroad. He is a regular guest on respected radio programs as well. IMO, one must be a bit lenient in ascribing notability for an admittedly "fringe" subject matter, as that somewhat prejudical label itself presupposes lack of credibility, and thus unnecessarily weights against potentially quite valid research and discourse. Until arenas of discussion are accepted into the mainstream, they obviously will be accepted by fewer numbers than mainstream subjects, but the label of "fringe" studies is not a either/or, black or white idea. There's a continuum—a spectrum, if you will—of controversial studies about. Disagreement with the core or premise of said subject matter does not preclude allowing for serious discourse and subsequent acknowledgment from within (and without) the related field of study. One of the main points of contention here, it seems, is Greer's work on behalf of so-called "free energy" device development efforts. Critics cry "impossible", and throw him in the fringe basket, but this whole issue is tied to the subject of ET visitation, a subject that is becoming increasingly less "fringe" (Hon. Paul Hellyer of Canada, the Vatican, Sen. Kucinich), and the evidence is pointing ever so strongly that ETs' presence is real. That immediately brings forth the question of the technologies used for their inter-stellar travel to reach us, which would obviously defy "known" laws of physics, and certainly point to the use of anti-gravity, free-energy and other devices that have been heretofore labeled "impossible", and "fringe" ideas. Wikidpedia needs to nudge its least-common-denominator standards a bit, and give some credence to the serious discourse around issues that might make the scientifically-intransigent a bit too uncomfortable. There's room here in Wikipedia for both the tried-and-true AND the truly-trying.Dancingeyes (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If the subject is notable, it would be more helpful to substantiate that in the article than to write claims about it here. So please add evidence of notability to the article. So far nothing has changed there, not even the promotion for his commercial activities. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely, my belief that the article should be deleted is based on looking at the article and assessing the quality of its sources. If you improve the article, then I may change my mind. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur completely. Notability has nothing to do with whether somebody is right or wrong about something. The proponents of two mutually exclusive hypotheses can both be notable, even though at least one of them must be wrong. This article just does not establish notability, even among fellow travelers. --Crusio (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification., Crusio. That has been one of the more unbiased and informative comments I've read so far, and I appreciate your sense of fairness. I'll certainly encourage the inclusion (and contribute, where I feel qualified to do so) these cited-source additions to the article. Dancingeyes (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Greer has gathered over 500 Witnesses from covert projects in the government. Surely something is going on here. (Edit: flyboyqw 5 june 08 - On the notable subject: from the wiki notable page, Criteria 6. "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." I suppose a "lifelong member of the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society" qualifies. Link is in the main wiki page. There. Happy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboyqw (talk • contribs) 11:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Whether "something is going on here" or not is completely besides the point. AfD is to establish notability not The Truth. --Crusio (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
PS: the preceding comment is the only edit of Flyboyqw. --Crusio (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
So, we have a new SPA I-netfreedOm and an even newer editor whose only edit is the above. 'Surely something is going on here'. :-) Doug Weller (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Would someone please explain what "SPA" means? Thanks. Dancingeyes (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
SPA=Single Purpose Account (see WP:SPA). User Flyboyqw has made only one single edit on Wikipedia up till now (the one just above), I-netfreedOm has only made edits to this discussion, the page on Greer, and user talkpages related to this. You yourself, although in the last month your only contributions have to this subject, are not an SPA, as you have contributed to other articles on other subjects in the past. As WP:SPA explains, SPA is not to be used pejorative, but descriptive only. However, if many SPAs participate in a single AfD, that raises the suspicion of them being sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Hope this helps. --Crusio (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. This does indeed help. Much appreciated. — Dancingeyes (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me suggest that "500 Witnesses from covert projects in the government" supports the notability of the Disclosure Project far more than it does this biography. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I did indeed create a new account, but not just for that edit above. I realize that this is not common practice but I am not going to be an active or permanent sockpuppet. This topic is so sensitive (ridicule, even worse at times) that I decided to create a new account with a new IP for security reasons. Don't forget that a SPA not only has negative aspects (abuse) but also positive as it is effective at protecting one's privacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboyqw (talk • contribs) 07:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't understand how people can be so ignorant. Even with the latest development regarding ET life, the vatican declaration, witnesses by the 10s of thousands, coming from the intelligence community, the military, NASA, Pilots, we are still debating the ET presence. Here, we are not debating if we should delete the entry for Dr. Steven Greer. We are back at debating if ET presence is a reality. With the overwhelming evidence presented to me in the last 2 years, I can now convinced we have been visited, many times too. The work Steven Greer has accomplished in the last 20 some years is of critical importance and this entry should be updated and maintained. Another point I would like to make is that, the haters are often found to come here to delete the material. This is getting very irritating. That's the most annoying aspect of Wiki. People like myself and other people that have been in contact with Steven should be in a position to put relevant information in here. Basically, if you don't know what the heck you are writting about, stop writting and stop deleting the entries or the important text pieces. It should also be noted that Steven is a well known speakers in various radio shows and conferences, including but not limited to the IIIHS, Coast to Coast AM, The World Puja Network and various other shows.
Comment Now, what else do you need to keep this article going? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs)
Comment And another SPA.... Makes one almost willing to believe that there really IS a conspiracy out there.... PLEASE, take a few minutes to read the discussion above and the linked policies. It does not matter at all for this AfD whether Greer is right or wrong. For all I care he could be a proponent of a flat Earth. What IS important is that we establish whether or not he is notable and for that we need reliable independent and verifiable sources. --Crusio (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment The number of sources listed is satisfying now? Or do we want more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree completely with Crusio that the issue here is nothing to do with whether the subject's theories are right or wrong , but with whether the necessary sources exist to establish notability. Nsk92 and others established above that they do exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Perhaps to avoid a merge, there would need to be some evidence that either Orion or AERO has any importance whatsoever. Otherwise he';s notable for running the Disclosure Project only and has the same unfortunate significance that it does. DGG (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The Orion Project has collected 342 000$ from donations so far, which is definitively of great importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs) 01:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If only to show how gullible people are. Sorry, but it had to be said. This article needs more input from the skeptical community. Plvekamp (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • rather, I would say that for a topic which supposedly millions of people believe to be real, that raising only that sum of money is an excellent indication of lack of notability for the project. DGG (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment On the contrary, I believe that people are waking up to a new understanding of our true nature. Science might not be able to mesure everything at the moment, just like science couldn't see or mesure ultra-violet or infrared in the past. But time will come where we can measure these things in a distant future. Your reality is based on your understanding of the current Physics. Can I pretends I understand everything that there is? Can we pretend we understand everything there is? If so, then we fall in the same traps as our ancestors. As long as it can't be measure, it's stupid and unacceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs) 12:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The addition of random UFO sources such as the self-published Leopizzi Harris, Paola, Exopolitics: How Does One Speak to a Ball of Light? or the self-published Kennedy, Judy, Beyond the Rainbow: Renewing the Cosmic Connection that are not cited in the article does nothing to establish notability. We need reliable sources that discuss Greer, not the Disclosure Project, not a passing reference to Greer in a discussion on UFOs in general - we need reliable sources that discuss Greer in particular as their main subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to give a few valid scientific points to this "debate". Let's analyze the definitions of "notability" (see: WP:BIO) and see if these can be applied to our subject. The basic criteria of notability: "..he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" which is applicable because many main stream media organizations reported on him and on his "Disclosure Project": see search term ""steven greer" disclosure" on GoogleNews. We can thus conclude that he is "presumed to be notable". We now have to prove that he is "generally notable". Quote: "A person is a "Creative professional" (for example quote:"...,authors") if they meet the following standard.... "The person's work either....(c) has won significant critical attention.." Dr. Greer's most widely publicized/reported project "Disclosure Project" (which is an immaterial work/product) indisputably satisfies this premise and thus enables us to label the subject as "Creative professional". We then successfully proved "general notability". Since the subject has met the prerequisites of both basic and general notability we have concluded the proof of Steven Greer's notability. I-netfreedOm (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Well said. I totally agree. Flyboyqw (talk) 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I'm not completely sure, but I think I detect a foot odor here... Just a suspicion. Plvekamp (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I'm suspicious enough to tag him as an SSP. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment These comments are out of line and off-topic. Please stick to the issue of notability, as has been so duly pointed out to me recently. — Dancingeyes (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Your are wrong this time, Watson. By the way your accusations show that my reasoning is correct and instead of bringing some arguments against my point you attack the messenger. I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Tally: Can some-one please keep a count of what of the votes above are for delete/merge and what are four keep? A second count, separating out the single-purpose Greer advocates, also seems relevant. At the moment, I count 8 votes for delete and between 3 and 5 votes for keep, depending how you count. I realize Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Also: re. Greer's other projects: that they have raised money doesn't make them notable. I figure that the Disclosure Project is sadly notable, but is there any _substantial_ difference in goals or methods between Greer's three groups? There isn't any reason for three facets of the same thing to merit more article space. Also: if precedence means anything, I just browsed the history of hydrino theory. Here there was also someone (a Randell Mills) who acts like a conman and has his own posse of advocacy accounts. After a long debate, the result was that his article was merged into the hydrino theory page, since he wasn't notable enough without it. 131.215.64.195 (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I would suggest that we also separate out the biased Greer opponents. With this I can count 4 keeps and 3 deletes. I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Votes will not be tallied. This is a discussion, not a poll. Votes are not simply tallied by the admin who will close this AfD, rather the debate will be weighed by the discussion here with reference to wikipedia policies and guidelines. You may wish to consult Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:VOTE if you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's procedures. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge to Disclosure Project. At the request of the operator of the Caltech anon who has been editing this page (who I encourage to civility), and because it was one of the last I worked on before I retired, I looked at this situation. Based on a search of Google's News archive, it seems that almost every story on Greer has been the about the Disclosure Project, so I do not see any reason for him to have a separate page. His other groups don't seem to be notable: there is exactly one news item that mentions them, and that is a fringe publication. Before I retired, I had flagged this page as needing monitoring for editing from UFO enthusiasts (see User talk:Michaelbusch). It seems to be more trouble than it is worth. So, just remove this page and merge anything that isn't already there into the Disclosure Project article. Greer's advocates will probably want to copy their current description of his two new groups. This would be excessive: because of the lack of third-party sources, I would keep the description brief. I have edited Disclosure Project to reflect this. I may check back on this AfD before it is done, but I do enjoy my retirement. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Could you please share your thoughts on the following comment of the Caltech anon you've mentioned. Just to ensure the neutrality of this discussion. Quote: "I know a couple of other Caltechers who have established accounts and addressed claims like yours in detail. See User:Michaelbusch and User:Philosophus. 131.215.64.195 (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)" I-netfreedOm (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I know who the editor behind this account is, and that editor knows who I am and who Philosophus is. Unless required to do so, I will not break the anonymity. I agree with many of the views of the anon, but encourage civility. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mauricio Pastrana

Mauricio Pastrana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This 25 year-old web developer doesn't meet the WP:BIO notability standard. His claim to fame, "enabl[ing] the Apple TV to output color through composite video" isn't backed up by reliable sources, so discussion whether that causes him to meet the notabiliby standard doesn't begin. Ghits seem to refer to a boxer with the same name. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Other than the TUAW publication with regards to the hack (the "claim to fame"), there have been a couple other places and publications which have discussed it, proof that the hack did make a difference for a subset population:

http://www.appletvhacks.net/2007/10/12/get-color-output-from-apple-tvs-composite-video-output/

http://asuse3.blogspot.com/2008/03/pon-punto-tu-appletv-parte-3.html

http://www.macitynet.it/macity/aA30610/faq_apple_collegabile_tv_non_il_vostro_vecchio.shtml

http://canalapple.com/wordpress/?p=828

http://www.92apple.com/2007/10/08/found-footage-apple-tv-composite-hack-in-full-color/

( a couple more can be found via a quick google search )


However, more interestingly enough, what this hack did was prove that the appletv video card was capable of generating non-hdtv video and quickly after this someone followed with a software method of composite video output, detailed here: http://wiki.awkwardtv.org/wiki/Composite


If anything, this "story" should be included into the article for AppleTV. I agree that there should be a disambiguation page to differentiate from the Boxer (already in existence in spanish: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauricio_Pastrana, perhaps any bilingual wiki'er can help here?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.150.172.234 (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


/////////////////////////////////////////////////

  • Keep Just to follow up on this, wouldnt the TUAW constitute as a reliable source? in their environ, TUAW has "credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand".

TUAW is an AOL publication BTW.

Further, this page was originally inspired by this entry http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Hotz&oldid=153453816, which was not marked afd. -srgeek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srgeek (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yara Lorenzo

Yara Lorenzo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person who gets nowhere near meeting WP:BIO. — Lincolnite (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong delete - autobiography by non-notable—G716 <T·C> 20:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep-As creator of the stub, I would like to defend this entry. This stub meets the basic requirements of notability and the organizations mentioned are well-known in South Florida community. The links are not working, but those could easily be edited with some help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.171.153 (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as an autobiography by a non-notable person. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 00:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Secondary source was added on Lorenzo. Article from a National magazine. Links just need to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.171.153 (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Worked on the article's neutrality and added two more sources of national recognition.

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, The Ford and White House Project sources do not IMHO meet WP:BIO#BASIC CRITERIA, depth of coverage is not substantial and there are not multiple independent sources that prove notability. I could not locate any other sources.--Captain-tucker (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Latina Style Magazine is another independent source, in which Lorenzo was featured. There is also another article by Diario Las Americas, which is based in South Florida and read throughout Latin America. (http://www.diariolasamericas.com/news.php?nid=40341). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.212.108.131 (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment, From what I can gather from a google translate of the diariolasamericas article it is just a passing note that Yara Lorenzo will meet with a congresswoman. This unfortunately does nothing to establish notability, and the latinastyle.com link does not appear to be a valid link, latinastyle.com does not appear to have a web server or even a valid DNS records [27]. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That is surprising about Latina Style's server being down. It has been a prominent magazine for years. In any event that does not take away from the fact that Lorenzo was featured in an article, published in their magazine (the hit appears when her name is googled). In regards to the Diario piece, it does not only say that Lorenzo will meet with the Congresswoman--it says that Lorenzo will meet with the Congresswoman because she and others will be leading the Bicet Awareness Campaign, a community initiative to raise awareness for jailed Cuban dissident, Oscar Elias Bicet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.212.108.131 (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Update, I did located a version of the latinastyle.com via the Internet Archive [28], and again this is a minor mention consisting of "Yara Lorenzo, a legislative correspondent in the Office of Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, recalls an internship with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus during her freshman year in college as an important stepping stone." Again nothing that provides a level of WP:N.--Captain-tucker (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment, In fairness to Lorenzo, I am trying to pull up page two and three of the article, where there is further discussion on her work on the hill and a picture of her and His Holiness The Dali Lama. The comment you mention above is the introductory comment in the article, but there is more. With respect to the WP:N requirements, from my understanding, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable and significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. True, the Latina style is not exclusive but certainly it is more than trivial: it is discussing her as one of very few Hispanic women working on Capitol Hill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.212.108.131 (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joan E. Goody

Joan E. Goody (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject is not-notable, article seems vanity or spam for her firm. Does not conform to any of the criteria proposed for notability as creative professional or academic Gorgonzola (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Gorgonzola (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, quite a bit about her in Google Books and Google News Archive including a listing in the Encyclopedia of 20th Century Architecture. Seems to have a national reputation in the field of urban (particularly residential) architecture. --Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 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, Chetblong (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect into Goody, Clancy & Associates, Inc. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The listing in the Encyclopedia of 20th C Arch. is just the kind of reliable source that indicates this article is worth keeping. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Well known, important, American architect. Blah blah blah. Obviously no research into the subject was done about this nomination. Amusing nomination, I expected to see a crappy article all about her firm. It just mentions it, and there's no vanity anywhere near the level this architect deserves and gets. --Blechnic (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. 199 hits from various media sources shows her notablility. Artene50 (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Living people Proposed deletions