[edit] Visual arts

[edit] Emil Moise-Szalla

Emil Moise-Szalla (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Emil Moise-Szalla" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Perhaps two dozen Google hits, most of which are Wikipedia mirrors and none of which remotely cover the subject in depth. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per the lack of reliable sources. A Google News Archive search and a Google Books search return no results. Cunard (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this artist. Joe Chill (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Optipictual Art

Optipictual Art (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Optipictual Art" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable art medium. Article claims it is only used by a single artist, who invented the medium (and Google reveals no returns for "Optipictual Art" other than this artist). Article tries to build a lot out of unreliable sources - i.e. busisness/artist directories, etc. The only two things that could possibly be considered independent and informative area a) the artist was interviewed by a magazine about her art medium, and b) a couple online art stores use the medium as a search category (although that could possibly be because the medium is defined by the artist selling the work, not the store acting as third-party). Neither supports notability, and there are no sources (either added to the article or through a Google search) that have reviewed or commented on this medium. Singularity42 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per failing WP:GNG. ArcAngel (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 19:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, I can't find any sources to show that this is not made up one day. I can't even find sources to meet WP:V. Abductive (reasoning) 20:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The lead contains "There is only one optipictual artist, Visual Artist Lyric Jones, who is the creator of this innovative art style." which both demonstrates the lack of notability and shows the purpose of the article (to promote an individual). There are no reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: "There is only one optipictual artist, Visual Artist Lyric Jones, who is the creator of this innovative art style." Joe Chill (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Sussexonian (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Andrus Rõuk

Andrus Rõuk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Andrus Rõuk" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Person doesn't seem to satisfy neither WP:BIO nor WP:CREATIVE. Staberinde (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep and expand: Hmm, according to this he's been in a bunch of art shows, etc. and had stuff in collections. He apparently also has a published book of poetry. I don't know if they're notable though. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw that too, while he definitely has been active person, I don't think that any information there is sufficient for qualifying by WP:CREATIVE.--Staberinde (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't seem sufficiently notable...Modernist (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - The "Expand by Language" template is on the article. If nobody here is willing to translate ask someone from the Estonian Wikipedia to do so. -- allen四names 05:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Unless somebody definitively says that foreign language sources have been evaluated and found lacking, this article should stay. We dont delete on suspicion, and there are many links to Estonian sources which to my untrained eye seem to RS. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Authors

[edit] Samuel Lodato

Samuel Lodato (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Samuel Lodato" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable author, list of works include one book published this year, and one upcoming. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 15:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And don't try to define what a notable author is. Mr Lodato is based in London, Uk. Accordingly, I would prefer it if somebody Uk based were to contest the veritability of this article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pegasuspublishers (talk • contribs) 16:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC) — Pegasuspublishers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Not from the UK, but Google.co.uk news results show nothing. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable author, editor seems to have a Conflict Of Interest as the username is the same name as the publishers of Lodato's book. Jarkeld (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - This is strongly leaning toward a7. Smithers (Talk) Give thanks! 16:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and sanction Non-notable author with little evidence of third-party coverage. Wikipedia has guidelines as to what constitutes notability. If you don't want others to review the content you post, then I suggest you don't post. You also do not set the rules as to who can or cannot review articles. DarkAudit (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per my own nomination, and pass me the Kleenex. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 16:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment commented out some of Pegasuspublishers's remarks as borderline attacks. As for the article I say mega delete. Article claims notability, so isn't A7 worthy. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly doesn't pass notability guidelines - but not G7. Skier Dude (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Agree this is promotional materials with no notability. andyminicooper (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Henri Lurie

Henri Lurie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Henri Lurie" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

not apparently notable; no sources to verify content identified Scoop100 (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I found six titles (some apparently differnt editions of the same book) written, edited or translated by him at Worldcat using this search. I also added an interesting quotation about him from a book by John David Garcia: "Henry Lurié was not perfect in his ethics, but he was the most committed man I ever met; he was dedicated totally to ethical principles."[1] I think he might be notable, but I am not certain of it. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas McElwain

Thomas McElwain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Thomas McElwain" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

No references. Article has been around since 2006 or earlier. BejinhanTalk 04:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —BejinhanTalk 04:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No sources. Miami33139 (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Question Since when do we delete articles for presently being unsourced? If the attempt is to send other editors fishing for sources it is a misuse of the AfD circuit. You must demonstrate that you have attempted some work yourself, per WP:BEFORE. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This AFD is not to send other editors running for references. The reason why I AFDed it is because I think that the article has been given enough chance and time and yet still fail to meet certain criteria. BejinhanTalk 13:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• How about deleting on notability grounds? I think that the bar has gone up since the first AFD. Polarpanda (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That's possible. BejinhanTalk 13:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond Allan

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

(Find sources: "Raymond Allan" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable author of a single fiction book for teens. No evidence of coverage in independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)delsort
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Book, news, and internet search bring up no outside sources from which verifiable information can be added to the article. Mrathel (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Can't find any good sources on this either Ace4545 (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] François Lejeune

François Lejeune (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "François Lejeune" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Couldn't verify the existence of this person, so copyediting probably isn't worth the trouble. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Correction – seems to exist [2], but that is all I could verify. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Also on Amazon.. one book from 2001. If a book from 2001 was noteable, she would have received more noteworthiness to be included. A8UDI 20:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• weak delete I can't find any sources pertaining to the author that would provide enough information for the article. I believe that it is possible that they are out there, but at present there aren't enough sources given to justify an article. My ability to read French is moderate, and there are one or two sources that suggest that more sources can be found, but the article doesn't make a claim to notability and can not stand unless others come forward with material that can be used to meet notability guidelines. Mrathel (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sally Freud

Sally Freud (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Sally Freud" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

I came across this article whilst I was looking up australian authors for my wife, and I don't think it meets the notability guidelines. Firstly, it's an unreferenced BLP, and there are very few google hits for Sally Freud - a google search for '"Sally Freud" caged'- not something I wish to discover pictures of, by the way, but the title of one of her novels! then there are just 246 hits, whilst her book "the middle of nowhere" gets just 96. Me and my wife been looking at the notability guideline for authors, and I don't think this article passes - and neither does she. We were just talking about it whilst she was making my ham sandwiches and so I thoght I'd send it along to AFD. Let me know what ya all think - but as the nominator, we are going to be going for a solid delete. All the best, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:BIO says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The current article is an {{Orphan}} and {{UnreferencedBLP}}. The single "reference" included is to Football Teams in Alien Territory, which isn't about her. Similarly, How James Freud survived rock and roll is about her husband and only briefly mentions her. WorldCat shows each of her books as being in between 50-74 libraries, which is insufficient to pass WP:AUTHOR. I don't see what criteria she passes, if any. (And no, I do not understand how two married people can each have an article, but neither article links to the other. Huh?) Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• delete The subject has not drawn enough outside coverage to warrent an article. I have searched and have failed to produce sources able to verify information on the page, and I don't feel it is likely that notability guidelines will be met unless more are brought forward. Mrathel (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pier Dominguez

Pier Dominguez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Pier Dominguez" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Not notable. Si Trew (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Although there was coverage back in 2003, it was minor. The NY Times article of 7 September 2003 makes it clear that his first book was with a vanity press ("It was published in 2001 by the Writer's Club Press, a house that typically charges writers a fee to be published and sells the books per order.") - I found 2 Google News hits in April 1999 - one a copy of the other. The second book ("Christina Aguilera: A Star Is Made") was published by Collossus books, and cause a bit of press coverage in 2003, but all the press stories are basically from Jan-Sep 2003 (5 Google News hits - 2 of which are just the book name in a list of published books, 1 is the NYT piece mentioned above, 1 is the excerpt in the NY Post (as mentioned in the article), and the other is a review in the NY Post (but they had to review it if they were printing an excerpt). Since 2003? Nothing. Basically, this is a BLP1E article. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 23:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 23:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Notability does not expire, and if the subject was notable in 2003, then he or she is notable now. The NYT article is not sufficient to prove notability, but mixed with this and one or two other sources, there is a case to be made for the article remaining. I am not sure that notability is met at this point, but I am willing to see if other sources can be provided - 22:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC) User:Mrathel (Talk)

• • Comment I am very vague on this, as I prefer to spend more of my time constructing articles than deleting them, but I was under the impression that it was deleted in 2003 for not being notable. It was essentially, as I understand it, regurgitated and I am inclined to suggest WP:PROMO but have no good evidence to prove it other than I chanced on it when splitting the disambig at Page 6 and Page Six, and I believe that Page Six is a column and magazine in the New York Post that, some may think, guarantees notoriety, which is not to say it guarantees notability. I might have a vague waft at WP:PROMO, but would not get far since it is wrestling treacle.

The point of notability still stands open, as far as I can tell, because it is for those who wish an article or section thereof to be kept to establish the grounds for it, not those who wish it to be deleted. And I am an inclusionist. I checked the histories before posting it here, and found no mention of notability. It is difficult to prove a negative, hence the burden of proof on proving notability, can you find where it was established before, please? Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep One of the references is a full-length profile in the New York Times. That qualifies, if barely, as "significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject." Other book reviews, etc., are just icing on the cake. That said, it was a local interest profile. Ray^Talk 19:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Two points I would like to make. Firstly, the coverage appears to be local coverage (even if it was in a sub-section of the NYT). Secondly, while it is true that "Notability does not expire", I do not think that the coverage would count as the subject being notable even back in 2003. Personally, I feel that if this author had done all their work in 2009 instead of in 2003, they would not be counted as notable with the evidence provided. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Val chua. 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] Authors Proposed deletions

• Licia Troisi (via WP:PROD on 25 December 2007)
• Leidra Lawson (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)