[edit] Visual arts

[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)

• Well, I can't say "definitely" because I haven't read through those sources in Estonian Wikipedia that are not online, but generally 2nd, 3rd, 4th seem to be simple reviews of his poetry book. 5th talks shortly about subject's and Aivar Rumvolt's discussion evening about recently deceased Urmas Mikku. So not much notability in these. 1st and 6th seem to be talking about that how he was expelled from Estonian State Institute of Arts for his poem, but even if we consider it notable this would still go under WP:BLP1E. I would generally be very hesitant to use Estonian Wikipedia as argument for notability, because generally its inclusion standards seem lower than here(for understandable reasons), also I personally haven't found any equivalents of WP:N, WP:BIO or WP:BLP there.--Staberinde (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't appear to meet our notability standards. Orderinchaos 04:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Ignorance. Looming (journal) is the most notable publication in Estonia. Valid source. Notability undoubtable 87,000 google hits. Needs expansion. Starzynka (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Can someone else please confirm Starzynka's claim about google hits? I personally get only 3,090, and if I add "-wikipedia" it falls to 1,520 [1]. Also even if we consider event that is sourced with Looming notable it would still fall under WP:BLP1E.--Staberinde (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete Doesn't meet our BLP or notability standards. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 13:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Authors

[edit] William F. Vallicella

William F. Vallicella (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "William F. Vallicella" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This bio of a former academic turned blogger does not show notability under WP:PROF, WP:WEB or any other notability standard. Prod was objected to based on hits from Google Books and Google Scholar, but having published articles and books is standard for an academic and not a sign of notability. The sources for the article give good indication of the lack of reliable sources coverage: a two-sentence contributor description from a journal, his own blog, a summary of his (apparently only) book from a defunct online book club, and a Google Scholar search page. RL0919 (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Here is a useful search link. When you find articles with "The X argument: a reply to Y" it means his ideas are sufficiently notable to merit a full-length refutation, but this is only slightly above average for a decent philosopher. I would like this to be kept, but I can't make a case for it based on sources I've found. 77.4.59.225 (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep there are 79k GHits for "William F. Vallicella" and 63K for "William Vallicella". This is even more than I have - and I have co-authored a notable book :-). NBeale (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Solid Keep. I was the deprodding editor, and as nom points out I pointed nom to the google results. That not having satisfied nom, I've added many (though not all--I tired) of the relevant citations to the article. IMHO this meets wp:prof in that his research has made significant impact in his scholarly discipline, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. It also meets wp:author in that he is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by his peers, is known for originating significant new concepts, and has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles and reviews.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - The article is not well written at this point (sorry, Epeefleche, I see your comment about adding refs, but I know this article will be improved considerably eventually as time passes as is the normal course in wiki articles). I think that skews perceptions somewhat. Remember when you handed in typewritten work instead of handwritten work to get a 10% grade boost? Well I think the same thing applies here. I could come back and reconsider after the page is cleaned up. Until then, it's a keeper. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. This is definitely a stub, as the text is severely limited. Once could build it up rather easily by going through the sources, and using them to develop the text. But as the issue at the moment is only notability, I limited myself to trying to reflect that. But your criticism is appropriately placed.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep This is not easy to judge, as there is no reliable citation index for his subject. The large number of journal articles , about half in major journals, would argue for keeping, as does his having been selected to write an article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, an publication with stringent requirements. true, I'd be a lot more satisfied if he held an academic position or had published some actual books. But according to Cambridge University Press [2] he did in fact hold a tenured position, apparently at Case Western Reserve University or possibly Dayton University. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that information/cite, which I've now incorporated into the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nikola Kesarovski

Nikola Kesarovski (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Nikola Kesarovski" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Not very notable (gSearch comes up with less than 600 results in quotes); only written one book (6000 hits).  fetchcomms☛ 18:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Changed to Keep: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Per Phil Bridger. Joe Chill (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep - It's possibly unfair to expect a lot of sourcing about him in the English-speaking press. Here is one article that makes him sound notable: Science Fiction Fandom in Bulgaria. His "Fifth Law of Robotics is explained at the Three Laws of Robotics page, and includes a reference, but the reference is not in English. Suggest that we bend over backward to grant notability to writers whose work is not in English. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

• Comment. The Three Laws of Robotics article uses Kesarovski's book as a primary source for the fifth law - that's fine for verifiability purposes but it doesn't help with notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. In case it helps anyone looking for sources this is the subject's name in Cyrillic: Find sources: "Никола Кесаровски" — search, news, books, scholar, images . The subject doesn't appear to have an article in the Bulgarian Wikipedia but he is redlinked from its article on the fourth and fifth laws of robotics. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. It appears that the subject committed suicide in 2007, spookily just a week or two after our article was created. Kulturni Novini, which appears to be a reliable source, published "in memoriam" articles six months and a year after his death and according to this a national science fiction award has been named after him. It's taking me rather a long time to wade through the search results because Bulgarian isn't one of my stronger languages, but I think that this is enough to show notability. I have other things to do for the moment but I'll update the article later today. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Joy J. Kaimaparamban

Joy J. Kaimaparamban (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Joy J. Kaimaparamban" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable writer, no evidence of passing AUTHOR or PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Seems to me to be worth keeping if it can be verified Polarpanda (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete currently lacking WP:V and falling short of WP:GNG. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete There's something funny going on here with this article. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 06:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 06:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Well known writer in Malayalam literature. Several of his books have been published by publishing major DC Books. Had won Kunkumam Award for his novel Theerabhoomikal – A mention of Kunkumam Award can be seen here. !Voting weak keep because not much 3rd party reliable sources are available on the net. I am sure sources must be available in Malayalam print. Salih (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Not the most famous author in the world, but seems to have acquired some notability within Malayalam. Worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Great -- can you provide sources that establish this? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In addition to those mentioned by others, this notes one of the author's works was being made into a movie [3]. Several of the author's books are on Google Books. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of notability. The relevant criteria would be "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" or "work ... subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I could find nothing that indicates this sort of notability, and very little apart from self-published articles like this. I don't think this is bias. This mentions two books, and this mentions a third. This mentions a screenplay. But no reviews or comments. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

... there could be a problem finding sources due to the script. Malayalam sources would work if they showed notability. If ml.wikipedia had an entry for this author, with references, that would be good enough for me. But if there are no references at all, no ml:wiki version... Aymatth2 (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment While I do believe that all notable subjects deserve an article, I do not believe they necessarily deserve the article attributed to their name. This subject seems to be notable in a Language other than English, which makes sourcing difficult. Given the award posted in the above link, I am inclined to believe that there are independent sources out there but that they may be limited by the language barrier. If there is a chance that more references can be added to verify the information in the article, I would love to change my vote to keep, but at present, I would lean towards deletion unless more information is added, perhaps by someone familiar with the author's native language. Mrathel (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[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)
• Delete No independant sources, no evidence of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of reliable sources from which to write an article. Mrathel (talk) 18:37, 2 December 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)

I have attempted some work myself. My attempt failed. How might I demonstrate that I attempted? -- Hoary (talk) 05:35, 30 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)

• Keep Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Ghits shows sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I looked among the ghits. I didn't find reliable sources. Have you looked among the ghits? If so, where are the reliable sources? If not, please look for them. -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. To judge from what we read in the article, McElwain has a fascinating set of interests, and from my (rather than Wikipedia's) PoV he is hugely more noteworthy than are many people (reality show participants etc etc) that do get articles. However, I can find no sources, and I see no credible promise to get sources. If an article can't be sourced after a certain time, it goes. This one's had that time; it goes. ¶ I'll happily change my mind if sources are added; notify me on my talk page if I don't seem to have noticed. -- Hoary (talk) 10:59, 30 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)