Note: this page is purely an aggregation page of transclusions and not in the same format as other Deletion Sorting pages.  "Generic biographies" should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People, which is transcluded directly below. 

Deletion Sorting Project
Project page (talk) Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to People. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

Anyone can help maintain the list on this page:

• To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):

• Look through the list of current discussions to find items related to this subject area.
• Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
• You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Deletion sorting}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
• There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

• Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
• You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to People.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

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

Purge page cache

Watch this page

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

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

Please use on these instead:

Transcluded onto Biography Deletion sorting page

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers (generally excluding adult film performers)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Athletes
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Businesspeople
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people

not Transcluded onto Biography Deletion sorting page

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

Contents 1 People 1.1 Connie Parker Edge 1.2 Walter Malcolm Edge 2 Academics and educators 2.1 Reza Kerachian 2.2 Rudolf Yanson 2.3 Jeffrey Lang 2.4 Yen Chou 2.5 Xinru Liu 3 Academics and educators Proposed deletions 4 Deletion Review 5 Actors and filmmakers 5.1 Lucas James 5.2 Ethan Cutkosky 5.3 Marcelo Mosenson 5.4 Darian O'Rear 5.5 Patrick New 5.6 Cindy Sampson 5.7 Sophia and Whitney Schuring 6 Proposed deletions 7 Athletes 7.1 Matt Kassel 7.2 Armand Naris 7.3 Terrance Stringer 7.4 Jose Martinez (American football) 7.5 Michael Roddy 7.6 George Hickman 7.7 Emily Lipari 7.8 Thunder Collins 8 Authors 8.1 François Lejeune 8.2 Sally Freud 8.3 Pier Dominguez 9 Authors Proposed deletions 10 Businesspeople 10.1 Janice Roberts 10.2 Amos Goren 10.3 Rob Eastman III 10.4 Adam DeGraide 10.5 David Barnard Hale 10.6 Mun Charn Wong 11 Businesspeople Proposed deletion 12 Lists of people 12.1 List of people in Playboy 1990–1999 by birthplace 13 Politicians 13.1 Scott Kennedy 13.2 Bernard Sévigny 13.3 Christopher W. Sudbrink 13.4 Paul King (New Zealand)

[edit] People

[edit] Connie Parker Edge

Connie Parker Edge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Connie Parker Edge" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Can find nothing about the woman, the alleged murder or the television show online. Unreferenced biography. Probable WP:HOAX. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find anything about the radio show, the television show, the Christian Radio Network that it says she was the president of. This appears to be a hoax. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Malcolm Edge

Walter Malcolm Edge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Walter Malcolm Edge" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Can find nothing about the man, the alleged murder or the television show online. Unreferenced biography. Probable WP:HOAX. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find anything about the radio show, the television show, nothing. This appears to be a hoax. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Academics and educators

[edit] Reza Kerachian

Reza Kerachian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Reza Kerachian" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

No evidence of meeting WP:Notability (academics): Only an associate professor, and "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." The fact that this is an autobiography and that the author included his full contact information leads me to think of this as self-promotion and a resume rather than as an encyclopedia article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:ACADEMIC; self-promotion per WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. MuffledThud (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. GS cites are all single digit. Does not appear to satisfy WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC).
• Delete, single digit h-index. Abductive (reasoning) 23:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I doubt very much he will meet WP:PROF anytime soon. Has a grand total of 72 cites on GS, with an h-index of 6.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rudolf Yanson

Rudolf Yanson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Rudolf Yanson" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

I strongly suspect failure of WP:PROF. Gscholar citations are minimal, Gnews nonexistent, Gbooks tiny. However, he works in a highly specialized field, so I refer to AfD in lieu of prod or even A7. Ray^Talk 16:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 16:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, unfortunately. I hate to vote against a bio of another linguist, but the article simply doesn't demonstrate the impact Dr. Yanson's work has had on the field. I have lots of professors who are great thinkers and do great work, but whom I wouldn't be able to write a Wikipedia article about under the current guidelines, as just being a great thinker is not enough. Many of the articles created by User:Tibetologist (the writer of this one) look more like CVs, and while I appreciate Tibetologist's work at fighting systemic bias on WP, we do have to uphold the notability criteria. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Changing to Keep. I think the plenary at the SOAS conference is enough. Hard to tell how big this conference is, but a keynote speech is a bigger deal even at a moderately important conference. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Before deciding that Rudolf Yanson is unimportant please review the other pages I have created. You will see that I am trying to cover scholars of the Tibetan language and Burmese language somewhat comprehensively. In certain cases I do not have as much biographical information as I would like to. But after all it is a scholars bibliography and not his biography that makes him important. I do know that colleagues of mine around the world find these pages useful, and many wikipedia articles are devoted to much more trivial topics (star treck ships, manga characters, etc.). I have put a lot of work into these various articles, and hope that from time to time I would be given the benefit of the doubt. The Yanson article has already been there for some time, perhaps this shows that other editors do not find it worthy of deletion. Tibetologist (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't feel qualified to weigh-in with an opinion on this case, but I can tell you that you are mistaken on several "textbook" points. Notability is what determines if a subject merits an article, not usefulness (WP:N, WP:USEFUL). With all due respect, it doesn't matter whether you've put in a lot of work (WP:EFFORT) and it doesn't matter if there are other subjects, like manga, you feel are less worthy of an article (WP:OTHERSTUFF). Finally, time is no indication that people generally feel it should be kept. I'm afraid that, unless notability can be established, this article will very likely be deleted. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC).

• Comment. The subject works in one of the most obscure academic specialities one could expect to encounter and appears to have a presence there. Are there other scholars in the field who can comment? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC).
• What about merging to an article on this field or people working in this field? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. All of the points made by Agricola44 are reasonable. I would like to make several counterarguments. Firstly, google hits are not a good measure of notability. In Japan and the US there are efforts to make databases of scholarly articles. As a consequence US and Japanese authors get lots of google hits, even if no one reads or cites their articles. Such efforts are not being made in Russia, this has more to do with the wealth of Russian academia and Russian government policy and has little to do with the notability of Russian scholarship. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it should wish to present a reference work of human knowledge, and not a guide to google hits. It is my own view, and the view of most print encyclopedias that academic topics are inherently more noteworthy than manga characters or startrek ships, even if they are less popular. Popular and notable must be recognized to be different. Rudolf Yanson is probably the most prominent researcher in Old Burmese philology, if you think otherwise, how about writing some people in his field and asking if they have heard of him rather than simply (and lazily) doing google searches in English. Tibetologist (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment# The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.

Yanson fits this bill, he was dean of the faculty, he is a professor (we don't give that title away as easily here in Europe as you do in the US), and is scheduled to give a key-note at an international conference Tibetologist (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• cmt: @Xxanthippe: Southeast Asian linguistics is not that rare (although the historical side of that field is fading, nowadays people are more into experimental stuff), although it's no bioengineering or what have you, and most other people working in this area also don't have WP articles.

  @Tibetologist: I don't think "usefulness" is a strong argument, as bibliographies of these professors can be found easily on academic databases, and biographical information can be found at their personal websites. But, if he really is about to give a keynote, that would be enough to satisfy notability (in my opinion) and if you can show us a link to that page (or perhaps a scan of the program) I would reconsider my vote. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

'comment: I would be happy to send a poster for this event, with his talk advertised prominently. I am sure he has done many such things in the past, but my Russian is not great, so I have had more trouble researching Yanson than other Burmese scholars. Tibetologist (talk)

Or you could just indicate the name of the conference. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

He's scheduled to give the keynote address at the 2010 Medieval Tibeto-Burman Languages Symposium hosted by SOAS.[1] I don't know if that's the one that Tibetologist had in mind. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. A Dean of Faculty in an equivalent university in the United States or the United Kingdom would get a unanimous "keep" if nominated for deletion (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Mumford), so why treat someone at Saint Petersburg State University any differently? This isn't a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but of WP:OTHERSTUFFGETSKEPTATAFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• 'Very weak Keep Keep Dean of faculty at a really major university such as this can be a sufficiently high academic position, though it is difficult to evaluate from an unfamiliar system. But it would seem to correspond to the US Provost-- what is usually meant by "Chief academic officer"; this is notable in a great university, though not as a general rule in all colleges--the person who decides on new programs, new faculty appointments, and tenure promotions. Much more important to be such a officer at St petersburg than a university president almost anywhere else. However, I would like some actual evidence that he holds this position, for I do not see any. It is even more difficult to evaluate non-English ;language publications in a subject such as this. G scholar is certainly useless for this sort of work--it essentially covers only mainstream english language journals. The G scholar results seem to be the basis of the article: but they amount to only 3 papers in edited volumes, and one book. We need some evidence besides that. If it is the intention to provide a complete list of everyone who has ever published a paper on the subject, then this does fail NOT DIRECTORY. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (after edit conflicts). It seems that, for such a major university, Saint Petersburg State University has a very limited web site - all you web designers and Internet marketing gurus should be getting on to them and offering your services. I can't find any confirmation that that the subject served as Dean of Faculty, which may well be a post that goes on an annual rotation, but this confirms that he has been head of the Department of Chinese, Korean and South-East Asian Philology since 1998, and this shows that he leads a team of about 40 faculty members, including seven full professors. That's still enough for me to stay with my unqualified "keep". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Superficial search indicates clear case of noted scholar in his area (key note speaker at his subjects major conference at SOAS (added ref to article)). Deaprtment page (added ref to article) lists him as head I think. Преподаватели - Профессор, зав.кафедрой д.филол.н. - Янсон Рудольф Алексеевич - http://www.orient.pu.ru/dept_china/ Rudolf Alexeevich Yanson's Departmental Page listing him as departmental head. But my Russian knowledge is limited to using google translate! (Msrasnw (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC))
• Delete. Per WP:PROF, we need some tangible and verifiable evidence of academic notability, such as citations of his work, reviews of his books, academic awards etc. Such evidence is not available here. I am a native Russian speaker and I did a bit of google searching in both Russian and English and found very little. It may be that google does not yet have access to various Russian sources, but that is not a good enough reason to keep the article. If and when some verifiable sources covering his work are forthcoming, the article may be re-created. For now, IMO, it should be deleted and maybe userfied, so that the creator of the article may keep working on it in his userspace. Nsk92 (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Nsk92 (WP:PROF). Eusebeus (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Lack of Google footprint for a Russian academic in a specialist field is a weak deletion rationale, in particular with this list of publications, susceptible to WP:BIAS and general concerns about negative evidence. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep He is a professor and department chair at one of Russia's most prestigious universities. He is a notable scholar in his field, and should be on Wikipedia. The fact that he is at a Russian university rather than an American or British university should not make any difference. As to his area of expertise, it is not particularly obscure or narrow, as some above have suggested — many notable linguists study far more "obscure" languages than Burmese. BabelStone (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• comment about obscurity There seem to be only two departments offering graduate work in Burmese in the English speaking world: Northern Illinois, and SOAS. see Burma studies--confirmed by my own search. There seem to be a scattering of universities offering elementary courses: I noticed Hawaii, and a few universities offering it on demand, including Yale and ANU and possibly USC. There are presumably others in Europe and Asia. As mentioned above, the St Petersburg site has neither individual pages for its faculty nor a list of courses, so it is impossible to tell directly what level they teach. The Russian page, and the incomplete pages it links to and it provides no useful information about this individual. The team of 40 people presumably represents the entire staff ofthe department, and Id assume its emphasis is not in Burmese. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Phil Bridger, DGG ,and Babelstone. Sufficient evidence of both contributions to field and of important position held to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. All things considered. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC).

[edit] Jeffrey Lang

Jeffrey Lang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Jeffrey Lang" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Notability Dust diamond (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete this man is no more notable than an average college professor. His books are never mentioned in major media. The only "sources" this article has are dead pages, obscure websites, and his own personal page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dust diamond (talk • contribs) 19:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Due to possible bad faith made by the editor that made the AfD request. MajorMinorMark (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• FYI. Previous comment is from a known, and now-indefinitely-blocked sock puppet. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC).

• • What "bad faith" are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dust diamond (talk • contribs) 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Most of the article simply recounts his conversion and devotion to Islam, with no claim of notability there. He is an academic mathematician, but investigation indicates he's had little impact. Specifically, WoS shows 10 papers with an h-index of only 3 using "Author=(lang j*) Refined by: Institutions=(UNIV KANSAS) AND Subject Areas=(MATHEMATICS OR MATHEMATICS, APPLIED) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" (note the potential for false-positives because of the commonality of the name). MGP indicates he's never graduated any PhD students. These are not impressive stats for someone who's apparently been in academia for almost 3 decades. He is co-author of a book on Ziriski surfaces (with his advisor), which WorldCat shows about 200 libraries holding – not too bad for a monograph, but far from outstanding. (His books on Islam are all less widely held.) FYI: The link that sells his CDs on Islam seems to work, but many others are broke, as Dust diamond notes. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC).
• Delete. I tried looking for a sign that he might pass WP:PROF #1 when this article was prodded but I was unsuccessful at finding one — I came to basically the same conclusions as Agricola44. So he appears not to pass WP:PROF and I don't see any convincing evidence that his religious work passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another BLP without an RS in sight! --Paularblaster (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. In addition to what Agricola and David Eppstein wrote, I did a MathSciNet search. Lang has 25 publication listed there, with a grand total of 9 citations. That is rather thin for a research mathematician. Does not pass WP:PROF. There is some info in the article about his activism on religious matters, but no evidence of significant coverage to pass WP:BIO on those grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep. GoogleNews does show that there is a fairly significant newscoverage of Lang's religious activism[2]. I think there is enough there to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Established above that he does not pass WP:Prof but he appears to have some sort of (controversial) presence in the U.S. Islamic community. Can others say if that is notable? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC).
• Keep. Lang's notability doesn't lie in the fact that he's a Muslim convert or an academic; it lies in his body of work, both as an author and as a public speaker on Islam. 218.186.12.231 (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Which works? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Septentrionalis's point. His books on Islam are certainly not widely held by libraries and they are clearly not best-sellers, i.e. they cannot claim to have had any real impact. An assertion of notability on the basis of public-speaking and commentating is more nebulous, but I should think that to qualify one would need to be regularly speaking in high-profile venues or lecture circuits, garnering coverage in national media (e.g. being quoted in major outlets), appear on syndicated talk shows, give University commencement addresses, or any other such activities that would differentiate oneself from the herd of other hopefuls that simply "preach to their own choirs". I concede there are a lot of GN hits, but many of these don't appear to qualify at anything close to the level I've just described. For example, the top hit is yet another recount of his conversion to Islam appearing in Reading Islam, which seems to be nothing more than an agenda-based website, i.e. not a WP:RS mainstream news outlet. In short, the public-speaking angle doesn't work either. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC).
• Keep on basis of unusual life path and Islamic activism, some of which appears to have generated opposition from conservative circles of the U.S. Islamic community. I note that the nominator of this AfD started editing on 19 November and has never edited outside this topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC).
  • Can you find some examples of conservative opposition to Mr. Lang? As far as I can tell, nobody cares. Also, the fact that I am new to Wikipedia does not mean Mr. Lang is a notable figure. Dust Diamond —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC).

A search for "Jeffrey Lang Islam" gives 74,000 Ghits. I have not read them all, of course, but [one] says "We stand by our opinion that the book by Jeffrey Lang is misleading and dangerous". In view of the unusual edit record of the nominator (he developed enough skill to create an AfD on his first day of editing) would he care to say if he has any WP:COI due to association with conservative Islamic interests that might be happy to muzzle this critic who writes "misleading and dangerous" books about Islam? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC).

The linked comment appears to be a followup to a review[3]. I'm not sure how notable albalagh.net is; it's apparent it's a pretty conservative site and its URL and editor's name show up in a number of books. Incidentally, since it was mentioned in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mecca_Centric. Шизомби (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The article cites two examples of Mr. Langs religious activism: his work for Mecca Centric and co-founding of Generation Islam. According to Alexa, Mecca Centric is not one of the top 100,000 websites. Generation Islam is no longer active, and there's no evidence that it was ever a significant movement. (Note that only information Google has only Generation Islam is the Wikipedia article. Perhaps that article should be deleted as well.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dust diamond (talk • contribs) 19:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Well-known and well-respected in the Muslim community for this writings and lectures.--LatinoMuslim 22:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you have any evidence that he is "well-known and well-respected"?--Dust diamond (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

74,000 Ghits for starters. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC).

• Comment Most probably he would fail the academic notability, however I suspect he is as notable within the American Muslim community, and perhaps worldwide Muslim community as is claimed. That might be hard to establish for those of us outside of Islam, without access to American Muslim and foreign publications; it would be advisable to worry about Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Does it make sense to ignore American muslims and who they're listening to, considering? That said, there is a profile of him in The Columbia Sourcebook of Muslims in the United States (Columbia University Press, 2009) and an excerpt from one of his books (139-148), is quoted a few times in Daniel Pipes' Militant Islam Reaches America (as someone opposed to militant Islam) showing some degree of notability outside of the Muslim community. I saw the entry for one of his books on Amazon said his books had been translated into other languages. Not sure how to find out which books and which languages, though abebooks turned up a Turkish translation of one, Melekler de sorar Islam'i Amerika'da secmek. A book review "Conversion to Islam: A Study of Native British Converts" by Ali Köse in Journal of the American Academy of Religion (Vol. 67, No. 1, Mar., 1999, 221) notes "there is a small but growing body of work on the Islamic communities of North America and Europe" and mentions one of Lang's books as an example of a more substantive examination of the role of converts in Islam. Шизомби (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Worldcat indicates Struggling to Surrender was translated into Arabic as al-Sira` min ajl al-iman : intiba`at Amriki i`tanaqa al-Islam and into Indonesian as Berjuang untuk berserah : menyegarkan pemahaman Islam and his Even Angels Ask into Arabic as Hatta al-malaikah tasal : rihlah ila al-islam fi Amrika. Perhaps a little "more notable than an average college professor"? I'm curious as to how Dust Diamond found this article and managed to do an AfD on his first day at WP? I found AfD to be a pain, myself, even after having edited here for a while. Anyway, there's a book review of Struggling by Noakes, Greg. Middle East Journal, Spring95, Vol. 49 Issue 2, p354, 2p. I'd have to ILL to get it. Hartford Seminary's journal Muslim World (est. 1911, not on WP - more Systemic bias?) has "Conversion Out of Islam: A Study of Conversion Narratives of Former Muslims" By: Khalil, Mohammad Hassan, Bilici, Mucahit, Jan2007, Vol. 97, Issue 1 which includes Lang's Losing My Religion as one of the "best-publicized -- and presumably most influential" print sources on the subject of conversion out of Islam, a book the authors say "documents some of the letters and email messages that he received from American Muslims and former Muslims." Both journals are Peer-reviewed. In light of these things and Nsk92's Google findings above, I would tend to support a keep here, although I'd support a delete for Generation Islam. Шизомби (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • I found this article while looking at the converts from atheism page. Of course, this is not the first time I've been on Wikipedia, but after seeing this page I decided to make an account and NFD. At any rate, I'm impressed with your research. Good stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.110.111 (talk) 04:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Yen Chou

Yen Chou (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Yen Chou" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Failed a local election. All media coverage about the person is about her bid for public office. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Failed candidates for political office can be notable providing they meet WP:N, they just don't benefit from the presumption of notability provided by WP:POLITICIAN. This article is well-sourced to independent reliable coverage demonstrating notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Honest question - does it matter that most of the media coverage is not even biographical, but about the city council elections? And within that set, most of the articles are about more than her own election. They are about at least a few other elections. Hers was only 1 in 51 elections that took place at the same time for city council seats. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - notable for the failed election bid, plus being nominated for and winning multiple professional awards. Ivanvector (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The failed bid was for city council. Even for a city the size of New York, that's still a local election, not state or national office. The general guideline is a city council seat is not notable, except in extreme circumstances. DarkAudit (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - It doesn't matter what she was running for if she gets significant coverage in reliable independent sources as a result. The seat may not be notable but (according to the media) her bid for it apparently was. (Also it's worthing noting that this particular City Council covers a constituency of more than 8 million voters which means that of its 51 members, any two of them are proportionately representing more people than the entire population of the capital of Australia.)- DustFormsWords (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Coverage in secondary sources is almost entirely in the context of her candidacy and in the course of campaign coverage, making WP:POLITICIAN the relevant criterion, as opposed to using that candidacy as the starting point and doing in-depth coverage of her generally. In that light, a failed run for City Council does not make her notable. Ray^Talk 16:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability is not established under any category. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC).

[edit] Xinru Liu

Xinru Liu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Xinru Liu" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. hardly any coverage in gnews. some coverage in gscholar but nothing that seems to meet WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - the award for Outstanding Research Works done between 1977-1991 from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is potentially a "notable award or honor" per WP:ANYBIO, and I would expect sources supporting its notability to be largely foreign language and not necessarily easily found through English language Gnews and Gscholar sources. Per WP:FAILN, "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Name in Chinese is 刘欣如. Almost useless for a google search because there's some minor 80s pop star by the same name, but if you search e.g. "Liu Xinru" "Ancient India" in Chinese there's only about 600 GHits and she doesn't seem to have published any major works in Chinese. Normally I'd be the first guy jumping up and down reprimanding LibStar to be bothered to search in foreign languages ... but in this case, she's got a Ph.D. from a U.S. university almost a quarter of a century ago and has been teaching in the U.S. system for the most recent 15 years of her career. And even the "Award for outstanding research works" she received from the Chinese Academic of Social Sciences (#181 in this list) was for a work published in English by Oxford University. If she's had any major impact in her field, you should be able to find it in the English-language literature. I'll defer to someone who actually knows the field to assess that. For what it's worth, I do see a couple of independent reviews of her 1998 book Silk and religion in GScholar. cab (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Has won award from notable organization, and having at least two books published by Oxford University Press indicates significant stature in/contributions to her field. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Writing books is not enough. What counts is having them noted by others. On basis of top cites found in GS 32, 16, 5... this has not occurred yet to a sufficient extent. Unless further evidence emerges this seems to be another case of an article on an assistant professor created too soon. Xxanthippe (talk).
• Keep Whether writing books is notable depends on the books. We can judge the books by citations--but in the humanities it takes many years or decades for citations to books to accumulate. GS will be more useful 20 or 30 years from. We can judge by publisher: Her latest in by OUP: Liu, Xinru. The Silk Road in World History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009 in a major series, The Oxford New World History, My tentative judgment from that alone is that someone who manages to get a contract to write sucha book for such a publisher is likely to be notable--presses like OUP are good at judging such things, probably better than any of us. OUP India published her earlier book: Lui, Hsin-ju. Silk and Religion: An Exploration of Material Life and the Thought of People, AD 600-1200. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996. She did one for McGraw also, Liu, Xinru, and Lynda Shaffer. Connections Across Eurasia: Transportation, Communication, and Cultural Exchange on the Silk Roads. Explorations in world history. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2007. Not a research publisher in humanities, so it's likely to have been a textbook. But Liu, Hsin-ju. The Silk Road: Overland Trade and Cultural Interactions in Eurasia. Essays on global and comparative history. Washington, DC: American Historical Association, 1998. published by the most important US historical association itself--it's a short supplementary book, but when the major associations publish these is because they intend them as part of a series for standard teaching use. The reviews cited by cab confirm it, and meet WP:AUTHOR. Whatever additional is in Chinese can only add to it. I'm not sure why she's still as Assistant Professor, and I have been very reluctant to say keep for people at this rank--I do not think most of them notable; she's one of the exceptions, as the publications are enough to show her a leading author in her field-- DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Citation counts are low, and she's still an assistant professor after nearly 25 years as an academic. I think it's clear that she is a serious academic (from the publications discussed above by DGG and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz), but it just doesn't seem that her peers consider her stature very high. I hesitate to purely use gradations of academic status to judge somebody's contributions to the field, but in the absence of major citation records, that's all we really have to go on here - most tenured professors have contributed chapters, articles, or sections to books and compilations by major university presses - that's an indicator of a serious academic with real contributions, to be sure, but not so much a cut above the rest as to pass WP:PROF. Ray^Talk 16:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Her academic rank and TCNJ's site is puzzling. According to [4] she moved up the ranks at the Institute of World History, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, where she is "1993 - present [full] Professor", and was in 1994 the Director. Also on that page, "Spring Semester of 2000-Present Part-time faculty, Department of History, the College of New Jersey" so her assistant professor rank there may be because she is a part-timer. But she is listed as full time here, which also lists a part time 2007 Ph.D as a full professor. John Z (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, something very weird is going on here. Can we get an expert in the field to comment? Ray^Talk 22:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Academics and educators Proposed deletions

• Professor Nicholas G Kounis MD (via WP:PROD on 22 November 2009)
• Hans Peder Vibe (via WP:PROD on 22 November 2009)
• Randall T. Ruble (via WP:PROD on 21 November 2009)
• Robert W. Bell (via WP:PROD on 21 November 2009)
• Nathaniel N. Whiting (via WP:PROD on 20 November 2009)
• Phil Scarf (via WP:PROD on 20 November 2009)

[edit] Deletion Review

• Matthew Watson

[edit] Actors and filmmakers

[edit] Lucas James

Lucas James (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Lucas James" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Extremely non-notable entertainer/personal trainer. The article reads like a CV instead of an encyclopedia entry. Warrah (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Seems like complete self-promotion to me. Author LJPT = Lucas James Personal Trainer? Formerly 'CelebrityPersonalTrainer' Logical Fuzz (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Borderline G11. Fails WP:CREATIVE by a mile. Ray^Talk 04:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ethan Cutkosky

Ethan Cutkosky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Ethan Cutkosky" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

fails WP:ENT. only really known for 1 role. [5]. LibStar (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. As nomination says, fails WP:ENT. Dogposter 11:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Like nominator says, only 1 real role. Two other roles are uncredited or "Neighborhood Boy". Hardly notable. Logical Fuzz (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Marcelo Mosenson

Marcelo Mosenson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Marcelo Mosenson" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

fails WP:BIO by a long shot. He's won awards, certainly, but they all seem to be non-notable. Ironholds (talk) 22:08, 6 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) 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I disagree with the firm assertion that this "fails WP:BIO by a long shot." The article asserts his works have: been broadcast on IFC in Canada, received an award from the Secretary of Culture of Argentina, been broadcast on Canal 7 Argentina and has been shown at a number of festivals internationally. I think this requires a better familiarity with the festivals and awards in question. (Well, unless you're Argentinian and then you might already have a better idea than I.) - BalthCat (talk) 07:23, 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 15:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Well established young filmmaker who has been involved with numerous somewhat notable works. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 03:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is asserted and sourced. Needs WP:Cleanup for style and formatting concerns. Surmountable issues do not require article be deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Darian O'Rear

Darian O'Rear (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Darian O'Rear" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable child actress with one minor role, one uncredited appearance and 2 roles “in pre-production”. No evidence of other roles. Article also appears to be written by a talent agent. Previously PROD but removed by author. Does not meet basic notability guidelines, let alone WP:ENT. Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I see nothing notable about this person at this time. ArcAngel (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

She is an upcoming actress and has several things that will be coming out in 2010. This should not be removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talentupdate (talk • contribs) 22:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC) — Talentupdate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

While that may be so, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ArcAngel (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My kids love Darian she is a great role model and actress! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.254.250.196 (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And that means absolutely nothing when it comes to Wikipedia guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. In fact, I consider the first part of the IP's comment above to be WP:NPOV and the second part to be WP:OR, at least that's how I would classify it. ArcAngel (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Delete for now. Not very notable now, but could become notable very soon with her new role. Maybe give her a little time to collect some ink? (Since we assume good faith, I will not act on my suspicion that there are sockpuppets in this thread.) --MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 03:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete If she makes it and becomes notable in the sense of WP:ENT a new article can always be created. Favonian (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick New

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

(Find sources: "Patrick New" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

I removed the {{db-person}} tag because notability is asserted by the lengthy list of credits. However, I have been unable to find any reliable sources about this individual. A Google News Archive search (with the search term: "Patrick New" actor) does not return any relevant results. This person appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If reliable sources can be found to establish notability, I will withdraw this nomination. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep While I have not myself touched the article (yet), the individual appears to get quite a bit of coverage for his stage work... and someone else is already adding some sourcing. 00:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• The search returns many passing mentions, such as trivial coverage in character lists. The sources in the article are either passing mentions or unreliable. Can you point out two sources that provide nontrivial coverage about Patrick New? Cunard (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cindy Sampson

Cindy Sampson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Cindy Sampson" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non notable actress, a quick look for reliable sources revealed nothing of note [6] and the first few pages of google are not showing any reliable sources. Absent reliable sourcing this fails V. RS, N & Bio Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - if even a few roles from IMdB can be verified by more reliable sources, then she is a notable actress, although I've never heard of her until now. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well that's the point really, the lack of coverage of her roles means that she isn't notable and there are simply no reliable sources out there for her. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and continue sourcing. Her multiple significant roles in multiple notable productions meets the presumption of WP:ENT. Its a matter of tagging the article for sources and moving on. Granted, she does seem to keep a low profile. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Question how are we assessing that her roles are significant in notable productions. I know its a judgement thing but surely there should be reviews and bnewspaper articles if this were the case. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:27, 19 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) 00:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears to meet the requirements of WP:ENT. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sophia and Whitney Schuring

Sophia and Whitney Schuring (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Sophia and Whitney Schuring" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

simply being identical twins does not guarantee an article. 1 gnews hit [7]. LibStar (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. From the article: "They played the characters of "Steffy Forrester" and "Phoebe Forrester" in the soap opera The Bold and the Beautiful to January to October 2001." A recurring role for the better part of a year may be enough to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I take it you mean keep? LibStar (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete. These actresses apparently played twins on a soap opera for about nine months when they were 2 or 3 years old. Due to their ages at the time, I find it unlikely that they did a lot of acting on the show. IMDb lists no credits for them since they left the show, nor has much information about them been located since this article was created a few years ago. My recommendation is to "delete" due to a lack of information, limited prospects of finding more information, and low notability, but that's a "weak delete" because the article seems to be accurate and isn't doing any harm. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

no harm? WP:NOHARM LibStar (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, no harm. I read WP:NOHARM and I don't think it applies to my recommendation here. I'm saying to delete, but, in fairness to anyone who wants to keep, I admit that the article isn't doing any harm. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I am changing my recommendation to a plain "delete" in hopes that this discussion will stop getting relisted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:14, 10 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 20:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The pair did two episodes of The Bold and the Beautiful... 8 years ago... nothing before and nothing since. Their career fails WP:ENT. In a search, I only found a bare mention of them in a 2008 article [8] referring to their 2001 role. The long and short is their carrer was too brief and their lack of press allows them to fail WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.

2007-2008
Atsuko Kawada (via WP:PROD on 4 July 2008) Cherylee Houston (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007) Robert Phillips (Actor) (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007) Lloyd Sherr (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007) Michael Goz (via WP:PROD on 15 December 2007) Deleted Amy O'Malley (via WP:PROD on 2 December 2007) Deleted

• Clément Laloy (via WP:PROD on 3 May 2009)

[edit] Athletes

[edit] Matt Kassel

Matt Kassel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Matt Kassel" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Matt Kassel is not notable. He is not a professional footballer and has yet to attain enough of a reputation or importance to be published on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interzil (talk • contribs) 2009/11/21 07:51:40

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't meet football notability guidelines at this point in his career. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't yet pass WP:ATHLETE. Good luck, Matt. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Armand Naris

Armand Naris (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Armand Naris" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Unsourced BLP that appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. Prod expired, but article had previously been deleted via Prod. Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Terrance Stringer

Terrance Stringer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Terrance Stringer" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH as he's never played professionally. Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment While I don't understand American Football, which appears to me to be more about statistics than playing a game, I can understand that the subject of this article does not seem to have made it into the world of professional play. As I understand the rules of notability here, this would seem to preclude him being suitable for having an article. Just out of curiosity, how do they know he made a 121 yard whatever it was? In the javelin and discus, they have people with tape measures. Surely not on a football field... Peridon (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It's common for people to record over a 100 yards so it obviously doesn't make you notable, but to answer you're question the field has yard lines which allows the person who compiles the stats to determine the yardage.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ta. Peridon (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:ATH and is not notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:ATHLETE. Article explicitly states he was an offseason/practice squad member only during the only season he was on an NFL team roster. Official NFL player directory indicates that he exists ([9]), but has no statistics. KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete since he didn't actually play, although this guy was very similar and his article was kept after the deletion discussion because there were some articles in the local newspaper about him. I'm sure similar articles about Terrance Stringer could be found, but I still say it wouldn't pass notability. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jose Martinez (American football)

Jose Martinez (American football) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Jose Martinez (American football)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played professionally. Tavix |  Talk  18:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE A8UDI 20:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE AND WP:GNG. Reports regarding stats and line-up changes do not fulfill the definition of "significant coverage". Location (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Roddy

Michael Roddy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Michael Roddy" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Previously deleted by PROD. Article fails WP:ATH as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to no sufficient third-party coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 13:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 13:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] George Hickman

George Hickman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "George Hickman" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Subject is non-notable. Sherdog.com, the accepted source for MMA fighter records, shows him as never having fought a professional MMA fight. (The fights listed in the article are belonging to a "Franklin Hickman" and are amateur bouts.) Fails WP:Athlete and general rules regarding notability. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -—TreyGeek (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Subject clearly fails WP:Athlete. In addition, www.sherdog.com and www.mixedmartialarts.com show no fights for "George Hickman". The two fights mentioned in the article were amateur fights and the North Carolina Boxing Authority lists the winner as "Franklin Hickman". Even if George and Franklin are the same person, 2 amateur fights don't make him notable as an MMA fighter and neither does his wrestling record where he was 0-2 in the NCAA tournament (according to the Bloomsburg U. sports information report dated 3/19/09). Papaursa (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as he's never fought, only potential fights were amateur ones which doesn't help him pass WP:ATH.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Emily Lipari

Emily Lipari (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Emily Lipari" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Does not meet notability or wp:athlete. Google does not show significant coverage in reliable sources. Seems to be a local high school star, and coverage is limited to that. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete does not pass WP:ATHLETE. No Olympic or World Championships appearances. No world or national records. Just a very talented runner at the state level. WP:ATHLETE requires more than that. DarkAudit (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thunder Collins

Thunder Collins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Thunder Collins" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Onetime college football player who never made the pros and fails WP:ATHLETE. Only other potential claim to notability is murder conviction in apparent drug-related incident, but that fails under NOTNEWS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 19:14, 14 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) 00:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep He briefly played with the Montreal Alouettes of the CFL--that's enough to pass WP:ATHLETE. Blueboy96 06:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per failing WP:NOTNEWS. I'm not sure he fails WP:ATH however since the source doesn't specify whether or not he actually played (which would be necessary for him to pass WP:ATH). If a source is brought forward that shows he passes WP:ATH, consider my position to be keep.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I found it hard to believe it would even be mentioned that he played for the Alouettes unless he played a down for them--but just in case, I found a source saying he did play for them here. If my French is accurate, it says, "He played one game for the Alouettes in 2003." Blueboy96 21:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Now switching to keep per source brought forward by Blueboy.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Judging the spirit of WP:ATHLETE, I think he fails. He wasn't notable as a football player and he isn't notable as a criminal. (Criminal charges prior to the murder here: [10]). The two together give him a fair amount of uninteresting news coverage. Location (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Authors

[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 [11], 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)

[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)

[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)

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)

[edit] Businesspeople

[edit] Janice Roberts

Janice Roberts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Janice Roberts" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Seems to fail WP:BIO. The original WP:AUTO author had her autobiography speedied several times and she, and her sockpuppets, was eventually blocked (she has since continued editing the article under mutiple IPs). Before this happened, however, her last submission seemed to me to be an acceptable article, but I failed to locate reliable sources for various assertions of notability in the article (perhaps this is a reflection on my google-fu), leaving one which no longer passed WP:BIO. The prod was removed by an IP, presumably Janice, so now I'm here: it's time for this to be expunged. Josh Parris 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not appear to have received any significant independent coverage. ^Bongo_matic 03:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak DeleteKeep (see below) She was a senior VP at 3com, at one point with responsibility for managing the Palm division [12]. She gets quoted variously in the press, as is common for such high level executives [13] (one of many), and was interviewed by CNet back in 1999 [14]. She was at one point managing director of the Mayfield Fund [15], managing about $2.3 billion dollars [16]. I think we can establish her importance, but we are having difficulty finding sufficient sourcing information to do a full-length bio, hence notability is a question. I'm of the feeling that, in this case, the subject is unquestionably prominent and a significant player in Silicon Valley venture capital, and the sources probably do exist that do not turn up easily under a quick google search (I had to do tricks with Google to get articles about her and not other people of the same name, but my contortions could easily have thrown out a lot of good articles along with the bad ones). Ray^Talk 04:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Clarification - The Mayfield Fund is a 15 person company, which uses the term Managing Director differently to the rest of the world, as they have about a dozen of them. I think they mean "person who monitors out investments by being a director on the boards of them". So, Roberts wasn't the Managing Director of a $2.3b organisation. She was responsible for directing and monitoring investments in the companies listed in her article, a job description shared by most of the employees of the Mayfield Fund. That's why Janice Roberts is referred to as a Board of directors director, rather than an executive director or Managing Director. Josh Parris 05:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for that. That does put a fairly different color on it, and my estimate of her significance is dropped quite a bit. I'm changing to a weak delete. Ray^Talk 05:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Amos Goren

Amos Goren (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Amos Goren" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Notability not established Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Can this be CSD'ed? Yossiea ^(talk) 20:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Eastman III

Rob Eastman III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Rob Eastman III" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Not notable. None of the references are reliable sources that support notability. Running for congress in and of itself does not make one notable. No Google hits supporting notability. There is some mionor coverage of his company's products, but that does not translate to this individual being notable. Singularity42 (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. ☭Pickbothmanlol☭ 17:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per failing WP:GNG and possibly WP:BLP at this time. ArcAngel (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Your late. ☭Pickbothmanlol☭ 18:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • What? Joe Chill (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I think he's trying to say he beat you on your comment.  :) ArcAngel (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Adam DeGraide

Adam DeGraide (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Adam DeGraide" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Delete Was deleted on a PROD but restored after an admin was contacted. Article is entirely promotional with no indication as to why this businessman is deserving of an article. Has been interviewed in a number of trade mags but , but again, the articles are promotional and nothing to suggest notability. HighKing (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak KeepVery Weak Keep - The first reference just about meets the following from WP:BIO, as long as you consider the "Orlando Business Journal" to be reliable - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" I know it's weak, but the mention in the Wall Street Journal helps too. Guinness (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, at first I thought there was enough coverage and that it was good quality, but if you take a closer look, I believe you'll notice a pattern or trend - they're all promotional! The Orlando Business Journal is a pretty typical regional business newspaper, but this article is a pretty typical "infomercial" designed to look independent, but is really a promotional piece on a new company. It's really a press release. Definitely not "intellectually independent". It would be one thing if it was "an interview with X" type of article, but it isn't. It's really a plug on his "new business". For example, the article gives gushing quotes from friends and collegues like Dan Beck and Andy Tavel (which a journalist wouldn't print like this) is another giveaway. The "mention" in the WSJ is not about him, but is a quote. Doesn't mean he's notable. --HighKing (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no arguments about how good a case there is for the article, it's thin, it's very thin. Guinness (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Very weak keep I tried to clean it up. It's marginal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 04:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] David Barnard Hale

David Barnard Hale (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "David Barnard Hale" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

speedy tag was removed by an anon. There's a claim of notability ("Investors of the Year") , though not a source for it. I can find nothing significant in G or Gnews for either him or his company. DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I could not find anything for him. I also looked under Lucasfilm (as it says that he worked for them) but I can't find his name linked with them. It claims that he was CEO of Louis Vuitton's eLuxury - yet I can find no mention of this either. I would have thought that someone who "assisted directly in establishing an internet presence for eLuxury" would get a mention, and a CEO at that. I also looked up Sidley Austin Brown & Wood - no mention of him in connection with them. I'm not going to go on - I think it's a hoax, to be honest. "DBH INVESTMENTS" exists - there are 5 hits on Google News Archive - but none of them mention him. The company doesn't seem to have their own website. As for "RWH" - I've no idea who that is - I can't find a suitable organisation that it could be. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. Probable hoax. (BTW, RWH probably = [17].) Location (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. Still no verification found that that RWH awarded anything to anyone! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Able to locate educational background and affiliations with organizations mentioned. However, cannot find RWH award. Not sure it's a hoax, due to ability to find sketch outline of records, but unable to verify notability.

[edit] Mun Charn Wong

Mun Charn Wong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Mun Charn Wong" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Subject of article does not meet WP:NN per WP:BIO or WP:MILMOS#NOTE, most of article is about Wah Kau Kong and belongs on that article page. 3 of five references are regarding Wah Kau Kong and not of the subject of the article, and the other two are obituaries, thus falling under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Publication references is to Wah Kau Kong and belongs on that article page. Book references to Americans first: Chinese Americans and the Second World War by Kevin Scott Wong has 10 mentions of the subject of the article, 5 of which are references, and the other 5 are not in depth regarding the subject of the article. Furthermore in the book Football! Navy! War!: How Military Lend-Lease Players Saved the College Game ... By Wilbur D. Jones there is only 2 references to the subject, one is a reference, the other only mentions the subject in passing. Given that the the two of the three references that are primarily about the subject are obituaries, the subject of the article (even with his honorable service which is commendable) does not meet WP:NN in my humble opinion. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This article is not about Mun Charn Wong at all. DarkAudit (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It was when I last looked at it. His notability lies in being one of 12 legends in Transamerica Insurance; arguably, life insurance sales people are no less notable than any other occupation where national recognition, and there are some who have made a fortune from their commissions. I'll keep an open mind on arguments for and against the article. Mandsford (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is much more about Wah Kau Kong. And basing the notability of Mr. Wong on his success as a life insurance salesman is dubious at best. National recognition by his employer is not the same as national recognition by the media. DarkAudit (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the article is about Mun Charn Wong. I agree the original editor did a poor job of it, but I am attempting to clean it up. Wong was a notable businessman from Hawaii and has been published in the field. His accomplishments have also been recognized by secondary sources, including books and newspaper articles. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This comment is directed towards Mandsford. Since there is not specific notes on notability regarding business people, the subject of the article is subject to meeting Notability via WP:BIO#Basic criteria and WP:ANYBIO. So far there is no mention of the subject being nominated or awarded a "Notable Award". Therefore, the subject wold be notable via being the primary subject of indepth coverage. So far as of this posting, he is the primary subject of three indepth coverage references, two are obituaries and one is noted in my comment below, as it was added after the AFD began. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Viriditas has added the reference "Hawaii agent Transamerica's top insurer.". Pacific Business News 28 (31): B14. 1990-10-15. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-10382238/hawaii-agent-transamerica-top.html. , the first non-obituary reference where the subject of the article is the primary subject. Please make note of this. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Viriditas has added the reference Wong, Randy (2007). "Exploring Initiation Through the 'Other'". Journal for Music-In-Education (New England Conservatory/Music-In-Education National Consortium) 1: 45-52. http://journal.music-in-education.org/pdfs/JMIE_2007_WongExotica_article.pdf. , the subject of the article is mentioned once, and only in passing. Please make note of this. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment To expand upon my initial reason for nominating the article for deletion, in the most recent edit summary the above listed reference was used to show how the subject of the article introduced his grandson to a notable musician. However, knowing a notable person, or being related to a notable person does not make that person notable themselves. See WP:BIO#Invalid criteria and WP:NOTINHERITED. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject meets notability guidelines and is covered by at least a dozen sources. Subject was one of the first Chinese-Americans from Hawaii to serve in the Air Force, and at least two books mention his WWII career including his football skills as a quarterback. He was interviewed by a historian at Williams College for a book published by Harvard University Press, and a military historian for material published by McFarland. Subject received a select, prestigious business award from the Transamerica Corporation which was covered by Pacific Business News and two obituaries, one in the The Honolulu Advertiser and the other in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Subject published an article in the magazine Insurance Sales, appears in at least two video productions (one made for TV), had his work recognized by U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka on the Senate floor, served as the president of various Chinese-American organizations and on the board of notable service organizations, and established a scholarship in Aerospace Studies at the University of Hawaii. More sources can be found offline in local Hawaii-based newspaper indexes and foreign-language sources. Article was previously deleted and restored in deletion review in 2006. Article on Wah Kau Kong was split out of this article several days after DRV, not before. In response to the prod and AfD from an article alert, I have expanded the article from 3,119 bytes to 11,849 bytes and I believe more sources can be found to expand it further. Viriditas (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on atheltic career, subject does not meet notability requirement set forth by WP:ATH. The award which the subject was awarded by their employer is not a "notable award" as per WP:ANYBIO. The associations whom the subject was the President of do not appear to be notable per WP:ORG. After the commendable improvement, the subject is the primary subject of 2 obituaries, one article, and one videorecording by his own organization.

It could be argued that the subject meets notability per the number of references currently provided, in so much that that in being secondary or minor subjects in the present number of referenced sources should meet the second part of the first bullet point of WP:BIO#Basic criteria. It could also be argued due to the number of references the subject meets notability per WP:GNG.

That being said the subject does not appear to meet notability of "Significant coverage" bullet point of WP:GNG, and multiple references of the subject where the subject is not the primary subject of the reference may not garuntee that the subject is notable as stated in WP:BIO#Basic criteria. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you've already said your part several times; Is your argument and rationale for deletion so weak that you cannot allow me to say mine? Viriditas (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As you can clearly see, I am not stopping you from making your opinion known regarding the article. As with other AFDs, other users are allowed to comment on other users rational as to why they believe an article should be deleted, kept, moved, merged, etc. My comments have been only about the article, and have been civil, and are not directed to you the editor, but rather the rational that you are using in your comment.

I have not attacked you as an editor, and I respectfully request that you focus your comments to the rational used in the afd process, as you yourself are permitted to rebut any rationals which you believe are not keeping with the policies and guidelines used to support an action regarding an article.

Please stop directing comments towards me, the user, as I believe that your most recent comment/response is a form of harassment.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing about you in my "keep" vote at all, and there's no reason for you to keep responding to my vote as you've already made your very strong beliefs about this article known several times. The fact is, the man meets the notability requirements as a whole. Nobody claimed he was a professional athlete, the article clearly claims he played football in the Air Force and was an amateur golfer. However, these things have been covered by reliable sources. You seem to be confused by this. As for the business award given by Transamerica, it is a notable business award and was given to less than a dozen people in the entire history of the company and was recognized by at least three newspaper sources. The fact is, Wong has received significant coverage in the references provided, and there are more in Hawaii-based newspaper indexes, and in at least one foreign-language source. Frankly, none of your rationale holds. You claim that this article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but that doesn't make any sense at all, so I can only assume you misunderstand what NOTMEMORIAL means. The fact is, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and the notability criterion has been satisfied. The Wah Kau Kong material was taken out of this article after the last deletion, so that it could be expanded, not so that both articles could be merged, again. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The harassment I am refering to is the statement:

Is your argument and rationale for deletion so weak that you cannot allow me to say mine?

This comment is directed to me the user, and not towards the discussion, and falls under the following:

(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts

As for the award from his employer, the award itself is not notable as it has not meet notability itself, to warrant an article.

As for NOTMEMORIAL, at the beginning, as the article had previously been written, of the deletion process (PROD) the article's references supported that line of opinion, thus why I included it.

As for the number of references in secondary and tertiary reliable sources, I have already commented on those per my comments on the subject's notability per WP:BIO#Basic criteria. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The harassment appears to be coming from you, not me. I have not responded to any of your comments on this page - it is you who keeps responding to me, and no response from you is required. This is commonly referred to as harassing an editor and should stop. I know your position, and I do not need to be repeatedly informed of it. I find your nomination for deletion to be in error, as a misunderstanding of basic policy and guidelines. The fact that an article on the Transamerica Corporation Award does not exist does not imply in any way that the subject is not-notable. It merely hasn't been written. If your nomination criteria has changed, then you should be mature enough to say so. I see no retraction from you above. As for notability, the subject has been recognized for his contributions to society by his community, his workplace, historians and academics, his U.S. Senator, and multiple news outlets. He has appeared in various videos and created a scholarship at the University. His notability as one of the first Chinese-American people from Hawaii to join the Air Force makes his WWII veteran status notable, and his football and golfing has also been recognized. As the primary researcher responsible for bringing the attention of Wah Kau Kong to the public, his work has been credited in reliable sources. He is also a notable life insurance executive who was recognized by the life insurance community as a leader in his field, and this was covered by Pacific Business News, a standard business publication. Additionally, he has published an article about life insurance (which was considered notable enough to be included in a published survey of important marketing literature). He has also appeared in a television production and conference video that is listed in WorldCat. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Businesspeople Proposed deletion

• Jonathan Ball (via WP:PROD on 19 December 2007)

• Andy Allen (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
• David Donaldson and the Faith Based Initiative (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
• Michael Davis (magazine publisher) (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)
• Tony Matthew (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists

[edit] Lists of people

[edit] List of people in Playboy 1990–1999 by birthplace

List of people in Playboy 1990–1999 by birthplace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of people in Playboy 1990–1999 by birthplace" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Firstly, I don't see any refs for the dates. Second, it appears to violate Wikipedia:NOT#STATS. Third, it is already covered in the individual decade and model articles. MBisanz ^talk 07:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete under WP:NOT#STATS. LotLE×talk 09:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Epbr123 (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment For the person who doesn't read Playboy for the articles or for the pictures, I guess. "She's got great tits and... say, what state is she from?" Mandsford (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Politicians

[edit] Scott Kennedy

Scott Kennedy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Scott Kennedy" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

was undelted as a contested prod but this is unsourced and it a bio of a nn unsuccessful politician. Doesn't meet core content requirements, V RS and BIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:1S. Not nominating for speedy only because I took out a second sentence which was an unsourced summary of a couple of political positions. At any rate, even if we sourced that or other content, he's still a NN local politician. Jclemens (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete Weak only because it's not at all fair to judge this by it's current version, which simply says "Scott Kennedy is a former candidate for Mayor of Seattle. He came in 5th out of 11 candidates in the non-partisan primary." (Coincidentally, it was stubified two days before it was nominated). On the other hand, my feeling is that even at its best [18], the subject doesn't meet notability requirements. His claim to fame was having at one time run (so the article says) Axcelis Technologies, which is not a Seattle-based company and is not the company listed as having developed Evolver. Mandsford (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:1S. Crafty (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Sévigny

Bernard Sévigny (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Bernard Sévigny" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Mayors, per se, are not notable. Nothing here indicates otherwise. Student7 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep mayors of large centres (as Sherbrooke is) typically meet the threshold for inclusion, and there is a reference from the Sherbrooke Record that suggests he passes the General Notability Guidelines, as does this extensive google news listing, including this one from the CBC (my French is a little rusty, but I can get the gist article).--kelapstick (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC), also listed at WP:CWNB

• Keep. Nominator should read point #2 of WP:POLITICIAN. Sherbrooke is a significant city in eastern Quebec. That having been said, the article should have more material about him. PKT(alk) 20:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Sherbrooke is a major centre in Quebec, and the mayor of such a major centre is therefore notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• For clarity's sake, while mayors in general aren't considered automatically notable just for being mayors, the precedent set in past AFDs has been that mayors of cities above 100K in population are considered notable enough. While I acknowledge, as this article's creator, that I didn't actually put very much work into this beyond the minimum necessary to establish that basic notability, he's only been in office for a week now — by virtue of his position, he will be getting considerable press coverage in the future, so there will be plenty of opportunity to expand the article. He certainly wouldn't have been notable enough during the election campaign, but now that he has been elected there's no reason not to keep, in my view. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. Mkdw^talk 08:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)