Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment

[edit] Visual arts

[edit] InterAccess

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

Non-notable little Toronto art gallery. Fails WP:N. Article also has no references - thus fail WP:V. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• also, the article has a large amount of spammy material that was added by a user account named "Interaccess". The original article was much more stubby. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 03:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Although the article as it stands is poor and unsourced, this in itself is not a reason for deletion. As an organization, InterAccess is notable, and hardly a "little" art gallery (I don't understand the point of that kind of wording in a deletion nomination). InterAccess is actually a pretty important art centre in the field of electronic art and has been around for 25 years. Google books and google scholar show notability. I'll try to give it some time to properly source this. I've removed some PR language myself in the past and this could use a good thorough editing, but I think notability is easily shown here. freshacconci talktalk 04:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to withdraw my nom if the article's facts can be sourced per WP:RS and notability demonstrated. But I browsed through the Google Scholar results, and most seem either unrelated or only mention InterAccess in passing, as a place where an exhibition was made. Also, it'll be neat to find out in this AfD how many "scholarly articles" are needed to demonstrate notability: J Mann's article in Leonardo might be about Interaccess in more than passing (I haven't checked yet to see if my Uni library even provides access to that journal, it seems minor), but does that count as significant scholarly attention? I'll leave it up to others to decide. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Chamberlain (artist)

Tom Chamberlain (artist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable artist per WP:ARTIST. Drawn Some (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Seems to be a vanity page, no real references despite the list of exhibitions. Delete as not notable.Parkerparked (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity article, highly promotional tone, no actual notability displayed.
• Delete – for lack of notability. Clear vanity page. – Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sander van heukelom

Sander van heukelom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non indication of notability for this artist. TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST; no indication of recognition in reliable, independent sources. WWGB (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Promotional piece; non-notable. Renee (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Highly promotional; fails WP:ARTIST. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Graffiti Blasters

Graffiti Blasters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local program. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - It technically meets the inclusion criteria because the trademark controversy has received coverage, I think the program itself has recieved some as well. While I'm not sure there's enough there to build a decent article, it does meet WP:N, so there is at least some usable information. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep We have Philadelphia Anti-Graffiti Network, so why not Chicago. Alternatively both could be merged with the weak & oddly named Graffiti abatement. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Per above. Seems to meet WP:N. -Thibbs (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• weak delete. Where is the trademark controversy in the article? SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Local government painting over graffiti doesn't look particularly significant. But there are several sources addressing the specific program: [1], [2], [3], [4].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• WEEEAAAK Keep Topicwise, I do not understand why it is encyclopedic at the international level. It seems like a local government program. However, Ethicoaestheticist has convinced me it is WP:N according to our guidelines.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a local govt program, but it's one that's received wider coverage in several contexts. There is critical analysis/more than just passing mention in publications other than local news. And major coverage of one particular event. DMacks (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Woodblock graffiti

Woodblock graffiti (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Do we really need an article on blocks of wood nail on posts? Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Re-merge to Graffiti terminology, as I had done before. I could not locate sufficient reliable source coverage for a standalone article. Jfire (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per above.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Hettwer

Jeff Hettwer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Artist in my opinion is not a notable artist.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: a show at the Walker would make him a notable artist. However, my understanding is that his widow is petitioning to have his work shown at the Walker [5] and that the one-night memorial "show" may have been privately commissioned since it took place in the Walker's "Skyline Room", a room for receptions and functions within the Walker's restaurant facilities [6]. This is quite something else than a curated retrospective, as the article currently implies. The rest of the references do not appear to support notability as an artist either, being mainly focused on his tragic death. Enki H. (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No WP:RS, non-notable. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: The show was held in the Skyline Room due to the fact that it took place less than three weeks after the artists death. There would have been no time to coordinate a larger show in that time frame. The petition that is being circulated is to have the artists work accepted into the museum’s permanent collection, not just shown there. There are over 500 signatures on the Facebook petition, more than 1,000 handwritten signatures and a separate online petition has just been created.

KARE 11 news, the NBC affiliate in Minneapolis has just conducted a day long interview with the artist’s wife in his studio and at their home which was entirely dedicated to the artists work. This segment is expected to air within the next two weeks.

Minneapolis/St Paul Magazine has also been in contact with the artist's widow to conduct an interview for an article that they are preparing on the artists impact on the art community.

The University of Minnesota is setting up a scholarship in the artists name for new students pursuing a career in the arts. The Jeff Hettwer Scholarship is expected to be live on the U of M website by the end of the coming week.

These items have not yet been added to the page as they have not yet been published.MNartist (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, perhaps you should wait until thias is done then to creat this article. As is artist is not notable. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, Numerous media references related to both art and death, major tv network coverage; how notable does one need to be! Also, death and circumstances surrounding it, add to notability in many cases! The amount of petition signatures and hits on memorial website clearly demonstrate "notability"!Beo1231 (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of MNartist; !=vote struck and both accounts blocked. Blueboy96 20:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• • 'COmment'Bold text, Cough sockpuppet, Cough Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment LOL, lots of emotion surrounding the death of such a talented young artist.

In keeping with the terms of use do you feel that the inclusion of the articles mentioned and the Jeff Hettwer scholarship satisfy the standard of notabililty?MNartist (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

no.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete--the only coverage I could find is directly related to the crash and does not discuss the artist as an artist (or substantiate the claim that he was an "accomplished artist"). More's the pity, but WP is not a memorial. If this is to be deleted, then with no prejudice toward recreation--perhaps MNartist is right and more will come out. Delete, no salt. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for now. I can't find evidence that Hettwer meets the criteria at WP:ARTIST, or that he has gotten significant press notice for his art (not for his death). However, there have been occasions when an artist has become more notable after his death; no prejudice against creating an article about him if his art later attracts the attention of art writers, or is significantly exhibited in a way that would demonstrate his lasting importance as an artist. There is no deadline. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest wp:snow closeHell in a Bucket (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind leaving it open for a few more days; maybe some art-savvy user will notice something we missed. I'm always glad to see an article saved from deletion... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OMG the world is going to end, you didn't do what I wanted. LOl Okie dokie by me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell in a Bucket (talk • contribs) 21:21, June 28, 2009

• Comment. The creator of this article has been blocked temporarily, but is still making a good-faith effort to improve the sourcing of this article- reviewing editors might find something of use in the discussion happening on his talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep particularly pending the Walker, an important institution...Modernist (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you consider that this appears not to have been curated by the Walker, but a private function on their premises? Or do you mean by "pending": let's see if the petition to get his work into the Walker is successful? Enki H. (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Response Given the memorial by local sponsors, and the grassroots support, lets see if the Walker collects and/or responds to the petition...Modernist (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Local notability only. Wikipedia is not a memorial. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The memorial show really doesn't impress me as notable. Where were the shows before he died? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gerard Pieter Adolfs

Gerard Pieter Adolfs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No references. All content comes from one source, directly copied. Author owns website.  Cargoking  talk  11:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Permission received for text at OTRS:3209419. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The artist is the subject of a book but as it's written by Adolfs' granddaughter it's not independent of the subject per WP:CREATIVE. A review of the book suggests the artist's work was "generic fluff" [7], which doesn't help.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep While Gbooks gives some false hits (even then other artists being compared to him implies notability), there are also some good sources such as the Dictionary of International Biography. [8] [9] Edward321 (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. It is clear from the review and the Google Books searches linked above that this was a notable artist, if not universally appreciated. I have added a quote from the Jakarta Post review to the article to provide a little balance. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Microwave International New Media Arts Festival

Microwave International New Media Arts Festival (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

spam like article that lacks wide coverage [10] LibStar (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Enki H. (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Seems just about notable, given much coverage will no doubt be in Chinese. Government-supported & relatively well-established for this area, according to the article. More refs needed. Seems no more obscure than hundreds of American or British events that have articles. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Visual arts - Proposed deletions

Please hide this section when it is empty - closed items may be left here or moved to the archive

Lumino Kinetic Art

[edit] Authors

[edit] Hermione Way

Hermione Way (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be notable only by association with famous brother. MBisanz ^talk 23:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gem paul

Gem paul (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Reads like an obituary. Google doesn't turn up anything substantial. Appears to fail WP:BIO. PRODed; PROD stayed up until an IP removed it on 23 June. t'shael^chat 21:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. As a journalist, fails WP:CREATIVE as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. It honestly breaks my heart to learn about a person who dies so young. Nevertheless, the "NOTMEMORIAL" clause applies. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WPISNOTMEMORIAL. Just look at it's discussion page (I'm not an admin, should I be here?) Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 13:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Sure, anyone is welcome to participate in deletion discussions. -t'shael^chat 20:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Amen. Can you imagine the mess if only we admins had to decide on these things? Whoa. Seriously, you are more than welcome to participate. Your opinion is more than appreciated. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Salih (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Mendonca

Dave Mendonca (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Freelance journalist with no apparent sign that he meets WP:N. The claim to fame seems to be that he has interviewed famous people, which is not enough to meet Wikipedia's criteria. Mosmof (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. Unreferenced; Google News, Google Books show no relevant results. — Rankiri (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The notability of the people he interviewed doesn't rub off. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Macklin Finley

Macklin Finley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability guidelines and includes no reliable or verifiable sources. Bmg916^Speak 18:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Christopher

Roy Christopher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self promotional BLP article, wasn't able to verify that any of his publications are notable under WP:BK, nor the assertion that his blog was "widely acclaimed", and in which case he fails WP:BLP1E as his only other claim to notability was serving as an assistant editor for DJ Spooky's book - 2 ... says you, says me 03:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Asrar Ahmad Adraak

Asrar Ahmad Adraak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable autobiography. Prod denied by article's author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, obvious self promotional biography. Google search lands 2 hits, this wiki and his facebook page. Fuzbaby (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete- totally non-notable. misuse of rescue tag here. Hitro 09:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete- non-notable. -Falcon8765 (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Pahari Sahib 08:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Fuzbaby. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Craigh Barboza

Craigh Barboza (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

BLP with no references Jared555 (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete Even what's asserted doesn't make the cut. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. A senior editor of a national publication might indeed meet the notability criteria, if he has been the subject of significant writing in independent sources. But the only sources cited are works edited and/or written by this person, and none that have been written about him and his significance in journalism, so this article doesn't include what it needs to meet the criteria. I wasn't able to find writing about him with my search of google, though I did find some things by him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Self promoting and the article was created by a user with the same name which strongly suggest that it's him and goes against the Wikipedia:Guidelines. Tree Karma (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of authors opposing cults

List of authors opposing cults (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

As we all know lists are evil, and this one exemplifies why. It has no meaningful content. It is a violation of WP:NOR since no criteria exists governing inclusion to the list. What is the working definition of "cult"? What establishes "opposition"? Why "authors"? If someone known for writing cookbooks says in an interview that they are opposed to Raëlism do they go on the list? This page is a WP:COATRACK for "cult" criticism. PelleSmith (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —PelleSmith (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —PelleSmith (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —PelleSmith (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The article is full of philosophical and practical flaws. If someone is opposed to the Unification Church but are themselves a Scientologist, do they count? What if they are opposed to Scientology but don't think it's a cult? For practical purposes almost everyone is opposed to cults - they just differ on what they think is a cult. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete meaningless list, not for an encyclopedia. And indeed, why authors? Fuzbaby (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - utterly pointless and subjective. Does this contribute anything to knowledge? --Kimon^talk 20:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep if we have articles about cults, and rules for using the name, we can have a list of authors of anti-cult works. The present list should be supplemented by saying what particular cult or cults was the concern of each author. . If someone in one cult writes against another the note will explain it, as will the article. I do not understand the nomination: it is not the least obvious to most of us that Lists are evil, . The content is meaningful, being a guide to the list of notable writers on a general set of themes. Obviously the meaning is those writers who have written notable books on this particular subject or otherwise concentrated upon it. The natures of the bios of the authors listed make it clear that for most of them saying this is not the least OR., being in most cases supported either by a direct quote or the title of a book of theirs'. DGG (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• DGG lists are evil because they often require editors to become arbiters of categories which are not at all obvious from the outset. They also rarely give us anything of encyclopedic value (that can't be done better with simple categories when appropriate). This list is not a "List of anti-cult writers" which by what you have written one might confuse it for. It most probably is not such a list in the first place because of the politics involved with using terms like "anti-cult", despite there acceptance in mainstream scholarship. If you identify writers with a known social movement then you can actually verify inclusion through reliable sources, but as it is this list begs for subjective value judgments -- again why most lists are evil. I would also like to add that there are no "rules for using the name" here on the Wiki, if by "name" you mean "cult".PelleSmith (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Most lists, btw, are based on purely factual matters, so your generalization doesn't apply. Since we keep almost all lists brought here, it's hard to say that "lists are evil" represents our policy, the items are justified at the article level. The question is whether this list is too subjective. If the article can source that he is considered an anti-cult writer, that's sufficient.. DGG (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[Remove previous comments] I do believe it is too subjective for reasons already stated. Also I have struck all general comments about lists.PelleSmith (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I responded to Pelle's strikeout by also striking out comments I had made that are now irrelevant. DGG (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This list is clearly a coatrack. Unacceptable. --Junius49 (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —PelleSmith (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly a WP:COATRACK. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Hopelessly biased premise and title. Obvious WP:COAT. Deconstructhis (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jorge Bechara

Jorge Bechara (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears to be an autobiography and the person is not notable. Google news reveals a Brazilian politician with the same name but I can't find anything about this Jorge Bechara. Essentially a CV or resume and therefore should be deleted. Smartse (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm not convinced that it's an autobiography, but either way this article seems to fail WP:BIO. If we can't find significant coverage of the man then the article should go. -- Atama^chat 16:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete If some more substantial coverage can be found then it could be a keeper. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bogumiła Żongołłowicz

Bogumiła Żongołłowicz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

looks like a blatant resume written by someone close to the subject. fails WP:BIO. no third party coverage [11], claims of being an academic...only 1 hit on google scholar [12], many PhD students get more hits than this... LibStar (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Obvious attempt to make this person appear special because they have a Wikipedia page. -Marcusmax(speak) 14:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Marcusmax. Jrcla2 15:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dr.K.N.Ezhuthachan

Dr.K.N.Ezhuthachan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possible joke page, created just as a test, very poor references ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 14:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Questions. 1 - Why is this a joke page?, 2 - Why is this a test?, 3 - Why isn't there an AfD tag on the page? Without answers to these, it's difficult to consider the AfD. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment no AfD template has been placed on the page itself, anyone care to fix this? Cazort (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I see no evidence that this is a joke. Yes, the formatting of the page is sloppy. But a brief search seemed to verify the claims here: this book: [13] calls him a "renowned scholar and poet". This search: [14] shows that, while his work does not seem to be online, it has been cited by others (and such listings are probably very incomplete). And this is only looking at english-language stuff. While it is certainly going to be tricky to locate sources for this one, I would hardly call it a joke--and on the basis of my brief search, I think it is very likely that good print sources exist. Cazort (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• (Recurring Edit conflict)Comment 2. Also the second hit on GSearch shows that a book by this author is held at National Library of Australia, so where the nominator gets ideas about a joke page, I'm really struggling to understand. Debating notability is one thing (and I don't know much about the subject to argue that for now), but putting forth statements like this is absurd. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I request the nom to take a look at the article now. Hope, he will not find it a joke! Salih (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject is a recipient of the Sahitya Akademi Award, per the link that Salih added in and should qualify; also, quite clearly, this is not a joke or a test page, something that should have been found out before the nomination. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note. AfD nomination was incomplete (missing stage 1). This has been rectified. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin. Page has been moved to K.N. Ezhuthachan. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I feel the nominator may have meant "hoax" instead of "joke" in his nomination. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edith Clampton

Edith Clampton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There don't seem to be independent sources confirming the notability of the subject, whether addressed as a person or the letters themselves. Discussion on talk page has been inconclusive. Paul_012 ^(talk) 08:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —Paul_012 ^(talk) 08:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• keep Also nominated as person of the year at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/yourview/1574048/Who-is-your-Person-of-the-Year.html. Also [15] Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The links you provided only show mention in a single Telegraph blog comment and a reader-submitted letter to The Nation, none of which I believe are reliable sources. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 04:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Blog comments and reader letters don't change that. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, I am the author of the article (so feel free to discount my vote) but as the subject matter is of a fictional person I believe this is not the usual situation for notability of people. I think it is more akin to a character in a book series. We have articles or stub articles about characters in books so why should we not have this article about a character that notably kept appearing in a newspaper - so much so that the newspaper itself decided to print a compilation. Witty Lama 04:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Tămaş

Christian Tămaş (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is most likely self-promotional, does not cite any sources, and obsesses over the books that mention Christian Tămaş' name, most of which appears to be the kind where you get featured in exchange for a fee. There is no critical commentary on his contributions to speak of, and a google search comes up with a lot of self-published material and commercial links for his book, but virtually nothing independent on his relative importance or the substance of his scholarship. The only material I was so far able to find outside these mentions is this list, published by Observator Cultural, where a very brief mention is made that one of his books was among several dozens of volumes which received government financing in 2004. The same magazine also once reviewed the first issue of a magazine Tămaş contributed to, and again mentioned his name once. That's about it, therefore failing point 1 of WP:PROF by much, and WP:CREATIVE in its entirety. For all the cruft in the article, the only notable professional association Tămaş is part of is the Writers' Union of Romania - however, it receives anyone who has published a number of books and has filed an application. No awards, no academic position, etc., so there goes the rest of WP:PROF. Oh, and: his works are all published by the same company, Ars Longa - who shares his non-impressive reputation. Dahn (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - this article too is written by Ars Longa. Classic example of self-promotion designed to make one seem notable when substantive evidence of notability is utterly lacking. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. From looking at Google Books and Google Scholar results I can't find anything that seems to provide more than a passing mention of the subject, and Google News finds mostly stuff about a namesake who plays table tennis and a few passing mentions of this article subject. The only thing that I can find that may be helpful is this article, but that doesn't seem to be enough on its own to show notability. My ability to read Romanian is very limited, coming from guesswork based on knowledge of related languages and general linguistic nous gained from having studied linguistics, so maybe Biruitorul (with whom I find myself surprised to be agreeing) could confirm whether that article gives any hint of possible notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Subject does not meet the inclusion requirements at this time. لennavecia 00:10, 3 July 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)