User:Erwin/Scratch1

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

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

Scan for BLP AfDs

Living people

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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.

The result was Keep and merge it is then! Fram (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Earthsong

Earthsong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This webcomic does not appear to meet the notability criteria listed at WP:WEB. Specifically, evidence does not appear to presented within the article that "the content itself has been the subject of 'multiple' non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (emphasis mine). Whether the publishing of this webcomic by Seven Seas Entertainment qualifies it as being "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators" is unclear. Robin S (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the author's article for deletion, because she is not notable except for the webcomic:

Lady Yates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Keep and merge per WP:N and WP:V. Merge the author's article into the publication's article. The webcomic is also a book, published by a mainstream publisher: Seven Seas is an imprint of Macmillan, acquired as part of their expansion into graphic novels as noted in Publisher's Weekly. The book has been reviewed by at least a couple independent sites. The author though is not notable other than for this book and webcomic, therefore the author's article should be merged and redirected to the book's article. For accomplishing the merge, there is very little content in the author's article, it could be placed directly into the book's article as a section, or placed on the talk page of the book's article for editors to integrate whatever of it is not duplicated info. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 15:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and merge per above. JulesH (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and merge per above. Hiding T 09:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 09:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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.

The result was Keep. The rationales provided are not totally robust, but the consensus here is very clear. Anthøny 03:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Ter Horst

Rachel Ter Horst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Pefpw9691 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - 10 playboy covers amount to "coverage" in my opinion. Renata (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. *Very* notable according to WP:PORNBIO, has been featured multiple times in a dozen magazines. I have trouble finding online reliable sources for the appearance claims since those appearances were 10 years ago, but I see no reason to doubt it based on the google hits out there. --Amalthea^Talk 19:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a note though that the term "mainstream" was meant to apply to non-pornographic media. Is Playboy considered a mainstream magazine in the Netherlands? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It is? I hadn't realized that it might mean non-pronograhic media, but in fact I think Playboy is considered a mainstream magazine in most countries. In fact I would imagine that being featured multiple times in notable *any* media estabilshes notability right away, by WP:BIO. In any case, the bit that reads that "I was Playmate Of The Month, Playmate Of The Year and had five front covers on Dutch Playboy. They also voted me Sexiest Girl Of The Century" is only referenced via an offline source, but is in my eyes also enough to establish notability.
      Thanks for the heads-up WRT WP:PORNBIO. --Amalthea^Talk 21:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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.

The result was keep. PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Priscila Sol

Priscila Sol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only claim to notability is being a nominee for 2 awards, but has never actually won anything, doesn't appear to meet notability criteria, for WP:PORNBIO JoshuaD1991 (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. She does meet PORNBIO for her AVN award nominations, as it says "Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award" (emphasis added). Tabercil (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:PORNBIO. Nominations for well-known awards are good enough. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • update: Pricila Sol also won a Venus Award in 2004, another recognized award now added and cited. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per award and nominations. Epbr123 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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.

The result was delete after discounting the various antics of new and anonymous contributors.  Sandstein  19:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Brett Salisbury

Brett Salisbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person is non-notable. The sporting achievements are minor, the modeling claims are questionable, and the opening claim of being a nutritionist is unsubstantiated other than by an, as yet, unpublished book (also subject to an AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Transform_diet). Poltair (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Thank you, Poltair, for regularising this additional nomination. This person is not notable, the sources aren't reliable, his achievements aren't important, and I don't much care how long his commute is. It all just reads like advertising puffery for his book. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • Do NOT Delete The harlon Hill finalist is bigger than any all-american list. There are college athletes that have this title and only this title with wikipeida articles.This list alone qualifies him as the ELITE. Again, the sourced article here will tell you where and how long he played pro football. Male Super Model: ***Comment The harlon Hill finalist alone qualifies him:

1. Harlon Hill Finalist: http://www.harlonhill.com/Archives/candidates_by_team.htm 2. Hall of Fame Collegiate Player: http://www.wsc.edu/athletics/football/archives/passing/ 3. All-American Quarterback, Pro-Football Player with Helsinki Giants, and Prague Panthers: http://www.palomar.edu/athletics/football/history/ 4. IMDB Actor for Promise me this: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2086154/ 5. Filands sexiest male and male super model: http://www.paparazzi.fi/ 6. Google Brett Salisbury at the news tab, go to all dates on left...the articles are endless on this guy! TheWizard49 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment As previously discussed at the Transform Diet nomination: 1) Being a finalist for a comparatively minor college football trophy is not notable. 2) Whose Hall of Fame? If it's just one college, that's not notable. 3) Whose all-American listing? Is that notable? 4) The IMDB entry shows that this film is the only one by its production company, that the director also wrote the screenplay, and that virtually none of the actors even have a photograph online. It looks like a non-notable production. 5) I'm not convinced that's a notable achievement or a reliable source. 6) Oh yeah? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Addendum OK, so I forgot to click 'all dates' in Google. This stuff just appears to be local press coverage of his college career, though. 'Brett Salisbury gets passing grade'? Spare me, please. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My final comment on this matter: Many articles are written in finnish and Czech, You need to verify that. Every tab on the bottom (Mormon Missionaries, Wayne State College, Brigham Young Cougars, Nutritionists etc) qualify him as he was a member of each. This cannot be denied. Whether it's big or small in your eyes, the articles written ALL verify this. Again the All-American list of JC Gridwire is an elite group. The male model articles are again in italian and Finnish. Find a way to translate those and go from there. Take care. I'm done with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I don't speak a word of Finnish, and my Italian is rusty at best. Simplly having his article listed in a series of Wikipedia categories is neither a claim to verifiability, nor notability. Not every Mormon missionary is notable. He's only regarded as a nutritionist (as noted in the nomination) because of his unpublished book. I belong to a couple of dozen Wikipedia categories, but none of that makes me notable. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• No offense Mr.Brit but you havn't quite got the resume as Mr. Salisbury! Don't over due it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe you can dispute the claim or attack the credibility of Brett Salisbury. However, the book the tranform diet needs to be removed. I agree. It's not on shelves. However everything he has done and has been verified is noteworthy. I see he has been on the list for 3 years. The transform diet was recent. Vote to remove transform diet, but leave Brett Salisbury —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin additional deletion discussion regarding this article can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Transform_diet (relocated from the main deletion discussion as being off-topic). -Verdatum (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I did a fairly signifigant cleanup of the article for WP:BLP. I cannot see establishment of notability either as a sports star or as an author, as per WP:BIO. All I see are runner-up standings and minor awards. -Verdatum (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Concerned about the lack of references for his sporting and modeling achievements - many of them do not link to anything relevant (and the readers poll for a local newspaper is not an appropriate reference). Also concerned about the EFAF Cup. I'm not American, or otherwise have much knowledge of American Football, but Wikipedia says EFAF is only the "... second highest level of club competition ...". This seems way down the ladder of notability: America -> Europe -> Europe 2nd league. This guy has obviously done a lot of things in his life, I'm just not sure how notable (aka Wikipedia notability) they are individually. An article should be able to explain to someone like me (i.e. someone with little knowledge of football, which is his main claim to fame) why the guy is notable (and I should be able to verify the claims). At the moment, it does not do this. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Verdatum. Stifle (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per AlexTiefling. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of football also-rans in the U.S. If this person was notable as major contributors to the article claim, there would be sources to back it up. Movingboxes (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting News On Salisbury: According to International Football Scouting Report online by Professional Scout Ken Robinson, he says "Here are the TOP 10 Paid Players of All Time in Europe: #1 Estrus Crayton #2 Xavier Crawford #3 Tony Rice #4 Brett Salisbury #5 Tom Young #6 Ron Lopez #7 Petrus Pankki #8 Sammi Alalammpi #9 Damon Huard #10 Jeff Loot

Please go to: http://www.leaguelineup.com/guestbook.asp?url=ifs-scouting&sid=859417480 Of this list Tony Rice was Heisman Trophy finalist in college, Sammi Alalammpi played for the NFL Europe Barcelona Dragons and was Salisbury's receiver. The article also says Salisbury was First Team all-Europe in 1995 Quarterback and player of the year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• • That link just leads to a forum post from a guy called 'ken', who doesn't sign his posts, and whose email address proclaims that he's a '24/7 sports fan'. No evidence to suggest that the poster is a professional scout; and even if he were, a forum post is not a reliable source. Frankly, American football in Europe is hardly a notable sport at all! AlexTiefling (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The NFL Europe was hardly a notable sport in Europe? Wrong! 7 players per team in Europe each played in the NFL of America. What are you talking about AlexTiefling? The EFAF is an affiliate of that league. YOu need to get your facts straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.244.15 (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not true Alextiefling, Ken Robinson is the IFSB Pro Player Personnel director and is a scout for the CFL Ottawa Renegades. And continues to scout for Pro and other colleges. Again, you don't follow through with all your facts Alex. Go to this page, He is the second person listed with all Ken Robinson's creditals: http://www.indoorfootballscoutingbureau.20m.com/custom.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.244.15 (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Another interesting note on Salisbury: he dated the countries most famous beauty queen, Miss Finland of 1991, Tanja Vienonen, who is now known as Tanja Karpela. Who now seems to be a very prominant politican in Finland. They claim she was our equivalent of Cindy Crawford. Every finnish report confirms this as does the magazine (Seitseman Paiva) http://www.seiska.fi/ In my opinion any guy who would date Cindy Crawford of their country is definately notable. Salisbury Confirms this on his site transformdiet.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You have no source for that. Ms Karpela appears to have been married twice, and to have a fairly well-documented and public love-life. Can you find any coverage at all in a reliable news source or other independent location - preferably in English, French or Swedish, so I can read it? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Incidentally after dating Tanja Karpela. Salisbury was named as Finlands Sexiest Male according to www.seiska.fi/ To put this in perspective. George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp are Americas sexiest males previous winners. Salisbury was the entire country of Finland's in 1996...That is pretty damn notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Seriously - America is not comparable to Finland. To be acclaimed the sexiest man in Finland is not the same magnitude of recognition as to be acclaimed the sexiest man in the USA. (Likewise for 'Tanja Karpela is Finland's Cindy Crawford'.) There are more than twice as many people in Salisbury's home state of Ohio as in the whole of Finland. And the opinion of some website as to who (this week, or month, or whatever) is the Sexiest $Gender in $Location is not in itself notable or reliable. Such sources change their minds at a whim; it's pure promotional puffery. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless of AlexTiefling's opinion, he continues to use "promotional puffery" statement. ALEXTIEFLING IS NOT FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and his opinion continues to bash Americans. He cannot be taken seriously. No body on here can deny the success of salisbury regardless of what country he or she is from or AlexTiefling's future opinions on this subject. He has never had a positive thing to say, check out each of his wiki debates. His opinion holds little value and water and in his latest opinion above only proves the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.244.77 (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Please avoid Arguments to the person (ad hominum arguments). The editor's history and personal details do not appear to relate to the arguments he has made against this article. Thanks. -Verdatum (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP Salisbury, I agree with the user above. I'm not someone who comments on people but after reading this entire log and looking at the person, Brett Salisbury is a notable person. I would also nominate user ALEXTIEFLING to be removed as an editor from this page. He seems that no matter what is proven, it's not good enough. NOMINATE TO REMOVE ALEXTIEFLING FROM THIS WIKI DISCUSSION —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I've travelled extensively in the United States, and no-one who knows me would call me anti-American. But that's not the point. This isn't (or shouldn't be) about my personal attributes. I'm using the expression 'advertising puffery' and its derivatives because I believe it to be a factually accurate characterisation of the claims being made. I don't think that this individual meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, and I don't think your sources are reliable. You can't nominate me for removal from this discussion; if you really think I should be banned from Wikipedia, go right ahead and report me on the Administrators' Noticeboard. I think you might find that course of action counter-productive, though. My argument here remains consistent: Brett Salisbury is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, and here's why:

1. He didn't win the award he was nominated for. The award is notable, but failing to win it isn't.
2. I can't find any confirmation that his 'All-American' status was promoted or endorsed above a regional or even college-specific level - which would seem to be a basic point for its acceptance. In any case, it's argued above by a 'keep' supporter that this is less notable than nomination for the Harlon Hill prize, which as I've argued, isn't itself a notable achievement.
3. His status as 'Finland's sexiest man' is neither verified, nor reliable, nor objective.
4. His relationship with Ms Karpela is not substantiated.
5. Second-division American football in Europe is not a notable sporting activity, at least in my opinion; if my expertise on the US is doubted, at least let me comment on Europe.
6. His book on dietetics is unpublished, and thus ipso facto not (yet) notable. It may very well remain so after publication.
7. This debate (and the related one on the diet he promotes) has been characterised by ad hominem attacks, apparent conflicts of interest, overstated hype, and the appearance of sockpuppetry.

AlexTiefling (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Brett Salisbury, everything is substantiated. I went on to look up Salisbury and since he was a kid winning in the world series until now. I also went on the sites above and was able to google salisbury in the finnish magazine seistamen paiva. There are clearly over 40 articles and sub articles obtainting to this including his relationship with MS. Karpela as she is quoted as saying 'Brett was a great guy and I wish him all the best" Source: www.seiska.fi/

I too nominate to Remove ALEXTIEFLING from Wikipedia. He is a pest and does not help the wikipedia community. Salisbury has done more than half the male models listed in wikipedia. Go verify that. I just did —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Er, how did you verify that?AlexTiefling (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I remind User:168.12.253.66 not to indulge in name-calling? AlexTiefling seems to be being civil in their arguments; there's no call to go making these sort of comments. Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• The argument is not about Salisbury being an Author, ALEXTIEFLING needs to remove that argument. This is about Salisbury being notable. HE IS. It also states in the articles in Europe Salisbury made over $125K per year. THATS NOTABLE AS A PROFESSIONAL ATHLETE. If you can't read finnish, you can't comment on what has been said ALEXTIEFLING, go get a translator!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, if an independent Finnish-speaker is willing to give up some time to this matter, I'd love to hear what these Finnish sites say. However, a search of seiska.fi for the name 'Salisbury' produced no hits. '0', at least, is the same in English and in Finnish. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I just searched Google for '"Brett Salisbury" Tanja'; I got seven hits. All the relevant ones are Wikipedia and its mirrors. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - I don't think that notability has really been established. Also, the article is rife with weasel words (though this in itself is an argument for cleanup rather than deletion) Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP - It looks like it does need a clean up. However Salisbury is notable. ALEXTIEFLING doesn't seem credible. Remove him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.238.173.38 (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • What process for removing me were you intending to apply? AlexTiefling (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment 68.223.102.70 says I'm a big contributor to the Salisbury Family and I'm a close personal and business friend. This looks like a bit of a COI. Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes but that user has not contributed to the past 5 entries! Remove ALEXTIEFLING. Keep Salisbury and his brother they both are celebrities

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.157.110.11 (talk)

• • Has anyone proposed removing Sean Salisbury? As a TV presenter and NFL player, he's clearly notable; I would defend the retention of his article if the question were raised. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You will observe the absence of the page Alex Tiefling (also of ALEXTIEFLING). What do you mean "the past 5 entries"? Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, while I'm at it, should one draw any conclusions from the phenomenon that all the anonymous editors are afflicted with the same curious idiosyncrasy of spelling "ALEXTIEFLING" in upper-case? Pseudomonas_(talk) 19:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

---

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP -I watched Salisbury play against the London Monarchs in the early 90's in England. He was fabulous and MVP of the game. Keep Salisbury, he is more than notable. Remove the hatr ALEXTIEFLING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.157.110.11 (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Is MVP in a single match a claim of notability? Is it a transferable standard? Or is it just more unsourced opinion? Again, what procedure should be followed to remove me? And what is a 'hatr'? AlexTiefling (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

teh hatr. HTH Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• • The sudden onslaught of anonymous IP's voting both to keep and remove "ALEXTIEFLING" always spelled in all caps (removing an editor is not even something that can be done here) and always neglecting to sign their comments strongly suggests either Sockpuppetry or Meatpuppetry. I hope that any all all involved realize that this is a discussion to gauge concensus, not a vote, and that closing administrators are clever enough to notice these sort of patterns and dismiss them when forming conclusions. Those wishing the article be kept would do better to spend their time improving the article or improving their arguments to match policies and guidelines than to spend time attempting an attack on dissenting editors. -Verdatum (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think everyone needs to relax. He is defintely notable. Take into consideration most of the attributes salisbury had were pre-internet days. Therefore many things in English are tough to get, especially if the guy fell out of the spotlight after (it looks) like 1997. Knowing this, one cannot say he is not notable, simply that he HASN'T BEEN notable since 97. But that he did EARN everything up to that point. Call him a one or two hit wonder, but he still made the news in more than one way. For that reason and after everything I have read. KEEP him, but remove Transform Diet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.244.77 (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.wsc.edu/athletics/hall_of_fame/bios/football93.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.244.15 (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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.

The result was delete both.  Sandstein  19:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Pierre Picault

Pierre Picault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Entirely speculative article on an individual who may or may not be a World War I veteran. Sole available sources are a blog entry that cites Wikipedia and Robert Young's World's Oldest People group, which is not only not an acceptable source for Wikipedia, but even itself admits that there is no media coverage of the individual. This person may indeed be one of France's last surviving World War I veterans but, until he gets coverage in third-party, independent, published reliable sources, this is original research. Cheers, CP 20:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Fernand Goux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Nomination extended by Amalthea^Talk 11:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BIO at the moment, per nomination. Even if he is officially one of the last WWI survivors and gets news coverage he might still fail due to WP:ONEEVENT. --Amalthea^Talk 11:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Since Fernand Goux asserts notability in the same way, I extend this nomination by this article. He was mentioned in [1], which is far less than significant coverage. --Amalthea^Talk 11:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Paul, if you want to talk about verifibility, fine, but don't speculate about whether it's a true case or not, since the mantra is "verifibility not truth", and anyway, it's obviously true and not 'entirely' speculative. Amalthea, there are other sources about Fernand Goux. You've had months to add some, but much better to delete someone else's contributions, eh? All the veterans are notable for 1 event so why don't you nominate all of them? It was quite a big event though, you know? 78.145.35.67 (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
  • Comment For Goux, the burden of citations and verifiability ALWAYS lies on the individual who added the material, so please do not be uncivil to another editor as you were above. I noticed that you !voted Keep. On what criteria do you base that on? Cheers, CP 19:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment As I said, I base it on it being perfectly verifiable, but presumably the burden you mention is why so many people prefer to destruct rather than construct. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
  • None of the veterans are notable alone by having fought in WWI, according to the notability criteria. The "one event" I was referring to was them being among the last living WWI veterans, which I am convinced is by itself also not enough to establish notability - WP:ONEVENT. Keeping lists (Surviving veterans of World War I, Last surviving World War I veteran by country) is not covered by this of course.
    That being said, I do expect that a great number of those "last survining veterans" will be otherwise notable due to "significant coverage in reliable sources" - see Frank Buckles and Erich Kästner. I do not see it at the moment with the initially nominated article, and I do not see it with Fernand Goux. All I can find are unreliable sources (blogs, ...) and/or trivial coverage.
    In particular, Bart Versieck aka Extremly Sexy being "told by Laurent Toussaint" does not comply with WP:V I'm afraid, and I still highly doubt that the fact makes him notable in the first place.
    I have no prejudice against recreating these articles once they pass the criteria of course, but at the moment I'm convinced that they don't.
    --Amalthea^Talk 13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Apart from Wikipedia entries, Robert Young's group, and the blog that has been cited in the article, I have not been able to find any source that mentions Picault. A blog is not a reliable source, especially considering it cites its reference to Picault to a Wikipedia article. Considering the flaw with Robert Young's record of this person, as noted by CP, and the fact that the relevant Wikipedia entries do not provide appropriate sources to back up their mention of him, I suspect that the article on Picault could be a hoax. I could be wrong, but the evidence does suggest this. Re-iterating what CP said, 78.145.35.67, you were acting in an uncivil manner towards Amalthea when you said "Amalthea, there are other sources about Fernand Goux. You've had months to add some, but much better to delete someone else's contributions, eh?". That type of behaviour will not do. Plus, .67, you said the "it's obviously true". How is it obviously true? Also, I would like to address "but don't speculate about whether it's a true case or not, since the mantra is "verifibility not truth"." That mantra is true, and the fact that we can't verify that this person exists is the reason why I believe this article should be deleted. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Firstly, I know the mantra is the rules, that's why I repeated it, and I know that's why you want to delete the article. The point which you haven't understood is that if you say "I only care about the rules" and there is nothing in the rules about truth, then why would you discuss whether it is true or a 'hoax'? Because you're trying to have it both ways. And in doing so, you're implying that another editor is a liar (which is more uncivil than my sarcasm). Because Bart Versieck has said that he was told by Laurent Toussaint that this is a true case. And since Mr Toussaint is one of the leading experts I said it was obviously true. But you don't know any of this because you haven't taken a few minutes to look into it. You've just jumped to conclusions like every other Jonny come lately out of the woodwork and insulted other people's efforts and intelligence. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
• Comment Captain celery, a hoax is not allowed under Wikipedia guidelines. Accusing an article of being a hoax can be seen as an uncivil act if there is no evidence to back up that assertion. In this case, the lack of any reliable information regarding the existence of Picault does give some ground, imo, to the idea that the article is a hoax. If I have offended anyone with my suggestion that this article might be a hoax, I would like to apologise for that. I do not wish to start an argument, but I feel I must address the following; I am not happy that I have been accused of having "jumped to conclusions". I have conducted an expected level of research into this case, imo. I am aware of what Laurent Toussaint told Bart Versieck, since I found out about them when I was looking at the talk page of Surviving veterans of World War I, and from the comment I have recently made on the talk page, you can see that I did look at that article before you mentioned these two people. Toussaint may be right about Picault, but until his information is backed up by accessible and reliable sources, the Wikipedia community can't simply take his word, as stated by Wikipedia guidelines. This is not because I believe he is a liar, but because his information needs to be verified, as the mantra you have put forth states.JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I accept that you researched it, and that if you had known who Laurent Toussaint and Bart Versieck are, then you would have come to a different conclusion. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
• Comment I do not mean to sound rude, but it is the verifiability of Laurent Toussaint and Bart Versieck's opinion that counts, as opposed to knowing "who Laurent Toussaint and Bart Versieck are". JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and JEdgarFreeman. If some reliable source/s can be found the article can be easily recovered. For the moment both fail WP:RS and WP:V. Moondyne 02:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sideline text collapsed

Collapsing material not directly to articles nominated for deletion. Cheers, CP 05:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Comment Here's my problem with you folks. Last night someone evidently went on the main article and changed Fernand Goux's name to 'Barthezz' and it took 45 minutes before one of the regulars reverted it. Where were you then? But if I make a change, it's reverted within seconds. So much for being guardians of the rules. Delete Picault's article. Fine. But why delete Goux's when there's a perfectly reasonable source? Only because he's a newly discovered French veteran. What rule is that, the law of the bandwagon? It's so hypocritical. One of the other articles has the same level of citation. You won't delete that, either because it's been on so long, or just because you don't know about it. That's because you know nothing about this article. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery Comment Some edits on Wikipedia are responded to more quickly than others. I believe this is not generally due to prejudice, but because it can take time for an editor to notice an edit that needs to be addressed. I happened to check the article in question soon after you had made the edit I proceeded to reverse. The fact that I reverted your change, 78.145.35.67, within "seconds", was a coincidence as a result. You may not believe me, but it is the truth. The source cited in Goux's article is reliable, imo, but I believe its coverage of him is trivial. According to WP:Notability (people), "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". What I have quoted is a guideline, but I believe trivial coverage in one reliable source is not enough to establish notability for Goux. 78.145.35.67, you said "One of the other articles has the same level of citation". Please could you tell me which article that is? I ask because I would like to investigate it, to see if it deserves to be on Wikipedia. You also said "or just because you don't know about it. That's because you know nothing about this article." I do not see how my knowledge of the article on Goux has anything to do with my knowledge of another article. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Comment Celery, I'm going to warn you again not to be uncivil. It's not tolerated here and, frankly, it's not helping your argument any. If there is another article with the same level of citation, then you should point it out. I will note that I have successfully nominated several poorly-cited veteran articles and also plan to nominate Battista Serioli for a second time in due course. Cheers, CP 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Comment I think it's obvious to anyone that my last comment wasn't the slightest bit uncivil. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery Comment I found it uncivil that you suggested that I "know nothing about this article". I advise you to follow what CP and I have said about being civil. Being uncivil in Wikipedia will not help your cause, and if you are uncivil in the future, you will find yourself in trouble. I hope that you will be civil at all times from now on, and I hope that you will be a valuable Wikipedian into the future. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Comment You implied that we were either incompetent or biased against you ("So much for being guardians of the rules") depending on how one takes that statement, called us hypocrites (actions being "so hypocritical") and told us that we "know nothing about this article". That's a far cry from commenting on the contributions, not the contributors. I think that all three of us have said enough about our opinions on whether or not this page should stay and this long sideline is becoming somewhat irrelevant and disruptive to the deletion debate. Let's take a break from this page, cool down, and let others comment on this deletion. I am going to collapse the part of this discussion that begins after Moondyne's !vote to delete, in hopes that it will end; it is not appropriate on this page.Cheers, CP 05:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. There should have been a separate AFD for it, since unlike the Picault case there is some verifiable information. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that the article on Goux does contain information that can be cited to a reliable source (specifically, the website that is cited on the article). However, I believe the cited website's coverage of him is trivial. According to WP:Notability (people), "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". What I have quoted is a guideline, but I believe trivial coverage in one reliable source is not enough to establish notability for Goux. If more reliable sources can be shown that mention Goux, I will consider advising that the article on Goux is kept. Until that time, I believe Goux's article should be deleted because WP:N has not been met, imo.JEdgarFreeman (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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.

The result was Redirect to AKB48. Kevin (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Tomomi Itano

Tomomi Itano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I doubt simply being a member of a theater troupe is sufficient to establish notability; indeed, there is no significant assertion of notability in the article and it reads more like a fanboy scorecard than an encyclopedia article. — Coren ^(talk) 23:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Actually, it's more of a idol/singer group than a "theater troupe". I just had no time in adding more information to the article by far.. she has appeared, having important roles in dramas and films, commercials and radio programs, in which you may search while I get some time in few hours to add, or simply view the article on ja. What's needed to be notable than having important roles in filmography? (I'll re-edit the "Topics" section if that's what you meant by "reading a fanboy scorecard") --staka (T ・C) 00:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  You might want to check WP:BIO, or WP:BAND which might apply more for notability guidelines. And yes, the "topics" section is what I meant. All that's missing is "Turn on: walks on the beach" for otaku perfection.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 01:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  Okay so I added more filmography and removed topics section. I've checked WP:BIO and it does meet the "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions" criteria. And with WP:BAND, the group has been a topic multiple times in the Japanese media, and has been placed on a major music competition, or rather an major annual music event on television in 2007 (Kōhaku Uta Gassen). She is notable. --staka (T ・C) 03:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to AKB48. As far as I can tell [2] [3] the topic did not have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances". I think one can apply WP:BAND "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band" here. I can't find significant coverage anywhere to make her notable by WP:BIO, but of course I can't speak Japanese.
  I might be wrong though: ja:板野友美 has a section on her TV appearances. I can't judge if those are significant appearances in notable TV performances though. --Amalthea^Talk 11:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect per Amalthea. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Staka. --Bolonium (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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.

The result was Delete & salt. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Piotr Blass

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Piotr Blass
• Articles for deletion/Piotr Blass (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Piotr Blass (Second nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Piotr Blass (third nomination)
• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_24#Piotr_Blass

Piotr Blass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Still doesn't seem to meet notability guideliens. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable failing candidate. He might be notable some day, but not now. Fails WP:N. Undeath (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, this should be the fourth nomination, not the second. Also,this was deleted in the first and second AfD. Undeath (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and salt or leave as stub. In the past this has been a problematic article, the subject has edited the article himself adding lots of positive spin, there is also quite a lot of negative press about him (see deletion log). There are sources aplenty see for example [4]. Mathematically he is borderline notable for his work on Zariski surface, being editor and translator of influential Elements of Algebraic Geometry Five by Alexander Grothendieck, an being involved with an early online mathematics journal Ulam Quarterly. Balancing the negative press and the subjects account would be a tricky task and the only stable state for the article seems to be a stub. --Salix alba (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and salt history is quite clear here. --Buridan (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral for the moment. I am not sure about his notability as a politician (the older version [5] does cite quite a few sources) but academic notability under WP:PROF is passable but weak. It is true that he was the editor-in-chief of Ulam Quaterly, which may indeed have been the first online math journal. However, the journal's existence was fairly brief (1992-96) and it never really managed to get off the ground. Notability from editing Grothendieck's notes is derivative. In terms of his own work, MathSciNet shows 33 papers (the last one in 1996), none are widely cited. WebOfScience shows top citation hits in single digits for his papers. Similarly, little in terms of citability in GoogleScholar[6]. However, his book with Jeffrey Lang on Zariski surfaces is widely held in academic libraries per WorldCat[7]. Still, for a mathematician, I would want to see some more direct evidence in terms of citability. If judged purely as an academic under WP:PROF, I would probably have !voted "weak keep". I am not sure about the political activities and the past problems with this article on WP. Nsk92 (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• question I remember this article from previous AfDs (this is it's fourth). The DR decision to unsalt was based on "Significant new information has come to light since the deletion." but reading this new bio, I see no new information, no claim to notability even (failed candidates for local office fail WP:POLITICIAN, and a weak claim to pass WP:PROF). Does anyone know what this "new information" was? Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it was [8] which was a complete rewrite differening markedly from the deleted version [9] (I've just restored this for comparison). --Salix alba (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC).

• Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The article fails to demonstrate that the subject is notable in any way. Fails WP:BIO, fails WP:PROF, fails WP:POLITICIAN, fails. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• delete I think his political activities fail WP:POLITICIAN (local gadfly of WP:NOT#NEWS variety, no eternal historical impact), and fails WP:PROF (main claim to notability as I see it is via book co-authored Jeffrey Lang, and the most common blurb I see for the book mentions it containing Lang's dissertation work). Given the long history of this article, and the failure of it to show a consistent trend towards accumulating stronger claims to notability, I suggest a re-salting is appropriate. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and salt as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• The version linked to by Salix Alba contains one possibly notable claim: an on-line mathematics magazine (unnamed) from 1987, and a write-in campaign for governor of Florida in a race for which our article lists 147 total write-ins. I don't think that's enough. Weak delete. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Hamilton (academic)

Hugh Hamilton (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable Senior Lecturer in photography. Would appear to both fail WP:PROF as an academic and WP:CREATIVE as a photographer. nancy ^talk 07:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I moved this page from Hugh Hamilton (photographer) as this person was an academic, not a photographer. Article fails both WP:PROF as an academic and WP:CREATIVE as a photographer. Jenafalt (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --NZQRC (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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.

The result was Keep. Keeper ǀ 76 20:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Kiyoshi Kawakubo

Kiyoshi Kawakubo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable voice actor that fails WP:BIO. Almost all roles listed are minor roles, and no sources are given to back up any of these claims, just ELs. The whole thing may just be a copy of the JA article which is also completely unsourced. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I am still working on it.Kitty53 (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you were still working on it, why did you move it from user space to article space? In doing so, you were making a claim that it was ready to be launched and notability was established. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I made a mistake! Okay?!Kitty53 (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I change my vote to Redirect to 81 Produce, then.Kitty53 (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think it fails WP:BIO since it meets the first criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER.--Nohansen (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess that counts.Kitty53 (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Are any of his roles actual notable and do the series those roles qualify as "notable"? And, again, where are the sources to back up all the roles listed? Between ANN and the 81 profile, only part of the roles are covered. The rest have no sources at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• I pretty much think so. You're making me want to change my vote back to Redirect to 81 Produce.Kitty53 (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• I change my vote back to keep.Kitty53 (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There are some parts in the JA article that I try to translate, but it always comes out mistranslated, so if I added it as it came out, it would be all wrong.Kitty53 (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep What, we're deleting totally random articles on real people now? I say keep this since its deletion wouldn't actually contribute anything to the project's credibility, weight issues, manual of style or any of that. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, we delete articles on real people all the time. Not every person in the world is notable for inclusion, and we aren't here to be a replica of IMDB, ANN, or any other voice actor directory listin, which is all this is or is likely to ever be. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep His voice credits are notable. Asher196 (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, given the current state of the article, there is nothing which denotes sufficient notability for retention Annette46 (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable per WP:N and WP:RS. ukexpat (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• I change my vote back to Redirect to 81 Produce. I feel like I have no choice.Kitty53 (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

And thus another potential fine new editor is railroaded by deletionists. Wikipedia will be MUCH better now, I'm sure. Take heart, Kitty53. SOME of us appreciate your dilegence and work. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Voiced one of the main characters (Marco's father) in 3000 Leagues in Search of Mother and one of the two antagonists in Bubblegum Crisis. He is also the voice of Grospoliner.--Nohansen (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are no sources discussing these folks (relating to all the voice actor AfDs at the moment), they shouldn't have articles. It doesn't matter whether (we) anime fans think they are notable or important because of the roles they have played in some series, few of which are even considered that relevant/notable in the English speaking world because outside of Japan, anime is still a niche market. In reality, most don't even get that much coverage in Japan because voice actors are like TV actors in bit roles, with only a few exceptional ones out there who achieve claim and fame enough to be widely covered in various sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BIO is not limited to "the English speaking world". These actors are either notable or they aren't. And, as far as the first criteria for an WP:ENTERTAINER is concerned, they are because the roles they've played are significant.--Nohansen (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep While several listed roles are minor, he has had major roles in major series as mentioned by Nohansen. Edward321 (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The same as Edward321. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Nohansen. I note that WP:ENTERTAINER #1 doesn't require that the roles be covered, only that they be significant within the production and that the production be notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment These AfD's seem to be related as by the same nom about similar actors and created by the same editor - I linked to them at the top for other editor's ease but nom has now deleted them twice so am adding here: Banjeboi 03:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

See also:

• • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ai Nagano
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kokoro Kikuchi
• Keep per Nohansen, Edward321, and others... Ranma9617 (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, « Diligent Terrier [talk] 00:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Because Kitty53 is an honest editor who needs our support and guidance. The article can be improved but does not warrant deletion.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and eventually restore - Let Kitty53 work on it in userspace, Kitty, I suggest you do it here: User:Kitty53/Kiyoshi Kawakubo. Cheers, --LordSunday (₪Scribe₪) (♦) 01:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I'm inclined to say any upper- or mid-level Japanese voice actors are notable, much as US or UK TV actors would be. In Japan, voice actors tend to have a much higher amount of celebrity and recognition than their US counterparts, to the point that there's actually magazines and such (example: Voice Animage) completely devoted to them. So the bulk of sources aren't going to be in english, and probably not something you can grab off the rack at Barnes & Noble, but they do exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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.

The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE (football is not an amateur sport, so that section does not apply). пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Rhys Griffiths

Rhys Griffiths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted by PROD. Footballer fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully professional league/competition. --Jimbo^[online] 12:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete unless the Welsh Premier thing is high enough according to the "experts" it's just another speculative article which fails our policies/guidelines for notability and verifiability (both of which are required for inclusion). Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep — The individual in question clearly exists; nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Kurt and nom. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment/Question The article states that the subject plays for Llanelli A.F.C. which is a club in the Welsh Premier League. Is the Welsh Premier League not a fully professional league? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I think it's a semi-pro league. As far as I'm aware, the only professional clubs in Wales are Cardiff City, Swansea City and Wrexham, all of whom play in the English league system. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 14:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. "The individual in question clearly exists; nothing else matters. Kurt Weber" That has to be one of the most senseless things I have ever heard. Based on that there would be 6 Billion biographies on Wikipedia. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, and? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • And there's no source for most of those 6 billion (actually more like 106 billion) articles. Over 99 percent of them would have no information on the person at all. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as the Welsh Premier League seems to be at the highest level of amateur football. See the article on it. Kurt, your voting "Keep. The individual in question clearly exists; nothing else matters." on every AfD on a person is rather disruptive, and the closing admins probably ignore it. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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.

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Stan burdman

Stan burdman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was deleted as A7 but DRV overturned holding that nobility was asserted. However, notability is not demonstrated, and no independent reliable sources are present so deletion is still appropriate unless they can be found. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable sources can be located and incorporated into the article. I supported overturning the speedy delete when the question went to DRV because process is important, but this is a BLP and no reliable sources are presented in the article at present. DickClarkMises (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, guy with a webpage, a podcast, and some videos on YouTube. No assertion of notability, was a perfectly valid A7 speedy in my opinion. --Stormie (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V Annette46 (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Meets WP:V, but not WP:N. I can't find anything that makes me think he's notable. Hobit (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete zero Google news hits on "Stan Burdman". Fails WP:BIO and WP:V--Rtphokie (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre's law. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, and barely verifiable. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, clear failure of WP:N and more specifically WP:BIO due to lack of reliable sources. The complete lack of reliable-source coverage as far as I can see renders this apparently unsourceable. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete with a clear forecast of snow, as I suspected all along. (Thanks, Stormie, DickCM, and others on both sides of the DRV.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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.

The result was delete. Wizardman 05:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)