Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrene quiamco
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cyrene quiamco[edit]
- Cyrene quiamco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable industrial designer. Declined A7 CSD. References in the article do not reflect reliable sources and I cannot find any to support assertions of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Also the article creator has a Conflict of Interest. Crafty (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for for lack of notability; also, author/subject repeatedly removed speedy-deletion tag after being asked not to do so. --Glenfarclas (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs are not punitive. it is not the author's conduct which is to be examined here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I declined the speedy tag as the A7 criteria didn't seem to apply, but I will agree that this article doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. I can't find any coverage of her outside of blogs and social networking sites. -- Atama頭 00:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which shows us the biggest problem with A7. Anyone can make any random claim and get an article kept here for X days. If the claim to notability isn't sufficient nor reliable enough to keep an article here, it shouldn't count..but I digress..--Crossmr (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting an article kept for 7 days isn't really an achievement. I can think of plenty of A7 declines which have gone on to be rescued (urgh) within the week. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that means the claim was reliable/sufficient. My point was about claims that weren't reliable/sufficient, yet still count as a "claim" and thus are declined. Obviously the claim made in this article isn't sufficient and we're on our way to deleting it.--Crossmr (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case we are still meant to assume that the author simply didn't do a good job of referencing the article in the first place. Wasn't there an experiment only last month which showed that too often articles which are seemingly viable are getting deleted too early in the process? I'm not exactly opposed to having firm notability guidelines, but it's important that we don't articificially raise the barrier to entry by A7ing anything which doesn't spring fully-formed from the head of Zeus. Again, not that it necessarily applies here, but the three-step process exists precisely to give people a reasonable chance to work an article up to clearly notable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- and didn't that experiment drive away several new page patrollers? and no, it didn't really show that at all. it provided zero useful objective data. Not being referenced isn't the same thing as providing something which doesn't stand-up to scrutiny. Which is what is happening here. But if a claim is being made about an individual who is alive today and we can't google up their notability within a very short time, then chances are it should be failing A7 and deleted as such.--Crossmr (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The caveat is that the claim must be a credible one. If a biography for a Chinese architect says "He is renowned for his expertise in the field and famous in Asia", that might be possible. If a biography for a high school student says, "He has been the president of Uruguay since age 10" then that isn't credible (and likely a hoax). -- Atama頭 20:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- and didn't that experiment drive away several new page patrollers? and no, it didn't really show that at all. it provided zero useful objective data. Not being referenced isn't the same thing as providing something which doesn't stand-up to scrutiny. Which is what is happening here. But if a claim is being made about an individual who is alive today and we can't google up their notability within a very short time, then chances are it should be failing A7 and deleted as such.--Crossmr (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case we are still meant to assume that the author simply didn't do a good job of referencing the article in the first place. Wasn't there an experiment only last month which showed that too often articles which are seemingly viable are getting deleted too early in the process? I'm not exactly opposed to having firm notability guidelines, but it's important that we don't articificially raise the barrier to entry by A7ing anything which doesn't spring fully-formed from the head of Zeus. Again, not that it necessarily applies here, but the three-step process exists precisely to give people a reasonable chance to work an article up to clearly notable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that means the claim was reliable/sufficient. My point was about claims that weren't reliable/sufficient, yet still count as a "claim" and thus are declined. Obviously the claim made in this article isn't sufficient and we're on our way to deleting it.--Crossmr (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting an article kept for 7 days isn't really an achievement. I can think of plenty of A7 declines which have gone on to be rescued (urgh) within the week. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which shows us the biggest problem with A7. Anyone can make any random claim and get an article kept here for X days. If the claim to notability isn't sufficient nor reliable enough to keep an article here, it shouldn't count..but I digress..--Crossmr (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This reads like an advertisement and doesn't fit within our notability guidelines. Anyone commenting here should keep an eye on this article, since the user has now attempted to remove the AfD template. AniMate 01:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as self-promotion of a NN person. Toddst1 (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability.--Crossmr (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google searches reveal no Scholar or Books hits, 1 minor News hit, no reliable Search hits. No evidence of notability found. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've said it before, I'll say it again -- please try not to use the phrase "non-notable" in AFDs, especially when living people are involved. "Could not find evidence of notability" is much more accurate. After all, if you looked, you probably couldn't find evidence of notability for me, but I happen to think I'm quite notable, kthxbye :-) Not really directed at you, Steve, just a general rant... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, I don't think I tend to use that phrase much for people - but you are quite right to point it out! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KuyaBriBriTalk 21:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] - 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.