Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,567,053 edits
Line 7: Line 7:
== Artists ==
== Artists ==
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StoneToss}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Rawlings}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Rawlings}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yechiel_(Eli)_Shainblum}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yechiel_(Eli)_Shainblum}}

Revision as of 16:13, 21 March 2024

Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts

Please add MUSIC-related discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music, not here.

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Artists (in the visual arts only). It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Artists|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Artists (in the visual arts only). For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from April 2016) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Artists

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 few Delete views cited NPOV concerns, which the Keep consensus views handily countered as an editorial issue, rather than a reason to delete. Similarly, BLP1E/UNDUE issues can be fixed editorially, as long as the subject is otherwise notable, and unsourced claims or labels can be removed without the need to delete or "TNT" the page, as most pointed out. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

StoneToss


StoneToss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the 3rd deletion nomination for this subject. (Previous discussions: [1], [2]) As observed in WP:BEFORE, the subject status has not changed since the previous 2 deletions - that of a controversial social media artist. As before, the article struggles with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Article is also WP:BLP and does not appear to contain any listed item to satisfy WP:ARTIST. All sourced material to the subject involve activity that occur exclusively on social media.

The article first sentence, short description, and page category refers to the subject as a "neo-nazi" cartoonist. This is despite the claim being disputed by the subject within the sourced materials itself. [3][4] WP:NPOV

Other material for the article include; sources from political outlets [5] [6] including those calling for the subject's deplatforming[7] per WP:RS, sources that include only short or single-sentence blurbs on the subject[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] WP:SIGCOV, and sources listed as dubious by wikipedia [14] [15] WP:RS. One notable source [16] claims that the subject is a neo-nazi, but itself references a single quote by a user banned on the X platform in relation to the subject. In every single case, the referenced material exclusively concerns interactions on social media. As one source [17] states, "this case is remarkable because no-one outside of extremely online spaces cares." Fails WP:ARTIST criterion. GoggleGoose (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that this article's existence hinges on social media interactions is inaccurate, since Stonetoss has a long history of publishing comics that espouse the author's views such as [this anti-Semitic one (Archive link [url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240117231253/https://stonetoss.com/comic/as-above-so-below/]). Publishing content on the internet that is subsequently reblogged on social media sites does not seem sufficient to describe someone as a "social media artist".
As far as notability is concerned, I might have been favour of moving the content to a "far right pipeline" or similar article, even after the doxxing incident, but X/Twitter removing mentions of Stonetoss' identity and suppressing journalist accounts elevates the notability of the original account and will result in increased searches for the author's online name. The figure is notable in far right circles, even though far right views are niche among the general population. TROPtastic (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing content on the internet that is subsequently reblogged on social media sites does not seem sufficient to describe someone as a "social media artist".

When those reblogs are from the creator themself, it most certainly does. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In support of @Brusquedandelion's point, the majority of the article cites a Twitter/X controversy and a single one at that. GoggleGoose (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The first four references (Wired, Boing Boing, Daily Dot, and Mashable) all seem to show significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:RSPS lists Wired as "generally reliable," Boing Boing as "no consensus on the reliability ... some of its articles are written by subject-matter experts ," Daily Dot as "no consensus regarding the general reliability," and Mashable as "non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine." Elspea756 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to 2024 StoneToss controversy or something like that. I don't know whether he can be argued to be notable as a cartoonist, but X's response of aggressively clamping down on efforts to spread the article or even post the subject's name despite it not being per se a TOS violation after StoneToss personally appealed to Musk to do so is definitely getting the kind of coverage to make notability beyond question, especially in light of the apparent double standard regarding deadnaming of trans figures on the platform and Musk's relative inaction in that area. (And if we do do this, we should not publish the subject's name and at least RevDel any previous appearances. I don't care what an execrable human being he probably is, his identity was disclosed without his consent despite his efforts (documented by ACC, no less) to keep it a secret. ACC and all the others spreading it around may have their reasons, and I may agree with them, but Wikipedia does not have to, and should not be, part of this). We can only if he decides to confirm all this and discuss it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose split the article into two. The 'incident' and the 'webcomic' trainrobber >be me 20:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The “incident” would not pass WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're likely only notable now because of the "incident". I didn't see notability last time about just the webcomic. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, there's no need for a split. When people are searching for information about this they'll be searching for StoneToss alone. TarnishedPathtalk 05:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - In agreement with replies from @PARAKANYAA, the failure of the subject's notability in the two prior deletion discussions isn't helped with the singular Twitter/X event GoggleGoose (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Elspea, coverage by RSes has changed since the last nom. 3df (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of these sources show any more notability than the past discussion. They’re all in the context of one event (WP:BLP1E), him getting doxed, and none of the reliable sources analyze his works. The new sources in existence do not actually discuss what would, hypothetically, be notable about him - the content of his comics. He got doxed, and then people got banned for reporting on it. Add that to the article about controversies relating to Twitter that I’m sure we have. Why would we have an article on an artist, especially a political one, when their works are barely discussed in the sources we have on them? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If their works are barely discussed in the sources we have on them, how are we able to have the content found in Special:Permalink/1214892159#Content and reception? —Alalch E. 22:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources in this section,
ADL - passing mention
GNET report - passing mention
GNET - mentions him exclusively in the context of a Reddit conflict with little analysis of what he actually says besides racist
the daily dot - listed as no consensus on reliability; IMO they are not good for notability when it comes to the internet because they have a penchant for covering random internet drama that no other outlet cares about
ECPS - this one is good
CEP - this is an opinion blog PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's a fair analysis, but but this is also SIGCOV: Marlin-Bennett, Renée; Jackson, Susan T (February 9, 2022). "DIY Cruelty: The Global Political Micro-Practices of Hateful Memes". Global Studies Quarterly. 2 (2). doi:10.1093/isagsq/ksac002. ISSN 2634-3797. Archived from the original on March 21, 2024. Retrieved March 17, 2024. (94 words, goes into intricate detail, discusses the webcomic's impact on certain online communities) —Alalch E. 01:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note to PARAKANYAA and others that it's not necessary that they be notable for "the content of his comics." They can be the author of the least notable comic book on the planet and still be notable for some other reason. Elspea756 (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing WP:SIGCOV in the article you linked. A mere three sentences are referring to webcomic out of the whole article, the opposite of "intricate detail". Indeed, the same source was referenced as an example of lack of WP:SIGCOV in prior deletion discussions. GoggleGoose (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, that's also SIGCOV, and whoever thought it wasn't was just wrong. —Alalch E. 23:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's worth noting that the page [20] of the individual named in connection with the article has already been deleted per WP:G10, gross abuse of WP:BLP. As noted in the previous two successful deletion nominations, the subject and its controversy tends to suffer from WP:NPOV and might be the subject to WP:BATTLE. Some users claim no issue with WP:GNG, but as per Wikipedia:Notability (people), which covers biographies of living persons, the relevant criteria is WP:ARTIST and remains unsatisfied. (WP:GNG specifically links to Wikipedia:Notability (people) in that case). Most of the cited coverage is complaining about the content and not much else. A chartable interpretation might be that the subject is WP:BLP1E for being recently doxed, but the consensus of the prior two deletion discussions is that, on its own, the subject's status is just a controversial twitter user.
MiniMayor98 (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNG do not override WP:GNG, and subject-specific notability guidelines are not requirements if the general one is satisfied. Very explictly, Wikipedia:Notability (people) links to GNG and restates it, saying People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below., and later A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. (emphasis not mine) Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you name which Wikipedia policy says calling a spade a spade is somehow not neutral? If reliable sources are calling Stonetoss a Nazi, I fail to see how that is an NPOV violation. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: encyclopedically relevant topic with sufficient sourcing already in the article to meet WP:GNG. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More than enough ongoing WP:RS-based coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Multiple reliable sources cover the comic and person behind it, and deletion is not clean up. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 19:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Almost all the article content is about the author's doxxing, and almost all the rest is about alt-right meme culture and Twitter drama generally, of which StoneToss is a small part. On its own, not sufficiently notable as either a cultural force or a webcomic. Candent shlimazel (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the subject is such a small part of it, why is there significant coverage of the webcomic? —Alalch E. 22:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At present the total article size is 17,220 bytes in size and the section regarding the alleged revelation of their identity is 7,019 bytes in size. Therefore your statement that "[a]lmost all the article content is about the author's doxxing" is plainly incorrect. TarnishedPathtalk 01:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we want text size alone (no references, templates, etc., just the amount of text content that shows up), that's 4934 bytes and 1889 bytes respectively, so still very far from "almost all". Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 01:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, not even a good argument for deletion regardless of whether it was even close. TarnishedPathtalk 02:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're measuring the text in words and not bytes, like humans who read Wikipedia, doxxing content is 365/779 words, or 46.9%. Not half, but close. Getting doxxed and clowned on by reddit and being a small and relatively uninfluential part of a broad phenomenon – there: that's the whole article – does not make a subject notable. Candent shlimazel (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with @Candent shlimazel, as noted in the nom the previous 2 deletion requests could not find notability for an article, and the only update since was a twitter controversy. GoggleGoose (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't quite come to an opinion on deletion or not but Stonetoss is not just "a small part" of alt-right meme culture, he's almost certainly the best known alt-right comic creator nowadays. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sufficient coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG, as noted above. Isi96 (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are plenty of good sources here. The naming controversy is the largest single aspect getting coverage but this is far from being BLP1E. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just to add that I also oppose any split or rename. There is no distinct second topic here. The comic, its author and his controversies are all aspects of a single topic which is called "StoneToss" and which is the subject of this article. DanielRigal (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not seeing any particular evidence to challenge the notability of the subject. Dympies (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are enough independent, reliable sources. Their coverage of him as a topic is holistic (the comics, ideology, online influence, previous comics, identity), not in saccade or in relation only to one specific event (re: BLP1E or sporadic coverage concerns). The RS concerns are misstated ("political outlets" is not a reliability categorisation), and so are the BLP concerns (subject denials of labels like "neo-nazi" are not given consideration when deciding neutrality). More subjectively and less policy-based: his cultural "influence" is sustained (duration) and wide enough (leftist attempts to reclaim, and use by Stonetoss of numerous "gateway/radicalization pipeline" memes, like the Bitcoin one, that look innocuous and get widely shared by normies) that having an article seems appropriate. DFlhb (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Well said. In fact, with reference to the reliability of "political outlets" I would generally treat the SPLC, for example, as more reliable and a greater indicator of notability than general media when addressing notable far-right figures. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Statements in your comment are simply incorrect. You state, "subject denials of labels like "neo-nazi" are not given consideration when deciding neutrality" is false. Such a denial, particularly when they appear in secondary sources as noted in the nom, are permissible per WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS. This is in addition to the fact that "nazi" is considered a "word to watch" per MOS:LABEL (the WP:BLP concern you glossed over).
    The WP:RS issue also goes beyond simply "misstated" political outlets (neither source was rated by WP:RSP, by the way) . While biased sources are permitted with caution per WP:PARTISAN, they are just one of the issues listed by the nom. It also includes sources that were deemed insufficiently WP:RS in the prior 2 deletion discussions. Again, as now and in the prior deletions, coverage of the subject focuses on drama occurring on social media. GoggleGoose (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoggleGoose, not being rated on WP:RSP is not a statement against a source. To imply that it is displays a fundamental lack of understanding with how WP:RSP and WP:RS/N operate. TarnishedPathtalk 08:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mention it as a statement against a source. I mentioned it to clarify I wasn't doubting a source that might already exist on WP:RSP. GoggleGoose (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DFlhb. A normal topic of encyclopedic interest that obviously can be suitably covered.—Alalch E. 14:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's it? At WP:ANI you had written (diff): Update: I edited the draft, moved it to mainspace based on my editorial judgement, as I found various existing sources, and new significant coverage did materialize in the last few days, then another camel-case-username account appeared from a user who had emailed WMF claiming libel and tagged for G10, Keegan took the tag down, then that user tried to enforce removal leading to 3RRN, leading to a 24h block, but this was then also followed by a CU block. In the meantime, various editors in good standing have seen the article and apparently found no fault with it, and several have edited it. —Alalch E. 11:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) You don't find that pertinent? What happened with the WP:AFC? I read your spartan keep support here, and regardless of the way notability is trending here, I find it lacking. Yes, you have the WP:NPR user right, but from my deletion to your next-day recreation, the timeline seems a bit murky. It'd likely gone unnoticed by me had this not been brought to my attention by another admin, Liz (diff). So you need to be more upfront with how you operate when it comes to un/deletion of pages involving living persons, Alalch E. El_C 16:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At some point after making the ANI report I became interested in this topic. When I made the ANI report, I wanted to put a stop to a misuse of Wikipedia. The topic did not seem notable, I found out that there had been AfDs, and thought that we are probably not going to have this article in the foreseeable future. Then, I became interested in the topic simply from being introduced to it. My work on this preexisting draft and the decision to explore developing it into an article is essentially detached from what I saw when I encountered the made-to-troll version of this page which you deleted. And as I was working on the draft, new sources were emerging. Which is completely incidental. I did not predict this medium-size public controversy happening, especially since I am allergic to Twitter and do not follow what is going on there. I started out by adding references to preexisting sources, that already existed at the time of the last AfD, but were either not found or were not assessed properly then. I actually think that the notability of this topic rests on those sources primarily. Ultimately, the content of the page when it was moved to mainspace was completely different from any previous content that was deleted, which I determined by viewing an archived version of a deleted page under this name. Therefore, completely irrespectively of my being a new page patroller, I moved the article as an editorial decision, to enrich the encyclopedia with a new article. I could have marked the article as reviewed as a patroller because I had not created it, but consciously I did not. I anticipated an AfD and AfDs are fine. An AfD is nothing to shy from. My contributions to this article have been very stable and no serious content disputes have emerged since. My approach to this topic has been studious and responsible. And I have a certain view about AfC which I believe to be the only correct view: AfC is optional (the entire draft apparatus is optional—WP:DRAFT: ... creating a Draft version first is optional) and isn't designed to be something else + editors don't need permission to create content, and the only exception to that is when they are technically prevented from doing so through salting and title blacklisting. —Alalch E. 17:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon deletion, I pointed to WP:AFC approval, specifically so that there is a record of such a review—a summary—on a page involving a living person that was twice deleted in procedures such as this (diff). But you have ignored and circumvented that, making that timeline challenging to parse. Do I need to log this caution at WP:AEL to get that point across? I didn't think I needed to, but your response above gives me pause. El_C 17:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have replied on my talk page. —Alalch E. 18:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nom has set out in detail the problems with the sources and just been completely ignored. Where is the significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources? Where are the sources covering this prior to the Twitter/X controversy and attempts to reveal the identity of the creator? How can we create an encyclopedic article solely based on media reporting of social media bickering? AusLondonder (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The complaints of the nom have been responded to in this discussion, and they are mostly frivolous and obviously stand in contrast to the state that the article is in. For example, you say Where are the sources covering this prior to the Twitter/X controversy and attempts to reveal the identity of the creator but this is simply ridiculous and not worth responding to. —Alalch E. 20:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly the nom overstates any issues by trying to muddy the waters on sources for which there is no consensus by claiming that they are "listed as dubious" This is simply incorrect and a misrepresentation of how WP:RSP and WP:RS/N works. A classification of "dubious" is not something that happens at WP:RSP. When RfCs are being run at WP:RS/N on the reliability of sources, "dubious" is not one of the options that is voted for or can be arrived at when a closer determines consensus.
    Secondly even if we only want to rely on sources for which there is no questions about them being WP:GREL, a reference from NBC has been added since the start of this AfD. Therefore there are two in-depth, reliable sources (NBC and Wired). Thus we have "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources".
    Thirdly the references used in the article don't just cover the social media spat, the fact that notability has become more apparent as a result of what occurred is not an argument for deletion. TarnishedPathtalk 11:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support perspective of @AusLondonder. This article, and the sources that are cited for it have sprung up in connection to a very recent doxing of the subject on twitter. As per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article". This is on top of the fact that the article subject was already deleted after 2 previous deletion discussions for notability issues.
    One user claims the nom is "overstated" for using the phrasing "dubious" when describing some of the citations, however it is perfectly appropriate. While WP:RSP uses the phrase "no consensus on the reliability" for the sources, describing it as "dubious" does not mean "false" or "incorrect". Again, the reliability of some of those same sources were cited as reasoning for the success of previous 2 page deletions. GoggleGoose (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop bludgeoning the conversation. That's the third !vote you add here, which is frankly inappropriate and gives the appearance that more people are supporting your side than there actually are. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable sources can talk about anything. They can talk about sports, which is completely trivial. Not only can we discuss these topics, we must. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and oppose split: meets GNG. (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DFlhb rationale. Issues with RS and POV should be dealt with on talk page, not as part of a deletion process. GNG per SIGCOV from Wired and NBC. Mashable should also be acknowledged as SIGCOV, as there is consensus that the latter's non-sponsored content is "generally fine" within their remit of tech news, which this is. Given previous coverage, can't be considered for BLP1E anymore.
CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject of the article meets WP:GNG. The fact that there may be bias in the article doesn't mean that the article should be deleted - the bias or any wrong facts on the article have to be fixed. Coverage from the Evening Standard, Wired, and MSN is more than enough to establish his notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutrality concerns are irrelevant to discussion of deletion. Subject approaches WP:1E, but technically passes it with acceptable sources that predate the event in question. Rᴇɪʟ (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but possibly Draftify. I think the other keep !voters have already given good rationales and I mostly agree with them, so there's not much need to add my voice to that. Frankly, I was kind of surprised to see this article nominated for deletion in the first place. That said, I agree that the article is a mess, particularly given the potential BLP concerns, so if it's going to be kept, it definitely needs a lot of cleanup (up to and including the WP:TNT approach). I'm opposed to outright deletion, but I'd be on board with draftifying it. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Something not yet observed in this deletion discussion is an admin admonishing an editor for a deceptive edit that circumvented WP:AFC for this page, which had multiple successful deletion discussions - (diff) and again (diff). I have enumerated this and other problems in the Talk Page (also diff for reference).
To reiterate the other issues briefly, they are: reverting good faith edits attempting to prevent MOS:LABEL abuse of WP:BLP; eliminating the subject's url for WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons; and recent news attention drawing users in for a WP:BATTLE that resulted in a WP:G10 deletion of another page and attempts to hide the deletion discussion template on the mainspace, among others.
Minus the edit that was caught by an admin, all of the other issues occurred after the page was already WP:XC protected. This is a WP:NPOV mess. MiniMayor98 (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not presented any arguments for deletion. TarnishedPathtalk 23:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have and I previously voted for Delete in the discussion above. To clarify, the page suffers from poor WP:NPOV and interference from WP:BATTLE. As another editor suggested, it might be worthy of WP:TNT. This was also the process by which the 1st deletion discussion ended. MiniMayor98 (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LASTTIME.
Also, remember to read my comment below (23:43, 26 March 2024) and apologize to me when you can (for saying "deceptive edit"; note that that's your interpretation and the administrator did not say "deceptive"). —Alalch E. 08:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was observed, I saw it and responded to it. If you mean "not yet observed" as in editors not yet !voting "delete" based on what is written in that thread, that is something that did not happen because it is not a reason to delete an article, and editors know it. It could happen, as all kinds of comments are possible, and there could indeed be recommendations that the article be deleted because an editor (me) moved this page while it was a draft to article space without submitting through AfC when an administrator pointed to WP:AFC approval. However, these !votes would be discountable as failing to point to a reason to delete a page under Wikipedia's deletion policy, and the consensus to delete could not form around such comments.
You see, when closing deletion discussions, the community's consensus is judged after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue, etc. Were a closing administrator to make such a mistake to delete this page as a page not created through AfC when AfC was indicated because they thought that that was the consensus, that administrator's judgement would be very seriously questioned, and the deletion would be undone via Deletion review. This is not to say that I acted correctly not to use AfC. But the remedy is not deleting the article. It's not about the article as an article, it's about creating an easily attestable proof of good, ordinary, Wikipedia volunteer work. My work was and is good and ordinary, but when I was asked to provide assistance in creating this record, this easily attestable proof (in the form of an AfC pass, and I assure you of this: as I am a reviewer of AfC submissions and am familiar with the process and the requirements, I could hardly face any difficulties in having something I wrote accepted; so it's a formality)—to avoid possible confusion, such as the confusion that can be seen in your comment—I failed to deliver assistance. Not because I did not want to help (I very much want to help and am highly sympathetic to administrators' efforts), but I did not understand what was needed at the moment. The remedy was to warn me, see if I understand the warning and if I am willing to make the needed commitment, which I responded to by making the commitment to follow the guidance given.
Irrespective of this, as none of the above has any bearing on there being or not content issues: There are no content issues. This is a wonderful article, a wonderful educational material that will serve humanity, and a splendid source of free knowledge for generations to come. —Alalch E. 23:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To me, the subject is notable. A source stating that "no-one outside of extremely online spaces cares" has no bearing on Wikipedia policy. We're not here as activists or to virtue signal, we have to take a level-headed look at the issue of notability.
There is now more significant coverage than when the previous AfDs were opened. This Daily Dot article [[21]] covers the subject as a person, for example. But many sources refer to him only in the context of the doxing incident, so we have to be wary of WP:BLP1E. I would not oppose renaming the article to focus on this incident.
That said, I believe there is often a shortfall in Wikipedia when primarily internet-famous figures are concerned: our reliance on more "traditional" forms of media here makes very influential people under-represented in sources, despite the internet being very relevant in contemporary discourse. StoneToss has been relevant even outside the far-right bubble for a while now, he just has little coverage in the traditional media we require to have covered him. So, in principle, I am in favor of keeping the article name as it is.
I suggest using the KnowYourMeme entry ([[22]]) as a source if it can be considered an appropriate one. It lays out facts about the subject in a concise way according to data found through research. As per WP: BOLD I have added it to the page and made other changes defended here, but feel free to revert if needed.
As per WP:BLP policy, I strongly agree that this article should be overhauled to meet WP:NPOV although balanced with the info our WP:RS attest, including referring to him using various derogatory labels. Although I believe including "neo-Nazi" in the lead of the article citing a news article from Wired is a bit much. CVDX (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also WP:WAPO describing him as such, but I do see your point none the less. For such a contentious MOS:LABEL I'm not convinced two reliable sources are enough as per best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources. This also comes under MOS:OPENPARABIO and doesn't necessarily reflect the balance of reliable sources, even if helps to establish notability. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, for the time being I have removed the "neo-Nazi" label. Later we can look more closely at the sources, when the WP:BATTLE ends. CVDX (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Call me up when it ends so I can join you. Having me on the team is an absolute asset when it comes to checking sources. First dibs on calling what we will look at first: The first source that we will look more closely at will be the reference to WP:KNOWYOURMEME, a WP:UGC website which you added in Special:Diff/1215875130, by consensus listed as a generally unreliable source, meaning: questionable in most cases. ... should never be used for information about a living person. —Alalch E. 23:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The KnowYourMeme source should definitely be discussed, but I genuinely don't think the AfD is the best place to talk about this. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 00:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the imaginary and imputed battle is certainly expected to continue for some time after the AfD has been closed. —Alalch E. 00:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the good moment for a reminder to WP:AGF. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 00:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I would definitely support that we should all assume good faith I also think the claims that the page is a battleground seem over-salted somewhat. It's a fraught and contentious issue, yes, but I do think the recent multiple RFCs on the page have demonstrated that everybody there, aside from a few WP:NOTHERE trolls who have effectively been removed, is perfectly willing to collaborate. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby, I'm not sure what there is to discuss? WP:KNOWYOURMEME is WP:GUNREL per consensus at WP:RS/N and therefor it doesn't belong in a BLP under any circumstances and that's the end of the analysis. Is there something I'm missing? TarnishedPathtalk 05:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree with you, I was just thinking that it could be discussed in case some people would disagree with the removal. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that's already been conveyed to them? TarnishedPathtalk 21:41, 28 March 2024 (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.
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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Rawlings

Angela Rawlings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. None of the sources in the article are independent of the subject, or SIGCOV for that matter, and I was unable to find any SIGCOV during a search. The best that I could find was an interview from 2018 that didn't contain any independent prose from the author, who also states that she has collaborated with the subject in the past. Alvaldi (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have added some more reviews of the Wide slumber for lepidopterists. Perhaps too many. But these seem to me to help establish notability (subject of multiple independent reviews). (Msrasnw (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2024 (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.
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. Owen× ☎ 19:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yechiel (Eli) Shainblum

Yechiel (Eli) Shainblum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell, this is just some guy that somebody knew in their community. Absolutely does not pass WP:CREATIVE. A lot of the language is biased and speaks on a personal level about Shainblum rather than an overview of any specific accomplishments. A lot of this article talks about art, and yet he's never sold a painting, been in a gallery, nothing. The teaching piece isn't notable either.OsmiumGuard (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article itself basically says he wasn't notable. It is likely that Shainblum would be better known nationally and internationally if his work had been more widely seen during his lifetime. It seems he wasn't even locally well-known, I can't find any references to him outside of some suspect blogs. grungaloo (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•Comment It's worth noting that there's a similar page for one Mark Shainblum that was initially created and maintained by the same exact account. OsmiumGuard (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding any RS for the biographical information presented in this article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sentences like "His family reports that Shainblum derived great joy from teaching, and he put much more emphasis on pedagogy and his students than he did on promoting his artistic career" make this read like a tribute written by a family member or a former student. It sounds like they were well-loved by students and family, but there are not sources to show they meet the WP:CREATIVE guidelines for encyclopedia articles, like having "been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" or "won significant critical attention." Elspea756 (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2024 (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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alvino Kusumabrata

Alvino Kusumabrata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Generally lack of notability and fails criteria set on WP:JOURNALIST. Also, the article created by sock known for making non-notable BPL. Proposed for PROD earlier but blocked by IP editor (possibly sock) Ckfasdf (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 20 March 2024 (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.
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Carr

Diane Carr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an artist, not properly referenced as passing WP:NARTIST. The main notability claim here is that she and her work exist, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of sufficient third-party coverage about her and her work to clear WP:GNG -- but three of the four footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the fourth is a single deadlinked newspaper article of purely local interest in the local newspaper of the city where she was living at the time, which is not enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only reliable source in the mix.
Additionally, this has recently undergone several days of vandalism by an anonymous IP who persistently blanked large portions of it, generally with claims that the stuff they were removing was "incorrect", but the quality of the referencing is so poor that I can't even sort out what's correct or not in the first place — none of the sourcing confirms any of the disputed facts, but none of it contradicts them either — and the IP may possibly have a conflict of interest to boot.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on her sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Meets the very minimum for WP:ARTIST. Work is in the Detroit Institute of Arts and she was selected for an installation in the NYC subway. Research was a little confusing. There are two artists named Diane Carr. This one was born in Pittsburgh in 1946 (don't know HOW 1976 got in the article as birth year). This [Carr] is a Michigander. A sculptor and collector, but isn't notable (by our standards). I removed the incorrect categories on the article and condensed the text, especially where it looked like the two artists' biographies were conflated. Welcime a second pair of eyes to check that I haven't still got info on both. Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2024 (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.
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 no consensus‎. Rather than a third relist, I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Ruddock

Cheryl Ruddock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WP:BEFORE does not call up any RS for this artist. I am not finding any sources for claims of being in collections. The article, as currently written, has 4 dead links. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST, dead links not necessarily a problem, but all refs seem to be local news/gallery. No evidence of widespread/national level exhibition or recognition. Hemmers (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:BASIC, if not the artist-specific criteria. Have added multiple sources to the article, including this review in a local Ontario newspaper. Her reputation really is as one of the top artists from Guelph, but at least her work is also acknowledged in publications in other parts of Ontario. If this article is not kept, I would suggest a merge and redirect with her husband Nicholas Ruddock's bio, even though their careers are in completely different spheres of work; they have been married for nearly 50 years and there is a lot of coverage about that as well since he likes to talk about it. (It would seem like a more natural fit to combine their bios, if they were both artists or both novelists. For this reason as well, I think it makes more sense to keep her article separate.) Regarding the collections holding her work, there is plenty of secondary coverage accessible via ProQuest that verifies this one by one; it would just take some time to add it back to the article. I came across many snippets of critics assessing/commenting on her work as well in newspapers from the mid-1980s through to her more recent exhibitions, which could be added to the section on "Reception". Cielquiparle (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful at this point to get some feedback about article improvements that have been made since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Sources are too local, I don't think she's at notability for artists. She doesn't seem to have gathered much attention from the national press in Canada. Guelph is a lower mid sized city in Ontario, so she has some local notability, but it's not Ottawa or Toronto. I don't see her works having been displayed at the Art Gallery of Ontario in Toronto, the McMaster in Hamilton or any of the national Galleries in Ottawa. I suspect she might not be notable (for our purposes) until after she passes away and the wider art community takes notice. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: She's in the permanent collection of the Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery [23], a regional museum. Does that add to notability? I'm somewhat out of my wheelhouse on this one. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that meets presumed criteria under WP:NARTIST. Criterion 4d would suggest it is necessary to be part of the permanent collection of several notable galleries. Is Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery notable? It has no page and is regional, but even if we grant that it is, this is just one collection. We need several. I think we should be looking at BASIC and ANYBIO. Cielquiparle asserts they meet BASIC, citing one review. The review is occasioned by an exhibition at Glenhyrst Art Gallery. I do not see how that rises above a primary source, tbh. She is an artist, she has an exhibition, and someone writes about the exhibition - which is reporting. Any artist with an exhibition will get that much.
    Put another way, if all we had was that article, what could we really say about the artist? What is an article built on?
    I haven't entered a !vote here because I have not satisfied myself that no secondary sources can be found, but I don't see any that have been presented to date. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A review is not a primary source. A gallery announcing an exhibit is a primary source, but a review is secondary by definition, if it is in fact independent. Anyway there are more sources in the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The art is the primary source and the review of the art is indeed secondary by definition. But as with all sources, whether a source is primary or secondary often depends on the question being asked. It is secondary for the art, but reporting of an artist's exhibition is primary for the artist. If it goes beyond reporting then it may be secondary for the artist too. But as I said, Put another way, if all we had was that article, what could we really say about the artist? What is an article built on? That is the real question. I'll take a look at the other sources in the article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I said I would look at the other references in the article. Quite a lot of them are dead. There are a few that contain information that could be used to write about her, such as [24], but these write ups used in exhibitions tend to be written by the artist themself. As such they are inot independent. I looked at her CV [25] and this largely confirms Oaktree b's comments. However, per Curiocurio, the public collections at the end does mention Canada Council Art Bank among others. I am leaning delete, but would sway to keep if I believed NARTIST criterion 4 was met:

    The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

    I think the Canada Council Art Bank is definitely one, but we need several. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She is in several. I don't see what the problem is with the Art Gallery of Hamilton, as Hamilton is not a small city. I also confirmed the Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery and Glenhyrst in Brant. The University of Guelph site is under construction so couldn't be confirmed. Curiocurio (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also she has her own entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Artists which could technically be interpreted as satisfying WP:ANYBIO #3 (broadly construed). Cielquiparle (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my reading of it, I believe the Canadian equivalent would be Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Nothing lesser if the source is to be used to establish presumptive notability. Graywalls (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - It is borderline, but I am out of my expertise here, and so I think I should give the benefit of the doubt to keeping the article. There does, on the face of it, appear to be reason to believe she is more than just regionally notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2024 (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.
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 no consensus‎. Closing as no consensus after a month of discussions and relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shock (troupe)

Shock (troupe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating on behalf of an IP who made a request at WT:AFD which says: This article needs to be nominated for deletion. It cites no sources (despite being tagged for a decade now), and the subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Shock were a short-lived British dance troupe from the early 80s, but were never famous in their own right. They were known only by association. They released two singles, neither of which charted. Their former members are not prominent or widely known beyond this troupe. CycloneYoris talk! 08:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2024 (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.
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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pierre Price

Michael Pierre Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not finding anything to substantiate the notability of this artist per WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. The article is mainly referenced to primary sources from a group exhibition called "Techspressionism", in which he showed an artwork. An online BEFORE search finds lots of social media, and user-submitted content, and more primary sources. I found one good news source, [26] but that is not enough to put him over the bar, as what is needed are multiple, independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. WP:COI seems evident. Netherzone (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the quality of sources found. It would be great if those brought up in this discussion could be added to the article. And also, does the article creator, User:Gwanwata have a response here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I am not finding sufficient RS sourcing for this article. The coverage is mostly local (Arizona) of regional shows. The artist is not part of any notable collections, nor been part of any notable exhibitions. There is no reliable sourcing for biographical information presented. The article is WP:PROMO and fails WP:ARTIST. I am finding nothing to bring it up to notable. Sentences like "In 2010 he made the bold decision to leave the gaming industry behind and pursue his new calling as a Techspressionist artist. Combining his technical expertise with artistic vision, he began creating unique and thought-provoking artworks that explore the relationship between technology and human expression." are not encyclopedic. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fail to see how the article subject meets GNG, and there is no indication the artist meets the notability criteria for visual artists, NARTIST. There is one good source, AZ Sun, but the other one mentioned above by Hobit is a two paragraph modified press release announcing the show, it's a very week source. Netherzone (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Netherzone. I am the subject of this article and I understand that I have a conflict of interest, but I would like to work through the process to fix the issues here. I am in uncharted waters with regards to how Wikipedia operates, but I do believe I have substantive sources on both the game design side of my career and also for my art career. What I have done in my 30 years as a game designer is much greater than my art career, but I am hopeful that there is a good case to be made on my behalf for me as an artist and game designer. However, let me say that my sources are strong for the game industry as I have reviewed the Wikipedia pages of past colleagues this week. I would appreciate any guidance you might have in how best to move forward. I have new sources that are not currently being used in my article, but I don't know how to present them and who to present them to, since it looks like I should not make edits here on my own because of the conflict of interest. Thank you for your attention and help. ConradJens (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ConradJens, Thank you for your message and for disclosing that you are the subject of the article, welcome to Wikipedia. You are free to post on this AfD discussion. Just so you know, in compliance with WP:COI you should not edit articles about yourself or close associates or family (other than minor corrections and things like punctuation fixes), and if you create any new articles they should be run through Articles for Creation, rather than created directly in article space.
COI editing is discouraged because introduces systemic bias into the encyclopedia, as well as potenital original research and non-neutral material, and promotional content.
If you have sources to share about your work in the game industry, post those references and links here for assessment. At this time the article only has one decent source, the Arizona Sun article. A general rule of thumb is there should be three solid references that are significant coverage published in reliable sources that are fully independent of the subject to definitively establish notability.
Good sources would be newspaper articles (not press releases, calendar listings or the like); reviews about your work, games, or publications in reliable sources (not blogs, social media, or primary souces like user-submitted content, interviews, etc.); book chapters or significant coverage in journal articles about you or your work. These should be independent, not written by your or your close associates or colleagues. Wikipedia is interested in what neutral others have said about you and/or your work in reliable sources, not what one says about themself. This is how the integrity of the encyclopedia is maintained. Hope that helps. Netherzone (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone, I would like to address the issues in two stages. I'd like to first deal with any of the source problems with my game design career that have been brought up. And then afterward in separate comments I will work on providing more sources for my art career. One thing I am baffled by is the complete removal of my design work at Coleco. I have sources for this so this needs to be addressed. First off - TSR. I worked at TSR from 1980-1983.
Dungeons & Dragons Expert Rulebook ISBN: 0-935696-29-6 copyright 1980/1 (Credit inside front cover)
https://www.americanroads.us/DandD/DnD_Expert_Rules_Cook.pdf (pdf included to show my credit)
https://www.legrog.org/biographies/michael-price (this source demonstrates game design credits for Gamma and products and the french translations that I worked on for the French version of D&D) And legrog.org is source reference [1] on The Cleansing War of Garik Blackhand Wikipedia page.
https://web.archive.org/web/20050122225806/http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=3085 (an additional source showing some of my credits while at TSR.) pen-paper.net is an external link mentioned on Patrick Lucien Price and Lawrence Schick Wikipedia pages.
ps://ia802909.us.archive.org/4/items/Space_Gamer_42/Space_Gamer_42.pdf (this is the review article of They've Invaded Pleasantville which is source reference [2] on They've Invaded Pleasantville Wikipedia page and the review mentions Michael Price as the game designer.)
The copyrights of the products I worked on establish my timeframe as a game designer at TSR.
https://www.mobygames.com/company/7532/indigo-moon-productions-inc/ (this source demonstrates most of the games that Indigo Moon Productions developed and back up the statement on my Wikipedia page.) Additionally, mobygames.com is an accepted resource for Wikipedia pages of a number game industry individuals. In particular, mobygames.com is source reference [2] for game designer Lawrence Schick who is a former colleague on mine.
https://rawg.io/games/dragon-dice (this source demonstrates that Indigo Moon Productions was the developer of the Dragon Dice game for Interplay.)
As for Coleco game design references, I present the following sources.
Michael Price - MobyGames (again this an accepted resource on a number of Wikipedia pages related to the game industry.)
I believe that these sources address the issues brought up for the game design section and also establishes a solid foundation for keeping the article on Michael Pierre Price. Addressing the issues with the art career section will follow in the next few days. Thank you for your attention. ConradJens (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I have a sincere question to the experienced editors or watchers. I may have missed some guideline changes about notability criteria for BLPs – things do change quickly around here – but I can't find anything about changes to GNG or NARTIST. It's always been my understanding that at least THREE solid sources that are independent, significant coverage, and published in a reliable sources (national or international being preferred over local) were required. Q: Is one good-quality local source, and one local press release/calendar event all it takes now to establish the notability of a person? Netherzone (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Netherzone,
This question might warrant a talk page discussion on the pertinent policy page. But my understanding about the "law of Three" (that's my term, not Wikipedia's), is that editors in AFD frequently ask for the best three reliable sources (sometimes out of dozens included in the article) as a way of gauging whether or not a subject is notable. It's not a policy guideline or recommendation, it comes from a User essay, User:RoySmith/Three best sources. But it's a valid question to ask to help AFD discussion focus on what's important. Unfortunately, over time, it has been misunderstood by some editors as being a policy rule but it's just a shorthand to help editors come to a decision on whether or not sufficient sourcing exists and to cut through refspam on some articles. But, by contrast, our BLPPROD guide only requires one reliable source to be preesnt on an article to prevent deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Liz! I guess I'm still a bit confused; I understand it applies to BLPPROD. Could you please, when you have a moment, clarify if that means that GNG and/or NARTIST is met by only one reliable source? (The reason I'm asking here is I'm considering withdrawing the nom if that is the case.) Netherzone (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG does say sources, plural. -- asilvering (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's currently just a single source (Arizona Daily Sun) providing anything close to significant coverage in a reliable source, and that looks like just fairly routine coverage of a local art show. ConradJens says above that they are the subject of the article, and that they have possible additional sources. It could be moved to ConradJens user space if they want to try to cut back the unsourced promotion and add reputable sources for everything. Elspea756 (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. I am copying this message here because it was placed above in direct response to my ongoing conversation with Netherzone a couple of days ago, but I see that new comments need to be added here. My apologies if I initially posted this comment in the wrong place. I am trying to make sure the information I am providing helps address some of the issues previously identified.
    Netherzone, I would like to address the issues in two stages. I'd like to first deal with any of the source problems with my game design career that have been brought up. And then afterward in separate comments I will work on providing more sources for my art career. One thing I am baffled by is the complete removal of my design work at Coleco. I have sources for this so this needs to be addressed. First off - TSR. I worked at TSR from 1980-1983.
    Dungeons & Dragons Expert Rulebook ISBN: 0-935696-29-6 copyright 1980/1 (Credit inside front cover)
    https://www.americanroads.us/DandD/DnD_Expert_Rules_Cook.pdf (pdf included to show my credit)
    https://www.legrog.org/biographies/michael-price (this source demonstrates game design credits for Gamma and products and the french translations that I worked on for the French version of D&D) And legrog.org is source reference [1] on The Cleansing War of Garik Blackhand Wikipedia page.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20050122225806/http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=3085 (an additional source showing some of my credits while at TSR.) pen-paper.net is an external link mentioned on Patrick Lucien Price and Lawrence Schick Wikipedia pages.
    https://ia802909.us.archive.org/4/items/Space_Gamer_42/Space_Gamer_42.pdf (this is the review article of They've Invaded Pleasantville which is source reference [2] on They've Invaded Pleasantville Wikipedia page and the review mentions Michael Price as the game designer.)
    The copyrights of the products I worked on establish my timeframe as a game designer at TSR.
    https://www.mobygames.com/company/7532/indigo-moon-productions-inc/ (this source demonstrates most of the games that Indigo Moon Productions developed and back up the statement on my Wikipedia page.) Additionally, mobygames.com is an accepted resource for Wikipedia pages of a number game industry individuals. In particular, mobygames.com is source reference [2] for game designer Lawrence Schick who is a former colleague on mine.
    https://rawg.io/games/dragon-dice (this source demonstrates that Indigo Moon Productions was the developer of the Dragon Dice game for Interplay.)
    As for Coleco game design references, I present the following sources.
    Michael Price - MobyGames (again this an accepted resource on a number of Wikipedia pages related to the game industry.)
    I believe that these sources address the issues brought up for the game design section and also establishes a solid foundation for keeping the article on Michael Pierre Price. Addressing the issues with the art career section will follow in the next few days. Thank you for your attention.
    ConradJens (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I checked at least the first few links when you originally posted them. They don't change my view, as they are as you say just "credits". Yes, they show you worked on these projects, but what we are looking for is what is described at WP:GNG, which is basically in-depth coverage by reliable sources, like multiple paragraphs written in a book or a reputable newspaper. Elspea756 (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the sources provided by ConradJens do little to better the case for meeting WP:GNG. But, wouldn't the review of They've Invaded Pleasantville in The Space Gamer contribute toward meeting WP:CREATIVE? See #3 "major role" in work that was critically reviewed? How many of these would be needed? -- Jaireeodell (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you cite the review you are describing? Elspea756 (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Barton, William A. (August 1981). "Capsule Reviews". The Space Gamer. Steve Jackson Games (42): 31. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the links ConradJens, however these are databases, credits, name-checks or user-submitted content. In the same way that WP does not consider IMDb a reliable source to establish notability for actors/film industry professionals, so not so sure about these. As part of a WP:BEFORE, per WP guidelines and RSP, a search for game industry reliable sources, but unfortunately did not get any results. It's clear that you did this work, but what I can't find is significant coverage of your role in these works as analyzed by independent industry experts to fulfill GNG. I know it's disappointing, and I'm sorry for that, but what is needed are more than mentions. Agree with @Elspea756 above. Netherzone (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Netherzone
    Here is a book interview done where I am one of six Coleco game development team members interviewed.
    Coleco: The Official Book (ISBN-10: 2924581060 ISBN-13: 978-2924581063) Michael Price interview pages 185-196. The interview covers my time at TSR, my work at Coleco, and my work after Coleco. 2600:8800:122:4A00:6DEE:364F:687F:E669 (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Netherzone
    Sorry, I was not logged in previously. My apologies for the previous post just above.
    Here is a book interview done where I am one of six Coleco game development team members interviewed.
    Coleco: The Official Book (ISBN-10: 2924581060 ISBN-13: 978-2924581063) Michael Price interview pages 185-196. The interview covers my time at TSR, my work at Coleco, and my work after Coleco.
    ConradJens (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm not sure whether to close this as No consensus or relist but reading this discussion over (again), it feels like we are still in the middle of a discussion, not the end. Can we have any more opinions on the source offered? It would be great if this could be in a Deletion sort for Video Games.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*'Comment Thank you for the suggestion Liz. I will add it to Games. The subject does not meet notability for artist. Indeed, the subject of the article would prefer it be focused on game design career. If the article isn't edited into notable under those criteria, I would vote for . --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Sorry--- I cant find a category specifically on video games, and I have already voted for delete.[reply]

  • Found video games. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've looked at the review of "They've Invaded Pleasantville" that ConradJens and Jaireeodell have asked us to look at. It is on page 35 of this 48 page pdf, numbered as page 31 in the upper right of the page. It is 5 paragraphs that say nothing about Michael Price other than that they are the designer of this game. This does not provide significant coverage of Michael Price (see WP:SIGCOV). Jaireodell asks if this would satisfy WP:CREATIVE #3 which says says "significant or well-known work ... must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." No, this does not show that They've Invaded Pleasantville is a significant and well-known work, and this is a single review, not multiple independent reviews. My advice remains: WP:TNT and put in the effort to start over in user space. If there is a decent article that could be made on this topic, I'd be happy to see it, but if one is possible it is currently buried under so much unsourced self-promotion like "Leveraging the experience gained with 3D immersive entertainment" etc that I am not seeing it. Elspea756 (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. It appears we have been talking past each other and that may be because of my lack of understanding what you all are looking for. I had been attempting to provide sources to back up the statements that had indicated the previous sources were not acceptable and I have done that, but apparently the real issue is the significant coverage, so here goes:
    Game Industry
    (1) https://www.newspapers.com/image/110332711/ and https://www.newspapers.com/image/110332797/ This is a significant article from the Louisville Courier-Journal business section dated March 22, 1998 regarding Indigo Moon Productions and Fierce Harmony, interviewing Michael Price.
    (2) Coleco: The Official Book (ISBN-10: 2924581060 ISBN-13: 978-2924581063) Michael Price interview pages 185-196. The interview covers my time at TSR, my work at Coleco, and my work after Coleco.
    Art Industry
    (3) Math & art: The enigmatic creations of Michael Pierre Price | Cover Story | azdailysun.com (archive.org) Arizona Daily Sun which has been indicated above is a reliable source. The archived link provided here actually is the entire interview.
    (4) 'Call Me Ishmael' art exhibit experiments with augmented reality (downtowndevil.com) September 6, 2021 Interview of Michael Pierre Price about his solo art exhibition Call Me Ishmael. The Downtown Devil is run through Arizona State University.
    I hope this helps address the concerns expressed with regards to significant coverage. ConradJens (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete with 2 or 3 good sources, he is not quite there. Article also lacks proper sourcing, so if it is kept, it needs to be trimmed down.Bikerose (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable in two fields and per ConradJens' and others comments and sourcing research. Meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source analysis

Source assessment table prepared by User:WomenArtistUpdates
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.phoenixmag.com/2016/12/01/artist-of-the-month-michael-pierre-price/ Yes No Local coverage of No Strangers – Annual Members’ Exhibition at Art Intersection in Gilbert, from December 13-January 7. ✘ No
https://www.playform.io/editorial/callmeishmael No No "Playform" is an AI product. This is the product website No Interview ✘ No
https://azdailysun.com/flaglive/cover_story/math-art-the-enigmatic-creations-of-michael-pierre-price/article_68547405-3390-5da4-8e86-cca1d83de1c2.html Yes Yes This is an local arts listing and interview No non-sig coverage ✘ No
https://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/d-day-50th-anniversary-in-a-farmhouse-in-france-they/article_12f6cb0f-77e4-5f7a-8dec-d8d2f4230807.html an article about D Day? behind paywall. can't access ? Unknown
https://aaqeastend.com/contents/aaq-portfolio-southampton-arts-center-exhibit-art-techspressionism-digital-beyond/ AAQ Portfolio Essay Southampton Arts Center no text. Promotion of 2022 show No non-sig coverage ✘ No
https://www.playform.io/editorial/michael/ No No "Playform" is an AI product. This is the product website No ✘ No
https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-abstract/47/6/531/1051174/Nonrelativistic-contribution-to-Mercury-s?redirectedFrom=fulltext Yes Yes 1979 academic paper "Nonrelativistic contribution to Mercury’s perihelion precession" written by the subject of the article - primary source No n ✘ No
https://artintersection.com/event/maps-enigmatic-landscape/ No No Art Intersection is a local gallery No promotional listing for MAPS: Enigmatic Landscape is a solo exhibition of digital prints by Michael Pierre Price shown in the Jewel Gallery at the Coconino Center for the Arts in Flagstaff, AZ. ✘ No
https://thewrong.org/Cyberiana No No Virtual exhibtion - no idea if it is juried No passing mention ✘ No
https://www.mesacc.edu/arts/event/2023-02/future-printmaking-survey-graphic-arts Yes No local coverage No event listing for "The Future of Printmaking: A Survey of the Graphic Arts" at Mesa Community College ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The remainder of the citations are to pages at https://techspressionism.com/ a non-independant soucre and one more - https://www.lafleurartworks.com/event-22-secondary-page-1-2023 an event listing. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a biography, this isn't subject to WP:NCORP, so there is no audience requirement. Therefore, I'd consider the first and third sources in this table to be GNG sources. ~ A412 talk! 05:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT, article is a mess, almost the entirety of the prose fails NPOV and is cited to primary sources. That being said, per my reply above to the source assessment table, I think he's mildly notable. ~ A412 talk! 05:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source analysis is vague at best. Why is Phoenixmag not reliable? How are 4 paragraphs of coverage purely on the topic not "in depth"? [29] is also quite in-depth, I've no idea why it's marked otherwise. The analysis ignores [30] which appears to be reliable, in-depth and independent. I just don't see how the GNG bar isn't met. Hobit (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the Phoenixmag piece is that it is a promotional for the show. The Phoenix Flag piece is a friendly interview. The downtown Devil piece is another puff piece. None of the three article represent significant analysis of the work, just the artist's ideas about his work. None of the articles present a NPV or contribute to notability.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for creating the source table, @WomenArtistUpdates. This paper:[31] is a a journal article written by the subject of the article. It does not contribute to notability, so that should be changed in the source table.
As to the Phoenix Mag piece, it's a "Preview" for the show which is like a press release. It's promo for his upcoming show. It's not a serious analysis of his work. Netherzone (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The source analysis table is too opinionated (and dismissive of other opinions expressed above) to be taken seriously this late in the discussion. I stand by my original 'Keep' assessment, and want to thank the article's subject for participating here transparently. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone can make a source analysis table or rewrite an article to bring it up to notable. I feel the WP:BURDEN at this point is with those who think this individual should have an article. Best. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you, WomenArtistUpdates, for putting in the work to create the source assessment table. I disagree with Jclemens. As long as this discussion is open, it is not too "late in the discussion" for editors to participate, and I'll say a collaborative project works best when we consider all collaborators are "to be taken seriously." Elspea756 (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elspea756! I would like to add that I am not late to the discussion. I !voted delete on March 11th. I decided to create a source assessment table after this had been relisted again. I don't find the arguments FOR the article to be persuasive. No changes have been made to the article. The article isn't focused on his game development, however it is being asked that the article should exist because WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Seems like there's not any support for his art work. The subject himself agrees. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT, without prejudice to a recreation as a stub based on reliable sources by a non-COI editor. In terms of notability the subject is borderline, but the article is essentially a non-neutral autobiography ("In 2010 he made the bold decision to leave the gaming industry behind and pursue his new calling as a Techspressionist artist"), and needs deletion and recreation from the ground up. Sandstein 10:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out needed edits is not a reason to delete an article (have edited the sentence that concerned you and other encyclopedic language). Many editors above have reasons to Keep, so this easily fits my essay WP:SHADOWOFKEEP: "If a large percentage of experienced commenting editors find value within an article, category, or the encyclopedia's other forms of transmitting information, then Wikipedia's readers should continue to benefit from that same value". Randy Kryn (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this is even part of the WP:TNT essay: "When you see this as an argument to delete, don't give up. If you can repair the article in a timely manner, then you've neatly refuted that the article is irreparable. If you can't repair it in a timely manner, then this is the simplest argument to refute at WP:DRV; after all, they said it couldn't be fixed and you fixed it." BOZ (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the analyses by WAU and others. Not seeing a GNG pass here that doesn't require weakening our tolerance of non-independent material. JoelleJay (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2024 (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.
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 no consensus‎ and no indication any further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 01:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pete List

Pete List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are not enough secondary sources about this person for this page to pass general notability guidelines. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:56, 17 March 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Artists&oldid=1214854100"