[edit] Visual arts

[edit] Lea Armväärt

Lea Armväärt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Lea Armväärt" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Person doesn't seem to satisfy neither WP:BIO nor WP:CREATIVE. Staberinde (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Does not satisfy me, either. JBsupreme (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment : Gnews finds a few Estonian sources, but I don't know the language. Should we notice some Wikiproject with some Estonian-speaking editor which may help? --Cyclopia^talk 18:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I know Estonian language (otherwise I probably wouldn't have felt confident to nominate her), and in my opinion those few Gnews findings don't establish proper notability.--Staberinde (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, but I have an hard time understading why if you don't explain what the sources say. --Cyclopia^talk 19:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions.
• Keep. I think the references are sufficient. I expanded the article a bit so that it now matches the Estonian one. People who can't read Estonian can often get a general idea of what an Estonian-language reference such as Kolmas mulgi kuju ootab avamist means by using http://translate.google.com The reference is about one of his sculptures, so I think that helps to establish notability. this article is about wooden sculptures and eight scupltors, including Lea Armväärt. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Both articles are from local Viljandi County newspaper, first one speaks about opening of local sculpture made by Armväärt and another sculptor, and other one simply mentions Armväärt among 8 sculptors participating in local event. I don't believe that these are sufficient for establishing notability. In article at Postimees, she is only mentioned as one of persons on photo.--Staberinde (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Andrus Rõuk

Andrus Rõuk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Andrus Rõuk" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Person doesn't seem to satisfy neither WP:BIO nor WP:CREATIVE. Staberinde (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep and expand: Hmm, according to this he's been in a bunch of art shows, etc. and had stuff in collections. He apparently also has a published book of poetry. I don't know if they're notable though. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw that too, while he definitely has been active person, I don't think that any information there is sufficient for qualifying by WP:CREATIVE.--Staberinde (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Beam

Mark Beam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Mark Beam" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This article appears to be here with no references. And may be biographical. Cutno (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - The relevant criteria are WP:N and WP:ARTIST. IMDB confirms he has an associate producer credit on the 2006 film Barnyard and the subsequent Back at the Barnyard TV series. This satisfies WP:ARTIST criterion 3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject [...] of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This Google search reveals the usual crowd of "independent periodical articles or reviews" that you'd expect for a feature film like Barnyard. As far as independent notability, this review includes a fairly extensive feature on Beam himself. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't think this person is notable enough as of yet due to an apparent lack of significant coverage. Beam is not once mentioned in either the Barnyard or the Back at the Barnyard articles. Voting in favour of deletion due to the subject's questionable notability and on the basis that the article appears to be an autobiography. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 10:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - What does or does not appear on Wikipedia can neither be an argument for or against Keep; it may simply be the case that those other articles are in need of improvement. Similarly, the fact that the article is written as an autobiography is not an argument for Delete if the subject of the article is nevertheless notable; matters that can be cleaned up through normal editing are not matters for AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• My opinion still stands that Beam's notability is fairly questionable. The article was created by an SPA and just earlier today an extra URL was added to the external links section by a Mark beam (talk · contribs) (another SPA). This article appears to have been created as nothing more than a promotional page for an artist with questionable notability. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 23:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Somehow, the article feels like advertising, and it does not appear to be written in a encyclopedic fashion. Lack acceptable references. --Cutno (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You have have already cast your delete vote above when you nominated. You cannot vote twice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • There is nothing in the Deletion policies that I could find that would prohibit me from casting a vote. What I believe I did when I created the AfD was nominate it. The after there was a vote by another editor, I added mine. --Cutno (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This is WP:SPAM, WP:AUTO, and WP:COI from a WP:SPA. It is exactly how NOT to write a WP article. Qworty (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - WP:SPAM, WP:AUTO, WP:COI and WP:SPA are not valid reasons to delete an article if the subject of the article is notable and the article can be fixed through normal editing. Please read WP:DEL#REASON and WP:ATD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Uh, did you read the article? The guy sculpted a cow. And that's the best he can say about himself! No amount of "normal editing" or wikilawyering will ever lend this unintentionally humorous piece of fluffy spam the necessary notability for encyclopedic inclusion. Please, we're all serious adults here. The thing should be speedied so that nobody else need ever waste time with it again. Qworty (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Qworty it's because we are serious adults here, or we're supposed to be, that I think we need to remain civil in these BLP nominations. This is no less a waste of time than any other AfD. He's a folk artist who once sculpted a cow, so what? The next time you're in NYC, I invite you to check out the American Folk Art Museum, next to MoMa, filled with similar works. Folk and outsider art can be notable. I vote delete because he fails WP:ARTIST, with no prejudice against recreating, should he gain more critical attention at some point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have no problem with recreation in the future either, mind you, unless it's created again as an autobio. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 17:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, good point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete – Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:ARTIST notability criteria, or even WP:GNG … pure weapons grade vanispamcruftisement. Happy Editing! — 138.88.125.101 (talk · contribs) _{23:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)}

• Comment - If you're making a Speedy Delete argument it would be helpful to note which of the speedy deletion criteria you say applies. The notability claimed is against WP:ARTIST criterion 3, the support for that claim is in the sources in the article and in my comments above, and it's then a matter of argument as to whether his involvement in Barnyard and Back to the Barnyard is sufficient to meet the claimed criterion. Neither attribution nor verifiability are the issue; the question is notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep if references can be provided and verified. On his website he claims to be in the collections of Smithsonian Institution, K. C. Parishath Art Museum, Bangalore, India and LA County Museum of Art which may be enough to establish notability. Likewise, his bibliography lists New York Times, Germany Playboy and Better Homes & Gardens: the last two are not necessarily where most artists would want to find themselves, but they're legitimate publications and useful if verified and substantial (i.e. he's not just mentioned in passing). The big one: he has the words "2009 Emmy Award Winner" on his website which is confusing as it does not elaborate. Did he win an Emmy? If so, combined with all the rest, he passes notability. Yes, the article needs a big clean-up. And I need to remind everyone that writing an autobiographical article is not a reason for deletion. If a notable person writes their own article we rewrite it and send them a WP:COI warning. (And yes, I am quite aware of what's on my user page and I still stand by that but there are exceptions to that all-important rule that I made up). freshacconci talktalk 17:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, insufficient references at this time, in the article, to verify notability. If the claims which Fresh have said the subject of the article have made, can be substantiated from third party reliable sources, then I would be more then happy to change my thought on this article to Keep. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Krishna and Radha in a Pavilion

Krishna and Radha in a Pavilion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Krishna and Radha in a Pavilion" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

No references, does not adhere to notability guidelines. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep if improved The painting passes notability easily - it is the prime example chosen [1] in the world's best known college art history textbook - Gardner's Art Through the Ages!! The nominator clearly can't tell art notability from a hole in the wall. Unfortunately the 2nd para is a copyvio of Gardner's. Since we have hardly any articles I know of on individual Indian miniatures, it would be good to have it - an excellent candidate for rescue. Obviously some other references would be good; unfortunately there may not be much online. Johnbod (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  I removed the copyvio and the article is now a single sentence. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  ...and I've added a comment on notability, shamelessly plagiarised from Johnbod's rationale above. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. But is this not a theme rather than a particular work? Are there not other paintings of the same scene? --Paularblaster (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly there are, as with almost any religious subject - Madonna and Child etc. If the article is expanded it could treat either the theme or this painting, which is, as these things go, pretty famous. Ideally one would have both. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly notable per the quality of sources available through Gbooks and per inclusion in Gardner's Art Through the Ages. Unfortunately most of the online refs are limited or no preview, so I can't expand the article now, but that isn't a reason to delete. -SpacemanSpiff 14:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you sure? The Gbooks sources (note that four of the first five are the same (Gardner's) book, and the most of the rest are catalogues) are only sufficient to conclude that the painting does exist and is catalogued. Does every such painting deserve a separate article? I'd be happier if this were incorporated into a "Depictions of Krishna and Radha" or some such article. Note also that one of the results is for a different painting with the same description. This leaves only one non-catalogue source, which may or may not refer to this one. I see no evidence that this particular painting is notable enough to have its own article. Given what the gbooks results look like, I also wonder what more can be written about this painting beyond a couple of sentences or a paragraph, really. Shreevatsa (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, I considered that. However, we should adapt notability for books. This particular painting and the theme is considered as the most significant work in that category per one of the most significant books on art. So, clearly the work is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country (more than one particular country). Also, it was part of exhibitions at the Royal Academy of Arts and the Brooklyn Museum among others, showing significant notability. All these are from generic gbooks, I have no idea about art specific sources. Given this, it appears to be clearly notable. -SpacemanSpiff 17:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a problem that it is often hard from web sources to confirm that the same painting is being described, and not everyone may use this title. The Pahari book has several similar scenes under a variety of titles. The Christie's catalogues presumably do not refer to this one. But there is certainly "more [that] can be written about this painting beyond a couple of sentences or a paragraph". Any increase in our pathetic coverage of Indian painting should be encouraged. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I am all for increasing our coverage of Indian painting too, but what do you think could be written about this specific painting? Shreevatsa (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced there's anything much to write about this specific painting. Like the other !votes, I do agree with "keep if improved" and that it is "a theme rather than a particular work" — in either case, if the article could be expanded either in content or in scope, it could be kept, but as it stands, all it rests on is that this painting was used in a textbook and was shown in exhibitions. That only means that many people have looked at it, not that many people have written (much) about it. The image will still be around even if the article is deleted, so when some context is found for the image, a new article can be created. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with this at all. Art historians find no difficulty in writing large amounts about individual works, even when typical of their type - that is their job. The text that turned out to copyvio from Gardner's could be reworded and returned - this was just a short description. The difficulty here is finding the extended coverage that I'm sure exists, but in books that are not online. Johnbod (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Irina Baleva

Irina Baleva (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Irina Baleva" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Living person who doesn't seem to be notable neither by WP:BIO nor by WP:CREATIVE. Large part of article's text, that for some reason has been placed in "References" section, seems to be copy-paste from person's personal website [2]. Staberinde (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. --Martintg (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficient notability to this point to meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 05:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of meeting notability requirements. Ty 05:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this artist. Joe Chill (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Snowball delete - clearly NN, unreferenced BLP. Bearian (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AustinFromNEW

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

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

Non-notable artist per WP:ARTIST and WP:BIO, most references given either fail to mention by name or only ambiguously credit "Austin". No significant coverage online from reliable sources per WP:RS. Prod removed by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Googling the name comes up with a number of results in the arts and design world and while the references given in the article aren't really references but apparently mistaken for examples by the author, I think this entry may stay here. Also, the list of publications alone would proof a certain notability. Article needs improvement though. De728631 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not established by an artist having steady work. Narthring (talk • contribs) 23:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. The subject is an illustrator, so the list of publications could well be a list of illustrations, not a list of material about him. Two of the sources in the article are from Jaguar Shoes, wich is a trendy bar in Shoreditch but not really encyclopedic.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep surely? - They are not the best examples ( the bar was / is frequented by Nathan Barleys ) however, 5 of the opening Adobe Flash images are the only examples to be found online so far... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz71 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The article's references do not establish notability per any of the points in WP:ARTIST, nor was I able to find anything after searching online. There are many examples of the subject's work but I couldn't find anything that seemed to indicate notability. A third-party reference treating the subject or something similar would help, if such a reference exists. Narthring (talk • contribs) 05:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:ARTIST - There's copy, interview and reference material in existence about this artist, it's just all mainly in print - the influential / pioneering approach (for example - in the introduction of "emailed artwork" to magazines such as Time Out, The Face, Speak and Raygun) is of note, it's the evidence online that's hard to source. The 'Underground' Influences chapter about Austin from NEW in Digital Illustration by Lawrence Zeegen [3] and the Illustration series Book 1: Thinking Visually[4] are just two out of a dozen prime sources in the Book list provided... The notability or notoriety of this artist amongst his peers is something that also exists to a greater degree beyond a comb of the internet... Oz71 (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

How can we WP:VERIFY this? MuffledThud (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Online?... Hmmm, you can "see inside" at Amazon [5] and if you flick to the last image ( the rear flap ) of the book you can read a bit of blurb about this artist/designer... other than that, (Art/Design School) University libraries or somewhere like Magma [6]? Oz71 (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the references given show works by New, but don't show involvement from AustinFromNew (or even "Austin"). The failed-verification tags were removed without explanation from the references I tagged, but I've restored them and added some more. MuffledThud (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but please note: There's incorrect, misspelled ( and plain old cryptic ) credits online as well as in newspapers or printed books - Closer inspection of the 'artwork' itself confirms the hand/hands involved and uncovers pseudonyms... Oz71 (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using non-internet sources. They can be verified by looking at the printed media, though access to such media can be more difficult than online sources. The problem is that there aren't any specific examples from these books stated that establish notability. It's difficult to reasonably establish notability by simply saying something exists somewhere in a certain book; to verify such a claim someone would have to search the entire book looking for something in context. The claim that notability exists in the printed media would carry more weight if those facts that establish notability from the printed media were presented in the article. Citation of those claims would be even better, allowing other editors to easily verify those claims. Narthring (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes - It's a bit of a conundrum, but these books are readily available worldwide and can quite easily checked ( there is no need to delete and simply instantly dismiss this article on this basis ) as we are talking about chapters and clearly indexed pages on the artist rather than conjecture or a 'name check' in a footnote - somewhere?... More importantly with illustration - there are copyright laws meaning even if the artist gives permission for these artworks to be reproduced online ( and only if stated in any usage agreement contract have they reserved ALL their rights to do that ) you will then be breaking a law regarding the publishers rights if you reproduce any written material - ie. to put that artists image in context and in effect reproducing part of the book - to prove of it's existence and the artists standing... So surely, the only way is to check the actual books in the book list provided and have the information verified more thoroughly ( over a longer timeframe ) than is currently being given for such a task to be completed more accurately and fairly? - Oz71 (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Reproducing a written assertion of notability from any of these books, with a corresponding citation, would not break copyright law in any way. I looked over the information in the books (that I could find) and the real problem is there doesn't seem to be any reliable, third-party references that establish the notability of the subject. The books in the article appear to be works that that artist/illustrator has worked on. To establish notability the subject would have to meet one of the criterion from WP:ARTIST. In a nutshell the subject does not seem to be an important figure, cited widely, to have created a new concept, has not created a significant work, and has not garnered significant critical attention. To satisfy any of these criterion an editor would expect to be able to find a critisim of the subject's work in a third-party reference, an interview with the subject, or something else that would assert notability.Narthring (talk • contribs) 23:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm? There seems to be an issue with continuety here... There are copyright issues and without quoting the author and using their words how do you prove anything unless you know the sources of information beyond what is available online? There seems to be a miss-understanding ( or something ) as the list of publications alone are proof a certain notability - and - Googling the name provides a number of results in the arts and design world ( See also; arts and design and magazines ) - if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_illustrators there appears to be just '3' contemporary UK ones in the whole wide world? Plus - notable Designers suffer the same misfortune here too... If we put AustinFromNEW's Myspace, Twitter, Facebook etc, links up there with his thousands of followers - would that help establish the artists notability onto Wikipedia? - Did we mention he introduced emailing artwork to magazines and newspapers? - There must be a reason why Austin/NEW appears in so many books, no? - Oz71 (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You're not breaking the law if you quote from a text: it's allowed under fair use. Quoting from published sources is the basis for the entire encyclopedia.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if something is NOT available online - how do you verify it here?... The point was, that we can't scan the pages of the books and put them online - and putting examples of the work up out of context doesn't make any sense either? - Just hoped that Wiki would be inclusive as it seems "Notability" is relative, subjective, and a matter of POV? Oz71 (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability, in the Wikipedia sense, is "whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". (from this page) One way to do this is to cite sources so other editors may check them. For example, an article may state "the Titanic was a ship". This could be verified by adding a citation to a reliable source such as this page. Then other editors may look at this source an evaluate whether or not the source states the Titanic was indeed a ship, or whether is source is reliable in the Wikipedia sense of the word as stated here. Sources do not need to be online; if a book is used as a source other editors will look at the book, just as they look at an online resource, and evaluate the source and its assertion.

For the current article's subject the list of publications in itself establishes that the subject is steadily employed. Google hits do not establish notability. Although the subject may be popular enough to have a large Twitter, Facebook, etc. following that also does not establish notability. The general notability guidelines here and specific artist notability guidelines here help us to determine what is or is not notable instead of relying on a relative/subjective point of view. Narthring (talk • contribs) 01:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jayron32 05:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 00:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete References and list of works establish that this artist has steady work, not that they have gotten a lot of attention for it. Miami33139 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Authors

[edit] Les McKeown (author)

Les McKeown (author) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Les McKeown (author)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

fails WP:BIO, with little or no third party coverage that I can find. Another of the hundred thousand authors who write inspirational little books about becoming confident/organisational structure/other bollocks. Ironholds (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. He is an expert on a significant business issue, and his books offer relevant advice to businesspeople, not "inspiration". See this Google News archive search for a number of references. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  " He is an expert on a significant business issue, and his books offer relevant advice to businesspeople" - wonderful guideline-based argument. Five brief mentions is not enough to pass WP:BIO; he's been consulted for soundbites, the articles aren't about him or covering him in any detail. Ironholds (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Ironholds is right, none of the sources provided qualify as significant coverage and I can't find any anywhere. Fails WP:N Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 07:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kamil Jeer

Kamil Jeer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Kamil Jeer" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

No substantive assertion of notability: which books did he write, and why should we care? I found only 6 Google hits with quotes. Chutznik (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Looking at the article, it seems likely that sources would be pre-internet and/or not in English. Edward321 (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Val chua. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Authors Proposed deletions

• Licia Troisi (via WP:PROD on 25 December 2007)
• Leidra Lawson (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007)