Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Schneider (Artist)

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. - Mailer Diablo 17:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Schneider (Artist)

Mike Schneider (Artist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Johnbod 04:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Experimental interdisciplinary artist". Almost certainly autobiographical. Notability not established. -- RHaworth 23:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The only available sources don't establish notability, because they are local, minor pieces. The article is written in a way that indicates a likely conflict of interest. Leebo ^T/C 01:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it is written a lot like spam and notability is not established. AltoSax456 01:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The references appear to be articles in student newspapers, but they are still "multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources", which is enough to establish notability by Wikipedia's definition. Even if one suspects that this artist isn't very important, notability has been established. --Eastmain 01:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think that the "triviality" has to be questioned when dealing with student papers. A particular student could be very notable on their own campus, but be completely unknown elsewhere. If it was a local newspaper or magazine, that would be different. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of Mike Schneiders, making it difficult to find more sources. Leebo ^T/C 02:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• 'Delete Student newspapers vary. some do reach beyond their campus. We can't possibly accept them automatically, but we can look at them: the article in Stroud is a multi-part good but non-critical personal essay about him/The Keystone article treats it as a minor news event, not as art. I do not think in this instance they are enough to show notability beyond his own campus(es). DGG 06:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - But this should have been listed on the Visual arts deletion list, which I have now (I hope) done. Johnbod 04:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- There are only two published mentions, and they are trivial. That is a very low standard of notability. There is no art historical context created in either of the articles. There is little of substance about the art as art. Bus stop 11:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, article evidently fails WP:BIO Special cases Alf^Photoman 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.