Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Gerstacker

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Guerillero | My Talk 05:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Gerstacker[edit]

Antonia Gerstacker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTISTS

  • There are no published news articles on google news or HighBeam. There's one viable (not WP source info) book and that's already used in the article. There's also nothing in JSTOR or scholar. After weeding out facebook, linkedin, ebay, and other common non-reliables for a regular google search, I found one article about an exhibit and added it to the article.
  • The article had a lot of uncited information, perhaps WP:Original research or Original thought. See Talk:Antonia Gerstacker for a discussion of information that had been in the article to be resolved.

The only potential source information are discussed there: 1) two local cable interviews, 2) a music video where her murals may be seen, but are not credited within the music video itself, and 3) two sources we're unable to verify that have information that doesn't seem as if it would resolve notability issues.

It seems that she's known within the Miami area. I hope that her career progresses more broadly so that she makes the press, meets WP notability guidelines, and is able to be added later.CaroleHenson (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - she's described as "noted" in a Miami Beach Illustrated Travel guide, but that's the best I could find. Because the article is largely written by the subject, it sets off all sorts of alarm bells for me. And I would have expected that if there were any offline, pre internet sources, the subject would know about them. She's made an impression on her local area but not a sufficient impact for WP:GNG yet. Sionk (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for catching the "noted" - I updated the article accordingly.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to fail both guidelines based on my research, too. So...many....self-published web-published Wikipedia books.... SarahStierch (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • SAVE ARTICLE*User contribution being added in neutral point of view and notability issues and in good faith in efforts to save the Antonia Gerstacker article from deletion.(janeswider (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

(Janeswider (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)) Strike !vote from confirmed sock account.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to note that this article is causing a great deal of distress to the subject. I considered an WP:IAR deletion as this discussion has been open for 5 days and appears to be heading towards a delete outcome. As the article creator (and BLP subject of the article) has expressed their request to have the article deleted both here and off-wiki, I would certainly support the deletion of the article. Notability is tenuous at best and we have a policy to do no harm.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree, it should be finished as quickly as possible. Author has not done herself any favours, but it may be understandable because she has been extremely ill so has already been through plenty of distress. Sionk (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing enough coverage in notable third-party sources for WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. I would also recommend salting the article; the subject has a history of socking and could potentially remake it ProtossPylon 02:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing good sources to establish notability 94.194.24.46 (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from the original author per this.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree with the delete, Letting the subject of an article determine whether they want an article about them exist is really bad in my opinion. I would *not* consider the opinion of the subject at all. CombatWombat42 (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2014 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antonia_Gerstacker&oldid=1137572046"