Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Imrich

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. Secret ^account 04:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Imrich

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In conducting WP:BEFORE I see quite a few sources in Polish though it would also appear most of the sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage for art shows (art reviews, interviews, etc.) Nothing I would feel comfortable as a stand out artist. ~~I think this is a case for having an article on the Polish Wikipedia but not the English Wikipedia until this person gains attention in the anglophone world.~~ I noticed on the Polish Wikipedia the article has been deleted several times over. Mkdw ^talk 20:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world. Notability is notability, no matter the language of the sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but my argument remains that most of the coverage is routine for their artwork exhibitions and the article has been deleted several times at the Polish Wikipedia. Mkdw ^talk 21:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article shows a brief coverage of the article from a degree show exhibition in late 2012, plus a longer piece on a return-to-figuration discerned in that show, mentioning the subject as an example. But this is WP:TOOSOON/not enough to demonstrate that he meets the WP:ARTIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, need to search name in genitive case - sources will come up searching for declined forms "Martina Imricha" etc. The mention in the two Polish sources shouldn't be the only ones. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genitive declension produced a substantial bio entry in Slovakian confirming dob and pob and training. I haven't searched using instrumental and locative declensions of the name. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to provide some sources for the article? Otherwise the general consensus remains delete. Mkdw ^talk 03:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm going to message In ictu oculi, above, for those new sources he/she found. In the absence of that, I don't know that we have enough here to keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I'm dumb - he already added them. Still awful thin, though. Put me at a very Weak Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not seeing any assertion of notability under WP:CREATIVE or an assertion that the coverage isn't WP:Run of the mill. Having sources does not mean they are notable. They must have WP:SIGCOV to meet the baseline GNG but WP:CREATIVE has additional advice as well. Mkdw ^talk 21:55, 22 February 2013 (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.