Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Nachum (2nd nomination)

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 New York Post reference counts as an RS and the others are also probably reliable. Sources themselves do not have to be notable, just reliable. ^King Jakob _C2 14:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Roy Nachum[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted by AfD for lack of notability. The new version still appears to lack notability. There are sources but they don't seem to meet WP:N and WP:RS. If I'm missing something here let me know. The artist sounds interesting, just not notable. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 00:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 00:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 00:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just as a note, it's probably not necessary to include the previous discussion here. I added a link to the previous AfD discussion, which I think is sufficient. —Mike moral ♪♫ 00:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed I didn't add the previous discussion. It appears to have been done automatically and I thought it best not to tamper with it. - Ad Orientem (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Discussion was tacked onto the old one. Fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD tag on the main article now links only to the old discussion, not this one. - Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a fairly long list of references at the bottom of the article, some of which are non-trivial write-ups in reliable sources. The article has issues, but rather than nominate it for deletion, why not try improving it? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:59, 13 June 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, L Faraone 03:46, 19 June 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.