Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Pochinko (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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Pochinko[edit]

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

Entire article seems to be one giant fluff piece/memorial page, none of the links provided are of any use Jac16888 ^Talk 20:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given there's a book on Amazon named for his techniques and works I'm going to say strong keep unless it turns out Intellect Ltd are a vanity press and the writer was e.g. his daughter. Page not edited because I've no idea what's in the book. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's doesn't change the fact that this page is completely and utterly biased and promotional--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just an argument for stubbification or wp:NUKEANDPAVE at most - or some severe editing. It's not something that qualifies under WP:DEL-REASON A simple Google Books search (as mandated in WP:BEFORE if notability is a concern) shows three books with him as the subject and another few by him. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:20, 7 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:21, 13 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article subject has been the focus of scholarly attention as originator of new performance techniques (e.g., Intellect Ltd mentioned above is an academic publisher in the visual arts based in Bristol, England). The article needs editing, badly, but does not seem so far gone as to require the demolition crew (yet). --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:08, 22 December 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.