Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Krueger

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 speedy delete at the request of the original author, who promised "will repost in the future when artist becomes notable". -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Krueger[edit]

Biography of a photographer. Probable autobio. Has been deleted three times under other titles as non-notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and is probable vanity page (creator is user:tekphoto which is the guy's initials) - Dumelow (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Karanacs (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, no references to indicate any otherwise. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment several references have been added. In my oppinion they still do not sufficiently establish notability. They are either not secondary sources, i.e. just answers to questions, without any interpetation or abstraction or just published photographs, or they only very briefly mention the artist. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment having been asked by the articles creator to review my decision I stick by it and agree with Martijn Hoekstra in regards to the references - Dumelow (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all, as NN Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn; e.g., the "interview" (ref. 4) is hardly about him at all. JJL (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment' the author has posted a speedy on the article which I think represents a decision to withdraw it. DGG (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2007 (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.