Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Chandos Russell (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 delete. Deor (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Anthony Chandos Russell
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"Self-styled" historian and artist, this may be an honest description but it doesn't suggest notability and I can't find anything sugnificant online about the person or his books. Seems to read like a CV overall, of someone who's done many things, but nothing that's caught wider attention. There have also been a wide number of single issue editors working on this, maybe suggesting sockpuppetting? I've no idea why the first AfD was closed as no consensus (or why it was suitable for a non-admin closure), when the 'keep' advocates were all from these single issue crowd. Either way, fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks the indepdent, reliable sources needed to pass GNG. Also no clear claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Intensive Web search confirms that the subject lectures for National Association of Decorative & Fine Arts Societies (NADFAS) on a regular basis and supports various good causes. But this is not a clear claim to notability. DorsetArt (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * DElete -- I struggled to find anything notable in this bio. His lectures are on such wid-ranging subjects that I have to conclude that they must be deriviative from the work of others: thus not a serious academic.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.