Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernardo Neumann (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. Davewild (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Bernardo Neumann
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable. There's a lack of coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Of the purely local sourcing found in the article, none that can be reached have any depth of coverage about him. A look at sourcing at time of nomination:
 * 1 dead link
 * 2 dead link
 * 3 not an independent reliable source
 * 4 appears to be by him so not an independent source
 * 5 short listing of a university exhibition on a blog.

The dead links are local coverage that may or may not exist. The creator of this page, in this case using his Misty2011 account, has a history of faking verification, faking article titles, faking his identity, just straight out faking. Existing coverage is not good enough. A search found nothing better. The sourcing shows he is a working artist but that's not enough to meet WP:ARTIST. Solo exhibitions by themselves do not make him notable. Where were they, small towns, small places, Hochschuhl Christian community? Galeria Ikkon? None major exhibitions. None verified. None with any coverage. Yes he's been abroad and done show and done talks. But where? Here? "Capacity: 30 persons". Not the stuff of notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging, and  who participated in recent AfD. Boleyn (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. A reference need not be online to be reliable. Print-only references are perfectly acceptable. In any event, the dead links were once online. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * . Where they once online? Sure about that? Do they exist as print versions? Can you verify that? What do the articles say? Do they have any depth of coverage about Neumann? What are the actual article titles? Normally I'd assume they exist but this article comes from Misty2011 who has a history of fakery. User:Hoary uncovers some here. A still live example is pointed out here. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 24.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 06:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable regional artist. The two dead sources are province news sites (the first has a total of 7 employees, the second is a tabloid). If the topic really would be notable, then other more prominent sources would be available via a simple Google search and the article itself would mention additional notable details about the artist. Considering that a lot of other articles by the same editor failed notability too, it would be unwise to AGF on that aspect. GermanJoe (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Not notable  and lacks Reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2015 (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.