Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Walrus Dalzell


 * 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. North America1000 02:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Chris Walrus Dalzell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Vanity page - non-notable artist with limited secondary-source coverage. Includes personal details (e.g. birthday) not in sources. Clare. (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - he has been covered at least twice in different newspapers:, , so I think he just about squeaks into the "multiple independent sources" criterion for WP:GNG. I could be persuaded the other way though. The fact that the page may have been written by the subject, or a friend of his, doesn't necessarily prove he isn't notable I guess. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  18:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  18:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep In addition to references below I found third mention - [], so I guess it's on the edge, but still tend to keep. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The article claims he is notable for his contributions to Various Other art movements and cites that claim to an article about a farmer's market that uses his work for an illustration but does not mention him at all. Mduvekot (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete for now at best with too soon, simply not enough solid. SwisterTwister   talk  18:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Mduvekot is correct that the Canberra CityNews article, which only mentions Dalzell in a photo caption, is a terrible source. The Canberra Times article, however, is solid. The 280-word portion of the article in The Age is not as deep, but to it could be added a similar depth article from The Sydney Morning Herald. Neither is a trivial mention, and WP:BASIC tells us that where "the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." I feel that together these three meet WP:BASIC, albeit not by a wide margin.
 * Would not object to draftify pending additional coverage. No prejudice against redirect/re-nomination at a future date if a lack of ongoing coverage threatens to make this a permastub. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or possibly draftify as suggested above. I think the three Canberra Times articles are just enough to meet WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2016 (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.