Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregg Schlanger


 * 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Gregg Schlanger

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are a lot of big claims in this article, which appears to have been written by the article's subject. There are sources, but a lack of reliable, independent ones. I couldn't find the evidence to show he meets WP:PROF, WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Article improved but I'd still like to see some more input.
 * Delete per nom. As any academic knows, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Bearian (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I've cleaned up the article and I think there are enough stories about his art from enough different reliable sources to meet both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST #3, "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". But my keep is weak because most of the coverage is somewhat local (to the place of exhibit, not to Schlanger's own locality): he clearly isn't a superstar of the art world, but he's getting stuff made and exhibited and written about well beyond his own backyard and I think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 19:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Not sure what to say about this one. There isn't any coverage in very good publications. Most of the coverage is not in-depth and mostly consist of sources like Clarksville Online and the like. Definitely fails WP:NARTIST for lack of SIGCOV in high quality sources, and the question of whether it meets GNG is cloudy. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, Article is not supported bu reliable independent sources, Alex-h (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Really?? Is the CBC somehow now unreliable or non-independent? Outdoor Magazine? Can you at least make a more serious attempt at connecting the rationale for your deletion opinion to the facts of the actual case, rather than just leaving a generic opinion that could have been left on any AfD on any subject and that shows no evidence of checking through what is in the article? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Slightly Weak Keep Moderate but sustained coverage over a span of years; the overselling has been removed and the sourcing generally improved. I'd be willing to call this an instance of WP:HEY. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete he doesn't seem to pass the notability standards. Although it seems extremely borderline. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per David Eppstein. Whatever the defects in the original two edits made more than a decade ago, the article has never included extraordinary claims or exceptionally promotional text. The hostility here toward the subject is disturbing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2020 (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.