Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irene bernik


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Irene bernik


Article was speedied once as nn-bio but recreated a short time after the deletion. I'm bringing it here to settle this through AfD rather than a consistant delete and recreate cycle. Artist appears to be non-notable. No outside sources given. While she has been dead for 6 years now and Google might not be the greatest judge for this, her name only gets 11 hits, 10 of which are a really odd mirror of the Wikipedia deletion log for this article. Metros232 19:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete article does not assert notability beyond a generic "she is notable" without any specifics. Demiurge 20:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Birktek 20:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC) WP:V Understood, my apologies I agree that it should be removed Birktek 21:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is a subjective term. The precepts of wikipedia do not denote it a a requirement though it the most often used reason by the administrators as a reason for content deletion. I thus posse that wikipedia is subject to the whims of its editors thus presents a narrow view of humanity. Societies derive notability not individuals especially not those individuals who would be influenced or work in unison to ensure a centric or singular perspective. History has notable figures who cannot be found in the records of Google, but are none the less relevant. If wikipedia is simply a reflection of Google or any other such tool, is it trully notable? If not then please proceed deleting this article.
 * Comment Birktek, Google is simply a tool used to locate sources to verify the assertions made within the article. WP:V is an official policy, and there is nothing in the article that can be referenced (online or offline) to confirm that the subject is encyclopedic. The reason that notability (specifically the WP:NN and WP:BIO guidelines) is used, is that an encyclopedia without notability requirements quickly becomes a phone book. Caknuck 21:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, arguably a speedy but I agree with nom's rationale. NawlinWiki 20:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No assertion of notability, fails WP:V. This may be, however, a bad faith nom, considering that the nominator and author have been involved in a revert war over University of Mary Washington. On the other hand, Birktek's edits center around people with the last name "Bernik" (somewhat similar to their username), so WP:COI may be an issue as well. Caknuck 21:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment wasn't in bad faith. I just went through the user's other contributions to make sure there wasn't any other issues of possible vanity going on such as adding what is presumed to be someone close to the user to the UMW article.  So when I saw this then saw it had previously been deleted, that's when I decided to nominate it.  Metros232 23:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That's what I figured, especially after reviewing your edit history. I wanted to put everything regarding you and Birktek out there in the interest of fair debate. Caknuck 02:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:V and nom. - Walkiped 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Maybe the name is spelled wrong, but I'm just not finding anything on her.  As she lived recently, one would think that a notable artist would have net verification of notability.  --Oakshade 00:24, 22 November 2006 (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.