Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Renaud


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

John Renaud

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A7 contested, but I doubt the notability is there. Elevating for discussion. delete UtherSRG (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  -- UtherSRG (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I suggest google-ing his name. He is a relevant figure in the fashion world, however there are few biographies on him aside from his website which specifies very little. Just a lot of magazines with his work in it, but no articles accompanying. Considering he has published work, and has been mentioned in relevant publications relating to the fashion world, I feel he is an important inclusion among the fashion designers listed in Wikipedia. He may not be a Donna Karen, but I started this page so I could hopefully find others who have more articles and information on him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mezmaid09 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – Unfortunately none of this helps the meet the criteria in WP:BIO.  ttonyb  (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Commnet - Actually if you read the sources i have provided, it proves that this indiviual is of notable origin, not only in the fashion industry, but the music and art. Please see the references. Art Forum and Surface magazine are both two notable and reliable sources are they not? He absolutely does meet criteria for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mezmaid09 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – I have read the resources you have provided. None of the references amount to "non-trivial" coverage. A quick mention in a article about another topic does not fit the criteria.  Again, I suggest you reread WP:BIO and while you are at it, please see WP:RS.   ttonyb  (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom. After examining the references provided, I feel that the subject does not meet the guidlines in WP:BIO.  Movementarian (Talk) 12:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete – Lacks "non-trivial" sources, fails WP:BIO.
 * 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.