Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Santerineross


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

John Santerineross

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:CREATIVE with flying colours -- only one seemingly reliable (non blog/zine subject-controlled) source. Other sources do not refer to him or deal with him in a substantive fashion. His potential claim to fame is his single publication -- if that is notable it is in its own right and any notability is not transferable to him. The article is a nightmare -- full of unsourced claims and quotes in clear violation of BLP policy Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 *  Speedy Strong keep - article badly needs cleanup (which I promised to provide when I contested the prod less than 24 hours ago), but that is not a valid criteria for deletion. Subject easily passes WP:GNG with tons of (genre-specific) reliable source coverage - many of these sources are already listed in the article (not every source in the article is good, but certainly not every one is bad either). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)s
 * Speedy on the grounds of what? Clicking through the links finds many sources do not mention the subject and others are trivial coverage. Still more are websites and zines --- i cannot see that notability under WP:CREATIVE allows for such a low bar. My claim for deletion is based on lack of notability, not for the article's terrible shape. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy on the grounds that it already has enough sources to establish notability based on WP:GNG (a subject does not have to meet WP:CREATIVE to be notable). If were basing it only on CREATIVE it would just be a regular keep on the "significant critical attention" bullet point and possibly others. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not grounds for speedy keep. There are five grounds: 1:"No one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion" 2: "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption" 3: "The nominator is banned 4: "The page is a policy or guideline and 5:"The article is currently linked from the Main Page." Which of these are you claiming to be applicable; its not clear to me. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * These are the grounds for closing an AfD as "speedy keep," which is not the same thing as offering an opinion. People often !vote "speedy keep" when they think a case is very clear cut, but since you take exception I will just change it to "strong keep." --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough --- speedy to me normally means the editor wants to close the AfD. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion - I will avoid using the term in the future. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, speedy would mean it meets the requirements for speedy deletion such as being a hoax or patent nonsense. For speedy to refer to keep it would have to be like someone nominating Margaret Thatcher or Spain or Sun for deletion.  Strong just means someone is over-excited.  Weak just means they know they're voting the wrong way but they like it or don't like it. Drawn Some (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Come now --- I've used weak keep and weak delete even for things I don't much like. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep There seems to be enough online coverage to establish notability. This article needs thorough editing badly, but the sources check out.  freshacconci  talk talk  14:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BIO applies, not WP:GNG - some references are broken (I have commented out two) but NY Arts, thenewyorkartworld, B-creative check out; WP:BIO appears to be fulfilled even if none of the additional criteria of WP:CREATIVE apply. WP:BLPDEL applies. Almost all of the article is unsourced; this is, however, grounds for deletion only as last resort. Article also fails WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:NPF. Needs very substantial editing, but not deletion. Enki H. (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and send article to WP:CLEANUP for major sandblasting. Subject passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Article style is fixable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have given the article a severe cleaning. More work is still needed, but at least now it is in decent shape. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2009 (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.