Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Nadelman


 * 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. Anyone wanting some of this article for merger contact me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Philip Nadelman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No significant independent coverage. Is writing one song enought to establish notability? Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a stub which by definition means it is not yet expanded into a full-fledged article. No one said that his "writing one song" establishes his notability per se (although indeed sometimes writing one song does establish notability). Nadleman is primarily an artist whose work has been shown in various venues, so it would seem that outside evaluators have deemed his work worthy of exhibit. I think if we want to improve the encyclopedia we should not be wasting energy discussing and eliminating stubs but rather work on expanding them. Tvoz / talk 02:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * True, but how long does a stub exist before it becomes obvious that it will not be expanded? This particular stub dates back to 2007.Wkharrisjr (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we on some kind of deadline? Do we have a paucity of space?  Let the stub remain, for as long as it takes. Tvoz / talk 03:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Simply being a stub isn't a defence to deletion.  This article has no references establishing the notability of the subject—the first is a primary source (an autobiography) and the second is a chart listing for a different artist which doesn't mention Nadelman at all. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tito ☸ Dutta 16:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:N as there is no "verifiable, objective evidence" this individual has recieved significan attention and WP:NRVE.
 * Merge to grandfather's article. Legacies are appropriate to include and the individual can later be broken out if more coverage emerges. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2013 (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.