Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rah Crawford


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Rah Crawford

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 17:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep #1 and #2 deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See the clause on "unquestionable disruption". Unscintillating (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 04:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment This diff shows that the statement "couldn't establish notability" in the nomination is based on surveying the article.  Notability is not a content guideline, and notability exists independently of the existence and content of Wikipedia articles.  Non-notability can never be determined by surveying an article.  I have added WP:SK "no argument for deletion" to the above WP:SK.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment That comment was based on me slightly misreading the comment before, and my comment being misread - and wasn't related to this nomination anyway! Please comment on the notability or otherwise of Rah Crawford. Boleyn (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The previous comment asserts that there has been a misreading, but provides neither clarification nor evidence. Evidence has already been provided in this AfD of a sequence of 249 consecutive delete !votes, almost all of which are AfD nominations.  The claim that the diff I provided "wasn't related to this nomination" is not responsive to this evidence.  Both of these clauses constitute groundless opinion, a pattern of which WP:Articles for deletion identifies as defining disruption.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * [Notice: Off-topic comment refactored to talk page]. Unscintillating (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the request, it ignores the benefit of a speedy keep. A speedy keep closed with no prejudice to speedy renomination allows the nomination to be improved or properly prepared and thus saves the time of AfD participants.  An exception might be BLPs, which applies here, but a cursory review shows that sources already exist in the article such that there is no need for an urgent AfD.  There is no WP:Deadline at Wikipedia.  In addition, I have previously responded at Articles for deletion/Ioannis Diakidis.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:ARTIST this does not pass notability requirements. Per WP:GNG, the only useful source is the ABC affiliate news link, which although a fluff piece, is at least a decent RS. The New York Times sources are trivial mentions, nothing more. The other online sources are local coverage but are not enough to establish notability.  freshacconci  talk talk  02:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "fluff piece" is not a notability criteria, WP:GNG does not discriminate against local sources, and two art reviews in the New York Times each with one in-depth sentence about the topic are not like two listings in a phone book. Unscintillating (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A one-line mention is the very definition of a trivial mention. Local coverage likewise if it is not substantial, and it's not. None of the coverage is beyond trivial mentions other than the ABC affiliate and that's why I said it was an ok RS (why you mention that one is beyond me: it's fluff but a RS. My opinion). In short, this does not pass WP:GNG.  freshacconci  talk talk  03:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to understand the guidelines enough to know that when I mentioned "two listings in a phone book" I was citing examples of trivial mentions. A bigger issue is that notability is not defined by the sources listed in a Wikipedia article.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A one line mention in a long article is trivial. We'll have to see what the closing admin decides, I guess.  freshacconci  talk talk  16:02, 27 January 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.