Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Allman (2nd nomination)


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ricky Allman
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Allman Stats )

Completing nomination on behalf of User:Oremiter, whose rationale is included below. The AFD was originally placed at Articles for deletion/Ricky Allman in error. The article was then put up for a G4, but since the original AFD was in 2005 and the article was speedied then anyway, I figured a debate would be better. No real comments on the merits, but none of the sourcing at the time of this post is in any way the sort of reliable sourcing that indicates notability. It's all bio pages and CVs and the like. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Vanity page. Does not meet WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oremiter (talk • contribs) 12:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails to meet WP:GNG for an article of this type to be retained. Seems to not be a wiki-notable person. Changed to Keep, the addition of multiple independent references on 23 August changes the notability and now meets WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Showings at galleries (rather than major museums) and a student award are not enough for WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * *Delete - Not an acclaimed artist; no national/international awards. Page was perhaps created by Allman himself for self-aggrandizement purposes. Oremiter (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You have already made your position known above. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  17:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not wrong, but the first comment at the top was moved here by me when I re-did the nomination, thus the confusion. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Allman is not the subject of "significant coverage."Saxamaphone1 (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC) — Saxamaphone1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Per Sockpuppet investigations/Fred newman, Saxamphone1 and Oremiter are sockpuppets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's embarrassing as all hell. I've struck their recommendations, above. Since we have other editors also recommending Delete, the AFD continues - otherwise, I'd close it. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep -meets criteria as subject of multiple examples of WP:SIGCOV in the WP:GNG from reliable, non-related, independent sources the Kansas City Star the Los Angeles Times plus inclusion in an art historical book Signs of Apocalypse or Rapture. Per the  WP:SOURCE and WP:BIO (and WP:ARTIST) guidelines, these references support Allman as a wiki-notable person.
 *  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.41.136 (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep As 63.227.41.136 notes, the available sources for this article satisfy the requirements of the general notability guideline. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:05, 27 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I usually advocate that articles such as this be deleted ASAP with a vengeance since there is literally no actual notability, but considering how many other articles on truly non-notable painters, photographers, etc survive with a few magazine or newspaper articles, then this guy is just as notable as them. I've nominated quite a few of these types and most have survived AfD and their articles are literally impossible to expand because of the lack of verifiable secondary and tertiary sources. It's not helpful to Wikipedia to keep these articles, but until this zealous inclusionism stops, articles on non-notable figures will continue to survive AfD and given free rein to misuse Wikipedia for shameless self-promotion. When inclusionists attack and insult those of us who are working sincerely towards developing a legitimate and credible encyclopedia, as I have been subjected to a number of times, then this is a serious issue that the community must at some point confront and resolve. I'll probably be insulted and vilified just for this comment, but I'm just saying it like it is. Just my 2 cents. Laval (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The notability guidelines are clear - Laval, you're identifying a challenge to the structure and purpose of Wikipedia, which is certainly contextual, but you're not making a relevant suggestion for the issue at hand. Using words like "shameless" applies a value judgment which is irrelevant in re the notability guidelines. This article satisfies the guidelines as they stand, barring any future reform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.100.98 (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per articles demonstrating notability. NewAccount4Me (talk) 02:36, 2 September 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.