Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Woods


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Roger Woods

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

WP:NN painter, created by a WP:SPA, possibly autobiographical. No reliable sources provided or found. Pburka (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I certainly see no evidence he meets WP:ARTIST, which requires influence, innovation, reviews, academic study, or holdings in major public collections. "He experimented with different mediums throughout his ‘education period’ but came to the conclusion that the formal art course could not help in my quest for a more traditional approach to painting and realised that he didn’t want to paint watercolour landscapes either. ... He uses a digital camera as photographic reference for many of my paintings" (emphasis added) Does anybody think this might be not only autobiographical but poorly edited? That isn't in itself grounds for deletion but does suggest that nobody else thinks he's notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's my own choice of the Yikes-providing line of the piece: "Not much is known about his early life apart from him hating school." — Well, if you're gonna write a bio of yourself, at least write a bio of yourself, eh? Carrite (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm not seeing anything that addresses GNG in the top 40 or 50 Google hits for (exact name + erotic). In view of the essentially unsourced nature of this piece, the subject looks to fall short of meeting GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unable to find reliable, secondary sources that deonstrate notabilty under WP:GNG. Tried the usual Google searches plus Highbeam. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:00, 9 August 2012 (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.