Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Orion Schwaiger


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Seth Orion Schwaiger

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability. While small art magazine or website sources mention this figure as a sometimes contributor to their publications, very little suggests he's a person of note or public interest and no other information is properly cited. Primarily seems to exist for promotional purposes. Does not meet notability standards. CptAardvark22 (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 27.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am sympathetic to this artist. The sourcing is terrible, however. I'd go along with userfy. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * delete - no evidence of notability. yet. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This artist does not appear to pass WP:NBIO. None of the sources in the article are reliable. GeoffreyT2000  ( talk,  contribs ) 02:14, 15 October 2016 (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.