Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto Barr

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. joe decker ^talk 02:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Barr

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Artist by a country mile. TheLongTone (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is completely unsourced and does nothing to establish that Barr meets WP:ARTIST. When I looked for sources, I found no award(s), no monograph(s), no public collection(s), no auction record, no reviews. Mduvekot (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it was written above he faild WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Nothing that can establish the notability. Local artist. And the article itself is heavy promotional. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...if you think the article is promotional now you should have seen it before I stripped out the more egregious bubbles o'guff!TheLongTone (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA unsourced BLP. There is a brief blog post on the subject [1] but neither that not anything else that I can find indicates that he meets any of the WP:ARTIST or broader WP:GNG notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.