Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linas Garsys

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. Divided opinion here but persuasive source summary table show a lack of SIGCOV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linas Garsys

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This artist doesn't seem notable outside of, maybe, passing mentions in articles about other topics. CampingWithCigarettes (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and United States of America. CampingWithCigarettes (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, Thailand, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – From what I understand, the artist gained notoriety as a result of a controversy involving the (DEI) policies of the current Trump administration. It is not enough for WP:GNG, and the episode is not even included in the First 100 days of the second Donald Trump presidency# Diversity, equity, and inclusion. If something more substantial comes up in the discussion, I'll change my vote. Svartner (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of significant coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not seem notable and their involvement in a single event doesn't seem to change that. Boredintheevening (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has existed without criticism since 2019. This sudden proposal to delete the entry feels like a pro-Trumpian effort to censor the internet of anything critical of Trump's Presidency, much as the Whitehouse is censoring information from government agencies and databases. MrEarlGray (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really doubt that Wikipedia, of all places, is particularly active in censoring criticism of Trump... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, but given anyone of any political affiliation can nominate any article for deletion my point still stands. MrEarlGray (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree the article should remain. Firstly, it is importsnt to note it has existed for years prior to the most recent update. Secondly, even if there is only one event considered significant by the nominator, the event is significant enough to warrant keeping the article. Indeed, in time there may be an increase in significant events to add here considering the connection with the current president who has nearly 4 years remaining in his term. 198.199.34.14 (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current sourcing does not show notability. I can't find any RS for the incident described in any way including Garsys as part of the controversy. See source assessment below.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2025 (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.