Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loris Cecchini

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 no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loris Cecchini

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

Apparently non-notable artist, does what almost all artists do (make stuff, have shows), but does not seem to meet WP:ARTIST. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, notability isn't demonstrated to satisfy WP:ARTIST. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see a lot, but the one article listed via Highbeam (which I've reviewed) is substantial, [1] is plausibly a second ref meeting WP:GNG, and the exhibition claims are substantial. Highbeam has a variety of additional passing mentions as well, which don't establish GNG, but feel suggestive. I think it probably squeaks by. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 01:22, 9 May 2014 (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.