Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto Márquez

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. --BDD (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Márquez

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

non-notable artist. damiens.rf 19:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article from The Age cited is a good source and there are several GBooks results, e.g. [1], [2], [3]. I also found coverage in a GNews archive search a while back but Google seem to have dropped the archive(?). --Michig (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is comprised of 1 or 2 sentences, which violates A3. Article also lacks enough content to be able to keep out of A1. Article has existed for over 8 years, but no significant improvements or future signs of improvement whatsoever. TheTriple M 20:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It meets neither of those criteria for speedy deletion. --Michig (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig's sources, plus this article from the Organization of American States magazine Americas [4]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no sufficient English-language sources. This page is better off in the Spanish Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylar Jean (talk • contribs) 11:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what language sources are in. --Michig (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm looking at WP: ARTIST and can't see anything in the article that conforms to that. Were this article new, I'd go for a weak keep to allow time for it to build up, but it's been here since 2005 so if the subject was notable I'm sure we'd have a lot more to go on by now. --gilgongo (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GNG, which is satisfied here. Article state and notability are not related. --Michig (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, subject has now been shown to meet the 'significant critical attention' criterion of WP:ARTIST, if nothing else. --quantumobserver ^position momentum _{entanglements} 21:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references in the article indicate that this artist has been covered in adequate detail by reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG. I agree with Michig's remarks above. Sandstein 12:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep with the strong sources mentioned above, now in the article, and the Lucie-Smith book cited by Arxiloxos. --quantumobserver ^position momentum _{entanglements} 21:10, 3 January 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.