Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Brett
- 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. The author can develop and republish the article in a user sub-page when they find more reliable sources in order to reference information contained in the article. (aeropagitica) 22:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ben Brett[edit]
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
I could not find any information on him, although I'm closer to a weak delete than just regular delete. Contested prod. Amarkov babble 20:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
KEEP Obviously biased but i would really appreciate my early post being kept. I had miniscule info to work with and i've left all the details on the article. If Brett was mentioned online i wouldn't have written this, i thought he made just enough impact to warrant a mention, i don't think it's fair to delete because he isn't in a google search. thanks all the same...please be gentle, suggestions VERY welcome Stuedgar 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Stuedgar
- Weak Delete Seems at best an unknown artist who apparently flourished for a very few years and disappeared. With some sources and, ideally, information on galleris that have his work, he might move into the notable band, but I've not been able to find anything. Emeraude 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Sorry, but he doesn't even show up on Google Books or A9. Just does not seem notable as an artist, no matter how interesting. --Dhartung | Talk 23:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Again the best i can give you is what the text book says, which is New York galleries, nothing on current residence of work. I think he makes it into the text as much for the life story as his output in honesty, but if i don't overstate his importance and I give the solid details i think he is revelant enough for a short mention. No hard feelings if it HAS to go but i'd like it to stay. thanks for the suggestions Emeraude. I'm aware he hasn't had the impact for a mention in google searches but i'd be over the moon for his history to make the transition from text to web via Wikipedia. If anyone else has come across him in their fields or studies, or thinks he is interesting enough as a footnote for a quick mentions please lend your support. Regards— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuedgar (talk • contribs)
- Comment Dozens of people showing up to lend their support would not take the place of one Reliable Source and would be, in fact, quite counterproductive. Fan-1967 03:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Apologies, just desperate for him to be online somewhere Stuedgar 11:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC) stuedgar
When can i expect a decision/ make a final, desperate plea? Stuedgar 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)stuedgar
- 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.