Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus André Charles Rose

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. Killiondude (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus André Charles Rose

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

Does not pass WP:ARTIST. No critical reception. All of the exhibitions listed lead to dead links, defunct organizations, or pages that don't include his name. None of them are legitimate enough to establish notability anyway. BTW, Twinkle threw errors so trying again; I couldn't see an AfD page, but forgive if this is a duplicate. Theredproject (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see a single source in the article about Marcus André Charles Rose that passes WP:RS. The publication that's currently in the article, Geelong Coast Magazine doesn't seem to be a notable one and doesn't have an article on Wikipedia either. I therefore think that the article probably shouldn't be here. Carajou (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources not available to establish any kind of notability.104.163.153.162 (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kb.au (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find anything sufficient for WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article has gone six years with notaices of major deficiencies and no improvement. It is high time we stopped letting Wikipedia be bogged down by sub-standard articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2017 (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.