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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Thorpe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

lots of dependent coverage and trivial coverage but absence of significant, in-depth, fully independent and reliable coverage on subject that develops general notability. Reviewing the article history revealed that it was created by an undisclosed paid editor who has since been blocked. Graywalls (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment some of the sources are clearly not what we'd consider reliable and independent. This article for example, is credited "By Staff for Chrysler 200". The video clearly says "SPONSORED", and at the bottom of the page, Esquire clarifies that "Esquire participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means we may get paid commissions on editorially chosen products purchased through our links to retailer sites." Vexations (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: Yep. The article creator was banned for undisclosed paid editing involving multiple articles. All this aside, I don't find that this particular article subject merits enough notability to justify remaining in place hence deletion nomination. Graywalls (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article is/was promotional. Almost everything I can find about this artist is promotional, even this bio on the (reputable) Corning Glass Museum web site. Even this independent souce ends up promoting a new glass series (i.e a product). No independent non-promotion coverage = no article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is not enough indepth, relaible sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2019 (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.