Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Revere McFadden

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 Procedural close. The AfD format was royally screwed up, can the original nominator please nominate each article for deletion again individually? (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Revere McFadden

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

Promotional / Conflict of interest: Articles are a promotion created in 2008 and edited by an account named for the museum MADMuseum (talk · contribs), as well as a person one of the articles is about David mcfadden (talk · contribs). MADMuseum (talk · contribs) seems to have been only created to add content to MADmuseum related articles. Article is heavily subject to conflicts of interest per WP:CONFLICT, as people working for the museum are behind these edits.
Non-notable: There seems to be no reasons for these articles, and if it were not by edits from the former user, no articles would link to them (WP:NOTABILITY).
Lack of sources: Do not have any high quality sources to show it's worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. (WP:SOURCES)

I propose delete due to the above reasons. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 00:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [promotional articles created by colleagues / the museum and lack of sources and notability. They act like advertisements.]:[reply]

-- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG OPPOSE any deletion of Lowery Stokes Sims an important, notable museum curator who was assistant curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, for many years...Modernist (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:, In the case of Lowery Stokes Sims this article is supported by 4 (four) unrelated sources which is comparable to that of notable sportspeople. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 06:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:, and in the case of David Revere McFadden it seems that the concerned person has inserted a list of their own publications which is in fact unsourced, but prior to that they probably had little knowledge that an article about them existed here on Wikipedia. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 06:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Admin this Afd would appear to be royally messed up, as it is linked to from two Afd's (David Revere McFadden and Lowery Stokes Sims), unkless i am missing something that connects the two. The wikicode on Lowery Stokes Sims appears to be the source of the problem.104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all None of these individuals have enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why do these four articles not have separate AfDs? It is impossible to discuss four articles here: if we find (for example) 2 notable and 2 not, how are we to address this? This will also make archiving difficult. Each article should have its own AfD page where we can discuss and !vote on that article alone without considering the other three.

Also, I would like to remind the nominator that conflict of interest and being promotional are not reasons for deletion unless there is a copyright violation. If there is a COI that can be dealt with separately and promotional text can be edited. Likewise, there being "no reason" for an article is not a valid reason for deletion and certainly doesn't speak to notability issues. As for sources, I would like to know what the nominator means by "high quality" as this is vague and doesn't really address WP:NOTE. We need to go by WP:GNG here and this needlessly complicated 4-in-1 AfD isn't really addressing this. Note to closing admin: I would like to ask that this AfD/these AfDs be kept open beyond the usual time limit as it requires more time to go through all of this to make an assessment.

Finally, if anyone is able to migrate the three other articles to separate AFDs that would be useful. The three other AfDs can be linked here if the nominator feels there is a connection (such as article creator) but they should be addressed individually. freshacconci (✉) 16:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Wikipedia is the wrong place for these. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have to say why it is "unsuitable". Just saying delete/unsuitable is of no effect.104.163.148.25 (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gokunks Close this, and renominate the articles individually, so a vigourous discussion can be made, if needed, in each. What a mess dude!! scope_creep (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY. This is a disaster AfD that should be closed and renominated individually, ASAP.104.163.148.25 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OMG yes close and start again. One by one. This is a mess.--Theredproject (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2018 (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.