Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Forrest

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Forrest

Non-notable - self proclaimed "art crtic, art consultant etc". Description of Mr Forrest appears to be taken verbatim from his own blog page. Most reference links are invalid to defunct web pages apart from reference to Mr Forrest's own website. No "features" in New York Times, Entrepreneur magazine, Flash Art magazine and Conde Nast Portfolio magazine as claimed are traceable and no contributions to unreferenced world's top art magazines can be found. Seems to be unknown in Australian art circles and claim to be creator of "world's most popular blog on art" entirely unsupportable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qorocuwi (talk • contribs) 2009/06/03 09:28:13 — Qorocuwi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see a good indication of notability per our standards. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient independent reliable references to establish notability. Being listed in a New York Times blog is not noteworthy. WWGB (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per those above. Doesn't meet our notability requirements. لenna vecia 15:55, 15 June 2009 (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.