Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Kulesh

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 speedy close; malformed nomination. No prejudice against speedy re-nomination done correctly. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Kulesh

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

Delete: From wikipedia's guidelines for notable artists:

Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
  5. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics

Warrenking (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The press that is listed under the external links are not reviews or profiles but just brief event listings.Warrenking (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs do not meet the standards of Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. From the Uptown Almanac website: "Uptown Almanac is basically a crappy blog about San Francisco culture and general bullshit." Warrenking (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Warrenking (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2011 (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.