Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Bern

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bern

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

Non-notable artist who only just debuted a few years ago. While Bern has garnered some press, it falls short of the substantial coverage required. The exhibitions he has been in have not been significant, or his participation has not been substantial, within the meaning of WP:NARTIST.

He has won some critical attention, but it has not been significant enough to meet NARTIST; a paragraph here and a paragraph there do not make substantial coverage.

As to the remaining criteria of NARTIST, Bern does not meet them. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete written by an SPA, who claims the photo of Bern's work as "own work" and some interviews in lifestyle magazines. Mduvekot (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. even his own site describe him as emerging. May be in some time he will accumulate substantial coverage, but not now. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2016 (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.