Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connelly La Mar

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. – czar 22:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Connelly La Mar

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

Non notable artist and curator; refs are mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indepth sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this appears to be a case of throwing as many random references together to try to make the subject appear notable. However an examination of the first half of the references indicates no notability. 1, 6 - primary - non-authoritative; 2, 7, 8, 12 - general with no reference to subject; 3, 9, 17. no reference to subject; 4, 10, 11, 14, 16 - dead links; 5 - blog authored by subject; 13 - invalid URL; 15 - one photo attributed to the subject; 18 & 19 - blogs that mention subject once among others for same event.--Rpclod (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2015 (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.